The press is having a field day with Herman Cain’s statements on banning a Mosque in Tennessee.
They are calling him a bigot.
The bigots are those who call Herman Cain a bigot.
Those in the press who espouse tolerance of the teachings in the Koran are the same who hold a bigotry against Christianity and the New Testament.
The bigots who call out Herman Cain as being a bigot, should look in the mirror, their attacks are based on their own hypocrisy.
Having grown up as a Catholic, I have seen the same bigotry aimed at Herman Cain, aimed at the Catholic faith for its teachings based on the New Testament.
Arguably those who attack the Church, are trying to shift focus from their own bigotry and intolerance.
Moreover, why is it that the bigots attack the Church (who is lenient when compared to the teachings found in the Koran), hold the Nation of Islam to a different standard?
Answer – the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
When it comes to Islam, Herman Cain is right.
He understands how Shariah law is part of Islam and Islam is not compatible with the teachings found within the United States Constitution.
And contrary to what the bigots say, Shariah finds its way into the United States courts and ultimately most cases are thrown out on appeal.
The appellate courts and their rulings in effect, prove Herman Cain right and in effect, our courts ban the actual worship of Islam via the Koran.
I found it interesting that when it came to burning the Koran, the press lauded President Obama’s decision to criticize the pastor by saying this:
President Obama was certainly right to be disgusted by "Reverend" Terry Jones's threat to stage a public burning of the Koran, a plan that was mean, stupid, intolerant, and spookily evocative of Hitlerian book bonfires. But I am also troubled by Obama's efforts to hector Jones into changing his mind. Everyone should worry when presidents invoke wartime security, or similar arguments, against constitutionally protected free speech, even -- or especially -- when the speech is offensive, outrageous and unpopular.
Strictly speaking, there was nothing unconstitutional about Obama's campaign, abetted by an all-star cast of national security officials, to get Jones to back off. Presidents have free speech, too. But when was the last time an American citizen got a phone call from the Secretary of Defense urging him to call off a political demonstration? Invoking his status as commander-in-chief, Obama accused Jones of, in effect, abetting America's enemies: "This kind of behavior or threats of action put our young men and women in harm's way. And it's also the best imaginable recruiting tool for al-Qaeda."
So burning the Koran according to the bigot is stupid, intolerant and spookily evocative of Hitlerian book bonfires?
What about burning bibles?
Just as has happened with the Florida church that promises to burn the Quran, Grizzard was warned by local officials that his church could be slapped with a huge fine, in his case as high as $25,000, because book burning would violate local ordinances.
So Grizzard and his people reconsidered; they had a non-book burning party, instead shredding the Bibles and other books that drew their ire if not their fire.
The few media who showed up had to take their word for it since it all happened inside the little church. Grizzard proclaimed the event a great success. And it was. A church with a membership of 14 got world-wide publicity.
Did the president come out against the burning of the bibles because it could become a National Security Issue? And where was the press calling out how stupid, intolerant and spookily evocative of Hitlerian book bonfires.
Did a majority of Christians condemn the killing of bin Laden?
There is a reason why you can burn a bible and not worry about a National Security Issue.
It’s because true Christians are tolerant and understand freedom. And when a group’s ideology goes against this, instinctively a true Christian knows when to act accordingly.
Unfortunately, the bigots have taken a tragic event in Norway and have started to lay the ground work to attack Cain.
The most persistent critic of Freemasonry has been the Catholic Church. Since the early 18th century, the Vatican has issued several papal bulls banning membership of Catholics from Freemasonry under threat of excommunication. Currently, as reiterated in 1983, Catholics who become Masons are in a state of Grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion, but the penalty of excommunication is not formally declared in the current code of canon law.
Moreover, the terrorist did not pray and found no support from the Catholic Church.
WASHINGTON – A review of Anders Behring Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto shows the media's quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a "Christian" may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.
Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims.
Piecing together Breivik's various posts on the Internet, many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway's Labour Party – as a "right-wing, Christian fundamentalist."
Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God's existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe's "Christian culture" as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.
Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."
The terrorist also candidly admits he finds no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas.
Given the terrorist was a member of a Swedish Nazi forum, his humanist and pagan ideology is a direct contradiction to the press labeling him a Christian.
What is interesting is how bigots like to point to the terrorist as a “right wing” Freemason when his beliefs fit religious bigots like the KKK.
And it has clouded their own objectivity to ask who was the other gunman (according to witnesses) and who were his connections in Prague.
Throughout his manifesto of half –truths and contradictions, he thought about obtaining a nuclear weapon, studied the Oklahoma terrorist who according to witnesses had an accomplice and was just plain nuts.
It seems the thing the bigots calling out Cain have in common with the terrorist is, their bigotry of Christianity.
If the terrorist’s objective was to stop the Nation of Islam’s holding Norway's government hostage, he failed.
He killed the innocent.
As a Catholic, I was taught vengeance is a forbidden fruit and to know them by their works.
And this I know, Herman Cain is no bigot.