James Carvelle and Nancy Pelosi: Liars and Hypocrites

It is always a bad mistake for me to pause flipping thrugh channels on CNN. I did so because I heard Nancy Pelosi's name mentioned, and I heard the followng 10 second sound bite from James Carvelle (in one of those 4 person palnes--this one including Bill Bennett): "Speaker Pelosi is a good Catholic, attending mass and receving communion every Sunday." This may, of course, prove there is no Bog, since a thunderbolt did not strike down Carvelle where he sat. Carvelle statement was, of course, a bald faced lie--the "good Catholic" part. In fact, there has been considerable sentiment that Pelosi should not be ALLOWED to receive communion because of her fanatic pro-abortion votes and views. If she were not in a leftisst place like San Francisco, she would probably face excommunication.


It is not me who says Pelosi is not a "good Catholic". I am not Catholic, and was raised Presbyterian (although I am agnostic with about the same position on religion--although not abortion--as Nancy Pelosi, with the difference that I am not a DISHONEST HYPOCRITE like Carvelle and Pelosi. In fact, Pelosi herself has effectively admitted she is not a "good Cahtolic". Pelosi's fantical, indefensible positioin on aborthin is that there should be no significant restrictions on abortion up to the moment of brith--and maybe, like President Obama, that an aborted baby born alive should be left to die (or at least abortionists should be allowed to leave such a baby to die). As I said, it is not me, but the Pope, who says that you cannot be a "bood Catholic" and hold this position.


Let us segue to many months ago (see archives of this blog), where I proved Nancy Pelosi was a liar and a hypocrite before she again proved it with her five or six different versions attacking the CIA people who merely tried to defend us from terrorists. Yes, the lie that Nancy Pelosi did not learn about waterboarding until recently is only part of the web of lies and distortions created by Pelosi on th subject of "harsh interrogation" of terrorists. But this blog had exposed Pelosi as a liar and hypocrite well before that.


It began, those months ago, when Pelosi asserted that her postion on abortion was perfectly consistent with traditional, long-standing "teaching" of the Catholic Church. That was, of course, a LIE. But, as with the CIA/interrogation matter, Pelosi epxosed the full extent of her dishonesty by digging her hole deeper.


An interviewer actually confronted Pelosi on her assertion that her fanatical, pro-abortion position was sqarely in the Catholic tradition, and within Catholic teaching. Pelosi was forced to admit that her parents did NOT "teach" her--one of he assesrtions being that her position was consistent with the Catholic "teachings" upon which she had been raisded--that the Catholic religion supported Pelosi's present, fantically pro-abortion position. In fact, Pelosi admitted, in effect, that she had LIED, and that Catholic teacing and tradition was NOT consistent with her position on abortion. But she went further, in the kind of outrageous admission of hypocrisy that only President Obama can get away with.


Pelosi tried to explain herself this way (I gave exact words in my earlier entry, but this is an accurate paraphrase): "The Catholic relition teaches you that you have a mind, and free will. I think God wants me to use that mind, and I am willing to face him when the time comes about the position to which my mind has brought me on abortion."


As I said--correctly--in those earlier blog entries, the above incredible statement shows more than that Pelosi is not a "good Catholic". It shows that Pelosi no more believes in faith and religion than I do. I amy not be now religious, but I can state flatly that I have forgotten more about the philosophy of religion than Pelosi has ever known. But you don't have to be my kijjnd of expert to see that Pelosi cannot claim to have any religious faith.


Is there a Christian religion that takes the position that "free will" means that you can DISAGREE with God? Nope. To say that is a repudiation of religion. As I said in my previous entries, it basically states the reason for MY agnostic position on God and rejection of faith. Again, the difference is that I am not a liar and hypocrite like Pelosi, and my thinking is deeper and more sophisticated. As I previously have said, it goes back to the question my philosophy professor in colleg once asked: "Are things right because God says so, or does God say so because they are right." As I previously said, this is less profound than it appears, because for a turly religious person (not me or Pelosi), God is the SOURCE of all goodness and rightness i the universe. That makes it a meaningless question for such a person. But if you take my position, and Pelosi's, that it is up to the human mind to develop its own opinions and decisions, and not simply accept direction from God, then the question of my professor becomes very relevant. Pelosi and I think that giving yourself over to the direction of God, even if He is right, betrays the reays a person's obligation to develop the person's own mind.


Note, however, that you CANNOT believe in faith and religioin, and take the position that Pelosi takes. If "free will" includes the freedom to reject God, then the whole rationale of religion (at least the Christian religion) is destroyed. Basically the "rree will" the Christian religion talks about is the free will to choose God, or turn away from God. It is absurd (she IS dumb as a rock) to suggest that you can be a "good Catholic" and assert the "free will" to reject the teachings of your religioin (the supposed teachings of God Himself).


Now I may be getting much further into the philosophy of religion than you want to go. Doesn't matter. You don't have to think about it the way I do to realize that Pelosi has REJECTED religion--the Catholic religion and any religion whose teachings contradict her real religion. Pelosi's real religion is LEFTISM, and if God disagrees with leftism, then she disagrees with God. I am conviinced that most leftists fell this way, but Pelosi is one of the few to take this position so bluntly.


Okay, we know that James Carvelle is a LIAR (on CNN, the official Liar Network). How is he a hypcrite. I should leave his as a trivial exercise for the reader, but I will lay it out for you. Carvelle was trying to DEFEND the credibility of Pelosi (would such a dvout person lie?) with his lie about Pelosi being a "good Catholic". Does Carvelle really believe that "good Cahtolics" are credible people? Does Carvelle regard the POPE as a person of unimpeachable credibility? Don't be absurd. Carvelle has shown repeatedly that he does not regard being a "good Catholic" as nearly as important as being a LEFTIST, or a LEFTIST CATHOLIC. That is the blatant hypocrisy behind the lie. Carvelle was trying to bolster the credibility of Pelosi with a lie, and Carvelle does not even believe that being a "good Catholic" lends ANY credibiliy to a person who says something which disagrees with what Carvelle believes. Q.E.D. Carvelle is a blatant hypocrite, along with Pelosi. However, if you read this blog, you already know that. This blog has established again and again that leftists are the worst hypocrites how ever walked the Earth on two legs--even including people who walked the Earth in fiction (Elmer Gantry) or as members of a different species (Neanderthal Man).


P.S.: Is the Catholic religion virtually designed for hypocrites? I am not an anti-Catholic bigotl--as is ture of the mainstream media and most leftists--as to the Catholic religioin itself. However, I admit that I was raised (Presbyterina, remember) with a somewhat negative view of the Catholic religion. This all goes back to the Reformation. Read Sir Walter Scott, who described one of the criticisms of the Catholic religion in the 19th Century, more than a century ago. He described one of his villains as embracing the Catholic religion because it enabled this villain to act as he wanted to act, and then "basolve" his sins by Confession. This is merely one of the long-standing complaints against the Catholic religion that led to the Reformation. Note that Nancy Peloisi (and other Catholic politicians who have rejected the teaching of the Church on abortion) has committed conduct that even the Catholic religioin says cannot be "resolved" by Confession--at least unless you truly confess and REPENT (it woulb be yet another hypocirsy for Peolosi to assert she has done that). I admit that it is ONLY the Catholic Chruch position on abortion that I approve of in the religion. As I said, this does not mean I strongly DISAPPROVE of the religion; just that I was raised with a negative view and pretty much agree that the Catholic religioin has way too many trappings in a religion whose members seem to have a remarkably elastic conscience (including on abortion, despite official Church teaching). I arrived at my negative view of mainline Protestant religions all on my own, without any teaching whatever. The only religious people I respect are those who make a good faith effort to LIVE their religion, instead of treating their religion as a mere conventional, socal club which does not affect their own conduct at all. Look at how "mainstream" religions have accepted the "modern" view of SEX so easily--leading to the concusion that ehy agree with Pelosi that they will argue the point with God, if necessary, rather than allow religion to interfere with their own inclinations. Yes, the irony is that fundametalist Christians make me somewhat uncomfortable, because I reject "faith" as a concept for living one's life. The further irony is that my actual POLICY postions are pretty much the same as those of fundamentalist positions--that is, "policy" positions on the kind of conduct in which people should engage. This leads tot he disturbing conclusion that I favor what almost ALL Christian religions once taught the Bible commands MORE than most mainstream religions in the country today. In other words, I have exercised my "free will" to decide that God is right, while those who profess to believe in religoin pretty much seem to have decided that God is wrong (or at least the traditional teachings of what God has told us are wrong). This is almost as disturbing as my discovery, in the last election, that I am MORE of a feminist than most leftists. All of this can be explained, of course, if you realize that LEFTISM is the real religion of leftists--in or out of church. And I don't suscribe to that religion, any more than I suscribe to any other. I may not believe in religion, but I do believe in truths that do not "change" just because we are now in the Age of Obama. That puts me solidly in opposition to leftists, and aligned with fundamentalist Christians on everything except the way we separely arrive at our conclusions of truths that do not dpend on present fashions based on the selfish appetites of people. Yep. I know this is more than you want to know. But I refuse to be the Pelosi/Carvelle kind of hypocrite. You should know where I am coming from. If you are "offended" by my view that oo many people do not "lieve" the religioin in which they profess to believe, ask yourself: "In what way has my religion CHANGED my conduct from what it would otherwise have been?" "Have I conformed my conduct to what I believe is the unchanging Word of God, or have I changed what I believe is the true Word of God based on what I want to do, and the changing mores of society?" That I can phrase these questions in that manner should indicate to you why I do not believe in religion. I believe generally that people conform their view of religious requirements to their own view of accetable conduct, rather than conforming their conduct to God's unchanging view of acceptable conduct. On top of that, I agree with Pelosi--without the hypocrisy and dishonesty--that we have a humand mind to USE---not to give over to a dictator (however benevolent nad PERFECT that dictator may be)--without abandoning the idea that there are universal truths independent of changing fads.