ABC Lumps 'Christian Right' With 9-11 Terrorists as Driving People to Atheism

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Editor's Note: ABC News broadcast the item equating Christians with 9-11 terrorists in being responsible for driving people to atheism. Mark Finkelstein wrote the article at NewsBusters CRITICIZING ABC. Please address your comments accordingly.

ABC may have set a loathsome new MSM low in insulting traditional Christians. On today's "Good Morning America," the network lumped the "Christan right" with the 9-11 Islamic terrorists as driving people to atheism.

Keying off an atheists convention being held this weekend, GMA ran a segment on the "Rise in Atheism." Seeking to explain the phenomenon, as images rolled first of the WTC in flames and then of a man placidly holding a sign that simply read "One Nation Under God" and of a display at a demonstration of the Ten Commandments, ABC's Liz Marlantes stated:

Some are reacting to religious extremism, like the Islamic fundamentalism behind the terrorist attacks of 9-11, but also the rise of the Christian right in the U.S.

So there it is. To ABC, traditional Christians are as responsible for making people doubt God as the 9-11 terrorists. People peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights by displaying the Ten Commandments or a sign containing an excerpt from the Pledge of Allegiance as faith-shattering as terrorists who murder thousands by flying airplanes into buildings.

Does MSM anti-Christian bias get any worse than this? ABC owes an apology.

NOTE: In making the case that atheism is growing, Marantes mentioned that "Congress now has its first self-proclaimed atheist." But while displaying his image [shown here], ABC didn't in any way identify him. He is Pete Stark (D-Calif.)

 

Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net

[khnyny]

OK, straw arguments and the typical liberal talking points of, abortion and euthanasia. You sound like a Peter Singer apostle.

Your last point about being in a coma is totally erroneous - there are legal instruments called “living wills”.

Here is my Church’s position:

Euthanasia
Definition

The word ‘euthanasia’ comes from two Greek words whose literal meaning is “well death”. Today it is also referred to as “mercy killing” and is understood as causing or bringing about a person’s death painlessly, usually because the person is suffering greatly, terminally or irreversibly ill or severely mentally or physically disabled. It means doing something (or omitting to do something) with the intention of causing death: the intention is a very important element.

Read about suicide and euthanasia in Cherishing Life.

History

While presumably mercy killing has been practised throughout history and in different cultures, attempts to make it legal have been made only fairly recently. In England in 1936 the Voluntary Euthanasia Society sponsored a bill in the House of Lords for the legalisation of euthanasia. The bill was defeated, and similar attempts have also failed. In 1940 the Catholic Church officially condemned the administering of euthanasia to a person with physical or mental defects or for economic or racial reasons. The Church has repeated its opposition many times since then.

The Church’s position: the right to life

The Church’s opposition to euthanasia is founded on the principle that all human life is sacred, and no one has the right to take that life - there are exceptional circumstances when the Church would accept that life might be taken deliberately, but these are only self-defence and capital punishment. Even in the case of capital punishment, however, the Church would argue that there would appear to be very few cases when some other sort of punishment might not be found as an alternative to capital punishment.

The position was stated most recently in the Pope’s Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (Latin for “The Gospel of Life”) of March 1995. The document takes as one of its starting points what it calls “the incomparable value of every human person”(EV n. 2). This means that each human life is to be valued from its very beginning (which the Church regards as the moment of conception) to the moment of natural death. Nobody has the right to take that life from another person, even if the person has appeared to give consent. Since it would be premeditated killing, the pope says that (depending on the circumstances) it is the same as murder.

The pope suggests that a prevailing tendency today sees life as something that should bring pleasure and well-being, and that suffering is seen as a setback that people cannot accept. In this case death becomes a ‘liberation’ from suffering. He also speaks of a culture which sees people in terms of their ‘productivity’ or efficiency: when people grow old they then become a burden on society and so their lives lose their value.

Euthanasia and the treatment of the dying

The Church makes an important distinction between euthanasia and what it calls “aggressive medical treatment” to prolong the life of a terminally-ill person. Sometimes a person’s life can be prolonged for a short period by medical treatment. If, however, that treatment is both costly (in terms of resources) and distressing for the patient (and family), it may be judged better to allow the patient to die naturally. Clearly, nothing can be done that will deliberately cause or hasten the death of the patient. In all cases ordinary medical treatment (especially pain-relief) should be continued. In some cases, the use of large doses of pain-killers can actually bring on or speed up the death of the patient.

Pope Pius XII in 1957 said that it is acceptable to relieve pain with drugs even if this leads to lower levels of consciousness and accelerated death. He did stress that it is not right to deprive people of consciousness without good reason, because people need to be able to respond to others, especially family, and (if they are religious) prepare themselves to meet God.

There is an important point to be made here with regard to what ‘medical treatment’ means. In some cases of what is called ‘persistent vegetative state’ (PVS), patients have had not only medical treatment but also food and water withdrawn from them. This of course leads to their death. The Church would not accept that food and water are medicine, and to withdraw this basic ordinary sustenance is effectively to kill someone by starving them to death.

Consent

It is argued sometimes that the patient’s own consent or request for euthanasia should be the most important consideration. There is a serious risk, however, that if people say while they are healthy that they want to be ‘put to sleep’ if ever they become a burden etc. they might actually feel very differently about it when they are in that condition; the problem is all the more difficult if they are no longer able to communicate their wishes clearly. Similarly, if a person is in great pain or suffering from mental problems, for example, they are not in a position to make a free and balanced decision.

Decisions left in the hands of doctors or relatives are very risky also. It might not always be clear that relatives or doctors are always acting in the patients’ best interests. A doctor may be waiting for an organ for a transplant, for instance, or for a bed to become free, and relatives may simply wish to be relieved of the burden of an ill member of the family. Consent alone, however, would never justify the taking of another person’s life.

There have been recent examples of people that have been diagnosed as PVS (see above), and when doctors have been able to communicate with them and ask them if they want to live, the answer ‘yes’ has come back clearly. This has led to calls for more research into PVS.

[avenir]

“That is your interpretation of their writings.”

Even simple truth such as that stumps you? “The world, the flesh and the devil” is a known Scriptural concept, stated over and over again throughout from Genesis to Revelation (not to mention being passed down through pagan history).

Since that is the only touch point relating to the thread I addressed to someone else I’m not going to bother with your unrelated denominational plaints.

[EDINVA]

what a putz .... seems apology no. 1 should be yours to Mark.

[Verginius Rufus]

Pete Stark owned a bank before he ran for Congress. If he is now Congress’ only admitted atheist, it just bears out what Jesus said about not being able to serve God and mammon.

[darkangel82]

This atheist has no problem with those of faith. What I do hate are the morons like you described.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

If muawiyah is not being facetious up to this point, then can see why some atheists would have a big chip on their shoulders toward Christians and Christianity—not all Christians are so belligerent towards atheists, or other non-Christians.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

For points b and c, you have a point. As a Christian, would push for abortion to be be illegal, even in cases of rape. Only if life is threatened would abortion be a valid option. You do not have the right to kill another human for non-self-defense reasons. Also would oppose euthanasia, which your coma case would fall under. You do not have the right to take the life given to you. So, that would be 'pushing Christianity' on you that would approve of (to be blunt).

Would disagree, at least in part, with your point a, anti-miscegenation laws are not Biblical--where did you hear/read that those laws were due to religious reasoning (not arguing that they weren't--some nominal Christians have pretty crazy ideas--but there were also secular reasons, i.e. racial purity and eugenics)?

For Christians, Manasseh and Ephraim were the products of miscegenation (Hebrew and Egyptian), Rahab (a Canaanite) was chosen to be part of God's lineage, God apparently honored Bathsheba and Uriah's (Israelite and Hittite, another Canaanite) marriage.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Wouldn’t oppose you being able to buy alcohol (or other things) on Sunday; it is largely the issues when life is going to be taken where there is not leeway, for obvious reasons: if you see something as murder, you are bound to oppose its legalization.

[SoldierMedic]

Would disagree, at least in part, with your point a, anti-miscegenation laws are not Biblical--where did you hear/read that those laws were due to religious reasoning (not arguing that they weren't--some nominal Christians have pretty crazy ideas--but there were also secular reasons, i.e. racial purity and eugenics)?

From the case of Loving V Virginia Judge Leon Bazile said this:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow,and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

[red irish]

For me my Christian beliefs guides me towards the safety of the unborn and the mother,same-sex marriage will have an effect on the church beliefs not marrying homosexuals. Right now I have a close relative who started living together with a girl and didn’t want me to know because he knew how I felt about that. But he also wanted me to know because there has always been trust between us. So one day he called me and told me and of course my feelings have not changed for him but he knows I don’t approve because of my Christian based faith. The not so funny thing is once he started living with this girl she changed and was way more like a wife and it has almost destroyed their relationship. She has since moved out and they have started to begin to date. She was nesting and wanting to buy a family car and he freaked.I also believe this country’s immigration policy if not changed could destroy this country.Like the guy who pretended to bring a suitcase nuke across the border and has absolutely no problem doing so.I also hope and pray that his country could get back to a more decent approach in entertainment. Hollyweird will continue to put garbage out as long as they make money at it. More and more nudity and just nastiness are in the movies and TV today. I mean what would hollyweird do if they couldn’t use sex to be creative. Sometimes I watch some of the old stuff and forget how creative movies used to be. And using Gods name in vain seems to be the norm in movies,TV,and books. I mean come on how is it that people who want everyone to be so tolerant don’t care at all in disrespecting Gods holy name knowing it offends Christians. But of course you don’t hear Christians speaking out about it. Sad. But let the name of Allah be used in profanity and the sh-t would hit the fan. But nobody said hollyweird has courage just disdain for Christians.The other night my husband and I watched Hot Shots and they must have used Gods holy name in vain 15 times. And there just wasn’t a need to do so. Even though we all have different faiths and beliefs we should at least be respectful to one another even though we disagree.I may not believe in Islam but I am not going to be saying All ah be dam n.

[pray4liberty]

ABC, thinking themselves wise, are fools.

[ChessExpert]

Good point. The MSM controls one major party already.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

So, it does appear that Mr. Bazile used religion as part of his decision-making process. Appreciated.

His reasoning is not Biblical, though. Man was divided at Babel for trying to challenge God--they were supposed to spread out instead of congregate in one area anyway. Furthermore, the Bible states that man has a common blood and that Gentile, Jew, Greek, Scythian, slave, free, etc. are equal in God's way of seeing things. Bazile extrapolates way too far from the Bible, and thus comes to a bad conclusion. Also, he would have difficulty labeling people in the hazy border regions (such as Central Asia, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, etc.). Plenty of people don't fall easily under the races he mentions (and except for very few people, humans are brown, with reddish and yellowish undertones).

[weegee]

All sins are bad. Pointing out the bigotries at ABC-Disney is not a sin.

[ChessExpert]

“There have been some comparisons not too much different here lately on Free Republic.”

Good observation. Some very active members of the “atheist right” (my term) show up on some threads. I don’t think it accidental that in the 20th century, the atheist right (think Ayn Rand) has been minuscule compared to the “atheist left” (communism, socialism, and Islamic states).

[weegee]

It is muslims who are seeking to have Halloween tossed from public schools right now.

Illinois Schools Canceling Christmas and Halloween to Avoid Offending Muslims (Sep 28, 2007)

Better to have lessons about fisting, condoms, oral dams, etc in high school than to wake up to the REALITY that a fetus is a growing human being?

There is a scientific level at which life begins. It is not a "belief". Now you can say that it does or doesn't have a soul and debate whether there even is such a thing as a soul but it is undeniable that it is a life.

The issue of abortion and "greater good" can be debated, but there is a definite (although uncomfortable) answer as to whether it is ending a life.

[Bob Loblaw]

I guess it is just so much easier for ABC to blame serious Christians for the rise in atheism than it would be to point the finger at media outlets that equate serious Christianity with Islamic terrorism.

[P-Marlowe]

Pointing out the bigotries at ABC-Disney is not a sin.

It could be... depending upon your attitude.

[weegee]

Hollywood would be financially (not just morally) bankrupt if they didn’t have 80 years of old product to repackage for home video and cable.

Time was that those works would all be in the public domain now as our founders intended. The creative works were supposed to become a part of our nation’s fabic. Our heritage, our culture.

Mark Twain, Edgar Allan Poe, and others are public domain. It permits their works to be republished, repackaged, reinterpreted, restaged, etc.

But Big Media has fought to end the concept of a public domain. Oddly enough, Disney Corp has been pushing back the expiration (now it is like 100 years) to keep Mickey Mouse’s films in private ownership while at the same time litigating that Winnie The Pooh should be public domain now so as not to pay the author’s family anymore.

In Europe, they did not extend copyrights the last time around. Works 50 years old (including Elvis and Sinatra) are public domain now over there. The press got worried that soon even the Beatles’ catalog will be public domain.

Isn’t it odd how in the history of creative works none of this was considered of any importance and the works of greater authors, composers, etc. were allowed to lapse but now that the ownership of the popular culture rests in a few big corporate hands, it would be a “disgrace” to let them become free for anyone to reissue?

Defund the Left.

[SoldierMedic]

It is muslims who are seeking to have Halloween tossed from public schools right now.

http://www.born-again-christian.info/halloween.htm

Better to have lessons about fisting, condoms, oral dams, etc in high school than to wake up to the REALITY that a fetus is a growing human being?

Wow. I live in Seattle, a very blue state, and I have to say Fisting, Oral Dams, and other taboo topics were not discussed at my school. Condoms? Yes, as those prevent disease and pregnancy. Fisting? No.