Bizarre AP wording in update on Overland Park shootings

If you are of a certain age, as I am, and you grew up deep in the heavily Protestant Bible Belt, like I did, you can probably remember running into some people way back when who — to be blunt about it — used to draw a verbal line of distinction between people who were “Christians” and those who were “Catholics.”

It’s hard to imagine that now, isn’t it? This is especially true after the admiration that so many evangelicals and other conservative Protestants openly poured out on the Blessed Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI in recent decades.

Truth is, I rarely ever hear that kind of talk anymore, no matter where you find conservative Protestants gathered. When I do hear it, other Protestants quickly leap to the defense of the Catholics who are listed as, well, non-Christians.

That’s why I was stunned when a faithful GetReligion reader, and religion-beat pro, sent me the following Associated Press story about the tragic shootings in Overland Park, Kansas. I am sure most of our readers have seen these stories by now, but here is the top of the report for context:

Never one to keep his hatred to himself, Frazier Glenn Cross for decades sought out any soapbox to espouse his white-supremacist beliefs, twice running for federal office with campaigns steeped in anti-Semitism.

Yet there’s scant evidence the Army veteran and retired trucker with Ku Klux Klan links ever resorted to violence before Sunday, when authorities say Cross — armed with a shotgun and pistol — opened fire outside two Jewish sites near Kansas City. None of the three people killed turned out to be Jewish.

The 73-year-old, who shouted a Nazi slogan at television cameras when arrested minutes later, is jailed awaiting charges that investigators said could come as early as Tuesday. At some point, a federal grand jury is expected to review the slayings, which investigators now deem a hate crime.

Investigators are, of course, considering calling this a hate crime because the shooter’s motives seemed clear, in light of reports that the alleged gunman was heard yelling “heil Hitler!” as he was arrested. Some witnesses said he asked people he encountered during his rampage if they were Jewish.

Nevertheless, the people killed were not Jews, which adds a layer of complications to the telling of this tragic story.

This brings us to the passage spotted by the reader:

In Cross’ southwestern Missouri hometown Monday, most locals approached by the AP waved off the opportunity to discuss the man authorities suspect killed 69-year-old Dr. William Lewis Corporon and his 14-year-old grandson, Reat Griffin Underwood, outside the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City. Both were Christians killed moments before Terri LaManno — a 53-year-old Catholic occupational therapist and mother of two — was gunned down outside a Jewish retirement complex where she was visiting her mother.

Did you catch that?

So two of the victims were “Christians” and the third was “Catholic.” Say what?

No, it would be one thing if this AP report had said that the victims included a Baptist, a Pentecostal believer and a Catholic. But how did this reference to two “Christians” and one “Catholic” make it into print? That would be three victims who were Christians, with two of them apparently being Protestants and one a Catholic.

Come on AP copy desk: Someone get this corrected and quick.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Daniel Williamson

    Seems right to me. It’s like saying two Americans and one Mexican. There all Americans, its just that Mexicans prefer being more specific. Same with Catholics, while many denominations of Christians prefer to at least appear non-denomination, so the generic is enough for them.
    The grammar is clear, it talks about what happened to the two related people, then what happened to the other person and describes each accurately.
    I remember a discussion with a non-Catholic (Christian) who asked me, why stress that your Catholic, they were all just Christians at the beginning – to which I replied that actually they were Jews – specifically Christian Jews.

    • Julia B

      The whole business about “denominations” is a Protestant concept.

  • Soliloquized

    Alas, I’m repeatedly informed by my “born again” associates at work that Catholics are not Christian. Not all hold that belief, but too many do. The one associate, coming into the room where I was sitting, was sub-vocalizing something. When I asked him what he was saying, he told me he just doesn’t understand why Catholics can’t see the truth.

    As to AP, I’ve always thought it stood for Asinine Pablum. Thanks for the article, but it doesn’t shock me, I have no expectations of journalistic integrity with many modern news sources.

    • Bill Norton

      So AP stands for ‘Asinine Pablum.’ Cute. Can you provide examples where AP fits this term with any consistency? Do you have any knowledge of how AP works? Have you any sense of the huge role AP has played in daily journalism during the last century and this one as well?

      And what do you know about journalistic integrity?

      What Tmatt describes above hardly constitutes an error. If the grandfather and grandson had just come from the Church of the Resurrection, they might or might not have identified themselves as Methodists. But Resurrection’s congregation includes people of a variety of faiths. The main faith distinction in these stories has been between Jewish and Christian.

      Given the point of Tmatt’s concern, I can’t help but wonder what prompted this –in my opinion– snarky and ill-informed aside.

      • tmatt

        A short, concise wording from NYTs:

        A few hours later, a handcuffed Mr. Miller was shouting allegiance to Hitler, while three white people, two Methodists and a Catholic, lay dead.

        • Bill Norton

          I saw that earlier today. Appears the Times asked more precise questions or had better sourcing.

          • Soliloquized

            Or less bias? LOL!

      • Soliloquized

        You’re kidding, right. Objectivity and American Journalism can’t be used in the same sentence. The ACA alone attests to that. (You can keep your doctor, plan, and you’ll save $2500/yr.) Investigative journalists would have perused the bill early on, but they’re too busy fawning over obama and liberalism, so we end up with one surprise after another.

        Most of the media is constantly running cover for liberal causes. I saw the topic of the shooting covered in a comments section, not sure about the exact affiliation, but the commenter said 2 Methodists and a Catholic was shot (whatever the numbers, this is an example). Easily avoided the issue discussed here and was more factual.


        One can appear objective by retracting the story, but I’m willing to believe no one read the retractions. Like a loosed bullet, derogatory words are seldom undone by buried retractions, so the initial story, in err, serves their purpose.

        The original story could have simply said that 3 Christians were shot, if they wanted then could have said 1 Catholic and two of undetermined affiliation.

        • Bill Norton

          No, I wasn’t kidding. I spent more than three decades working at a large metro daily. I understand from hands-on experience the process each story goes through. Perhaps that taints me, in your eyes.

          if you have to rely on a Fox News opinion piece and the Breitbart blog for sourcing, I can understand why you wouldn’t recognize anything approaching objectivity, which is virtually impossible to achieve. Neither that network nor that blog would understand or undertake objectivity. Their approach to news is deliberately slanted. Applying the slant is why they exist.

          By the way, the AP didn’t just write a correction on the Cruz story; the corrected and resent the story to all the affiliates.

          Yes, the NY Times did report this morning that two Methodists and 1 Catholic died in the shooting attack here in Metro Kansas City. I don’t know why the AP didn’t know the two “Christians” were Methodist. Sometimes their sourcing isn’t accurate. Sometimes you can’t reach the right people to confirm facts. Sometimes you play it safe on deadline. The Times piece didn’t face the same deadline AP reporters would. Doing journalism right is a lot harder than it appears.

          As for journalists as a whole doing the bidding of liberals etc., I’m not surprised you believe that if your news sources are Fox and Breitbart. Did you know that surveys have shown the Fox viewers are the least informed of the television news watchers?

          • Soliloquized

            OK sport, here’s another one. A photographer assigned to McCain admitted to arranging for unflattering photos of him, obviously to suit her beliefs. Seriously, I’m not going to be able to quote the offending media, they, like you, see nothing wrong. Juveniles gleefully relieving their college years under professors that hate America, Conservatives, Republicans, Christians, and more.

            You can sing the song of praise all you want. If I’m interested in news concerning American Politics, I use foreign sources, as tragic as that may seem. American journalists have lost all credibility.


            “Greenberg pretended to be using a standard modeling light.

            The resulting photos depict McCain as devilish, with bulging brows and washed-out skin.

            ‘He had no idea he was being lit from below,” Greenberg said, adding that none of his entourage picked up on the light switch either. ‘I guess they’re not very sophisticated,’ she said”.

            No bias there, eh?

          • Bill Norton

            If you read The Atlantic’s piece through unfiltered lenses you might see that the photographer was a “freelancer,” and not in the employ of The Atlantic. Second, you might see that the “news” about the photographer’s actions and actions was uncovered and reported by a New York newspaper, so you must be trusting of the reporting accuracy of some American journalism. Third, you might see that The Atlantic chose not to use any of the freelancer’s offensive and distorted photos, opting for a more straight on shot. If bias is at play here, then the bias is toward fair representation. Fourth, The Atlantic repudiated the freelancer’s work (see the link you provided).

            You have judged me as not caring about slant or bias. You say I sing praises. On both counts, you are completely in error, except these conclusions fit your bias, so you feel safe to utter in complete ignorance the facts. Only biased lenses would read into my exchanges with you that I don’t care about bias or that I laud incomplete or inaccurate reporting.

          • Soliloquized

            The media is biased, including AP, IMHO, I have offered enough to substantiate media bias, the internet has no shortage of examples.

            Free lance or otherwise, it represents, at times, egregious attempts to sway opinion based on the opinions of the writer, photographer, newscaster. How many have gone undetected or ignored?

            It’s silly for you to assert otherwise. Indeed, your own acrimony, in response to mine, flagged Fox and Brietbart as biased, shall I rely on the objectivity of the Huffington Post, MSNBC, or CNN. Please, your credulity is showing.

            You still harp on the retraction. Is it placed underneath the headlines or buried on the last page, is it it picked-up at all, you’re being disingenuous suggesting a retraction carries the same import as the original material. I guess as a lawyer you would have complete confidence that testimony that is given, objected to, and sustained is not in the minds of the jurors because the judge instructed the jurors to forget it. Please. Really?

            My focus was AP, yours is making me appear foolish. Personal attacks, interesting, perhaps it reflects on your objectivity, after all, you, and not I, worked in the large metro whatnot.

            Thanks for proving my point, thanks for the personal insults, thanks for admitting that Fox and Brietbart are biased. Aren’t they media, isn’t this exactly what I’ve been saying all along, if it occurs there, it occurs elsewhere, but in those circumstances, you concur with the bias and either approve or turn a blind eye.

            This ends my contribution to these recriminations, I shan’t have more to say on the issue with you. Take it as a victory if that gives you thrills, I was merely trying to point out bias.

  • John Martignoni

    As one engaged in Catholic apologetics for a living, your line:
    “It’s hard to imagine that now, isn’t it?” betrays a bit of ignorance about the current situation on the ground. As the traditional Protestant denominations break down, and more and more people are headed for Evangelical, Baptist, non-denominational, and fundamentalist faith traditions, I contend there are more people, not less, who believe Catholics are not Christian. I hear it on practically a daily basis. And, even though I do indeed live in the South, I hear this from folks all over the country, and from outside the country as well.

    • William Lanigan

      Given the rabid anti-Catholic bias of the mainstream media I am sure that a lot of people who say they don’t believe Catholics are Christian have been led to that conclusion by the media and not by any thoughtful reflection.

      • helen

        Really!? After reams of mostly approving copy about Francis?

        • Reformed Catholic

          What that copy approves about Francis is more of their own worldview than what Francis actually says.

          If people are basing their view of Francis on that, yeah, I can see where they wouldn’t think he was Christian.

    • Julia B

      One side of my family is Protestant and they don’t think my Catholic family is Christian. In fact I was just at a wedding of a cousin’s daughter to a fellow ordained minister – they are going to spend their lives saving/converting Catholics in Mexico. They think we are lost.

    • Greg Scott

      Mr. Martignoni:

      I’ve listened to your lectures and radio shows, and I receive your newsletters. I am about 10 years older than you and grew up in the pre-Vatican II era where there WAS a difference between “Christians” and Catholics. “Christians” were a “catch-all” category of all of the Protest Denominations – my Dad said, “WE ARE CATHOLIC!” Since V2 and the whole liberal ecumenical movement the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Church has been lumped in with the rest of the forty thousand heretical sects that claim to be “Christian”. I know you and know you believe – Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

      As you know; we ARE the original Christians – we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church is the only True Church that can be called the Universal/Catholic Church.

      • Reformed Catholic

        Thanks for that vote of confidence as neither Benedict nor Francis rejects those Christian sects as much as you do.

        However, that has nothing to do with the press coverage of this so, I’m going to stop now.


      • MaryTN

        Agreed. But the difference is, at least here in the South, that many, many”Christians” do not believe that Catholics are Christians, not at all Christian. This is not personal ignorance, it is what they are taught in Sunday School. Hard to believe, but unfortunately, true.

    • MainlineP

      Spot on John, and you know it first hand. But Mr. Mattingly has an agenda to push and anti-Catholicism on the part of fundamentalist evangelicals messes with the tactical planning of the culture war. It’s not ignorance on his part, it’s propaganda.

  • JoeMerl

    My assumption is that the family of the “Christians” identified them as such, while the third’s family went for something more specific. But if so they probably should have used quotation marks and attribution.

  • William Lanigan

    I really think the writer did not differentiate, but probably didn’t know what denomination the two were (I think they were Methodist) so just used the generic term and then assumed everyone knows Catholics are also Christians. I doubt the author meant anything anti-Catholic by what he wrote.

  • Thomas Vogler

    And somewhere Jehova’s Witnesses are mulling over an egregious slight, while somewhere else a Mormon blogger does the same. Or maybe they were Methodist, as Lanigan thinks.

    It is so awful, what that man did. Homicidal antisemitism.

    It seems a little odd to take this as an occasion to worry about remotely possible slights to one’s status as a nominal Christian.

    • tmatt

      It’s simple a journalism issue, linked to imprecise coverage of journalism. Noting these kinds of errors is what we do here — it’s a pro-journalism blog.

      • Thomas Vogler

        Sorry — I forgot.

    • Darren Blair

      As someone who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (what most people call “The Mormons”)?

      Sometimes, that “egregious slight” will actually be the latest in a series of incidents in which the person is belittled or even bullied for being part of a minority religious group.

  • Käthe

    I’m guessing the family of the Catholic identified her that way, and the family of the other two identified them as Christians. I hear very few Catholics answer the question “what is your religion?” with “Christian”–it’s almost always “a Catholic.” On the other hand, a lot of Baptists and other Protestants will just say “a Christian.”

    I’m kind of appalled that this was the angle you chose to put under the microscope on this horrible story. Seems like you’re looking for a reason for Christians to be offended when this was a crime aimed at Jews. These specific Christians died, and it is horrific. But Jews all across the world, and especially areas of the USA where they are less numerous, are feeling the chill over this, on the first day of one of their most important feasts. Parents will worry about sending their kids to Hebrew school, synagogues will have to bulk up security, etc.

    This isn’t about Catholics, seriously.

  • CRS

    I was once told that the phrase “All Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic” is offensive. I looked at the person and asked why, considering that Catholicism predates Protestantism by a millenia and a half. The person just maintained that it was. It got more interesting later when I used the word “heretic” to describe anyone who denies one or more teachings of the Church and even MORE interesting when I gave the definition of “apostate.” The reason? This person’s family is mostly Protestant and this person’s step-father was once Catholic, though I was talking on another subject and wasn’t thinking of the family until this person brought them up. The truth is offensive and people are confused. Anyway, this person is going through RCIA and is still learning the offensive truth, taking it in bit-by-bit. 🙂

    • bzelbub

      Yes I was taught that phrase early on in life. However the one that I’ve always liked better was: All Cognac is Brandy although not all Brandy is Cognac.

  • helen

    “Church of Christ” members would self-identify as Christian, I think.
    And “Disciples of Christ” (Christian) church claim that they are the only ones who have “Christian” in their name, so they would use it. Perhaps the reporter faithfully put down what he was told.

    I don’t like to see the exchange of “we were first” claims, especially this week. (Lutherans, of course, are evangelical catholics, [please don’t capitalize either evangelical or catholic] unaccepted as Christians by people on both sides.
    But it’s God’s opinion that matters.)

    The author of this article is Eastern Orthodox, I think? His branch of the Christian church might justly claim to be older than the Bishop of Rome’s organization.

    Somehow I can’t as get excited about the AP as I am sad about the “we’re first” comments. Luther was a Roman Catholic before the Reformation and our Pastors quote the early church fathers. (See Dr S M Murray’s Memorial Moments out of Houston, Texas, for my daily portion.) 🙂

    • Howard

      I note how you first say you “don’t like to see the exchange of ‘we were first’ claims”, and then procede to inform us of your opinion on who was first.

      • helen

        Touche’ All Christians can trace their faith back to Christ and that is what I should have said.

        I apologize.

      • Soliloquized

        On a sideline, not in contradiction to your observation, a complaint I hear often from non-Catholic Christians (how’s that work) is that Catholics don’t read the Bible.

        I have, successfully at times, indicated to people that throughout history, most people could not afford Bibles, and copies of anything had to be arduously done one character and one page at a time.

        If individually reading the Bible was requisite, there’s about 1700 years of lost souls. Of course, attending Mass or Services was the way to hear the Word, and in that sense, as well as with some guidance as to the meaning, Christians knew the Bible.

        • Howard

          That seems to have no relationship to my comment, or really this whole thread. For what it’s worth, though, I am a converted Fundamentalist, and my perspective on both Catholics and Fundamentalists is quite different from both what yours and that of the “non-Catholic Christians” you are talking about.

          • Soliloquized

            I have been properly chided, and I slink away in shame. If your retort helps you sleep, so much the better.

            I’d recommend that the site changes it’s name to Bathos, especially in the sense of #1 and #3.

            1. a ludicrous descent from the exalted or lofty to the commonplace; anticlimax.
            2. insincere pathos; sentimentality; mawkishness.
            3. triteness or triviality in style.

            I’ve mistaken the glitz for substance. Such is life. Between banter on this thread, in addition to another thread that appears to be controlled by atheists, and the substantial post I made being sent for moderation (apparently afraid that someone will say something in support of religion), it hasn’t been a pleasant experience.

            And with that, I bid you and Bathos (I’m using the new name) adieu, I’ll be sure not to let the door hit my posterior on the way out.

          • Howard

            ??? A random comment, followed by a drama queen exit? OK. I suppose it’s what we should expect on the Internet.

  • fredx2

    I’m inclined to give them a pass on this one. When the reporters asked the religions of the two Christians, they may have been Evangelical Mega-church Christians, who would not have said “Baptist” “Presbyterian” etc, They might have simply said “Christian”. On the other hand, the Catholic would have self identified as Catholic.

    • Ira Rifkin

      My guess, and everyone here is ONLY guessing, is that it’s just poor sentence structure and nothing more.

  • scrivej1

    Why is everyone reading this incorrectly? It looks as though the writer says “Christians” to vaguely reference their religion. Catholicism is specific, well-known, and formalized, whereas many Protestant churches are non-denominational, mixed/hybrid denominations, or just plain none-of-the-above. Reading it this way, its easy to see why the writer clearly wanted to express the Christian denomination he knew solidly was recognizable as such while only vaguely referencing the ‘general’ religion of the others. This is also needed, because the writer is talking about the father and son victims, references their religion, then goes on to speak of the previous victim, and references her religion. The article would not have flowed as well if he had spoken about the two, said they were Christian, then spoke about the third victim and said Christian as well.

  • Babagranny

    There’s no doubt that some uninformed people and sometimes very biased people do think that Catholic and Christian are quite different, and that is something we all must teach about (evangelize?), but don’t read too much into an article from the AP. Over the last few years I have discovered many ignorant errors in AP reports, which I take only as a symptom of AP hiring reporters who don’t know much and don’t recognize that they don’t know much, so they don’t ask questions and even if they do ask questions, they often don’t understand the answers because they have no context, whether about religion or any other topic. Much of today’s journalism seems to share this characteristic, which does little to improve the general level of knowledge of the typical reader.

  • Soliloquized

    Oy vey, to complicate it further, this same issue arose concerning Sarah Palin. I’m not prepared to backtrack on my previous assertions, so it casts her in a different light.

    In fairness, I wanted to put this out here. Though I was appalled that AP incorrectly quoted Ted Cruz, in the light of this discussion, I’m also appalled by this:

    “[Billy Graham’s] message transformed my mom’s life,” Palin, one of the dinner’s speakers, said in an interview with USA TODAY.

    “In the 70s, she would tune into the Billy Graham crusades, televised. My mom was raised Catholic, and she . . . was yearning for something more,” she said. “His invitation for people to know that they could have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ — my mom understood that from the way that he could articulate it. She became a Christian, led the rest of the family to Christ, and that I believe transformed our family.”

  • Sygurd Jonfski

    I think this is not as sinister as it appears. My impression is that the writer has tried to avoid repeating the same word within the sentence which always looks stylistically awkward.

  • Howard

    There would be nothing iffy if the order had been reversed, with one victim being described as “a Catholic” and the others decribed as “other Christians”. That would be natural and inoffensive, but it would list the victims in reverse order of their murders. Maybe the paragraph was written that way originally, then edited to introduce the victims in chronological order, which would require getting rid of the “other” modifier since the Catholic had not yet been introduced. Surely this kind of change happens all the time.

  • MaryTN

    Gosh, I don’t know where you live, but I also live in the Bible Belt and it is the norm in many churches to refer to “Christians” (them) and “Catholics”(us). Many, many Protestants honestly believe that Catholics are not Christians. Heck, about 5 years ago I ran into someone who still thought that Catholics worship statues and Mary. About 15 years ago had a kid who was told, in a Christian (read: not Catholic) school who was told, in class, by the teacher, that Catholics were cannibals.

  • margaret1910

    I happened to be in KC when this happened. Followed the news on local television. As the identities of the victims were learned, they were described as “Methodists” and “Catholic” and “not Jews”. I can’t see why the AP could not follow the lead of the locals in descriptions?

  • David Kingsella

    I’ve actually had to correct more than one Catholic who in conversation referred to Catholics and Christians as if they were not the same. I of course pointed out that we are “Christians”. Being a convert to Catholicism from the Southern Baptist tradition I find that I’m a bit sensitive to this sort of thing and it bothers me a lot more coming from fellow Catholics than from those outside the Church. That said, I’m constantly surprised at how little many cradle Catholics seem to know/understand about their own faith. Our faith is so rich and layered and feel sorry for those Catholics who don’t have a full appreciation for their own faith. The phenomenon seems much like immigrants who become American Citizens being much more well versed in American History than many Americans who were born here. I suppose it is also similar in that both US born Americans and cradle Catholics love their faith and country very much but still believe it is the responsibility of both to learn about their country/faith and how much more of an appreciation they would have for them both.

  • Julie Peitz Nickell

    I’ve seen so many slanted AP stories on Catholic matters, I would not be at all surprised that this is a deliberate slap. Its probably ignorance, but I’ve seen them leave key facts out in order to slant stories about the Catholic Church, many, many times. I’ve seen cases of terrible accounts of sexual abuse of children in protestant churches in local newspaper stories that the AP always seems to miss picking up, for some reason. But every story about an accusation regarding Catholic clerics are on the wire, sometimes on there multiple times (so the editors won’t miss it?). And this AP story has a way, way, way different flavor than the stories they have on accusations involving Catholic priests: SIDNEY (Iowa) — A pastor has pleaded not guilty to charges he sexually abused a 5-year-old girl.
    Authorities said 66-year-old Roger C. Kissel of Sidney pleaded not guilty to second-degree sexual abuse, lascivious acts and indecent exposure.
    When he was arrested in February, Kissel was a pastor at the nondenominational Sidney Cowboy Church. Sidney Police Chief Austin Richardson said the allegations aren’t connected with the church.
    The crimes are alleged to have occurred over several months in 2013.
    Kissel posted bond and has been released from the Fremont County Jail.

  • Soliloquized

    What a coincidence, a Patheos Bog story on biased AP stories. Who’d thunk? Link was on this page, I’m not sure if they rotate links through, so here is the address below.

  • MainlineP

    Not all evangelicals are active culture warriors with a knowledge of the approved new political message, i.e., the traditionalist Catholics are our new allies/friends. They have not gotten the memo. Mr. Martignoni is spot on in his comment here. The author of this piece, who makes no pretense about his con-evo views pushed aggressively in all his essays here, is loath to admit anti-Catholicism is still there because to do so messes up the political/cultural tactical agenda. But none the less it still flourishes in the real world if not in the planning meetings of the con-evo culture warriors.
    As to the AP story, please consider Mr. Mattingly the far more likely possibility of religious illiteracy. The writer doesn’t know “bupkis” about religion and doesn’t make the effort to find out who and what are Methodists, the church of two victims. Catholics everyone sort of knows since they have a Pope constantly in the secular news. Thus the RC victim gets a specific mention. Not everything is a left-wing plot, Mr. Mattingly.

  • Okieproud

    Being Catholic born and raised in Oklahoma (belt buckle of the Bible belt), this is at least the best of all possible outcomes (Leibniz), if the writer were to separate the two. In this light, maybe more Catholics will sit up and take notice.
    I don’t see this as anti-Catholic in anyway. Why? Because this isn’t a negative statement. If anyone should be upset, it’s the two Christians who didn’t get their denominations named.

    Careful about how you are letting the sensational media get to you. Is there bias out there? Is the media hard on Catholics? Are atheists actively trying to silence and remove religion, including the Catholic faith? Is our government helping them? Yes, yes, yes, yes. But not everything that quacks is a duck.

    Get upset at the right things, like the fact that three innocent people died. There’s enough of them out there without hunting for straw men. Besides, people don’t take you seriously if you don’t strict to what’s serious.