Fields: Jewish, Catholic and Protestant Hypocrites
BY SAM FIELDS
Guest Columnist
Like some religious fanatics, Rabbi Leib Tropper has been living a double life.
In his public life, he set the most absurd standards for conversions to Judaism.
He undid the conversion of one woman who was later seen wearing pants. He argued that conversions should only be done by rabbis who believe the world is less than 6000 years old.
We now learn that this Jewish Reverend Dimsdale (See Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter) has an incurable case of “shiksappeal (See Seinfeld).
His Hester Pryne/Elaine Benes is cute blond named Sharon Orand, who he apparently also pushed to have sex with his friends.
What she sees in the physically repulsive Tropper is beyond me. He is a zshlub (a disgusting slob).
Tropper and Orand
I predict that when he comes out of hiding, he will undoubtedly blame the whole thing on her. I predict he will be quoting from The Book of Judges and the story of Samson and Delilah to explain how he was seduced by this Satan sent by enemies of the Jews.
XXXXX
If this Hassid has an affinity for shiksas, some Catholic priests are into the sheygets (boys). And it led to three more Irish bishops resigning.
The level of Church child abuse in Ireland is beyond anything seen in the United States. Just this month the inappropriately named Sisters of Mercy agreed to pay $193 million to compensate victims of the orphanages–think torture chambers–they ran for decades.
To this day, the Church has refused to release the names of all but of a few of the pedophiles who went after prepubescents of both genders, but it was overwhelmingly little boys.
According to a government investigation, the bishops shielded dozens of perverts-in-collars by transferring them to new parishes where they could look for fresh veal.
The Catholic Church is no different than any other organization. Rule Number One is institutional maintenance. Or As Governor William J. Lepetomane said in Blazing Saddles (played by Mel Brooks in the 1974 movie) : “We’ve got to protect our phony baloney jobs
The Church’s version is slightly different: “may [these resignations] help to bring the peace and reconciliation of Jesus Christ to the victims [and] survivors
Same crap, a different day.
These priest/perps and the folks who covered up for them should all be going to the hoosegow. The organization should be declared a criminal enterprise and shut down.
XXXXX
“Converts, too much and too late.” Bye, Bye, Braverman, a 1968 film.
“Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question, andthe extent to which he can recover — seems to me to depend on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist; I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world,” Brit Hume, former FOX newscaster, January 3, 2010.
Brit Hume did not always talk like that. Until 1998 this Episcopalian was a “social Christian much like most of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
What made him ultra-religious was his son’s suicide in February, 1998.
His son was an award-winning journalist fighting a bad drinking habit. The night before his suicide, apparently having fallen off the wagon, he was arrested for DUI.
Hume makes clear that his son’s death brought him to Jesus. And as a journalist he chooses his words carefully. Speaking from his own experience he sees Jesus as the only way to true “forgiveness and redemption.
But, since his son was the sinner, why did Hume need a god for “forgiveness and redemption? What did he need to be forgiven for? After being released from jail, did he berate his son to feel like a worthless human being? Does Hume live with the guilt that he drove his son to suicide? Did he then turn to the only thing that he knew of that could relieve the pain?
Even if he is a jerk, you gotta feel bad for the guy. What you don’t have to accept is his notion that recovery from a bad situation is “Brit’s way or no way. What you don’t have to accept is his later speech on the Bill O’Reilly Show denying that he was proselytizing religion.
Least of all you do not have to accept his response to his critics that he is being attacked for loving Jesus and how he and his co-religionists are some sort of persecuted minority.
Hey Brit, let me correct that notion. Your being attacked because, whether you are talking about the here or the hereafter, you are an arrogant, know-it-all, asshole.
January 10th, 2010 at 11:36 am
AMEN!
January 10th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
I just re-heard a comment by former President George W. Bush who said “the jury is still out on that whole evolution thing” and I say “what jury and where are they”.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:46 am
By now, even the most ardent Catholic has to admit that the church has too many priests with a little boy problem. Deep down, we know that it’s always been the case. Some men that are gay and can’t handle it go into the priesthood trying to find the religious strength to fight off their urges toward boys or men. Perhaps some have found it there, very few I would guess, while most can’t. That’s like hoping that faith will take your thirst for water away. It doesn’t.
Not wanting to be gay is a very bad reason to join the priesthood and the Church has never done a good job at screening for that problem. Nor do they do a good job at curbing the activities of child molesting priests. It is an outrage that for too many years this problem was met so uncaringly with arrogant denial and a desire to conceal the truth.
The answer some offer is to allow priests to live a more normal life. let them marry. But the church rejects that approach. They want to “maintain” the objective of purely celibate priests even if that’s a goal they’ve never been able to achieve.
Pedophilia is a cancer, one of many, that is eating at the heart of Catholicism. The Church also has other important problems to worry about. With the virtual disappearance of nuns, so too went affordable and high quality Catholic education. Women still want to be religious, but in today’s world they refuse to abide by the rules of being a nun. And so we have none, no pun intended.
As a Catholic I can tell you this much. Without a priest, you can’t celebrate mass. But without nuns, you cannot properly raise a generation of Catholics. Sorry but that is just true. Father was there to hand out the hosts and to offer the sermons. Everything else about the church came from Sister. Yet the Catholics refuse to allow women to be priests, which would solve a bunch of these problems.
Today’s Catholic kids have less faith than they used to have. And a big reason for that is the lack of nuns. They can excuse it anyway they want. Nobody twists the truth better than the Catholic Church. It’s the plain truth.
For kids growing up Catholic, you can make it without a priest except for one hour on Sunday. Without nuns, you cannot properly grow up Catholic. Lay Catholic teachers are nice people but ultimately they just don’t cut it, sorry. It is a poor substitute for a nun in a habit. And taking the nuns out of the habit was designed to keep more of them around. It did the reverse. The Church constantly gets it wrong on human nature stuff. They just don’t get that nuns wanted respect, not a wardrobe change.
In this miscalculation, we see the pattern once more. It is the Catholic Church that destroys itself through it’s own arrogance, through their hypocrisy, through their inconsistency, through their denial. They claim to be such traditionalists. That the rules matter, that the rules cannot change, that this is the word of Our Savior and so forth. But they change whenever they want, they justify whatever they want, and don’t go where they refuse, justifying that whimsy in whatever religious context they say.
It’s just a bunch of BS and I think it would make Jesus puke.
When I was a kid, fish could not be consumed on Friday by church decree. That went away pretty fast and without much discussion in the early 60’s. Most people said, who cares. They never liked that rule anyway. The real question is, why did we have that rule in the first place? Why did Jesus care whether fish was eaten on Friday, and what sign did we get that Jesus had gotten over that objection?
Here is another insanely unjustified change — when I was a kid, they called it Confession. It is a sacriment, one of seven in the religion, going back thousands of years.
Today the sacriment of Confession no longer exists. Today they call it “Reconsiliation” and it is a far cry from the traditional faith of my fathers. Who the heck are these priests to take away Confession? What’s next? Replacing the host with a cheese burger?
Shocking.
They eliminate Confession yet they want to bring back the mass in Latin? What in the world are these people thinking?
I don’t mind priests referring to my congregation as a flock. But God did not make me a sheep. I think, I see, HE gave me the power to reason for myself. And it makes me very angry to see what has become of my Catholic Church.
We need a new Pope to take us to a right and proper place. The Church needs to be reformed to restore the simple beauty of what it used to be, what it was meant to be, and what it needs to become to meet the spiritual needs of Catholics over the next thousand years. A good Catholic is NOT a Catholic that supports the direction that our church is going without objection. Obedience to stupidity is not the mark of a good Christian. Our objective first and foremost is to put what Jesus would want in front of all else, life, family or church.
I cannot agree that what we see in the Catholic Church today is what the Jesus those good nuns taught me to love wants. I want our children to love Jesus in the way that the Bible says he should be loved, to follow the example of His teachings in the way, He himself set forth. I want the Catholic Church to find itself and it is in that spirit that I will continue to pray for that change.
January 11th, 2010 at 8:32 am
Typical Sam Fields column — same crap, a different day. Happy New Year, Sam!
January 11th, 2010 at 9:28 am
You are right, Mr. Parker. Sam Fields seems to be an individual of very narrow interests. His only concern is to criticize religion and very little else. He seems like a total bore and someone you wouldn’t want to invite to a party or sit next to on a plane.
January 11th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
“Even if he is a jerk, you gotta feel bad for the guy’
IIT IS FUNNY YOUR PROJECT ON OTHERS, WHAT OTHER SAY ABOUT YOU
“let me correct that notion. Your being attacked because, whether you are talking about the here or the hereafter, you are an arrogant, know-it-all, asshole.”
ONCE AGAIN, A PERFECT PROJECTION OF YOURSELF ON TO ANOTHER. IF NOTHING ELSE,UNDERSTAND MOST SEE YOU AS YOU SEE HUME, BUT MUCH LESS SUCCESSFUL AND RELEVANT. SAD ISNT IT, BUT AT LEAST YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR PERSONA.
WATCHING FOX AND OREILLY, A CLOSET WANNA BE REPUBLICAN?
DID YOU WATCH SHARPTON’S EXPLANATION ON FOX THAT, HARRY REID CAN’T BE A RACIST BECAUSE HE IS A DEMOCRAT….. REID IS THE WORST TYPE OF RACIST, ONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE A FRIEND BUT REALLY IS JUST USING A WHOLE RACE’S EMOTIONS FOR HIS OWN POLITICAL GAIN. THAT IS SOMETHING YOU WOULD DO I ASSUME SAM.
January 11th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
“Hey Brit, let me correct that notion. Your (sic) being attacked because, whether you are talking about the here or hereafter, you are a know-it-all, arrogant asshole.”
What do they call it, Sam, when you project your personality traits onto others to make yourself feel better about yourself? When I read that I thought Buddy must of asked you for an autobiography.
January 12th, 2010 at 9:23 am
Sam gets an extra 25 points for the Blazing Saddles reference.
The “golden era” of Mel Brooks — Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein as bookends to comedy divinity.
NK