Connect with us

Faith

Christian Satire Site Strikes Back Against Snopes ‘Smear.’ Here’s How Snopes’ Responded.

Snopes just got put in their place. Good on you, Babylon Bee!

Published

on

Hilariously funny Christian satire site, the Babylon Bee, decided they had enough shenanigans from Snopes, the self-described “fact checking” site and the ongoing smear they launched against them, so they lawyered up, and boy, it didn’t take long for Snopes to change their tune.

This just goes to show that we as conservatives and Christians shouldn’t be taking the attacks left-wing media launch at us lying down. The more we fight back, the more they surrender.

via Daily Wire:

“Last week, Snopes fact-checked us again,” the Bee told its readers Monday (h/t Ed Morrissey). “We’re pretty used to that. But this time, instead of merely rating the article ‘false,’ they questioned whether our work qualifies as satire, and even went so far as to suggest that we were deliberately deceiving our readers. Basically, they treated us as a source of intentionally misleading fake news, rather than as the legitimate, well-known satire publication that we are. This is a big deal.”

The reason it’s a “big deal,” the site goes on to explain, is that Snopes has been given significant power over how platforms — particularly Facebook, for which Snopes has served as one of its “fake news” monitors — handle posts:

As you know, fake news—which is distinguished from satire by its intent to mislead—was widely considered a serious issue in the last election cycle. As a result, social media networks like Facebook began partnering with fact-checkers to try and limit the distribution of fake news on their platforms. Snopes was one of them. At one point, a piece of ours was rated “false” by Snopes, prompting Facebook to threaten us with limitations and demonetization. We made a stink about this, and after some media attention shed light on the problem, Facebook apologized for their handling of the matter and admitted that satire is not the same as fake news.

We came out on top last time, but this latest smear from Snopes is both dishonest and disconcerting. We have no choice but to take it very seriously. For better or worse, the media, the public, and social networks all look to Snopes for authoritative answers. By lumping us in with fake news and questioning whether we really qualify as satire, Snopes appears to be actively engaged in an effort to discredit and deplatform us. While we wish it wasn’t necessary, we have retained a law firm to represent us in this matter.

Here’s what Snopes edited out of their smear against the Babylon Bee:

We’re not sure if fanning the flames of controversy and muddying the details of a news story classify an article as “satire.”

While this real-world incident stirred up a good amount of online anger, it wasn’t quite outrageous enough for the entertainment website Babylon Bee. In an apparent attempt to maximize the online indignation, this website published a fictionalized version of the story, changing the location to Chick-fil-A, a fast-food restaurant known for its CEO’s opposition to same-sex marriage […]

The Babylon Bee has managed to fool readers with its brand of satire in the past.

So basically, Snopes decided to back down after catching a bunch of flack for their dishonest attacks against the Babylon Bee, hoping to avoid further legal troubles, thus proving they knew from the get-go what they were saying was biased and untrue.

If there are people out there who can’t understand basic sarcasm and satire, that’s their problem. The Babylon Bee has not been shy about coming out and making it clear they are a satire site. Those who don’t know this already could do a quick search for information and see that’s the case.

Have we become so lazy these days that we don’t want to put in a little effort to fact-check our own news sources? That’s quite sad, don’t you agree?

Faith

Pelosi is Barred from Communion by Archbishop of San Fran

WHOA!

Published

on

Of all of the personal, bitter, hot topics that our nation is facing, perhaps none is quite as raw as abortion.

With the Supreme Court seemingly poised to overturn Roe v. Wade sometimes in the not-so-distant future, the issue is once again at the forefront of the American political theater, and the fervor is increasing by the minute.

Now, in a wild escalation of the national narrative, church is giving state a little bit of blowback.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is barred from receiving Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion stance — marking an escalation in a decades-long tension between the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Democratic politicians on abortion.

Cordileone has written to the California Democrat, informing her that she should not present herself for Holy Communion at Mass, and that priests will not distribute communion to her if she does present herself.

He did not hold back.

“A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,'” he says in the letter.

And also:

Cordileone says in his letter that he wrote to her on April 7, informing her that “should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” He says that since that time, she has not done so.

“Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco to be ‘concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to [my] care” (Code of Canon Law, can. 383, §1), by means of this communication I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publically repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.” he said.

And with Catholics making up a rather large voting bloc in America, (and California, too), Nancy Pelosi may have to get to praying.

Of all of the personal, bitter, hot topics that our nation is facing, perhaps none is quite as raw as abortion. With the Supreme Court seemingly poised to overturn Roe v. Wade sometimes in the not-so-distant future, the issue is once again at the forefront of the American political theater, and the fervor is increasing by the minute. Now, in a wild escalation of the national narrative, church is giving state a little bit of blowback. San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is barred from receiving Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion stance — marking an escalation in a decades-long tension between the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Democratic politicians on abortion. Cordileone has written to the California Democrat, informing her that she should not present herself for Holy Communion at Mass, and that priests will not distribute communion to her if she does present herself. He did not hold back. “A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,'” he says in the letter. And also: Cordileone says in his letter that he wrote to her on April 7, informing her that “should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” He says that since that time, she has not done so. “Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco to be ‘concerned for all…

Continue Reading

Faith

SCOTUS Rules Against Boston After City Refused to Fly Christian Flag

The decision was seen as a win for Christians everywhere.

Published

on

In the United States, we are guaranteed the freedom to practice whichever religion we should choose, and have been since the inception of this great nation.

What we are not guaranteed, however, is freedom from religion.  We are allowed to believe what we wish, but we must also understand that this means we may bear witness to the beliefs of others who are exercising their rights.  Maybe we’ll see a yarmulke at the grocery store, or get stuck in traffic as a baptist megachurch lets out on Sunday.

It also means that all religions must be treated equally – something that the City of Boston is learning the hard way this week.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a “Christian flag.”

The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not.

The ruling left no room for interpretation.

“We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s opinion, stating that as a result the city improperly violated Camp Constitution’s free speech rights.

And that’s not all:

The court’s opinion pointed to how Boston said their goal is “to accommodate all applicants” looking to hold events in the city’s “public forums,” including City Hall Plaza, and the flag flying application only asked for contact information and a short description of the event being requested.

Breyer noted that the city employee who fields flag applications testified that before Camp Constitution’s application, he had never even asked to see a flag before granting approval or even before they were raised.

“The city’s practice was to approve flag raisings, without exception,,” Breyer wrote.

The news comes as the mainstream media continues to equate the religious right with the lesser opinions they hold of conservatives in general, thereby creating a soft vilification of Christianity in the process.

In the United States, we are guaranteed the freedom to practice whichever religion we should choose, and have been since the inception of this great nation. What we are not guaranteed, however, is freedom from religion.  We are allowed to believe what we wish, but we must also understand that this means we may bear witness to the beliefs of others who are exercising their rights.  Maybe we’ll see a yarmulke at the grocery store, or get stuck in traffic as a baptist megachurch lets out on Sunday. It also means that all religions must be treated equally – something that the City of Boston is learning the hard way this week. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a “Christian flag.” The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not. The ruling left no room for interpretation. “We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s opinion, stating that as a result the city improperly violated Camp Constitution’s free speech rights. And that’s not all: The court’s opinion pointed to how Boston said their goal is “to accommodate all applicants” looking to hold events in the city’s “public forums,” including City Hall Plaza, and the flag flying application only asked for contact information and a short description of the event being requested. Breyer noted that the city employee who…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week