HYPOCRISY

Viral meme is touching some nerves and may be one of the most powerful quotes this election year 29SEP16

EVEN in 2016 there is a double standard for women who dare venture beyond the roles men are comfortable with them being in, especially leadership roles. The mainstream media is finally acknowledging their coverage of Hillary Clinton has been tainted to say the least.  This meme is the perfect expression of the sexism Hillary has struggled with throughout her presidential campaign...

There it is. This quote by Michelle Vitalize Vitali is as close to perfect as one can get in encapsulating the blatant sexism that has taken place throughout the 2016 election, and the double standards we see being placed on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton —  as well as women everywhere around the world.

“Imagine a woman who showed up [to a presidential debate] unprepared, sniffling like a coke addict and interrupting her opponent 70 times. Let’s further imagine that she had 5 kids by 3 men, was a repeated adulterer, had multiple bankruptcies, paid zero federal taxes and rooted for the housing crisis in which many thousands of families lost their homes. Wait… there’s more: she has never held any elected office in her life.” -Michelle Vitalione (Vitali) 

I wonder how long this imaginary woman would last if she were to seek political office, much less try to hold one. And to become a presidential candidate? Well, perhaps on another planet. How sad, and what does it say about our country that a man like Trump would be able to rise up to the political level he has reached (there’s only one step higher) and yet Hillary would be and is relentlessly scrutinized as she has been? The hypocrisy is out of the park.

I’ve done some internet searches and cannot find “Michelle Vitalione” (Vitali) online, nor can I find the origin of this meme, however it was posted on the Daily Kos Facebook page Thursday morning. Hopefully the author and/or the meme creator will come forward to claim the credit. Meanwhile, please free to add more Trump-Hillary double standards in the comment section. The list could go on and on, but THIS meme  is brilliant (sans the image of Trump which may require eye bleach). Good show, MichelleVitalione (Vitali) wherever and whomever you are. More, please!

Update: Friday, Sep 30, 2016 · 10:07:09 AM EDT · Leslie Salzillo

Good news. The meme mystery is solved. The image was created SaraLynnMichener and she just joined our Daily Kos community to fill us in. In Sara Lynn’s comment below, she reveals she misspelled the name of the woman cited in the viral meme. That spelling should read Michelle Vitali. I have reflected the correct spelling in the story and on the story images. Thank you, SaraLynn and welcome!

On Divorce, Contraception, Pope Calls For More Grace, Less Dogma & Applause, Dismay, Confusion Over Pope's Words 8APR16

THOSE with a problem with the Catholic Church and religion in general will criticize Pope Francis' pronouncement on these issues. They look for anything to justify their hatred of religion, especially Christianity in this country, how sad for them. I see this as an acknowledgement of the teachings and life examples of Jesus Christ as so eloquently expressed by Pope Francis And he notes that Jesus set forth a demanding ideal for his followers — but "never failed to show compassion and closeness to the frailty of individuals.".  This is not the Pope giving Christians license to ignore the doctrines of Christianity. It is the Pope's recognition that the 'thou shalls' and 'thou shall nots' are mandatory goals for all believers to strive for, and recognizing that we are all human, and if we are really trying to live the Christian life, but at times fail, the Catholic Church leadership and all Christians should try to respond as Christ would, " to show compassion and closeness to the frailty of individuals.". The Pope is calling for more Christianity, less dogma. This from +NPR and +Sojourners .....

On Divorce, Contraception, Pope Calls For More Grace, Less Dogma

In a major document released Friday, Pope Francis addressed divisive elements of Catholic doctrine — including how to treat couples who remarry after a divorce that wasn't annulled by the church, and the church's stance on contraception.

Without issuing any new top-down doctrine, Francis said that priests should focus on providing pastoral care for Catholic couples, rather than sitting in judgment of them, and that individual conscience should be emphasized, rather than dogmatic rules.

The document — a post-synodal apostolic exhortation called "Amoris Laetitia," or "The Joy of Love" — is more than 250 pages long.

In it, the pope emphasizes that life is more complicated than religious law. In the opening pages, he invokes the values of "generosity, commitment, fidelity and patience," but also says he wishes to "encourage everyone to be a sign of mercy and closeness wherever family life remains imperfect or lacks peace and joy."

i

Copies of the post-synodal apostolic exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" (The Joy of Love) are on display at a press conference at the Vatican on Friday. In it, Pope Francis writes that individual conscience should be the guiding principle for Catholics negotiating the complexities of sex, marriage and family life.

Andrew Medichini/AP

He explains that in Amoris Laetitia, in addition to considering scripture, he will "examine the actual situation of families, in order to keep firmly grounded in reality." And he notes that Jesus set forth a demanding ideal for his followers — but "never failed to show compassion and closeness to the frailty of individuals."

Joshua McElwee of the National Catholic Reporter told NPR's Morning Edition that the exhortation has a very different tone than previous church pronouncements on these subjects.

The focus on "conscience" as a determining factor is key, McElwee says. He explains what that means in this context:

"That's something that the church talked about 50 years ago, but the last couple of popes did not expand upon. And what Pope Francis is saying is that conscience means that people can be hearing something from God, kind of in the depths of their heart, that may even be not quite in accord with what the church teaches generally, as a general norm, but can still be true and can still be discerned to be God's will in their life. So he's allowing for a little bit of discord between individual cases and the general church teaching."

On Divorce

When it comes to divorce and remarriage, McElwee says, the pope doesn't directly change church law — which holds that couples who divorce and remarry without getting a Catholic annulment are committing adultery and cannot receive communion.

"But he kind of pivots the church stance, asking clergy to be much more pastoral and not always apply one general norm to all cases — but instead help people discern what God is doing in their lives, even if they might be living in a situation the church in past years might have called irregular," McElwee says.

No longer can the church simply say everyone in such an "irregular situation" is living in mortal sin, McElwee explains. Instead, each individual situation will need to be looked at separately.

"So, it's a very different stance, and it's allowing clergy to let people discern God's will, even in situations where that might be what, what he says, 'morally confusing,' " McElwee says.

Some in the Catholic Church wanted the pope to say it's OK for remarried people to take communion; others wanted "a very strong no," McElwee says.

"And what the pope has done really is seemed to embrace the middle path, looking for ambiguity, for individual situations."

On Contraception

Francis didn't describe any methods of contraception as "unlawful," as previous Catholic encyclicals have, The Associated Press notes.

Instead of characterizing contraception as a sin, Francis says the church must emphasize to young couples the joy of having children — while respecting the need for each couple to decide their family size on their own.

He cites the Relatio Finalis, written by bishops last year:

"In accord with the personal and fully human character of conjugal love, family planning fittingly takes place as the result a consensual dialogue between the spouses, respect for times and consideration of the dignity of the partner. ... Decisions involving responsible parenthood presupposes the formation of conscience."

As well as the Second Vatican Council:

"Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. ... They should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God."

"Francis made a single reference to the church-sanctioned family planning method of abstaining from sex during a woman's fertile time," the AP writes. "He said only that such practices are to be 'promoted' — not that other methods are forbidden — and he insisted on the need for children to receive sex education, albeit without focusing on 'safe sex.' "

On Sex, Homosexuality And Gender

Francis rejected the idea that sexual desire is a thing to be "eliminated" or looked down upon.

"God himself created sexuality, which is a marvelous gift to his creatures," he wrote.

He writes that sex and eroticism can be distorted — including when people instruct women to submit to their husbands, or sex becomes either selfish or purely self-sacrificing. But reciprocal and respectful sex, within the context of marriage, is a passion that reveals "the marvels of which the human heart is capable," Francis writes.

The pope also said that a "great variety" of family situations can offer stability, while emphasizing that same-sex marriage or unmarried committed relationships are not equal to marriage in the eyes of the Church.

The document references transgender people, saying that while there are "at times understandable aspirations" to ideologies that allow for a separation of gender and biological sex, they are attempting to "sunder what are inseparable aspects of reality."

The pope calls for women's rights to be advanced around the world and rejected the idea that feminism has hurt family structures. "The equal dignity of men and women makes us rejoice to see old forms of discrimination disappear," he wrote.

On Marriage, The Church And The World

On marriage in general, the Pope writes that the Catholic Church needs "a healthy dose of self-criticism" for the way it has described and presented marriage to the public.

"[W]e often present marriage in such a way that its unitive meaning, its call to grow in love and its ideal of mutual assistance are overshadowed by an almost exclusive insistence on the duty of procreation ... At times we have also proposed a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families. ...

"[W]e have often been on the defensive, wasting pastoral energy on denouncing a decadent world without being proactive in proposing ways of finding true happiness."

The pope also addressed a wide range of challenges that affect families, including poverty; migration; children with special needs; elderly relatives who need care; drug use and alcoholism; domestic violence; and a lack of affordable housing, as well as social pressures and the difficulty of addressing marital problems.

"The Synod's reflections show us that there is no stereotype of the ideal family," he writes, "but rather a challenging mosaic made up of many different realities, with all their joys, hopes and problems. "

Amoris-Laetitia

Applause, Dismay, Confusion Over Pope's Words

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, Religion News Service 04-08-2016

Print

Image via REUTERS/Tony Gentile/RNS

Pope Francis’ “Joy of Love,” a massive document released April 8 that wraps unchanged doctrine on marriage, divorce, and LGBT life in gentle terms, is getting a mixed reaction from U.S. Catholics.

It brought joy to conservative Christians who feared Francis would tamper with dogma, but less love from liberals who had hoped for a change in practices, not simply in tone. Statements flooded out from both directions. A sampling:

• Archbishop of Kentucky Joseph Kurtz, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, extolled it as “love letter to married couples and families” to realize more and more her mission to live and love as a family. “The pope traces through the Bible all the beauty of marriage and that “no obstacle is to big for Christ to overcome.”
• The Human Rights Campaign was “disappointed” that the document, issued in the pope’s Year of Mercy, did not translate into fuller inclusion for LGBT Catholics, said Mary Beth Maxwell, an HRC senior vice president. She found consolation in knowing that “in a growing number of Catholic families and parishes all across this country we are welcomed for who we are, not judged or excluded because of doctrine.”
• Conservative Catholic writer George Weigel, in the National Review, saw a thread throughout that church teachings can offer a structure for both holiness and happiness. He wrote that it says “many important things about love, marriage, the family, and the current cultural crisis of a world in which the imperial autonomous Self is running roughshod over just about everything, leaving a lot of human unhappiness in its wake.”
• Catholics for Choice, a pro-contraception and abortion-rights group, pointed out that most U.S. Catholics were not waiting for approval from their church. President Jon O’Brien called Francis’ pastoral approach “a breath of fresh air… But talking about the law in a pastoral manner does not change doctrine, and it will not change the real practice of Catholics.”

Analysis by Catholic publications also divided on which themes to highlight.

National Catholic Reporter columnist Michael Sean Winters pulled a more optimistic message from the document. He says it “challenges the Church to do more than simply repeat the Catechism and harangue the fallen… The Holy Father does not believe the pastor, still less the magisterium, should tell people what to do, but that a pastor should accompany people so that they can discern God’s activity and calling in their own lives.”

The National Catholic Register highlighted a different thread through the document, one that might disturb conservatives by muddying up traditionalist ideas of clear rules with unspecified pastoral discretion: “Francis speaks in the chapter of a ‘need to avoid judgments’ that don’t take account of the ‘complexity of various situations’ and stresses the need of ‘reaching out to everyone.’ The divorced, he writes, should not be pigeonholed in ‘overly rigid classifications,’ leaving no room for personal and pastoral discernment.”

Reaction did not only come from Catholics struggling with the complex material and conflicting ways to read it. The Rev. Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptists Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, tweeted:

Russell Moore‏@drmoore

Man. #AmorisLaetitia is a mess.

• RETWEETS10
• LIKES24
• 

7:21 AM - 8 Apr 2016

Via Religion News Service.

Cathy Lynn Grossman, Religion News Service

Cathy Lynn Grossman is a senior national correspondent for Religion News Service, specializing in stories drawn from research and statistics on religion, spirituality, and ethics.

Sermon on Jesus Rolling His Eyes (and also divorce) 16FEB14

FOR those who have suffered at the hands of the Church, from Rev Nadia Bolz Webber.....

Sermon on Jesus Rolling His Eyes (and also divorce)

February 20, 2014 By Nadia Bolz Weber 

2014-02-16 NBW Sermon<—–click here to listen along (sermons are spoken events. So much of the meaning comes from the hearing of it.)
Years ago there was a project undertaken by Bible scholars whereby they were trying to ascertain what was really knowable about Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure.  The scholars would take the Gospels, verse by verse and vote as to which things they thought Jesus actually said and which they thought were made up later. They wanted to determine the historical accuracy of Jesus’ words and actions. Now, there was more to it and perhaps this is a legitimate academic endeavor –  it’s just not a question I personally find at all interesting.  I could care less what fancy Bible scholars say is more or less historically accurate when it comes to Jesus’ teachings.  What I would be game for, is if scholars started voting on which of Jesus teachings were more or less done with his eyes rolled.  I mean there are just some texts where I feel like I can almost hear the annoyance in his voice.  Like when on the way to Jerusalem, he tells his disciples that he is about to be betrayed and handed over to the authorities, and condemned, beaten and die and then after 3 days rise again and they are like, “so when you come into your kingdom will I be seated at your right hand or will it be Steve?” – you know the guy was like…really?
I mention this because I wonder if this section from the Sermon on the Mount didn’t have an undercurrent of “I can’t believe I even have to say this to you” to it.
But he does.  He does have to say these things to us. Because we, like those who first heard them, are a forgetful people.  We need to hear what it means to uphold the 2 commandments that matter the most:  Love the Lord your God and Love the neighbor as yourself.  Because we so easily get bogged down in details, we can fail to see the big picture.
A couple weeks ago we were studying the 10 commandments in the catechumante class.  The Thou Shalt Nots of the 10 commandments are pretty recognizable to even the least religious among us.  Growing up I was taught that the law – especially the Ten Commandments – are there because they are God’s prescription for our lives.  People would say that the word Bible stood for Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. Basically the importance of the Bible is that it gives us all the rules we have to keep so that we are right with God.  God gave us these rules (and a bunch of others that the church added along the way) and they are there because God loves you and wants you to be happy.
But now I see it differently. Now I think the law is less about God loves you and wants you to be happy and more about the fact that God loves your neighbor and wants to protect them from you. And God loves and wants to protect you in so far as you are also someone’s neighbor. That is to say, that this strange God we have who created this world, and spoke through fiery prophets and freed a people from slavery and gave them a law and said they were his…this same God who came to us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and loved people so completely, this God is strange, but what God is not – is distant.  This God does not create the world, give us some rules and then leave us to it. Because what we see in the teachings and life of Jesus is that people matter. Human relationships matter to God.  The way we are treated matters to God. So some laws are established for that.
But Laws are made for us, not us for laws. That is to say, there is a spirit behind each law that at times trumps it’s letter. I know that may sound like slipping dangerously into moral relativism, but so be it.  Our obsession with moral absolutes comes from clinging to the letter of the law as though it can love us and save us when really that’s what Jesus is for.
And you know who got in trouble, like all the time, for breaking the letter of the law? Jesus. Hey Jesus, your disciples are not washing their hands.  Hey Jesus, why are you eating with sinners? Hey Jesus, we saw you heal a guy and it was the Sabbath. And as we see over and over again, Jesus had no patience for this. The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath, he would say. And that usually shut them up.  You know, until the next time.
All of that is to say that: what Jesus seems to be doing in our text for today is reminding us of the spirit of the law so that we know how to love one another.  That insulting people and being mean to them may not be murder, but it certainly does not uphold their dignity.  And again, Jesus rolls his eyes and is like, “I can’t believe I even have to say this”
What Jesus seems to be doing here is reminding us of the spirit of the law so that we know how to love one another.  That sexting and flirting and lusting over someone who is not our spouse may not be technically committing adultery but it certainly does not uphold our dignity, or that of our spouse or the object of our lust.
Jesus seems to be unfairly raising the bar on us, but in reality he’s just insisting that we not do violence to each other through loopholes. That we not put our relationship with the law above our relationships with our neighbor. And if that seems harsh and unnecessarily strict, know that he says all of this so that violence is not done to you as well. God loves you and wants to protect you.
Which brings us finally to the dreaded divorce text. This week I asked for your stories about how this text has shown up in your lives and on two occasions, the responses caused me to tear up in public, which as I’ve mentioned before is not exactly my favorite thing.
Now, I really try to not yammer on and on about the historical reality in the 1^st century. But what is important to understand is that at the time (if my memory of seminary serves), if a man divorced a woman it was often a death sentence. She relied on him for security and income.  It’s not like today when she could just go back to teaching or work in a shop to make her way.  She often would not be welcome back in her father’s home. So the reality of divorce for many women was that it sentenced them to a life of poverty and possibly begging or prostitution. So for Jesus to say, look, just providing a certificate does not get you off the hook, her dignity needs to be upheld – well, this was a way of saying that God loves you and your spouse and desires that cruelty and violence not be done to either of you. Jesus was wanting to protect women.
So, this week, as I read your stories, stories of being violently yelled at and slapped and choked and having church folk stand over you and say that God loves you only if you stay with the man who does this to you, when I read about another of you being a 24 year old woman who was literally abandoned by your husband and then how your church would no longer give you the Eucharist, when I heard of the shame felt by one of you as a divorced man who felt like he wore a scarlet letter D in church, when I heard of loveless marriages that went on for decades…I thought how the hell is it that the church can manage to take a text meant to protect people and make sure violence is not done to them, and then use this same text to do violence to so many for so long?
I don’t know what to say. I just know that it is real. And if Jesus rolled his eyes when having to re-orient his disciple’s understandings of things, I can only imagine his reaction to what has been done with his teachings about protecting people.
And so tonight, from this pulpit, and under the yoke of this stole and from the office of a clergy person and with whatever authority that still manages to hold in this world… I want to offer an apology. As a representative of the Church of Jesus Christ, please hear me say I am so sorry this happened.  If you are someone who has had violence; emotional, spiritual, physical or otherwise done to them in the name of Jesus Christ (of all names under heaven), if you have been shamed or excluded or denied what is only God’s to give, if you have been made to stay in a situation that denies your humanity or kills your soul because someone said that’s what God wants for you,… on behalf of the church, I apologize.
And let me say this one thing more: We do not serve a distant God, but one who actually cares about how you treat people and how you are treated. People matter. Relationships matter.  The diginity of human beings matters. May the church, of all institutions, uphold this truth and ask forgiveness when we do not.
Amen.

You may also like -

Sermon on Secret Codes, Wibbly Wobbly Time and the O AntiphonsSermon on Salome, Herod, and the Beheading of John the BaptistSermon: Field Notes on Grace from 10 days on the Road

Ken Cuccinelli's extreme divorce bill 18SEP13

ken cuccinelli, repiglican tea-bagger candidate for governor of Virginia continues his assault on women's rights. Consider his views on divorce....

Imagine being a mom in a bad marriage — and having to deal with extreme government regulations that make it harder for you to get a divorce over your husband's objections.

In 2008, Ken Cuccinelli wrote a bill that would have done just that:

Share this important message with your friends.

Ken Cuccinelli's attempt to enact one of the most extreme divorce laws in the country is just another example of his record of using his position as Attorney General and State Senator to attempt to regulate the most personal decisions Virginians can make — who you marry, what kind of contraception you use, and when you can end a bad marriage.

We've identified voters who'd be influenced by knowing about Cuccinelli's record. Some are on the fence and may be persuaded to support Terry, and some existing supporters may be more likely to make it to the polls.

Will you share this message on Facebook? We have a cool new tool that makes sure you're sharing it with the voters who need to hear it the most.

There's a lot on the line this November. Thanks for sharing and letting your friends know.

Chick-Fil-A's Anti-Gay Controversy: Chef Hilah Johnson Offers 'Chick-Fil-Gay' Sandwich As Alternative 18jJUL12

YA know, I used to like chick-fil-a, but since the owners find it necessary to use their money to attack the LGBT community on "religious" grounds (but not the divorced community, and scripture has a whole lot more to say about divorce and remarriage than about homosexuality, but then that would offend a whole lot of people and can chick -fil-a afford to offend that much of the market?) so I am not going to give them any more of my hard earned money. Here is a video showing how to make your very own CHICK-FIL-GAY chicken sandwich....be sure to share and BOYCOTT CHICK-FIL-A!!!!

Fried chicken fans all over the country expressed their disappointment at Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy's glib confirmation of his fast food company's support for "traditional marriage" yesterday.
Fortunately for those pro-equality foodies, however, YouTube chef and comedian Hilah Johnson has an alternative: the "Chick-fil-Gay" sandwich.
"I love fried chicken sandwiches at Chick-fil-A," Johnson explains in the clip. "The problem is, I have a lot of gay friends, and I love them, too."
As it turns out, Johnson's distaste for the company extends beyond its donations to anti-gay organizations like Exodus International and the Family Research Council: "When's the best time for a fried chicken sandwich? Sunday morning. Who is closed on Sunday morning? Chick-fil-A!"
With its pickle-juice marinade and toasted buns, the sandwich certainly sounds delicious, and as Johnson points out on her YouTube page, the recipe contains "less sugar, less salt, and less funding for anti-human-equality organizations."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/chick-fil-a-alternative-sandwich-hilah-johnson_n_1683960.html

Newt Gingrich wrong in attack against media on open marriage question from the WASHINGTON POST 26JAN12

The "reporter" at the debate set himself up for the attack from gingrich(k) and the audience response. His question was stupid. He should have asked gingrich(k) about his hypocrisy in leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton while having an affair or about his hypocrisy of giving "family values" speeches while having extramarital affairs or the hypocrisy of his opposition to same sex civil unions / marriage because they are a threat to marriage while he was having extramarital affairs. When a person is a candidate for political office and part of his candidacy involves tell the nation to clean up it's moral act while having multiple extramarital affairs that person's position should be challenged on their rhetoric and the hypocrisy of their actions. And one should remember, marianne gingrich(k) had an extramarital affair with the married newt gingrich(k) while she was married. From the Washington Post....

By Amy Gardner

It was one of the highlights of the South Carolina debate: Newt Gingrich fielding a question about one of his failed marriages, lashing out at the media, stirring the debate audience to its feet and going on to win the South Carolina primary in a landslide.
According to a CNN report late Wednesday, Gingrich misspoke on the
Republican presidential candidate former House speaker Newt Gingrich makes a point during the opening question of a debate at the North Charleston Coliseum Jan. 19., in South Carolina. (John Moore - GETTY IMAGES) debate stage when he accused ABC of airing an unfair report about his second marriage. The report included an interview with Marianne Gingrich, who accused her ex-husband of asking for an "open marriage" in the 1990s. But it didn't include interviews, Gingrich said on the debate stage last Thursday in Charleston, with people who say the charge is false.
"The story is false," Gingrich told CNN's John King at the debate. "Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican."
The Gingrich campaign conceded Wednesday that the only two people they offered to ABC were Gingrich's two daughters, from his first marriage (not Marianne Gingrich’s daughters). ABC contacted both of them and they said Marianne Gingrich’s allegations were false.
What's unclear is whether Gingrich's advisers told him otherwise.When asked Thursday morning to explain the misstatement Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond replied: “I’m not talking about ABC anymore. I’m sick of talking about ABC. It’s a week old.”
At the debate, Gingrich went on to call King "despicable" for opening the debate with a question about Gingrich's marital history. And in an interview this week with King, he said it was "just plain baloney" that that his campaign hadn't offered any other contacts beyond his daughters. But he faltered a little, looking off camera at his staff and saying: "I'll check with R.C. Hammond in a minute, but if they're saying that, they're just not being honest."
In CNN's Wednesday report, King said: "The Gingrich campaign concedes now that Speaker Gingrich was wrong, both in his debate answer and in our interview yesterday. 

Gingrich spokesman Hammond says the only people the campaign offered to ABC were the speaker's two daughters from his first marriage.