Obama appoints Pope-Basher to federal office for Faith-based Outreach

Just when I thought this fool couldn't get much worse, Now Obama appoints Harry Knox a gay-ideologue who called His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and the Bishops "discredited leaders" and called the Knights of Columbus "footsoldiers in a discredited army of oppression" as a member of his Council on Faith-based and Community Partnerships.

Aside from other concerns (ie. people who represent the government should not malign and insult people the way Knox has), don't you think it tarnishes the Council's credibility and ruins it's ability to work with people of faith, if one of its members insults the Pope?

Perhaps for appointing Knox, Obama is the real "discredited leader"

Just when I thought this fool couldn't get much worse, Now Obama appoints Harry Knox a gay-ideologue who called His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and the Bishops "discredited leaders" and called the Knights of Columbus "footsoldiers in a discredited army of oppression" as a member of his Council on Faith-based and Community Partnerships.

Aside from other concerns (ie. people who represent the government should not malign and insult people the way Knox has), don't you think it tarnishes the Council's credibility and ruins it's ability to work with people of faith, if one of its members insults the Pope?

Perhaps for appointing Knox, Obama is the real "discredited leader"

JoeRatz16

Bashing an unelected body such as the catholic church? Why the nerve of that man, he should be burned at the stake.

/saracsm

I do not have a problem with this.duxup

I think I speak for all of us when I say... so?Funky_Llama

It shouldn't be too surprising considering he has been surrounded by libs and socialists all along and his true political affiliation is coming out.

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

Just when I thought this fool couldn't get much worse, Now Obama appoints Harry Knox a gay-ideologue who called His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and the Bishops "discredited leaders" and called the Knights of Columbus "footsoldiers in a discredited army of oppression" as a member of his Council on Faith-based and Community Partnerships.

Aside from other concerns (ie. people who represent the government should not malign and insult people the way Knox has), don't you think it tarnishes the Council's credibility and ruins it's ability to work with people of faith, if one of its members insults the Pope?

Perhaps for appointing Knox, Obama is the real "discredited leader"

bsman00

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I think I speak for all of us when I say... so?zakkro

[QUOTE="duxup"]I do not have a problem with this.spazzx625

[QUOTE="bsman00"]

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

Just when I thought this fool couldn't get much worse, Now Obama appoints Harry Knox a gay-ideologue who called His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and the Bishops "discredited leaders" and called the Knights of Columbus "footsoldiers in a discredited army of oppression" as a member of his Council on Faith-based and Community Partnerships.

Aside from other concerns (ie. people who represent the government should not malign and insult people the way Knox has), don't you think it tarnishes the Council's credibility and ruins it's ability to work with people of faith, if one of its members insults the Pope?

Perhaps for appointing Knox, Obama is the real "discredited leader"

JoeRatz16

I do not have a problem with this.duxup

[QUOTE="duxup"]I do not have a problem with this.JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="bsman00"] Wait woah what happen to seperation of church and state.. or does that apply to the goverment?

zakkro

so then if the President appointed a racist or someone who thinks women should only stay home, would you be defending him them?

[QUOTE="zakkro"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"] Separation of Church in state doesn't mean the state should be disrespectful to the Church in fact it means the state should be neutral to the Church and criticism of the Church by government officials violates that neutrality. But if you really want Separation of Church and state Obama shouldn't even have a Council for faith-based groups.

JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="duxup"]I do not have a problem with this.JoeRatz16

yep. the insulting is outrageous!

private citizens have free speech, government representative give up that right to some degree. If government doesn't favor one religion, government should also not criticize and malign one religion, government should be representative.JoeRatz16

And the last US administration we're amazing at not offending anyone, just the middle east, europe, china and pretty much the rest of the worldbraindead_hero

so then if the President appointed a racist or someone who thinks women should only stay home, would you be defending him them?

JoeRatz16

Maybe the Pope should appoint an Obama-basher as a Bishop or Cardinal.

so then if the President appointed a racist or someone who thinks women should only stay home, would you be defending him them?

JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="braindead_hero"]And the last US administration we're amazing at not offending anyone, just the middle east, europe, china and pretty much the rest of the worldJoeRatz16

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

so then if the President appointed a racist or someone who thinks women should only stay home, would you be defending him them?

spazzx625

And I remember the cons cheering the day Bolton got appointed as UN ambassador even though he hated the UN.

But anyway, good for Obama. Religious people should interact with people they hate (aka The Gays) to work through their problems and find common ground.

That is fine for him to disagree with the Catholic Church's belief on what constitutes marriage, but he should respectfully disagree rather than stooping so low as to launch Personal Insults against the Pope, the Bishops and the Knight's. And besides, he's not Catholic, so what should the Church's teachings matter to him?JoeRatz16

That is fine for him to disagree with the Catholic Church's belief on what constitutes marriage, but he should respectfully disagree rather than stooping so low as to launch Personal Insults against the Pope, the Bishops and the Knight's. And besides, he's not Catholic, so what should the Church's teachings matter to him?

JoeRatz16

First off...

Why does it matter if he's a gay ideologue? That has nothing to do with this topic.

Anyway, if the council has extremely religious people as well and some moderates, wouldn't that be fair and make the whole thing fairly bias-free. I don't know... just a suggestion.

EDIT: And also! Since when did the United States care about Catholicism? Only one US president (JFK) was a catholic and if I recall, people were scared and thought he would take orders from the pope and turn the US into a Catholic nation.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

so then if the President appointed a racist or someone who thinks women should only stay home, would you be defending him them?

JoeRatz16

And the Pope has never openly insulted homosexuals? I think not

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="braindead_hero"]And the last US administration we're amazing at not offending anyone, just the middle east, europe, china and pretty much the rest of the worldbraindead_hero

If they didnt pick this dude they would just have appointed someone who favoured Christians. TBH dude it looks like you are just nit picking against a president who you didnt like in the first place, and you call him an ideot but hes not even been in office for a year, and if you look at Bush by this time he had already lost all respect.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

so then if the President appointed a racist or someone who thinks women should only stay home, would you be defending him them?

JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="braindead_hero"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"] at least they're not his own citizens.

JoeRatz16

First off...

Why does it matter if he's a gay ideologue? That has nothing to do with this topic.

Anyway, if the council has extremely religious people as well and some moderates, wouldn't that be fair and make the whole thing fairly bias-free. I don't know... just a suggestion.

EDIT: And also! Since when did the United States care about Catholicism? Only one US president (JFK) was a catholic and if I recall, people were scared and thought he would take orders from the pope and turn the US into a Catholic nation.

kayn83

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="braindead_hero"] Oh so It's all OK then, well the Pope isn't a US citizen so I don't see what your problem isbraindead_hero

Thats a good point.Catholics have insulted so many people with there views so now someone insults them you get pissed off.

Just because the US has historically been prejudiced against Catholics doesn't mean they should continue to defame them, afterall Catholics are protected under the constitution just as much as anyone else. But if the U.S. doesn't care about us, then why should we pay taxes to them or fight their wars for them or even hold their authority over us to be legitimate.

JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"] How is that a fair comparison at all? You are reading into the tagline of the article too much. The man appointed has a severe problem with the Catholic Churches sentiments towards gay marriage, since he, himself, is a homosexual. What is the problem beyond that?darkhorse286

And the Pope has never openly insulted homosexuals? I think not

Wow the topic of that article is so misleading. the Pope didn't insult gay people (I actually read the actual speech) he said that just as the environment needs protection so does the human person need protection and so does the natural design for the differance between men and women need protecting. He was saying that man should not forget his nature.JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

Just because the US has historically been prejudiced against Catholics doesn't mean they should continue to defame them, afterall Catholics are protected under the constitution just as much as anyone else. But if the U.S. doesn't care about us, then why should we pay taxes to them or fight their wars for them or even hold their authority over us to be legitimate.

spazzx625

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"] Wow the topic of that article is so misleading. the Pope didn't insult gay people (I actually read the actual speech) he said that just as the environment needs protection so does the human person need protection and so does the natural design for the differance between men and women need protecting. He was saying that man should not forget his nature.Vandalvideo

You beat me to it.:D