![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Pres. Obama’s adviser Harry Knox
You might have heard something about Pres. Obama’s close adviser Harry Knox.
Let’s have a look at a CNS story about this presidential adviser… personally selected by Pres. Obama from who knows how many possible candidates… to help him form his policy on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Knox is also a homosexual activist.
Remember that President Obama asserted at Notre Dame his interest in "common ground" with Catholics.
Obama Adviser Stands by Assertion That Pope Benedict XVI Is ‘Hurting People in the Name of Jesus’Go to that CNS story for video and audio and a transcript.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
By Karen Schuberg
(CNSNews.com) – Harry Knox, who serves on President Barack Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is standing by a statement he made last March that Pope Benedict XVI is “hurting people in the name of Jesus.” [This is the sort of person Pres. Obama wants as his advisor.]
When asked on Tuesday whether he still holds that view that the pope "is hurting people in the name of Jesus," Knox said, “I do.” (See video below.)
In addition to advising President Obama on the government’s Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnership programs, Knox is the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a homosexual activist group.
At the National Press Club on Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Knox, “You put out a statement saying Pope Benedict XVI was—quote—‘hurting people in the name of Jesus’ because he did not support promoting the use of condoms as a means to control the spread of HIV. And I was wondering, do you still believe the pope’s position on condoms is ‘hurting people in the name of Jesus’?”
Knox answered, “I—I do.”
In a follow-up question, CNSNews.com asked Knox: “So, even in light of—Edward Green, a Harvard researcher in AIDS prevention said the pope was correct in that condom use aggravates HIV, the spread of it, in Africa. So, in light of that statement, do you still hold to that position?
Knox answered, “He is simply incorrect in his assertion. All the other evidence of science shows otherwise.” ["Shut up!", he explained. "Don’t distract me with facts."]
On March 17, 2009, Pope Benedict flew to Africa to visit Cameroon and Angola. During the flight, he answered several questions from reporters, including one concerning AIDS in Africa: Given that the Catholic Church’s position in fighting AIDS “is often considered unrealistic and ineffective,” would the pope “address this theme during the journey?”
Pope Benedict gave a lengthy response, detailing many of the Church’s humanitarian efforts to help people with AIDS in Africa. “I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is,” he said. “If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behavior], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it.”
In response to the pope’s remarks, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) issued a statement. It quoted Harry Knox as follows: “The Pope’s statement that condoms don’t help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus.”
“On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods,” said Knox in the statement. “The Pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods [Scientifically proven methods? Is this like the scientific discussion in e-mail of climate change?] is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community. Jesus was about helping the marginalized and downtrodden, not harming them further.” [Sooo… thus Harry Knox is telling the world what Jesus is all about. Never mind the Bishop of Rome, Knox knows!]
Senior Harvard AIDS Prevention Researcher Edward Green, who describes himself as a liberal, says that science backs the pope’s message.
“We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV-reduction rates” in Africa, Green told the Catholic News Agency in March 2009. The news agency further reported: “According to Green, the Catholic Church should continue to ‘do what it is already doing,’ avoid ‘arguing about the diameter of viruses’ and cite scientific evidence in connection with scripture and moral theology.”
Harry Knox spoke with CNSNews.com at a press conference about the “American Prayer Hour,” a new, multi-city event designed to "affirm inclusive values and call on all nations, including Uganda, to decriminalize the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people." [Yah… that will really help slow the spread of AIDS/HIV won’t it.]
Other speakers at the press conference included the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church and Ninth Bishop in New Hampshire; Bishop Carleton Pearson, senior minister at Christ Universal Temple in Chicago; Frank Schaeffer, author and journalist; Rev. Elder Darlene Garner, pastor at Metropolitan Community Church; Rev. Barry W. Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State; and Moses, a Ugandan citizen seeking asylum in the United States to escape abuse in his own country based on his sexual orientation. [So, this is little more than hostility to the Catholic Church from activist homosexuals. No… but wait… Harry Knox is a hand-picked advisor to Pres. Obama.]
There is an online petition requesting that the White House require the resignation of Harry Knox.
I don’t care if he resigns or he is fired so long as he has nothing to do with public policy.
“The Pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community.”-Harry Knox
Notice the false assumption here: All people in Africa are having extramarital sex.
A Catholic is able to not use condoms and not hurt the “health of their entire community”. It’s as simple as not having sex outside of marriage. That would make it pretty easy to choose faith AND health of their community.
Comment by Salvatore_Giuseppe — 7 February 2010 @ 5:06 pmWhere are all the American bishops who silently supported Barry Obama when he was running for office? Are the U.S. Bishops so ignorant that they had no idea Barry Obama would surround himself with demons from the culture of death?
Comment by Central Valley — 7 February 2010 @ 5:13 pmFather Z, this Knox person is the perfect example of the many people who already make public policy in this administration. Get rid of him and there are many more (even a legion) behind the curtains.
You reap what you sow.
The American people, and American Catholics, voted Obama into office. Too many people ignored the facts and did what “felt good.” Too many “conservatives” sat on their hands and didn’t vote, didn’t volunteer, didn’t contribute. Perhas this sort of thing, coupled with the horrible Supreme Court justices and Federal jugdes he’ll nominate, FOCA, gay marriage, the end of don’t ask-don’t tell, executive orders to fund overseas abortions, executive orders to kill embryos for research, will finally convince people that elections count.
Disclaimer: I worked as a county chair for McCain. Not because I like him, but because I could see how utterly evil Obama is.
Comment by Gwen — 7 February 2010 @ 5:26 pmI’ve had this argument/discussion about the Pope and condoms in Africa with many of my, ahem, liberal friends. The condom argument is so deeply engraved in their personal lives (and our common society) that it is inconceivable, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that condoms aren’t the answer.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear! But whereunto shall I esteem this generation to be like? It is like to children sitting in the market place. Who crying to their companions say: We have piped to you, and you have not danced: we have lamented, and you have not mourned.
Comment by ghlad — 7 February 2010 @ 5:29 pmI signed the petition. Let us stop blaming the American Catholics and the bishops and do something ourselves. We need to pray and act as responsible Catholics.
Comment by Supertradmom — 7 February 2010 @ 5:34 pmSupertradmom, Thank you and Amen, Sister! Let’s get off our soap boxes and roll up our sleeves! I’ve signed the petition and am sending it around to my email friends as well. Let’s stop pointing fingers and get to work. There is more on this person Knox at Catholic Vote Action.org. Scroll down to the story ‘Resources for Viewers of Hannity’s America’. Thomas Peters was a guest on the program the other night and talked about Knox, a real Pope-hatin’, Catholic-bashin’ kind of guy. Read up, get informed, put on your whole armour and get to fighting the good fight! This guy needs the boot really bad, really fast!
Comment by wanda — 7 February 2010 @ 5:45 pmConsidering that a) Edward Green is an avowed liberal and b) he runs around actually advocating FOR condom use, there’s something seriously wrong with this picture.
My understanding is that Green’s study related to condom distribution programs and the fact that they promote promiscuity—and thus cancel out any potential benefit achieved through the actual, in this case, non-use of the condoms themselves. This is interesting, potentially helpful for the Catholic cause, but not really the same as the question coming from the CNS interviewer: “...a Harvard researcher in AIDS prevention said the pope was correct in that condom use aggravates HIV.” The difference lies in distribution programs versus use. Mr Green promotes marital fidelity and monogamy (very good) but also strongly advocates for condom availability and USE by married couples in Africa (not good).
But not to worry—I’m sure no one will check the facts either way.
My point is that CNS should use extreme caution when cozying up to a liberal whose research and agenda as a whole might not be so helpful for the Church in the long run. The Church doesn’t need Mr. Green’s research; if it does, there are other problems. Credibility for the Catholic position could suffer if the data aren’t used in a responsible way.
Comment by Dave N. — 7 February 2010 @ 5:57 pmI suspect, and continue to do so, that many people like this (eg. Knox) have a malformed understanding of the identity of Jesus that leads them to their false conclusions. I think that they see Jesus as some type of figure who was primarily non-judgemental (despite facts in the Scriptures) and as the antithesis of the Father as presented in the OT.
I also suspect that they project their own wants/needs onto the figure of Jesus to satisfy their own problematic concerns and in an attempt to embrace the modern world. Because they are concerned with worldly matters they appear progressive and modern and attempt to portray any opposition as backward, regressive, reactionary etc.
Everything comes back to this incorrect understanding of the historical/religious figure of Jesus though.
Comment by Son of Trypho — 7 February 2010 @ 6:04 pmSon of Trypho: a malformed understanding of the identity of Jesus
That’s not the only thing of which they have a malformed understanding!
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 7 February 2010 @ 6:50 pm...Claiming to be wise, they became fools,and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. —Romans, Chapter 1
Comment by Tom A. — 7 February 2010 @ 7:15 pmEven were Knox to shut up and do his faith basing quietly, he is an IED. No Obama appointee does anything that is contrary to Obamas agenda even while the President tilts his chin up and disassociates himself from their policies and decisions. Case in point: Eric Holder. Knox should be gone. And the next Knox should be gone. And the next….and so on until 2012.
Comment by DisturbedMary — 7 February 2010 @ 7:25 pmThis is just another example of “libido” triumphing over reason…what a complete lie.
Comment by nazareth priest — 7 February 2010 @ 10:50 pmYeah, condoms are the answer…just ask the real scientific proof of this.
This guy is a complete nut job. But it only goes along with the rest of B.O.’s “cast of characters”.
This whole episode of our history will go down as a complete laughing-stock, failure of moral truth, character and sincerity. This president is just a disaster, from beginning to end. He’s not going to be considered anything in the scheme of things…unless Jesus comes again, real soon. And then, it won’t matter. Justice served.
Yep, more Obama deception. You know he’s being deceptive if his mouth is open and words are coming out….aided by a teleprompter of course.
Comment by EXCHIEF — 7 February 2010 @ 10:58 pmAnd, as an aside, in the video, who is the guy in the mask (looks like a kitty mask)?
Comment by nazareth priest — 7 February 2010 @ 11:01 pmI’m so not convinced of the answer H. Knox gave…the question about Pope Benedict’s assertion that condoms do not in fact prevent HIV infection…backed up by an eminent professor/scholar/researcher…
This is evidence?
Because H. Knox doesn’t believe it?
Where is the outrage from the media?
Nazareth priest, that was a Ugandan homosexual with a bag over his head (isn’t it always about homosexuality?)because LGBTs are not accorded gay rights in Uganda! http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2250/religious_leaders_urge_obama_to_condemn_ugandan_anti-gay_bill_at_prayer_breakfast
Please God, let me be charitable toward these “faith basers” even as I think of the nasty, escalating, ugly persecution of Christians in Iraq and Africa. Mr. Knox and his LGBT hijackers are a heavy, heavy, heavy load.
Comment by DisturbedMary — 7 February 2010 @ 11:41 pmDisturbedMary: Thanks for the info.
Comment by nazareth priest — 8 February 2010 @ 12:26 amIt just makes this even more diabolical.
You are correct…persecution of Christians in no matter what country is going to be the real challenge of our day, esp. in terms of this “issue”.
What a weasely, shit-grin-eating, diminutive, tight-pantied man is this?
His flash-in-the-pan logic (really extreme ignorance) thinks throwing kindling to the fire (ie condoms into Africa) will douse the flames. The exact opposite:
Think about it: if you promote a thing through word or gesture (condoms) you make the thing seem like a necessity or pleasure-tool, rather than a sacramental act, to further human kind
Comment by Maltese — 8 February 2010 @ 2:50 amAs a personal side-note: I was an atheist, but the major thing which brought me into the Church (not that I’m wanted, in other respects) was her teaching on birth control.
Abortion, contraception, and the “pill” reek too much of man saying that he has control over-and-above God.
Comment by Maltese — 8 February 2010 @ 3:00 amNazareth priest, that was a Ugandan homosexual with a bag over his head (isn’t it always about homosexuality?)because LGBTs are not accorded gay rights in Uganda!
We should tread carefully because as I understand it, he says he is hiding his identity out of genuine fear of unjust persecution in his home country. I don’t know the merits of that claim (he could be full of nonsense and just rathceting up the drama), but it could also be real.
Comment by Scott W. — 8 February 2010 @ 1:31 pmMaltese,
Your bio indicates that you are in law, perhaps a lawyer. My suggestion: Pretend that what you write here will be said in a courtroom.
Comment by robtbrown — 8 February 2010 @ 1:59 pm“Notice the false assumption here: All people in Africa are having extramarital sex.”
Salvatore_Giuseppe…
This is much like the claim that “pro-choice” extends the right to choose for ALL women. This is a false claim since there are a great many women who would never require such a choice. Or the claim that homosexual marriage extends to homosexuals the same rights as all other people to marry. That is false…I currently don’t have the right to marry another man either, and every homosexual man has the same right to marry a woman as I do. At the bottom of every such claim is a false assumption.
Comment by chironomo — 8 February 2010 @ 2:34 pmSandro Magister has a very interesting piece that touches on the “bogus compassion” of the condom issue, and other things, here:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1342048?eng=y
P.S. I really like the last paragraph of Fr. Schooyan’s essay on “bogus compassion” at the bottom!
Comment by mpm — 8 February 2010 @ 3:28 pm“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”
Comment by mdillon — 8 February 2010 @ 5:02 pmWow! This man just looks creepy. What was it one of the Nuremberg lawyers said about Streicher—“a seedy looking man, of the sort that makes trouble in parks” . . . ?
Comment by An American Mother — 8 February 2010 @ 7:48 pmIsn’t Frank Schaeffer Orthodox?
Comment by sgreener — 9 February 2010 @ 5:03 amWould appear that his Orthopraxis might be a bit off base here.
Perhaps he just doesn’t know whose company he is keeping.
Just found this article by Schaeffer.
Comment by sgreener — 9 February 2010 @ 5:10 amhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/whats-really-going-on-wit_b_385598.html
Isn’t the issue not that “we” are anti-gay (Schaeffer’s analysis is sadly political – eg terms like right wing – and ad hominem: one wonders if he has ever read Catholic theology never mind that of his own Orthodox church) but that we are being attacked and forced to accept things on their terms denying our freedom of speech and practice in a way far, far worse than they claim was ever done to them by the Christian churches?