See, this is disturbing

[Fish and Bread]

Hey fish I'M A conservative. Does that make me a nutjob?!

Not necessarily. I think there are some level-headed conservatives out there. There are probably even some level-headed conservative reporters with high journalistic standards -- and we wouldn't even know they are conservative because of the aforementioned high journalistic standards (reporting is supposed to be as objective as possible, and not reflect an individual's personal biases). But WND wears a heavy bias on it's sleeve, and goes beyond just being opinionated -- it fails to check facts adequately and heavily exaggerates things to support it's political point of view to the point that some of the stories become inaccurate even when they bother to fact check them, which seems rare. One can't rely on what one reads there to be accurate, which to me makes it a poor news source.

A liberal equivalent to this sort of shotty journalism might be the Daily Kos, which I don't read either, though in fairness to them I've never actually visited the DK website (It doesn't sound like something that would interest me), so I could be wrong in my assessment. That's just what I gather from the word on the street.

This isn't so much a liberal versus conservative issue as just an issue of whether I can trust the news I read somewhere to be accurate. If I go to the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the Associated Press, at least 95% (if not more) of the time they aren't going to give me facts that aren't true (Whatever allegations of bias people might have against them, they are least report what happens). WND just flat out gets the facts wrong a lot of the time.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I don't care about this debate. When I heard it was like 90% of Congress voting in favor, and folks are complaining about the other ten percent, I thought it was the epitome of pointless whining, and stupidity---that any journalist or person would bother to care about the opposition of such an low percentage. C'mon folks, we find some faux-conservative site, and paste this as evidence of a war on Christianity in America. Surely, one could find more compelling evidence with a source that has both better credibility, less bias, better sources, and worth my time to read-----in order to put forth one's evidence for such a war. (I'm not saying it isn't happening, what I am saying is, I want better evidence, that is credible.)

 

[Virgil the Roman]

This site is Neo-Con-istic, it is not true conservatism. Paleo-Conservativism is what True Conservatism is. I and much of the Republican's base are Paleo-Cons, however the party has been hijacked by the Neo-Cons---who are not conservatives, but pseudo-Conservatives. I guess I could be considered a "Traditonalist" on the Right.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

See the wiki also on Paleo-Conservatism as well.

=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Paul Gottfried once noted an "occasional paleo association with over-the-top Catholicism."[97] In fact, counter-revolutionary (Roman Catholic) European precursors to the paleoconservatives include Joseph de Maistre, Charles Maurras, Donoso Cortes, Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, and Pope Pius IX, though they tend to carry influence limited to the Roman Catholic traditionalist subset of paleoconservatism. G. K. Chesterton[98] and Hillaire Belloc[99] are also popular Catholic forebears of paleo thought.[100] As for Chesteron and Belloc, Joseph Sobran explained their relevance:

This new, paganized Western society under the comprehensive state would have come as much less of a surprise to us if we’d paid more attention to the two great English Catholic writers of the pre-Bolshevik period.... In 1912, Belloc predicted the rise of a new form of tyranny, which he called “the Servile State,” neither capitalist nor socialist, in which one part of the population would be forced to support the other. He was not always accurate in detail, but he was right in principle. He saw that the cellular structure of Christian society was under assault. Chesterton agreed. Together both men resisted modernity in religion, morality, politics, economics, and art. They celebrated the Middle Ages, small private property, and above all Catholicism. In a famous epigram, typically defiant in its simplicity, Belloc proclaimed: “Europe is the Faith, and the Faith is Europe.”[101]


Quote From: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paeloconservatism
​

I'm a Paleo-conservative Traditionalist Catholic in the style of Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc.

 

[WarriorAngel]

This site is Neo-Con-istic, it is not true conservatism. Paleo-Conservativism is what True Conservatism is. I and much of the Republican's base are Paleo-Cons, however the party has been hijacked by the Neo-Cons---who are not conservatives, but pseudo-Conservatives. I guess I could be considered a "Traditonalist" on the Right.

Right after your previous post...

C'mon folks, we find some faux-conservative site, and paste this as evidence of a war on Christianity in America. Surely, one could find more compelling evidence with a source that has both better credibility, less bias, better sources, and worth my time to read-----in order to put forth one's evidence for such a war. (I'm not saying it isn't happening, what I am saying is, I want better evidence, that is credible.)

Was your post directed to me, the OP?

I said i hoped this didnt turn into a debate...
My only point is that they did not vote as they did for Islam and Hindu.
Like or not, regardless of the writing [which i didnt read it all]
Its the fact it was not 100% like the rest.

So, you think i am neocon?

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Right after your previous post...


Was your post directed to me, the OP?
Uhm, I just wanted a more reputable source, your source drips of neo-con sensationalism.
I said i hoped this didnt turn into a debate...
My only point is that they did not vote as they did for Islam and Hindu.
I didn't care about that, I think their more journalistic, factual, and reliable sources out there other than the "Daily World Net".
Like or not, regardless of the writing [which i didnt read it all]
Its the fact it was not 100% like the rest.
I just thought it was pointless to rag on a few idiots, when they're in such a minuscule minority of those who voted on the matter. To mean, it seems rather.............well, uhm an unnecessary bother. There are larger problems that merit more attention that aren't being covered by the mainstream media; however, this, in my opinion, is not one of them.

So, you think i am neocon?
Uhm, I don't know, but then again, you haven't told me, so I'll errr on the side of caution and say---------no.

 

[Snowbunny]

A website with a very conservative Republican slant that tends to report the news in a very biased, sensationalistic, and frequently factually inaccurate, way.

gracias, i did not know that!

 

[Globalnomad]

Hmmmm, how did I manage to miss this interesting debate so far?

Couple of thoughts thrown in at this late stage:

1. On the surface, it would seem that it is wrong to draw a parallel with the Islam resolution. The Islam resolution says that it is "one of the major world religions". A neutral, factual statement. The statements "Christianity has a special place in American culture" and "the relationship between Christianity and the founding of America" seem, on the other hand, to be value judgements - a different kind of statement altogether.

OK, so let's leave Islam out of this, and judge the Christmas resolution on its own.

2. Then you realise that those two statements are not value judgements, either. I mean, heck, you have to be blind not to agree that Christmas has a special place in American culture. And although some authorities dispute the role of Christianity in the founding of America (Jefferson and some others are supposed to have been unitarian theists or something, right?), the basic values embodied in the Declaration of Independence and in the other major documents of the time reflect the best of Western Christianity.

I sympathize with people who have been hurt by Christianity, and want to explore ways to free themselves from the Christian "straitjacket", as they see it, of our Western culture. But to deny that this "straitjacket" exists - from the notion that God created us all free and equal, with the ability, right and duty to pursue our salvation (corrupted into "happiness"), to the importance of Christmas in American culture - is just sheer stupidity.

IOW, in the end, both statements are factual - sorry Charlie, I don't see how it "cuts near the bone" of establishing a State religion. American culture includes Christmas in a big way, even if a minority of Americans will not celebrate it. If the meaning of the culture called "America" only includes those aspects that are common to every single US citizen, what do you end up with? Nothing at all, not even McDonalds.