I was on the fence about Pope Benedict. Looking back, I think my reservations all centered on the fact that he definitely was not John Paul. But, I've been watching & listening and Pope Benedict is a visionary in his own right and definitely deserves attention. I had read of this info awhile back and agree it should be explored......

Sorry to be leaving so many comments in this faith section. I am trying to stay off of here to tell the truth. I see another story about the Catholic church. Obviously stories are being picked that may create controversy in this section. We arent seeing stories that the Catholic church in Baltimore helped the poor this Christmas, etc. because they dont create controversy. However, someone was saying that all the administration in the church was necessary for one's edification and pursuit of Christ. I was saying that there is too much in this church between the parishoners and God. This is certainly an example of that. What can these scientists do to discover life on other planets? Are the going to send up any rockets? Are they going to go over data already recovered by past missions or by the telescope in space? The bigger question is: what difference does it make to us as Christians if there is extraterrestrial life? Doesnt God want us to spend our time with our faith in doing things that get us to heaven? Like spreading His word and helping the poor? Praying and worshiping Him? I dont see why the church is spending money on such projects as this, in spite of all the good that this church does. That doesnt mean that we need a rant here about all the terrible things that the church has done throughout history either. What is needed is middle ground. That is what creates change, and sometimes that takes a scolding to get started.

This is a very interesting story. It reminds me of life in Nebraska.

Hey, if we find intelligent life out there, just think how much they will appreciate our bringing them the truth of the Lord. Probably so much so that they will, no doubt, send a few planet killing asteroids our way to show their gratitude. If we are ever visited by an advanced species, I'm sure they will be so far advanced that they have already out-grown the need for silly god concepts and will probably see to it that we don't spread ours out into the galaxy. I can already imagine how they will view a Benny Hinn healing ceremony once our television transmissions reach them and would not be surprised that if on that basis alone, they will deem us a threat to civilized space and call for our elimination, just to be on the safe side.

Silliness will never replace Godliness. It cant. Thanks.

In you Clay silliness and godliness lie juxtaposed--side by side, never in opposition--or one better, in you godliness IS silliness. Boy the Catholic Church is more desperate than even I imagined. They know their days are numbered on this planet and they now go looking for the gullible among the extraterrestrials to seduce. Before this church drowns they better put the nuns in complete charge of the nutty priests. Ordain the women, for some sanity to prevail, send the promiscuous men to the gallows or better still, send them into outer space--fly them to the space station and release them without tethering them. They belong with the extraterrestrials they are trying to discover. Cardinal Giovanni Lajollo should be called Cardinal Giovanni LaNutto or La La land Giovanni. What the hell is he talking about? He speaks for the entire cosmos from the threshold of the Vatican? This sheep is not only lost, it suffers from the fatal mad sheep disease when it tries to extrapolate rescue from original sin into a cosmic event.
Ravensfan Anon

Never use mistakes that people make in any church as an excuse to not follow God. You are listening to satan if you do. If you try to dissuade Christians because of it then you are doing his work for him also.

Clay – You still seem to want to judge something you don’t have adequate knowledge about. This was a conference to discuss a topic. It in no way does any harm to one’s faith to ask questions and discuss possibilities. You really have no idea how the Catholic Church works so to make statements like “there is too much in this church between the parishioners and God” is irresponsible on your part.

Anon – I wonder if some secular organization had held a conference on considering the possibilities of extraterrestrial life would you be making such a childish commentary. Does it scare you that much that the Church actually is involved in sciences? I know you want to keep your closed minded view that the Church is all fairy tales and superstitions like your alter-ego Robert. It must be quite unsettling to you to find out that you don’t know as much about the Church as you think. To be honest the only one who sounds desperate is you. You want to believe so badly that the Church is in trouble. I’m sorry to break it to you but the Church and God will be here until the end of time regardless of how much you wish otherw

I have the opinion that God wants us to help the poor etc more than He wants us to spend time and money on whether or not there is life on other planets. I think that I am free to express that opinion without someone telling me that I shouldnt be expressing it because I dont know how the Catholic church works. Please stop harassing me on this board.

The church is in trouble Ravensfan--people are leaving in droves. The church will search for extraterrestrials and creatures who live in deep sea vents to find converts. I have always known Ravensfan, that the church has had a quixotic interest in matters scientific--I have not forgotten that Mendel was a priest Ravensfan--many Catholics are brilliant and erudite--that is precisely why the church is crumbling--they are not buying the church's oppressions combined with the stern lectures that are emanating from the priests who have lost the moral authority to speak. Have you read the poem called Ozymandias by Shelly? All things crumble to dust Ravensfan. The church is on its way there. And Clay--you can do both--search for ET and do good deeds right here on Earth. But if you find it hard to walk and chew gum at the same time, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Ravensfan Anon

Churches arent falling apart. Some have increasing memberships. I think they guy you are walking with lives below.

Clay – Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Had you expressed yours as you just did I wouldn’t have responded to it. It’s not my intent to harass you, and apologize if that’s how it’s appearing. But remember you have made quite a few unfounded attacks on the Catholic Church.

Anon – I haven’t seen any statistics recently. The last ones I saw covered 2006 – 2007 at that time the worldwide population increased from 1.131 billion to 1.147 billion. Maybe you have some more recent ones to support your claim. If you don’t I’ll have to take it as wishful thinking on your part. Even if you can show the number was decreasing how does that invalidate the message?
ravensfan

ravensfan - Last time the world population was in the 1.131 billion and 1.147 billion range, was sometime back in the 1860s. Today we are closing in on 7 billion. We should have been taking steps to limit population back in the 1860s so we could have leveled out at a sustainable 2 billion level around 1930 or so.

Robert – You misunderstand what the figure represents. That was a count of the number of Catholics in responses to Anon's comments of the Church's members declining in droves.
ravensfan

ravensfan - If there are that many Catholics in a world where the total population should be around 2 billion, if we are to live in balance with our environment, then there are way too many Catholics, as well as too many of the rest of us also. If anyone has a problem understanding numbers, it is the religions having a contest to out-breed each other.

Robert - Why would you think half the world population is Catholic? I did some research and found these on a website.

http://www.wholesomewords.org/missions/greatc.html

The figures come out like this.

Christian 2,199,817,400
   Roman Catholics 1,121,516,000
   Independents* 433,096,000
   Protestants 381,811,000
   Orthodox 233,146,000
   Anglicans 82,586,000
Muslims 1,387,454,500
Hindus 875,726,000
Chinese universists      385,621,500
Buddhists 385,609,000
Sikhs 22,927,500
Jews 14,956,000

7,524,266,900

If you have better information by all means post it.

ravensfan - Nowhere did I state that 1/2 of the world's population was Cathoholic (addicted to Catholicism). I stated that in a world where there are that many Catholics (your figures) then there are far too many of you, AS WELL as too many of the rest of us, to live in harmony within the limits of our dwindling resources and the Earth's ability to sustain us at a livable worthwhile level (2 billion), that the United Nations study suggested after extensive study by over 200 scientists and mathematicians. We need less of all of us, and because of the propensity for some religions to push over-breeding, far fewer of them. We should have begun our concern, and concerted effort, to address this problem a hundred and seventy-five years ago at the latest. Now the problem is complicated by almost 7 billion of us and people like you working to make the problem even worse through your ignorant superstitious beliefs and unwillingness to face reality.

Robert – I misunderstood your point from you previous post. As for how many of us can live in harmony the last time I looked at that scientist had not yet reached a consensus on what that number is. Most said population concerns, but there was still debate about what was a livable worthwhile level. Is your figure based on something or are you taking it as a matter of faith? In fact I read an article today where UN scientists while advocating free condoms in order to reduce effects of climate change they also admitted “it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change” I’m not saying that there is no problem. What I am saying neither they nor you know the extent of the problem. Like any alarmist you go off half cocked with half baked solutions attacking anyone who even questions your information. I’m sure you will do it to me in your next post. The truth is you make assumptions based on your own ignorant bias and judge all of us by it. While you are on the subject of facing reality maybe you should take your own advice and face the reality that you can’t look objectively at religion because it doesn’t fit your version of reality.

ravensfan - You are asking us to "err on the side of life" over the minute possibility that a newly formed zygote is a person, based on your religious beliefs, on the off chance you might be right. That is asking an awful lot based on no evidence that person-hood exists at that point, or that you could sell it to a world that knows it is clearly a religious position. THEN, you argue for the proliferation (which is what is going to happen if we do your nothing) of population and the resulting depletion of our ever shrinking resources (not even considering the by-products we are spewing into our environment) at a time when the most populous nations on earth are just demanding to get 'their share' of the shrinking pie. All of this has been laid out and supported by the data that you seem to think isn't worth considering. You can be so cock-sure about the life issue, which has no proof, and so dismissive of the overwhelming evidence that we, by our very numbers and misuse of the planet to support those numbers, are killing the planet. I don't know what you use for thought processes, but they are as screwed up as any I have ever been exposed to. Only Clay has you beat, but he seems to be in a religious inspired type of drug haze that makes me wonder how he can function well enough to survive. You cannot have it both ways and to demand that you can is the height of arrogance.

Robert – My religious belief says it is definitely a person so if I were arguing it that way there is no way I would agree abortion should be legal. I said if we knew the point that life does start up until that point abortion should be legal so to say my position is religious is complete lie on your part
.
“I’m not saying that there is no problem. What I am saying neither they nor you know the extent of the problem”

That’s an exact quote from my last post. How is that dismissive of the problem? What I dismissed was your figures and lack of facts. I also mentioned an actual story reported that very day Instead of making an intelligent rebuttal you simply choose to malign me instead. The FACT is that there is not a general consensus on what the sustainable population of the earth is. That doesn’t mean there is no problem. It means we don’t know the extent or have a workable solution. You can attack me all you want that doesn’t change the facts does it.?

There are other ways to reduce population that don’t involve creating then destroying life. To suggest that as a means of population control is the height of human selfishness and stupidity. You’re the one who wants it both ways. Creating life then destroy it because there are too many of us already. If that’s rationalist thinking you can have it. Maybe we should change the name from rationalist to rationalizingist that sounds like a better description to me.
ravensfan

ravensfan - You miss the point. You demand a level of acceptance for your definition of when life begins, based on log shot odds that you could possibly be correct. In as much as your definition REQUIRES that life is sacred from to moment of formation, it is, of necessity, a purely religious position that cannot be imposed on all because of constitutional constraints. Yet you insist we respect that position despite a total lack of evidence (outside of religious considerations) that has no more weight than of those you would oppress by imposition of your narrow perceptions. If life was so precious and sacred, then 80% of all fertilized ovum would not fail to implant and be spontaneously aborted as a natural occurrence (by your god, if you will).

On the population question (for which there is a mountain of verifiable proof)and all that that implies, yes, there are those who deny the proof that has been laid at their feet and they can go jump off a cliff for all I care. Their perceptions are driven by ignorance and denial in the face of the gravity of the situation, and their unwillingness to face reality. Some of them actually believe the data and somehow feel we should do nothing about it because your Jesus fraud is coming back soon to fix everything. There is no way to explain how so many can be so stupid, so ready to deny the incontrovertible mathematical proof that we are headed for an end that many of your kind are eagerly hoping will happen. You are defending a cesspool in the name of purity and cannot see the futility in doing so.

ravensfan - I stand on everything I have alleged and on the extrapolations made by people far more focused and knowledgeable than either of us, on where we are heading. That you stand as a staunch defender of delusionalism, explains much about how you are able to deny reality in the face of the mountain of evidence that has been amassed that shows we are not the special god ordained creatures you would have us to be. We are animals, higher on the evolutionary scale than all others perhaps, but not immune to the rules that govern any species that outstrips its environment's ability to sustain them. There are many ways to lower our numbers and we better use any, short of war and genocide, that work, and to hell with silly religious consideration that gets in the way, they (and you) are meaningless.

What you obviously don’t want to accept is that you could be condoning murder.
ravensfan

Robert - What point did I miss? In my earliest posts I acknowledged we don’t know when life begins. It was you making up definitions of when that was or when we should protect it. Do we know at what point life begins? If it were proven that life began at conception what would that say about abortion. The last time I checked the secular law didn’t condone murder so to say the issue is purely religious and unconstitutional is completely wrong. What you obviously don’t want to accept is that you could be condoning murder. Although I’m sure you will ignore it notice please I said could and not is. The one with the narrow view here is you. You’re the one taking the absolute position that life doesn’t occur until birth. To use the example of natural occurrences in order to justify giving someone the right to make the determination is without any merit. It’s a great rationalization though. By the way does the 80% number come from some source or are you taking that on faith?

I never denied there was a population problem. As usual you read what you want into my post and twist them to fit your bigoted view of Catholics and other religions. The only one driven by anything is you and its bigotry hate and fear. That’s why your post is full of personal attacks on both religion and me personally. You can’t intelligently make your point so you do the only thing you can make a lot of noise and trash me and my beliefs. It’s rather pathetic really I feel sorry for you. For someone who considers himself a rationalist you sound rather irrational. What bugs you is you know I’m right about not knowing the extent of the problem or solution. Once again it was you with the narrow minded view. What we need is intelligent level headed people looking for workable solutions and not a bunch of raving paranoia, finger pointing and name calling. Like most extremist the only way is your way and anyone who doesn’t agree is subject to ridicule and dismissed.

In the end unfortunately you will find out which of us is the deluded one and I truly feel sorry for you when that day comes. By the way you never responded to pointing out where in Revelations Christians are called to wish for the end of the world. Remember you said it was in the last chapter of the last book. I wonder did you read it or did one of your Catholic buddies mention it to you. What you stand on is meaningless raving paranoia and hate. Hopefully those working on the issue of population are more logical rational thinking than you. At least I hope so for the sake of the world.

ravensfan - Once, as a councilor at a Scout Camp (almost 50 years ago), I drew the unfortunate task of digging out the septic system of the camp Health Center. Thinking back on that experience, rather than having to wade through something like that again, I've decided your last post is just so much more of the same and I'll take a pass. You really need some help.

Are you guys working for God or for yourselves? It seems nothing more than a show of pride. What is the point of all of it?

Robert - You couldn’t make an intelligent argument you resort to insults instead. What a shame you can’t disagree without the need for such behavior. I have all the help I need thanks for your concern though.

Clay - You tell me to leave you alone, which I do out of respect and now here you are passing judgment on me. I guess can’t help yourself. My friend instead of worrying about me might I suggest you concern yourself with your own sins. Do you remember what Christ told the crowd that wanted to stone the woman for adultery? Maybe you should heed that advice.

ravensfan - Don't flatter yourself. There comes a point when responding to a disordered mind just becomes pointless. The disorder in the post in question was so convoluted as to be able to be used as an example of mental problems. You have such a need to be right, that any suggestion that your superstitiously derived beliefs may be flawed, is perceived by you as a personal attack.

Robert –I’m not the one using excessive name calling or trashing someone else’s beliefs that I disagree with. Instead of that insulting camp example you could have simply said lets agree to disagree or drop it, or something else neutral. Instead you chose to resort to equate someone else’s opinion and beliefs the equivalent of “digging out the septic system of the camp Health Center” In fact I don’t think you can make a post with out ridiculing someone or their thoughts who disagrees with you. Even in that last post you had to comment on my mental state. Tell me how that comment wasn’t a personal attack? Or the one in the previous post wasn’t.

ravensfan - Because you are clearly unbalanced. You look at any criticism of religion, especially yours, as a personal attack against you. You, unless you are god, are not the subject of attack, but when you exhibit an inability to differentiate between what is real and what is make-believe, using irrational fairy-tales as your proof of the truth of your argument, you open yourself to personal evaluation. Perhaps if you argued from a defensible position instead of the mound of drek represented by delusionalism, you would be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand. You are a die-hard defender of the shape of smoke and deserve all the respect that position merits, as we blow you away.

Robert - Here is just a few quotes form posts of yours to me.

“ I don't know what you use for thought processes, but they are as screwed up as any I have ever been exposed to”

“The disorder in the post in question was so convoluted as to be able to be used as an example of mental problems.”

“ravensfan - Because you are clearly unbalanced”

Maybe it’s me but those sure sounded like personal attacks against me. You do criticize religion at every opportunity, but you also personally malign anyone who disagrees with your views as somehow inferior. Everyone deserves respect unfortunately too blinded to look at anything objectively. All you’ve done on most of your posts is spew your own atheist dogma which has nothing behind it. Then attack and malign anyone, not just me, who dares disagree with you. The biggest challenge for me with you is keeping from saying something as compassionless as you. My hope and prayer is someday you figure out the truth and are at peace enough to be able to respectfully disagree with others.

ravensfan - You have illustrated your unbending loyalty to delusional ideas that you would have no problem forcing on woman to discourage them from exercising their right to not be forced to breed. You support every encroachment on that right, that the Right and your silly religion have put forward in the effort to kill abortion by increments. You are incapable of realizing the pragmatic side of the argument is the only one that guarantees your right to not have an abortion and protect the right of those who do not share your peculiar religious beliefs. As long as you are going to defend an institution that has no right whatever, to crawl into every one's bedroom, then you are going to have to wear the labels you have earned.

Robert - I haven’t tried to force anything on anyone. You seem to ignore that I said if science could prove when life began abortion should be legal up to that point. Do you think that little of women that you use a term most civilized people use for animals? What is the pragmatic side of ending what could be a human life? In fact weren’t you the one making up your own unproven and fairy tale ideas of when life began? If I were defending my religious position I’d be advocating abstinence and never accepting birth control or abortion. Your problem is you are so locked in on making abortion a religious issue with me because it’s the only way to rationalize and justify it. You assume because you can’t look at things outside of your narrow dogmatic view that no one else can either. You can’t make a true logical scientific argument so instead you resort to insults and raving paranoia about forced breeding. As I’ve said before using the standard you set for religion prove why abortion isn’t murder, which is illegal, and I’ll re-look my view from a secular prospective. Otherwise all I can do stick with my own view. As for the labels earned comment that yet another rationalization on your part to justify your own poor behavior.

You stand behind the position of your church and your church is trying every trick in the book to undermine freedom of choice, so don't lie any more, you are not good at it.

There is NO scientific argument that backs your notion that a fetus attains person-hood at the moment a zygote forms and NO rationale that would justify the "erring " in favor of your interpretation of when that point occurs. In as much as any definition of that point before birth (or later stage viability, being generous) that can be justified without invoking a "sacred" nature to it, the idea that we should refrain form having them up to a reasonable point (viability without extraordinary efforts) is absurd.

Robert –You couldn’t make the argument I asked for so you chose to call me a liar instead. You equate compassion and respect for life with religious term like sacred. Are you aware that one definition of that word is “highly valued and important”? Are you saying you don't highly value life or feel it's important? I wasn’t the one making up definitions of when life began or should be protected based on it. You in fact I believe you used the term life in one of your posts. I’ve said from the beginning we don’t know the point life begins. I stand on the Church’s position for Catholics only. Answer me this if there is no basis for erring on the side of life why do so many states have fetal homicide laws.

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/FetalHomicideLaws/tabid/14386/Default.aspx

Why would this unborn entity receive rights when someone other than the mother causes the end of its life? It seems to me my argument is based on far more than yours. Maybe that’s what really bothers you. You’ve bought into the dogma that it’s religions trying to force their beliefs. The great lie is freedom of choice and you’ve bought into it.

ravensfan - Give it up, the women of America are not going to give up their reproductive freedom and if it is taken, you better duck because they are going to fight to get it back. Chipping away at it will only make them angrier and give them time to become more imaginative in their choice for pay-back.

Robert – I can always count on your to counter a logical argument with nonsense. and now apparently veiled threats. I am touched by your concern for my well being. So if I understand you I should abandon my position not because its wrong, but because some women would be offended and capable of committing a violent act or some other act of pay back? This your new argument? Forgive me but I find it lacking any rational thought. Do you know who Norma McCorvey is? (Roe from Roe v Wade) She’s now an avid pro-life supporter. Here are a two quotes of hers.

“It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes”

“I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma,' I said to myself, 'They're right.' I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby!
I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception.' It wasn't about 'missed periods.' It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear”

I guess maybe she better watch out for that pay-back as well.

ravensfan - I think you can pretty well count on a vigorous push back from the people whose rights you mean to take away. If you are successful in re-establishing the conditions that led to self abortion attempts with knitting needles and wire coat-hangers (they will be sold in bundles of six and be called a "Stupak"), or the back-alley abortions that resulted in so many deaths of desperate, fully aware, already born fetuses, then you are going to have to accept an equal amount of violence in return. There are going to be a lot of very angry women out there and due to their physically weaker position, they will have to be more creative in their response, which could be vicious. My suggestion is that you suck it up and realize you are not going to get your way without paying a horrible price. Your stinking religious beliefs are not going to be allowed to rule this issue, PERIOD.

ravensfan - One more thing. Not making any threat, veiled or otherwise, more like a weather man telling you about a storm that's going to come, that you just cannot see.

Ah Ravensfan,
Roe is not exactly a supreme example of a mentally stable woman. So she weeps over what she considers a past sin and you want us all to stand up and salute you for digging up her bilge? When does life begin? To you when the sperm meets the ovum, to the bishops when the sperm is swimming toward the ovum--have you guys nothing else to do? The fetus is not self sustaining Ravensfan. It is not a person. So why do so many states have laws protecting the fetus from murder? In deference to noisy folks like you who lobby state senators to confer personhood on the zygote or even the blastocyst Ravensfan--that's why. In response to the Catholic Church that can drum up millions of issue oriented votes Ravensfan--the main issues being homosexual marriages and abortion. The politicians tremble Ravensfan when the bishops bustle about in their cassocks after a good go at the altar boys, these so called holy men atone for their sins and salacious pedophile fantasies by saving a fetus here and a fetus there and intelligent folks like you and Pattycakes waste everyone's time by demanding proof for the obvious--"when does life begin?" you repeat in your posts, "what is the true extent of the population problem?" and so on and so forth you divert from the topic at hand which is "What business do you or the bishops have in every woman's uterus?" --do you suffer from the opposite of penis envy--uterus envy? The bishops have a disease Ravensfan--they cannot sleep with women and cannot impregnate them--many do so surreptitiously but these nefarious activities we will forget--they are not allowed to do so openly and I postulate their uterus obsession comes not from any true concern for the fetus, but from a yearning to control women through their reproductive tracts--it is a primitive urge Ravensfan, just as primitive and fatally flawed as the Catholic Church itself, and the oozing concern of the church for the unborn when it treats victims of abuse as cavalierly as it does, dumping the hurt in sewers, sending them to perfunctory counseling, reassigning the offenders in other parishes, denying culpability for as long as it can, declaring preemptive bankruptcy as a clever tactic to avoid giving adequate compensation to the victims of abuse--the church's oozing concern for the unborn when it allows the abuse of the born is egregious and you take up for this church's vagaries Ravensfan--every one of the things I mention Ravensfan you will want proof for, even as you sit typing away your Catholic homilies at your computer--you ask for proof for what you know to be true Ravensfan because you are a committed minion of this church in perpetual denial of its follies.
Ravensfan Anon

Anon - Funny how she was a hero when she had the pro-abortion view. Now when she changes her view it you question her mental state. Not surprising since you endorsed invading the privacy of others on another blog to somehow black mail the Church to accept opposing view. Her mental state is probably much better now then back then. I guess that’s why you see no problem with two lawyers lying to a young woman in distress to achieve their goal. Wow that kind of sounds like what you and others have accused crisis centers of doing isn’t it? I guess it you see nothing wrong with that tactic if it’s done for what you believe in. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me Anon. As for when life begins we both know science doesn’t know the answer. You tell yourself otherwise in order to convince yourself that abortion isn’t sanctioned killing of possible human life. I’m quite sure fetal protection laws were on the books before Roe v Wade. Some may be the result of the pro-life movement and others the result of modifying existing laws after Roe v Wade. We also both know the only reason Congress listened to the Bishops is they needed the support of pro-life and moderate Democrats to move the health care legislation. If they could have gotten the votes with out their support they would have done what they usually do and ignore them. I’m curious why not bring some of the righteous fury that you and Robert profess at those who actually voted for the bills? You then go on to preach your own sermon using your own twisted view of what the Church is and what it stands for. Sometimes you sound like a more educated atheist version of Clay. Actually I’d say he’s better because at least his intentions are good even if his comments aren’t. Yours on the other hand have no good intention which is why you spend so much time attacking the messenger and not the message. One final question. What does atheist do on Thanksgiving? I mean since you don’t believe in God you really don’t have any reason to give thanks do you?
Ravensfan

We put up our feet Ravensfan and wish the turkeys well that may have to do the dying for folks like you to celebrate. Happy turkey day Ravensfan. What a long defense you write on behalf of the hypocritical bishops. They have caught you in their web with their holy water and their unholy lies.
Ravensfan Anon

Anon – I hope you had a restful Thanksgiving. So can I assume you didn’t eat turkey? Your response on Thanksgiving was pretty much what I expected. When you have an argument to refute you make it and when you don’t use an appeal to ridicule Other than the attempt at humor about Thanksgiving you didn't really address anything else I said. The position of the bishops needs no defenses since you really offer nothing to defend it against. I am curious on what “web of lies” am I caught in? Maybe you can shed some light on that for me.