AP: Novelist Anne Rice says she's leaving Christianity

[Aloysius J. Gleek]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jaR7TaVx0l6KHJ6xerMe1gl0xYqQD9H92BTG0


Novelist Anne Rice says she's leaving Christianity
By HILLEL ITALIE (AP) – 4 days ago



NEW YORK — Anne Rice has had a religious conversion: She's no longer a Christian.

"In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control," the author wrote Wednesday on her Facebook page. ["I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being 'Christian' or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to 'belong' to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-llife.] In the name of ... Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."

Rice, 68, is best known for "Interview With a Vampire" and other gothic novels. Raised as a Catholic, she had rejected the church early in her life but renewed her faith in recent years and in 2008 released the memoir "Called Out of Darkness: A Spiritual Confession."

In a telephone interview Thursday, Rice said she had been having doubts for the past two to three years. She was troubled by the child abuse scandals in the church, and the church's defensive reaction, and by the ex-communication of Sister Margaret McBride, a nun and hospital administrator who had approved an abortion for a woman whose life was in danger.

"I believed for a long time that the differences, the quarrels among Christians didn't matter a lot for the individual, that you live your life and stay out of it. But then I began to realize that it wasn't an easy thing to do," said Rice, speaking from her home near Palm Springs, Calif. "I came to the conclusion that if I didn't make this declaration, I was going to lose my mind."

Rice said she is a Democrat who supports the health care legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama and believes gay marriage inevitably will be permitted throughout the country. Although no longer part of any denomination, she remains a believer and continues to read theology and post Biblical passages on her Facebook page. She has no immediate plans to write about her leaving the church and will continue with her metaphysical fiction series, "Songs of the Seraphim."

Rice will not be taking up vampires again, but she said she is a big fan of the HBO series "True Blood," enjoyed the first two "Twilight" movies (she has yet to read any of the Stephenie Meyer novels) and is interested in seeing her most famous character, the vampire Lestat de Lioncourt, return to the screen.

"We're in talks about it," she said. "But then we've always been in talks about it. Hope springs eternal in California."

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[delalluvia]

I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control

Where has Anne Rice been?  The Catholic Church has been this way for sometime.  Like centuries.  Yet she rejoined a few years back, knowing this full well.

Did she forget?

 

[louisev]

very good question, Del.  It was certainly like that long before she was born and hasn't changed.  Maybe she thought she had done Catholicism a huge favor by returning to it and they would all change FOR HER. She started in writing her own "life of Christ" epic, so something tells me it was less her going back to the church than her making it her topic du jour.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control

Where has Anne Rice been?  The Catholic Church has been this way for sometime.  Like centuries.  Yet she rejoined a few years back, knowing this full well.

Did she forget?

 

Perhaps it was selective--or opportunistic--amnesia.

Oh, and by the way, note to whomever: Don't think I haven't noticed that my comments from this morning--and Louise's too--have mysteriously disappeared. While I suspect the reason that would be given was irrelevance to Anne Rice, I'm sure the real reason is anti-Christian bias that can't abide to hear anything good about any branches of Christianity.

Del, I'm actually not talking to you this time.

[delalluvia]

Just seems weird.  I've heard others say it's calculated - something about her book sales.

But didn't she first leave the Catholic Church because her child died, and then for all practical purposes, rejoined when her husband died?

[pnwDUDE]

While I have enjoyed most of her books and a few by her son, I have come to the conclusion she is nothing but an attention hog. Who really cares about her religion?

Brad

[Monika]

why would anyone want to criticise Rice for leaving an organisation that she perceives as being against gay rights?

[Front-Ranger]

Your posts and Louise's didn't disappear friend. They are just where you put them over on David's blog.

[serious crayons]

Oh, and by the way, note to whomever: Don't think I haven't noticed that my comments from this morning--and Louise's too--have mysteriously disappeared. While I suspect the reason that would be given was irrelevance to Anne Rice, I'm sure the real reason is anti-Christian bias that can't abide to hear anything good about any branches of Christianity.

This it?

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,36047.msg581899.html#msg581899

Your posts and Louise's didn't disappear friend. They are just where you put them over on David's blog.

Thanks, FRiend.

[serious crayons]

While I have enjoyed most of her books and a few by her son, I have come to the conclusion she is nothing but an attention hog. Who really cares about her religion?

As someone who shared a city with her for a while, I totally agree -- except the part about enjoying her and her son's books.

[Marge_Innavera]

I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control

Where has Anne Rice been?  The Catholic Church has been this way for sometime.  Like centuries.  Yet she rejoined a few years back, knowing this full well.

Did she forget?

 

IMO this is something that legitimately puzzles a lot of people -- how someone could stay in a religious institution that blatantly opposes their ideals and morals.  The idea that one particular human insitution is the exclusive road to enlightenment and union with the Creator is still alive and well.

As far as "who would care" about her religion, I'd guess that some of her readers would care, and she does  have a very large readership. People who aren't interested just don't have to read about it.

Never been an Anne Rice fan, but I find the hostility here toward this news more than a little disappointing.  Maybe people would like to contact NPR expressing disapproval of their interviewing her about this recently.

[serious crayons]

I saw this in my local paper, but don't have the URL to the original Miami Herald column.

Masses find
religion a bit less soothing

It's less a crisis of faith and more a
crisis of confidence in the
organizations.

By LEONARD PITTS JR., Miami Herald


"Today, I quit being a Christian."

With those words last week on Facebook,
Anne Rice delivered a wake-up call for
organized religion. The question is whether it
will be recognized as such.

"I remain committed to Christ as always," she
wrote, "but not to being 'Christian' or to
being part of Christianity. It's simply
impossible for me to 'belong' to this
quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and
deservedly infamous group. For 10 years,
I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My
conscience will allow nothing else."

You will recall that the author, famed for her
vampire novels, made a much-publicized
return to the Catholicism of her youth after
years of calling herself an atheist. Now, years
later, she says she hasn't lost her faith,
but she's had it up to here with organized
religion.

"In the name of Christ," she wrote, "I refuse
to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I
refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I
refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be
anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-
science. I refuse to be anti-life."

If that was not nearly enough for Rice's
atheist observers -- one of whom berated
her online for refusing to completely give up
her "superstitious delusions" -- it was surely
plenty for people of faith. But Rice is hardly
the only one who feels as she does.

According to a 2008 study by Trinity College,
religiosity is trending down sharply in this
country. The American Religious
Identification Survey, which polled more than
54,000 American adults, found that the
percentage who call themselves Christian has
fallen by 10 since 1990 (from 86.2 percent to
76 percent), while the percentage of those
who claim no religious affiliation has almost
doubled (from 8.2 to 15).

Small wonder atheist manifestos are doing
brisk business at bookstores and Bill
Maher's skeptical "Religulous" finds an appreciative
audience in theaters. Organized religion, Christianity in particular, is on the
decline, and it has no one to blame but itself:
It traded moral authority for political power.

To put that another way: The Christian Bible
contains numerous exhortations to serve
those who are wretched and poor, to anger
slowly and forgive promptly, to walk through
this life in humility and faith. The word
"Republican" does not appear in the book.
Not once.

Yet somehow in the last 30 years, people of
faith were hustled and hoodwinked into
regarding the GOP platform as a lost gospel.
Somehow, low taxes for the wealthy and
deregulation of industry became the very
message of Christ. Somehow, hostility to
science, gays, Muslims and immigrants
became the very meaning of faith. And
somehow Christianity became -- or at least,
came to seem -- a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Republican Party.

Consider that, after the election of 2004, a
church in North Carolina made news for
kicking out nine congregants because they
committed the un-Christian act of ... voting
for Democrat John Kerry.

Who can blame people for saying, "If that's
faith, count me out?" Has atheism
ever had a better salesman than Jerry Falwell, who
blamed the Sept. 11 attacks on the ACLU --
or Pat Robertson, who laid Haiti's earthquake
off on an ancient curse?

But what of those who are not atheists? What
of those who feel the blessed assurance that
there is more to this existence than what we
can see or empirically prove? What of those
who seek a magnificent faith that commits
and compels, and find churches offering only
a shriveled faith that marginalizes and
demeans?

Its response to those seekers will determine
the future of organized religion.

[brokeplex]

"In the name of Christ," she wrote, "I refuse
to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I
refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I
refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be
anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-
science. I refuse to be anti-life


but ---- has Rice found the grace to refuse to be angry and to find peace in her life?

and has Pitts found the integrity to be "unbiased"?

I'll pray for them both. 

[delalluvia]

"In the name of Christ," she wrote, "I refuse
to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I
refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I
refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be
anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-
science. I refuse to be anti-life


but ---- has Rice found the grace to refuse to be angry and to find peace in her life?

and has Pitts found the integrity to be "unbiased"?

I'll pray for them both. 

Who said Rice was angry?  One can be fed up without being angry.

Biased...well, truthful, might be another way of looking at it. 

[serious crayons]

and has Pitts found the integrity to be "unbiased"?

Why would you equate bias with lack of "integrity" for a man whose job it is to offer his personal opinion?

Of course Leonard Pitts is biased, just as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow are biased. They're supposed to be. Of course, it's fair to criticize the nature and content of those biases if you disagree with them, but makes no sense to criticize them for exhibiting bias in the first place.

Or perhaps you misunderstood, as I failed to supply the URL, but Leonard Pitts is a newspaper columnist who writes for the opinion page, not a news reporter. If so, I apologize for the my part in the confusion.

Feel free to pray for Pitts and Rice if you like, but I believe there are others on the planet more in need of your prayers than a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist and a best-selling novelist.  


 

[Brown Eyes]

Who said Rice was angry?  One can be fed up without being angry.

I don't even think there's anything wrong with being angry or expressing anger sometimes (especially in this case where the anger is directed at an intstitution or entity rather than an individual).   As long as it isn't hurting someone else, I think well-directed anger can lead to productive change sometimes.

[Marge_Innavera]

"In the name of Christ," she wrote, "I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life


but ---- has Rice found the grace to refuse to be angry and to find peace in her life?

and has Pitts found the integrity to be "unbiased"?

I'll pray for them both. 

I'm sure they'll both be thrilled -- but for the record, Leonard Pitts is a columnist.  He hasn't made any claims to being "unbiased" and his expressing an opinion is no evidence of a lack of integrity. 

Ms. Rice would do better to continue looking for a resolution than "finding peace" by backtracking.

[delalluvia]

I don't even think there's anything wrong with being angry or expressing anger sometimes (especially in this case where the anger is directed at an intstitution or entity rather than an individual).   As long as it isn't hurting someone else, I think well-directed anger can lead to productive change sometimes.

Ideally, following Christ is all about forgiving and forgetting offenses.  Hence Bill's comment about anger.

[brokeplex]

Who said Rice was angry?  One can be fed up without being angry.

Biased...well, truthful, might be another way of looking at it. 

she sounds angry to me, I could be wrong, but that was my impression. and it seems that she herself is interjecting politics into religion in a way that the author of the commentary piece about her is objecting to in the Republican party. so I would add hypocritical to biased in regard to the author of the op ed piece.

[brokeplex]

Why would you equate bias with lack of "integrity" for a man whose job it is to offer his personal opinion?
Of course Leonard Pitts is biased, just as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow are biased. They're supposed to be. Of course, it's fair to criticize the nature and content of those biases if you disagree with them, but makes no sense to criticize them for exhibiting bias in the first place.

Sure I am familiar with Pitts, some of his columns occasionally appear in the local Startlegram. And yes its an Op-Ed piece and yes its biased, and yes its also partisan and hypocritical, and no it isn't fair to compare a Dinosaur media journalist with pretensions of "evenhandedness" to someone like Limbaugh who is openly biased and eschews the MSM. Now Rachael Madcow is an excellent example of a mainstream journalist who has become extremely partisan and biased, a bit like Pitts.

People like Pitts and Madcow want to have their cake and eat it too, sorry but you can't be regarded both as a professional journalist and turn out biased partisan hit pieces, or in the case of Pitts make it his mission to promote Obama back in 2007 / 2008.   

[brokeplex]

I don't even think there's anything wrong with being angry or expressing anger sometimes (especially in this case where the anger is directed at an intstitution or entity rather than an individual).   As long as it isn't hurting someone else, I think well-directed anger can lead to productive change sometimes.

well, I see a difference between having a right to be angry or justified in being angry on the one hand, and expressing that anger in an inappropriate context. I feel expressing her political objections to the practices of the RC church within the context of discussion her Xianity is inappropriate. If she is uncomfortable with the church, she should have the grace to simply leave and find a different path of salvation. It is anger that clouds our relationship with God and hides His plan from us, and because of her well-deserved high regard as a novelist (I too am a fan) her statements will adversely affect others.

I think that Rice needs to learn about the Xian concept of grace.

[brokeplex]

Ideally, following Christ is all about forgiving and forgetting offenses.  Hence Bill's comment about anger.

thank you, that is part of my definition of grace (within the Xian concept)

[Monika]

well, I see a difference between having a right to be angry or justified in being angry on the one hand, and expressing that anger in an inappropriate context. I feel expressing her political objections to the practices of the RC church within the context of discussion her Xianity is inappropriate. If she is uncomfortable with the church, she should have the grace to simply leave and find a different path of salvation. It is anger that clouds our relationship with God and hides His plan from us, and because of her well-deserved high regard as a novelist (I too am a fan) her statements will adversely affect others.

I think that Rice needs to learn about the Xian concept of grace.

as a non-christian I really can´t get into any of the christian arguments, but as a human being I know it´s pretty healthy to be angry at times.
And if she wishes to express angriness towards an organisation (the Chatolic church) that is anti-gay, I think that is pretty healthy too.
I would not equate grace with shutting your mouth when you see something that is wrong.

And possibly it will affects others, and maybe that is what she wants to do.

It sounds as you know how to find the salvation you are looking for, and that is all good. But maybe other christians have found different paths.

[brokeplex]

as a non-christian I really can´t get into any of the christian arguments, but as a human being I know it´s pretty healthy to be angry at times.
And if she wishes to express angriness towards an organisation (the Chatolic church) that is anti-gay, I think that is pretty healthy too.
I would not equate grace with shutting your mouth when you see something that is wrong.

And possibly it will affects others, and maybe that is what she wants to do.

It sounds as you know how to find the salvation you are looking for, and that is all good. But maybe other christians have found different paths.

I would never want anyone to remain silent, but it is inappropriate to express the type of political anger she is expressing within the context of the church. She simply needs to find another path for herself and pray for the church.

[louisev]

she sounds angry to me, I could be wrong, but that was my impression. and it seems that she herself is interjecting politics into religion in a way that the author of the commentary piece about her is objecting to in the Republican party. so I would add hypocritical to biased in regard to the author of the op ed piece.

it wasn't Anne Rice who mixed politics with religion: it was the RC Church spending tens of millions, along with their Mormon allies, which funded the Proposition 8 campaign and have poured their tithings into anti-gay legislative action.  She is merely condemning their actions.

[serious crayons]

Sure I am familiar with Pitts, some of his columns occasionally appear in the local Startlegram. And yes its an Op-Ed piece and yes its biased, and yes its also partisan and hypocritical, and no it isn't fair to compare a Dinosaur media journalist with pretensions of "evenhandedness" to someone like Limbaugh who is openly biased and eschews the MSM. Now Rachael Madcow is an excellent example of a mainstream journalist who has become extremely partisan and biased, a bit like Pitts.

People like Pitts and Madcow want to have their cake and eat it too, sorry but you can't be regarded both as a professional journalist and turn out biased partisan hit pieces, or in the case of Pitts make it his mission to promote Obama back in 2007 / 2008. 

I don't understand your point here, or why you don't distinguish between straight-news journalists and op-ed pundits, or why you find it necessary to name-call in so many of your posts.

All I know is, it shouldn't be surprising or dismaying to see people who are paid to express their opinions, express their opinions. It's fine to disagree with some or all of the opinions, but absurd to object to them doing their jobs. None of the people you mentioned is expected to be unbiased.

[brokeplex]

it wasn't Anne Rice who mixed politics with religion: it was the RC Church spending tens of millions, along with their Mormon allies, which funded the Proposition 8 campaign and have poured their tithings into anti-gay legislative action.  She is merely condemning their actions.

actually I condemn both, I think that the mission of the church should not be political, whether it is my church SBC or the LDS or RC - all need to concentrate on the healing ministry of Christ. That said, Rice is forsaking grace by turning a personal religious conviction into a political football.

as point of clarification, if individual Catholics, or Mormons, or SBC members choose to pour their tithings into a political action that is different than the churches themselves funding political operations. But, just as I would prefer that Rice seek grace thru a personal private relationship with the Lord, I also would prefer that individual Xians NOT use their tithings for political operations. (and they won't get an individual deduction if their tithings go into a political campaign)

[Monika]

actually I condemn both, I think that the mission of the church should not be political, whether it is my church SBC or the LDS or RC - all need to concentrate on the healing ministry of Christ. That said, Rice is forsaking grace by turning a personal religious conviction into a political football.

as point of clarification, if individual Catholics, or Mormons, or SBC members choose to pour their tithings into a political action that is different than the churches themselves funding political operations. But, just as I would prefer that Rice seek grace thru a personal private relationship with the Lord, I also would prefer that individual Xians NOT use their tithings for political operations. (and they won't get an individual deduction if their tithings go into a political campaign)

The church is and has been very active and not some silent bystander. The chatolic church for example has spread disinformation regarding condoms in parts of Africa, with the purpose to stop people from using them.
The consequences of this, I´m sure you can guess.

I too would wish that the church was simply about "a personal private relationship with god" but it´s not. It´s very political and has been throughout history.

And this doesn´t seem to be about Rice´s personal relationship with her god at all, but it´s rather about her relationship with the church. It´s the church that she critizises - not the religion itself.

[brokeplex]

I too would wish that the church was simply about "a personal private relationship with god" but it´s not. It´s very political and has been throughout history.
And this doesn´t seem to beabout Rice´s personal relationship with her god at all, but it´s rather about her relationship with the church. It´s the church that she critizises - not the religion itself.

sure, I understand that all Xian churches - in particular the RC denom - have been involved, sometimes deeply, in politics. I don't try to defend their actions in Africa or in supporting Prop 8 in CA. However, as individual Xians we don't have to allow the church organization any control over our lives, we can have a personal relationship with Christ. Rice, being a very public person, makes her private disagreement with the RC church a public football when she chooses to publicly separate from them over political issues. Hence, Dinosaur Media opportunists such as the Op-Ed columnist sited above, take advantage of her disagreement to make a political point, unrelated to either Rice of the RC church. If Rice didn't understand that this would happen then she is remarkably naive, but I tend to think that she intended her disagreement to fuel anti-GOP propaganda. 

[brokeplex]

I don't understand your point here, or why you don't distinguish between straight-news journalists and op-ed pundits, or why you find it necessary to name-call in so many of your posts.
All I know is, it shouldn't be surprising or dismaying to see people who are paid to express their opinions, express their opinions. It's fine to disagree with some or all of the opinions, but absurd to object to them doing their jobs. None of the people you mentioned is expected to be unbiased.

in this case I am calling the kettle beige because it is beige - as for name calling, lets look at Pitts Op-Ed piece as primer on how to name call. rather clever of him until you realize that he is using a disagreement between Rice and her former church to make pedestrian political point.

1) there is no such creature as an Op-Ed journalist - if a commentator chooses to use newpaper columns to voice his or her agenda then they are not journalists - period.
2) Pitts is an Op-Ed columnist, just like dozens of others who either chose to mask their partisanship or openly advertise it. Pitts is hypocritical about his partisanship, Krauthammer for example is not.
3) As a Rush 24 / 7 member since the late 1990's, I most definitely have no problem with people being paid to express their opinions - I participate in the honest end of that cycle. Pitts is a part of the dishonest end centered on the MSM.

[Monika]

sure, I understand that all Xian churches - in particular the RC denom - have been involved, sometimes deeply, in politics. I don't try to defend their actions in Africa or in supporting Prop 8 in CA. However, as individual Xians we don't have to allow the church organization any control over our lives, we can have a personal relationship with Christ. Rice, being a very public person, makes her private disagreement with the RC church a public football when she chooses to publicly separate from them over political issues. Hence, Dinosaur Media opportunists such as the Op-Ed columnist sited above, take advantage of her disagreement to make a political point, unrelated to either Rice of the RC church. If Rice didn't understand that this would happen then she is remarkably naive, but I tend to think that she intended her disagreement to fuel anti-GOP propaganda. 

we simply have to agree to disagree, Brokeplex. I believe than any organisation that excerts power of any kind should be scrutinized and critizised when needed and in my opinion, Anne Rice has as much right to that as anyone else.

[brokeplex]

we simply have to agree to disagree, Brokeplex. I believe than any organisation that excerts power of any kind should be scrutinized and critizised when needed and in my opinion, Anne Rice has as much right to that as anyone else.

yes, we will respectfully disagree. although we both seem to agree that Rice has a right to criticize, I do not think her action was appropriate in that instance. 

[serious crayons]

in this case I am calling the kettle beige because it is beige

Hunh?

- as for name calling, lets look at Pitts Op-Ed piece as primer on how to name call.

OK. I looked back at Pitts' op-ed piece. Didn't see any name-calling.

rather clever of him until you realize that he is using a disagreement between Rice and her former church to make pedestrian political point.

Finally, an observation that makes sense. Not an opinion I particularly hold myself, but it is a perfectly valid, if arguable, opinion.

1) there is no such creature as an Op-Ed journalist - if a commentator chooses to use newpaper columns to voice his or her agenda then they are not journalists - period.

I wouldn't call them that, either. You're the one who applied the term to Pitts and Maddow. I'm not sure why.

2) Pitts is an Op-Ed columnist, just like dozens of others who either chose to mask their partisanship or openly advertise it. Pitts is hypocritical about his partisanship, Krauthammer for example is not.

Hunh, again? How so? Perhaps you know something about Pitts that I don't. I've read his columns from time to time over the years, and always perceived him as a left-leaning commentator. Has he ever pretended otherwise, or attempted to "mask" that? Can you link to columns where he was "hypocritical about his partisanship"?

3) As a Rush 24 / 7 member since the late 1990's, I most definitely have no problem with people being paid to express their opinions - I participate in the honest end of that cycle. Pitts is a part of the dishonest end centered on the MSM.

Again, if you want to make this point credibly, you should provide some evidence.

[brokeplex]

1) Hunh?
2) OK. I looked back at Pitts' op-ed piece. Didn't see any name-calling.

1) a throw away line from the 1970 film "Boys in the Band" a take off on the pot calling the kettle black - I guess you had to be there to enjoy the memory of those days.

2) I'll try to highlight the partisan name calling and distortions by selectively quoting his piece. But these quotations show how Pitts has used Rice's comments to make a partisan point. 
 
"The word "Republican" does not appear in the book(Gospels?).
Not once.
Yet somehow in the last 30 years, people of
faith were hustled and hoodwinked into
regarding the GOP platform as a lost gospel.
Somehow, low taxes for the wealthy and
deregulation of industry became the very
message of Christ. Somehow, hostility to
science, gays, Muslims and immigrants
became the very meaning of faith. And
somehow Christianity became -- or at least,
came to seem -- a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Republican Party.
Consider that, after the election of 2004, a
church in North Carolina made news for
kicking out nine congregants because they
committed the un-Christian act of ... voting
for Democrat John Kerry.
Who can blame people for saying, "If that's
faith, count me out?" Has atheism
ever had a better salesman than Jerry Falwell, who
blamed the Sept. 11 attacks on the ACLU --
or Pat Robertson, who laid Haiti's earthquake
off on an ancient curse?
a shriveled faith that marginalizes and
demeans?"

[serious crayons]

2) I'll try to highlight the partisan name calling and distortions by selectively quoting his piece.

OK. I've now read that passage for the third or fourth time. I can see why you might disagree with it. I can even see parts that might arguably be called "distortions." What I don't see is name-calling.

But these quotations show how Pitts has used Rice's comments to make a partisan point.   

Yeah? And again: so what? Whoever said an op-ed columnist isn't supposed to be partisan? Almost all of them are, quite unabashedly, since that's their job. Most opinion-page editors even make a stab at providing a balance of them on the left and right.

[brokeplex]

OK. I've now read that passage for the third or fourth time. I can see why you might disagree with it. I can even see parts that might arguably be called "distortions." What I don't see is name-calling.
Yeah? And again: so what? Whoever said an op-ed columnist isn't supposed to be partisan? Almost all of them are, quite unabashedly, since that's their job. Most opinion-page editors even make a stab at providing a balance of them on the left and right.

and that is why Pitts is clever - he doesn't outright call Republicans and Xians who are also Republicans - apostates, hostile bigots, and superstitious - oh, no he implies it very clearly.

sure, some of my favorite op-eds are partisan, I just have a problem when they try to pass themselves off as journalists.

[serious crayons]

sure, some of my favorite op-eds are partisan, I just have a problem when they try to pass themselves off as journalists.

Then you'll have no problem with Leonard Pitts, because he does not "try to pass himself off" as a journalist. He's not a journalist. He's a columnist. He won a Pulitzer for "commentary," which means "opinion writing." If you look up his bio at the Miami Herald, you will not see the word "journalist." The person who introduced that word into this discussion is you. And I'm not sure whether you keep at it as some strange kind of straw man argument, or because despite our going over this several times now it's still not clear.

http://www.miamiherald.com/leonard_pitts/

[brokeplex]

"Leonard Pitts, Jr. is an American commentator, journalist and novelist. He is a nationally-syndicated columnist and winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. He was originally hired by the Miami Herald to critique music, but within a few years he received his own column in which he dealt extensively with race, politics, and culture. He lives in Bowie, Maryland. He has won awards for his writing from the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Society of Newspaper Editors, and was first nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in 1993, eventually claiming the honor in 2004"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Pitts

In 2004 Pitts won the Pulitzer "Journalism" award for commentary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Pulitzer_Prize 

Leonard Pitts Biography

At a Glance …
Born on October 11, 1957, in Orange, CA; son of Leonard Garvey Pitts and Agnes Rowan Pitts; married Marilyn Vernice Pickens, June 27, 1981; children: two. Education: University of Southern California, BA, English, 1977.

Career:
Soul magazine, Los Angeles, writer and editor, 1976-80; KFWB radio, Los Angeles, writer, 1980-83;Radioscope, Los Angeles, 1983-86; Westwood One, Inc., Culver City, CA, writer, 1989-91; extensive freelance music journalism, 1970s and 1980s; Miami Herald, Miami, FL, music writer, 1991-95; columnist, 1995–; Scripps Howard Visiting Professional, Hampton University, Hampton, VA, 2004.

Selected memberships:
National Association of Black Journalists, American Association of Sunday and Feature Editors, Florida Society of Newspaper Editors.

Selected awards:
Pulitzer Prize nomination, 1992, 2000; National Association of Black Journalists, award of excellence in commentary, 1994, 1995; National Society of Newspaper Columnists, Columnist of the Year, 2002; Scripps Howard Foundation, National Journalism Award, 2002; Pulitzer Prize, for commentary, 2004.

Addresses:
Office—Miami Herald, One Herald Plaza, Miami, FL 33132.

Read more: Leonard Pitts Jr. Biography - American, Black, Music, Columnist, Writing, and Writer http://biography.jrank.org/pages/2873/Pitts-Leonard-Jr.html#ixzz0wJit51Wf

http://biography.jrank.org/pages/2873/Pitts-Leonard-Jr.html 

[brokeplex]

Then you'll have no problem with Leonard Pitts, because he does not "try to pass himself off" as a journalist. He's not a journalist. He's a columnist. He won a Pulitzer for "commentary," which means "opinion writing." If you look up his bio at the Miami Herald, you will not see the word "journalist." The person who introduced that word into this discussion is you. And I'm not sure whether you keep at it as some strange kind of straw man argument, or because despite our going over this several times now it's still not clear.

http://www.miamiherald.com/leonard_pitts/

apparently, he has received journalism awards and is a member of a professional journalism society.

[Marge_Innavera]

and that is why Pitts is clever - he doesn't outright call Republicans and Xians who are also Republicans - apostates, hostile bigots, and superstitious - oh, no he implies it very clearly.

How about naming some of his specific statements that you'd object to?  


For people who'd rather go straight to the source, here's a source for Mr. Pitts' columns:  
http://www.leonardpittsjr.com/recent_columns.html

and

http://www.leonardpittsjr.com/everything-else.html

[serious crayons]

apparently, he has received journalism awards and is a member of a professional journalism society.

Oh, now you're just hair-splitting. The Pulitzer Prize also has categories for fiction, drama, poetry and music. Does that make novelists, playwrights, poets and composers also journalists? And yes, Pitts apparently wrote some straight journalism years ago -- mostly, it seems from his bio, musicians' profiles.

But he's not writing musicians' profiles now. Now he is a commentator. Writing opinion pieces. That's his current job.

Criticizing opinion pieces for failing to be straight journalism, then pointing to the fact that the writer was a journalist at some earlier point in his career as evidence that he should still be doing that, is a lame stretch. You might as well hold up Tina Fey's SNL impersonation as an example of journalism's distortions of Sarah Palin. Oh wait, you did that, too.

For someone who is constantly denigrating the so-called "dinosaur media" you sure come up short on examples of its actual failings.

[brokeplex]

How about naming some of his specific statements that you'd object to?  


For people who'd rather go straight to the source, here's a source for Mr. Pitts' columns:  
http://www.leonardpittsjr.com/recent_columns.html

and

http://www.leonardpittsjr.com/everything-else.html

I did above, but here it is again.

"The word "Republican" does not appear in the book(Gospels?).
Not once.
Yet somehow in the last 30 years, people of
faith were hustled and hoodwinked into
regarding the GOP platform as a lost gospel.
Somehow, low taxes for the wealthy and
deregulation of industry became the very
message of Christ. Somehow, hostility to
science, gays, Muslims and immigrants
became the very meaning of faith. And
somehow Christianity became -- or at least,
came to seem -- a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Republican Party.
Consider that, after the election of 2004, a
church in North Carolina made news for
kicking out nine congregants because they
committed the un-Christian act of ... voting
for Democrat John Kerry.
Who can blame people for saying, "If that's
faith, count me out?" Has atheism
ever had a better salesman than Jerry Falwell, who
blamed the Sept. 11 attacks on the ACLU --
or Pat Robertson, who laid Haiti's earthquake
off on an ancient curse?
a shriveled faith that marginalizes and
demeans?"

[brokeplex]

You might as well hold up Tina Fey's SNL impersonation as an example of journalism's distortions of Sarah Palin. Oh wait, you did that, too.

For someone who is constantly denigrating the so-called "dinosaur media" you sure come up short on examples of its actual failings.

no, no, no, no - I said at the time, and later, that the "Fey"  episode was an example of popular culture in lockstep with the Dinosaur Media.

why, I have written reams about the bias and actual partisanship of the Dinosaurs.

If you choose to think of Pitts as a non journalist commentator - like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter, OK fine by me, I will join you in judging him by a different standard.

but, if he is no longer a journalist, then he needs to leave all those Professional Journalist societies he belongs to.

Pitts is not a journalist - so let it be written , so let it be done! 

[serious crayons]

I did above, but here it is again.

I think she's asking you to name actual objections, because the passage you have twice quoted contains nothing that all that objectionable.  No lies. No name-calling. Partisan, sure, but as we've established ad nauseum, that's his job. The worst I see here are a couple of bits of writerly exaggeration that aren't factual but aren't really unusual in an op-ed piece. Please don't make me start mining Glenn, Rush and Ann for far, far more egregious examples. There are whole websites devoted to the verbal atrocities of those guys, and I really don't feel like wading into that ... muck ... right now.

To annotate:

"The word "Republican" does not appear in the book(Gospels?).
Not once.

Fact, AFAIK.

Yet somehow in the last 30 years, people of
faith were hustled and hoodwinked into
regarding the GOP platform as a lost gospel.

Arguably exaggerated but valid opinion, based on large overlap between religious and political conservatives, and use of one as basis for the other.

Somehow, low taxes for the wealthy and
deregulation of industry became the very
message of Christ.

Hyperbole.

Somehow, hostility to
science, gays, Muslims and immigrants
became the very meaning of faith.

The first three, simple fact. Christianity has been used as a basis for arguments against teaching science in schools, gay rights and Islam. The fourth is possibly less defensible unless he's thinking of something I'm not.

And somehow Christianity became -- or at least,
came to seem -- a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Republican Party.

Hyperbole, but the "came to seem" qualifies it.

Consider that, after the election of 2004, a
church in North Carolina made news for
kicking out nine congregants because they
committed the un-Christian act of ... voting
for Democrat John Kerry.

Not familiar with this incident, but it sounds verifiable.

Who can blame people for saying, "If that's
faith, count me out?"

Valid opinion.

Has atheism
ever had a better salesman than Jerry Falwell, who
blamed the Sept. 11 attacks on the ACLU --
or Pat Robertson, who laid Haiti's earthquake
off on an ancient curse?

Valid opinion based on simple facts.

a shriveled faith that marginalizes and
demeans?"

Valid opinion.

[serious crayons]

no, no, no, no - I said at the time, and later, that the "Fey"  episode was an example of popular culture in lockstep with the Dinosaur Media.

As I said at the time and later, blaming journalism for an SNL skit is just plain silly.

If you choose to think of Pitts as a non journalist commentator - like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter, OK fine by me, I will join you in judging him by a different standard.

Didn't I say almost this very thing in my first post on this subject?
 

Of course Leonard Pitts is biased, just as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow are biased.

but, if he is no longer a journalist, then he needs to leave all those Professional Journalist societies he belongs to.

OK, I'll be sure to tell him to do that. 

Pitts is not a journalist - so let it be written , so let it be done! 

Whew! Finally we can agree that the sky is blue.

[brokeplex]

- As I said at the time and later, blaming journalism for an SNL skit is just plain silly.

- Whew! Finally we can agree that the sky is blue.

I never "blamed" anyone, I merely noted the interesting convergence of Leftist elitist thinking in popular entertainment and the Dinosaur Media.
Right now the sky outside looks white hot to me here in TX, 103 degrees and a withering sun! I am happy to help you cast Pitts into the pit that the Left throws Rush et al.

[brokeplex]

Valid opinion based on simple facts.

"valid opinion", well there you go again seeking to redefine the debate on the terms you wish to use! 

I don't see Pitt's "opinions" as either valid or invalid - just partisan and name calling and inappropriate in a discussion of Rice's objections to the RC church.

If you wish to see Pitt's opinions as valid or wish to validate them yourself, that is fine with me. But I feel that Pitts used Rice's declarations as an opportunity to make a partisan point, and that is all I have ever said. I can't see that you really disagree with me on this.

[serious crayons]

"valid opinion", well there you go again seeking to redefine the debate on the terms you wish to use! 

I don't see Pitt's "opinions" as either valid or invalid - just partisan and name calling and inappropriate in a discussion of Rice's objections to the RC church.

Not name-calling at all (examples of name-calling: "dinosaur media," "Rachel Madcow"). Nor inappropriate. Partisan, sure.

By "valid" I mean that he has every right to hold and express this opinion. Again, as a columnist, he is paid to do that sort of thing.

But I feel that Pitts used Rice's declarations as an opportunity to make a partisan point, and that is all I have ever said. I can't see that you really disagree with me on this.

I don't disagree at all that Pitts is using Rice's declarations as an opportunity to make a partisan point. What I disagree with is your assertion that this is inappropriate or lacking in "integrity."

[serious crayons]

The link offers a video interview, plus a photo of Anne embracing Elton John.

Anne Rice Explains Why She Left The Church

In interviews, Anne Rice has expanded on what led her to "quit" the Catholic Church after her very public return to religion.

While Rice has not been shy about her views, in her interview with ABC she made her reasons for leaving the church explicit. She also limits her criticisms — although reading between the lines, they have larger application — to the Catholic Church she left, and specifically, her own parish. As she says,

    I think there were several last straws. The pope going to Africa and saying that condoms were not a good idea in the fight against AIDS. I found that outrageous, embarrassing, humiliating, frightening. The bishop of Phoenix, Ariz., Thomas Olmsted, publicly condemning a nun Sister Margaret McBride because she OK'd a life-saving abortion for a dying mother in a Catholic hospital...The fact that my church, which I had supported over the years as — you know, private — how shall I put it — I know. I supported it. Let's say that. I put my money where my mouth was. And that church then spent millions to come in to the state of California and deprive gay citizens of their civil rights to same-sex marriage? That was shocking. That was humiliating. That was the last straw. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles paying $660 million to the victims of clergy abuse? What does that say about organized religion? And finally, the pressure built up, the toxic anger built up, the confusion built up and I thought, 'I have to get out this. I want God to be the center of my life and somehow I'm in bed with the devil.'

In answer to whether she will miss Catholicism, Rice addresses that too:

    I will probably miss the ritual, the liturgy, going to Mass, going to holy communion, but I really couldn't go anymore...I was too angry. I was too confused. That clergy abuse scandal, the defensiveness of Catholics about that scandal, their anger at not wanting to hear about it, not wanting to know what had happened with priests abusing people sexually and then being transferred to parish — from parish to parish, I mean all of that was too much. I was — I was sitting in church in a beautiful environment with beautiful music wanting to pray and I was too angry and too confused to be there. I had to leave. It was coming between me and God to be in that church. And the church should be the place that helps you get close to God.

Even at the time of her re-commitment to Catholicism, Rice was forthright about her support for the gay community, a cause she embraced even prior to the time her son, Christopher, became a gay activist. As is clear from this video, made around the time Christ the Lord was released, at that time she felt - or at any rate hopes - that she had found a like-minded sanctuary in her parish. But however striking the contrast between that serene commitment and today's disillusionment, there's one thing about which we hope Rice's views haven't changed. Asked whom she'd considered for a possible adaptation of her "Christ" series, she replied, "I think Johnny Depp would be absolutely fantastic in the role of Jesus Christ." Amen.

http://jezebel.com/5610445/anne-rice-explains-why-she-left-the-church?skyline=true&s=i#ixzz0wMWmIFXb

[Brown Eyes]

Wow, those are some pretty powerful comments.

[Monika]

She seems to be a pretty cool woman.

[Ellemeno]

Wow, those are some pretty powerful comments.

I like this one, "Become a Quaker! Woot woot!  All the following of Jesus without the American culture aftertaste."

[brokeplex]

Not name-calling at all (examples of name-calling: "dinosaur media," "Rachel Madcow"). Nor inappropriate. Partisan, sure.

By "valid" I mean that he has every right to hold and express this opinion. Again, as a columnist, he is paid to do that sort of thing.

I don't disagree at all that Pitts is using Rice's declarations as an opportunity to make a partisan point. What I disagree with is your assertion that this is inappropriate or lacking in "integrity."

gee, Keith Olbermann stated some months ago that he wore the moniker of "Dinosaur" with pride.

Madcow? Oh, that must just be a slip of the keyboard - look you will see that the "c" and the "d" are right next to each other. 

We agree, Pitts had the "right" to state his opinion. We don't agree that is was appropriate within the context.

See above, as Reagan said to Gorby - "We will just have to agree to disagree" 

[brokeplex]

I like this one, "Become a Quaker! Woot woot!  All the following of Jesus without the American culture aftertaste."

is there something "distasteful" about American culture? (what is American culture, by the way?)

[serious crayons]

gee, Keith Olbermann stated some months ago that he wore the moniker of "Dinosaur" with pride.

Good for him, but it's not whether people are bothered by it or not, it's that you always seem to feel the need to say it.

We agree, Pitts had the "right" to state his opinion. We don't agree that is was appropriate within the context.

And, like Pitts, you have a right (no quotation marks) to state your opinion about this.  

[brokeplex]

Good for him, but it's not whether people are bothered by it or not, it's that you always seem to feel the need to say it.
And, like Pitts, you have a right (no quotation marks) to state your opinion about this.  

I can't think of any reason not to call the MSM the "Dinosaur Media" - their declining audience base and readership alone point towards their continued shrinkage if not extinction. And then the snarky condescending attitudes that they have towards the America that they don't much care for, the so called "flyover country" - alienating potential audiences is not the "smartest" marketing strategy. I believe I saw a stat yesterday that FoxNews audience share is now 4 times that of CNN. Furthermore, the term "MSM" implies that they are "mainstream" when they are anything but mainstream, so I and others have searched for a term with which to label them. I think that it was either Laura Ingraham or Anne Coulter who first used the term, and it stuck because it fits. 

I would prefer to have a balanced non partisan media, but those days are long gone. Someone will write a history of this one day, but I think that we can thank the original Big 3 TV broadcasters, CNN, The New York Times and the Washington Post for first putting us on the path to our current era of partisan media.

[louisev]

I can't think of any reason not to call the MSM the "Dinosaur Media" - their declining audience base and readership alone point towards their continued shrinkage if not extinction. And then the snarky condescending attitudes that they have towards the America that they don't much care for, the so called "flyover country" - alienating potential audiences is not the "smartest" marketing strategy. I believe I saw a stat yesterday that FoxNews audience share is now 4 times that of CNN. Furthermore, the term "MSM" implies that they are "mainstream" when they are anything but mainstream, so I and others have searched for a term with which to label them. I think that it was either Laura Ingraham or Anne Coulter who first used the term, and it stuck because it fits. 

I would prefer to have a balanced non partisan media, but those days are long gone. Someone will write a history of this one day, but I think that we can thank the original Big 3 TV broadcasters, CNN, The New York Times and the Washington Post for first putting us on the path to our current era of partisan media.

there's a great explanation as to why Fox has a solid audience - they are the go-to channel for the extreme right.  It's not like there are any others to go to.  Whereas for the rest of the political spectrum, they get a choice of the entire non-cable news world, MSNBC, CNN, etc.  But for real right-wing mouth-froth there's only one source for "news" - and that's FOX.  It is also quite telling that less than 1% of Fox's audience is black.  They've locked up and locked in the white supremacist market!

[louisev]

I can't think of any reason not to call the MSM the "Dinosaur Media" - their declining audience base and readership alone point towards their continued shrinkage if not extinction. And then the snarky condescending attitudes that they have towards the America that they don't much care for, the so called "flyover country" - alienating potential audiences is not the "smartest" marketing strategy. I believe I saw a stat yesterday that FoxNews audience share is now 4 times that of CNN. Furthermore, the term "MSM" implies that they are "mainstream" when they are anything but mainstream, so I and others have searched for a term with which to label them. I think that it was either Laura Ingraham or Anne Coulter who first used the term, and it stuck because it fits.  

The only times I have ever heard anyone use the term "flyover country" is right-wing Republicans accusing liberals of using the term.  I've never heard a single liberal (and I read DailyKos every day - and those people are NOT SHY) ever use the term.

Case in point:

http://www.flyovercountryblog.com/

Fly Over Country Blog - with links to the RNC - apparently the Right has appropriated this as a pet term that they claim everyone else uses to describe rural Red states.

[brokeplex]

there's a great explanation as to why Fox has a solid audience - they are the go-to channel for the extreme right.  It's not like there are any others to go to.  Whereas for the rest of the political spectrum, they get a choice of the entire non-cable news world, MSNBC, CNN, etc.  But for real right-wing mouth-froth there's only one source for "news" - and that's FOX.  It is also quite telling that less than 1% of Fox's audience is black.  They've locked up and locked in the white supremacist market!

wow, talk about a cornucopia of name calling! 

and just for clarification - the "extreme right", which would put them somewhere to the right of moi, don't have any interest in FoxNews - they stick to a select few web sites.

[Marge_Innavera]

I did above, but here it is again.

"The word "Republican" does not appear in the book(Gospels?).
Not once.
Yet somehow in the last 30 years, people of
faith were hustled and hoodwinked into
regarding the GOP platform as a lost gospel.
Somehow, low taxes for the wealthy and
deregulation of industry became the very
message of Christ. Somehow, hostility to
science, gays, Muslims and immigrants
became the very meaning of faith. And
somehow Christianity became -- or at least,
came to seem -- a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Republican Party.
Consider that, after the election of 2004, a
church in North Carolina made news for
kicking out nine congregants because they
committed the un-Christian act of ... voting
for Democrat John Kerry.
Who can blame people for saying, "If that's
faith, count me out?" Has atheism
ever had a better salesman than Jerry Falwell, who
blamed the Sept. 11 attacks on the ACLU --
or Pat Robertson, who laid Haiti's earthquake
off on an ancient curse?
a shriveled faith that marginalizes and
demeans?"

This oddly-formatted post was in response to the post quoted below; "his" referring to Mr. Pitts::

How about naming some of his specific statements that you'd object to? 


For people who'd rather go straight to the source, here's a source for Mr. Pitts' columns: 
http://www.leonardpittsjr.com/recent_columns.html

and

http://www.leonardpittsjr.com/everything-else.html

If anyone can figure out how this is a reply, please let the Watermelon Lady know.   

[Marge_Innavera]

I can't think of any reason not to call the MSM the "Dinosaur Media" - their declining audience base and readership alone point towards their continued shrinkage if not extinction. And then the snarky condescending attitudes that they have towards the America that they don't much care for, the so called "flyover country" - alienating potential audiences is not the "smartest" marketing strategy. I believe I saw a stat yesterday that FoxNews audience share is now 4 times that of CNN. Furthermore, the term "MSM" implies that they are "mainstream" when they are anything but mainstream, so I and others have searched for a term with which to label them. I think that it was either Laura Ingraham or Anne Coulter who first used the term, and it stuck because it fits. 

Much of this would fit the "new" media too, as anyone with more than a week of Internet access can attest.

[serious crayons]

And then the snarky condescending attitudes that they have towards the America that they don't much care for, the so called "flyover country" -

Examples, please. Just because Sarah or Rush or Glenn say the media do something or other, doesn't mean they actually do it. Shocking, I know.  

As a person who lives in so-called "flyover country" and tends to get prickly about any sort of stereotyping of or condescension toward Middle America, I would have to say I don't see that sort of thing pop up all that often in the mainstream media. Not to shock you twice in one post, but location on a coast or in a big city doesn't automatically confer snobbery.

[louisev]

, but location on a coast or in a big city doesn't automatically confer snobbery.

applying this rubric equally, residency in a non-coastal state doesn't automatically confer humility

[serious crayons]

applying this rubric equally, residency in a non-coastal state doesn't automatically confer humility

True! Nor authenticity as an American. 

[brokeplex]

True! Nor authenticity as an American. 

authentic Americans? do you mean residents of the Americas, or citizens of the United States who are properly called USonians.

well, don't authentic Americans usually have their birth certs handy, esp when they run for public office?

just wondering --

[serious crayons]

authentic Americans? do you mean residents of the Americas, or citizens of the United States who are properly called USonians.

well, don't authentic Americans usually have their birth certs handy, esp when they run for public office?

just wondering --

You mean like this one?

[brokeplex]

You mean like this one?

were you posting an image, it may not have posted.

[delalluvia]

Wow, those are some pretty powerful comments.

I found this comment most apt - and it wasn't from Anne, it was from one of the readers.

I could have told her any of these things about the Catholic church before she joined. Does no one do any fact checking before joining massive organizations and giving them lots of money?

[serious crayons]

were you posting an image, it may not have posted.

Do you not see that? That's strange -- I see it in your post as well as my own.

Anyway, here's the link:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

[Monika]

I found this comment most apt - and it wasn't from Anne, it was from one of the readers.

I could have told her any of these things about the Catholic church before she joined. Does no one do any fact checking before joining massive organizations and giving them lots of money?

church isn´t just any organization in that respect. Often people are more or less raised into a religion.
It´s about culture, traditions and habits. Things that often are hard things to break away from.

I think it takes a lot of strength to reconsider and be able to change one´s mind on something.

[Marge_Innavera]

Here's a link to a list of things that Snopes listed as "false" -- of course, Snopes could always be a libr'l mole:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp


My personal favorite on the list was "Scholars at the Smithsonian Institution have uncovered new interpretations of Nostradamus that relate to Barack Obama."

Runner-up:

"Prophecy that a black man will inhabit the White House 'when pigs fly' ties Obama presidency to swine flu. "

[brokeplex]

Do you not see that? That's strange -- I see it in your post as well as my own.

Anyway, here's the link:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

thanks!

[Ellemeno]

Here's a link to a list of things that Snopes listed as "false" -- of course, Snopes could always be a libr'l mole:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp


My personal favorite on the list was "Scholars at the Smithsonian Institution have uncovered new interpretations of Nostradamus that relate to Barack Obama."

Runner-up:

"Prophecy that a black man will inhabit the White House 'when pigs fly' ties Obama presidency to swine flu. "

They mis-translated.  It's 'when pigs's flu.'