Monday, December 3, 2012

The Christmas War Chapter 3: Defacing more then Nativity Scenes

PORTLAND, Oregon — Police in Portland say a maximum $1,000 reward has been offered for information leading to an arrest in the case of Italian marble religious statues damaged at a Catholic shrine and botanical garden. Sgt. Pete Simpson says three statues were damaged this week, with the heads removed. Police recovered one of the statue heads Friday after a passer-by called to say it was perched on a post at the west end of the 62-acre site popularly known as The Grotto. That head belonged to a statue of the Virgin Mary. Still missing are heads belonging to statues of St. Joseph and the infant Jesus. Simpson says the statues are more than 100 years old. Crime Stoppers is offering the reward.
More information will come as this develops. For now, I like one person's comment on the bottom:
Because atheists are so tolerant. Those who shout loudest for tolerance are the least tolerant of all, don't you agree?
Believe it or not, I pointed out this case to an atheist, and his explanation for it ( Just to clarify, he was not involved in it in any way)was---and I am not making this answer up--: "It's good this happened because this shows people religion is just a fairy tale."
Giving an explanation that will not come across anyone's mind to justify the atheist of whoever did this.
No wonder atheists are such morons.

Sunday, December 2, 2012

The Christmas War Chapter 2: Merry Christmas beats Happy Holidays

Take your "Happy Holidays" and shove it. Finally, there's proof that Americans prefer "Merry Christmas."
By a wide margin, 68 percent to 23 percent, Americans prefer stores with signs that say "Merry Christmas" during the Christmas holidays than the more generic and secular "Happy Holidays," according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey.
And in all 34 of the categories the accurate and prominent pollster looks at, "Merry Christmas" was the hands-down winner.
A few examples:
-- Among men, it's 69 percent for "Merry Christmas," compared to 22 percent for "Happy Holidays."
-- Women: 67 percent to 23 percent.
-- Whites: 69 percent to 20 percent.
-- Blacks: 56 percent to 40 percent.
-- Republicans: 86 percent to 8 percent.
-- Democrats: 51 percent to 41 percent. (Click here for the article)
So there you have it...proof once again that atheists, with their secular nonsense, are morons.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

The Christmas War: Chapter 1: The Fight for the Nativity

Atheists, clearly agitated that Christians purportedly “stole” various holiday traditions from pagans, have come up with a solution: A potentially-offensive “natural nativity scene” that removes baby Jesus and replaces traditional Bible characters with some eyebrow-raising alternatives. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is behind the spectacle, which emerged this week as part of a diorama inside the Wisconsin state capitol.The angel that typically graces the nativity is replaced with an astronaut. And the wise-men – prominent figures in the Biblical account of Jesus’ birth — are replaced with evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin, scientist Albert Einstein, anarchist Emma Goldman and author Mark Twain. The Statue of Liberty is also placed in the alternative nativity to purportedly symbolize freedom. (for full article, click here.)
City authorities halted all Christmas displays after finding themselves in the crossfire between supporters of traditional Christmas celebrations and their secular opponents. Religious groups conceded "the atheists won" and compared the judge's ruling to Pontius Pilate's decision not to intervene and halt the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. (For full article, click here.)
I will say this right now: I do believe there is a war on Christmas, not just to ban it from the public eye but to ban it from our collective memory. This is no different than attempts by communists to ban Christmas in Russia and every nation where communism took hold (Side note: the vast majority of atheists do support communism, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence).
So my question to everyone is this: however did we get from a Bing Crosby style Christmas to a detestable pile of junk known as Black Friday rush? How did we get from Christmas to "Consume-Us?"
I assure you this did not happen overnight. Little things lead the way, as they often do: we neglected our families by putting ourselves first; we started forgetting our sacred traditions; we turned our children and by proxy future generations onto the notion freedom must be sacrificed so no one is offended. I can name several other reasons but it all boils down to this:
We have forgotten who we are and took what we had for granted.
Be honest: when was the last time you went to a card store and most of the cards had a religious element tied to Christmas? When was the last time a store clerk wished you Merry Christmas? When was the last time Christmas didn't become a drag or feel like a chore? How many can either name or recognize their own ethnicity's (blood family doesn't count) Christmas traditions? This is what the tide of atheism has done to us and it begins with accepting little lies that are part of the big lie.
In fact, let's take a look at them. Bear in mind all these statements are lies and they must be stopped right in their tracks:
Lie #1: The Nativity portrays a fictional account.
Well, that would be a shock to historians and scholars (two groups atheists don't care for whenever said scholars disagree with them). Virtually all scholars agree Jesus did walk the earth, and the Nativity story did happen as it is written.
Lie #2: The Nativity doesn't serve any real purpose.
Any check on the Nativity's background would prove this false. It was begun with Francis of Assisi to show people the lowly conditions and circumstances around Our Savior's birth. In other words, it was about showing the virtue of poverty, and you can't see that as a virtue if you're bombarded with messages to shop.
Lie #3: Most people are offended by seeing the Nativity scene.
That would be a shock to poll numbers. According to a 2005 poll (the last time this question was asked), 85% of people are not offended by seeing Nativity scenes on public property. While about 70% would like to see it placed with other non-Christian religious symbols, only 1% want all expressions banned.
Lie #4: Merry Christmas offends most people.
Again, poll numbers don't support this. According to the Pew Center, 60% of customers prefer to hear Merry Christmas over Happy Holidays.
Now, strange as it may seem, atheists were not the first ones to declare war on Christmas; the Puritans flat out banned it in both England when Oliver Cromwell ran the country and in the American colonies up until the 1800's. Now, why would atheists try something that Puritans (a heretical Christian group, mind you) already tried and failed?
Easy...atheists are morons.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

It Wouldn't Surprise Me If They Come to Feed Us to Lions

I now have proof positive that this is indeed a wicked generation. I need only look at the people around my age who rooted for Obama--a man whose party caused this recession by interfering with the ways of God and man--a man whose own party booed God at their own convention---to know this. Sadly, I knew thanks to intrade that this would happen but hoped things would turn out different. I now know that's no longer possible. Even most Catholics I know, in clear defiance of the very bishops they are supposed to obey, have given up their liberty for safety, and we all know what Ben Franklin said about that (though it wouldn't surprise me if you don't, considering the way schools have been both secularized and watered down---funny how both happen at once). Rather than go into a long post about what happens next, Michael Voris of Church Militant TV (formally Real Catholic TV) has already done that for me:

Saturday, October 20, 2012

They're Coming for us Again

I apologize for being away for so long, and I will explain why very soon. In the meantime, I defy anyone loyal to the Church to look at this and not shudder in fear: Madrid, Spain, Oct 19, 2012 / 10:40 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A group of young people shouting, “Where are the priests? We’re going to burn them at the stake,” attacked the Mary Help of Christians Salesian School in Merida, Spain, leaving one teacher wounded. According to the Salesian Press Office in Spain, the incident occurred at 1:20 p.m. local time on Oct. 18, when “some 100 young people entered the premises of the Mary Help of Christians Salesian School in Merida.” Nearly 1,000 K-12 students attend the school. “Custodial workers and some teachers at the school tried to stop the group, but 10 of them were able to gain entrance to the school building, shouting insults against the institution, pushing staff members who were in their way and attempting to disrupt the normal school day,” the Salesians said. Principal Marco Antonio Romero told the newspaper El Mundo that the young people’s intention was to pull down the crucifixes. “More public education and less crucifixes,” they shouted. The attackers carried flags from the Spanish Civil War, shouted insults at the teachers and professors and tried to steal several laptop computers from classrooms, the newspaper reported. The red, yellow and dark purple flags were the same ones used by the Republican faction, left-wing radicals and anarchists during Spain’s bloody, anti-clerical conflict that led to the deaths of thousands of priest, seminarians, religious and laypeople between 1936 and 1939. During the attack on the school, one teacher suffered minor wounds while trying to keep the young people from entering her classroom. The Salesians said steps will be taken to prevent any kind of such attacks in the future and that they will be filing a lawsuit against the assailants. “This kind of conduct cannot be allowed in a constitutional state.” Clearly, atheists are idiots and they are getting more violent.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Brainwashing Kids at a Younger Age

One thing needs to be addressed right away: does no one else find it a little hypocritical that atheists consider teaching religion to kids "brainwashing" yet this camp somehow doesn't count as brainwashing?

But getting more to the point: are we to believe that we should be taking these children seriously? Believe it or not, I think we should. Why? I can tell these children are looking for answers; even the Bible calls on us to "test all things." In this case, it's not so much they're atheists; rather it's their shutting themselves off at such a young age to any possibility that Christianity might very well have a better answer than atheism.

I applaud some of the kids who have a Bible at home and want to read it, but overall I still blame their parents and the adults at the camp for the negative attitudes these children have. According to Camp Quests own website, one of their missions is to "Demonstrate atheism and humanism as positive, family-friendly worldviews."

First of all, atheism is NOT family friendly. Second, most atheists don't even have their own families because third, they don't even bother marrying or having kids. (Another side note: notice in the video they mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Clearly, they don't care for any thought that disagrees with the camp.)

I must ask how lazy these parents are if they let their children believe whatever they want. What if the children want to believe their parents are walking piles of dung? Would they like that?

Here's what I would do with the kids: I would sit them down and explain to them what atheism has always entailed, which would include graphic photos of what atheists have brought to the world. I know that sounds a bit harsh, but these kids seem to not understand what they're asking for. I don't want to dismiss them all as idiots, but if they stay on this path, I might have no choice.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

The Fatal Flaw in Atheist Morality

Disclosure: while I don't agree with Michael Voris all the time (I really don't agree with him concerning his view of the Knights of Columbus) I agree 100% with him on this.
Another proof that atheists are idiots.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed
1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Refuting God is Imaginary: Point #3

All credit goes to

The thrust of this proof is that no one worships the deities of historical Egypt, Greece, Rome, Aztec, or any other culture. We know that these deities are imaginary, GII asserts, because no one worships them anymore.
Really, that's how GII thinks it can prove that these deities never existed. If no one worships them anymore, then they must be imaginary. The actual words of the website:
  • . . . we know with complete certainty today that the Egyptian gods were imaginary. We don't build pyramids anymore and we do not mummify our leaders. 
  • Yet we know with complete certainty that these gods were imaginary because no one worships Zeus any more. 
  • If the Aztec gods were real, we would still be offering sacrifices to them. 
GII goes on to say that "The fact that millions of people worship a god is meaningless." However, this completely contradicts the point that they are trying to make. They connected lack of continuing worship to the existence of a deity, then proceed to say that the number of worshipers is meaningless. This is a serious contradiction.
But it just gets worse from there. GII then repeats the discredited theory that Christianity was borrowed from pagan myths. The site offers two quotations from "popular literature" that make this exact point, however there is no citation offered as to where these may have come from.
Even if the pagan copycat theory wasn't completely discredited, there is still one additional problem. This proof is completely incoherent! The argument flows like this:
  1. Many, many historical gods have no worshipers today.
  2. No worshipers means that the god doesn't exist, otherwise it would still command worship.
  3. Millions of people worship the God of the Bible and Jesus, but number of worshipers is irrelevant to the existence of a god.
  4. The story of Jesus is borrowed from pagan myths.
  5. The pagan myths are untrue per (1) and (2).
  6. Therefore, God is imaginary.
The problem is that (3) must be true for (6) to follow from (4) and (5), but if (3) is true then (1) and (2) are false. Either (1) and (2) are true, or (3) is true. All three points cannot be true at the same time, but all three are required to be true in order for (6) to be a logical conclusion.

Another proof atheists are idiots.

Monday, July 30, 2012

The Horrors of Communism

There are some in the atheist community that believe while communism did have some faults, it wasn't as bad as people claim and atheism certainly had nothing to do with it.
Here's what I want everyone to do: I want you to keep in mind that Karl Marx, father of communism, called religion "the opiate of the masses", look at this video and tell me with a straight face atheism had nothing to do with communism:

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Refuting "God is Imaginary": Point #2

Sorry I haven't had time to post on here for some time, but I have been putting together an escape plan from the coming destruction of America thanks to Obama Care. This post is resuming my refutation of God is Imaginary. Since I don't have time for a full essay, instead I'll put together some refutations along with the original article. My comments are in brackets and italicized.
"The fact is, God never answers any prayers. The entire idea that "God answers prayers" is an illusion created by human imagination

[What type of prayers is he talking about? Prayers to saints? Prayers for the dead? Contemplative prayer?  If it is any of these, you're not supposed to get an answer. If he's not talking about any of these, then he's misguided, as we will soon see.]

How do we know that "answered prayers" are illusions? We simply perform scientific experiments. We ask a group of believers to pray for something and then we watch what happens.

[In theory, that might make sense but in practice, atheists often dismiss confirmed studies or facts that don't agree with them. Why? Mostly, because they claim the study was biased somehow. Let's ignore how you're supposed to refute what they're saying and not attacking the person making them and let's move on.]

 What we find, whenever we test the efficacy of prayer scientifically, is that prayer has zero effect: 

  • It does not matter who prays.
  • It does not matter if we pray to God, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra or any other human god.
  • It does not matter what we pray about.
If we perform scientific, double-blind tests on prayer, and if the prayers involve something concrete and measurable (for example, healing people with cancer), we know that there is zero effect from prayer."

[That is a complete lie. Studies have shown prayer does help people recover faster after surgery, help them have less mental and physical problems, and have better life outlook.] 

 "Every single "answered prayer" is nothing more than a coincidence."

[This depends what is meant by coincidence. Is it coincidence that a bell rings and you hear a sound or you eat and you get less hungry with each bite? While those might be more cause and affect then coincidence, consider the mathematical improbabilities to alternative explanations. This will come into play a little later.]

Both scientific experiments and your everyday observations of the world show this to be the case every single time.

For example, this article says:
    One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments.
    A review of 17 past studies of ''distant healing," published in 2003 by a British researcher, found no significant effect for prayer or other healing methods.
This article from March, 2006 discusses the fact that the same conclusion was reached in another study:

    In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications. 

    [Interesting but suffers from one major problem: if he is so quick to dismiss prayer because it's "just a coincidence", couldn't an equal and better case be made that prayer not working is just a coincidence or would that be too biased for atheist's taste?]
In this article we find an amazing quote where theologians and religious leaders declare that prayer has no actual effect:
    Religious leaders will breathe a sigh of relief at the news that so-called intercessory prayer is medically ineffective. In a large and much touted scientific study, one group of patients was told that strangers would pray for them, a second group was told strangers might or might not pray for them, and a third group was not prayed for at all. The $2.4 million study found that the strangers' prayers did not help patients' recovery. 
    [A very misleading statement from an ill informed article. The only people they mention are Paul Tillich and Karl Barth. Both were theologians but neither were ever considered religious leaders. The quote is from the article's author, not from a religious leader. I like the part where it claims the Lord's Prayer doesn't ask God to intervene in human affairs....except for that whole "lead us not into temptation" thing.]
This is a remarkable example of "positive spin" -- religious leaders are "breathing a sigh of relief" because prayer has been shown to be meaningless. The fact that prayer is a total waste of time does not matter to them. 

[ If anything, his article is total waste of time. While the jury overall is still out as to whether prayer's effects can be proven by strict science, here's what we do so far:
1. A study in British Medical Journal in 2001 showed by praying a rosary,  baroreflex sensitivity increased significantly in cardiovascular patients. 
2. Another 2008 study showed higher levels of prayer were associated with better mental health as measured by lower psychoticism scores.
3. A 2001 study by Meisenhelder and Chandler analyzed data obtained from 1,421 Presbyterian pastors surveyed by mail and found that their self-reported frequency of prayer was well-correlated with their self-perception of health and vitality. 
Do these sound like a waste of time to you?]

It does not matter that all of Jesus' promises about prayer in the Bible have been proven completely false. 

[More about this to come]

 A peer-reviewed scientific study published in 2001 did indicate that prayer works. According to this article:
    "On October 2, 2001, the New York Times reported that researchers at prestigious Columbia University Medical Center in New York had discovered something quite extraordinary. Using virtually foolproof scientific methods the researchers had demonstrated that infertile women who were prayed for by Christian prayer groups became pregnant twice as often as those who did not have people praying for them. The study was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. Even the researchers were shocked. The study's results could only be described as miraculous."
This study was later proven to be completely fraudulent. However, everyone who cut out the original article in the NYTimes and posted it on their refrigerators still has that article as "proof" that prayer works. This article entitled A prayer before dying uncovers another case where a "scientific study" of prayer is unmasked as fraudulent.

[So what about the ones that were not fraudulent?]
The dictionary defines the word "superstition" in this way:

    An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. [ref

    [Prayer has never been considered superstition]

The belief in prayer is a superstition. It has been proven scientifically over and over again.
[Except it hasn't as several verified studies have shown.]

Another proof that atheists are idiots.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The fourteen days from June 21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to July 4, Independence Day, are dedicated to this “fortnight for freedom”—a great hymn of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face of persecution by political power—St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More, St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter afortnight-for-freedom-montagend Paul, and the First Martyrs of the Church of Rome.  Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action will emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country have scheduled special events that support a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty. 

Prayer for the Protection of Religious Liberty

O God our Creator,
Through the power and working of your Holy Spirit,
you call us to live out our faith in the midst of the world,
bringing the light and the saving truth of the Gospel
to every corner of society.
We ask you to bless us
in our vigilance for the gift of religious liberty.
Give us the strength of mind and heart
to readily defend our freedoms when they are threatened;
give us courage in making our voices heard
on behalf of the rights of your Church
and the freedom of conscience of all people of faith.
Grant, we pray, O heavenly Father,
a clear and united voice to all your sons and daughters
gathered in your Church
in this decisive hour in the history of our nation,
so that, with every trial withstood
and every danger overcome—
for the sake of our children, our grandchildren,
and all who come after us—
this great land will always be "one nation, under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Refuting God is Imaginary: #1

A response to proof #1 of God is Imaginary.
Let’s think carefully about proof #1 and see if succeeds in showing that god is imaginary. If it does, that’s big news; we’d have found out something very interesting. We may express proof #1 succinctly as follows:
  • Premise 1: According to the Bible, if we ask for all cancer to be cured, it will be.
  • Premise 2: But, if we ask for all cancer to be cured, it won’t be cured.
  • Therefore: The God of the Bible is imaginary.
Let’s start by thinking about the logic of this argument. Suppose its premises are true. It then follows that at least some of the Bible’s statements about prayer are mistaken. But now notice that the conclusion says more than that. It says that the God of the Bible is imaginary. How does that follow from the premises? To reach that conclusion, we need an additional premise—something like this:
  • Premise 3: If some of the Bible’s statements about prayer are mistaken, then the God of the Bible is imaginary.
Now it’s worth pointing out that the author of proof #1 doesn’t even discuss anything like Premise 3. It appears to be a background assumption. But for the proof to succeed, Premise 3, or something like it, needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise, the argument is logically invalid: the conclusion doesn’t follow from its premises.
My sense is that the vast majority of people would find Premise 3 implausible. After all, it seems perfectly possible for a morally perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing being described by the Bible to be real whether or not the Bible itself makes mistakes. So, Premise 3 is questionable (to say the least).
Someone might reply that perhaps “the God of the Bible” just means “the God that would exist if the entire Bible were true.” In that case, Premise 3 would be axiomatic. However, then the conclusion would be compatible with there being a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being. And certainly any argument that’s compatible with there being a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being is not an argument that God is imaginary.
So, if proof #1 is indeed an argument that God is imaginary, then it relies on a dubious premise; therefore, proof #1 fails to establish its conclusion. It seems, then, that reflective truth-seekers wouldn’t be moved by it.
We could stop here. The proof fails to establish what it claims to establish.
But the proof fails in more ways than one. According to this proof, the Bible’s statements on prayer imply that God would cure all of cancer on account of our prayers. But the proof fails to rule out (or even consider) the following possibility: background conditions on prayer are implicit in the text.
Consider that according to Matthew’s account, Jesus says, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” He goes on: “not as I will, but as you will” (Matt. 26:39).
And elsewhere, he says, “This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven… your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:9-10).
It appears that Jesus thinks prayers must be possible to answer (so, no asking for square circles). And prayers must accord with God’s will.
Why, then, does Jesus say that “everyone who asks receives”? A standard answer, which proof #1 fails to address, is that background conditions on prayer are implicit and would have been understood by his audience. Indeed, that’s exactly what Jesus’ earliest followers thought: the Johanine text says that we know that we have what we ask for if we ask according to his will (John 5:14-15).
Now it certainly does seem good for all cancer to be cured. But the crucial question is this: could God instantly cure all cancer without thereby forfeiting a higher good? That’s a difficult question, and proof #1 doesn’t even attempt to answer it.
For all that proof #1 says, it may be that our fighting against cancer with mental and physical energy forges courage, compassion, and unique and special relationships between everlasting beings. What if some cancer allows us to become heroes in loving others? More generally, what if a finite stage of suffering can act as a means to certain everlasting bonds of love that far outweigh that suffering?
These are admittedly complex and difficult questions, with many books and articles devoted to them. So, if someone claims to prove that suffering cannot act as a means to outweighing goods, he better have a carefully spelled out argument to back that up; otherwise, reflective truth-seekers won’t be moved. Proof #1 offers us nothing of the sort; therefore, it fails in to establish its premises.
A Real God isn’t a Magical God

Jesus compares faith to a seed, not a magical wand. Seeds grow with time to produce fruit. There’s a process. And some methods of cultivation are more effective than others.

Truth is often complicated. Therefore, when a perfect being speaks truth, this being should sometimes speak about complex matters. What he says should sometimes baffle the simple-minded, while being discernible to the wise.
The scientific studies we have on prayer are actually compatible with a “realistic” interpretation of the biblical statements on prayer (contrary to what GII says). The only catch is this: some types of prayers appear to be more effective than others. The least effective ones seem to be prepackaged, one time prayers, from a distance for people one doesn’t know or care much about. A famous 2006 study indicates this. But when people pray fervently for people they care about, then the statistics change: such prayers have a statistical effect. Truth-seekers may wish to investigate studies referenced here and here.
Proof #1 is too simple. Its view of God is too simple. Its interpretation of Jesus’ statements is too simple. In a nutshell: it fails to address the possibility that a perfect, rational being might reveal complex layers of truth that truth-seekers may grow in their understanding of.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Refuting Atheists Claims of Greed (with News)

I haven't been posting on here for some time, and that's because I've decided to have a running theme with some upcoming posts. You may have heard of the website All it consists of is bogus arguments that sound interesting but fall apart when thought is applied to them. Now, there is a website pointing out all the mistakes God is Imaginary (or GII) makes, but some have not been covered yet, so while they have refuted some, many remain unchallenged.
So, for the next few posts, I will be posting some of the responses (giving credit where it's due), as well as some of my own.
In the meantime, enjoy this refutation of a commonly seen attack on the Catholic Church:

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Are We Sure It Wasn't the Useless Rally?

From Wikipedia:
According to the rally's official website, the event had three main goals:
  • To encourage attendees (and those who couldn’t attend) to "come of the closet" as secular Americans, or supporters of secular equality.
  • To dispel stereotypes ("there is no one 'True Atheist' "). Participation by non-theists of all political persuasions, ethnicities, genders, and backgrounds was encouraged. The intent was to show that there are secular Americans in every major demographic.
  • Legislative equality. Secular Americans should be permitted to run for public office and adequately represent non-theists, just as theists in office represent their constituents. Non-theists deserve a seat at the table just as theists do; the rally should put secular values "on the radar" of American voters.

Now, far be it from me to tell people they can't gather together and speak their minds (frankly, atheists have done a wonderful job bossing Christians around in this regard), but I really must ask one question:
What does this hope to accomplish?

So far as I can tell, the vast majority of Americans do not agree with the atheist agenda (yes, modern atheism has an agenda, and I'll say how I know this in a bit). Consider some examples from the rally itself:

-While the atheists may cross out In God We Trust on US currency, it has been ruled constitutional three times by the Supreme Court. In addition, 90% of Americans support leaving the phrase on money, according to a 2003 joint poll.
-While they may have left out "under God" when reciting the Pledge ( a phrase initially put in to differentiate America from godless communism, but I'm sure their admittance is just a coincidence), courts all around the nation do not agree with them. Not only does it not legally violate anyone's civil rights, but also apparently the atheists filing the case were not very "bright" as one of them, Michael Arthur Newdow, didn't bother to check to see if he could file on behalf of his underage daughter.
 -At one point, military officers had attendees who were in the armed forces recite their so-called secular armed forces oaths. I say so called because the Uniformed Services Oath of Office clearly ends with "so help me God." Although I wasn't there, I wonder whether the oaths taken were the US Marines Rifleman's Creed since it does mention God.

Speaking of legal issues, one of the rally's sponsors can't even get its own legal stand right. According to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's purpose statement, the FFRF  promotes "the constitutional principle of separation of state and church."
News Flash:  "separation of state and church" is NOT in the US Constitution and never was.

While I agree 20,000 at one rally is a lot, that doesn't really compare to the number of people at (let's say) the March on Washington or Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally or even the Million Man March. In fact, this is doomed to fail in the long run. Why? Atheists would have you believe that they make up 16% of the US population; the truth is they don't even make up even 1% of all Americans.

Combine their constant lying about their numbers, their arrogant ignorance concerning God, the rise of religious vocations in America and key places like Africa and Asia, and their rudeness to anyone who disagrees with them, and I think we can all conclude the same thing....
Atheists are idiots.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Fighting Gay Propaganda
The dark, intolerant, and abusive nature of the gay agenda
March 22, 2012
Fred Hutchison, RenewAmerica analyst

Over twenty years ago, I had an intermittent conversation about homosexuality with a gay man at work. Although he persistently brought up the subject, he would periodically fly into a rage and call me a bigot when I disagreed with him. That man went on to become a key homosexual organizer in my city.

Five years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of my newspaper concerning how the paper was becoming an organ of gay advocacy. I forwarded the letter to a group who received regular mailings from me. One man responded and disclosed himself as a gay. He accused me of wanting to submit gays to the equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. He used several abusive terms which reminded me of other encounters I have had with gays, including the individual mentioned in the first paragraph. I replied that I refused to be bullied and intimidated into silence.

Are gays inherently hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement, I wondered, or are they reading off the same script? Are they systematically organized to strike out at opponents, and to silence them through intimidation? The answer is that no, homosexuals are not necessarily hysterical, hateful, or intolerant by nature — but yes, this is something they have learned. It is a technique called "jamming," which is part of an elaborate program to further the gay agenda.

Propaganda and thought control

I learned about jamming by reading the articles How America Went Gay, and Thought Reform and the Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., President of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He is the author of the book Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (1995). Socarides drew a lot of his information about the program that involves "jamming" from the book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's (1990) by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. This book is a blueprint for gay activists for applying brainwashing techniques developed by the totalitarian regime of Communist China. These techniques were catalogued in Robert Jay Lifton's seminal work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China (1989).

The program borrowed from the Chinese and put forward for gay activism by Kirk and Madsen involves three steps: 1) desensitization, 2) jamming, and 3) conversion.

1) Desensitization — Through constant exposure to homosexuals on television, in the movies, on radio, and in the newspapers, the public would become accustomed to gays being a normal part of their life. The image conveyed would be that gays are ordinary people like everyone else. As the gays came out of the closet to show a public face, the startling aspects of gay perversion and pathology would be left in the closet — concealed from the public eye. The goal of desensitization is public indifference.

2) Jamming — The object of jamming is to shame gay opponents into silence. The shame comes from the accusation of bigotry and from social stigmatization.

"All normal people feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like the pack...The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicted twinge of shame....when his homohatred surfaces.

"Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths.... It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause." (Kirk and Madsen)

Notice the two elements — the shaming of the alleged "bigot" by making him feel like a social pariah and the depiction of the suffering gay to win sympathy. In my personal experience, I have met with two versions of the shaming tactics from gays. The first is the personal attack (ad hominem, meaning "against the man"). The ad hominem attack ignores the logic and facts put forward by the opponent and accuses him of being a bigot — i.e., a shameful being. The insult is pure assertion and unsupported by facts. It is essentially a threat to socially stigmatize the person if he does not desist from his opposition to the gay agenda.

This tactic is very effective in a politically correct group-think environment — such as college campuses and newsrooms. Politicians as a class are extremely sensitive to the threat of being publicly stigmatized. Remember Kirk and Marsden's idea that "people feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like the pack." These may be primitive wolf-pack group-think tactics, but they are powerful nonetheless.

Almost all of us have been through this kind of thing. A perfect example is the high school clique. Retribution for violating the code of the clique involves public shaming and demonization. One becomes an "untouchable" — a pariah to every clique and caste in the school.

A study of the life cycle of a business found that the terminal stage of decline was when group-think prevailed. At this point, the in-group became an end in itself and the customer became an inconvenient nuisance. James F. Welles, Ph.D., wrote The Story of Stupidity, which examined historical eras in which many people were seized by a self-destructive collective stupidity. In each case, group-think prevailed, and rationality and independent thought were driven out. "Political correctness" is a form of contemporary group-think that drives out common sense. This poisoned environment has created the opportunity for the abusive nonsense of gay "jamming" to flourish. However toxic and destructive wolf-pack group-think is, it is a powerful temptation that man, a social animal, is prone to, and which dictators make use of.

When I testified before the Ohio Senate Committee on the Defense of Marriage (DOM) Act, the Republican committee chairman, who favors the act, allowed those against DOM to repeatedly make charges of bigotry and hatred against those who favored DOM. He allowed them to run on with no time limit as they painted the gay lifestyle in glowing terms and wallowed in their personal pain from bigotry. Unfortunately, he did not allow those in favor of DOM to answer the charges of bigotry or refute any of the assertions the anti-DOM folks made. He refused to allow experts to speak about the tragic realities of the homosexual lifestyle. Why? He probably did not want to be called a "bigot" in front of the TV cameras. He was scared to death of public jamming and shaming. Even though he voted for DOMA, he was terrified at being publicly branded as not being "one of the pack." This accords perfectly with Chinese brainwashing techniques. Consider Kirk and Marsden again:

"...our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. Just as the bigot became such, without any say in the matter, through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, his bigotry can be alloyed in exactly the same way, whether he is conscious of the attack or not. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self-righteous pleasure. This approach can be quite useful and effective — if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends."

The gays have indeed been given massive public exposure by liberals on TV, in the movies, and within the print media. This aggressive use of the media has been a priority of the agenda of gay leaders at least since 1971.

The "frisson of doubt" inserted through emotional conditioning is especially effective on men in the clergy. They view themselves as men of conscience and compassion — and like to be seen by others as such. Thus, when the pastor speaks in accord with the scriptures and calls gay sexual practices a sin, he may feel an almost unconscious shiver of doubt and shame. It is not the shame of violating a universal moral law or upholding the truth of the Bible. It is the shame of violating a social taboo and the fear of being seen by men that he is lacking in compassion and sensitivity. It plays to the ultimate fear of many pastors, the fear of public disgrace.

Denominations like the Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, and the Methodists are in a pitched battle over whether to ordain gays, or to bless gay unions. Many of the theological moderates and many of the Bishops have taken to saying that they are "open" to hearing both sides. By taking no public position, they hide from the threat of being defamed by one side as being a "bigot" and a "hater," or being charged by the other side with being unscriptural.

The resistance against the gay agenda in the churches is left to the most conservative, the most principled, and those most willing to stand alone. Those who love God and truth more than they hate being publicly slimed by the gay activists and their liberal allies must often bear a heavy cost. When the liberal clergy seize control of a denomination and back the gay agenda, they ostracize the conservatives who oppose the gay agenda and exclude them from the seminaries, from denominational committees, and from speaking engagements. So much for liberal "tolerance" and "inclusion."

One aspect of the shaming technique is to portray how much pain the gay suffers as a result of the intolerance of the bigot. The movie Philadelphia, starring Tom Hanks, is a media tour de force in getting wide audiences to sympathize with the sufferings of a gay man and to be disgusted with the persecutions of his bigoted tormentors. Everyone who places a high value on compassion is bound to be swayed by the movie. It is one of the greatest masterpieces of propaganda ever put on screen. The not-so-subtle message is — "Shame on you bigots for not giving your approval to the cute and sensitive Tom Hanks — who just happens to be gay." With one stroke, the bigots are jammed and shamed and the gay wins sympathy. Brilliant propaganda — that. The Chinese would be proud.

3) Conversion — The third step is conversion of the public to be receptive to the gay agenda. Conversion requires a change of heart. The change of heart will occur "...if we can actually make them like us," says Kirk and Madsen. "Conversion aims at just this...conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the media." When the audience begins to sympathize with Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, the process of conversion has begun.

On television, gay comedienne Ellen DeGeneres once used abrasiveness in comedy. Since her public disclosure that she is a lesbian, she has emphasized personal likability. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy emphasizes a goofy cuteness and sweetness. Public likability has eluded the hard-boiled Ellen, but the "fab five" of Queer Eye have been fantastically successful in winning the sentimental favor of the public. No line is too sappy and no situation too mushy for the fab five. Don't you just want to hug them? Folks, this is conversion. Serious conversion. Never underestimate the gushy sentimentality of the American public. The cuteness of Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin did more to turn public sentiment away from slavery than all the abolitionists combined.

The big lie

The big lie technique has been used by almost all totalitarians. As explained by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, "Tell a lie, make it a big one, repeat it often enough, and a lot of people will believe it." The Chinese propaganda techniques used for the gay agenda are more sophisticated than the bombastic Nazi methods. But as true totalitarians seeking mind control, the people behind the gay agenda are promoting three big lies: 1) Homosexuality is genetically determined, 2) Change is not possible, and 3) Gay rights are part of the civil rights agenda. Homosexuality is placed on a par with race and gender. According to the gay agenda, these truths are obvious. No debate is needed. Opposition to these points signifies bigotry.

1) Genetic determinism — Genes determine human choices and the trajectory of human development, we are told. This means that the gay is a programmed automaton and has no choice but to perform those sexual acts which the genes dictate. A full menu of sexual perversions are written into the genes and require only the right opportunity and stimulation to express themselves. This is nonsense, of course. Gays have free will and choice, as do every human being. Sexual perversions must be learned through some combination of experimentation and instruction.

At present, there seems to be no scientific evidence linking particular genes to particular sexual practices. But there is scientific evidence to the contrary. A sample of 90,000 identical twins (who have the same genes) shows no meaningful correlation of the sexual preference for twins raised apart. Fraternal twins had a higher correlation. If genetic determinism was true, there should be 100% correlation. (Source: Bearman & Bruckner, American Journal of Sociology, Vol 107, No 5, 2002)

The Journal of Homosexuality, a gay publication, reports that certain gay-gene studies and gay-brain studies do not stand up to critical analysis. Many gays want the truth instead of the big lie. Others prefer the big lie. The author of one of the criticized gay-gene studies is under investigation for science fraud by the National Institutes of Health for Science Fraud.

2) Gays can't change

Dr. Socarides says that one-third of his former gay patients are now married and most have children. This corresponds with the success rate of the Betty Ford clinic. Another third of Socarides patients remain homosexual, but are not part of the gay scene. They report more control over their impulses and a more responsible approach to sex. The point is that two-thirds of his patients made positive changes to some extent. This excludes the blanket assertion that gays can't change.

3) Discrimination against gays is a civil rights issue

Race and gender are permanent innate characteristics that are fixed at birth. No moral judgment can be made of race and gender, because no one chooses their race or gender.

By contrast, gay sexual activity is a behavior — and a homosexual orientation seems to emerge in developmental stages. Individual choices and social environment profoundly influence the trajectory of development. Sexual perversions must be learned through experimentation and instruction. Such practices are subject to moral judgments.

In view of these facts and controversies, what we need today in America is a moral citizenry immune to such brainwashing and disinformation. If we are to preserve civilization in the face of the relentless lies and deceptive techniques of the gay agenda, enough God-fearing Americans must be willing to stand up for what is right, courageously, and make a difference in the culture war.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Pseudo-Catholics....Get Out of My Church!!!

Why Are These People Still Catholic?
By Mark Judge

Do liberal Catholics love the Catholic Church?

In my view, the answer is no. And I don't mean that in a malicious or pugnacious way. I simply mean that when you examine the true nature of love, liberal Catholics don't seem to love the Church very much.

Receive news alerts
Mark Judge RealClearReligion
Catholics liberals

There was a recent outrage over an atheist-sponsored ad in the New York Times that encouraged Catholics to leave the Church. I wasn't outraged at all. The ad asked a good question. If you don't love something, why hang around it?

Perhaps a contrast would help illustrate the point. If someone were to ask me why I love the Catholic Church, my answer would be somewhat along the lines of the following:

I love the Catholic Church, to quote Chesterton, because I believe that what she teaches is true. That is to say, I believe that God is not a distant and capricious force beyond joy and reason, but a person. Furthermore, I believe that, through the death of Jesus Christ and the gift of the sacraments, the Catholic Church offers freedom. Yes, there are rules based on scripture, reason, tradition and the natural law, but those rules and traditions are intended to bring us freedom. Both through mastery of the self and making oneself a gift to others, especially the poor, one if set free.

On a more personal note, I love the Catholic Church because she helped save my Irish ancestors during 600 years of British tyranny. The Church also came to America and built the communities and institutions that created the learning, prayer, friendships and joy that created the foundation of my friendships and education.

At Our Lady of Mercy on Maryland, then Georgetown Prep and Catholic University, I was taught about how faith and reason compliment each other. I realized that social justice is not only for the migrant worker who deserves a living wage, but for the unborn child.

Of course, there is also the intellectual tradition. I teach a high school journalism class at Georgetown University in the summer, and sometimes when I'm walking across campus or through Healy Hall I feel a surge of happiness and gratitude for the hands that built that institution. I share a Church with St. Augustine, Teresa of Avila, Dietrich Von Hildebrand, Ignatius Loyola and Dawn Eden, to name just a few. I have blessed enough to benefit from the wisdom of Blessed John Paul II, Josemaria Escriva, and Dorothy Day. I am a lucky man.

Yet as Pope Benedict noted in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est ("God is Love"), genuine love is not just good feelings, even if those feelings are grounded in reason. True love endures suffering and he emptying of the self even when doing so seems foolish; genuine love, in Pope Benedict's phrase, "goes all the way to the cross." This does not mean ignoring faults.

There was no one who was more furious about the Catholic sex abuse scandal than I. Like others, growing up Catholic I encountered priest, nuns, and other Catholics who were mean, petty, even abusive. Genuine love does not overlook these things. It aims to correct them, even using shame if need be. Growing up Irish Catholic, shame was a powerful and necessary weapon.

But genuine love does not make faults the central focus of all of one's attention. Whenever I see E.J. Dionne, Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Sullivan or some other liberal Catholic -- or "Catholic Lite," as George Weigel calls them -- answering questions about being Catholic, it reminds me of one of those verbally abusive spouses who can't even contain their anger in public. You know the type: the woman in the neighborhood who publicly humiliates her husband at a cocktail party.

The instant default position for Catholic Lites is criticism of the Church; their answers are never nuanced reflections along the lines of, "Well, in the recent past the Church has made some terrible mistakes and allowed some of its members get away with truly demonic sin, but I still believe in the soundness of the teachings."
Ask a Catholic Lite about their religion, and there is not even a preamble about how much they care about the Church. It's always some variation on this: "Well, I am proud of my Church's tradition of social justice, of feeding and caring for the poor, of involvement in the Civil Rights movement, of anti-war activism and speaking truth to power. I don't agree with everything it says, and I think we have reactionary pope, but that will change."

In other words, I am a member of the Catholic Church because it perfectly reflects my political philosophy. The parts that don't agree with I either ignore, or renounce; indeed, to establish my liberal and secular bona fides, I will lustily criticize the Church, in public, and often. In effect, my church is the Democratic party and the progressive philosophy. The Catholic Church exists to serve my politics, my narcissism, and my self-aggrandizement.

This isn't love. It's spousal abuse.

The controversial ad in the New York Times was spot on. Why are these people still Catholic?