Bishop goes viral, tells Catholics to battle Obama
Well, this is great! Cardinal Francis George just released a YouTube video calling on Catholics to tell the Obama administration to back away from plans to stop enforcing the conscience rights of health care providers. “No government should ever come between a person and God,” he said.
The Cardinal made a great point. We support conscientious objection to fighting in wars, and we support doctors to conscientiously object to administering the death penalty. ”Why shouldn’t our government and our legal system permit conscientious objection to a morally bad action, the killing of babies in their mother’s womb,” said the Cardinal. “…. No one should be forced by the government to act as though he or she was blind to this reality.”
Good for him and the USCCB.
[HT: moderator Carder]

right on
right on :)
RIGHT ON, CARDINAL GEORGE!
It’s times like these that I’m proud to say Cardinal George is my bishop.
God love him.
John, has the cardinal indicated whether he favors closure of facilities or civil disobedience in your diocese?
My bishop has yet to find his voice on this issue. If he’d rouse the faithful the way Bishop Lori did last week in CT, I believe they’d respond. But he’s silent :-(
”Why shouldn’t our government and our legal system permit conscientious objection to a morally bad action, the killing of babies in their mother’s womb,
I’m pretty sure that’s already permitted. No one has to “kill babies” in their mother’s womb if they don’t want to. Take a deep breath everyone.
hal,
did you read the context in which the quote was made??
Janet, yes I did.
We support conscientious objection to fighting in wars, and we support doctors to conscientiously object to administering the death penalty. ”Why shouldn’t our government and our legal system permit conscientious objection to a morally bad action, the killing of babies in their mother’s womb
Ok, done and done. No doctor has to kill a baby. I promise you, no doctor will ever be forced to perform an abortion against his or her will.
Hal, when those provisions cannot be enforced, they become meaningless. You are oversimplifiying because you know this involves being forced to make referrals rather than killing with one’s own hands.
The Catholic Church is being attacked on multiple fronts right now. Church heirarchy has every right to stand up in defense of the faith and to encourage the faithful to do likewise.
Disagree with us if you wish. But just remember, a government that steps on my rights will probably get around to stepping on YOURS at some point too.
MODERATORS: Can we please do something about the spam???
Hal,
“Ok, done and done. No doctor has to kill a baby. I promise you, no doctor will ever be forced to perform an abortion against his or her will. “
(Did you read the previous paragraph about the possibility that Obama will change the law regarding conscientious objection for doctors???)
How can you (honestly) make that statement?
Hal, when those provisions cannot be enforced, they become meaningless. You are oversimplifiying because you know this involves being forced to make referrals rather than killing with one’s own hands.
Fed Up,
There’s the case of a rural doctor who has no one to refer the patient to. I say it’s the patient’s responsibility to find a doctor whose specialty is abortion. It’s just like needing any other specialist. You wouldn’t force a plastic surgeon to do an abortion either. Or would you? If conscientious objection is not allowed, we will end up with a shortage of doctors with a conscience in the U.S. God help us all.
Fed Up,
Just to clarify, I’m not disagreeing with you..
The last question is a rhetorical one.
There’s the case of a rural doctor who has no one to refer the patient to. I say it’s the patient’s responsibility to find a doctor whose specialty is abortion. It’s just like needing any other specialist.
Janet, isn’t O planning new health centers for rural and “underserved” areas? Isn’t that part of his health care plan? I suspect these women will have plenty of “choice” in these areas soon enough if PP feels too underfunded to open shop there.
I agree that it’s a patient’s responsibility to find a provider for an elective procedure like abortion.
God help us all.
I have complete trust that he will. Problem is I don’t like his timeframe. I’d much prefer mine–NOW! ;-)
Fed Up,
I’m sure O’ could easily find funds for a fleet of small planes that Planned Parenthood could fly …. around the country…. providing all those necessary abortions…. to get rid of unwanted children….
Let’s raise taxes even more!!! All in the name of choice!!
Happy St. Patrick’s Day to the Irish!
No one here has mentioned the real problem with the “conscience protections” Obama is removing.
The real problem, and the reason so many mainstream medical organizations favor removing them, is, under the Bush policy (which did not only guarantee enforcement of the law but also set guidlines for INTERPRETATION of the law) if you’re a surgeon, the person you employ who cleans and sterilizes your surgical instruments can tell you which operations you may do and which you must not do. If your instrument-cleaner says “no more fertility treatments, boss, they’re against my new religion”, under the Bush policy, if you fire him/her or even reduce his/her salary in order to pay someone else to do the work s/he refuses to do, you lose all your Federal funding, including medicare payments. You’re not even allowed to ask applicants for the job whether or not their religious beliefs allow them to do the job, and then “discriminate against” hiring the ones who say no!
I think the idea that bosses, rather than employees, should decide company policy is a conservative idea. It’s nice, after the past eight years, to see someone in the White House making a real conservative decision.
You know, I’m finally convinced by some of your arguments. I just watched some videos of the Westboro Baptist Church protests, and I think that all those police officers who have to protect Phelps and his “congregation” should not be forced to do what clearly goes against their consciences by being forced to protect this vile excuse for a human being.
I mean, why should conscience clauses apply only to medical personnel?
Convinced,
Do you know where it says that the officers, in fact, objected to protecting those in the church?
Regardless of that, we humans, in all occupations, are obligated to protect human life, whether doing so is distasteful or not.
The fact that an officer doesn’t respect a person he is protecting is irrelevant.
Zombie,
Are there any known cases where the Bush policy on conscientious objection has caused problems, or are these problems all hypothetical?
Just thinking, wouldn’t it make more sense to deal with each case on an individual basis, OR take time to re-think the current law than completely overturning it?
No, Janet, the problem has not yet occurred but it’s not hypothetical either. I would classify it’s current status as “predicted, by reliable sources”. As for your suggestion about dealing on a case-by-case basis that mean by litigation which would be expensive and wasteful. We got along fine without GWB’s silliness, and we’ll get along fine when it’s gone. It was never intended to be enforced anyway. It’s what wonks call a “policy-bomb”–a bad last-minute executive policy-change enacted in order to make the President’s successor look bad when he gets rid of it. Clinton did the same thing to GWB–he tightened the arsenic-pollution restrictions to levels which would have made it impossible to do research on arsenic-chemistry or to use it in industry. GWB had to re-loosen the restrictions and look like a pro-pollution shill. It didn’t matter, because GWB didn’t mind looking like a pro-pollution shill!
Oh, and it’s not “current law” which is being “overturned”. It’s executive policy. Civics 101, you know.
No one here has mentioned the real problem with the “conscience protections” Obama is removing.
Apparently you weren’t listening. The cardinal stated the real problem very well at 0:47 in referring to a shift away from democracy toward despotism.
Janet, Zombie is simply regurgitating a bogus argument that some left wingnuts are circulating online. Most sterile processors have no clue when the instruments they’re sterilizing will be used or by whom. And they aren’t employed by the surgeon, they’re employed by the hospital. The surgeon, on the other hand, is likely not to be a hospital employee but rather a staffer with privileges. Therefore, the surgeon isn’t in a position to fire the SP, nor is the SP in a position to prevent the surgeon from doing his job. It’s an incredibly stupid argument that breaks down on so many levels if you understand how hospitals really work.
FedUp, I said the REAL problem. Not the imaginary one (“despotism”) the Bishops are pushing in order to get Catholics and right-to-lifers to send more money to the Church and other right-wing organizations.
Your hospital argument is nonsense. First, because outpatient surgeries and clinics need their instruments cleaned and sterilized too; secondly, because the Bush policy puts instrument-cleaners in a position to dictate policy to hospitals which employ them, as well as to free-standing surgeons.
And it’s certainly entertaining to see you refer to the American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, as “left wingnuts” circulating a “bogus argument”. You should be writing medical thrillers like the late Michael Crighton or Robin Cook. Let me guess–you also believe that AIDS is being spread by a Masonic conspiracy and that abortions cause breast cancer, right?
Elizabeth, 1:15a: Sorry, dealt with.
Janet 2:28PM
Excellent point. Police officers and prison guards must deal with some very unsavorty and despicable human beings, including protecting their lives and rights. That is their job.
We can be thankful someone will do it.
Not the imaginary one (“despotism”)
When a president restricts or removes one group’s (faith-based institutions or providers) ability to enforce their constitutional rights (freedom of religion), the stage is set for despotism. It’s hardly imaginary when people like you would praise a leader for selectively determining whether constitutional rights should be enforced.
Bush policy puts instrument-cleaners in a position to dictate policy to hospitals which employ them, as well as to free-standing surgeons.
WRONG. Whether the setting is inpatient or outpatient, there are ways to honor an employee’s conscience while continuing patient care according to the setting’s mission. But I’m wasting my breath, aren’t I? One who believes that Bishops are pushing in order to get Catholics and right-to-lifers to send more money is clearly not interested in a truthful discussion.
As for your recitation of professional associations, you’re correct such organizations tend to have political agendas. But you’re wrong to imply that these associations speak for their entire membership. Many professionals belong to associations in spite of personal opposition to the association’s political agenda because there are other benefits in holding membership. Not all docs and nurses concur with the views expressed by these groups.
FedUp 7:07am
A good post.
It is absolutely laughable to suggest that instrument cleaners would be in a position to dictate hospital or free standing clinic policy.
Thanks, Mary, and good morning to you. I agree it’s laughable but it serves a purpose, doesn’t it? It diverts discussion away from coerced participation in taking human life. Did you notice Zombie’s SP tech didn’t want to clean instruments for fertility treatments? Had they been instruments used in abortion, the topic of forced killing would have been left front and center.
Then by dictating hospital/clinic policy, the evil employee who wants to sabotage the entire hospital/clinic’s delivery of patient care becomes the focus instead of government crackdown on citizen rights.
It’s a clever form of argument in some ways.
And happy birthday to my sweet & adorable niece / Goddaughter Grace who is turning 5 today. In an hour I am all hers, spending basically the whole day with her (After her swim lesson). I’d better go find a movie to bring cause she loves watching movies she’s never seen before…..
Hal is absolutely right, as usual. We already have laws that protect health care providers from doing abortions and sterilizations, and the enforcement is just fine.
The Bush conscience rule had nothing to do with improving enforcement and everything to do with stopping states from requiring hospitals to provide rape victims with information about emergency contraception, as well as pulling vital contraceptive funding from Planned Parenthood. We saw through it, the president saw through it, and now you’re upset that it’s not going to happen. Too bad for you.
Millions of poor people and rape victims should not have to lose their contraceptive access just because a few extremist anti-choicers don’t like other people using contraception. How you can advocate for that under the guise of “enforcement” is beyond me. If someone has a problem with handing out contraception, she can get a job at a dentist’s office, a podiatry clinic, an oncologist’s office, a NICU, a Catholic OB/GYN’s office, or any of the dozens of other health specialties that have nothing to do with contraception. Nobody is forcing anyone to work at Planned Parenthood or the emergency room if it goes against their conscience.
Good morning FedUp,
Its also a complete no brainer. If a tech does not want to be involved in cleaning and sterilizing certain instruments, he/she should not go work for that facility in the first place.
If a tech discusses their concerns when applying for the job and the potential employer feels this will be a problem he/she can advice the tech to seek employment elsewhere. Duhhhhhhhhh.
Reality,
Do you have any statistics on the number poor women denied contraception because of the Bush order?
Being that rape is underreported do you have any accurate statistics on bonafide rape victims who were denied access to contraception because of the Bush order?
Reality, conscience laws protect healthcare workers from having to participate in other unethical procedures as well. Should assisted suicide become widely legal, anyone working with terminal patients could be forced to kill.
Nobody is forcing anyone to work at Planned Parenthood or the emergency room if it goes against their conscience.
Many Catholic hospitals have ERs. Let’s make sure we drive those evil Catholics out of work during these bad economic times! Better yet, why not close them and further strain the system and put the largest number of people possible out of work?
any of the dozens of other health specialties that have nothing to do with contraception
Assuming, of course, they don’t treat women of childbearing age. Nice try.
“Conscience, conscience?!?!
“We don’t need no stinkin’ conscience!”
What is the ‘conscience’?
Can the ‘conscience’ be observed or measured?
Do animals have the ‘conscience’ or only humans?
Is the ‘conscience’ similar to the appendix in that it once served a purpose (no one knows just what) and is no longer deemed necessary, so it can be removed when it becomes a problem.
Should people who have an objection to removing the ‘conscience’ be forced to participate in the procedure?
yor bro ken
WOOHOO!! You go Cardinal George!!!
The right to be a conscientious objector to war was won only by the sacrifice of the lives and freedom of many, many young men of conscience. The same may be true of this issue.
Doyle,
How true.
We should build a memorial to honor all of the babies killed by abortion since 1973. Perhaps a wall inscribed with “Baby #1, Baby #2, Baby #3, and so on. It would make quite an impression, I’m sure.
Janet, in Chattanooga TN they have a memorial to the unborn lost to abortion, at a museum in a building that used to house an abortuary. For now, Chattanooga is the largest city in the US without an active abortuary.
Doyle,
Thank you for the information. Have you been there?
So if my religious faith prevents me from handling meat, but I work in a meat packing plant does this mean that I have the right to shut the place down? The morning after pill is about less than meat, it’s a couple tampon’s worth of blood. Get real!
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at March 17, 2009 5:11 PM
“So if my religious faith prevents me from handling meat, but I work in a meat packing plant does this mean that I have the right to shut the place down?”
“The morning after pill is about less than meat, it’s a couple tampon’s worth of blood. Get real!”
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at March 17, 2009 5:11 PM
—————————————————-
ylt’s description of an aborutary or as I like to refer to them ‘Dead Babies r Us’ and her own estimation of her self worth.
yor bro ken
More Cathoilics in leadership positions need to rise up forcefully as the mouth of God and speak His truth without fear, without compromise.
“The Kingdom of God suffers violence and the violent take it by force”.
We are in a spiritual war by the way. No sissys allowed.
Cardinal George is no sissy….good for him.
Perhaps Obama’s strategy is to create this straw man of medical conscience so that the Catholic Church will be forced out of the health care business. Just one more area that Obama can take control over in his demonic quest for power.
I tell you….this Obama reeks of anti-Christ or is so incredibly oblivious to who is leading him. I don’t think he’s that stupid, therefore, he is either the anti-Christ or an agent that will cause the anti-Christ to rise to power.
YLT,
If you had religious objections to handling meat why would you be working in a meat packing plant?
Never trust a celibate unmarried man to tell you how to conduct your marriages or your sex-life. At least the Dalai Lama knows he’s unqualified in this area on those grounds, meanwhile this goofball in a funny hat thinks he’s got loads of experience. Sorry Bub, try again next life!
re Mary:
If you had religious objections to handling meat why would you be working in a meat packing plant?
If a pharmacist or an OB\GYN has qualms with providing family planning, abortion or EC products what business do they have in their field? They’re obviously incapable of doing the tasks required of them. It’s like hiring a 3 foot tall person to work in a warehouse.
In this case I think our clergyman friend is doubly unqualified. He’s clearly beyond his level of expertise and way over his pay-grade. He is the quintessential stupid college freshman majoring in the minors, while passing over the important topics because it might require institutional change within the church that has been a long time coming. I heard McDonald’s is hiring, he might want to apply there; really the only question he is qualified to answer is “Do you want fries with that?”
An OB/GYN may enjoy performing surgery and delivering babies. A pharmacist dispenses any number of medications and is an excellent source of advice on drugs.
If either cannot take part in activities that violate their consciences then they have a responsiblity to inform their patients or customers up front.
Let me ask you this YLT. What if a plastic surgeon refused to perform a procedure on a patient who he/she felt had mental health issues that needed to be addressed rather than the patient having surgery? The surgeon just cannot in good conscience operate.
What if the patient is adamant that he/she has no mental health issues and wants the procedure done?
Would you say the plastic surgeon has the right to refuse this patient?
“Never trust a celibate unmarried man to tell you how to conduct your marriages or your sex-life.”
Actually, I very much trust an unmarried celibate man to tell me how to conduct my sex life. The reason is that he is not biased because his sense has not been warped by actually being involved. He is an unbiased 3rd party with no emotional baggage. Those of us who are married and have sex are too emotionally involved in the question of how to properly conduct our sex life, and hence can not give rational arguments because we are biased. Those who are not involved are not biased and can look at the questions from an outside, objective, and rational point of view. It’s just like when a pro-lifer puts out a scientific article on how the pill causes breast cancer or when a Christian puts out an article on Intelligent Design. They are obviously biased and have an agenda so we look to secular naturalists who have no agenda for answers to these kinds of questions. Hence, looking to unmarried celibate men as far as questions of sex goes is quite rational.
Moderator, Do not print anymore of YLTs remarks about Cardinal George, these are personal attacks that should not be tolerated. If she is so full of hate and too ignorant to state her reasons why she disagrees with the Cardinal and the Catholic Church in an intelligent way please delete the comments. Don’t allow this prolife blog to be manipulated and misused for her own or anyone elses pro-death, hateful rantings and anti- Catholic agenda. Wasn’t she banned a while back? Sounds like a good idea to ban her again to me.
YLT,
Speaking of OB/GYNs I have an actual scenario that occured years ago before routine ultrasound. One of our OB/GYNs was asked by a patient to perform an amniocentesis to determine the baby’s sex. If the baby was female she planned to “get rid of it.” The OB/GYN refused, informing her she would have to find another physician, that he would have no part of it.
Did this OB/GYN have a right to exercise his conscience and refuse this patient’s request?
I’m sure the little girl this woman gave birth to would be very grateful that he did.
Oh by the way the very best advice for how to conduct your marriage and sex life came from Jesus Christ. And the second best advice came from another unmarried, celibate man, the Apostle Paul, or Saint Paul. Read Romans Chapter 1 especially verses 18-32 along with many others. I can give you a list if anyone is interested. Jesus told the woman at the well “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’ for you have had 5 husbands and the one you now have is NOT YOUR HUSBAND, John 4:17-18. Jesus did NOT call shacking up “common-law marriage” and an alternate life-style. He called it SIN.
Sorry the Anonymous at 8:15 was me.
They’re obviously incapable of doing the tasks required of them.
Required of them by whom? Their government or their God? Some OB/GYNs & pharmacists went into practice before the advent of EC. They have a constitutional right to practice their religion. And what is your response to their exercise of that right? You berate them as incapable and mock their religious leaders.
Sad, YLT, very sad. Your hatred seems to blind you to the hypocrisy of your “pro choice” argument.
Actually, I very much trust an unmarried celibate man to tell me how to conduct my sex life. The reason is that he is not biased because his sense has not been warped by actually being involved. He is an unbiased 3rd party with no emotional baggage. Those of us who are married and have sex are too emotionally involved in the question of how to properly conduct our sex life, and hence can not give rational arguments because we are biased. Those who are not involved are not biased and can look at the questions from an outside, objective, and rational point of view. It’s just like when a pro-lifer puts out a scientific article on how the pill causes breast cancer or when a Christian puts out an article on Intelligent Design. They are obviously biased and have an agenda so we look to secular naturalists who have no agenda for answers to these kinds of questions. Hence, looking to unmarried celibate men as far as questions of sex goes is quite rational.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2009 7:58 PM
A bias informed by facts (not faith, which is the belief in that which cannot be proven) is much more acceptable than a bias informed by what some sky-father or sky-mother’s friends said eons ago. I’m a man of faith, but faith alone cannot infom my decisions. Legitimate Science is a gift from God and “intelligent” design, wherein all theories must conform to the bible is not science at all (where theories are tested against a hypothesis, which then can be modified based on the results).
“A bias informed by facts (not faith, which is the belief in that which cannot be proven) ”
WRONG. Faith is the theological virtue by which intellect assents to conform to the will to believe all that the Catholic Church teaches. And I”m sure our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters have a good definition of faith which has no where in it “belief which can not be proven.” But it is much easier just to throw up a straw man and say that faith is stuff which can’t be proven.
“”intelligent” design, wherein all theories must conform to the bible is not science at all”
0/2. ID has nothing to do with the bible. You’re thinking of creationism. I don’t necessarily believe in ID, but it’s disingenuous to not even describe it accurately. How does Behe conform his theory of irreducible complexity (which may not necessarily be true) to conform to the bible?
Unfortunately, YLT just likes to drop by and toss his verbal grenades instead of getting involved in real debate.
“verbal grenades”
That term is so awesome, Eileen! It’s a keeper! Zowie!
“A bias informed by facts (not faith, which is the belief in that which cannot be proven) is much more acceptable than a bias informed by what some sky-father or sky-mother’s friends said eons ago. I’m a man of faith, but faith alone cannot infom my decisions. Legitimate Science is a gift from God and “intelligent” design, wherein all theories must conform to the bible is not science at all (where theories are tested against a hypothesis, which then can be modified based on the results).
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at March 17, 2009 8:55 PM”
Huh? Was that a brain fart or just someone coming out of anesthesia?
I think you should have said this: The Bible is the Word of an infinte God. Rather than assume what it says is wrong, we should use science to confirm its absolute inerrancy and to correct any misconceptions about its conclusions. To do otherwise expresses a level of pride, arrogance and lack of humility similarly demonstrated by satan, a fallen and now eternally condemned angel whom I am certian thought he could be like God. Then and only then would science be used as the gift of God it was meant to be since God would never create something that used properly would disprove His existence. He would only allow such folly to be practiced by those foolish enough to do so and that at their own risk and peril.
Proof: The folly of the theory of evolution and the necessity for fraud, supposition and bad science to bolster its adherants, i.e., science improperly practiced.
Result: A whole generation who think abortion is just fine and cover themselves with the semantics of death.
Yes, we do reap what we sow.
re: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2009 9:03 PM
Show me one point where creationism and ID diverge? Can it be creationism if I think we all were created by my cat who is a billion years old? Because that is the level of scientific inquiry that ID exists at. Too many ID\ Creationists are not scientists, and lack advanced studies at anything greater than a diploma mill or unaccredited bible college.
They have failed at the central premise of scientific inquiry, that is, the testing of their hypothesis from the perspective that it might be wrong – because testing with the idea that the bible might be wrong would shake not only the core of their “science” but also of their faith,which when you get down to it is the central issue to their inquiry – validating the truth of their spiritual ideas, which by definition cannot be tested. The logic of ID\ Creationism is a circular firing squad employing men and women not qualified to own sqirt guns.
If evolution is so full of bunk then prove that creationism is beyond a shadow of a doubt right? You can do that, can you? What are the arguements for it and what are the arguements against it, where is the theory complete and where does it still need some research to better understand the hypothesis?
Sad, YLT, very sad. Your hatred seems to blind you to the hypocrisy of your “pro choice” argument.
Posted by: Fed Up at March 17, 2009 8:27 PM
F.U. – If your faith is so weak that any questioning of its tenants or of its officiants causes you to think others sad then it is not my “hatred” that is the issue but rather the strength of your beliefs. I don’t hate Christians – there are so many good Christians out there – Jim Wallis, Mother Theresa among others that, while I disagree with them on some issues I find enough common ground to understand the way in which their faith undergirds their lives and their work.
For you though, it seems as if faith is just a means of scoring political points; you allign yourself with pontiffs and clerics like the way rap stars name drop P. Diddy or Tupac, but rather than actually being from the religious hood yourself, you live in the suburbs, far from having to suffer for your faith, only worrying if the “Jesus Loves Babies” bumper sticker will devalue your SUV. One has to wonder if you are incapable of praying when no one is looking – or if in those alone times you find a three-way mirror so you can always have an audience.
I don’t hate Christians
Glad to hear that, YLT. If that’s so, why do you lash out at Christians who choose to live their faith in the workplace by practicing according to conscience? Your earlier post described them as “incapable.”
For you though, it seems as if faith is just a means of scoring political points
I had to laugh when I read that. What political points do I or any other Catholic score? Our positions aren’t especially popular in Washington these days. I really don’t follow you at all.
As for your hatred, I think it continues to speak for itself. I see no need to comment on it further.
Cardinal George met with President Obama today.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031706.html
THANK YOU, Cardinal George!
YLT:
I hope you understand mathematics, I do and love to apply it to blow away evolution. I’ve got to share something: my 12 year old just placed 5th in the western states of AZ, CA and NM in the math olympics. Continuing…….
Evolution is mathematically impossible as I will show you. It’s thermodynamically impossible as it violates the principle of entropy and the creation of matter/energy, it’s impossible statistically, it’s impossible morally, it’s impossible genetically,
You want proof, here:
You want deep time?
No problem, let’s give evolution 20 billion years. Depending on who you ask, this is a typical estimate for the age of the universe. While the majority of this time is supposed to have been spent building galaxies, stars and planets, let’s assign all of that time just to making life without a creator.
A very skilled and knowledgeable person can build a cabinet in a short amount of time. If you have someone who is not so skilled, and not so knowledgeable, they can still do it, it just takes them a heck of a lot longer. And so, we have a stark contrast between the two models of human origins: Creation has a supernatural being who has infinite skill and knowledge, creating the first life. Evolution, which has no skill and no intelligence, no guidance, no direction, must form the first life by blind chance.
Can blind chance form the seeing eye? Let’s take a look…
Amino acids are the basic building blocks of life. Think of them as Legos. There are roughly twenty different kinds to choose from, and they join together to form structures called proteins. These proteins can also join together and these form the essential parts of cells.
One simple protein might be an assembly of 200 amino acids. So, using fairly simple math, for each amino in the assembly, we have a 1/20 chance of randomly selecting the correct one. Thus, in our protein, we have 20200 different assembly combinations – and essentially only one of those combinations is correct and will work!
Written out, that’s:
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 different combinations! (Sorry, I took difertial equations and I could help myself, hee, hee, hee).
Taking 20,000,000,000 (20 billion) years, and multiplying it by 365 days per year, 24 hours per day, 60 minutes per hour and 60 seconds per minute, you get:
630,720,000,000,000,000 seconds in 20 Billion years!
As you can see, we only have a mere 630,720,000,000,000,000 seconds to try all
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 different combinations. (Sorry, I love numbers).
Remember – evolution has no intelligence to call upon to select the correct combination the first time, so it’s hit and miss.
So let’s divide our available time into the number of combinations available. We would have to randomly try 15,854,895,991,882,293,252,156,265,854,896,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000 different combinations, every second, for twenty billion years, to produce one protein by unguided processes.
Do you have any idea how many proteins you ate for breakfast this morning? Would you care to do the math for one of those proteins that are over 2,000 amino acids long?
Evolution requires an infinite amount of time, but an infinite creator God requires but the twinkling of an eye. The complexity of life demands a creator.
PIP, are you listening and reasoning. Numbers do not lie.
Oh, YLT?
Here’s another minor point, no really, time kills:
The other side of the “time” coin that the anti-creationists don’t want you to know about is the deterioration of the genome. Evolution thrives on mutations. Mutations are errors in our genetic code – the code that is essentially the blueprint on how to build you, or a plant, or a fish, etc…
Tremendous advances have been made in the arena of genetics and the study of the genome, and the surprises have been numerous. One surprise that has come to light in recent years is that mutations are usually near-neutral; that is, they usually have no effect, and so are sometimes missed by the DNA repair mechanisms in your body. The second thing they’ve learned is that these “near-neutral” mutations now accumulate over time (because they’re not detected and removed), and the accumulating errors add up to one BIG error, which is a very big problem.
Third, negative mutations (that is, mutations that are definitely baaad for you) outnumber the “good” ones considerably.
Fourth, the “beneficial” mutations (the ones that are supposedly “good” for you) are always deletions – in other words, the supposed “beneficial” mutations which you can read about in the scientific literature, are actually information in the genetic code that is LOST.
Genetic mutations don’t help evolution:
So to sum all these points together, we are losing valuable information in our genetic code over time. We are also gaining errors over time, which really means we’re losing information that way as well. When enough of the blueprint contained in the genetic code is corrupted, your body no longer has good enough “plans” on how to build/maintain your body, and you die. We are losing this information so fast that all life as we know it should have died off millions of years ago, if indeed we had been around that long.
Hey PIP, wake up sleepy head theistic evolutionist.
Hee hee! How can someone so smart be so dumb???
HisMan, your analysis does not account for the fact that zillions (ten to the forty or so) of mutations can be tested at the same time on planet Earth. Actually more–there’s that many individual organisms, but each individual organism could test several mutations at once. Didn’t you say you do computer work? Think: parallel processing. Many experiments at the same time.
Your analysis also assumes “we” have to test all the combinations. Why would we? Just test until you get a self-replicator. Then let the self-replicator carry out the future tests.
You wrote: “… the “beneficial” mutations (the ones that are supposedly “good” for you) are always deletions – in other words, the supposed “beneficial” mutations which you can read about in the scientific literature, are actually information in the genetic code that is LOST. ”
Really? So Dr. Lenski’s long-term bacterial cultures which recently evolved the ability to eat citric acid instead of suger, you’re saying they did this entirely by deleting parts of their genome? We’ll know when he publishes the details, but I’d certainly bet against it. That is, I bet there were some gene-duplication events, followed by the duplicate genes mutating and scanning the potential mutation-space while the original kept the organism running, and vice versa. Not only deletions.
Regarding your fear of near-neutral mutations accumulating into total badness and destroying the species, you’re forgetting: not everyone gets the near-neutral mutations. They may get propagated but they don’t get universalized across the entire species! The only way they could do that would be if they conferred some overwhelming short-term advantage so the mutants could anihilate or out-survive the wild-types, which contradicts “near-neutrality”. So don’t lose any sleep over this. (If, however, it motivates you to learn about numbers IN BIOLOGY, that’s OK.)
You wrote: “The complexity of life demands a creator. ”
Sure, and the power of that creator demands another creator, and the power of that one another, and it’s turtles all the way down.
Little fleas have smaller fleas
Upon their backs to bite ’em
And those small fleas have smaller fleas
And so ad infinitum!
“Show me one point where creationism and ID diverge? ”
Many creationists believe the world is 6000 years old. Many ID proponents do not. QED.
In fact, Michael Behe who is probably one of the top 2 spokesmen for ID believes in common decent. Have you ever met a creationist who believes in common decent? Then you also have the self-described secular Jew David Berlinski who is an ID proponent. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t base his ID theories on the bible. Again, I”m not necessarily saying I believe in any of these theories, but I’m not going to simply do the lump-together-and-blow-off of ID and creationism because they simply make different claims and frame the questions differently.
HisMan… there aren’t THAT many schools in Arizona that participate in that program… Email me at mommy-RN@live.com… we may have kids in the same program!
SZ:
Wrong Again:
Look at the numbers for this occuring in just one sequence and we haven’t even talked about DNA.
It’s astronomical.
The point is if the self-replicator gets it right just one time, it has to do it over, and over and over again ad infinitum until you arrive at a solution. It’s impossible.
Here’s the oterh thing. With all the different species on earht, they all got it right? This is ludicrous.
Perhaps one, one got it right, but zillions and zillions got it right.
If you wnt to believe that, and deny Creator God, go ahead.
Call me stupid again and I’ll have you banned.
Just try me.
SZ:
What, can’t handle the truth?
You don’t even realize that your belief in evolution is actually a religion, in which there is no god except the god of chance.
I guess that allows you to put yourself in the center of your world. The problem is you’re gonna die. Relative to the infinte nature of the Universe, a short life span just does not fit the model.
Hey, SZ, have you figured out immortality yet?
If evolution is based on the survival of the fittest, why do the fittest always, and I mean always die? Isn’t that counter-intuitive.
Why hasn’t at least one, just one species shown super life span? I mean at least 100,000 years?
In fact, a set life span also points to a designer as well.
I suggest it would be more profitable to pack up your stuff and go to Las Vegas because the odds of hitting the mark would be much, much better there.
SZ:
If we assume that your theory of parallel processing is true which it ain’t I assume you are talking about serialized parallel processing and not simulatanoues parallel processing. Or did everything evolve at teh saem time? I mean this alone would detroy the theory of evolution.
And if simultanoues parallel processing is occuring right now, this very instance, in “zillions and zillions of species” why has there never been one, just one single case of observed evolutionary change or the spontaneous “creation” of a new species? I mean I have seen my boys change into monsters at about the age of 13 or 14, is that what you’re talking about?
Bobby,
I am convinced that the long road to ending abortion is to strike out at the foundations of atheism and humanism which is evolutionary theory.
This lie must be exposed for what it is; a giagantic and satanic lie and the army is waking up to the enemy’s schemes. I suggest you study this in earnest and become a voice for God’s creative genius.
Even Dawkins knows that if you detroy evolutionary theory you destroy atehism and humanism.
If we can prove that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, we can also detroy the lie of evolution.
There is ample proof everywhere that humans and dinosaurs did live at the same time and evolutionary scientists who suprress this info, the demons that they are, know this. Even Dawkins knows this. The problems is that his hate for God adn Christians has blinded him.
No more will we cowtow and bend to these blasphemers and haters of God. We have the answer. We are the head adn not the tail. We have the mind of Christ. We are more than conquerors through the Lord Jesus Christ.
Call me stupid again and I’ll have you banned.
Just try me.
Posted by: HisMan at March 18, 2009 10:46 AM
REMINDER: You don’t have that power.
Maybe you should stick to laughing at farts.
HisMan the Intellectual. LOL
If that’s so, why do you lash out at Christians who choose to live their faith in the workplace by practicing according to conscience? Your earlier post described them as “incapable.”
For you though, it seems as if faith is just a means of scoring political points
I had to laugh when I read that. What political points do I or any other Catholic score? Our positions aren’t especially popular in Washington these days. I really don’t follow you at all.
As for your hatred, I think it continues to speak for itself. I see no need to comment on it further.
Posted by: Fed Up at March 17, 2009 11:49 PM
FU – It’s not that you are trying to live out your faith, but rather the way in which you are going about it. Trying to live out your faith is no excuse for doing it in such a way that it imposes an undue burden on those who don’t share your worldview.
re: HisMan at March 18, 2009 12:46 AM
I’m sorry that your vision of God is of one that is so small that it has to conform to your narrow perception of what is possible.
On the contrary, YLT, we believe in a God bigger than ourselves… one who creates the universe and the rules, not one who we can recreate to suit us better in order to have our every selfish whim and desire approved.
Trying to live out your faith is no excuse for doing it in such a way that it imposes an undue burden on those who don’t share your worldview.
YLT, I suspect we disagree on what an “undue burden” is. Is it an undue burden for a woman who wants an abortion to refer to the Yellow Pages for more information? Is it an undue burden for a Catholic hospital not to provide this procedure for her?
HisMan, I won’t call you stupid since you care so much about my opinion but what you SAY sure is stupid.
You wrote: “If evolution is based on the survival of the fittest, why do the fittest always, and I mean always die? Isn’t that counter-intuitive.”
NEWSFLASH: The fittest manage to pass their genomes on before they die. It’s survival of the fittest FAMILIES and SPECIES, not of the fittest individuals. DOIOIOIOI!
You wrote: “There is ample proof everywhere that humans and dinosaurs did live at the same time and evolutionary scientists who suprress this info, the demons that they are, know this. ”
Do you remember the movie OUTLAND? Peter Boyle had a good line in it which comes to mind: “I misjudged you. You’re not stupid; you’re crazy!”
Trying to live out your faith is no excuse for doing it in such a way that it imposes an undue burden on those who don’t share your worldview.
YLT, I suspect we disagree on what an “undue burden” is. Is it an undue burden for a woman who wants an abortion to refer to the Yellow Pages for more information? Is it an undue burden for a Catholic hospital not to provide this procedure for her?
Posted by: Fed Up at March 18, 2009 2:08 PM
FU – If the hospital is publicly funded in any way shape or form it should provide all legal medical procedures.
If one cannot carry out the duties of a medical professional then perhaps they should not engage in that line of work. If you pick and choose what gets done and what doesn’t you’re standing in the way of the rights of the patient. It’s like a vegitarian working at mcdonalds but telling everyone not to order burgers based only on their own bias against them.
YLT, i have an issue with that argument. Say a Catholic hospital was founded 75 years before abortion was legalized. What legal rights does a woman who wants an abortion have that supercede the rights of religious freedom that the hospital has?
telling everyone not to order burgers based only on their own bias against them
Not an accurate analogy, YLT. I don’t tell people not to have abortions. I just don’t assist them in getting one.
Your analogy also fails because YOU want to tell Catholic hospitals what should be on THEIR “menu” rather than allowing the hospital the freedom to choose what it puts on the menu. That’s why I said above that your argument is hypocritical. You want to remove choice from religious institutions in the name of choice for a woman. Yanking it from one to give it to another isn’t a particularly convincing argument in a country that is a constitutional republic.
If the hospital is publicly funded in any way shape or form it should provide all legal medical procedures
WRONG. Not all hospitals perform lithotripsy, organ transplants and other specialized types of care. Not all hospitals provide inpatient pediatric or psychiatric care. Not all EDs are trauma certified. This list could get quite long, but I think you see my point. Every hospital cannot possibly provide every legal medical procedure, YLT. Nor should they. That’d raise the cost of health care astronomically. Medicare/Medicaid guidelines have never insisted that the facility provide every legal procedure.
YLT – it’s actually more like someone saying, “I’m a vegetarian, I would therefore like to work as a cashier rather than as a grill cook” and being told, “No, you have to grill the meat no matter what.”
There is absolutely no reason that that person can’t man the cash register and allow others without said ethical dilemma to perform the role of grill cook. In fact, it makes perfect sense.
Just as it should be no problem for a Catholic hospital to act as a Catholic hospital and let the thousands of non-Catholic nonprofit and for profit hospitals act as they see fit. The free market will reward whichever is more in demand.
I fail to see why a Catholic hospital should be barred from receiving funds for performing, say, gallbladder surgery (or neurosurgery in the case of world famous Barrow Neurological Institute which happens to be a part of Catholic Healthcare West at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Arizona) simply because they do not perform abortions… a service that, btw, is not even desired by the vast majority of their clientele (I worked labor and delivery there… big Catholic hispanic families as joyous over baby #8 as they were over baby #1.)
It isn’t as if they turn away women requiring care for an ectopic… a true health emergency… in fact two of the L&D nurses I worked with HAD ectopics and had them treated right there (both developed symptoms during their work shift).
A hospital doesn’t get to choose whom it will see and whom it will not see. It is a hospital. Moreover, if the procedure is legal and the patient wants a procedure then they have the right to be treated. When religion fails the logic test it is more a stumbling block to access than a benefit to the patient. Call me when the Pope gets his MD and then we can talk.
Yo la, hospitals cannot turn away patients who need life-saving treatment. Beyond that, they are under no obligation to provide elective procedures. They are no more obligated to offer abortions than they are to offer tatoo removal services or face lifts.
You haven’t yet demonstrated that a woman who wants an abortion has a right that overrides the right to religious freedom of a faith-based hospital. Show me a law where her rights trump rights of religious freedom. Then we can talk. You’re just shooting out talking points.
YLT, one more thing you’re overlooking. Physicians in hospitals don’t take orders like a cook in a restaurant. A patient in the ED may ask for narcotic pain meds but the doc thinks it’s more appropriate to prescribe an NSAID instead. A patient may ask for a cat scan but the doc sees no clinical indication to order one. Hospitals are under no obligation to honor every request a patient makes of them.
A doctor or nurse with a personal beef is simply unqualified to be a doctor.
A doctor or nurse with a personal beef is simply unqualified to be a doctor.
Thankfully state licensing boards don’t agree with you, YLT.
SZ:
If you want evidence I’ll prove it.
Jill:
If I have to come on this site and be insulted by a pro-abort, atheist, evolutionist and, I’m just calling him what he is, then give me a reason for staying.
Either ban or warn Mr. Zombie or I am out of here.
HisMan, please DON’T GO! Please don’t give in to those who’d like to bully Christians into silence.
If you are insulted for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. 1 Pt 4:14
SinkingZombie:
I’ve just put a 16 hour day running two businesses despite Obama’s goal of stealing all of my hard earned money. It is so refreshing to come back home and reading your childish, spoiled brat, pseudo educated posts. Posts that lack any substance or present any counter evidence.
According to the scriptures, God created the dinosaurs (the land animals) on day 6 – the same day He created people. Therefore, according to the scriptures, man and dinosaurs have lived together.
According to evolution, dinosaurs became extinct at least 60 million years before people ever evolved. So what would it mean if we found man and dinosaur together?
Well let’s ask the evolutionists:
Dr. Richard Dawkins, one of the most outspoken atheists in the world, wrote “…there are certain things about the fossil record that any evolutionist should expect to be true. We should be very surprised, for example, to find fossil humans appearing in the record before mammals are supposed to have evolved! If a single, well verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed. Incidentally, this is a sufficient answer to the canard, put about by creationist and their journalistic fellow travelers, that the whole theory of evolution is an ‘unfalsifiable’ tautology. Ironically, it is also the reason why creationists are so keen on the fake human footprints, which were carved during the depression to fool tourists, in the dinosaur beds of Texas,” (The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p.225, emphasis mine)
Steven Stanley, of John Hopkins University wrote: “More generally, any topsy-turvy sequence of fossils would force us to rethink our theory, yet not a single one has come to light. As Darwin recognized, a single geographic inconsistency would have nearly the same power of destruction.” (The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p.171)
Niles Eldridge, a well known evolutionist who co-authored the “Punctuated equilibrium” evolutionary model with Stephen J. Gould, also admitted: “We have been looking at the fossil record as a general test of the notion that life has evolved: to falsify that general idea, we would have to show that forms of life we considered more advanced appear earlier than the simpler forms.” (Monkey Business, p.46, 1982)
Perhaps you have never heard of the cast-iron pot, found in a lump of coal supposedly 285 million years old! This is well before the first dinosaurs were supposed to have evolved, roughly 225 million years ago.
Or about the the London artifact, a hammer found in Cretaceous rocks near London, Texas. Max Hahn and his family were fishing near a waterfall when they found a rock with a piece of wood sticking out of it. They took it home as a curiousity, and broke open the rock later on to find out that the wood was actually the handle of an ancient hammer!
Or about this: In the Paluxy riverbed in Glen Rose, Texas, literally dozens of fossil human footprints have been found amongst the dinosaur tracks that make this area so famous. Tracks were found in a store far away from Glen Rose by Clifford Burdic, though both tracks apparently came from there. The tracks were cut. This was so that the internal structure of the rock could be examined. Pressure lines conforming to the tracks verify that they are genuine, but these are from Glen Rose limestone, famous for its dinosaur tracks. The fossil cat track was from a nice kitty that stood about six feet tall (two meters) at the shoulders! Giantism is common in the fossil record.
Most of the fossil human footprints from the Paluxy are found in trails, excavated from underneath undisturbed limestone, in the presence of multiple witnesses.
These tracks follow the expected right/left pattern, and often step in, on and around dinosaur tracks.
There is no creature, fossil or living, which makes footprints like a human – even apes don’t have “feet,” but rather four “hands.” As for the possibility that these tracks may have been made by aliens or people who figured out time-travel (and yes, a number of evolutionists have privately made these claims, rather than embrace the obvious conclusion that man and dinosaurs lived together), the fossils then scream the question: “What were these incredibly knowledgeable and intelligent beings doing (intelligent enough to figure out space travel or time travel) running around barefoot with dinosaurs???? Where’s their space boots? Did they not invent shoes? ”
May I suggest that the evidence is compelling that man and dinosaurs lived together, and that the reason they are running around barefoot is because they were caught in a world-wide flood. Do you go swimming with your shoes on, or off?
The Delk track is a fossil that came to light in May of 2008. This was one of several fossils that have been run through a CT scanner to check for its authenticity.
Perhaps you’re still not convinced of these being human tracks? Well not far from Glen Rose, during the construction of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant, a gravel layer, sandwhiched between two layers of the Walnut shale, was cut through. A fossil human finger was found amongst the gravels. The Walnut shale is considered “Cretaceous,” or, from the time of the dinosaurs.
There’s a ton more evidence too.
Now for those of you who think I’m out of here, consider this. If it can be proved that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, the theory of evolution is destroyed. Evolutionists know this and guys like Zombie know this. That is why they attack with such vengeance when any sort of evidence is presented. They attack and try to kill by character assassination.
More and more scientists are considering the evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time and evolutionsist being the fascist NAZIs that they are will not allow this information to be published in any scientific journals.
Well screw them because it’s going to be published with their cooperation or not.
So here’s my warning to you Zombie: Slander me again and you’ll find yourself being a test case for litigation on the internet.
whoaaaaa!
some of our frequent guests seem to be manifesting symptoms of multiple personality disoder or disassociative identity disorder or just plain schizphrenia.
Or maybe they are just loaning their handles to peoples with more functioning neurons.
I was not capable of understanding all that I read but I was able to read most everything.
I just like to watch hummingbirds. What are the odds of random chance producing a hummingbird?
Did you know that the moon revolves at just the right speed so that only one face is visable from planet earth. We never saw the oposite face until we sent a spacecraft around the moon and back to earth.
How does that happen by mere chance. Just approaching the earth at the right trajectory and speed to achieve a continuous orbit is quite an accomplishment. The Apollo capsules returning from the moon had to make that maneuver or they would burn up or bounce off the atmosphere and out into space. We had lots of highly educated people and machines making those calculations and they were still sweating the outcome.
So how did the moon manage to make that maneuver all on it’s own?
Anyone got any thoughts? I just work on air conditioners, so the math and physics is way beyond my mental capablities.
Judging from the surface of the moon it looks like it has been ‘catching spears’ headed for mother earth for quite a while. Then there’s the tide thing that the moon seems to play a part in. I’ve read that tidal action is an indisposable part of earth ecology.
I don’t know but there seems to be some evidence of design there. It seems to point to some ‘inteligence’ . Hard to imagine randomness accounting for the moon and it’s eliptical orbit and synchronised rotation in relation to the earths rotation. It is exact it has not altered much in the last 100 years.
How do we account for that?
Forget about ‘god’ for the sake of this discussion.
How do we account for the moon and it’s relation to the earth and life on earth?
yor bro ken
JMJ
The bishop of the Diocese of Tucson is a coward who could not possibly back up what Cardinal George said in the video, and, we hope, face to face to the pig, the prostitute, the hypocrite, Obama. George is Kicanas’ mentor. But Kicanas is a pol, nothing more. His goals are the presidency of the USCCB, useless–ask Bishop Martino.
yor bor ken, your question about the moon has been very thoroughly explored and explained, most memorably by Larry Niven who wrote a short story in which the protagonists face the daunting challenge of having to alter a planet’s rate of rotation; probably also by Isaac Asimov in some of his infinitely-many popular explanations of scientific questions.
And no one says a hummingbird assembled itself or was assembled by random chance. Least of all the people you call “evolutionists”.
yor bor ken, another thing: you seem awfully sure the moon came to the earth from somewhere else. How do you know it didn’t break off from the earth? Or, that the two didn’t form more or less together?
OK Singing Zombie a.k.a SoMG. That’s enough.
So here’s my warning to you Zombie: Slander me again and you’ll find yourself being a test case for litigation on the internet.
Posted by: HisMan at March 18, 2009 10:43 PM
HisMan, you might know something about Noah’s Polar Bears but trust me on the legal issues. You can’t successfully sue someone for calling you “stupid.” It’s an opinion. It’s not actionable defamation.
HisMan 10:19PM
For heaven’s sake, if we all stamped our feet and went crying to Jill every time someone disagrees with or insults us, there wouldn’t be any of us left.
I’ve seen Jill take more than her share of insults, disagreements, and abuse. I’ve also seen her conduct herself with dignity in the face of it.
HisMan, I like and respect you and your beliefs. I do NOT get into religious discussions or debates so that is all I will say.
You have to expect people to disagree with and ridicule you. Its called life. Live with it.
If you want a mutual admiration blog, then find one.
The best response is always an intelligent argument, not crying to Jill to ban someone or ELSE!
Obama’s home state poised to pass FOCA
UPDATE, 12:20p: Here’s a list of organizations supporting IL’s FOCA as well as politicians, including AG Lisa Madigan. [HT: liberal water carrier Archpundit via Cal S.] _______________ UPDATE, 10:50a: A pro-life legislator makes a good point: The abort…
This sunday we sat at Brunch reading The Wanderer and laughing our ass off. The depths of short-sightness on the part of the leadership is sad (if you put all your stock in leadership) or funny ( if you, like we do, have a drinking game where you sip every everytime you read the word “magistarium” in defense of conservative politics or covering up the molestation scandal.
There must be something about wearing the funny hats that endows people with dillusions of grandeur.
YLT,
Every time I read your anti-Catholic bigotry I am more and more assured that Catholicism is the true faith. Thanks for increasing my epistemic justification in Catholicism.
re: Bobby Bambino at March 23, 2009 5:07 PM
I’m glad you have a strong faith. I only wish the leaders of your church had a strong moral compass.