This page was last updated on April 6, 2016.
Bishop’s priorities are out of line; Stephen F. “The Onion” Kislock, III; Beaver County Times; March 24, 2016.
Most of Mr. Kislock’s 73+ letters over the last nine years have been Republican-bashing exercises, though he sometimes goes after Democrats for his pet causes. Sometime during 2009 Mr. Kislock became an in-house commentator for Beaver County Reds, though it’s been some time since he’s written there. Please follow this link to learn more about Beaver County Reds. You may also remember Mr. Kislock appears to believe “The Onion” is a real news source. Mr. Kislock went on hiatus between June 2013 and July 2014. The last Kislock letter was entitled “Ferguson protests show how far we have fallen.”
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Bishop David Zubik should not concerned [sic] himself with ‘contraceptive coverage’ when his Catholic Church is overrun by pedophiles.”
[RWC] Mr. Kislock has a history (going back to at least 2006) of having a problem with deity-based religion, or at least Christianity. It’s not clear if Mr. Kislock also has a problem with atheistic religion. You can find examples in “Respect Founding Fathers’ wishes.” In one of those letters, Mr. Kislock wrote, “The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights supersedes all religions in our country.” In another, Mr. Kislock appeared to indicate he wanted “the Catholic Church … brought to its knees.” The point of mentioning Mr. Kislock’s body-of-work is to show his concern is about politics, not “the flock/children.”
Does Mr. Kislock believe Bishop Zubik and the Catholic Church cannot address the betrayal by some priests and some in the Church’s hierarchy, as well as “‘contraceptive coverage’ in the Affordable Care Act” (Obamacare) at the same time?
“It’s the flock/children, not ‘contraceptive coverage’ in the Affordable Care Act, that should be his real concern.”
[RWC] How does Mr. Kislock know “the flock/children” are not Mr. Zubik’s “real concern?” A previous Supreme Court (SC) decision on another place Obamacare clashes with freedom of religion was “Burwell, Sec. of HHS, v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.” The SC decided in favor of Hobby Lobby.
Though Mr. Kislock want us to believe he cares about children, he supports killing unborn children for convenience. As for “the flock,” Obamacare forces some in the faith to choose between violating the law and violating their religious beliefs. Shouldn’t Bishop Zubik help those members of “the flock?”
Now let’s take a look at excerpts of comments made on the BCT website.
lock Mar 24, 2016 7:11pm. (Note: “lock” is Rich Laughlin of Ambridge, a 1962 graduate of AHS.)
“Cox. You can’t figure out how or why Kislock might question Zubik’s priorities. Should this Bishop be making a Federal case of hindering access to birth control while a new pedophile priest atrocity is uncovered a few miles away in Johnstown? You blast Kislock’s record of letters critical of the Catholic Church, as if that Church is above reproach, immune to criticism, and ignore the obscene record of Cardinals and Bishops hiding and enabling child-molester priests. And this thing of making birth control a sin is obscene itself. The Catholic Church has waged war against condom use in overpopulated famine prone Africa, worsening the AIDS epidemic there. The Church must figure AIDS and famine are bad but not as bad as using condoms.
Sounds like you might be Catholic given your take on the thing. Maybe you can explain this weird obsession the Church has against birth control.”
sdcox Mar 25, 2016 10:07am. (Our BCT subscription is my brother’s, hence the “sdcox” screen name. I “sign” my comments so people know I’m the author, not my brother.)
Readers can see I didn’t write I couldn’t “figure out how or why Kislock might question Zubik’s priorities.” I addressed that issue when I wrote Mr. Kislock’s “concern is about politics.” My completely different question was, “How does Mr. Kislock know ‘the flock/children’ are not Bishop Zubik’s ‘real concern?’”
Readers can also see I didn’t “blast Kislock’s record of letters critical of the Catholic Church …” I simply noted it and provided examples so readers had a better chance of putting the letter in context.
I also did not write or imply the “Church is above reproach, immune to criticism …”; no religion is, whether deity-based or not.
As for the Church’s position on birth control, most of us know it’s not a “weird obsession.” If anyone truly wants to learn about it, there are plenty of sources more qualified than I to explain it.
Robin Cox
lock Mar 25, 2016 8:25pm
“Cox. You almost always add links to other websites which, I guess, bolster your well researched arguments. When I ask for an explanation or maybe justification or rationale behind the Church’s position on birth control you clam up, call yourself unqualified on the subject, even though it’s the crux of the matter, the thing you advocate. No links, no arguments, not even a wild guess at why they take their absurd, archaic fundamentalist stand.
You said look it up for yourself so I did. T o paraphrase, Catholic sites say God thinks boinking is a sin unless you’re making a baby. No fun, just babies. Those sites don’t mention the impact this nonsense has had on the over populated, starving Third World, but apparently they don’t care.
Hot tip. Research the definition for religion so you can stop calling atheism a religion.”
sdcox Mar 26, 2016 3:15pm
Mr. Laughlin, thank you for demonstrating why I deferred to sources more qualified than I to explain a religion’s doctrine. Regardless of my response, I knew you would go on a rant demeaning someone’s beliefs.
It’s interesting you focused on my deferral instead of the rest of that post showing where you consistently claimed I wrote things I did not in my first comment (Mar 24, 2016 3:35pm). Readers will see you continued the practice in your second post (Mar 25, 2016 8:25pm).
As for your assertion “the Church’s position on birth control … [is] the thing [I] advocate,” readers can see at no point did I “advocate” – or not – the Catholic Church’s doctrine on birth control. It wasn’t the purpose of my comment.
You wrote, “the Church’s position on birth control … [is] the crux of the matter.” Perhaps it is for you, but not for Mr. Kislock or me. Mr. Kislock’s letter made it clear his position is Bishop Zubik can’t work on anything other than child abuse until it no longer exists. That makes “birth control” a secondary issue for Mr. Kislock, not “the crux of the matter.” Had it not been birth control, Mr. Kislock would have found something else to take its place. The “the crux of the matter” for me was Mr. Kislock’s politics-driven apparent claim Bishop Zubik could work on only one important issue at a time.
Regarding “Hot tip. Research the definition for religion…,” you probably won’t be surprised to know I did that about 10 years ago before I first wrote atheism is a religion. Among the Merriam-Webster definitions for atheist are “a person who believes that God does not exist” and “one who believes that there is no deity.” Just as a theist can’t prove the existence of a deity or deities, an atheist can’t prove gods don’t exist. That means both theism and atheism are based on faith. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. If you want to believe in a religion whose doctrine is atheism is not a religion, that’s okay by me. <g>
Peace out.
Robin Cox
lock Mar 27, 2016 1:38pm
“Religion is: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Atheism is: Not believing in or worshiping such stuff, at least not until some evidence for it's existence is shown. It's nothing more than being skeptical of extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidemce. Skepticism doesn't inspire suicide bombs or mass suicide or snake handling the way religion does. See the difference?”
lock Mar 27, 2016 1:52pm
“I should add... you guys demean atheism by equating it with religion so cut that out.”
© 2004-2016 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.