Syte Reitz

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world…….

Browsing Posts tagged anonymous attacks

Madison’s Media Continues to Diss the Catholic Church- Just in Time for Christmas

 

Background

The past week has produced a barrage of media attacks on the Catholic Church in Madison.
Should not be too surprising; it is common for media to attack the Church immediately before Christmas and immediately before Easter.  Happens every year.  Happens nationally.  Happens globally.
Satan seems particularly resentful of these most important celebrations of Christ’s birth and Resurrection, during which the Christians of the world strengthen their commitment to Christ.  Satan becomes particularly active at these times.

While the rest of us are engaging in sacrifice, prayer and charitable works for Advent, trying to make ourselves more worthy to celebrate the miracle of Christ’s birth, the secular media fills that time with attacks on our beliefs.  Must be some guilt worm eating away at their insides. Or something. 😉

I’ve only addressed the worst one of the Madison media attacks this week, the attack by Madison’s  previous ex-Mayor Dave, but the attacks have been numerous, and Dave’s was not the first one.

Doug Erickson, Dave Ceislewicz and Chris Rickert

The attacks started with Doug Erickson and the Wisconsin State Journal (WSJ), folllowed by Dave Cieslewicz’s copycat article at Isthmus.  Dave’s article was the most obvious and vicious attack on the Church, so I addressed that one first in my last blog post.  Chris Rickert’s WSJ article followed.  The WSJ Doug Erickson and Chris Rickert attacks are typically a bit (though not much) more subtle than that of Dave Cieslewicz, and they use less slightly less direct means in attempting to discredit the Catholic Church in Madison. A complete list of articles and links which followed in the Madison media is included below.

The Nuns

The springboard for these attacks on the Church was the fact that Bishop Morlino of Madison directed Madison Catholic parishes not to enlist the services of two aged nuns who were trying to hold “retreats” in which heretical beliefs, contrary to Catholicism, were promoted.  The nuns were teaching “indifferentism,” the belief that all faiths are equal.

What’s Wrong with Indifferentism?

The rejection of indifferentism is not unique to the Catholic Church; most religions reject indifferentism and by definition, most religions believe that their own religion represents the truth more accurately than others do.  If they did not believe this, they would have no reason to stay in their own church. Duh.

Indifferentism poses a logical impossibility, since religions contradict each other in some areas, so they cannot all be true simultaneously.  Indifferentism attacks all religions, not just Catholicism, by implying the invalidation of all contradictory beliefs, essentially dismantling the veracity of all religions at the same time.
It’s the first domino used by militant atheists who try to discredit all religious belief.

A more correct position would be to acknowledge that all religions hold varying degrees of truth, and that some religions err in some areas.  Religious individuals obviously believe that their own religion is the most accurate one and holds the truth.  If they did not believe that, they would switch to a more accurate religion.  So attempts by anyone, media or nuns, to insist that all religions are equally good would be about at logical as insisting that all schools and universities are equally good.  They are not.

And most religions hold enough of the truth to realize that religions should respect each other and should focus on the important truths they hold in common, rather than infighting over the elements over which they disagree.

Atheists Reject Indifferentism

Even atheists reject indifferentism, insisting that their beliefs are more true and more “rational” than those of religious people.
Some even go to the extreme of wanting to ban public espression of Christain beliefs and ridiculing Christian beliefs publicly themselves.

Madison’s media has written numerous sympathetic and positive articles about Madison atheists, without criticising their rejection of indifferentism.
How can Madison’s media be so biased when they represent the Catholic Church?

So WSJ Leaked the Bishop’s Letter

So the  WSJ leaked the content of the Bishop’s letter, which warned Catholic parishes not to enlist the services of the two nuns who taught indifferentism, as well as teaching other heresies.
The letter was leaked to the Wisconsin State Journal (WSJ) by an unnamed person.
-Violation of confidentiality.
Doug Erickson published the details of the Bishop’s directive.
-Violation of charity.
How would you like it if the WSJ published the private details of your reprimand from your boss?  The Bishop’s correction of the two nuns was meant to be private, and nobody, including nuns, want their mistakes and sins laundered in public.

Spin as Usual; It’s Madison

Doug Erickson’s article gave a very sympathetic spin to the two aged nuns, minimizing the heretical nature of their teaching and emphasizing their wonderful and sweet qualities.
This generated the usual WSJ-anonymous-discussion-forum-free-for-all, in which Madison’s Church haters reliably crawl out of the woodwork, spewing hateful vitriol towards Catholicism and Madison’s Bishop, while simultaneously bringing a landslide of web traffic to WSJ’s website to view the circus.  Revenue is always useful, particularly at the expense of the Catholic Church’s reputation.

Catholics Fight Back

This Catholic-Church-attacking phenomenon has become so predictable in Madison, WI, that numerous real Catholics in Madison (as opposed to the two dissident nuns whom WSJ seems to favor), have even developed an alert system to watch for  WSJ attacks on the Church, and numerous faithful Catholics flock to join the WSJ discussion forums in defense of the Church.

In my case, my indignation at this treatment of Catholics in Madison over the years, particularly by the WSJ, the Capital Times, and the Isthmus, inspired me to establish a website three years ago for the sole purpose of defending my Church, my religious beliefs, and my conservative political beliefs which stem from my faith.

Apparently my voice reflects the views of numerous faithful people, since my humble amateur blog, with sparse and sporadic posting, has already received over half a million hits this month, as of  December 14th.

But of course, the faithful Christians/Conservatives whose views I represent are of no interest to Madison’s media.  They are more interested in two dissident nuns.  Madison’s Progressive media’s only interest is the rampant spread of progressive culture in Madison.

List of Madison Articles on the Two-Nun Issue in Less Than One Week

Not satisfied with their initial attempts to mis-portray and embarrass the Bishop of Madison, Madison’s newspapers  continued to publish a series of articles and letters related to the initial article all week.  Granted, some of the letters printed by WSJ were supportive of the Bishop, but often support was quickly followed by insult, as in Chris Rickert’s article published on December 13th.

 

The Diocese Offered Information

Of course, the Diocese offered accurate information as soon as the the Bishop’s private letter was leaked, but as usual, Madison’s media paid little heed to that.
Here are the links to the Diocese information:

From the Vicar General From the Vicar General
Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Statement to Priests from VG Re: Wisdom’s Well
Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Synopsis documents from VG re: Wisdom’s Well
Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Also: Monsignor James Bartylla: Catholic Church must protect truth of Gospel WSJ, Dec 12

Back to the Media Attacks

Chris Rickert’s WSJ Article; Pretense of Support Cloaks Deceptive Attack

Nobody could keep up with the barrage of old and false accusations listed above, which is cleverly interspersed with just a few supportive letters, to camouflage the thrust of the attack.
Not going to tackle each one, but Chris Rickert, a WSJ reporter, should know better than to write what he wrote in his Dec 13 article which pretends at first to support the Bishop.
Here’s my online forum response to Chris Rickert’s deceptive attack on the Catholic Church:

Chris Rickert-

You claim to defend the Bishop’s decision, yet you end with a doomsday forecast on the future of the Catholic Church, and a personal pronouncement that “official Catholicism is a regressive and controlling throwback in a modern world.”
That’s not even accurate reporting. It also borders on hate speech.

FYI, Catholicism is growing in Madison (30+ seminarians vs. 4 ten years ago), is growing in the United States, and is growing worldwide.
If you want to distinguish Catholicism into orthodox and heterodox, orthodox Catholicism is also growing. And it’s growing in Madison. Madison should look outside the bubble and face reality. And religion reporters should report on that reality.

Incidentally, creating categories of Catholicism is ridiculous; do we have orthodox and heterodox math?
Heterodox math is wrong math, and heterodox Catholicism is wrong Catholicism.
There is only one kind of Catholicism, and then there are different faiths, which are not Catholicism.

Speaking of orthodox Catholicism, I hear that one of the nation’s top Catholic bloggers, Father Z, is celebrating a Latin Mass in the Diocese of Madison this weekend. I’m sure that event will be packed.
It’s historic, it’s new, it’s Catholic, it’s orthodox, and it’s popular.
Is the WSJ planning to cover that story, and to cover it respectfully, or does that not fit your political agenda?
Or perhaps WSJ religion reporters prefer to sleep in on Sundays?
If you are serious journalists and interested in covering that event, information can certainly be obtained from the Bishop’s Office.

You also call Catholicism an uncompromising faith.
Are you advocating that truth should be compromised?
Or do you have no interest in truth?

The WSJ has not been reporting on religion, it has been dissing religion.
That is not the job of religion reporters.
Got to wonder where WSJ finds its religion reporters and what their qualifications are.

Syte Reitz

 

WSJ, Capital Times and Isthmus Tactics

The tactics used by Madison’s left in attacking the Catholic Church are immoral, dishonorable and repugnant.
They violate the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
They resemble deceptive and unChristian standards of behavior like Alinsky Tactics and the  Thirty-Six Strategems, such as:

  • When the enemy is too strong to be attacked directly, then attack something he holds dear.
  • Make a sound in the east, then strike in the west.
  • Create something from nothing.
  • Hide a knife behind a smile.
  • Defeat the enemy by capturing their chief.
  • Sow discord in the enemy’s camp.
  • Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon
  • Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

 

Sadly, in Madison, Wisconsin, this is nothing new.

 

 

 

 

“I Follow Hate”

or

Why Do Liberals Keep Shooting Themselves in the Foot?

I’ve just been “followed” on Twitter by an anonymous somebody who calls themselves ifollowHATE

Most people on twitter follow what they LIKE, not what they HATE.
Hate is quite discordant with the cute little twitter bird, which represents a social network with members “chirping” or “tweeting” information to each other for the purpose of networking.

Self-Definition

Yes, I know, ifollowHATE is not indicating that he or she hates me.  They are implying that I hate, and this is their attempt to label me as hateful.

You do have to wonder about people who define themselves not by what they believe, but by whom they judge, whom they oppose, and whom they hate.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, for example, has been one of those rare groups which define their beliefs by a negative and whose activities center on interfering with the beliefs of others.

ifollowHATE has by no means isolated me alone.  ifollowHATE follows 2,247 people and groups on Twitter, and has made 7,544 tweets.  Clearly not a casual tweeter, nor a casual activity.  Quite a bit of effort has been invested in this hate-labeling campaign.

Why Me?

ifollowHATE was probably inspired to follow me on Twitter by my recent article on Gay Marriage and HomosexualityifollowHATE self-identifies on Twitter as:

I follow people that follow the group that fans the flames of hostility against blacks and gays (their words, their admission)”

Ironically, my article, although disagreeing with the radical gay agenda, was anything but hateful.  I challenge ifollowHATE or anyone else to find a hateful remark in my article.

Where’s the Logic?

Most would expect those who promote the gay lifestyle to direct their efforts toward explaining the benefits of their philosophy.
Or, perhaps, to defend criticisms others make against their philosophy.
But scanning the Internet for websites which disagree with you, and labeling them hateful without explanation is not a marketing philosophy that is likely to sell an idea.

Intimidation

So if ifollowHATE’s motivation is not promotion of the gay lifestyle, what is it?

ifollowHATE’s intention is probably intimidation.  Conservative bloggers are frequently targeted by radicals, as Michelle Malkin describes.

Yesterday, Michelle Malkin posted Free Speech Zone, showing solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers, whose ranks I have apparently officially joined today.   Michelle writes:

Over the past eight years that I’ve been blogging and operating Internet media companies, I’ve witnessed or experienced firsthand some of the most unhinged behavior against conservatives — from individual harassment and intimidation, to e-mail bombs and e-mail hackings, to troll infestations, distributed denial of service attacks, coordinated spam block attacks, and death threats.

Michelle’s reaction to threats:

Over the past twenty years that I’ve worked in daily opinion journalism, written books, and traveled across the country speaking in every type of venue, I’ve always believed that the most effective response to attempted censorship of conservatives is more speech, not less.

More. Louder. Bolder.

Internet Bullying

This internet targeting of conservative bloggers, or internet bullying, seems to be a common tactic utilized by the left.
All part of Alinsky tactics, or trying to justify the use of dirty tactics to achieve one’s goals.

And, like most bullies, ifollowHATE  is cowardly and hides behind anonymity. Like most bullies, their chances of success are slim.

Revealing Name

So ifollowHATE spends his or her time pursuing, judging and labeling others, behind an anonymous mask.
Ironically, this makes ifollowHATE more hateful than the people they are presuming to judge.  ifollowHATE really does follow hate; but the hate is found in their own heart, not in the hearts of those whom they try to label.

Half of America Hates

Some of the individuals and groups labeled by ifollowHATE as being hateful include:

American Papist, Catholic Music, Catholic News Service, Catholic Radio Dramas, Catholic Writers Guild, National Organization for Marriage, and The Witty Catholic

Not bad company I have just joined!
This list also indicates that ifollowHATE’s hate seems to be directed primarily at Catholics.

And, according to ifollowHATE’s  definition of hatefulness – disagreement with the radical gay agenda –half of America must hate, too.

Who Gets to Define America’s Moral Values?

When it comes to the marriage question, 1.7% of the population, gays, is trying to dictate the law to 98.3% of America, those who are straight.

It’s actually even less than 1.7% trying to dictate the law, since the vast majority of gays do not seek gay marriage.

What can radicals be thinking?  That Americans will take well to intimidation by minority?  The more they step up the aggression and the ridicule, the less likely they are to succeed.  They are shooting themselves in the foot.

So What has ifollowHATE   accomplished?

Am I planning to return ifollowHATE’s follow?
Not highly likely.
So ifollowHATE is not likely to network effectively on Twitter.

Will   ifollowHATE succeed in spreading their philosophy by this method?
Probably not.

Actually,  by focusing all his or her efforts solely on attacking all who disagree with them without explanation, ifollowHATE simply makes themselves look foolish, damaging their cause.

What a sad waste of time!

All Posts