God and Man at the AP, and in the Mainstream Media: Most Outrageous Lie in the History of "News"

Here is the disgraceful AP/AT&T/Yahoo hedline I quoted in the previous article:


"A hot issue on the campaign tail: Theology"


The more I hae thought about that headline, the more outrageous it has seemed. I am not wolling to declare it "unprecedented" (Did you notice that Obama used the word again to refer to the "unprecedented" cooperation in dealing with Catgegory 1 hurricane Irene?): The worst--in the sense of most obvious and outrageous--LIE ever put out by a supposed "news" organization in the history of man. This is actaullly saying a lot, because the competition from the AP alone is fierce and extensive.


We need to first go to basics. The despicable people of the AP first start off with a basic lie. Nope. "Theology" and "religioin" are NOT synomyms. Theology is NOT a "religioin". It is the STUDY of religion. Theology deals with the detailsof religious doctrine, and with the often arcane matters of religious theory. "Theology", almost by definition, CANNOT be a "hot" issue in a political campaign--at least not unless lyou are a DISHONSEST anti-Christian bigot from the AP or mainstream media.


What is a theological "issue"? Well, the "problem of evil" is one (see next article, in which I point out that the "problem of evil" is not a problem in terms of evaluating the mainstream media, and the evil people thereof). What is the "problem of evil"? Well, I am not a theologian, but I will try to explain. The Christian God is supposed to be "perfectly" good--incapable of evil because He is the very essence of good: the SOURCE of all good in the universe. Yet, it is part of the Christian religion--not to mention somewhat obvious--that there is evil in the world. God created the universe, and there is no evil in God Therefore, WHERE did the evil come from? How did evil arise out of good? Why does evil exist in the universe? Where did Sata come from? For that matter, God is sopposed to be omnipotent. Therefore, why does God LET evil exist? If He is omnipotent, could He not just eliminate it? This is the kind of problem yo deal with in theology. Similarly, you have the problem of whether the Bible is literally true--not only the Word of God, but meant to be taken literally on things such as how and when the universe was created. Note how people who do NOT really believe in their Christian religion (Barack Obama, for example) might distort this "issue" . There is really no Christian "issue" about whether the Bible is the Word of God. You are NOT supposed to be able to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe: whether,. for example, 8 out of ten of the Ten Commandments are importatn, whilke God did not really mean the other 2. As a fruther example, consider premarital sex. It may be an issue of "theology" as to whether the Bible really condemns premarital sex. But it is a FALSE issue of "theology" as towhether any Biblical condemnation of premarital sex did not really represent the moral judgment of God, but was merely "situational" guidance based on the fact that effective contraception had not yet come into existence when the Bible was originally composed. This, of course, can be a gheological question: Can you really be a Christian and still believe that the Bible--especailly the New Testament--was merely an attempted interpreation of fallible men rather than the transcribed Word of God? While this can be regarded as a theological question, it seems to me pretty much a false one based on sophistry. If the Bible does not set forth the Word of God, at least figuratively, and yoi can pick and choose which parts of the Bible are "really" the Word of God (based on your won present views of right and wrong), then do oyou really have a RELIGION in which people have faith? Or do you have just a man--created code, which vaires with the times? This is what you get into when yo get into "theology", and it is why the AP headline/story was so very outragoues: such an obvious example of religious BIGOTRY masquerading as some sort of serious "news" story. It is absurd to suggest that there are any significant number of ovters out there who are seriusly interested in the positions of POLITICIANS on these subtle issues of "theology".


Nope. It is NOT true that evangleical, fundamentalist Christians out there really vote on whether a politician shares their view of religious DOCTRINE. For example, you had that burning questiohn of early Christianity: Was Christ made of divine SUBSTANCE--a very part of God--or was Christ made of human substance. Note that--Dan Brown STUPIDITY aside--that there iwas never any "issue" about Christ being the Son of God. There was NEVER any issue in early Christianity about Christ being a "mere man". But was Christ separate from God? Is there One God, of which Christ is part, or something else where Christ is really a separate entity from God? Yes, you get into the Holy Trinity, and the tripartite nature of God: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. No, I don't aer if I am getting this exctly right. That is the point. This is ARCANE stuff. But there was a time when "heretics" were BURNED over differencdes in theology. I assure you that the despicable AP, and the mainstream media in general, INTEND to suggest that Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and other Republicans are making an "issue" out of these arcane matters of religious doctrine. The AP, and our mainstream media, LIE. That is simp;ly not true, and they iknow it It is the Ap, and mainstream media, who WANT to turn ourpolitical campaigns into so "exploration" of religious doctrie, because these are GODLESS peo;le (as I, Myslef can be regraded as being). But it is worse than that. These people of the AP, and mainstream media, belie ve that "independents" are uncomfortable with people who really BELIEVE in their religion, and that, therefore, the AP can hurt Republican politicians by associating them with religious DOCRTINE rather than with the puiblic POLICY that may be no more "influenced" by religious belief than the public policy chocies of ATHEISTS are influenced by their "religious" beliefs (or lack thereof). In short, as stated in my previous article, the AP, and rest of the mainstream media, really do not believe that Obama is really a Christian, and fruther believe (falsely) that the American people want their politi al leaders to have NO real belief in any religioni.


That is why the AP is so obsessed, like the rest of the mainstream media, with LIES. Rick Perry is NOT out there running for President on the basis that HIS religiouis doctrine is better than YOIURS. Now it is the essence of EVERY religion that such be your private belief. Why else do you profess to have faith in a religion. But it is an absurd LIE to suggest that Perry is out there running on some theological interpretation of the Bible. Yet, the AP is deliberately trying to suggest that. That is why I consider this the most outrageous, EVIL, lie in the history of world "journalism": the lie that Republican politicians are running campaigns based on religious DOCTRINE. If we are gong to go down that road, then we have to go down the road of investigating the dETAILED relitious beliefs of EVERY candidate. As I have said, that means we have to rally go into the question of whether Barack Obama is a Christian at all: Bill Maher and I agreeing that he is NOT.


Is the "problem of evil", and the answer of our politicians to it, a legitimate "issue" in a political campaign? NO. Not unless a candidate is out there campaigning on the basis that his or her "solution" to the problem of evil matters as far as a President is concerned. Is "evolution" an "issue" in a Presidential campaign? NO---except for the religiously obsessed people of the AP and mainstream media. It matters not at all whether a Presidential candidate "believes" in evolution (actually, a very complex question; the questin of whether the Theory of Evolution fuly explains how we got from mere lifeless chemicals to "intelligent" human beings--see James Rollins' fictional book, "The Black Order", although I do not recommend it as good fiction). Does it matter whether a Presidential candidate believes whether the Bible sets forth the literal Word of God, leterally describinb every event depicted therein? Of course it does NOT matter. It is only the religious BIGOTS of the AP, and rest of our mainstream media, who believe otherwise. further, it is hard to imagine a more EIL (that "problem of evil" agai, as to why God permits it) a thing than to suggest that we should look into the detailed religious BELIEFS of candidates.


"But, Skip, our media would never go off of the beam like this. I agre that the headline you quote is monumentally stupid, ubt surely it was just an example of overstatement and imprecise language. You are making too much of it."....................................................................................Sorry. I was lying on the floor, laughing. Yoiu shold not try to kill me with funny statements like that. I assure you that I am not making enough of this--much less making to much of it.


CNN questin to Mike Huckabee, in 2008 CNN/YouTube debage: "Do you believe that the Bible sets froth the literal Word of God". That is an EVIL question from an EVIL network. And it is typical. Then there was the debate question this year, to Tim Pawlenty, as to his positon on evolutioin. Then there is the EVIL Piers Morgan, on CNN, interviewing Rick Snatorum AFTER asking about all of the POLICY issues on homoseuxal conduct: "Let us get back to basis, Senator. Do you believe that hoosexucality is a sin?" Piers Morrgan, I say it agian: You are an EVIL person (that "problem of evil" again), and CNN is an EVILI network. No, it i NOT relevant whether Rick Santorum believes that "homosexuality" is a "sin". For that matter, of course, the quesiton is an absurd illustration of ignorance in all events. "Status" is--outside of Jimmy Carter's lust in his heart--NEVER a "sin". CONDUCT can be a "sin". IF you were gong to ask this question, and it wwere not an evil question, this is the correct question: "Do you believe that homosexual CONDUCT is a sin" You should be able to se the agenda here. The aganda is to sidetrack ONLY Repubicans off on these "issues' of religious DOCTRINE--as to which even religious conservatives do not generally care in a Presidential race


Again, the whole point of the despicable AP article, the headline of which is quoted above, was to try to associate Rick Perry with specific religious DOCTRINE for purposes of marginalizing him as a candidate--even though Perry himself is NOT ruinning on that grond. Of course, Perry has also been governor of Texas for 11 years, without turning Texas into some sort of "theocracy" where only people who are not "heretics" to Perry's religion are allowed to live. People of Texas may generally be mroe religious than people of Massachusetts (if you don't count the Obama religion of "secular humanism"--that is, leftist faith and ideology), but we don't really have "checkpoints" in Texas asking you if you believe that theNew Testament really sets forthe the literal Word of God/Christ, and whether you believe that Chrirst was the divine Son of God. Lucky for me that the AP lies, because I wold not be allowed to live in Texas under those standards. Perry's position on religious DOCTRINE (whatever it is) is IRRELEVANT to whether he should be President of the United States, as it has been IRRELEVANT as to his lperformance as governor of Texas.


What about the AP lie that Perry waws "fully embracing" a particular religoin with that "prayer meeting" in Houston? As this blog's previous article set out, what the AP was really doing was suggesting that modern politicians should NOT "believe" in a particular religion at all. As stated, the AP clearly does not believe--one of the few times the AP has gotten someting right--that Barack Obama is a Christian. That is all Perry was ding: proclaiming that he actually believes in A RELIGION, and in the power of prayer. Perry is not out there telling you to vote for him because of his beliefs in particular religius doctrines. Perry is merely shwoing that he HAS a religion that provides him with spiritual guidance. It is absurd to suggest that Perry is saying that the "theology" of his religioin MATTERS as to whether you should vote for him. Now Brack Obama has tried to do the same thing: to show that his Christian faith si something to which he privately turns for inspiration. Barack Obama's probleml--although to the Godless religiiuos bigots of the AP and mainstream media it is a virtue--is that he is NOT CONVINCING. I don't see how anyone can really believe that Obama is a Christian (or believes in any religion at all, except the religiion of leftist ideology).


But is not Rick Perry trying to get the SUPPPORT of evangelical Christians? Sure. That is what politicians do. Did not Obama try to do the same thing. For that matter, has not Obama sought the support of African-Americans on the basis that he--as a balkc man himself-understands them? Of course he has. Yet, Obama still wanted "white people" to vote for him, as enough did to elect him President. That is all Perry is doing, and all ANY Republican politician is doing when the politician suggests that he or she "understands" religiuos people--even is one of them. The idea is NOT that Perry, or any other Republican politician, is running on RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE (theology). That is the mainstream media LIE by which they are trying to "isolate" and "marginalize" Republicans: trying to avoid any DEBATE on the real issues that evangelical Christians, and everyone else, care most about. Are evangelical Christians likely to vote for someone they think undrstands them, and is not very different from them, rather than someone who they think hods them in contempt? Sure. That is human nature. But that does not mean that Perry, or ahyone else, is running on RELIGIUS DOCTRINE aimed only at people who believe in a certain theology. Did Obama run on the "black liberation theology" of Reverend Wright? Nope. did Barack Obama run only as an African-American, appealkng only to African-Americans? Nope.


The idea for politicians, is to let groups know why they should be comfortable supporting, you, while at the same time appealing to everyone. There is nothing wrong with this. It is Politics 101. It is only the evil people of the mainstream media who are trying to turn this into an argument over THEOLOGY. You don't hear Rickj Perry arguing theology. You don't hear Rick Perry saying that people shoud vote for him based on his veiw on evolution. That is the OBSESSION of the AP and mainstream media: that a candidate should CONCEAL that heor she even has a peronal religion, except hwen someone like Obama has to LIE about his religion for political reasons. No. Rick Perry is not out there campaigning on the basis that GD supports Rick Perry (whether Perry believes that or not). Perry is NOT out thre saying that his views on aortion are RIGHT because of his eligioin. It is the AP, and our mainstram media, hwo are bringing the DETAILS of a candidate's religion into the public debate, where they do not belong. Now one of the very esssential beliefs of Christianity is that it SHOULD influence our view of every part of your life. But that does not mean that pubic policy DEBATE should be over RELIGION. A candidate, and voter, has a right to have his views inflenced by his religion, and not to conceal that faith plays a role in his or her life, but that is very different from DEBATING religion as part of a political campaigng. The latter is what the EVIL biogots of the AP, and our mainstram meida , want to do. They bear the responsibility for the result (including my own personal protest campaign on the theme: Barack Obma is not a Christian.").


As I have previously told you: Abortion is NOT a "religius" issue. Otherwise, I--an agnostic--would not be so stronly agaisnt it. A person's religion MAY influence how a person feels about abortion, or about slavery, or abut murder. So what? Again, your eligion is SUPPOSED to affectg the kind of person you are, and the values you hold. That does not mean that you can simply impose a law against abortion on demand because it enacts our RELIGIOUS DOCTIRNE. It is not "imposing your religion" to believe that abortion is the moral equivalent of infanticide, and hsould be against the law, jsut as there is nothing wrong with your religious views on "lynching" affecting what you think pubic policy should be. Public policy is what you ARGUE. REligiion is what you BELIEVE. We should argue the first, and not the second (unless you are trying for religious conversion). What the desicable AP, and mainstream media in gneral want to do is the opposite: They want to ARGUE the religion, and not the pubic policy. That is because they FEAR that they will LOSE the pubic poicy debate (as they surely will in 2012, absent some wort of "miracle" turnaround inthe economy).


No. This is not overkill. This hsould be one of the fundamentals of our system. There is nothing wrong with a politician letting people know hat such politician actaully believes in a religion. What is wrong is ARGUING religion, AS RELIGIN. And it is especailly wrong to assert that the DETAILS of one's religon are a proper subject for puublic debate--especially if you are a Republican. Yes, this is the efil of rank HYPOCRISY, as well. The media will refuse to debate the DETAILS of Obama's religion, but assert that the details of Palin's religion, Romney's religion, or Perry's religion are fit subjects for debate These are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Ealrth, on two legs or four. This is where Bernard Goldberg, of the unfari and unbalanced network, got it exactly wrong when he said: "A question about a person's religion is improper, unless that person's religion influences his or her policy views." Say what? A erpson's religion, or lack of same, is ALWAYS supposed to affect that person's policy views. That does not suddenly make the person's religion, or lack thereof, a fit subject for thsese disgraceful "journlalistic" quesions abut evolution, or whether "homosexuality is a sin". The questons are EvIL, and suggest that we should be arguing religious DOCTRINE in our political campaings. Yep. I just said Bernie Goldberng was advocaing EVIL, at least on this subject. It is nothing more than an excuse for UNFAIR qukestins trying to make a political campaign all about religious doctrine instead of public policy.


Listen to the upcoming Republican debates. Whenever you see a questin on RELIGIUOS DOCTRINE: on religin AS RELIGION, or "theology", you will KNOW that yoiu are seeing EVIL at work. You are witnessing frist hand the attempted destruction of our politics, and the actual destruction of our "journalism".


My headline, by the way, is a take off on the book that brought William F. Buckley to prominence: "God and Man at Yale". The theme of the book, in part, was that Yale was trying to exclude God from the Yale "culture". Even though I have no direct knowledge of Yate, I am 100% certain that Yale is even more determined to eliminate God than wehn Buckley wrote his book back in the 1950s. It is certain, of course, that our mainstream media is trying to eliminate God from any real public acknowledgement, except for their OBSESSION with making RELIGION an "issue" i political campaigns (a caricature of religion, anyway). I still can't get over it: "Theology" as a "hot issue" on the campaign trail. Thre just can't be a God. If EVER a tunderbolt shold have come down and wiped out an entire organizatin, that atrocity lshould have produced such a thunderbolt. That AP headline represented a crime against BOTH God and humanity. Surely these AP writers shold face trial in the Hague for a "crime against humanity". (I know. How can I say God is taking no action, when I have been assigned the Sodom and Gomorrah missioni of futilely looking for a SINGLE honest, competent AP reporter.)


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).