text:
The past few days many have sent me a link to the following video adding, "This is very powerful." Today when yet another friend send me a link to the video, writing, "This is very powerful," I finally took a look at it.
And you know what? It really is very powerful.
Sponsor: CatholicVote.com
okay, very awesome!
my favourite: "a new generation must stand for the truth"
Amen. Cuz, the previous generation is living a life of lies....
"everything you hold sacred will need your vote"
May the Holy Spirit enlighten the conscience of all Catholics and guide them in this crucial vote for Life and Family. Amen.Posted by: RSD at September 30, 2008 3:47 PM
We not only have to implore the light of the Sanctifier and Life Giver, the Holy Ghost, we also have to position ourselves and COOPERATE with Him so we can have the infusing sanctifying grace act within and through us and our meager efforts.
We cannot be passive viewers of the drama but must assiduously commit ourselves to the fight even when it takes us outside our comfort zone.Posted by: BoMeister at September 30, 2008 4:28 PM
Bravo! What a powerful video! This Baptist stands with you.Posted by: Joyce at September 30, 2008 4:28 PM
Very Powerful. I think I got an email with a link to this from Priests for Life. Or American Life League. One of the major prolife sites, anyway.Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 30, 2008 4:33 PM
Great video.
Best line:
"Vote your conscience."Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 5:04 PM
What an incredibly moving video. This Latter-day Saint stands with you, too.Posted by: Misty at September 30, 2008 5:07 PM
Dan: except most people dont' have a properly formed conscience these days....:-PPosted by: Patricia at September 30, 2008 5:10 PM
Patricia, Obama voters don't even know what "conscience" means. They think it's more of an emotion than a rational power of the mind which must conform to objective truth.Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 30, 2008 5:16 PM
Awesome! This Church of God pastor stands with you, too.Posted by: Starla at September 30, 2008 5:18 PM
John L, you have to take a swipe at Obama voters? They, by and large, know what "conscience" means. They might just disagree with you. Imagine that.Posted by: Hal at September 30, 2008 5:21 PM
neener neener neener :-p lol.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 5:26 PM
While it is a powerful video...I think it would have been even better if "Vote your conscience" what replaced with "Vote pro-life" or "vote your faith." The Catholic church teaches that we have to put life first - and it's a mortal sin if we don't-- so why not end with that phrase?Posted by: Dixi at September 30, 2008 5:27 PM
For one it'd contradict having JFK up there ;)
Secondly- Everyone has different perceptions of what the "life issue" really is. Some see it solely as abortion, others see it as all encompassing (abortion, aiding those in need, ending the death penalty, etc) and still others may see it differently.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 5:31 PM
You beat me to it. Voting your conscience is useless, if it isn't formed properly. Your heart is NOT your conscience.
Hear that Hal? What you "feel" is NOT your conscience. What you believe is NOT your conscience. What suits you is NOT your conscience.
I'm not harping on you Hal, really, I just want you to understand that I don't think you have a "true" understanding of the word conscience and what it signifies...Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 5:36 PM
Romans 2:14-15: " When Gentiles who do not possess the law carry out its precepts by the light of nature, then, although they have no law, they are their own law; they show that what the law requires is inscribed on their hearts, and to this their conscience gives supporting witness, since their own thoughts argue the case, sometimes against them, sometimes even for them."Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 5:39 PM
Main Entry:
con·science Listen to the pronunciation of conscience
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin conscientia, from conscient-, consciens, present participle of conscire to be conscious, be conscious of guilt, from com- + scire to know — more at science
13th century
1 a: the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b: a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts c: the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego2archaic : consciousness3: conformity to the dictates of conscience : conscientiousness4: sensitive regard for fairness or justice : scruple
its out there :)Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 5:40 PM
I know you don't like where my vote's going either.
I just like the line because it isn't telling people how to vote and recognizes people can and should make up their own minds, though of course it has an obvious undertone to not vote for Obama, as his positions on abortion are known far and wide.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 5:44 PM
Oh Dan, silly willy,
If you know anything about the Catholic faith, you know this...
We have our own definitions of things. Marriage, God, Grace and yes, Conscience. Even Wiki recognizes that Catholics have a different version that the secular world.
And this was a Catholic video after all.
Besides, we both know that if it weren't for the "tax exempt" law, they wouldn't have refrained from using the "O" word.
BTW, did you see Jaspers video link to the children singing for Mr. "O"? That's how we see you guys...as "smitten" and unable to see past the glamour that he has cast on you all...spooky.Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 5:48 PM
Hal, if Obama voters knew what "conscience" meant, they would not be Obama voters.
This is not a mere issue of "disagreement". Your support for a candidate who supports late-term abortion and even after-birth abortion, and who thinks that the worst mistake he ever made as a politician was that he didn't do enough to support euthanasia, doesn't make me question your judgement or your intelligence. It makes me question your humanity.Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 30, 2008 5:53 PM
I don't feel smitten. lol. I don't like him as much as I did when I first started supporting him, but I still think he is this country's best bet, neither is going to be able to do much, but I think McCain is more bull headed than Obama, which could prove dangerous in the current environment.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 6:00 PM
Ditto. The absolute Truth is Jesus Christ and the words He spoke.Posted by: HisMan at September 30, 2008 6:05 PM
At this point Dan, I'd rather have bull headed than indecisive. Better to have a decision made and stuck to, than no decision.
Besides, especially in light of your less than passionate adoration of Obama, the life issue should take precedence. It's one thing to say that you LOVE something that a pro choice candidate stands for, and believe that he will bring GREAT good in spite of his pro choice stance, and another to say "Eh, whatever, I like him a little bit better".
I can think of 50,000,000 reasons to vote for McCain. And the Islamist Extremists can think of many to vote for Obama. Which is reason enough to run from the Obama room.Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 6:09 PM
LOL, See Hisman,
I don't waffle. I know what's right and what's wrong.Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 6:10 PM
I've said before, I agree with the Reagan aid's rationale. Obama is overall more pro-life than McCain. Abortion is not the whole "life issue" for me, it is simply a part. And it isn't 'eh,' its less enthusiastic than it was, but I still cannot bring myself to support McCain at all, espescially in light of this economy (not that it will be fixed in 4-8 years at all) or the condition of the world. Add in the fact he and his running mate cant get their stories straight and Palin's thoughts about attacking Russia sometime soon, and you've got me running scared.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 6:12 PM
This whole "vote your conscience" is being abused, it gives liberal Catholics an out to vote for a pro-abort. It hasn't worked and look where it got got us, our leading Catholic politicians in Washington are rapid pro-aborts Nancy Pelosi, who voted against the PBA ban and Joe Biden on a pro-infanticide ticket. Let's not kid ourselves, bad Catholic leadershipis why abortion is legal U.S today.
U.S Catholic bishops would be getting behind John McCain and speaking up if they were serious about stopping abortion. But that won't happen, no guts.
Catholics should really be ashamed.Posted by: Jasper at September 30, 2008 6:19 PM
I loved the video also, and wonder why the Catholic church is so outspoken on the pro life issues and most protestant churches ignore it?
I'm behind them 100% though!Posted by: Joanne at September 30, 2008 6:20 PM
"Obama is overall more pro-life than McCain"
I would recommend you not re-join the Catholic Church, please don't, we have enough bad Catholics already. I would recommend the UU or Rev. Wright's United Church of Christ.Posted by: Jasper at September 30, 2008 6:23 PM
Joanne- Catholics have Big Daddy Pope to tell them how to vote. Protestants have no such figure and therefore have to actually think for themselves.
:-PPosted by: Erin at September 30, 2008 6:23 PM
As I said, I dont see abortion as end-all-be-all in the life issue.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 6:28 PM
6. If I think that a candidate who is pro-abortion has better ideas to serve the poor, and the pro-life candidate has bad ideas that will hurt the poor, why may I not vote for the candidate that has the better ideas for serving the poor?
Serving the poor is not only admirable, but also obligatory for Catholics as an exercise of solidarity. Solidarity has to do with the sharing of both spiritual and material goods, and with what the Church calls the preferential option for the poor. This preference means that we have the duty to give priority to helping those most needful, both materially and spiritually. Beginning in the family, solidarity extends to every human association, even to the international moral order. Based on the response to question 3 above, two important points must be made. First, when it comes to the matter of determining how social and economic policy can best serve the poor, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches proposed, and therefore legitimate disagreement among voters and candidates for office. Secondly, solidarity can never be at the price of embracing a "disqualifying issue." Besides, when it comes to the unborn, abortion is a most grievous offense against solidarity, for the unborn are surely among society's most needful. The right to life is a paramount issue because as Pope John Paul II says it is "the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost." If a candidate for office refuses solidarity with the unborn, he has laid the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone.
14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?
Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic's vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.
Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 6:32 PM
Opposition to abortion is one of the clearest and oldest moral preachings of the Roman Catholic Church; it dates back to the 1st century. The destruction of the fetus, the church teaches, is a morally indefensible attack on human life.Posted by: Jasper at September 30, 2008 6:32 PM
You're first mistake can be found in the sentence "I just don't see..." A well formed conscience has nothing to do with being able to see.
It is an act of the will. OVER the heart. In spite of the heart. And sometimes, if your lucky, it will be in accord WITH the heart. But the heart must NEVER direct the conscience.
1. Isn't conscience the same as my own opinions and feelings? And doesn't everyone have the right to his or her own conscience?
Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature and is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural moral law is not anything that you invent, but rather discover within yourself and is the governing norm of your conscience. In short, Conscience is the voice of truth within you, and your opinions need to be in harmony with that truth. As a Catholic, you have the benefit of the Church's teaching authority or Magisterium endowed upon her by Christ. The Magisterium assists you and all people of good will in understanding the natural moral law as it relates to specific issues. As a Catholic, you have the obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the Church's Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be educated by virtue so as to be in harmony with conscience's voice of truth. In this way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which we you will feel guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are morally upright. We should strive to avoid the two opposite extremes of a lax conscience and a scrupulous conscience. Meeting the obligation of continually attending to this formation of conscience will increase the likelihood that, in the actual operation or activity of conscience, you will act with a certain conscience, which clearly perceives that a given concrete action is a good action that was rightly done or should be done. Being correctly informed and certain in the actual operation of conscience is the goal of the continuing formation of conscience. Otherwise put, you should strive to avoid being incorrectly informed and doubtful in the actual judgment of conscience about a particular action or omission. You should never act on a doubtful conscience.
No, Catholics have the AUTHOR OF LIFE guiding them in their votes. At least the devout ones that attend Mass every Sunday and not just on Christmas and Easter.
I've seen pictures of abortion. I also have a DVD with 3D and 4D ultrasound images. I think I can decide for myself. And Obama is NOT who I think would be best to lead ALL Americans, those BORN AND those not yet born (the UNBORN).Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 30, 2008 6:35 PM
Joanne- Catholics have Big Daddy Pope to tell them how to vote. Protestants have no such figure and therefore have to actually think for themselves.
":-P" notwithstanding, that was a rather nasty remark.
Are you honestly of the opinion that I do not think for myself??? ME???? Really???
Do you know how a television works? Could you build one on your own? Could you build a car from scratch? And yet you trust complete strangers to have built one for you...You trust their authority and knowledge. Does that mean you can't think for yourself?
When you go to the doctor, do you take his advice? Are you not trusting him to have studied and be knowledgeable about something which you know next to nothing?
Aren't you, by the very fact that you can admit that you DON'T know where that rash came from, exercising your right to admit ignorance, thus showing that you can think for yourself?
Is my looking to scholars, brilliant minds, that have studied scripture for the last 2000 years, and trusting them...some of whom actually knew Jesus...this to you, is foolish??? Really?Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 6:40 PM
They may say their conscience is clear and find no problem voting for a pro-abort, that's why it doesn't work.
The church should be conveying definite right and wrongs on voting with no ambiguity.Posted by: Jasper at September 30, 2008 6:41 PM
False. The Church used to be fine with abortion until the "quickening" aka the kicking in the womb.
Thus comes one of my qualms with the Church and part of my debate. I cannot in good faith say abortion is disqualifying where the death penalty support should be just as disqualifying. Neither candidate is pro-life, Obama is more so in the end. Obama isn't promoting entering into more conflict as McCain has said time and time again, espescially when its not yet necessary. I cannot support someone who actively supports using the Death Penalty more often and limiting the appeals process which leads to miscarriages of justice that cannot be undone.
Taking all that and putting it against Obama, I rather have Obama in office and work towards reducing abortion (through societal and scientific means) until it is unnecessary.
I cannot in good conscience vote for McCain when his presidency will lead to more death than Obama's. Abortion is not going to be ended in one presidency, even the overturn of roe v wade will not do it. It is a long haul, incremental, state by state effort that is required and no president or congress is going to change that. Until more people take an interest in the abortion issue, there are going to be just as many. I support less death than more unnecessary death.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 6:41 PM
You have NO idea what you're talking about. The Catholic Church has been opposed to abortion in all three trimesters for the last 2000 years. There has never been a time when they said it was OK.
WheredDo you get your information from, Jack Chick?
Posted by: LizFromNebraska
at September 30, 2008 6:43 PM
"False. The Church used to be fine with abortion until the "quickening" aka the kicking in the womb. "
Anymore false misrepresentations will be deleted. The Catholic Church has always be against abortion.
This is not 'Meet the Press' where you get away with lying.Posted by: Jasper at September 30, 2008 6:44 PM
You cannot in "conscience", but don't mistake that for good conscience. The numbers alone prove the fallacy. Exactly how many innocent people are put to death in a year throught capital punishment? Compared to 50,000,000 (THAT'S MILLION) a year by abortion?
5. If I may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, then should it not also be true that I can't vote for a pro-capital punishment candidate?
It is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. On the one hand, direct abortion is an intrinsic evil, and cannot be justified for any purpose or in any circumstances. On the other hand, the Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is "rare, if not virtually nonexistent." Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a "rare" case arises that warrants the death penalty. Moreover, if such a rare case does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal act of self-defense would be a *morally good action* even if it does have the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the aggressor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally irresponsible to rule out all such "rare" possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately.
I hope you are reading these posts...they are important. Read them in full, a couple of times if necessary. Print them out and study them...
Archbishop Wuerl on the Church's Constant Teaching on Abortion
August 25, 2008
The following statement is from Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl:
On Meet the Press this past Sunday, August 24, 2008, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made statements regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church, human life and abortion that were incorrect.
Speaker Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic. She went on to say, "And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition..." After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, "I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy."
We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: the current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago. The Catechism reads:
"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law." (Catechism, 2270-2271)
The Catechism goes on to quote the Didache, a treatise that dates to the first century: "'You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.'"
From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death.
Some Catechism quotes:
1795 "Conscience is man's most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths" (GS 16).
1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.
1797 For the man who has committed evil, the verdict of his conscience remains a pledge of conversion and of hope.
1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.
1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.
1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
1802 The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.Posted by: Brian at September 30, 2008 6:51 PM
those 50,000,000 are going to go the same way regardless of who is our next president, its simply how things are right now. Its a grassroots effort that will change this, not a single president. So those are going to be casualties regardless who is in office, add in additional casualties under each (war, death penalty, lack of support, etc) and under Obama the body count will likely be much lower than a McCain administration.
There was in fact a misread on my part, for which I apologize. However the venom was unneeded.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 6:52 PM
Conscience according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church - linkPosted by: Brian at September 30, 2008 6:52 PM
"I rather have Obama in office and work towards reducing abortion." (6:41 PM). Alas, if only this were true! The Dems do not even make a pretense of reducing abortions any more. They took it out of their platform, and now demand that abortions be publicly funded.
What a powerful video. Sadly, though, most will not see it, and many will not heed it. But nonetheless we should link it to all of our friends and families.Posted by: Jerry at September 30, 2008 6:54 PM
"The Church used to be fine with abortion until the "quickening" aka the kicking in the womb"
This claim is all over the internet at such sites as religioustolerance.org, yet not a single website that claims this is able to produce the official documents that supposedly taught that abortion was OK before quickening. It is claimed that they are found in Sedes Apostolica by Gregory XIV, Effraenatam from 1588 by Sixtus V, and Sicutex from 1211 by Innocent III. I've never seen these documents yet those with an agenda against the Church's teaching claims to be able to interpret them. I would love to see these documents because upon reading them, it will be seen that this is a matter of canonical penalty and not Church discipline, but until then, it is a baseless claim to say that the Church taught that abortion was permissible before quickening without the official Church documents.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 30, 2008 6:56 PM
There is no venom. I think you are a good, inteligent young man. I'm just stating that one cannot support legalized abortion of human beings and be a good Catholic.Posted by: Jasper at September 30, 2008 6:56 PM
Unless you missed it I did swap over. MK has been following me closely since and we've had a couple back and forths. I want to return, however there sare some issues, and it isnt so much supporting abortion so much as the belief that everything (including likely action or inaction by the candidates based on history and the history of the candidate) needs to be taken into account when voting.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 7:00 PM
those 50,000,000 are going to go the same way regardless of who is our next president, its simply how things are right now. Its a grassroots effort that will change this, not a single president. So those are going to be casualties regardless who is in office, add in additional casualties under each (war, death penalty, lack of support, etc) and under Obama the body count will likely be much lower than a McCain administration.
You could say the same thing about capital punishment. Or war. Or anything else. The same 8 innocent men will be put to death. The same 250 soldiers will die before the war ends...
C'mon, you're too smart to believe you're own nonsense. Seriously. 50 MILLION! MILLION! MILLION!
How exactly is Obama going to reduce this? By educating kindergartners, passing FOCA, but taking care of any punishments his daughters should find themselves carrying, by appointing pro choice judges, by putting out ads on the radio saying that John McCain hates women and wants to take their rights away, by voting against the born alive infant protection act...just HOW is he going to reduce abortions?
And how is it that McCain is going to increase them?
You're not making sense Dan.
And quite honestly, you sound like Pilate and Obama. Unable to take a stand for you what you CLAIM you believe in...Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 7:00 PM
Unless you missed it I did swap over. MK has been following me closely since
Dang, and I thought my disguise was foolproof...how did you know it was me???? ;)Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 7:05 PM
I never claimed McCain would increase abortion, he wants to increase use of capital punishment and limit appeals, increasing the likelihood innocent men would be put to death alongside those who are guilty (not that either deserve death)
And the claim those same soldiers would die is logically false should McCain open the conflicts he and his running mate have mentioned.
I will not vote for an increase in overall unnecessary death, period.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 7:07 PM
I'm getting heated again, and I don't mean to. You're just so smart, and I can't believe you don't see this. It's okay. You have to do what you have to do. I just want you to understand that it isn't logical, and it certainly is not in line with the teaching of the church.
This is your first time voting, right? I should really cut you some slack. Not on WHO you're voting for, but on the fact that this is your first...I should be, how do they say? Gentle...:)Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 7:07 PM
;)Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 7:07 PM
I will not vote for an increase in overall unnecessary death, period.
Read that sentence back to yourself and I'm sure you'll see why we are left speechless...Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 7:11 PM
This is the truth about the current mortgage crisis.
Democrats need to go and NOW.
Anyone that can support abortion can lie with a straight face to the American taxpayer.
I think all death is unnecessary at this point. I find it highly unlikly abortions will increase under Obama, there it is. The way things stand I see an increase in abortion highly unlikely, espescially seeing as teen pregnancies have fallen lately. However, McCain is increase guaranteed, I'd rather put my vote somewhere where it is less likely than where I know an increase is coming.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 7:14 PM
I'm not harping on you Hal, really, I just want you to understand that I don't think you have a "true" understanding of the word conscience and what it signifies...
Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 5:36 PM
OK, now that I'm done ROFLing. If the video were honest, what it would have said is vote you Catholic indoctrination, which, BTW is a form of conscience lobotomy.Posted by: phylosopher at September 30, 2008 7:23 PM
Oh Dan,
How can you possibly think that an Obama presidency will not increase abortion...How can you possibly believe that leaving the abortion rate status quo is less evil than the death penalty...
I give up.
For now.
But I'm watching you...Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 7:24 PM
Meet the Fockers/Meet the Parents = absolutely hysterical.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 7:25 PM
Proof that JOhn Lewandowski doesn't have a conscience....
"This is not a mere issue of "disagreement". Your support for a candidate who supports late-term abortion and even after-birth abortion,"
lying doesn't seem to bother him, thus, he must not have a conscience.Posted by: phylosopher at September 30, 2008 7:26 PM
some thing to consider, this is all I"m putting out there-
-We have tried just taking it to the vote for over 30 years. How far has that gotten us?
Wouldn't you say it's time for a new strategy?Posted by: prettyinpink at September 30, 2008 7:26 PM
OK, now that I'm done ROFLing. If the video were honest, what it would have said is vote you Catholic indoctrination, which, BTW is a form of conscience lobotomy.
Yes, because we all know that I'm a robot without any opinions. That's me. Mild mannered, empty headed, lemming...
Tell me, are all of those atheistic, humanist, "enlightened" thoughts all your own? My aren't you the clever boots.Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 7:29 PM
Is my looking to scholars, brilliant minds, that have studied scripture for the last 2000 years, and trusting them...some of whom actually knew Jesus...this to you, is foolish??? Really?
Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 6:40 PM
So how did you pick which scholars to read? And to know that only those who have focused on ONE book are the right ones - since you admit your own ignorance on this point?
You are a very confused woman, who turns to a large authoritarian herd to make decisions for her. You may delude yourself that you re making your own decisions, but you are making them within very narrow parameters which have been decided for you. And your pathetic recruitment of others to your groups shows how even with a large herd you are still confused an insecure.Posted by: phylosopher at September 30, 2008 7:34 PM
DeNiro rocks!
If hundreds of kids are following the pied piper off a cliff, do we kill the pied piper and replace him with satan?
Yes, 30 years is a long time. But the "enemy" is tenacious. How long did it take to eradicate slavery? Surely, voting for a pro slavery president wouldn't have furthered the cause. Will McCain end abortion? Probably not, but you never know.
We do know that Obama will NOT. Period. We know this because he openly professes it. McCain claims that he would support a personhood amendment if all else failed. It's a chance. A chance we absolutely, guaranteed do NOT have with Barack.
It took a civil war to end slavery. That would be preferable to Obama. You fight for whats right. You don't capitulate. You don't vote for evil. Not for any reason. Ever.Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 7:34 PM
Uncalled for.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 7:35 PM
Thank you for opening my eyes. WHew. And to think, all this time YOU were the authority on life. All hail. Thank you, thank you Oh wise one...
Phooey.Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 7:35 PM
Hey Phylo,
I've got 2000 years of sound reasoning behind my beliefs. All you've got are the words "I want what I want when I want and you'll give it to me or else..." Brilliant. Why didn't I think of it.
Probably too busy pouring over actual literature.Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 7:37 PM
thank you Dan. As always, you are a gentlemen. Chivalry is NOT dead.Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 7:38 PM
No need to feed the flames.
Wow.. I feel like I'm playing mommy.
Kids, play nice or youll get a time out!
haha XDPosted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 7:39 PM
If I have anything to say about it chivalry will never die.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 7:40 PM
Curtsy. You may kiss my hand.Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 7:41 PM
And I promise, no more fan flaming. I'm off to watch the news...they can't hear me when I yell, so I should be safe...
G'night Dan. And God Bless. You're a great guy. The world is lucky to have you.
haha, that may be a lil much ;)
Have fun with the news. I'm watching House M.D. :D
G'night MK, careful with the yelling, would hate to hear about a disturbance of the peace ;)
Thank you very much for the compliment.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 7:44 PM
"If I have anything to say about it chivalry will never die."
Well, that's two of us fighting to keep the cause alive!Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 30, 2008 7:45 PM
And yet, if they are all pro-abortion, then you are allowed to vote for an evil, just a lesser one, right?
Simply casting a vote and hoping abortion is overridden hasn't really been working. Most of the longer-lasting societal changes have been a function of the people, not the politicians. I'd say let's start working on the people level and start pressuring the politicians from there. A good way is to fight and work for social services for women who would be in a bad situation. We can get out of the box that a lot of PCs put us in (that we only care about the fetus not the woman).We have to start making PL a movement beyond conservative or liberal politics but a human rights issue. Bullying people to vote for a politician that (more likey than not) is using abortion as a wedge issue seems to be causing more problems then it is helping. I'm sure you can agree with me on that.Posted by: prettyinpink at September 30, 2008 8:10 PM
You fight for whats right. You don't capitulate. You don't vote for evil. Not for any reason. Ever.
Posted by: mk at September 30, 2008 7:34 PM
Oh mk, I'm so glad you finally get it - my reasons exactly for never voting for McCain/Palin.
Which reasons were shared, up until the ReThug candidacy was decided, by many on this board, including your dear Mrs. Stanek. Either they're not voting at all, or the word hypocrite is sounding very appropos.Posted by: Anonymous at September 30, 2008 8:13 PM
This was emailed to me and I thought it was great. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine ]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.
The speech George W. Bush might give:
Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.
I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.
The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.
Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.
Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.
We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.
Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' CLINTON ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?
Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel . Did you sleep through high school?
You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.
That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.
You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'
Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.
Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.
In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.
I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.
I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.
So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.
Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.
So that's it. God bless what's left of America .
Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.
Posted by: Kristen
at September 30, 2008 8:14 PM
How a "pro-life" Obama voter justifies himself:
-Obama is more pro-life than McCain, because McCain just likes to kill people for no reason
-Obama is more pro-life than Palin, because Palin said that if Russia starts invading allies of the US and slaughtering people, the US might just have to step in and do something about it. Holy @#$%, that means she's advocating nuclear war with Russia. We're all going to die in a McCain/Palin administration.Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 30, 2008 8:27 PM
Your plan is a failure, that's what we've been doing for 40 years.. You will vote for a President who will sign FOCA into law. You still don't understand the roll of supreme court nominations. Reducing the rights of the unborn to a mere wedge issue is a sickening left wing tactic.Posted by: Jasper at September 30, 2008 8:31 PM
"Your plan is a failure, that's what we've been doing for 40 years."
Really? Why don't you read my post again.
And your rant about 'wedge issues' being only a left wing tactic- one only needs to look at Bush's second term to counter that argument. You seem to think that the Republicans are blameless; whereas a majority of liberals here find likes and dislikes, mistakes and successes in both parties. And you are calling US blind followers?Posted by: prettyinpink at September 30, 2008 8:36 PM
If by that plan you mean protesting with "truth trucks" and the like, yeah that is a failure. People dont respond positively to such things, that much ought to be obvious, dont know who came up with the idea and thought it would work.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 8:37 PM
If your fan is flaming, I'd suggest a fire extinguisher or a call to 911;-)
and back to the dispute -
well dear, I'd say my literature has at least a half century or more on yours - you have heard of Socrates and Plato and Aristotle - whom your "saintly" Aquinas plagiarized?
It's powerful alright. Even as a protestant, it is so relevant to us too! Good bless you my brothers!Posted by: Andy at September 30, 2008 8:39 PM
Dan, that's true. By changing strategy I also meant change our approach as well.Posted by: prettyinpink at September 30, 2008 8:41 PM
I know what you meant, I'm on that page. Truth trucks always bugged me, all they accomplish is driving people away from those anywhere near them.Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 8:48 PM
Hey Phyloserpher, Aristotle said that the Earth was at the center of the universe. I guess that makes you an anti-science extremist. Put that on your crap sandwich and eat it.Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 30, 2008 8:57 PM
"If by that plan you mean protesting with "truth trucks" and the like, yeah that is a failure."
if one can looks a truth truck and still be in favor of legalized abortion, I say the hell with them.
It's very simple. R's have a pro-life platform, 0 rating from PP. D's have a pro-abortion stance, 100% rating from PP.Posted by: Jasper at September 30, 2008 8:58 PM
Jasper, that dose of reality is indeed refreshing.Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 30, 2008 9:01 PM
Phylosopher also thinks life starts at birth or a couple months later, she's very anti-science you know..Posted by: Jasper at September 30, 2008 9:02 PM
Joanne- Catholics have Big Daddy Pope to tell them how to vote. Protestants have no such figure and therefore have to actually think for themselves.
Posted by: Erin at September 30, 2008 6:23 PM
Wow,nice one Erin :-P
But you are right - other religions think for themselves that's why they divided themselves into 15000 different denominations ...
When you are Catholic you follow the teachings of the Catholic Church - that is you Learn them, understand what the teachings are and follow them. If you don't believe them - then you can't practice them and should leave the church. It's really that simple. Why belong to a faith if you don't believe it's teachings? If you don't understand the teaching on a specific issue, then you seek to understand from a reputable source. However, prochoice Catholics don't seek to do this - their agenda is much more sinister - they seek to "enlighten" and modernize the Catholic Church. Strangely enough, the Church is way ahead of these buffoons. After all it was Pope Paul VI who correctly predicted the loss of respect for women and the abuse of abortion and contraception in 1968....
The video reminded Catholics that there are some issues that ARE more important than the almighty dollar - and these are marriage, the right to life etc.
Every Catholic and indeed every person is responsible and accountable for their actions. Every so often we need to be reminded of this.
Phylucifer probably is ignorant of the fact that the Catholic Church got its science about Geocentrism from Aristotle himself. When Galileo showed up and questioned the Catholic Church's teaching, he wasn't questioning religious dogma - rather he was questioning the scientific view held by the Church that the Earth was fixed in the center of the universe. That was a scientific view passed down through the centuries from Aristotle.
Galileo wasn't challenging the Bible; Galileo was challenging Aristotle.Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 30, 2008 9:07 PM
"However, prochoice Catholics don't seek to do this - their agenda is much more sinister - they seek to "enlighten" and modernize the Catholic Church. Strangely enough, the Church is way ahead of these buffoons. After all it was Pope Paul VI who correctly predicted the loss of respect for women and the abuse of abortion and contraception in 1968...."
So true Patricia.Posted by: Jasper at September 30, 2008 9:08 PM
Jill, send this to all of your contacts and supporters who support John McCain:
Berg Confident Obama & DNC Motion To Dismiss Will Be Defeated
That is because you change the argument to a different focus instead of addressing mine. It wouldn't kill you to actually entertain different ideas of how to get things done.Posted by: prettyinpink at September 30, 2008 9:23 PM
How about shifting 350 million tax dollars from abortion clinics to CPCs?
Do you think Obama would compromise?Posted by: Jasper at September 30, 2008 9:37 PM
I would love that to happen.Posted by: prettyinpink at September 30, 2008 9:40 PM
Jasper, Obama is more likely to do the opposite; shut down CPCs for "lying", like how he's been threatening all of his critics with prosecution. All he needs to do is have his pal Henry Waxman make up some statistics which "prove" that CPCs are all run by liars, and then he'll threaten them with legal action.Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 30, 2008 9:42 PM
Respect Life Sunday
My brothers and sisters in Christ,
The American Catholic bishops initiated Respect Life Sunday in 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion in the United States. Since that time, Catholics across the country observe the month of October with devotions and pro-life activities in order to advance the culture of life. This October, our efforts have more significance than ever. Never have we seen such abusive criticism directed toward those who believe that life begins at conception and ends at natural death.
As Catholics, we should not be surprised by these developments. Forty years ago, Pope Paul VI predicted that widespread use of artificial contraceptives would lead to increased marital infidelity, lessened regard for women, and a general lowering of moral standards especially among the young. Forty years later, social scientists, not necessarily Catholics, attest to the accuracy of his predictions. As if following some bizarre script, the sexual revolution has produced widespread marital breakdown, weakened family ties, legalized abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, same-sex unions, euthanasia, destruction of human embryos for research purposes and a host of other ills.
It is impossible for me to answer all of the objections to the Church's teaching on life that we hear every day in the media. Nevertheless, let me address a few. To begin, laws that protect abortion constitute injustice of the worst kind. They rest on several false claims including that there is no certainty regarding when life begins, that there is no certainty about when a fetus becomes a person, and that some human beings may be killed to advance the interests or convenience of others. With regard to the first, reason and science have answered the question. The life of a human being begins at conception. The Church has long taught this simple truth, and science confirms it. Biologists can now show you the delicate and beautiful development of the human embryo in its first days of existence. This is simply a fact that reasonable people accept. Regarding the second, the embryo and the fetus have the potential to do all that an adult person does. Finally, the claim that the human fetus may be sacrificed to the interests or convenience of his mother or someone else is grievously wrong. All three claims have the same result: the weakest and most vulnerable are denied, because of their age, the most basic protection that we demand for ourselves. This is discrimination at its worst, and no person of conscience should support it.
Another argument goes like this: "As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant 'life' issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote." This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does. Being "right" on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: the finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that "pro-choice" candidates have come to support homicide – the gravest injustice a society can tolerate – in the name of "social justice."
Even the Church's just war theory has moral force because it is grounded in the principle that innocent human life must be protected and defended. Now, a person may, in good faith, misapply just war criteria leading him to mistakenly believe that an unjust war is just, but he or she still knows that innocent human life may not be harmed on purpose. A person who supports permissive abortion laws, however, rejects the truth that innocent human life may never be destroyed. This profound moral failure runs deeper and is more corrupting of the individual, and of the society, than any error in applying just war criteria to particular cases.
Furthermore, National Right to Life reports that 48.5 million abortions have been performed since 1973. One would be too many. No war, no natural disaster, no illness or disability has claimed so great a price.
In saying these things in an election year, I am in very good company. My predecessor, Bishop Timlin, writing his pastoral letter on Respect Life Sunday 2000, stated the case eloquently:
Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God's commands. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.
My fellow bishops, writing ten years ago, explained why some evils – abortion and euthanasia in particular – take precedence over other forms of violence and abuse.
The failure to protect life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as 'the temple of the Holy Spirit' – the living house of God – then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation [emphasis in the original]. These directly and immediately violate the human person's most fundamental right – the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, 23.
While the Church assists the State in the promotion of a just society, its primary concern is to assist men and women in achieving salvation. For this reason, it is incumbent upon bishops to correct Catholics who are in error regarding these matters. Furthermore, public officials who are Catholic and who persist in public support for abortion and other intrinsic evils should not partake in or be admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion. As I have said before, I will be vigilant on this subject.
It is the Church's role now to be a prophet in our own country, reminding all citizens of what our founders meant when they said that ". . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The Church's teaching that all life from conception to natural death should be protected by law is founded on religious belief to be sure, but it is also a profoundly American principle founded on reason. Whenever a society asks its citizens to violate its own foundational principles – as well as their moral consciences – citizens have a right, indeed an obligation, to refuse.
In 1941, Bishop Gustave von Galen gave a homily condemning Nazi officials for murdering mentally ill people in his diocese of Muenster, Germany. The bishop said:
"Thou shalt not kill!" God wrote this commandment in the conscience of man long before any penal code laid down the penalty for murder, long before there was any prosecutor or any court to investigate and avenge a murder. Cain, who killed his brother Abel, was a murderer long before there were any states or any courts or law. And he confessed his deed, driven by his accusing conscience: "My punishment is greater than I can bear. . . and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me the murderer shall slay me" (Genesis 4:13-14)"
Should he have opposed the war and remained silent about the murder of the mentally ill? No person of conscience can fail to understand why Bishop von Galen spoke as he did.
My dear friends, I beg you not to be misled by confusion and lies. Our Lord, Jesus Christ, does not ask us to follow him to Calvary only for us to be afraid of contradicting a few bystanders along the way. He does not ask us to take up his Cross only to have us leave it at the voting booth door. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI said that "God is so humble that he uses us to spread his Word." The gospel of life, which we have the privilege of proclaiming, resonates in the heart of every person – believer and non-believer – because it fulfills the heart's most profound desire. Let us with one voice continue to speak the language of love and affirm the right of every human being to have the value of his or her life, from conception to natural death, respected to the highest degree.
October is traditionally the month of the Rosary. Let us pray the Rosary for the strength and fortitude to uphold the truths of our faith and the requirements of our law to all who deny them. And, let us ask Our Lady to bless our nation and the weakest among us.
May Mary, the mother of Jesus, the Lord of Life, pray for us.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, D.D., Hist. E.D.
Bishop of Scranton
http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/Bishop's%20Pastoral%20Letters/RespectLifeSundaySeptember30th2008.aspPosted by: John Lewandowski at September 30, 2008 9:43 PM
"I would love that to happen."
Me too PIP. But I asked you "Do you think Obama would do that?"Posted by: Jasper at September 30, 2008 9:45 PM
Well, our discussion of strategy was separate from Obama. But, it wouldn't hurt to try.Posted by: prettyinpink at September 30, 2008 9:58 PM
"Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, D.D., Hist. E.D.
Bishop of Scranton"
Now there's a true Catholic leader!Posted by: Jasper at September 30, 2008 9:59 PM
Dan @ 6:52 PM,
those 50,000,000 are going to go the same way regardless of who is our next president, its simply how things are right now. Its a grassroots effort that will change this, not a single president. So those are going to be casualties regardless who is in office, add in additional casualties under each (war, death penalty, lack of support, etc) and under Obama the body count will likely be much lower than a McCain administration.
So calling aborted babies "casualties" makes abortion more palatable for you? Could you look God in the eye and say "it's simply how things are right now"? I don't think He'd accept that for an answer. There already is a huge grassroots movement against abortion in this country. Are you saying there isn't? Talk to Jill. I am firmly against the death penalty but the numbers pale in comparison to abortions. If you want to make a difference this November, that YOU can be proud of, vote for LIFE in its tiniest, most helpless form. Don't try to put all your trust in one candidate, Democrat or Republican. Vote for LIFE and trust God.
VP debate moderator Ifill releasing pro-Obama book
Phylucifer probably is ignorant of the fact that the Catholic Church got its science about Geocentrism from Aristotle himself. When Galileo showed up and questioned the Catholic Church's teaching, he wasn't questioning religious dogma - rather he was questioning the scientific view held by the Church that the Earth was fixed in the center of the universe. That was a scientific view passed down through the centuries from Aristotle.
Galileo wasn't challenging the Bible; Galileo was challenging Aristotle.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 30, 2008 9:07 PM
Well John Lewdanowski, since the gist of my post was that Aquinas had plagiarized Aristotle, I'm quite familiar with the trajectory - that was my point. The major flaw in your argument though, is that Aristotle wasn't threatening Galileo to recant his theory with charges of heresy...that was the anti-science church. You see, the RCC has been against real learning and authentic searches for wisdom and knowledge from the start. They just co-opt form others and then stifle any progress. Truly it is the RCC that is anti-human, i.e. inhumane.Posted by: phylosopher at September 30, 2008 11:19 PM
ANd BTW John - that crap sandwich - any recommendations for condiments since you seem to enjoy such a steady diet of them?Posted by: phylosopher at September 30, 2008 11:21 PM
As I said, I dont see abortion as end-all-be-all in the life issue.
Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 6:28 PM
There are nearly 4,000 children today that would disagree with you.
The abortion issue ended their lives.
They are dead. They'll never have the chance to vote, see a sunset, have a broken heart, know a tender touch, love, anger, hunger, satisfaction, they're dead.
It was indeed, the "end all" issue for them.
Hey phylo,
Why are there no atheist hospitals? There are Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, hospitals founded and operating for decades and some for a century.
Many are founded on the philosophy of health care for the poor. Can you name some of those hospitals that were founded on health care for the indigent? No? Well, there is a lack of education for ya.
Now, let's assume that atheist are more intelligent, and obviously are rich from their scientific minds discovering health care products, and even making millions off the murder of innocent human beings from those failing to heed Socrates statement on the penality of vice, and its relationship to evil. Care to give this board a review of Socrates thoughts on vice, what Socrates meant in the 2nd, Republic that "The penalty for vice is the vice itself, the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there". Enlighten us Phylo, tell us what Socrates is really telling Adeimantus. What are they really discusing Phylo?
And in one short sentence Mr. Phylo, no cheating now. Why, maybe two words can sum up the subject between Socrates and Adeimantus. Fire away and let's see what you know.
In any city or town in the USA, or Europe, one can find a hospital named St. Johns, or a St Mary hospital. They exist by the thousands in the USA alone. That the word "hospital" is rooted in the Catholic founding of hospitals, and finding a room to live in, for the " poor" of the middle ages while attending a Catholic college in Paris. Free education was a Catholic tradition for raising the poor out of poverty. Still is. And atheist?
Hence, one gets the expression to be "hospitable" to strangers and the poor. Which you didn't know since your a propagandist educated by propagandist for humanism/atheism.
Now, be honest intellectual Phylo, and answer why there is not one hospital founded by atheist to help the poor? Name one. Say, Atomic Atheist of America hospital for the poor and uneducated heathens. The AAAH. Or even more personal, the Madalyn Murray O'hair hospital for diabetes and atheist thieves of atheism. You do know she, and her family stole at least $500,000 from all those well educated atheist, that gave to her foundation for atheism? Hey Phylo, tell the board about how she hired a atheist office manager, that did what any atheist would do for financial gain, and murdered her and her family for that gain. Come on Phylo, you would think that some atheist would at least have a scholorship fund for young atheist in the name of a women who hated those "Christers". Maybe you can start the O'Hair scholorship fund, Phylo? Another striver spewing about Catholics and religion when you have done NOTHING to at least found a atheist hospital for the insane,poor atheist of the USA. Amd studies have proven that atheist give the least to charity/poor versus Christians.
You atheist got da money, ya got da brains, ya got the world all figured out, yet not one of you atheist have come together, and there are millions of ya buying trinkets and babbles at those atheist site. Yet not one has been human enough to found one hospital, college, or one psychiatric ward in a Catholic hospital for the treatment of atheist.
Hey, The Dawkins Institute for Arthritis Research for poor atheist. .
Or, C. Hitchens Hopital. Free for atheist.
And saying Tommmy Edison was a atheist is not true since Edison was in love with that half wit Madame Blavatsky. That silly old theosophist channeling spooks and the dead. Seems Edison was a atheist chump just like you Phylo.
Posted by: yllas
at October 1, 2008 3:24 AM
If both candidates are pro choice, then you find the GOOD in one of them. The GOOD. You don't vote for the lesser EVIL...you vote for the greatest GOOD.
There is a difference.
You never vote for evil. Never. Never. Never.
But both candidates are NOT equally pro choice. McCain claims to be pro life, Palin most certainly is. I am voting for the greater GOOD. The candidates who represent the MOST good. Not the least EVIL. But the most GOOD.
Are you seeing this?Posted by: mk at October 1, 2008 5:15 AM
Church doctrine and science
Map of medieval universities established by Catholic students, faculty, monarchs, or priests
Map of medieval universities established by Catholic students, faculty, monarchs, or priests
Historians of science, including non-Catholics such as J.L. Heilbron,[1] A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg,[2] Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein,[3] and Ted Davis, have argued that the Church had a significant, positive influence on the development of civilization. They hold that, not only did monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but that the Church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many universities which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries. St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian," not only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so encouraged intellectual development. [4] The Church's priest-scientists, many of whom were Jesuits, were the leading lights in astronomy, genetics, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics, becoming the "fathers" of these sciences. It is important to remark names of important churchmen such as the Augustinian abbot Gregor Mendel (pioneer in the study of genetics), Roger Bacon (a Franciscan friar who was one of the early advocates of the scientific method), and Belgian priest Georges Lemaître (the first to propose the Big Bang theory). Even more numerous are Catholic laity involved in science: Henri Becquerel who discovered radioactivity; Galvani, Volta, Ampere, Marconi, pioneers in electricity and telecommunications; Lavoisier, "father of modern chemistry"; Vesalius, founder of modern human anatomy; Cauchy one of the mathematicians who laid the rigorous foundations of calculus.
This position is the reverse of the view, held by some enlightenment philosophers, that the Church's doctrines were superstitious and hindered the progress of civilization. It is also used by communist states in its education and propaganda for giving a negative view of catholicism to its citizens
In the most famous example cited by these enlightenment philosophers critics, Galileo Galilei, in 1633, was denounced for his insistence on teaching a heliocentric universe, previously proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus, who was probably a priest[5]. After numerous years of investigations, consultations with the Popes, promises kept and then broken by Galileo, and finally a trial by the Tribunal of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, Galileo was found "suspect of heresy" - not guilty of heresy, as is frequently misreported. Even though modern science confirms that two of the four scientific theses steadfastly advanced by Galileo were in fact wrong, viz. the position that the Sun is the center of the Universe, and that the Earth circles the Sun in a perfectly round orbit, Pope John Paul II, on 31 October 1992, publicly expressed regret for the actions of those Catholics who badly treated Galileo in that trial.[6] An abstract of the acts of the process against Galileo is available at the Vatican Secret Archives, which reproduces part of it on its website. Cardinal John Henry Newman, in the nineteenth century, stated that those who attack the Church can only point to the Galileo case, which to many historians does not prove the Church's opposition to science since many of the churchmen at that time were encouraged by the Church to continue their research.[7]Posted by: Eileen #2 at October 1, 2008 7:28 AM
Above post for Phylo in response to her statement,.."that was the anti-science church. You see, the RCC has been against real learning and authentic searches for wisdom and knowledge from the start. They just co-opt form others and then stifle any progress. Truly it is the RCC that is anti-human, i.e. inhumane."
I'm sorry! It is from Wikipedia.Posted by: Eileen #2 at October 1, 2008 7:32 AM
That BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH is one of the most offensive things I've ever read. (although I appreciate there was no gay-bashing.) Anyone who can write the following doesn't understand what makes our country great:
"Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing."
and this takes the cake:
"And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us."
Can someone explain to me why we WOULDN'T want to make peace with someone who says he's going to destroy us????? You make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
Posted by: hal
at October 1, 2008 9:24 AM
dan: 6. If I think that a candidate who is pro-abortion has better ideas to serve the poor, and the pro-life candidate has bad ideas that will hurt the poor, why may I not vote for the candidate that has the better ideas for serving the poor?
In our time the poorest of the poor is THE most defenseless...the child in the womb. Mother Theresa has agreed...and she knew the poorest of the poor.
Lots of Catholics voted for John Kennedy and they will vote for Obama too.Posted by: Rhovan Archetravian at October 1, 2008 10:13 AM
"Lots of Catholics voted for John Kennedy and they will vote for Obama too.
Posted by: Rhovan Archetravian at October 1, 2008 10:13 AM"
Only for those Catholics who don't live their faith....we call these 'cafeteria' Catholics who pick and choose what to believe.Posted by: RSD at October 1, 2008 11:30 AM
Posted by: Rhovan Archetravian at October 1, 2008 10:13 AM
And your point is? Kennedy didn't support abortion, it wasn't even an issue in 1960. Democrats today cannot be compared to the Democrats of Kennedy's days. They are as different as night and day.Posted by: Kristen at October 1, 2008 11:43 AM
If you vote for a pro-abort, you are voting for evil, by your admission.
So, if all candidates are pro-aborts, then you would by definition be voting for an evil. You would just be voting for the one with "more good" which is pretty much the "lesser evil."Posted by: prettyinpink at October 1, 2008 1:05 PM
Hal, that offends you? Of all things, THAT offends you? Really? I'll have to find some more stuff like that to post.Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 1, 2008 5:08 PM
"The major flaw in your argument though, is that Aristotle wasn't threatening Galileo to recant his theory with charges of heresy"
Psst, Phylucifer. Perhaps you don't know this, but Aristotle died over 1800 years before Galileo was born.
Maybe you thought they both lived at the same time? It would be typical of a pro-abort like yourself to be so unbelievably ignorant about history.
You praise the authority of Aristotle, then you condemn the church for not throwing away his 1800+ year old ideas on a moments' notice based on the unproven theories of a brash neophyte. I bet you also didn't know that Galileo didn't have it exactly right; he thought that the planets moved on orbits that were perfect circles. Kepler was the one who figured out that the orbits are actually elliptical. But of course, Galileo demanded that the Catholic Church teach his idea that the planets moved in perfect circles and refused to provide proof of this.
The church demanded concrete evidence from Galileo. In his arrogance he refused to take the necessary time to prove his theories. In essense, the church was upset with Galileo because of his refusal to follow the scientific method.
So you're angry that the Catholic Church did not abandon the scientific method, and that it did not give in to the demands of an upstart who had some important points about planetary motion completely wrong. Feel free to add some crow to your crap sandwich.Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 1, 2008 5:21 PM
John, yes I was offended. I've cooled off a bit now, hearing that Obama gained another point in the national polls, and is winning in your state of PA.
More than offended, I guess it's frightening to know that people who pretend to understand our wonderful country could have such misconceptions. And they let these people vote? (Kidding) It does explain two terms of Bush, I suppose.Posted by: Hal at October 1, 2008 5:44 PM
Thanks, Hal. I'll be sure to post anything and everything that's like that that I find, knowing that it offends you so badly.
Oh, and I'm all set for Obama to win, too. I'll be four years of IMPEACH OBAMA NOW and DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC and I LOVE AMERICA BUT HATE HER GOVERNMENT in your face. Get ready, jerk.Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 1, 2008 5:46 PM
Well, yllass, that's the wonderful thing about atheists - they don't have to trumpet their worldview and stamp it on everything from their car to their kids - they work at things building secular institutions like county hospitals, or university hospitals or even community hospitals - giving care to all, without imposing their belief system. Better luck next tyme.Posted by: phylsopher at October 1, 2008 5:48 PM
jerk?Posted by: hal at October 1, 2008 5:52 PM
Some more cute little slogans I'll be throwing in your face if Obama is prez:
-Somewhere in Illinois, a village is missing its idiot
And for the upcoming Depression caused by Obama's economic policies:
-Don't blame me, I voted for McCain
-So this is "Hope and Change". Like it, fools?Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 1, 2008 6:00 PM
John, I'll be so happy if Obama gets elected I won't care about your taunts. Plus, over time, as you warm up to him, you and I can share a beer and laugh about these times when we disagreed.Posted by: Hal at October 1, 2008 6:24 PM
John L.,
Janet, in case you can't tell, I don't like Hal very much.Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 1, 2008 8:40 PM
Today is the feast of St. Therese of Lisieux.
"The Little Flower"
Prayer to St. Therese
St. Therese, our holy sister and ever faithful friend,
remember your promise to do good upon earth...
enfold in the mantle of your protection all our children,
the unborn babies in danger of abortion,
those suffering unspeakable abuses, our troubled youth,
the unloved and unwanted,
and those struggling with teenage pregnancy.
Ask your own loving parents, Zelie and Louis Martin,
to pray for restoration of respect for family life
and for God's blessing and help
for all parents everywhere.
Implore Our Heavenly Father
to quiet the fears of our children,
return peace, innocence and security to their hearts,
and give them the comforting awareness of His love.
Make our cries of outrage heard
by officials of every land,
as we pray for an end to the violence and evils
that besiege our society.
We earnestly pray that the true understanding
and value of life be made known and respected by all.
We thank you, dear St. Therese, for all the graces
you will obtain for us and for our precious children
during this Centenary Year of your holy death
and throughout the years to come.
We ask all this from Our Heavenly Father,
in the name of Jesus His Beloved Son,
and through Their Holy Spirit.
With Ecclesiastical Approval
uh....mods?Posted by: prettyinpink at October 1, 2008 11:04 PM
Mods I think you have been way to lenient on John. Some of his sunshine and sparkles doesn't even compare to Laura.Posted by: prettyinpink at October 1, 2008 11:38 PM
wait. Did that come out right? Laura's sunshine and sparkle didn't even compare to his.
Shiz, you know what I mean. His blather is worse than hers ever was.Posted by: prettyinpink at October 1, 2008 11:46 PM
Hey Phylo,
And in one short sentence Mr. Phylo, no cheating now. Why, maybe two words can sum up the subject between Socrates and Adeimantus. Fire away and let's see what you know
Well, yllass, that's the wonderful thing about atheists - they don't have to trumpet their worldview and stamp it on everything from their car to their kids - they work at things building secular institutions like county hospitals, or university hospitals or even community hospitals - giving care to all, without imposing their belief system. Better luck next tyme.
You see fool, secular institutions like "county hospitals" are supported by forcing upon a all citizens a tax to support those "county hospitals".
And we all know that Christians are citizens too.
But, just one time, one hospital, named and funded by a raving atheist, who are considered a religion also, to match the thousands of religious hospitals in the USA, or around the world.
Come on Phylo, you can do it, get your fellow atheist religioneers to "come together", and begin a hospital system for humanity.
And in one short sentence Mr. Phylo, no cheating now. Why, maybe two words can sum up the subject between Socrates and Adeimantus. Fire away and let's see what you know
Still waiting for a short answer to the subject that Adeimantus and Socrates was discussing.
See, I ain't giving a answer, and you can't google it, to what that dialogue was about and the meaning of that dialogue you ignorant poseur of philosophy and the history of Galileo too.
Posted by: yllas
at October 2, 2008 4:59 AM
And Poseur, stop eating that delicious crap sandwich, and answer my question concerning Ademantus and Socrates.
Janet, thanks for the prayer to the Little Flower :)Posted by: Eileen #2 at October 2, 2008 7:16 AM
PIP, I'm just getting it out of my system before President Barry outlaws free speech.Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 2, 2008 8:04 AM
If you think I'm kidding about him outlawing free speech, don't you know? Barack Obama is God:
"Obama is my homeboy. And I'm not saying that because he's black - I'm saying that in reference to those Urban Outfitters t-shirts from a couple years ago that said, "Jesus is my homeboy." Yes, I just said it. Obama is my Jesus.
While you may be overtly religious and find this to be idol-worshipping, or may be overtly politically correct and just know that everything in that sentence could be found offensive, I'm afraid it's true anyway.
As with many spiritual enlightenments, mine came in the middle of a bleak, hopeless period of my life. The innocent, idealistic world of politics that had shaped my childhood, the one that taught me how the president is a good guy, one who makes you feel safe, gives a speech on TV every once in a while and one you'd feel honored to shake hands with, had been slowly whittled into a deep rooted cynicism to anything politically related.
The crush of the Bush victory over Gore was only the first mar on my previously consummate ideal of the American administration. And the tragedies just kept continuing: Bush's response to the Sept.11 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, the tax cuts for the rich, the downward spiral continued squashing my scant hope that the political world and state of our country could be saved.
Then I found my miracle. Stumbling through my hopeless world, afraid to turn to anyone with my political questions of morality, my concerns about the afterlife of the country I called home, a voice spoke to me.
Barack Obama bore to me his testimony in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention, a testimony that included believing in concepts as simple and wholesome as the Constitution; a belief the current administration had done away with entirely. I was 17 and my antipathy for politicians was already in place before I had even reached the age to legally vote for one. He, though, seemed different. I was intrigued. I would follow him. I believed however, that my discipleship would lead me on a much longer path to political change than was true. He was much too young, not white enough, not rich enough, not jaded - the country certainly wasn't ready for this, maybe in 12 or 16 years he would be able to run in the Democratic primary, I thought.
My interest was piqued, but the dark time lived on until my faith in others was renewed on Jan. 4 in the Iowa state primary. Obama had beat out squeaky clean southern boy John Edwards and former first lady and next in the line of political succession Hillary Clinton. I was in shock. And then I came to Jesus/Obama.
I donated to the campaign. I followed every primary with bated breath, and muttered my prayers to the political gods while proselytizing the miracle of my new prophet. I got a car magnet, I bought a t-shirt; a pin and bumper sticker are on their way to my campus mailbox. Then the media and right wing questioning began: what is he? A rock star, or the next president? Bono or Britney? The naysayers used his popularity among young people against him. Who had ever heard of political posters in college dorm rooms? Bumper stickers on the back of your high school neighbor's Jetta? Guess what those "Jesus is my homeboy" t-shirts were replaced with at Urban Outfitters? A smiling Obama under his own cutesy sayings like "Obama for yo Mama."
I must admit, I questioned this myself. After all, would I have ever bought a t-shirt with Al Gore's face on it? Was this all he was, the newest pop culture fad? I questioned my newfound faith - was it all only a phase, like the time I thought I was Baptist in junior high? But my inner dogmatic struggle only helped cement my beliefs as I followed politics more closely than ever before. Obama's mere presence, knowledge and enthusiasm in the political realm inspired my own desire to understand what exactly had gone wrong, what exactly he could do to remedy the mess we'd made.
Then I began to realize I wasn't the only one trying to buy a WWOD bracelet and spending my weekends scouring CNN.com. The rock star-type love for Obama wasn't just because he was pretty and in the media. Others too, had seen him as a shining light, heard that mythical voice boom out over the mountaintops; people were wearing the t-shirt because they would rather wear something representing a politician than a pop star. People everywhere, young and old, were caring again. So what's the problem here?
I've officially been saved, and soon, whether they like it or not, the rest of the country will be too. I will follow him, all the way to the White House, and I'll be standing there in our nation's capital in January 2009, when Barack Obama is inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States of America. In the name of Obama, Amen."
I would be completely unsurprised if that had been written by PIP, Hal, reality, Erin, Dan, etc.
Get ready, sane people of the world. The next four years are going to be interesting. I wonder if they'll set up death camps for "non-believers"? Who needs al Qaeda when you have Obama worshippers?Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 2, 2008 8:23 AM
The shrill and semi-hysterical criticisms of Obama are both indicative of people determined to obfuscate their way around the truth as well as the type of stuff that drives people away from the candidate of those who do it.
Doug, you wouldn't know truth if you bit you in the rear. You think I don't know what the polls are saying? I already told you, I'm ready for you freaking fools to elect your god, Barack Obama. I'm ready for the Depression to start, caused by his economic policies, and for every single pro-life gain of the last 35 years to be wiped away by a stroke of his pen signing the FOCA and nominating ultra-liberal judges for the courts.
I only ask one thing - that when America comes to the verge of a second Civil War, you have the decency to admit that it was your own damn fault. But, I know you won't even do that, because you're dishonest beyond my wildest imagining.Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 2, 2008 8:36 AM
MK: Seriously.
1) apologies - coming on this site isn't good for the blood pressure - so Dan's right on the second half of my post, could have said what was intended more diplomatically.
2) the first half was meant and said as intended I think you're smart enough to get the argument - if you say you read X viewpoint theologian or philosophers or whatever, because you aren't smart enough to come up with your own line of thought, that's self-contradictory because you admit you have no basis for evaluating or choosing your reading material, either.
3) Get thee to a good university, lady. You've got a mind - use it.
TTFN - the sun's out again and I'll be canvassing and signing voters.Posted by: phylosopher at October 2, 2008 9:06 AM
Doug, you wouldn't know truth if you bit you in the rear.
John, I think I'm much more willing to look at things without being all-worked up and wild-eyed, etc.
You think I don't know what the polls are saying? I already told you, I'm ready for you freaking fools to elect your god, Barack Obama. I'm ready for the Depression to start, caused by his economic policies
Heh - the deflationary forces are already in place, and it's not the fault of either party, specifically. It's the fault of almost every person in Congress over the past decades. Bush Jr. has really hurt the Republican party, but the present economic woes are not due to him, much at all.
and for every single pro-life gain of the last 35 years to be wiped away by a stroke of his pen signing the FOCA and nominating ultra-liberal judges for the courts.
What we have is elective abortion to viability, as per the Roe decision. I don't think FOCA would change that.Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 9:42 AM
Hi Phylo.
"if you say you read X viewpoint theologian or philosophers or whatever, because you aren't smart enough to come up with your own line of thought, that's self-contradictory because you admit you have no basis for evaluating or choosing your reading material, either."
I wouldn't necessarily say it's a contradiction and the reason is that while she [MK] might not believe she has enough intelligence to figure out certain philosophies on her own, she may believe she has enough intelligence/ability to at least discern WHO is trustworthy and intelligent enough to figure out and understand such philosophies. It's kind of like in science. While someone may not be intelligent enough or have enough knowledge to figure out the age of the earth for themselves, they usually do have enough ability to be able to discern whose expertise they trust.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 2, 2008 10:18 AM
I wonder if they'll set up death camps for "non-believers"? Who needs al Qaeda when you have Obama worshippers?
Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 2, 2008 8:23 AM
There you go. We're not just disagreeing over politics, you think we're terrorists. Simply because we have a different candidate in the '08 race. Real classy, John. Look, no one despises GWB as much as I do, but I will acknowledge on most things he is trying to do what he thinks is right. Do you really have to turn up the rhetoric so high?Posted by: Hal at October 2, 2008 10:53 AM
John would all like us to be fanatics so he can get the hatred out of his system. Why else would he post that article? It's like he hasn't even listened to what we have said so far.
Don't worry. Today at our rally we will have fun looking in at the people in the "free speech zone."Posted by: prettyinpink at October 2, 2008 12:10 PM
When Obama is elected and healthcare is nationalized, and FOCA is made law, who do you think will be paying for abortions? Those who pay taxes. And you know what else? Since abortions must be done with in a short timeline, guess who will be receiving priority healthcare? Those getting abortions - while the rest of us wait in line for months for our treatments. Obama's favorite healthcare provider, PP, with its new luxury "mega-centers" across the country will be guaranteed funding and profits for the next four years.Posted by: Janet at October 2, 2008 1:00 PM
I forgot to mention, DISGUSTING.Posted by: Janet at October 2, 2008 1:01 PM
Eileen #2 @ 7:16 AM,
Janet, thanks for the prayer to the Little Flower. :)
You are welcome! I found it yesterday by "Googling". It's really a beautiful pro-life prayer that I'm going to bookmark!Posted by: Janet at October 2, 2008 1:06 PM
Look, no one despises GWB as much as I do, but I will acknowledge on most things he is trying to do what he thinks is right. Do you really have to turn up the rhetoric so high?
Hal, do you think Bush Jr. looks like one of those flying monkeys from 'The Wizard of Oz'?Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 7:04 PM
You probably won't see this but if you do, no worries. I thought you were acting out of sorts. You're usually cool, so don't worry about it.
Did Aristotle believe in a creator? And why would it be bad for a person to model (what you called steal) their philosophy off of someone. Or come to the same conclusions? If Aristotle came to certain conclusions, and the church came to the same or similar ones, then why isn't that evidence that they are both on the right track? Why does it have to be that one stole from the other.
Didn't two guys invent the radio at the same time? Didn't two guy diagnose autism at the same time?
I mean, if you're trying to discover truth, then wouldn't it make sense that the church and Aristotle draw the same conclusions?
By the way, one of my greatest regrets is that I did not go to college. Of course back then I wouldn't have had a clue as to what subjects I would have pursued. Now I can't think of any that I wouldn't!
Ah, well, thank God for books, books and more books.Posted by: mk at October 2, 2008 7:33 PM
Yeah, mk, I like to think of it this way -- Aristotle started out on the right track of philosophical truth and the Church (the Early Church Fathers and Doctors) brought it to its fullness. Although, I'm not sure if we will ever bring it to completion. I don't know! Maybe Bobby could help out here! :)Posted by: Eileen #2 at October 2, 2008 7:46 PM
"By the way, one of my greatest regrets is that I did not go to college."
You don't need a college degree to be educated, mk.
You certainly have gained knowledge without it!
Roe vs Wade allows abortion in ALL 9 MONTHS of pregnancy, right up to the day the woman IS DUE! Ever hear of George Tiller? He aborts babies in Kansas, many of them that are 22 or 23 weeks gestation.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska
at October 2, 2008 8:21 PM
Doe vs Bolton made up the "Health" exception. Doe didn't want an abortion, she wanted a divorce from her abusive husband and to get custody of her children, who were in foster care.
Eileen #2,
It would just be so awesome to know the proper names for things. I mean, I know what I'm trying to say, only to find out that not only did someone already say it, but it has a name and sixteen books written about it...Like there's a name for how Doug thinks, and a different one for how Phylo thinks, and something else describes Hals view...I can give the definitions, but not the words that I'm defining...it's really frustrating!
I had to look up what Aristotle believed. I wish I already knew so that I could take the conversation further. Phylo and Bobby and Oliver and Rae and even SoMG are so educated and knowledgeable...I feel so inadequate sometimes...
But like I said, thank God for books. At least I have that.Posted by: mk at October 2, 2008 8:23 PM
Eileen @ 6:46,
Yeah, mk, I like to think of it this way -- Aristotle started out on the right track of philosophical truth and the Church (the Early Church Fathers and Doctors) brought it to its fullness. Although, I'm not sure if we will ever bring it to completion. I don't know! Maybe Bobby could help out here! :)
We are certainly blessed to have had two prolific writers in our last two Popes - Pope John Pal II, and Pope Benedict XVI. I don't think we'll know the Full Truth until the next life!
Posted by: Janet
at October 2, 2008 11:12 PM
But like I said, thank God for books. At least I have that.
Posted by: mk at October 2, 2008 8:23 PM
Ah, come on Mk. Phylo was given a chance to answer a simple question concerning a converstation between Socrates and Adeimantus.
Here MK, have a good laugh since your going to find Phylo in the below statements about Fundy Atheist.
You may be a fundy atheist if....
You think if a Christian won't address your arguments, they are too frightened to do so, or know they can't answer them; but if they do address your arguments, you think it is because they are "threatened" by them.
Missionaries who give up their personal comfort to aid starving, impoverished and persecuted third-world people are actually "corrupting ancient tribal cultures with western religious dogma", while you sit at home and complain about the price of KFC.
You believe that any Christian who claims to have once been an atheist is either lying or was never a "true atheist."
Or a abortionist doctor was never really a true abortion doctor, really!
You think that John Shelby Spong is a reputable theologian but that Ben Witherington is merely an ignorant biblicist.
You assert that the crimes and failings of some Christians (acting inconsistently with the teachings of Christ at that!) disproves the whole edifice of Christianity but that the crimes and failings of some atheists (acting consistently with the fact that atheism can provide no basis for objective morality!) should on no account be held against the philosophy of atheism.
And notice what that poseur Phylo did? Ignore OHair's death and plain old duping of those atheist suckers.
You assert that there is no absolute categories of good and evil, that all morals are merely personal, social and evolutionary constructs but then you can still describe Christians and Christianity as absolutely immoral, repugnant and evil and a danger to humanity and not feel even a twinge of hypocrisy at the monumental illogic of your position.
You think that Josh McDowell represents the apex of Christian scholarly apologetical thinking.
You lump all Christians in with whatever religious fruitcake is the flavour of the month, while living with the delusion that there are no atheistic weirdos out there.
You KNOW that religion causes violence and repeatedly tell this to everyone, hoping to save the world, but you don't believe that TV violence causes any real life violence. In fact, you are offended by this objection, and you have already started to figure out how to refute it. To increase your fundy factor, you have decided not to study social sciences. (Once you heard about Rodney Stark's For the Glory of God - you certainly would not bother reading it - you thought that sociologists were Christian fundamentalists in stealth mode, trying to push religious worldviews.
You think that taking the Bible seriously is the obsession of a fanatical fringe group of right-wing, extremist Christians who do not represent the views of the historic Church or of contemporary enlightened, liberal, skeptical "Christians" who according to you supposedly "fill" the mainstream churches and who on close inspection pretty much reflect your own politically correct views and values - and skepticism - about God. [Sort of like former Bishop Spong].
Poor Hisman, always getting that crap thrown his way by those liberal propagandist Christians for abortion.
You claim that the theories and opinions of certain liberal scholars are absolute facts although you shy away from debating such issues with someone equally or better informed than you are.
You get angry when Christians tell you you're going to a place that you don't think exists.
John L, and Hisman ought to enjoy that line.
You're convinced that people only believe in God because they're afraid of going to hell...despite the fact that if there is no God, then there's probably no hell either.
You consistently decry Christians for soliciting financial support yet find no problem in atheistic 'missionaries' doing the same thing."
You think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites.
When a group of Sydney University (Australia) academics, including a historian, sign a public statement saying the Jesus Christ is "one of the great figures of history" and that his claims to be Son of God "bear up under closest scrutiny", this is a gross abuse of their position. But when Richard Dawkins uses his position as an Oxford professor to pontificate on his atheistic religion and related philosophical matters outside HIS field (animal behavior), that is a responsible use of academic freedom.
Further to the above, you're paranoid that these Christian academics will discriminate against you, even though their statement hasn't the remotest hint of that. But you applaud Michael Dini, a professor at Texas Tech, who refuses to recommend students for Medical School, even if they got "A"s in their courses, unless they not only understand but BELIEVE in goo-to-you evolution. And you're disgusted that creationist medical doctors have the gall to think they know more about medicine than Dini (who never practised medicine or even went to medical school), because by definition an evolutionist is more knowledgeable than a creationist on ANY subject!
You think Christians are narrow-minded for believing in only one religion, but atheists are open-minded for believing in absolutely none.
You believe that Christianity discriminates, because you have to join their religion in order to be a member of their religion.
You feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate.
Ah, there's is Phylo again.
You think it is a "slam dunk" proof against God when you ask why He doesn't stop horrible things like, i.e., child rape, but evade the reply that you obviously don't want God stopping your own sins by pointing out that it isn't your problem because you don't believe in God in the first place.
Now, that one requires more then one reading to get a good laugh.
You are disgusted with Doctor Paul Vitz's book "Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism" because an educated person with a degree has linked atheism as a psychological condition.
Yet, you have no remorse when you tell believers that they are a product of brainwashing, psycho conditioning and wishful thinking.
Phylo strikes again Mk.
You believe Freud's theory that all religious experiences are delusions, as the most revolutionary and truthful thought of all times. Yet, you overlook his heavy use of cocaine because "it can't be proven."
You recommend Michael Shermer's book "How We Believe" to all of your friends who are believers and believe that somehow his opinion will give insight into how we actually think. Yet of course, you ignore that Shermer doesn't have any education in Anthropology. Must be a coincidence.
You're stupid enough to think atheists are treated like second-class citizens. Yet of course, you spend most of your day belittling Christians and other religious people.
You're convinced that all Christians are idiots. But when you meet the "rare" Christian who's clearly intelligent, you can only conclude that he was fooled into believing...by the idiots.
And John served Phylo a crap sandwich since Phylo really believes the above sentence.
You think that the words "Christian" and "sane" are mutually exclusive.
You think that no Christian can ever be a patriotic American, because he will always side with the enemies of truth.
You're proud of being completely free of predjudice, unlike the "typical sociopathic Christian".
You address Christians as "liar","sheepherder", or "looney toon".
You refer to Christian leaders as "fuehrer".
You think Focus On The Family is a "white supremacist hate cult".
You think Satanists are Christians because they "worship a Christian god".
Enjoy Mk, there is more if you want them.
You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort her baby.
You quite rightly denounce the methods of those who deny the historicity of the Holocaust, then use the same methods(inventing excuses to ignore evidence)to deny the historicity of Jesus.
You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution — except for homosexuals
You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy, but homosexuals are born that way.
You support gay rights when they first pushed for 'rights', because 'what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is no one else's business'. But then you want public approval and want to ban disapproval even in private situations.
When someone refers to an unborn baby as a baby, you say, "Don't you mean fetus?"
You insist that the Bible cannot possibly say anything about homosexuality being a sin, because they did not even have a concept of homosexuality at the time the Bible was written...then insist that the Bible says that David and Jonathan were married.
Yep, Mk. you know who they are at this site!!!!
Posted by: yllas
at October 3, 2008 4:08 AM
Well now yllas,
You've made some interesting points. I giggled myself a few times!
When a group of Sydney University (Australia) academics, including a historian, sign a public statement saying the Jesus Christ is "one of the great figures of history" and that his claims to be Son of God "bear up under closest scrutiny", this is a gross abuse of their position. But when Richard Dawkins uses his position as an Oxford professor to pontificate on his atheistic religion and related philosophical matters outside HIS field (animal behavior), that is a responsible use of academic freedom..
Yes, Janet! (11:12 PM)Posted by: Eileen #2 at October 3, 2008 6:52 AM
Liz: Roe vs Wade allows abortion in ALL 9 MONTHS of pregnancy, right up to the day the woman IS DUE! Ever hear of George Tiller? He aborts babies in Kansas, many of them that are 22 or 23 weeks gestation.
Liz, Roe says that after viability the states can restrict abortion if they want to.
22 or 23 weeks is not after viability - I think most states that address it put it at 24 weeks.
You may argue about when viability is, but the states there are going with what Roe said.
Do you really think that women who will give birth tomorrow are going in and having abortions today?Posted by: Doug at October 3, 2008 10:40 AM