Well at least this nun gets it.

You know I consider myself pro-life. That is why I oppose war, support vaccinations, want universal health care, and argue for the rights of all Americans.

None of us are pro-abortion, but the majority of us recognize that we have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

And sometimes choosing not to give birth really is the right decision for all involved.

(H/T to the Daily Kos.)

Are there more Bill O'Reilly lies to uncover? Why yes there are.

"Wait, another one?"

Courtesy of the Guardian:  

Former colleagues of Bill O’Reilly, the Fox News host whose tales of past reporting exploits are facing renewed scrutiny, have disputed his account of surviving a bombardment of bricks and rocks while covering the 1992 riots in Los Angeles. 

Six people who covered the riots with O’Reilly in California for Inside Edition told the Guardian they did not recall an incident in which, as O’Reilly has claimed, “concrete was raining down on us” and “we were attacked by protesters”. 

Several members of the team suggested that O’Reilly may instead be overstating a fracas involving one disgruntled Los Angeles resident, who smashed one of their cameras with a piece of rubble.

Here is what O'Reilly's former co-workers had to report on the incident:

Inside Edition colleagues from the time who were in Los Angeles with O’Reilly – reporters Bonnie Strauss, Tony Cox and Rick Kirkham, and crew members Theresa McKeown, Bob McCall and Neil Antin – told the Guardian that they did not recall such an incident. 

Kirkham, the show’s lead reporter on the riots, was adamant that it did not take place. “It didn’t happen,” he said. “If it did, how come none of the rest of us remember it?” 

Tonya Freeman, the head of the show’s library at the time, said: “I honestly don’t recall watching or hearing about that. I believe I probably would have remembered something like that.” Another librarian from the time also said she did not recall the incident. A spokeswoman for Inside Edition declined to comment. 

Several other senior Inside Edition staffers from the time declined to comment when asked if they recalled O’Reilly’s version of events. Several members of the team, however, recalled that one afternoon in the days following the peak of the riots, which began on 29 April, the angry resident attacked a camera while O’Reilly was being filmed near the intersection of Fairfax Avenue and Pico Boulevard. “It was one person with one rock,” said McCall, the sound man. “Nobody was hit.” 

“A man came out of his home,” said Antin, who was operating the camera that was struck. “He picked up a chunk of concrete, and threw it at the camera.” Told of O’Reilly’s description of a bombardment, Antin said: “I don’t think that’s really … No, I mean no, not where we were.” 

“There was no concrete,” said McKeown. “There was a single brick”. Kirkham’s response was: “Oh my God. That is a completely fictitious story. Nothing ever rained down on us”. 

Here is my favorite part of this article:  

O’Reilly is said to have shouted at the man and asked him: “Don’t you know who I am?

Gee who does that sound like?

Okay let's see if we have this straight now.

Bill O'Reilly was NOT actually on the ground covering the Falklands War.

He never saw any nuns get shot in the back of the head in El Salvador.

He was NOT standing outside the door when George de Mohrenschildt committed suicide.

And now he did not even have concrete thrown at him while covering riots in 1992.

Is that finally enough for Fox News to be embarrassed enough by his bullshit to send him packing?

Hopes that the new Pope might usher in a newer kinder Catholicism crushed as he reenforces crackdown on "feminist" nuns.

Courtesy of Time: 

The Vatican says Pope Francis supports the Holy See’s crackdown on the largest umbrella group of U.S. nuns, who were faulted for focusing too much on social justice instead of issues such as abortion. 

American sisters had expressed hope that Francis, a Jesuit whose emphasis on the poor mirrored their social outreach, would take a different approach than his predecessor. 

The Vatican last year imposed a reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious after determining the sisters took positions undermining Catholic teaching on the priesthood and homosexuality while promoting “radical feminist themes.” 

And what caused this rift and resulted in the nun being referred to as "radical feminists?"

Obamacare of course.

This from Slate:

The organization speaks out on policy issues, especially those pertaining to social justice and provides leadership training to the approximately 57,000 nuns it represents. The original religious disagreement between the Vatican and the LCWR focused largely on the end-of-life and abortion debates in the U.S., especially in the context of President Obama's health care reform law.

So essentially the Pope simply cannot tolerate the American nuns recognizing the importance of women being allowed to have a say over their own reproductive system, and continues to demand that they submit to the will of the men instead. 

So much for progress within the Catholic church.

You know might be a good time to remind everybody exactly WHY the Catholic church remains so adamant against abortion and birth control.

Here is hint, it has NOTHING to do with babies and EVERYTHING to do with perceived infallibility.

You gotta love Samuel Clemens.

And what happens when that knowledge is attained by the very people who are supposed to preach religion to the masses?

Courtesy of Alternet:

What happens when a clergy person -- a minister, a priest, a rabbi, an imam -- realizes he doesn't believe in God? 

And what happens when he says it out loud? What happens when they find each other; when they support each other in coping with their crises, when they help each other with resources and job counseling and other practical assistance? What happens when they encourage each other to come out? 

Could this affect more than just these clergy people and their followers? Could it change how society as a whole thinks and feels about religion?

There is strong evidence that we may be entering a new age of enlightenment, which can only bring good things to us.  Well that is unless you believe that without religion, there can be no morality.

And hopefully nobody who visits here is so primitive in their thought process as to subscribe to so antiquated a notion.