.
Posted on 09/23/2015 6:00:06 AM PDT by xzins
Monday's Washington Post carries one of the most remarkable and surprising op-eds that paper has published in a long time. Note: This op-ed is the paper's own “voice,” not a piece by a columnist.
Commenting on the Obama administration's inclusion of “transgender activists, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and a nun who criticizes church policies on abortion and euthanasia” in the welcoming ceremony planned for the Pope's upcoming visit, the Post comments:
What struck us as we read about this small controversy is the contrast between the administration's apparent decision to risk a bit of rudeness in the case of the pope and its overwhelming deference to foreign dictators when similar issues arise. When Secretary of State John F. Kerry traveled to Havana to reopen the U.S. Embassy recently, he painstakingly excluded from the guest list any democrat, dissident or member of civil society who might offend the Castro brothers.
And when Chinese President Xi Jinping comes to the White House next week, shortly after the pope leaves town, it's a safe bet that he won't have to risk being photographed with anyone of whom he disapproves. Chen Guangcheng, the courageous blind lawyer, for example, lives nearby in exile, but he probably won't be at the state dinner. Neither will Falun Gong activists, democracy advocates or anyone else who might, well, give offense.
The Obama administration argues that it will include many people of every background. Yet according to the Wall Street Journal, “The presence of these (controversial) figures is especially irritating, (a) Vatican official said, because it isn't yet clear if the White House has invited any representatives of the U.S. anti-abortion movement, traditionally a high-priority cause for the U.S. bishops.”
Read that, no one active in the pro-life movement is welcome to greet the head of the world's largest pro-life organization.
There will be some Evangelical leaders present at the event. U.S. News reports that they include “the Rev. Joel Hunter, an evangelical megachurch pastor from Florida who is a confidant of Obama on spiritual matters; the Rev. Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents about 40 conservative Christian denominations; and the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.”
While it's nice of the White House to include some Evangelicals, the inclusion of persons at overt and public odds with the teachings the Pope represents and the omission of others whose political activities — standing for the unborn and their mothers — are essential to Catholic teaching are startling.
Remarkable: A stinging and blunt calling-on-the-carpet of an Administration far more concerned with advancing an aggressive “gay rights” agenda than defending religious liberty here at home or standing with those being horribly persecuted for their faith in repressive nations around the world. As I have written elsewhere, President Obama “cannot defend abroad what (he and his) administration ... are working to erode here at home.”
The willingness of this Administration to affront the leader of the world's largest Christian tradition is an embarrassment to our country. It demonstrates a moral arrogance so profound as to be one of the few things that still surprises after nearly seven years of the President's diligent efforts to, in his words, “transform the United States of America.”
Insulting foreign friends while placating foreign adversaries strikes one as an unusual approach to advancing America's national security and vital interests. Sadly, this Administration seems eager to do just that.
Christians won’t chop off your head if you offend them, so it’s safe to do so.
Not so with islamics and atheists (really one and the same).
These are the people who tried to vote God and support for Israel out of the demonrat party platform in 2012.
And who can forget this earlier gem of revealed truth?
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.Who is this "We" he refers to?
We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
- Barack Obama
"What is your name?"That clears things up. Now I better understand what has made these interesting times so interesting.
"My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many."
Yeah, you went out and got pregnant like a tramp, most likely with some jerk, and now you are proud. Proud of what? The SNAP, the Section 8, the welfare money?
And that crap that they’re working single moms doesn’t mean that they’re not getting a ton of help from the government.
And the single parent kids i know all have issues. It’s sad to do.
Death or divorce is what it is. But that other nonsense, forget it
gay pride lol.
I’ve never thought about being normal sexually EVER. Not proud, not ashamed. Just wanted to grab girls since i was 8 :)
I’m not sure why having either a defective gene or too much estrogen released during pregnancy or being abused as a child would make you proud. Those are the three most popular explanations for people being gay.
.
Between the various pep rally mentalities, including but not limited to "go girl", "vote for the brutha", "pride", The teacher's unions and SEIU, etc.
When polls are conducted, that probably accounts for the baseline 30% approval he gets for just being there.
Then, at the polls, there is the illegal vote (always touted at a mere 11-12 million, but likely closer to 40,000,000. Only a fraction need vote. There is the fraud vote (aside from the illegals) who vote multiple times, bused around to do so in jurisdictions where a picture ID is somehow 'racist'.
Last but not least is the 'counted vote' where machines can be set up to assign a fraction of the vote count for one candidate to another to make the results come out close to the announced media and other polls (the "expected" result).
It is my entirely unscientific opinion that the last POTUS election was stolen, lock, stock, and barrel.
At the beginning of all this, he said words to the effect of 'The most beautiful sound he had ever heard was the Muslim call to prayer'.
Anyone who expects anything less than animosity and insult toward Christianity from him is deluded. Of course, he can only be so blatant, but he gets in every subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle dig possible.
i still dont understand what “you go girl” and “empowers (put group’s name here) and “check your privilege” mean
i think what it means is I would have been kicked out of school for knocking someone out 30 years ago if they said this nonsense to me.
Now I just shake my head.
At the beginning of all this, he said words to the effect of 'The most beautiful sound he had ever heard was the Muslim call to prayer'.
Anyone who expects anything less than animosity and insult toward Christianity from him is deluded. Of course, he can only be so blatant, but he gets in every subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle dig possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.