Did you hear about the new Obama Happy Meal being offered by McDonalds ?
You order whatever you like and the person behind you in line pays for it.

You're alright too, you crazy sob. I don't dislike people due to their politics. I just disagree.

No, genius. What was scandalous was HASAN MURDERING A BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. As I've been trying to point out to you, that is worlds apart from a few Catholics being denied communion. You are the one trying to draw that absurd parallel.

I quote Jesus because Christian readers believe in him.

Now let's unpack this….

"Did you see your words "the very same behavior in Christians ?" What's the double standard ? Tobin denied communion (and you called him a "smug prick"). Hasan slaughtered a bunch of people in cold blood (and you deny the jihadism in his act). The difference in scale is so immense that your point is absurd. There IS no double standard. There is no moral equivalency. You are a hater, plain and simple."

Reading comprehension is not your strongest suit. It takes calm discernment, I know, but I don't think that's asking too much.

"the very same behavior in Christians" is obviously in reference to the "Islam first, country second….Christianity first, country second" theme of my entire post.

When non-Christians say, "religion first, America second"….it's scandalous.
When Christians say, "religion first, America second"….it's not scandalous.

That's the double standard.

Hasan didn't think he should be involved in killing Muslims, even though a soldier….thus he was stating his "Islam first, country second" philosophy.

Tobin didn't think American elected officials should obey existing U.S. law, even though Tobin is looked up to in Catholic circles as a "Your excellency"…..thus he was stating his "Catholicism first, country second" philosophy.

That's what I said….that's what I documented. It simply takes some calm understanding while reading to…get it.

And he asks it immediately after he draws the moral equalivancy, by saying this, "The narrow point of my blog post was to point out the double standard many conservatives apply to Muslims, refusing even to recognize the very same behavior in Christians. Hasan was criticized for his thinking of "Islam first, country second." Bishop Tobin is instructing U.S. elected officials to think and vote, "Catholicism first, country second.""

Did you see your words "the very same behavior in Christians ?" What's the double standard ? Tobin denied communion (and you called him a "smug prick"). Hasan slaughtered a bunch of people in cold blood (and you deny the jihadism in his act). The difference in scale is so immense that your point is absurd. There IS no double standard. There is no moral equivalency. You are a hater, plain and simple.

I've been reading your hate for a long time now. I didn't wake up this morning and decide to try a new tactic on you by calling you a hater. I've been listening to your hate speech for years. You've proven it beyond doubt. Bringing up a Catholic denying communion in the same breath with a mass murderer is a sign of an unbalanced mind, just like your "has the war begun?' post was that I mentioned on my blog. "Hater" describes you, I'm sad to say. I wish it wasn't the case. Your posts are filled with constant hateful vitriol, name-calling, and profanity directed toward anything or anyone you disagree with, to the point that it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.

"Only the Reverend could find a moral equivalence between Hasan slaughtering a bunch of people and Tobin denying communion."

Did I say that Hasan's mass murdering of soldiers was, in any way, morally equivalent to Tobin denying Kennedy the Host? If so, you'll have to show it to me…and, you know, I wrote the damn thing.

See my response to Aaron about the intent of the posting.

"The Reverend hates the Catholics, along with a slew of other people. These foul-mouthed bigoted comments of his don't even merit a response anymore. It's just out-and-out hate speech."

Conservatives and, apparently, Libertarians….can't differentiate between "hate" and viewpoint. My in-laws are all Catholic…do you believe I "hate" them all? Because I point out the realities of Catholicism doesn't mean I hate Catholics anymore than pointing out the realities of Islam translates into hating Muslims.

But this one thing I know……very few of the elitists,…. bishops, cardinals, popes….believe the bull they spout everytime they don the vestments. If these religious leaders were truly moral and deserving of respect….they would have protested their own church's handling of the immoral pedophilia ring the oh-so-righteous hierarchy was covering up.

Jesus was clear. The church leaders were the most immoral of all people. He told them they were born of Satan, which in 1st century Jewish circles would be pretty close to eff-em. Think Jesus was bigoted and a hater, you know, like me? Or, perhaps you agree with the Pharisees of old that Jesus only spouted hate speech.

Saying that religion poisons everything, Hitchens' line, doesn't translate into 'people who attend church poison everything.' It's not the people who believe the religion…it's the religion. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Patrick Kennedy represents his constituency, not the Pope or Catholic Doctrine. Kennedy is bound by oath to follow the laws of America and the Constitution…not some Bishop's self-righteous threat about sacrament availability. And as you know, just like with contraception, not all Catholics pass the litmus test you are proposing for all Catholics when it comes to abortion.

Now let's take this up….

"showing me how little you understand about
the Catholic faith. The receiving of Communion is not a 'right' within the church, and any person who knows themselves guilty of a sin should not receive it. There is a HUGE different between excommunication (which you seem to be attributing to the bishop here, by the reaction) and denying someone eucharist."

What does, "he who is without sin can throw the first stone", mean? By your standards, no Catholic, ever, would have the "right" to the wafer. Or was Jesus mistaken?

On the suggestion that I'm confused about sacrament denial and excommunication…..what if Kennedy, denied the grace of god in the sacrament of communion, dies with sins on his head? He's in potential trouble with god, right? Otherwise, what's the purpose of those sacraments?

My lack of understanding about Catholic teachings has…umm…taught me that Catholic Doctrine is clear here…..god's grace is available to man through the sacraments of the church and only throught those sacraments. The Eucharist is one of those sacraments. Bishop Tobin instructed priests to deny Kennedy god's grace in the Eucharist. Grace saves….even in Catholic teachings…thus Tobin was jeopardizing Kennedy's eternal welfare.

I'm sorry that you are sad about the direction this discussion has taken. The narrow point of my blog post was to point out the double standard many conservatives apply to Muslims, refusing even to recognize the very same behavior in Christians. Hasan was criticized for his thinking of "Islam first, country second." Bishop Tobin is instructing U.S. elected officials to think and vote, "Catholicism first, country second."

Seems clear to me.

This latest post leaves me very sad, showing me how little you understand about
the Catholic faith. The receiving of Communion is not a 'right' within the church, and any person who knows themselves guilty of a sin should not receive it. There is a HUGE different between excommunication (which you seem to be attributing to the bishop here, by the reaction) and denying someone eucharist.

If a person claims to be Catholic, then one would think you would uphold and support what the Catholic church teaches. The big question here is why Patrick Kennedy considers himself Catholic?