What Catholic Voters Really Think (Hint: It’s Not What The Vatican, Or Republicans, Say They Do)
Posted by Phoenix Woman on October 27, 2010
On the occasion of the Republican Party of Minnesota’s titanic efforts in trying to smear Betty McCollum and a DFL pamphlet praising the work of local Catholics in aiding the poor (a smear that one of its disseminators, David Strom, was forced to retract), I thought I would pass this on to all of you:
– Sexually active Catholic women 18 and older are just as likely (98%) to have used some form of contraception banned by the Vatican as women in the general population (99%). (National Survey of Family Growth, 2008)
– Catholics (69%) are just about as likely as non-Catholics to support medical research using embryonic stem cells left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures: Protestants (74%), other Christians (66%) and the overall population (72%) have broadly similar views. (Harris Interactive, 2010)
– When Catholic voters considered healthcare reform in 2009, and were asked about access to abortion, they supported health insurance coverage for abortion in many circumstances: when a pregnancy poses a threat to the life of a woman (84%); when a pregnancy is due to rape or incest (76%); when a pregnancy poses long-term health risks for a woman (73%); when test results show a fetus has a severe, abnormal condition (66%); and whenever a women and her doctor decide it is appropriate (50%). (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2009)
– Only 14% of Catholics in the US agree with the Vatican’s position that abortion should be illegal (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2009) and a poll released by the bishops themselves in late 2008 showed just 11% of US adults support the bishops’ preferred option: a complete ban on abortion.
– Only eight percent of Catholics believe that the views of the US bishops are “very important” in deciding for whom to vote. Seventy-three percent of Catholics believe they do not have a religious obligation to vote on issues the way their bishop recommends and 69% of Catholic voters do not believe they have a religious obligation to vote against candidates who support legal abortion. (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2008)
– The vast majority of Catholics (92%) rate the economy as very important; almost as many (91%) say jobs are their top issue in the coming election. These numbers are nearly identical among all major religious groups and the overall population (90% for the economy and 88% for jobs).
– Social issues, abortion included, are much farther down the list with fewer than half of Catholics and Americans (both 43%) rating abortion as “very important” during this election cycle. (Pew 2010 Annual Religion and Public Life Survey)
Just thought you should know.
37 Responses to “What Catholic Voters Really Think (Hint: It’s Not What The Vatican, Or Republicans, Say They Do)”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
David said
If you are among those percentages, or disagree with the Vatican, especially regarding abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, or gay marriage, you are defacto excommunicated. Just thought you should know. But you can study the church’s teaching, see why she teaches what she does (and has for 2000 years), repent and come back. Mother Church’s arms are always open to you.
Charles II said
To add to what John says below, David’s post is truly a silly one.
Yes, the Church claims it has been consistent its teaching on abortion and contraception. It also claims that Galileo was just a house guest. in both cases, disinterested parties do not agree with the Church’s judgment of itself.
The Church doesn’t have a consistent teaching on embryonic stem cell research because it didn’t exist 2000 years ago. And when science discovers the capability of generating life from every cell of the human body, including those normally shed in feces, mucus, and urine, the Church will simply look foolish.
The very fact that the Church has relied on assorted Old Testament laws–it can’t make up its mind whether the sex or the abortion is the evil it is attempting to condemn– in making these arguments shows that they are not built on the solid foundation of Christ, but on human invention. Galatians 3 is very clear in showing just how radical the liberation preached by Jesus was:
According to other passages in Galatians, the law is worse than a jailer, it is actually a curse! It certainly curses the Catholic Church by leading the Church to try to legislate actions rather than change circumstances and hearts. If the Church had poured all of the energy it has poured into crusading against abortion to ending smoking, it would have saved millions of lives, including those of many fetuses– fetuses who die in miscarriages that we blame on God because we are not honest enough to see the log in our own eye.
No, if the Church were genuinely teaching the gospel of Jesus, the gospel which stands on a sure foundation, it would be treating and solving the problems that lead women into seeing abortion as a necessity.
Instead, it gets involved in spreading ugly lies about specific political candidates.
You may have guessed that I would regard excommunication by the Vatican as a very high compliment.
John Donaghy said
Charles,
Interestingly enough the Catholic Church doesn’t have problems with stem cell research per se. In fact it’s applauded – and touted – efforts that use non-embryonic stem-cells in research. The issue is the Catholic understanding that an embryo is human to an extent that it should not be destroyed or used for some external purpose.
Furthermore, there are intense efforts in some places throughout the world – even in the US – where the Catholic Church does make major efforts to counter the forces that lead women into seeing abortion as inevitable. This is often on a personal level – through counseling, financial and emotional support, and even adoption. But the efforts at supporting the needs of the poor (except in the recent health care debate) are ways they try to respond on a structural level to the abortion question.
Gavin Sullivan said
Does Jesus’ gospel ‘stand on a sure foundation’? To test this hypothesis, I suggest consulting secular historians–who tend to view biblical narratives with considerable skepticism.
Perhaps it would feel flattering to receive an excommunication letter, suitable for framing–on the archbishop’s letterhead. But I hope I’d feel equally proud were I spat on and shat on by the Prods.
Charles II said
As always you make good points, John. It’s difficult to get at all the nuance in a complex situation.
As for stem cells, which are created not through abortion but through IV fertilization, I would counter that the Church is well aware that this procedure is used to allow childless couples to have children. The Church is also aware that the technology in effect requires that multiple embryos be created at once, and that couples simply cannot pledge to have eight children in order to have one. So, these embryos are created with the knowledge that many will simply decline and die. If the Church were genuinely sincere in its beliefs, it would insist that IVF cease. But of course forcing childless couples to remain childless is not a popular position, nor is it consistent with a gospel of life.
For the unused embryos to be used to save life is consistent with the teachings of Jesus. Not every seed that is planted, even in the mother’s womb, comes to fruition. Is God an abortionist?
As for creating alternatives to abortion, the Church does some of that in this country, too. The reality is that the earth is already overburdened with her children, and is starting to die. Even if we convinced everyone to live in simplicity, the earth is past its carrying limit. So, the Church’s policy–which pretends to be pro-life– will become responsible for death on a massive scale. This is where hypocrisy leads: to deeds that are done on behalf of this principle or that, but lacking in love or the humility to hear the concerns of others.
Charles II said
Gavin, the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is based on two principles: don’t focus so much on temporary things, but on transcendent things like Truth and Justice and Mercy. The second is to experience yourself through other people, to love them and treat them as you would like to be treated. If you follow these two principles, but do not believe in the miracles or the Passion or even the divinity of Jesus, you will become a Christian over time. If you don’t believe these things, then no matter what you believe, you will never follow in Jesus’ steps.
I’m sorry to hear that you like to be spat upon, at least by people who claim to be following the Way. My quarrel is with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, not with Catholics in general.
John Donaghy said
David,
Excommunication is restricted to several specific actions, not disagreement. If, for example, one solicits an abortion – deliberately and knowing that it is an excommunicatable sin, that brings excommunication.
By advocating one of these positions one may put oneself out of communion with the church, but that is NOT excommunication.
I do not advocate abortion or euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, or even artificial contraception. But advocacy or holding such a position does not excommunicate one from the church.
David, please be more accurate in what you write.
David said
Actually, John, no, it’s not so limited. Maybe the formal church pronouncement is, but putting yourself “out of communion” is “ex” “communion” hence excommunication.
There are different ways you can commit the same sin as the person who has an abortion in the situation you mention:
1. Counsel: Giving advice or direction to the wrong-doer;
2. Command: Ordering or inducing another to commit sin;
3. Consent: approving of the sin, before or after its act;
4. Provocation: Inciting or urging one to commit sin;
5. Praise or flattery: Inciting or urging one to commit sin by praise;
6. Concealment: helping one to commit sin by offering to conceal the crime;
7. Partnership: Sharing the fruits of another’s sin;
8. Silence: Not speaking out when we should, or not acting to prevent sin when obliged;
9. Defending evil: Attempting to justify the evil actions of others.
So if you suggest someone have an abortion, approve of the action, incite the action, praise the action, say nothing to the person, or attempt to justify the action, you’re out of communion with God, hence out of communion with the church.
If you’re speaking of formal excommunication, there is such a process, but the excommunication really takes place when you decide to commit such a thing.
The good news is that you just need to admit your wrong, to a priest, receive absolution and perform penance, and then you’re back in God’s graces.
I guess my point is that, while a majority of American Catholics don’t agree with the Vatican, that doesn’t make the Vatican wrong. It makes those who don’t agree wrong.
John Donaghy said
I am speaking about formal excommunication. Using the term in a loose way, especially as you did, speaking of de facto communication, clouds the real meaning of formal excommunication.
In addition, though I might agree to the intent of what you are trying to say about “committing the same sin” as the one who procures an abortion, I think that you are missing some of the nuances and the differences between the actions you mention. It is one thing to procure an abortion.
Charles II said
So, basically, David, you are putting yourself in the position of the Pope. Or making up definitions to suit your ends. Take your pick.
You are also setting yourself up as a judge over others. The Bible says not a word about prophylactics and, indeed, the Church even sanctions the very form of prophylaxis by which Onan displeased God. Of what sin is the man who denies a woman contraception, then brands her a murderer when she seeks an abortion guilty?
David said
I’m not judging anyone. I don’t know their heart. All I know is their actions. So, no, I’m not making myself a pope. There can only be one at a time, and Benedict is doing fine, thanks.
Excommunication is a complicated topic-if you’re interested, see here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm. Phoenix could be talking of formal excommunication, but that’s not the only kind there is.
Regarding contraception and sin, sin is anything that goes against the will of God. The Church has always understood the purpose of sex-to unify the marital bond and to procreate the family. Anything which stops either of these purposes is a sin. The Church has always taught that the only legitimate way to not have children was to abstain from sex during the woman’s fertile period. That’s not the same thing as coitus interruptus that Onan did.
Look, I’m not standing as judge or jury. I speak objectively. There are many times that people feel forced to go down an incorrect path, and as such are not culpable. That’s a pastoral decision. But anyone who claims to be Catholic and knows the Church’s position and opposes the Church’s rules in matters of faith and morals is culpable. It’s the same thing Eve and Adam did.
Charles II said
David, as for judgment, you’ve listed nine actions which you claim are identical in gravity to abortion. That’s setting yourself up as Pope. Or as God, really. Please don’t claim to be objective. Objectivity is for science, not faith. Claiming objectivity cheapens what you say.
Those of us who did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday remember very well how the Church pushed withdrawal as an acceptable family planning method. Maybe the hierarchy didn’t, but they would have had to have been blind and deaf not to know that priests were sanctioning it. Then again, the hierarchy seems to be blind and deaf to plenty of things, as in the Church pedophilia scandal, the role of the Church in repression of the poor in Latin America, helping Nazis escape justice, and other topics that come to mind.
Finally, your remarks on excommunication are properly addressed to John Donaghy, who also did not fall off a turnip truck any time in the last few decades. Phoenix Woman is my co-blogger,and posted on politics and how the Church has managed to alienate most of its members on the social issues by mixing politics and religion.
John Donaghy said
David, Please note that your citation comes from the 1909 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. The Code of Canon Law was revised in 1983. I am not a canonist but I believe you are pushing the meaning of excommunication and by using the formal term in an informal way are confusing others. To put oneself out of communion is one thing, to be excommunicated is another. The one is a personal act, the other is a formal action of the Church. They are related, but to conflate them is to miss the nuances and more.
Charles II, as far as I know, onanism – coitus interruptus – has been condemned as a means of contraception by the church for many years. (Note: there is some disagreement among scripture scholars about what was the sin of Onan – whether the major sin was his failure to raise up children for his relative. But the passage has been used to condemn coitus interruptus.)
PS – I like turnips ;)
Also, we’re quite a long way from the original post.
David said
Charles,
I listed 9 actions that the church says are equal in gravity to actually committing a sinful act. Actually, they did no such thing as preach withdrawal. They preached abstinance during a woman’s fertile period.
Ohhhh, there we go with the priest sex abuse scandal! I wondered when that would come out. To paraphrase a popular song, “One bad turnip don’t spoil the whole bunch, girl…” The actions of a FEW priests and a FEW hierarchy, none of which was church sanctioned. Regarding the oppression of the poor in Latin America, generally done by the government, the myth of the Church helping Nazis escape justice, shows just how much you like to revise history. Got any real proof?
John, it was actually from 1917, but who’s counting. The point being that there are many forms of excommunication. Phoenix woman was probably talking about the formal kind. But there is excommunication by actions alone. Putting ones self out of communion is exactly the same as excommunication.
You are right about straying far from the original post, but my original comment stands. And by the way, by saying that, when you’re out of agreement with the Vatican, you’re out of communion with the Catholic Church, I am conscious of the fact that when you point one finger at someone else, you point four of them back to yourself. I admit, I am not as Catholic as I ought to be.
John Donaghy said
David,
Putting oneself out of communion is NOT the same as formal excommunication.
Secondly,when you’re out of agreement with the Vatican does not necessarily mean you are out of the communion with the Catholic Church. It is related to what you are in disagreement with. If you are out of agreement with the Vatican’s opposition to the war in Iraq that doesn’t mean you are out of agreement with the church. If you are willingly and knowingly out of agreement with the nature of the Trinity, that’s very different.
NUANCES! It’s not completely black and white.
Charles II said
John, as I said, the hierarchy may have had a position against withdrawal to limit family size. But I have been following these issues for a long time. In the 1960s, with the advent of the Pill, the Church was on the defensive. For the first time, women could decide whether they were going to have children (other forms of birth control requiring at least some cooperation from the spouse). The
childrenchurch [definitely a Freudian slip there. On reproductive issues, the Church hierarchy acts like a bunch of children] wriggled and writhed on the issue. The abstinence/temperature method was derided as being completely ineffectual. There was, at least at the parochial level, an attempt to regain some control over the issue by permitting (or at least officially ignoring) withdrawal.They lost the battle. As Phoenix Woman posted, Catholics are widely ignoring Church teachings both on birth control and on abortion, because those teaching come not from Love, but from a desire to rule others. But I’m sorry, I was there and as a person concerned for the welfare of women am there, and I witnessed–and continue to witness– the hypocrisy.
If you’d like, I’ll concede that David is correct that this was not an official Church teaching, that the Church has consistently opposed family planning of any kind, even when the lack of such leads people–even the whole planet– into desperate circumstances. My point is that the Church is riddled with hypocrisy, and its teachings on birth control in particular are the product of cold hearts.
David, you’re the one who is making an issue of the pedophilia. Pedophilia does exist widely in society (and even more widely found is the abuse of young teens). But some people cover things up and some bring them into the light. The Church systematically covered up the truth and continues to minimize it, not just on the pedophilia scandal but on everything from Galileo to the Nazi Rat Line to its role in the recent coup in Honduras. The point is not a few bad priests. The point is a Church blinded by pride, deafened by indifference to suffering, claiming to know the Truth but routinely suppressing it.
David said
John,
You may not think so, but they are. If you’re out of communion with the Catholic Church, you’re out of communion with God. I’m speaking of matters of doctrine-abortion, contraception, euthanasia, etc. You can disagree on matters of discipline all you want. But say you disagree with the Church that you must go to mass every Sunday. This is grave matter, and when you don’t go, you are objectively out of communion with the Church. There are black and white issues, John, war is not one of them. Abortion and contraception are.
Charles, whether the “children” wiggled and writhed on the issue of contraception is not in question. Many did. Whether the Church waffled or not, they did not. They pondered the question, but came to the conclusion that has always been held. The Church has not opposed family planning, Charles, they have simply said that if you want to avoid children, avoid having sex. And it is not a cold decision, in any way. The definition the Church gives as to what the purpose of sex is-that it is inherently procreative and unitive-that this is the will of God that it be that way, and that therefore it MUST be that way, is the decision. It’s up to the “children” whether or not they follow, but the job of the Church is to guide the flock, to lead them down the right path.
Charles, regarding the pedophilia scandal…you think the Church (the pope, cardinals, bishops, magisterium in concert)in general did something to hide or minimize the problem. The truth is, some bishops did, and some of their staffs did. But it was never an institutional decision. In fact, if you look very carefully, when the complaints started popping up, the church looked to the secular world for advice on how to deal with it-and got terrible advice, but it was the consensus for correct action at the time. Common psychology at the time suggested that it was a treatable problem. They treated it, and then put the priests back into the system. Certainly, entities always want themselves to appear in the best light possible, and certainly, they try to minimize the perception of what happened. The Church is a human entity. Also, the attempt to hide the individual incidents was, by and large, not an attempt to protect the priests as much as to protect the victims. In most cases, the victims didn’t want to be known and stigmatized. The Church complied. In most cases, the Church offered to go to the authorities, but the victims declined. At any rate, it is true that the Church handled the whole thing badly. Except for the fact that, in the early years of the millenium, around 2002, the Vatican, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, began putting in place a zeo tolerance policy. The absence of cases that occurred since then has spoken volumes. But let’s look at other institutions responsible for caring for our children…public schools, and Protestant churches. When questioned anonymously, Protestant pastors have about a 10% positive on whether they have had inappropriate contact with children. Looking at public schools, we see accusations all the time that don’t get reported to the authorities unless the school verifies what happened. And your thinking that the Church is indifferent to suffering is misguided.
Regarding Galileo, briefly, Galileo did not have the instrumentation to prove his heliocentric theory. Again, the hierarchy mishandled the issue, but if Galileo had been able to prove his point, it may have happened differntly. Regarding the Ratlines, this wasn’t a Church sanctioned activity, though it was performed by priests. And of course, you ignore what the Vatican did to hide and spirit away Jewish refugees.
Look, nobody is saying that all priests are saintly, or anything of the sort. They are human. They make mistakes. And just like the apostles, who collectively deserted Christ, denied Him, were prideful, and betrayed him. The Catholic Church is holy because of Jesus, not because of humans. The Catholic Church is inerrant because of the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t mean that men can’t make errors. So if you’re saying the Catholic Church is a human institution, you’re right. But in matters of faith and morals, the Catholic Church speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit.
Charles II said
David, you’re clearly a True Believer– in the institutional Church.
Believing in institutions is not believing in Jesus. In fact, it’s incompatible with genuine belief.
I feel sorry for you. No one can tell you anything. So let’s leave it at that.
David said
I am a true believer in the Church Jesus gave us, which is the Catholic Church. Matthew 16:18-20 establishes Peter as the head of that Church, and also shows that it will persevere until Jesus returns.
You can stop patronizing, Charles, I don’t need your pity. I look to Jesus, Who instituted the institution. He chose Peter to be its head on earth, and promised succession when the apostles would die (where does that come from? If you start something that’s going to run past the current generation, you provide guidance in how it will be run. Jesus did just that.). Jesus left sinful men to run His church, Charles. There’s no doubt there have been some real scoundrels running the church at times. But that doesn’t mean that the Church has ever taught error in faith and morals, which is what Jesus was teaching. My Church is holy because Jesus is holy.
Charles II said
David says, “Jesus left sinful men to run His church, Charles.”
We can certainly agree on that.
David says, “There’s no doubt there have been some real scoundrels running the church at times.”
You admit that scoundrels have run the Church and do not hear the cognitive dissonance in the claim that “that doesn’t mean that the Church has ever taught error in faith and morals”.
This is pretty deep into Proverbs 26:4-5 territory.
David said
Charles, you disagree, but you don’t (and can’t)provide any example of ANY Catholic pope, or any cardinal or bishop in communion with the pope, who has ever taught a false doctrine. Every church, protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, and so on, is run by sinful men. Catholic teaching is protected by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus Himself promised. God will not let his message be diluted, or driven to the side.
Men have always tried to pervert Christ’s message, but as soon as they do, they’re not in communion with the pope. And the fact that a man actively engaged in sin is teaching God’s truth in no way dilutes that truth.
Thankfully, in any time when there was a bad pope, he was too busy being bad to worry much about church teaching.
But if you think a pope has ever taught error, I’d be interested to hear who, what he taught, and why it’s error to you.
Charles II said
David says, “Charles, you disagree, but you don’t (and can’t)provide any example of ANY Catholic pope, or any cardinal or bishop in communion with the pope, who has ever taught a false doctrine.”
David, you’re a very silly person. I told you this conversation was over, but you insist on proving to the world how little you know.
The Epistles themselves record the teaching of a false doctrine– by Peter (Gal. 2:11ff).
Indeed, the epistles are filled with examples of self-righteous people who imagine that they understand the fullness of God being shown how wrong they are. Maybe God will be kind to you and show you how steeped in pride you have become.
My guess is not, so please carry your rants elsewhere until then.
David said
I am a silly little troll.
Watch me play!
[edited by site owner for clarity.]
chuck martel said
Those twitter links are supposed to lead to some kind of information? If you can’t do better than that why not go back to canning pickles?
Phoenix Woman said
Twitter was where the smears were first disseminated (by your heroes Luke Hellier and David Strom), and where they were fought and debunked. If you want to pretend there are no links to websites in any of the tweets to which I link, go right ahead. But we know you’re a dishonest arguer, because we’ve seen you here before, Chuck.
Gavin Sullivan said
The Church only rarely announces an excommunication, usually directed at a politico-celeb-Commie such as Castro. The announcement ostensibly only makes clear a pre-existing spiritual status, vis-a-vis ‘Mother Church’–so the ‘de facto’ distinction is meaningless. Church-attending, communion-taking Catholics in the Twin Cities are an astoundingly heterodox and heretical bunch–and no authority figure seems to mind. If you’re scared by dogmatists such as David, you are timid indeed.
Phoenix Woman said
Gavin, I get the feeling that David is Not From Around Here. His MO looks a lot like that of the hardcore conservative Catholic evangelists that hang out at http://www.WordOnFire.org and scour the web for blog posts like this one so they can score points for taking on the heathen and the heterodox. (Considering I was brought up as a Lutheran, they’ll have a tough time with me.)
David said
There’s only one authority that ultimately matters, Gavin. St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.” Worthiness meaning those in communion with Christ.
Phoenix Woman, I’m not sure where “around here” is, but that really doesn’t matter. And yes, I do visit WordOnFire quite frequently. And I only comment if there’s something important to say. I hope it bears fruit for someone, whether that’s you or not. I know that all of us are heterodox in one way or another.
As I was saying, the fact that most American Catholics don’t believe what the Church teaches or believes does nothing to diminish what the Church teaches. And that’s my whole point.
Gavin Sullivan said
Thank you Charles II for clarifying that historical truth is immaterial to your religious affiliation–you just admire the viewpoints attributed to the Jesus character. (The two points you list are of the ‘infinitely elastic’ variety and thus anyone is free to claim himself as their paragon.) My fundamental quarrel is with the sniveling, the gullible and the semi-literate, Charles II–hence the crosshairs on your nose.
Phoenix Woman said
Somebody here needs to read himself some Dale Carnegie.
David said
Certainly every Christian can claim a portion of the truth. The Catholic Church claims all of the truth. Even non-Christian faiths have some of the truth. In fact,most faiths have most of the truth. But Jesus only proclaimed one Way, one Truth, one Life.
Charles II said
Did I say that the historical truth is immaterial to my religious affiliation? Hardly. I said that even someone who does not believe in the historical truth can become a Christian over time. During that time, his/her understanding will change.
Do historians know the Truth? No. They have arguments for why this or that may be wrong. But all it takes is a few months subscription to Biblical Archaeology to realize that there are arguments on all sides.
As a Christian, I understand that Truth is an aspect of God. I cannot fully know it. Some spark of the Eternal within me senses it, so I can seek it. Understanding our limitations is the source of genuine humility.
If I am right, and God is what is Eternal, then the Eternal spark within me will continue after this life. If I am wrong, I will have spent a life seeking Truth, with my pride kept in check by the knowledge of how small we are. That’s not a small reward, and it leads to genuine satisfaction.
The one who is genuinely unhappy is the one who does not believe there are Eternal principles such as Truth, Justice, and Mercy. All s/he has is justification to commit wrong. And small wrongs, like judging others, lead to larger and larger wrongs, but never to any satisfaction in life. Whether God exists or not, that person is in a kind of Hell.
Flee said
Well said, great post!
Gavin Sullivan said
The sniveler’s goal ‘to never judge another’ wouldn’t be advisable even if it were possible. The goal should be to refrain from stupidly judging others.
It would be difficult indeed to publish a 1,000 page book that didn’t include a truth, David. Criticisms of your ultradogmatic perspective are not resolved by ratcheting up the dogmatism level.
Phoenix Woman said
Wow, the http://www.wordonfire.org/ people must be paying David by the word (or the post).
David said
Phoenix Woman said
Touché! :0)