Brutally Honest

Army Reserve training brief - Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism are extreme

The image that follows was clipped from this Army Reserve training brief.

In response, the Archdiocese for the Military Services has issued a statement:

The Archdiocese for the Military Services and Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty recently became aware of a U.S. Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief that expressly listed “Catholicism,” “Evangelical Christianity” and other religious groups as examples of “religious extremism” alongside groups such as “Al Qaeda”, “Hamas” and the “KKK.”  The Archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist. 

According to an investigation and reply from the Army Chief of Chaplains office, the training in question appears to have been an isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army. The Archdiocese and the Chaplain Alliance explained that the Army can and should take steps to prevent such incidents in the future.The Archdiocese calls upon the Department of Defense to review these materials and to ensure that tax-payer funds are never again used to present blatantly anti-religious material to the men and women in uniform.

An isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army.

Today.

But just wait a little while and I'm guessing it'll not only be condoned by the Army but instituted as policy by the government.

It's the direction we're headed in.

To deny this is to deny reality.

Meet NY Governor, Andrew Cuomo; idiot extraordinaire

Guest posted by tim, The Godless Heathen (and NY State resident)

From Gateway Pundit (where there's video if you can stomach it) - 

Gov. Andrew Cuomo dismissed the latest lawsuit against the state’s new gun control law, the SAFE Act, as “propaganda” that the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association is using to keep its members in line.

(…)

“What the extremists do is spread fear and unrealistic theories of conspiracies and the citizenry that needs to be armed because the government is possibly tyrannical, and they need their arms to defend themselves against the tyrannical government,” Cuomo continued. This is true: at gun rallies, I’ve heard this “slippery slope” line of argument from multiple attendees. They view the right to bear arms as a kind of check against government power. 

Here reads the "slippery slope", the "a kind of check", brought to us by "extremists" -

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

Hey Andy, google 'District of Columbia v. Heller' for some more “propaganda”.

 

This might've been better attempted on April 1

Because in all reality, it was a serious joke:

Lauren Silberman's NFL tryout has lasted all of two kicks, neither of which traveled 20 yards.

Silberman is the first woman to compete at an NFL regional scouting combine. She is 28 years old and played club soccer at Wisconsin.

She left the New York Jets' practice field after injuring her quadriceps. She tried two kickoffs, the first going 19 yards and the second about 13 yards. She then asked to see a trainer.

As more than two dozen media, including E! Entertainment network, watched her every move, Silberman was examined by a trainer.

Whoever set this whole thing up ought to be examined by a shrink.

This was an embarrassment.

Feminists ought to be outraged.

Haters are gonna hate

And the haters are hatin' on RGIII, the injured rookie QB for the Washington Redskins.  

Not long ago, he was called a cornball brother by ESPN's Rob Parker who apparently didn't think RGIII to be a black enough.  Today, he's been called a liar by Yahoo's Dan Wetzel:

Robert Griffin III couldn't do much of anything Sunday except lie, which is what he's been trained to do in situations like this.

Lie to himself that he can still deliver like no backup could. Lie to his coach that this was nothing big. Lie to the doctors who tried to assess him in the swirl of a playoff sideline.

So Robert Griffin III lied...

RGIII, wrongly in retrospect, refused to pull himself out of the game, out of what I, perhaps as wrongly, see to be a selfless act, a selflessness that isn't out of character for the man.  And for that selflessness, he's being criticized by arm chair quarterbacks who know beyond a doubt that his backup would've done a better job.

That may in fact have turned out to be true but the bottom line is that... we really don't know.  And when we don't know and when we're dealing with a man known to have the kind of class and character RGIII is known to have, you'd think he'd be given the benefit of the doubt.  You'd be wrong.

The haters are out in force and I'm only reporting a portion of it.  I guarantee you there's more.

RGIII is likely being criticized by the haters for lots of reasons but it's hard for me not to opine that a portion of the hatred is directed at him because he's a man of faith and public about it.  And today, being public about your faith makes you an object of ridicule and scorn, either in your face, like the bluntness exhibited by Rob Parker and Dan Wetzel or, as is the wont of cowards, behind your back.

Of course, Mr. Griffin is reacting on social media:

When adversity strikes you respond in one of two ways....You step aside and give in..Or you step up and fight.

— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) January 7, 2013

I thank God for perspective and because of that I appreciate the support from everyone. I also appreciate the criticism.

— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) January 7, 2013

Many may question, criticize & think they have all the right answers. But few have been in the line of fire in battle.

— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) January 7, 2013

That last tweet has some people accusing the man of, in essence, insulting our fighting men and women, as if figurative war language has been used for the first time by RGIII.

You simply shake your head and move on and wonder what the hell the world is coming to.

The New York Times takes up the cause - What to call those averse to commitment

More particularly, those who'd rather shack up than marry:

“I went through a phase of just calling him Eric, even to people who didn’t know who that was,” said the master wordsmith Ann Kjellberg, 50, editor of the journal Little Star and the literary executor of the poet Joseph Brodsky. Eric Zerof spent 15 years as her live-in not-spouse and is the father of Ms. Kjellberg’s child. “I kept thinking, ‘This should not be this hard!’ I was very unhappy about the situation. I could never find a word I liked.”

One might imagine we would be less tongue-tied. The faux spouse is a pretty ho-hum cultural specimen for such a gaping verbal lacuna. But none of the word choices are good. Everyone agrees that partner sounds awful — too anodyne, empty, cold. Lover may be worse — too sexualized, graphic, one-dimensional. Boyfriend sounds too young. Significant other sounds too ’80s. Special friend or just friend (both favored by the 65-and-over crowd) are just too ridiculous.

Faced with such weak English-language options, Janna Cordeiro, 43, a nonprofit and public health consultant in San Francisco, settled on calling Sebastian Toomey, her mate of 23 years, “mi hombre” — my man. (Pronunciation: deep and forceful, with rolled r, as in a Western.) “My daughter goes to a Spanish-immersion school,” Ms. Cordeiro explained. “When she started kindergarten, I started asking the Spanish-speaking parents how to introduce Seb. Everybody kept saying, ‘mi esposo, mi esposo.’ I kept saying that was wrong and started saying, ‘mi hombre,’ and it stuck.”

Anne Tierney, 32, a bodyworker in West Palm Beach, Fla., went for “fusband,” which, she explains, is a catchall for “fake husband, future husband.” (Ms. Tierney’s fusband, Ozzy, calls Ms. Tierney “wifey.”) Technically the two are engaged, but Ms. Tierney said: “The word fiancé makes me cringe. What am I, in France?”

The engagement process, according to Ms. Tierney, was also a bit of a debacle: “I was sitting on the ground. Ozzy was standing up. Little Ozzy” — their baby, now a toddler — “was crying.” Big Ozzy gave Ms. Tierney a necklace. She said she thought, “Why is this guy giving me a necklace?” Then he gave her a diamond ring that, because they had not planned on marrying, she assumed was fake. (It wasn’t.) The two have not set a wedding date and probably never will. Ms. Tierney said: “If I ever get the urge, maybe I’ll drag him to a wedding shop and we’ll take a few pictures. If he could just come and stare at me lovingly, that would make me happy.”

There's more, if you can stomach it.

It does make one think... why the fuss by those in support of gay marriage (guarantee you'll find the commitless among them) when marriage in and of itself is seen to be such anathema?

I don't get it.

Unless one takes the angle that the trek to gay marriage is really just another weapon in the war against the Church, one to be discarded once wounds to the institution have been inflicted.

Societal decay.

It's on the march.

H/T to Deacon Greg.

How do you gauge the character of a man? (UPDATED)

Bear with me on this one.

We are all flawed individuals.  We're all sinners.  So let's get that part out of the way.  But there should still exist a means by which the measure of a man can be taken, by which we can determine whether or not he is someone you'd want to hang with, someone you'd want your children to look up to, someone you'd want your daughter or niece to marry.

A few of these metrics come to mind quickly.

How does said man treat women in general and his wife/girlfriend in particular?

Is he a man of evidentiary faith?

Is he compassionate and charitable?

You may have your own list of traits that we're likely to agree help measure how much of a man men truly are.

I'm about to add another, though this one I'm sure might have its detractors.

Are you ready for this one?  

What does said man think of Tim Tebow?

This past week, I was exposed to two sports writers who had never really registered even the tiniest of blips on my there-goes-a-man-of-character radar.  Not because of anything in particular that they've done or not done before but because I've never really seen or heard anything from either of them that had captured my attention.

Until these last couple of days.

Let's first deal with ESPN's Merril Hoge:

So much for the whole bearing good tidings thing. In a roundtable discussion on Monday morning'sSportsCenter, ESPN analyst Merril Hoge went on a rant about New York Jets quarterback Tim Tebow, saying that he's "as phony as a three-dollar bill" and that the New York Jets didn't realize "how bad Tim Tebow was" when they traded for him.

Fellow analyst Ron Jaworski tries to defend Tebow's handling of his yearlong situation with the Jets while insider Adam Schefter attempts to relay a conversation he had with Tebow late Sunday night regarding theESPN New York report that he asked out of the Wildcat formation for the team's game with San Diego. While both are given time to make their points, they are just lulls between Hoge's fury-laden sound bites.

"He is not going to win for the Jacksonville Jaguars. All he will do is set the franchise back further if that is a possible feat," Hoge said. "This organization is down as far as you can get. The last person they need is a guy like this now that we're starting to see his true colors."

What was it that set Merril Hoge off you might be asking?

Apparently, the same thing that set Jets beat reporter Peter Schwartz off:

With every media session involving Tim Tebow that came and went, there was something bizarre about our chats with the Jets’ new backup quarterback.

He really sounded like a phony.

And now it’s obvious that the first impressions of Tebow were correct.

It should not come as a surprise that reports indicate that Tebow opted out of the wildcat package for Sunday’s game against the Chargers when he was told that Greg McElroy would get the start over him. Tebow’s “I’ll do whatever I can to help the team” pledge from the day that the Jets acquired him turned out to be nothing but utter nonsense.

Tebow is not the good teammate that we all thought he was and now it seems as if reports about him being a bad apple in the locker room are true. What does it say about someone, who has captivated the world with his religious faith, doesn’t want to be a part of the game plan to help his team win?

There's only one problem Mr. Hoge and Mr. Schwartz.  One huge fly in your Tim Tebow Hate Soup.  That fly happens to be Rex Ryan:

Ryan acknowledged Monday that Tebow wasn't happy when the coach chose Greg McElroy to start for the benched Mark Sanchez, but insisted Tebow was willing to play in any role Sunday against San Diego - including the wildcat.

''He was disappointed, there's no question,'' Ryan said Monday. ''He was disappointed that he was not named the starter, but with that being said, I'm not going to get into private conversations that I have with players, but it was my decision to use Jeremy Kerley in the wildcat, without question.

''But I'll say this: I believe if Tim's number was called, he would've went in and played. I don't think there's any doubt about that.''

In other words, there was no basis for which Hoge and Schwartz unleashed their venom for Tebow.  None whatsoever.  Of course, this isn't the first time they've done so.  Hoge in particular has a history of Tebow hatred since the latter entered into the NFL.

And so I, with a firmness and resolve I'd be hardpressed to give up, am making a decree.

Merril Hoge and Peter Schwartz have no integrity, no class, no character.

I wouldn't turn my back on either of them.  I find them each to be deplorable and pity their loved ones.

The sort of hate they have for Tim Tebow is based in my view on their own hatred of religion in general, Christianity in particular and Mr. Tebow specifically.  It seems more than obvious to me.

Unlike either of them however, I'm open to having my mind changed.  If you have evidence that would suggest I'm full of crap, leave it in the comments but quite frankly and bluntly, I'm willing to bet this post's comment thread will remain largely empty.

UPDATE: It's becoming clearer that Hoge and Schwartz are simply haters:

Tim Tebow said that he never asked out of running Wildcat plays last week, but the Jets’ backup quarterback acknowledges that Rex Ryan may have misunderstood him.

Tebow said on Wednesday that he told Ryan last Tuesday that he was “definitely disappointed” he wasn’t going to be the starting quarterback in place of the benched Mark Sanchez, and added that he told the coach he wanted to play “regular quarterback.”

“I never said, ‘Hey, I don’t want to do anything,’” Tebow said. “That wasn’t the talk at all. He knows that. And everybody on this team knows that I would never not do something if I was asked. That’s what’s disappointing. People saying,‘Oh, you quit, or you didn’t do this.’ That was not it at all. It was just me asking to get an opportunity to play the position I love, which is quarterback. It wasn’t me asking out of anything.”

My brother summed things up nicely when he wrote on his Facebook wall, "Hoge retired due to excessive concussions. Based on his tirade I'd say he is still a jelly brain."

Excessive concussions, maybe but more likely, Hoge's problem, and Schwartz' along with him, is simple hatred for a man of faith.

And that's a soul problem.

Yea, I went there.  Confidently.

"Benevolent sexism is an ideology that perpetuates gender inequality"

The new enemy of woman is the gentleman:

Here’s the latest from the Psychology of Women Quarterly. It’s an abstract of an article by Kathleen Connelly and Martin Heesacker on benevolent sexism. If you’re wondering what “benevolent sexism” is, think gentlemanly behavior. I offer the abstract partly as a window onto the wonderful, wacky world of modern sociological prose and partly in despair at the use of the word “thus” to open the final sentence. I have put the key passages in bold.

Previous research suggests that benevolent sexism is an ideology that perpetuates gender inequality. But despite its negative consequences, benevolent sexism is a prevalent ideology that some even find attractive. To better understand why women and men alike might be motivated to adopt benevolent sexism, the current study tested system justification theory’s prediction that benevolent sexism might have a positive linkage to life satisfaction through increased diffuse system justification, or the sense that the status quo is fair. A structural equation model revealed that benevolent sexism was positively associated with diffuse system justification within a sample of 274 college women and 111 college men. Additionally, benevolent sexism was indirectly associated with life satisfaction for both women and men through diffuse system justification. In contrast, hostile sexism was not related to diffuse system justification or life satisfaction. The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level. Thus, our findings reinforce the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism and emphasize the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence.

You, like me, perhaps thought that abortion, or more particularly the inability to have one, defined today's feminist.

You, like me, were wrong.

What defines today's feminist is a deep seated hatred for men, and what makes a man a man.

Which is why they embrace girly men and are doing their level best to emasculate real men.  Your choosing to be a gentleman is a choice they're abhorring.

Open a door for a woman, allow her to enter that doorway before you do, and men, you are practicing benevolent sexism and fostering inequality.  Next time you seat a woman before you take a seat, next time you gently slide that chair underneath her as you do so, know that you're perpetuating her subservience.

You misogynist.

Michael Bloomberg; idiot extraordinaire

Guest posted by tim, The Godless Heathen

Hot Air:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been on the receiving end of a firestorm of criticism lately, particularly for his ham handed handling of the Hurricane Sandy recovery. But this story is almost too stupid to check.

Mayor Bloomberg has snubbed Borough President Markowitz’s impassioned plea to bring the National Guard to Hurricane Sandy-scarred Brooklyn — arguing that approving the Beep’s request would be a waste of federal manpower and turn the borough into a police state.

“We don’t need it,” Mayor Bloomberg said on Wednesday during a press update on the city’s ongoing Hurricane Sandy cleanup. “The NYPD is the only people we want on the street with guns.”

I’m not sure, but I think we’re witnessing the complete implosion of somebody who was once considered a pretty influential politician on the rise. Yes, Bloomberg doesn’t much care for the Second Amendment and doesn’t want people to have guns. We get it. But we’re talking about the National Guard here. Has this guy completely lost his mind?

This is a time when leaders up and down the east coast are loudly singing the praises of the National Guard for their rapid deployment and efficient rescue, recovery and security work. It’s also a time when people out on Staten Island are hanging on by a thread, with looting and violence being a serious threat on top of the hurricane’s destruction. Who in their right mind even suggests that Guardsmen carrying their weapons is an issue at a time like this? I understand wanting to express your support of and confidence in the police department and the firefighters, but even some of the finest first responders in the nation are completely swamped by the magnitude of this disaster. They could use the help and the Guard stands ready to provide it.

The rest. 

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a liar. But I repeat myself…

Guest posted by tim, The Godless Heathen

From Michelle Malkin's site -

“What I was surprised about Greta, during the entire section of the debate on the Middle East, Mitt Romney didn’t bring up Israel once and I think it just shows he isn’t committed to Israel as he says he is and has really only used the issue as a political opportunity.”

Problem is, for little Debbie, Romney mentioned Israel @ a dozen times in the debate.

For more, including video Debbie wouldn‘t want you to see, go here.

How big a liar is Joe Biden?

Pretty damned huge.  In the following video he claims that Planned Parenthood, under law, can't perform abortions:

Yet from Planned Parenthood's own website:

Abortions are available at many Planned Parenthood health centers, clinics, and the offices of private health care providers. Use our health center locator to find the nearest Planned Parenthood health center that offers abortion services. If there is not a health center nearby that provides the abortion services you need, call your nearest center for a list of referrals.

H/T to Lex Communis who reminds us:

Just remember, this emotionally unstable buffoon is only a heartbeat away from the nuclear missile launch codes.