Talking about the "things that matter most" on Aug. 25
4:00 – The Ground Zero Mosque – A Victim’s Brother Responds
Joe Cammarata was an NYPD officer on 9/11, who lost his brother, FDNY probationary firefighter Michael Cammarata. He wrote a book '9/11 The Face of Courage'. Michael’s body was never found. Therefore Ground Zero is Michael's final resting place and Joe says "should be kept sacred. No religious institution should be built there," he says. Cammarata says he is not against Muslims or any religion. He just believes that no religious institution should establish a presence this close to the final resting place of so many 9/11 victims of such varied faith backgrounds. Joe is here to address the mosque issue and shares the story of his frantic search for his brother in the rubble of the WTC and how post-traumatic stress syndrome still disrupts his life.
4:20 – Pope To Visit UK / Beatify Cardinal Newman
The Vatican has published the official schedule for Pope Benedict’s trip to the United Kingdom in September. The Pope will arrive on Thursday, September 16 in Scotland, and begin with an official visit to Queen Elizabeth at her palace in Edinburgh. The highlight of the Pope’s visit will be the beatification of Cardinal Newman. The Pope arranged the visit in order to participate in that ceremony. The trip is not without its controversy however. Ave Maria Correspondent Gareth Peoples has prepared a report on the Pope’s upcoming visit to the UK.
4:40 – A Tremor of Bliss: Sex, Catholicism, and Rock 'n' Roll
Up to the current day, matters of sexual morality—including contraception, abortion, premarital sex, and gay marriage—have polarized the Catholic Church. In the wake of the turmoil of the 1960s, when liberal theologians challenged the Church’s traditional views on the subject, a schism has opened. Much of the world, and many Catholics themselves, believe that the views of each camp are clear and well defined. As Mark Judge reveals this is far from the case. Without sensationalism, Judge is candid about his personal journey from the playgrounds of the sexual revolution to his eventual belief in the need to combine sexuality with love and commitment to another person, not as an end in itself but rather as a particularly direct means of opening oneself up to God’s love. Mark joins us.
5:00 – Federal Judge Blocks Federal Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
A federal judge temporarily blocked the Obama administration Monday from using federal dollars to fund expanded human embryonic stem cell research, saying the research involves the destruction of embryos. The ruling comes after the National Institutes of Health last year issued new guidelines permitting federal funding for research on certain stem cell lines that had already been created. The District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction on the research, saying the plaintiffs would suffer "irreparable injury" from the policy and that the new guidelines violated federal law that prohibits federally funded research involving the destruction of human embryos. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that despite attempts to separate the derivation of human embryonic stem cells from the research process, "the two cannot be separated" because culling those stem cells destroys an embryo. Attorney Brian Scarnecchia is here to analyze.
5:20 – Pope To Visit UK / Beatify Cardinal Newman
The Vatican has published the official schedule for Pope Benedict’s trip to the United Kingdom in September. The Pope will arrive on Thursday, September 16 in Scotland, and begin with an official visit to Queen Elizabeth at her palace in Edinburgh. The highlight of the Pope’s visit will be the beatification of Cardinal Newman. The Pope arranged the visit in order to participate in that ceremony. The trip is not without its controversy however. Ave Maria Correspondent Gareth Peoples has prepared a report on the Pope’s upcoming visit to the UK.
5:40 – Our Jewish Roots: A Catholic Woman’s Guide to Fulfillment Today by Connecting With Her Past
Discover the secrets of true feminine genius through the lives of Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Leah, Mary Magdalene, the Virgin Mary and others. Experience how the lessons from their lives can transform yours! Journey back through time and see how God’s faithful women have come to know, love and serve Him most fully and in that fullness, find true happiness, fulfillment and joy. Come to know how God calls each woman uniquely--and with purpose--and allow your own life’s journey to be enriched by connecting with your past. Understand how the teachings, truths and traditions of the Catholic faith rest so fully in the rich heritage of our Jewish roots. Cheryl Dickow is our guide.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I listened to the first hour archive of the August 20 show about the New York mosque. It was billed as a debate between Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Dawud Walid, Executive Director of CAIR-Michigan. Walid did not show up for the debate. Al then spent a few minutes with Nick Thomm talking about their experience of having particular leaders of Muslim institutions backing out at the last minute.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if everything is on the up and up here. When Nick Thomm set up the debate with Dawud Walid, did he inform Walid that Robert Spencer, who has great animus against Muslims, would be his opponent? Or did Nick neglect to inform Walid, hoping for the result he got?
In order to find out what's really going on, I have to recount the conversation Al had with Nick at the beginning of what was supposed to be the debate segment of the show (39:39 on the archive). (I have left the "uhs" in for a reason):
Al: And a good afternoon to you. I'm Al Kresta, debating the mosque at ground zero. Uh, Dawud Walid was scheduled, uh, to be with us. He's Executive Director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Uh, this was something that we wanted, uh, to nail down. And Nick and I have talked about this because, uh, on sensitive subjects like this, we've had the experience in the past of, uh, particular, uh, leaders of Muslim institutions backing out at the last minute. And it looks right now as though Dawud Walid has backed out at the last minute, uh, from the debate that he was going to have with Robert Spencer, Executive Director of JihadWatch.com. I've asked Nick to just join me for a few minutes here so, uh, he can explain to us what happened. What happened?
Nick: Well, as we discussed, we wanted to have, uh, both sides on. I had made phone calls to, uh, the CAIR national office, and emails, in which I made very clear that we were going to air this, uh, this piece, and then we wanted to follow it up with a debate. Uh, we didn't know who was going to come on either side of that debate initially, and I ... tch, got a phone call back from, uh, their National Communications Director this morning who recommended, uh, that we call, uh, Dawud, and, uh, so I did so and asked if he would like to debate today. I didn't know, uh, -- we thought we had Robert, and uh, uh, it turns out we do have Robert and, uh ...
Al: So he knew.
Nick: He knew it was a debate.
Al: He knew he was going to be debating Robert Spencer.
Nick: I don't know if he ... possibly thought he was going to be debating you, uh, but, uh, a debate is a debate. And I, I don't know why he's refusing to come on the air.
Continued
ReplyDeleteAl: Alright. Well, I just wanted to make sure that got laid out, because this is -- uh, unfortunately it, uh, poisons the well. Uh, it's difficult to have a decent debate when, uh, somebody who is gonna debate the other side doesn't show up. So, I guess ...
Nick: In fact, he even posted it on his blog today that he's going to be on the radio show.
Al: Yeah ... tch ... yeah. Alright. Well, what we'll do is, rather than debate, we'll have a discussion. I'll do my best to play devil's advocate here just to keep, uh, to keep this thing going. But it's my great pleasure to have Robert Spencer with us. Robert, uh, is Executive Director of JihadWatch.com, uh, and is the author of many many books on Islam, and, uh ... Good to have you Robert. Thanks.
Robert: Oh it's always a pleasure, Al. Thank you.
Al: Well, I'm sorry. I thought we had ourselves a good debate, uh, here today, uh, with CAIR, uh, but, uh, I, uh, this -- we had email correspondence and everything and were unable to -- in spite of that, uh, he backed out at the last minute. And I ...
Robert: Al, I uh ...
Al: ... don't know what to do.
Robert: ... I tell ya I've been listening to all this with incredible interest and amusement because, uh, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has been ducking me for years. And I have open invitations to, uh, Nihad Awad and, uh, Ibrahim Hooper of the national office and to any CAIR official who would like to debate me, uh, but they consistently drop off television and radio shows if I'm scheduled. And then, uh, they have embarked on a campaign of vilification and smears ...
Spencer went on to say that CAIR has stooped to using character assassination against him, and that CAIR is tied to Hamas and is a Muslim Brotherhood front.
OK. What's really going on here? I'm stating up front that this is speculation on my part -- I'm putting together the pieces we have and arriving at what I think is a reasonable conclusion.
Nick contacted Walid on the morning of August 20 and asked him to be on the show to debate the mosque issue. I think Nick intentionally gave Walid the impression that he would be debating Al. I say this because of the hesitancy in Nick's voice during his conversation with Al. (Go back and read my transcript again, or better yet, listen to the archive.) Walid then agreed to come on the show, not knowing that Robert Spencer would also be on. When Walid found out that Spencer would also be on the show, he cancelled.
It looks like this may have been a setup job to make Walid look bad, and to cast doubt on the character of Muslims in general. I think Nick and Al knew that Walid would refuse to be on the show with Spencer, who, as I said before, has great animus against Muslims. In addition, I think they decieved their listening audience into believing that they had been up front and honest with Walid.
Continued
ReplyDeleteAl said that this was intended to be a debate about the New York mosque. But it appears that Spencer had a different debate in mind when he learned that Walid would be his opponent. On Aug. 20 at 3:20 PM, the day of the debate, he posted this account of the incident on his Jihad Watch website. Here's what Spencer decided he would do:
"Hearing Walid announced, I quickly opened my files on CAIR's connections with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, the convictions of its officials on terror charges, its unindicted co-conspirator status, and the rest, and was loaded for bear -- CAIR bear."
Furthermore, in his conversation with Al, Nick made it sound as though having Robert Spencer on the show wasn't entirely a sure thing. But that seems to be at odds with the very first sentence of Spencer's Aug. 20 account: "A few days ago I agreed to a debate on the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero on Ave Maria Radio's Kresta in the Afternoon, with host Al Kresta."
Spencer agreed to be on the show several days in advance. On the other hand, Nick contacted Dawud Walid on the morning of the show. There could be no excuse for not telling Walid that Spencer would also be on the show.
I think there's a bit of mischief here. I'm old enough to know that fibs get delivered in the kind of tongue-tied stuttering we heard from Nick Thomm in his conversation with Al.
I feel so strongly about this that I made a long distance call to CAIR-Michigan yesterday afternoon. I called too late to talk with Dawud, but I did talk to someone else. I told him that I was going to post this comment and that I would call back in the morning to talk with Dawud. Specifically, I want to ask Dawud if Nick Thomm told him that he would be debating Robert Spencer. Right now, I'm thinking that Nick did not mention Spencer, and that this was a trap to make Dawud, CAIR and Muslims look bad.
Again, I'm speculating. If I have made false accusations, then I want to be corrected. And I will apologize for jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
Mauman,
ReplyDeleteThat's quite a post and quite an accusation to make. As I made it clear at the time - Dawud Walid was asked to take part in a debate on the Ground Zero Mosque. He said yes. I had talked to Robert about a week before and he had agreed to do something with us, but we hadn't hammered out the details yet.
Both of them agreed to a debate and neither of them knew in advance who their opponent would be - just that they would be on with someone who disagreed with them.
As you so accurately quoted Robert - he only found out as he was on hold listening to the previous segment. The difference appears to be that Robert is willing to debate and Walid is only willing to debate those who he feels he can dominate.
If Walid felt he had been "set up," don't you think he would make a point of that on his blog announcing his appearance on the show rather than deleting the posting and pretending it was never scheduled?
Mauman, we have allowed you a wide berth on this blog to make many postings of great length. We have had good conversation and valuable debate. Next time you decide to - as you described it - "speculate" - about our moral integrity, maybe you can just call or e-mail rather making a public accusation based on little else that a gut feeling and my use of the word "uh".
Nick Thomm
Executive Producer
"Kresta in the Afternoon"
Nick,
ReplyDeleteYou didn't deny anything I said. That only bolsters my suspicion that you intended something more than a rational debate about the "Ground Zero Mosque."
I included the "uhs" because I wanted the most accurate transcription I am capable of. And it's not about having a "gut feeling." What really tipped me off that something was amiss was the following portion of your conversation with Al:
Al: So he knew.
Nick: He knew it was a debate.
Al: He knew he was going to be debating Robert Spencer.
Nick: I don't know if he ... possibly thought he was going to be debating you, uh, but, uh, a debate is a debate. And I, I don't know why he's refusing to come on the air.
In your comment you said: "Both of them agreed to a debate and neither of them knew in advance who their opponent would be - just that they would be on with someone who disagreed with them."
But when you asked Dawud to be on the show, you knew he would be on with Robert Spencer. Yet you didn't tell him. Why not?
If everything was on the up and up, just say so.
mauman,
ReplyDeleteAs I also said before, we "hadn't hammered out the details yet" with Robert and I didn't want to commit to telling Walid it would be Robert when I wasn't 100% sure. How is this at all unfair if both agreed to debate and neither knew their opponent? Answer that question. You are stirring a pot for the sake of stirring and I have said our piece on this.
Everything was on the up and up. Take it or leave it mauman.
- Nick
Nick,
ReplyDeleteYou ask: "How is this at all unfair if both agreed to debate and neither knew their opponent?"
For one thing, you told Al that Dawud possibly thought he would be debating with Al. How is it that Dawud could have thought that?
Also, Robert Spencer holds a particularly deep animosity toward Islam and Muslims, and CAIR in particular. He said in his post that when he heard Dawud would be on the program, he then gathered up information on CAIR and was loaded for CAIR bear. Robert has been on your show many times. You invited him on to debate the "Ground Zero Mosque." How could you not know his true agenda?
But leave that confusion aside. You say everything was on the up and up -- which I take to mean that your intentions were nothing but honorable. I accept that.
I said in my first comments that I wanted to be corrected if I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion, and that I would apologize. OK, then. You unequivocally say I got it wrong. I stand corrected, and I apologize.