I seem to remember some 26 years ago when John Paul II was chosen. The confusion over the color of the smoke; is it white, is it black, no, wait, it's gray; what does that mean? Even then, I think Dan Rather was confused.
Listening to the media now, however, I think they still just don't get it. It's almost as if they actually think the election of the Pope is a political office, and that, "boy, if he's a little more moderate, or maybe 'progressive', why, then things could really be different for the 21rst century church...."
First of all, I am not Catholic. I am Christian, and with that I will say that I know enough about my own religion to know this: God doesn't change. Perhaps the way we view Him does; perhaps the way we deal with Him does; perhaps the way we worship Him does. But He doesn't. Logically, then, why would anyone think that if the leader of the Catholic church, the man that represents a facet of the Christian religion, which I know also believes these and many other tenets of the Christian religion, would ever consider changing the religion to please the wishes of the people? I'm no student of "religion" per se, but I think that's one of the original heresies, if I am not mistaken.
Unfortunately, in America, we are seeing just that. The tenets of Christianity, the tenets of right and wrong as put forth in Biblical teaching, are being eroded, compromised, "updated to reflect the changing times and progressive society," and even in some cases, put forth as political incorrectness and thought crime. One such example is this: If I were to walk on Millikin University's campus right now as a student with a T-shirt that said, "Gay Pride" I would get no second looks and no one would even think about saying anything to me. However, if I were to walk on MU's campus with a T-shirt that quoted Romans 1:26,27 (especially in a modern translation) I would be drummed off campus and be potentially expelled for being guilty of a hate crime. Political correctness in this case outweighs free speech and freedom of religion.
It's no wonder then, that the American media treats the election of a Roman Catholic Pope as a political event instead; they see it through their filter, rather than just what it is, a group of conservative Catholic Christians praying together and asking God to help them choose their new leader.
Ratings and liberal mumbo jumbo BS means more to them than just reporting the facts of the situation. (So what else is new?)
Until next time...
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
and if that is not enough Jane fonda is pushing a new book
Yes, Jane has a new book. However, from the most recent news story, a vietnam vet from Missouri didn't think she nor her book was worth spit. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
I think he should have chosen Benedict Arnold II as his name... Who cares what they do it is all smoke and mirrors until they do something about the child molesting priests and nuns around the world. Instead they will do the Papal shuffel from one Parish to the next until they get caught. At which point they will try to pay off everyone with a small pitance of Catholic Churches total net worth. But hell I am sure THAT is the Liberal Medias fault also.
*ALL* denominations have had their share of sexual misconduct; as well as teachers, scout leaders, doctors, lawyers, and former presidents. I think the Catholic church is addressing that problem, and yes they need to do more.
Condemning the religion because of certain "representatives" whose actions do not represent that religion's teachings is a dangerous thing; humans can mess up (and be freakin' hypocrites,) even those who are not supposed to. Those that do should be brought to justice. (Kind of like how we're not supposed to condemn Islam, but only the al Qaeda idiots who are behind the terrorism.)
Post a Comment