Louis Farrakhan calls Barack Obama a murderer, but defends Muammar Qaddafi.

If you read this blog regularly, then you know that I’m no fan of Barack Obama or his administration. Well, you can cross another person off the Barack Obama fan list: Minister loudmouth Louis Farrakhan. Of course, we have different reasons for our opinions.

Why isn’t Louis Farrakhan happy with Barack Obama’s job performance? Take a look:

“We voted for our brother Barack, a beautiful human being with a sweet heart, and now he’s an assassin. They turned him into them.”

Next, we have this little diatribe:

“You talk about a man killing his own people. When you lie to the American people saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. When you lie and then take innocent young men who come to serve their country, and send them to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, over lies, that’s a murderer in the White House.”

What I find amusing is that he criticizes Barack Obama for murdering his own people, then he sticks up for Muammar Qaddafi! You know, the guy who bombs his own people!

If you have time, check out the sermon below. I can’t believe a group of individuals can sit in a room with him and not laugh at his nonsense. I also can’t believe that I just defended Barack Obama.

Is Barack Obama a Christian? Should it matter?

Comedian Bill Maher doesn’t believe Barack Obama is a Christian, and I must say, I agree.

Unlike many, I don’t believe he is a closet Muslim. Instead, I see him as someone who isn’t religious and clings to Christianity because it’s politically expedient. If I’m correct about this, the fact that he isn’t really a Christian doesn’t bother me. What would bother me is an exaggeration of his beliefs to gain election.

Personally, I’m sick of politicians discussing God and talking about how important religion is in their lives. If it really is, then that’s great, but it is not relevant to holding public office. I look forward to the day when a candidate responds to a question about their personal religious views by saying it isn’t part of their life. Some might be appalled by that, and to them, I ask why?

Let me begin by stating that Muslims have every legal right to build a mosque at that location. As long as all local zoning laws are satisfied, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be built. Yet, while this building would seem to serve a function similar to that of a Jewish community center or a YMCA, only a fool can’t see the difference.

On September 11th, 2001, the United States was attacked. The nineteen terrorists were Muslims, they were members of Al Qaeda, which is an Islamic terrorist group, and if I remember correctly, there were several news reports of widespread celebrations in the MIddle East when news of the attack broke. I know the perpetrators were extremists, and I’m certainly no theologian, but it’s rather obvious that there is a propensity toward violence in Islam that is not found in Judaism or Christianity. To deny this is disingenuous.

Even if you only agree with part of my argument, you would probably point out that the Ground Zero Mosque will be run by Feisal Abdul Rauf, a moderate Imam. Of course, this isn’t true. Shortly after 9/11, he blamed the United States for being an “accessory” who brought on the 9/11 attacks. By the way, he also says the United States has more blood on its hands than Al Qaeda. Remember, this is someone referred to as a moderate Muslim.

I would prefer to see the mosque built somewhere else. If all legal requirements are met, then there is no reason why it shouldn’t be allowed to be built. Of course, mosque supporters shouldn’t be surprised when a majority of Americans oppose a mosque on this particular site. 3,000 Americans were killed by 19 Muslims, who were backed by an Islamic terrorist organization, then widely celebrated in the Middle East. If the mosque is built, we don’t need to like it, and we certainly don’t need to pretend we are fine with it.

Over the years, Nancy Pelosi has been a staunch supporter of abortion rights, gay marriage, and assisted suicide. I tend to disagree with her, but I do agree with her stances on those issues. With that said, I find it hard to believe that someone with these views could present themselves as a devout Catholic. The last time I checked, the Catholic Church was strongly opposed to abortion, assisted suicide, and gay marriage.

I’m trying to figure out if Nancy Pelosi’s inconsistency is due to her ignoring the differences between church doctrine and her voting record in an attempt to be everything to everyone, or is due to a lack of intellect. With Madame Speaker, either one is possible.

Have you been following the “South Park” situation? If you haven’t, here’s a quick summary: The creators portrayed the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit, which angered a Muslim group. On their website, the group posted pictures of Theo Van Gogh, who was murdered after one of his films offended some Muslims. The site hints that a similar fate may await “South Park” creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker.

“South Park” makes jokes about everyone, and they’re usually quite funny while they’re doing it. As a matter of fact, Jesus has a recurring role on the show! As far as I know, no one has threatened the creators over their portrayal of Jesus, and no Christian groups have threatened death.

Since 9/11, many have gone out of their way to describe Islam as a religion of peace. From observing the reaction to a cartoon, along with many other situations, it doesn’t seem very peaceful to me. It’s unfortunate that Comedy Central has decided to give in to threats by censoring the work of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Their actions send all networks down a slippery slope where freedom of expression is hampered by bullies.

I’m strongly pro-choice, but I don’t want a dime of taxpayer money spent on abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. If one of these conditions doesn’t exist, then the abortion is an elective procedure used to remedy irresponsible behavior. What’s next, allowing people to get taxpayer funded liposuction because because they’re too lazy to exercise and eat right?

The bishops are right on this issue, but of course, they’re dead wrong on so much else. In the same letter, they criticize Congress for forcing legal immigrants to wait 5 years before they are eligible for Medicaid, and for supporting a bill that would prevent undocumented workers illegal aliens from purchasing insurance through an exchange. After all, the undocumented workers illegal aliens only trespassed into the country and spit on our laws on a daily basis. Why not give them a break?

If you’re a Catholic who agrees that illegal immigration is a major problem facing the United States, I ask that you withhold financial support for the church. Any hard-earned money you give to your local diocese will likely find its way into supporting those who are threatening our country’s economy.

Pope Benedict criticized Irish Bishops for doing wha the Vatican expected of them

Pope Benedict criticized Irish bishops for “grave errors in judgment,” which led to many children being abused by priests and nuns. Catholic Bishops in Ireland deserve the criticism, since they were complacent while priests and other members of the Church harmed young parishioners. Unfortunately, Pope Benedict glossed over the major cause: The Vatican.

The abuse allegations in Ireland are not confined to that country alone. Allegations came to light in the United States several years ago, along with Germany and many other European nations. It’s also likely that the number of allegations will increase as victims gain the courage to face the Catholic Church and their abusers.

Were the Irish Bishops also responsible for abuse allegations in other countries and continents? Of course not. Each diocese was working on orders from the Vatican, which some feel encouraged a veil of secrecy. If blame is to be assigned, a good portion of it needs to be directed at Pope Benedict himself:

While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep them secret under threat of excommunication. Irish bishops have said the letter was widely understood to mean they shouldn’t report the cases to police.

In addition to telling bishops to keep quiet or else, Joseph Ratzonger aka Pope Benedict also contributed to the abuse of children:

…reports emerged last week that while he was archbishop of Munich in the 1980s, Ratzinger approved therapy for a priest suspected of molesting boys. The priest was then transferred to a job where he later abused more children. He was convicted in a criminal trial.

So to summarize, we have a Pope who encouraged bishops to hide allegations of abuse or face excommunication, along with personal failures that contributed to the abuse of more children after an abusive priest was transferred. His hypocritical behavior and failure to take responsibility are a disgrace to Catholicism.

As in cases in the United States, priests and other members of the church are being accused of abusing children, while the Catholic Church kept everything quiet, while offending priests were moved to other parishes to harm a new community of children. If that wasn’t bad enough, it appears that Pope Benedict might have also shuffled pedophile priests from one parish to another.

This should prove to everyone that these problems are beyond a single country. The Church’s problems can likely be linked to the types of people attracted to the priesthood. It’s not a popular thing to say, but it needs to be said. Widespread abuse over multiple continents should be enough proof that the priesthood needs to be opened up to a broader group of individuals. There are men who are happily married, good fathers, and outstanding members of their community who would probably like the opportunity to become a priest. Unfortunately, the priesthood is limited to men who aren’t allowed to marry or have children. Personally, I think this rule leads to the selection of individuals who are more likely to be prone to this behavior. You might disagree, but I don’t see this type of behavior in reverends or ministers of other denominations.

I don’t expect the church to ever embrace such a change, at least not in my lifetime. Of course, failing to address the situation will lead to members who distrust the very people they are supposed to trust.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Bishop Thomas Tobin appeared on “Hardball” to discuss his decision to ask Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. The funny thing is that Thomas Tobin is criticized in this clip, even though Patrick Kennedy began this nonsense by criticizing the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion, then brought up a conversation he had with the Bishop 2 years ago, when he was asked not to receive Communion.

In the interview, Chris Matthews seems thoroughly confused. Part of it may be due to him attempting to reconcile his prochoice stance with his life as a Catholic. He continually criticizes the Bishop and essentially demeans him by asking how he would write particular laws, and attempts to make him look incompetent.

Unfortunately, Chris Matthews misses the big picture. He is right in saying that Patrick Kennedy’s voting record is none of the Church’s business. His error is in not realizing that his life as a Catholic certainly is fair game. Besides being prochoice, Kennedy supports legislation that would increase the availability of abortion. These actions run counter to Catholic teachings and the Church has every right to call someone out for not following their faith. When you present yourself as a member of a particular faith, you’re essentially voicing acceptance of their beliefs.

This topic is actually quite interesting to me. I was raised as a Catholic, but I am staunchly prochoice, I support gay marriage, and I’m against open borders. All three of those views are at odds with the Catholic Church. These positions, along with theological reasons, have led me away from the Catholic Church. I don’t present myself as a Catholic, and I don’t expect the Catholic Church to conform to my world view, or to accept my views. If you don’t believe what you are supposed to believe, then how can you be a believer? This seems obvious to the Bishop and I. It’s unfortunate that Patrick Kennedy and his conflicted friends aren’t able to understand.

I’m amused by how many people present themselves as Catholics, then live their lives counter to the church’s teachings. You shouldn’t be able to pick and choose which aspects of a religion you like, and which aspects you don’t. If a particular religion doesn’t suit your particular view of the world, then find another one. For too many, their religion is nothing but a habit. If that’s the case, isn’t it better to just stop attending mass and stop living a lie?

I was raised Catholic, but I have serious disagreements with many of the church’s teachings. Unfortunately, you can often find parishioners who don’t make any attempt to be a good Catholic, they just go through the motions. Patrick Kennedy is a good example. Here’s an elected official who supports abortion rights and fights to make abortions more acessible. My problem isn’t with his views on abortion (I’m pro-choicee), it’s with people who strive to make those views consistent with their Catholic religion. Sorry, it can’t be done.

Ideally, we would see Bishop Tobin’s actions duplicated with other pblic officials. Too many politicians try to be everything to everyone. They present themselves as a religious individual, then support ideas that are in opposition to what they profess to believe. Hopefully, Bishop Tobin’s actions will be a first step in calling out the hypocrites and bringing some thought into the public sphere.