US Home Security: We must tell the truth about ISIS because President Obama won’t"

And the truth is that ISIS’ core appeal is in its Islamic identity, and it is that identity that makes ISIS so dangerous.

FoxNews - In his address to the nation last week, President Obama declared to the nation — to the world — that ISIS (also known as ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) was not Islamic.

Across the globe, jaws dropped.

It’s not my purpose today to cite chapter and verse why President Obama is wrong. Pundits have been doing that for days. Instead, I want to focus on the deeper question: Why is ISIS’ Islamic identity critical to its appeal to the Muslim world?

The truth is that ISIS’ core appeal is in its Islamic identity, and it is that identity that makes ISIS so dangerous.

After all, if ISIS isn’t “Islamic,” then tens of thousand of devout young Muslims wouldn’t be flocking to its banner.

If ISIS isn’t “Islamic,” then opposing Islamic militias would swell with the ranks of the faithful, eager to root out the apostates in their midst.

Instead, however, ISIS grows, its various jihadist rivals shrink and the U.S. is under the greatest threat since 9/11.

Understanding ISIS’ Islamic identity is critical to understanding the true dimensions of its appeal to Muslims and its growing international power.

This summer, as the ISIS challenge was just beginning to emerge, I traveled to Oxford University’s Harris Manchester College, along with key members of our American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) “law of war” team. There, we launched an in-depth study of ISIS, its motivations and its capabilities. We turned the papers we created into a book, "Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can’t Ignore."

We combined our academic study with on-the-ground experience in Iraq and years of international legal experience combating jihadists in international tribunals to tell the truth — the whole truth — about ISIS.

And the truth is that ISIS’ core appeal is in its Islamic identity, and it is that identity that makes ISIS so dangerous... continue reading

The persecution of Christians in the ‘Muslim world’

ChristiansOfIraq and WorldMag

Dec. 15, 2010

The New York Times this week ran a front-page article on Christian persecution in Iraq, noting, “A new wave of Iraqi Christians has fled to northern Iraq or abroad amid a campaign of violence against them and growing fear that the country’s security forces are unable or, more ominously, unwilling to protect them.” The Times goes on to inform us that “more than half of Iraq’s Christian community, estimated to number 800,000 to 1.4 million before the American-led invasion in 2003, have already left the country.”

What is the Obama administration doing to put pressure on the al-Maliki government in Baghdad to stop these murders of Christians? We have heard endlessly of this administration’s “outreach to the Muslim world.” That term—“Muslim world”—may itself be part of the problem. By telling Shia and Sunni Muslims that the Middle East is their world, are we not saying that Middle Eastern Christians and Jews don’t belong there?

The Christian community in Iraq has been there since the beginnings of the Church. Bible readers will recognize Nineveh Province, one of the regions in modern-day Iraq. Didn’t some biblical character named Jonah have a rendezvous with destiny there? The Chaldean Assyrian Christians—note their Bible name—speak Aramaic, which is the language scholars tell us Jesus spoke. Yet these people, too, are being driven away.

Lebanon's PM says Middle East is 'heading for disaster'

Watch this VIDEO at BBC Live News - Help Failure to reach a comprehensive peace deal in the Middle East will lead the region into disaster says the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri.

He told the BBC's Jeremy Bowen the whole world will be affected by failure and that Europe and the US are already paying the price of extremism.

US President Barak Hussein Obama's Half Brother Wedded the Third Time

This news is something very interesting. One of US President Barak Hussein Obama's half brother wedded for the third time which is legal in Kenya according to one's religious affiliation. Since Obama's relatives elsewhere are all Muslims, this is not a big deal. Is Obama a closet Muslim disguising as a Christian? Only him knows. Or Americans were duped?

Obama's half brother in Kenya says he married teen

NAIROBI, Kenya – President Barack Obama's polygamist half brother in Kenya has married a 19-year-old woman more than 30 years his junior. Malik Obama, 52, told a Kenya news station that the teen quit school and wanted to get married. He appeared on video taken by a hidden camera, although he knew he was talking to journalists.



AP – FILE - This Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2004 file photo
shows Malik Obama, the older brother of US President …

 "She decided she doesn't want to go back to school. She wants to get married now. She came here, and what am I supposed to do? So we are married," Malik Obama said on the video broadcast by NTV.

Sheila Anyango is now Malik Obama's third wife, although he did not say when the wedding took place. Polygamy is legal in Kenya if it falls under religious or cultural traditions.

The 19-year-old's mother told The Associated Press on Friday she is furious that her daughter quit high school and married the 52-year-old. Mary Aoko Ouma says her daughter tried to marry Malik Obama two years ago, but the mother says she wouldn't give permission.

Ouma said she has struggled to send her six children to school since her husband died in 1996, and that she was severely disappointed Anyango didn't finish. Ouma said Anyango was setting a bad example for her other daughter who is still in high school.

"I told her not to get married until she has finished her education. Let the world teach her a lesson even if she has problems in her marriage. I don't want to see her again," Ouma said.

Ouma said she did not receive a bride price from Malik Obama but that if she received one she would spend it on her other children's schooling.

Jane Omogi, a district education officer in Siaya in western Kenya, said officials are investigating, but she declined to make any further comment.

Barack Obama's father had at least six other children in his native Kenya. Kenyans have claimed the U.S. president as one of their own even though he was raised by his mother and did not know his Kenyan father or relatives there well.

9/11 Koran Burning - A New American Tradition

One of the hi-jacked plane crashing in World Trade Center 9-11-2001

Thanks to Catholic Knight for this wonderful reflection why we DEMAND the same TOLERANCE from Islam and Muslims:

This is only an excerpt from his article entitled: 9/11 Koran Burning - A New American Tradition

During the 9/11 memorial service at the WTC site, protests were going on just a few blocks away. Supporters of the proposed "victory mosque" clashed with those opposed to it. All across America, in various places, Korans were torn and burned. An unidentified man burned pages from the Koran near the WTC site, while another group of people tore pages from the Koran in front of the Whitehouse in Washington DC. 'The Catholic Knight' does not condone this, but I would be lying if I said I didn't understand it. What's happening here is a pitiful display of helpless defiance. Americans are sick and tired, indeed fed up, with Islam's seeming relentless intolerance, and our Liberal politicians' spineless response to it. What Emperor Palaiologos said in 14th century, I am forced to repeat with sorrowful frustration: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Allow me to rephrased it my own way; Show me just what Islam has given us that is new, besides excessive violence in the name of religion.

In America, a few frustrated people burn Korans. In the Middle East, they burn Bibles, crosses and entire churches! In America, a few frustrated people said the don't like Islam. In the Middle East, they kidnap Christians and kill them! In America, a large majority of people (many non-religions) say "move your mosque" away from a certain controversial site. In the Middle East Christians are told they can't build churches at all and are treated as second-class citizens, often punished with death for expressing their Christian faith. You tell me, which group is more tolerant? Is it the one that occasionally burns Korans? or the one that regularly kills people in the name of the Koran? After ten years on a steady diet of Islamic violence in the name of religion, Americans are finally waking up to the fact that our leaders have lied to us (once again) and the so-called "religion of peace" appears just the opposite. I personally don't like this new American tradition of Koran burning. I don't think it solves anything, but I do understand America's frustration, and quite frankly, I can't blame those who do it. Mark my words though, this will be done again by similar folks next year, and the year after that, and the year after that, and so on for decades. Sadly but truly, it will soon become as American as apple pie. In response, from the Middle East every year we can expect a glut of riotous protests, along with church burnings, kidnappings, murders and mayhem. In so doing however, Muslims will only vindicate the message of those who burn the Koran.

Read the whole Article HERE

Asra Q. Nomani, a Muslim, says there are a few brutal passages in the Quran that need to go up in smoke.

(Daily Beast) - On the plan to burn Qurans this weekend, I say to Muslims: Let's get over the symbolic insult and deal with the very real issues of literal interpretations of the Quran that are used to sanction domestic violence, terrorism, militancy, and suicide bombings in the name of Islam.

Gen. David Petraeus has weighed in, saying that the planned burnings by the Rev. Terry Jones' congregation in Florida will endanger U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. But I believe that there is something that endangers Americans and American soldiers even more: certain passages that—when read literally—pit Muslims against Americans and the West.

I believe the Qurans are being burnt because we, as Muslims, haven't dealt sincerely and intellectually with very serious issues that certain Quranic passages raise, particularly in the West. These include verses—when literally read—that say that disobedient wives can be beaten “lightly,” that Muslims can't be friends with the Jews and the Christians, and that it's OK to kill converts from Islam.

We, as Muslims, need to tear a few pages out of the Quran—symbolically, at least, by rejecting literal adherence to certain problematic verses.

The Christian faith had to deal with problematic verses from the Book of Deuteronomy that sanctioned violence. Jews have had to confront rigid readings of the Old Testament that sanctioned stonings. Muslims, too, must re-interpret verses that aren't compatible with life in the 21st century.

Look at one literal reading of the 34th verse of the fourth chapter of the Quran, An-Nisa, or Women. "[A]nd (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them," reads one widely accepted translation. Based on a literal reading, Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha concludes that when dealing with a “disobedient wife,” a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of “the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam.” If that doesn't work, he can “leave the wife's bed.” Finally, he may “beat” her, though it must be without “hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost.”

Such appalling recommendations occur because we haven't yet universally drawn a line in the sand, as Muslims, and said that this verse may have been progressive for the seventh century when women were supposedly beaten indiscriminately, but it isn't compatible with the modern day, if read literally. Instead, we do something called the "4:34 dance," suggesting that the light beating be the result of everything from hitting a woman with noodles (yes, you read that right) to a traditional toothbrush, called a “miswak,” from the root of a plant.

The kidnapping and killing of my friend and colleague Daniel Pearl in 2002 forced me to confront the link between literalist interpretations of the Quran and their role in sanctioning violence in the world. For critics of Islam, these verses are the smoking gun that proves that Islam is intrinsically violent. These are verses such as At-Tauba (“The Repentance”) 9:5, which states that Muslims should “slay the pagans wherever ye find them” or Al-Mâ'idah (“The Table Spread with Food”) 5:51, which reads, “Take not the Jews and Christians as friends.”

We need to reject literal reads of the Quran and recognize that these verses were communicated during specific moments of war, and they aren't edicts for all time. We, as Muslims, must reject the notion that we read these words literally. To many, that would be an act of blasphemy. But, until we do, the literal words of the Quran will be used to rally hate against the faith. And that is why, indeed, Qurans will be burned by the small congregation of about 50 folks from the Rev. Terry Jones' Dove World Outreach Center. It's really just these particular verses that need to go up in smoke.

How The 'Ground Zero Mosque' Controversy Is Challenging Democracy

Abigail R. Esman (Source: Forbes.com)

(Abigail R. Esmanis a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands. Her most recent book is Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West.)

It isn't for the reasons that you think.

She said what? They did what?

As the pandemonium over the project alternately dubbed "the mosque at Ground Zero" or "the mosque near Ground Zero" (depending on your point of view) grows louder and more cacophonous, the stakes grow ever higher--and the outrageousness and outrage more severe. Not only has the project taken over the debate at cocktail parties: It has taken over the political debate as well. And just as has happened in Europe, American democratic principles as a result are now at risk.

Hyperbole? I don't think so.

Some contend that opposition to the mosque is itself anti-American, a violation of the right to practice one's religion--all religions. But that's a false argument. No one has oppressed the practice of Islam. No one has suggested that Muslims may not pray. They have simply argued that this place--this specific place--is not the right place, just as prayer is banned from public schools.

Rather, the attack on democracy has come from those who support the project, beginning earlier this month with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's endorsement of what then was called "Cordoba House." Since when do politicians intervene in religious issues in this country? (Some have argued that President Obama also expressed approval, though I disagree: Rather, he observed the legal right of the prospective founders to build it but wisely stopped short of offering an opinion.) Subsequently, other politicians, both Republican and Democrat, both for and against, have entered the fray. None of them belong there.

More recently, the politics grew even more appalling: Last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi proposed investigating the funding of those who oppose the project--including, I suppose, private citizens like me. I can almost hear Joe McCarthy cheering from his grave. Has Pelosi spent so many years in politics that she cannot imagine people holding viewpoints nobody has paid for? Who has paid for hers?

Here's one possibility: Sheikh Al-Waleed bin Talal. After 9/11, Al-Waleed offered $10 million in aid to New York City--but only after first blaming Americans themselves for the attacks, a viewpoint Feisal Rauf, Cordoba House's leader and the imam of the mosque-to-be, evidently shares. (Then-mayor Rudy Giuliani refused the gift.) After all, Al-Waleed, who has donated $27 million to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and sponsored telethons for their cause, appears to share Pelosi's view: He has given $305,000 to the project. (Yes, I know Al-Waleed is also a primary shareholder of Fox News; I'm disgusted by that too.)

Also last week, Imam Rauf began a tour of the Middle East on behalf of the U.S. State Department. Yes, a religious leader is now an official representative for the United States. Could the State Department really not find another Muslim for the job? Should U.S. taxpayers really be subsidizing the travels of a cleric? Has the U.S. ever sent a rabbi, say, to Palestine or Israel, or a Catholic priest to Britain or Ireland? (This last is a sincere question: I honestly don't know.)

Officials insist that Rauf will not be soliciting funds during this trip, and therefore that the American taxpayers are not funding his fundraising. But let's be realistic. Fundraising is not done in a single meeting. It is done by building relationships. And while in the Middle East, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers, Rauf will be meeting people he would not otherwise have met. And he will be building relationships with them, because that is what he has been sent over there to do. Inevitably, one if not more of these people will offer to subsidize his project, either now or in the very near future. So unless the U.S government prohibits everyone Rauf meets during this trip to send monies to the project--which it cannot do--then yes, the U.S. government--or rather, you and I--has funded this trip, which is, indeed, a fundraising mission for Park51 aka Cordoba.

Let's talk about that "Park51" moniker for a moment. Until a couple of weeks ago, when people started recognizing the implications, the project was called "Cordoba." Then Rauf and his wife, Daisy Kahn, went on a PR binge, and the name magically changed overnight into one worthy of a top ad agency campaign: Park51. It has the allure and cachet of "Park Avenue," of course, and the chic of a nightclub like Studio54. But a mosque by any other name is still a mosque, and a bad idea is still a bad idea no matter what you call it.

And it is a bad idea--one that just keeps getting worse. For Rauf and his entourage, there is no backing down: As Muslims, they have their all-important "honor" to preserve. They will not give. They will simply force their will. Meantime, those opposed remain opposed, and many increasingly find Rauf's intractability aggressive, even threatening. Chances are, if or when Cordoba/Park51 is built, confrontations will flare. Someone will get hurt. We can nearly guarantee it.

So yes, Speaker Pelosi: I think it is a terrible idea, a catastrophic idea that has already infiltrated the very freedoms you and others who support this operation claim to be defending. And it will get worse.

And before you violate my personal affairs on this, let me reassure you: No one is calling for a ban on Muslim worship. Some of us simply are insulted. Others are afraid. No one paid us to feel that way. They only had to live their lives: make a film, like Theo van Gogh; write an article, like Steven Vincent, or a book, like Salman Rushdie; draw a cartoon, like Kurt Westergaard; ask a question, like Daniel Pearl; or simply be: in the wrong place, at the wrong time, on a certain sunny September morning.

Archbishop Dolan offers to help in NYC mosque debate

New York City, N.Y. (CNA/EWTN News).- As the controversy over the planned building of a mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York City grows increasingly heated, Archbishop Timothy Dolan urged the different factions to carry on a “respectful discussion” and offered to mediate between those who support the plans and those who oppose them.

Photo Source: The Rocking Traddy

The New York archbishop made his remarks in a brief and impromptu news conference on Aug. 18 at Covenant House, a Catholic facility in Manhattan for homeless youth.

“My major prayer is that what has turned into somewhat of a divisive issue might develop into an occasion of very civil, rational, loving, respectful discussion,” he stressed.

Archbishop Dolan then praised both New York Mayor Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson for their contributions to the debate, though both are on different sides of the issue.

"Mayor Bloomberg articulated in a particularly of eloquent way the principles of religious freedom and the hospitality on which this great country and this wonderful community is based," the archbishop said.

Bloomberg supports the plans for the mosque and Islamic center, and according to ABC News, has said it would be a "sad day" if the project is canceled. Governor Paterson, however, has offered to hold discussions with the imam and mosque developers in order to find another suitable location.

“I think the governor’s initiative is welcome," Archbishop Dolan said. "Both of what they (he and Mayor Bloomberg) are trying to do is bring people together to look into this problem.”

The prelate then cited the example of Pope John Paul II, who advised a group of sisters in 1993 to move from their convent at the former Auschwitz death camp after protests from Jewish leaders.

“He’s the one who said, ‘Let’s keep the idea, and maybe move the address,’ ” the archbishop said. “It worked there; might work here.”

“Those who wonder about the wisdom of the situation of the mosque, near such a wounded site, ask what I think are some legitimate questions that I think deserve attention,” he added.

When asked if he would play a part in the ongoing discussions over the planned mosque and Islamic center, Archbishop Dolan replied, “I'd be honored to ... If I can be a part, say but the word.”

“In kind of a backdoor way, I think we already are (a part of the discussion) in the archdiocese,” he added, in “more of a quiet, behind the scenes way – a lot of our pastors in that area and a lot of other religious leaders are part already of the conversation that needs to keep going on.”

Bill Whittle: Ground Zero Mosque Reality Check

Stop Islamization of Europe

Catholic University Says It Declined Obama Appearance Over Logistics

Austin, Texas (CNA) - As President Obama makes a fundraising tour for the Democratic party through Texas, St. Edward’s University has announced its decision to decline a White House request for the president to speak on campus. The college cited timing issues as the primary motive for its decision.

St. Edward’s University, which was founded by Fr. Edward Sorin of the Congregation of the Holy Cross, the same priest who founded the University of Notre Dame, sits on a hill top in Austin, Texas. It reports enrolling around 5,000 students and a commitment to critical thinking, social justice and ethical practice.

When President Obama made his recent visit to Austin, the college was asked to be a venue for a presidential speech. However, the school declined the offer.

“St. Edward’s University is honored to have been considered a potential venue for President Obama’s recent visit to Austin,” said university spokeswoman Mischelle Diaz in a Wednesday statement. “Regretfully, it was not a good time for us to consider this. With the short notice provided – only 3 to 4 days – a visit of this importance and magnitude would have been difficult for a campus of our size.”

Diaz noted that a presidential visit “requires and deserves more resources than we were able to provide at the time.” She also mentioned that the university’s staff is busy preparing for the new school year in a variety of ways.

As part of their “thoughtful consideration” of the visit, Diaz noted that, since school is not yet in session, “the vast majority of our student body, and many faculty members, would not be present to participate in a presidential visit.”

Although some reports have drawn parallels between St. Edward’s University and the University of Notre Dame, which attracted the ire of many Catholics by honoring President Obama at its commencement exercises, Diaz informed CNA “as the statement explains, our reasons were logistical.”

USA: A Supreme Court without Protestants?

It's ironic but it's true. The present United States Supreme Court Justices has no protestant  majority  member amidst its strong Protestant roots. Why so? Read the news below. Thanks to CNN.

The current Supreme Court has six Catholics,
two Jews and one Protestant.

A Supreme Court without Protestants?

(CNN) -- For most of American history, a Supreme Court with no Protestant Christian judges would have been unthinkable. Nearly three quarters of all justices who've ever served on the nation's high court have been Protestant. And roughly half of all Americans identify themselves as Protestant today.

But since John Paul Stevens announced his retirement last month, legal and religious scholars have begun entertaining the unprecedented prospect of a Supreme Court without a single Protestant justice.

Besides Stevens, who is Protestant, the current Supreme Court counts six Catholics and two Jews.

"It's an amazing irony given how central Protestantism has been to American culture," said Stephen Prothero, a religion scholar at Boston University. "For most of the 19th century, Protestants were trying to turn America into their own heaven on Earth, which included keeping Jews and Catholics from virtually all positions of power."

Many religion scholars attribute the decline of Protestants on the high court to the breakdown of a mainline Protestant identity and to the absence of a strong tradition of lawyering among evangelical Protestants.

"Mainline Protestantism isn't a pressure group," said Prothero, "It's not like the National Council of Churches is lobbying Obama to get a Lutheran appointed to the Supreme Court."

And while Judaism and Catholicism have their own sets of religious laws that date back millennia, many branches of Protestant Christianity do not. For much of the last 150 years, evangelical Christianity has stressed an emotional theology of "heart" over "head" -- not a recipe for producing legal scholars with eyes fixed on the Supreme Court.

"Evangelicals have put more effort into getting elected than in getting onto the bench," said Michael Lindsay, a Rice University professor who has studied evangelical elites. "Electoral politics is more similar to the style of rallying of around revival campaign than it is to the arduous journey of producing intellectual giants that could be eligible for the Supreme Court."

President Obama is expected to nominate Stevens' replacement early this month. Of the three candidates who are reported to lead Obama's short list, two -- Solicitor General Elena Kagan and federal appeals judge Merrick Garland -- are Jewish, while one, federal appeals judge Diane Wood, is a Protestant.

Obama's first Supreme Court appointee, Sonia Sotomayor, is Catholic.

One explanation of Catholics' and Jews' high court hegemony is that members of both traditions have long pursued legal degrees as a way to assimilate into a majority Protestant country.

"Most American Catholic law schools were not formed to be elite institutions of lofty legal scholarship, but as way to respond to the fact that other law schools were excluding Catholics," said Richard Garnett, a professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School. "It was a vehicle to get Catholics into the middle class."

"Early on, those schools admitted a lot of Jewish students who were being discriminated against," Garnett said.

Today, Catholic law schools at Georgetown University, Fordham University, and Notre Dame are considered among the best in the country.

Evangelical Protestant colleges, meanwhile -- including Regent University and Liberty University, founded by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, respectively -- have opened law schools only since the 1980s.

And law schools with Protestant roots -- like Harvard and Yale -- shed their religious identities a long time ago, part of the broader fading of a distinct mainline Protestant identity in the U.S..

Some legal and religious scholars say the dearth of qualified evangelical candidates for the Supreme Court came into sharp relief in 2005, when President George W. Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to the high court.

An evangelical Christian who the White House promoted strenuously among evangelicals, Miers' nomination was brought down largely by conservatives -- nonevangelicals, mostly -- who said she was not qualified for the position.

In the last couple of decades, however, more evangelicals have begun pursuing legal degrees, including at elite colleges. "There are now vibrant Christian fellowships at Harvard and Yale," said Lindsay. "Ten years from now, it will be entirely possible to see an evangelical Protestant on the Supreme Court."

Rachel Heflin, a senior at Patrick Henry College -- a Virginia school whose students are mostly evangelicals from homeschooling backgrounds -- said many of her friends are heading to law school next year.

"When your circle of friends is comprised of aspiring lawyers, the joke is about who's going to make it to the high court first," said Heflin, an evangelical Christian who will be attending George Washington University Law School on scholarship.

Which means that a Protestant Supreme Court resurgence may not be too far off.

Patrick Kennedy banned from taking Communion

US Catholic Politician Patrick Kennedy is challenging the authority of his Bishop by supporting US Health Bill which supports abortion. Abortion to the Catholic Church is a grave sin which is considered a "mortal sin". And any practicing Catholic who practices or supports abortion and its forms are chastised by the local Bishops. Refusal to give communion is the most severe form of punishment by refusing them to receive the Holy Body and Blood of Christ which Catholics believed to be the Real Sacred Body of Christ.

(Source: AP News) Kennedy says RI bishop banned him from Communion
PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin has banned Rep. Patrick Kennedy from receiving Communion, the central sacrament of the church, in Rhode Island because of the congressman's support for abortion rights, Kennedy said in a newspaper interview published Sunday.

The decision by the outspoken prelate, reported on The Providence Journal's Web site, significantly escalates a bitter dispute between Tobin, an ultra orthodox bishop, and Kennedy, a son of the nation's most famous Roman Catholic family.

AP has branded Bishop Tobin to be an "ultra orthodox bishop" when in fact the good bishop is just re-catechizing Kennedy of the grave sin he's espousing. The Catholic Church, whether media dislikes it will always be pro-life and anti-abortion.

"The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me Communion," Kennedy told the paper in an interview conducted Friday.

Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him "that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I've taken as a public official," particularly on abortion.

He declined to say when or how Tobin told him not to take the sacrament. And he declined to say whether he has obeyed the bishop's injunction.

The paper said the bishop's spokesman declined to address the question of whether he had told Kennedy not to receive Communion. But the bishop's office cast doubt on Kennedy's related assertion about instructions to state priests.

"Bishop Tobin has never addressed matters relative to public officials receiving Holy Communion with pastors of the diocese," spokesman Michael K. Guilfoyle told the paper in an e-mailed statement.

Kennedy did not return messages left on his cell phone by The Associated Press, and his staff refused to make the congressman available for comment. Tobin's spokesman told the AP that the bishop would not comment on the issue.

Church law permits Tobin to ban Kennedy from receiving Communion within the Diocese of Providence, which covers Rhode Island, but he cannot stop Kennedy from receiving Communion elsewhere. It was unclear whether bishops overseeing Washington and Massachusetts, where Kennedy's family has a seaside compound, would issue similar bans.

If Patrick Kennedy would come to the Philippines without knowing he's Mr. Kennedy then the priest giving the communion has no right to refuse to give a communion. But if he introduces himself before the presiding priest and tell him that he's a pro-abortion then the priest, has the moral duty not to give him communion even without the directives of a local bishop.

Kennedy could appeal the decision to officials in the Vatican, but the hierarchy of the Catholic church is unlikely to overturn a bishop, said Michael Sean Winters, a church observer and author of "Left At the Altar: How Democrats Lost The Catholics And How Catholics Can Save The Democrats.

"It's really bad theology," said Winters, who opposes abortion. "You're turning the altar rail into a battle field, a political battlefield no less, and it does a disservice to the Eucharist."

Yes, the Vatican would never overturn a bishop's decision and the Church will never bow down to political pressure.

The dispute between the two men began in October when Kennedy in an interview on CNSNews.com criticized the nation's Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose a massive expansion of the nation's health care system unless it included tighter restrictions on federally funded abortion.

Kennedy voted against an amendment to a Democratic health care plan sought by the bishops. But he voted in favor of a health care plan that included the amendment he opposed.

Tobin, the spiritual leader of the nation's most heavily Roman Catholic state, demanded an apology from Kennedy after learning of his remarks and requested a meeting.

"While I greatly respect the Catholic Church and its leaders, like many Rhode Islanders, the fact that I disagree with the hierarchy of the church on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic," Kennedy wrote in a letter to Tobin, agreeing to a sitdown. "I embrace my faith which acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity."

You have made yourself a "less Catholic" by openly opposing to the Church moral teachings. And your immoral position will never give you an edge to be the best Catholic politician in the US.

Their meeting fell apart. While Tobin called it a mutual decision, Kennedy accused Tobin of failing to abide by an agreement to stop discussing the congressman's faith publicly.

Tobin followed up with a biting public letter published in a diocesan newspaper.

"Sorry, you can't chalk it up to an 'imperfect humanity.' Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your Communion with the Church," Tobin wrote.

The good bishop is right.

In subsequent interviews, Tobin said Kennedy should not receive Communion like other Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. Still, the bishop stopped short of ordering Kennedy not to receive the sacrament.

It doesn't matter if Kennedy and other pro-abortion "Catholics" are receiving Holy Communion. If they are real Catholics they know the grave consequences of their actions: David Philips explained this grave danger of losing God's blessing if one, like Kennedy would receive the Eucharist unworthily:

"The Bible contains very stern warnings about the way in which we receive the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Cor. 11.28 Paul says that whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

In verse 29 he adds that in so doing such a person eats and drinks judgement to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. then he explains that this is the reason why many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.

"...We must always examine ourselves before we come to the Lord’s Table. Although ideally this is done in private devotion it is also the purpose of public exhortation and confession. We are to look at our own sins, not those of others. Paul uses a dramatic and vivid phrase - if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged (v31). We are to sit in judgment of ourselves, being honest about ourselves. If we will not do this, then we actually bring judgment on ourselves."