Just when you think the christian right couldn’t get more delusional about [Newtown]… According to one right-wing author, the “Daily Show” host has helped “drive [God] out of our society”

New York Times bestselling author Joel Rosenberg tied Jon Stewart to the shootings in Newtown, Conn., because Stewart is part of “the cultural war against Jesus and Christmas” that helps “drive [God] out of our society, our of our schools and courts.”

In a blog post, Rosenberg cites the ongoing so-called War on Christmas, and how “We are, in many respects, in a moral and spiritual freefall in our country, and we are paying a terrible price.”

Rosenberg, who has previously linked Hurricane Sandy to abortion rights, is an evangelical who writes about End Times, and wrote in his latest book, “The Tehran Initiative,” that “[m]illions of Muslims around the world are convinced their messiah—known as ‘the Twelfth Imam’—has just arrived on earth.”

From Rosenberg’s blog post, called “Implosion update: The demons of violence are on the loose in America. But why? And where do we go from here?”:

The answer is as painful as it is simple: the further we turn away from God in our nation — the further we drive Him out of our society, our of our schools and courts, and out of our media and out of our homes, or the more we give mere lip service to religion, the more men are ”holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power” (2 Timothy 3:5) — the worse things are getting. Consider just the cultural war against Jesus and Christmas that has been waged just in the last few days:

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - Actor Morgan Freeman said on Sunday that he did not issue a statement blaming the media for sensationalizing the Newtown School shootings that left 20 children and several adults dead.

The award-winning actor added that he never made or posted the statement that became a Facebook and Internet sensation, saying it was a hoax.

wildcat2030:

See on Scoop.it - Knowmads, Infocology of the future

This spring, a couple of neuroscience researchers at Harvard published a study that finally explained why we like to talk about ourselves so much: sharing our thoughts, it turns out, activates the brain’s reward system. As if to…

abaldwin360:

Greg Sargent:

I didn’t expect this, but the epic dishonesty of Romney’s campaign is finally prompting something of a debate among media types about whether what we’re seeing here is unprecedented — and how to appropriately respond to it. This debate is focused partly on whether there’s a racial dimension to this attack. But it’s also about (as I noted here yesterday) what the media should do when one campaign has decided that there is literally no set of boundaries or standards it needs to follow when it comes to the veracity of the core assertions at the heart of its entire argument.

There seems to be a bit of a strain of media defeatism settling in about this. James Bennet, the editor of the Atlantic, wrote yesterday that he is glad to see news outlets calling Romney’s falsehoods out for what they are. But he wondered whether we are about to discover that the press is essentially impotent in the face of this level of deliberate dishonesty: “what if it turns out that when the press calls a lie a lie, nobody cares?”

I’m sympathetic to the question. Indeed, it goes to the heart of the Romney campaign’s gamble here, which is that the press simply won’t be able to keep voters informed in the face of the sheer scope and volume of mendacity it unleashes daily. At the same time, though, I have to agree with Atrios: When news orgs want to make a big stink about something, and keep that stink going for a good long while, they prove to be very capable of it indeed.

As Steve Benen and James Fallows keep arguing, this poses a test for the news media. What would happen if a nontrivial number of articles and broadcasts about the welfare lie and other Romney falsehoods called out his dishonesty right in their headlines, prominently featuring unequivocal declarations (not mealy-mouthed he-said-she-said nonsense) that Romney is misleading people and has done so again and again and again, despite knowing the truth?

Mark Kleiman suggests that horserace reporters begin clearly spelling out that Romney has “made a strategic decision to try to bury Obama under a blanket of false charges.” Would that be an exaggeration? No, it wouldn’t. What if newspapers devoted extensive front page pieces to dissecting Romney’s decision to continue basing entire ad campaigns on widely debunked claims, even as Romney advisers openly boast about the success of their dishonest ads and openly declare that they won’t be constrained by fact-checking?

Could something like that begin to shift the dynamic a bit and make it harder for a campaign to keep lying at this pace? I don’t know, but it would be nice to find out.

The fact that this shit is even a debate is fucking sad.

(Source: sarahlee310, via skepticalavenger)