Posted on 11/02/2012 7:17:23 AM PDT by marshmallow
(Reuters) - It's rare to be invited to an event five years off and even rarer to bicker about its details, but Germany's Catholic Church finds itself in that delicate situation thanks to an overture from its Protestant neighbors.
German Protestants are planning jubilee celebrations in 2017 to mark the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's launching of the Reformation, a major event in the history of Christianity, of Europe and of the German nation, language and culture.
The Protestants have invited the Catholics to join in, a gesture in harmony with the good relations the two halves of German Christianity enjoy and the closeness many believers feel across the denominational divide.
But even after five centuries, being asked to commemorate a divorce that split western Christianity and led to many bloody religious wars is still hard for some Catholics to swallow.
"It's not impossible in principle, but it depends on the character of the events planned," Bishop Gerhard Feige, the top Catholic official dealing with Protestants, said in a statement for the Protestant Reformation Day holiday on Wednesday.
"Catholic Christians consider the division of the western Church as a tragedy and - at least until now - do not think they can celebrate this merrily," he wrote in the text outlining Catholic doubts about the event.
LUTHER, A GERMAN GIANT
The Reformation began in 1517 when German monk Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to a church door to denounce corruption in the Catholic Church, especially the sale of indulgences to help build the lavish new Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome.
Excommunicated by Rome, he won support from German princes who soon battled others who remained Catholic. The ensuing wars of religion killed about a third of Germany's population over the next century and spread to neighboring countries as well.
After............
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
If Europe maintains it’s current course, there wont’ be any Protestants or Catholics left in Germany in 5 years;
There will only be Muslims...
...and the ashes and bones of Martyrs.
View it as being polite over the Thanksgiving table with you nutty inlaws.
Though the Free Church Lutherans won't be at the party one way or the other. The State Church has little use for them.
ping
Can’t vee all yust get along?
I saw reply with a hearty and gracious thank you, announce a new ordinariate, show up merrily and have a clip board for any sign-ups while you’re there. Perhaps, better yet, tape it to the front door when you get there.
Suggestion for note: Actun - 19 reasons the bishop thinks you should consider coming come back to the One, holy, catholic and apolostolic Church.
Ephesians 1:1-6 includes Catholics and Protestants who confess with their mouth and believe in their heart that Jesus is the Christ.
4 Therefore I, a prisoner for serving the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of your calling, for you have been called by God.
2 Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love.
3 Make every effort to keep yourselves united in the Spirit, binding yourselves together with peace.
4 For there is one body and one Spirit, just as you have been called to one glorious hope for the future.
5 There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 and one God and Father, who is over all and in all and living through all.
He himself never claimed to have done this, and he boasted about many exploits in his writings and in his "Table Talk" conferences without ever mentioning it.
The first reference to this imaginary event was written years later by someone who lived hundreds of miles away from Wittenberg and had no direct knowledge of the events.
The real beginning of the schismatic movement was not his theses (which were likely presented in the course of a disputation at the university, like every other formal disputation), but when Johannes Tetzel publicly defended his views - against Luther's - in front of a panel that included Luther, when Tetzel was obtaining his doctoral degree in theology.
Tetzel was given his doctorate over Luther's objections.
The fact that Luther was an Augustinian, that Tetzel was a Dominican, and that Dominicans were considered by Augustinians to have a very high opinion of their own scholarship and a low opinion of everyone else's, was probably a factor.
Luther was enraged, and publicly preached against Tetzel's views from the pulpit.
Tetzel was also enraged by the public airing of the dispute and Luther's characteristically aggressive verbiage and he took to the pulpit.
What started as a personal battle between Tetzel and Luther became a local cause celebre so that by three years later, Luther had become famous and the leader of a movement.
Another interesting thing is that the Magisterium rejected both Tetzel's high view of indulgences and Luther's low view.
Frisk them to make sure they aren’t carrying oil cans.
What Germany and the rest of Europe needs is a Christian revival. We used to send missionaries to spread Christianity to places like Africa and East Asia. Maybe some of the thriving Christian churches in places like Korea and Uganda should start sending missionaries to Europe.
All religion, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or otherwise was expunged from eastern Germany during the Communist era. It is considered the most atheistic region in the world. I don’t expect too many celebrations there.
St Nicholas Church - Leipzig 1989 (The Untold story of what brought The Wall down)
The Protestants have invited the Catholics to join in, a gesture in harmony with the good relations the two halves of German Christianity enjoy and the closeness many believers feel across the denominational divide.
But even after five centuries, being asked to commemorate a divorce that split western Christianity and led to many bloody religious wars is still hard for some Catholics to swallow.
"It's not impossible in principle, but it depends on the character of the events planned," Bishop Gerhard Feige, the top Catholic official dealing with Protestants, said in a statement for the Protestant Reformation Day holiday on Wednesday.
I've got an idea on how it can be inclusive and respectful! The German Lutherans can hire actors to portray the Borgia popes, Pope Leo X, and Johann Tetzel, and they can all throw chocolate-candy-coins to the crowd along the parade route :)
“What Germany and the rest of Europe needs is a Christian revival. We used to send missionaries to spread Christianity to places like Africa and East Asia. Maybe some of the thriving Christian churches in places like Korea and Uganda should start sending missionaries to Europe.”
My church has had missionaries in Scotland for several years now. The local laws there are very restrictive about what the missionaries can talk about and it’s almost as if it’s illegal to be a Christian there. If Scotland votes to go independent from the UK in 2014 people in my church expect that religion will be outlawed in Scotland entirely.
That is a sad development. The Scots were once known as the "people of the Book" because of their devotion to Christianity.
Luther's posting of the 95 theses was noted by his personal secretary, George Rore in a volume in which Luther himself later made notations in his own hand. Roughly translated the note states:
On the night before All Saints' Day in the year of our Lord 1517, theses about letters of indulgence were nailed to the doors of the Wittenberg churches by Doctor Martin Luther.(emphasis mine)
The significance of the plural of doors and churches is that it was the common practice of Doctor Luther, and apparently all others in Wittenberg at the time, to post the subject of the next day's homily; the church doors serving as a sort of public bulletin board. It would have been notable had Luther not posted the theses.
Tetzel was not awarded his doctorate until 1518, a year after the posting of the 95 theses. So while the Magisterium displayed its disagreement with Luther by issuing the Exsurge Domine of 1520, and later the Decet Romanum Pontificem of 1521, it displayed it's disagreement with Tetzel's sale of indulgences by awarding him a doctorate and keeping the money.
Be rooted in Christ!
Ephesians 1:1-6(sic)
You posted Ephesians 4:1-6 not Ephesians 1:1-6, which reads:
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, to all the saints who are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus. Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in Christ: As He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in His sight in charity. Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto Himself: according to the purpose of His will: Unto the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He hath graced us in His beloved Son." Ephesians 1:1-6
Here's a couple more for you to try and digest, hopefully with better success:
"And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us." 2 Thessalonians 3:6
"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21
Did they reject the money that came from the sale of indulgences? Would keeping that money be the medium view?
"Im Jahr 1517 am Vortag des Allerheiligenfestes hat Dr. Martin Luther in Wittenberg an den Türen der Kirchen seine Ablassthesen bekannt gegeben."
An accurate translation would be:
"In the year 1517 on the eve of All Saints Dr. Martin Luther had made his indulgence theses known at the doors of the churches."
This statement is ambiguous, not dispositive.
At no point does it say "were nailed to the doors."
Assuming that Luther carefully read Roerer's notes to this volume (it was a German language edition of Luther's own translation of the New Testament which he apparently used for reference at some point in the late 1530s - so I doubt he was focused on Roerer's annotations more on the text itself), and expressed personal approval of their historical accuracy, it really wouldn't prove that the theses were dramatically nailed.
And there really isn't any evidence that the church doors of Wittenberg were used as bulletin boards.
Tetzel was not awarded his doctorate until 1518, a year after the posting of the 95 theses.
Actually I believe it was awarded in early 1518, so just a few months after the 95 theses.
it displayed it's disagreement with Tetzel's sale of indulgences by awarding him a doctorate and keeping the money
The Magisterium does not grant doctoral degrees. The local faculty did. The Church kept the donations for the rebuilding of the basilica, because it is perfectly legitimate to request donations for the restoration of churches.
The reality is that when the Council of Trent was convened and the Magisterium clarified ambiguity on the doctrine of indulgences, Tetzel's expressed position and Luther's expressed position were both at variance with the Church's teaching.
However, Karl von Miltitz (the papal nuncio) had already evaluated Tetzel's 106 theses on indulgences in 1518 and told him that they were of questionable orthodoxy, and that he should refrain from characterizing his views as the Church's teaching. He did so refrain.
It is clear that you do not know what an indulgence is.
Would keeping that money be the medium view?
The orthodox view is that Luther's position (good works have effectively zero value) and Tetzel's position (good works have precise and measurable value) are false.
The orthodox view is that good works (like making a donation for the rebuilding of a church) have value as they proceed from faith - that they are not a means of salvation (like the saving grace that comes through faith), but they are a means of sanctification.
So you disagree with this:
Yet not until the question of the "sale" of indulgences arose in Luther's diocese did the issue acquire "legs," as the journalists say.
The "selling" of indulgences occurred in the neighboring diocese of Mainz; it was the spill-over into the Luther's diocese and into his confessional that brought the issue to his attention. The twenty-three year-old archbishop of Mainz had allowed indulgences to be preached in his diocese in exchange for a "cut" in the revenue raised. The money was supposed to go to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. In fact, the archbishop needed the money to pay a fee to the Roman Curia for a dispensation allowing him to hold three dioceses at once.
What was 'schismatic' about opposing the buying and selling of indulgences? Did not the Catholic church quit doing this when the stench became unbearable or just after they replaced the line of popes who dealt in God's business for money?
Do these guys? From the same link above:
How did something spiritual — an indulgence is after all a remittance of temporal punishment due to sin — come to be "sold"? The theory was that monetary offerings could count as a form of penance, when the donor truly gave sacrificially from his heart, with the proper motive.
Unfortunately, the practice easily degenerated into "buying" remittance of punishment for sin. Worst yet, "selling" of indulgences got linked to a misapplication of the principle of praying for the dead in purgatory. Catholic teaching was that one could offer one's penitential acts to God through Christ as a sort of "petition" on behalf of those who had died and were being purified in purgatory.
But five hundred years later, here one comes blowing smoke up our skirts about what was happening in those times. Luther was a professor of theology at Wittenberg, he was there and saw the abuse. Again, what was schismatic about opposing the buying and selling of indulgences.
I am NOT "offended" that an invitation was extended to the Catholic Church for the Luther celebration.
At least the offer was made in a very nice gesture.
I'm also NOT "offended" if the invite is rejected with good grace. My world will not crash.
This is how to get along in these "across the aisle" efforts and situations.....no one's principles are compromised, no one is offended, no one is a "victim"....the celebration and world goes on.
I should get the Nobel Peace Prize if someone will nominate me.
Leni
Ummm, find any German dictionary and look up the word "tur" or its plural "turen". Better yet, try any one of the on-line German-English translators and type in "turen der kirchen". The phrase quite unambiguosly means: doors of churches.
There really isn't any evidence that the church doors of Wittenberg were used as bulletin boards.
Someone should have told Pope Leo. Article VII of the Papal Bull excommunicating Martin Luther ordered that it be published by nailing to church doors.
I apologize for the wrong reference. (Can barely see - severe reaction from eyedrops)
The source uses the word "sale" and "selling" in scare quotes, demonstrating that indulgences cannot legitimately be sold.
What was 'schismatic' about opposing the buying and selling of indulgences?
A schism is a deliberate breaking of the unity of the Church. Luther did nothing wrong in opposing Tetzel's simony. He did wrong in denying the authority of the Church to define Christian doctrine.
Did not the Catholic church quit doing this when the stench became unbearable or just after they replaced the line of popes who dealt in God's business for money?
You forgot to add "when did you stop beating your wife?" to your string of rhetorical fallacies.
Anyone in 1517 who believed himself to be purchasing an indulgence was committing a mortal sin that rendered any indulgence for himself impossible, and anyone who believed himself to be selling an indulgence (an impossibility) was likewise committing a mortal sin.
The same was true before 1517 and is true down to the present day. I intend to avail myself of the plenary indulgence for the Year of Faith this week. Monetary cost to me: $0.00.
You should also truthfully detail the schizophrenic correspondence penned by Luther to Pope Leo X and reproduce in its entirety Tetzel's Vorlegung. You should but we all know that you won't.
The correct German phrase for that would have been "auf den Turen".
In the big picture whether Luther nailed his theses to the doors or adjacent to the doors is of little consequence. Most churches had and have bulletin boards, The church at Wittenberg was no different.
Unnecessary, as I speak German.
The phrase quite unambiguosly means: doors of churches.
Apparently you did not read my translation above, since that is precisely what I wrote.
However, equally unambiguously, Roerer's annotation says absolutely nothing about physical documents being nailed to the doors of churches. It says that the "theses were made known at the doors of churches."
There are ways of expressing one's opinion at the door of a church other than physically nailing them.
Someone should have told Pope Leo. Article VII of the Papal Bull excommunicating Martin Luther ordered that it be published by nailing to church doors.
Interesting that you would make this claim, since the bull itself shows how unusual such a practice was. Let's look at what it says:
However, since it would be difficult to deliver the present missive, with its declarations and announcements, to Martin and the other declared excommunicates in person, because of the strength of their faction, our wish is that the public nailing of this missive on the doors of two cathedrals—either both metropolitan, or one cathedral and one metropolitan of the churches in the said Germany—by a messenger of ours in those places, shall have such binding force that Martin and the others we have declared shall be shown to be condemned at every point as decisively as if the missive had been personally made known and presented to them.
The Holy Father is saying that as unusual as it may be to nail this document on a church door, that is the only way - given the impossibility of physically delivering the letter to its intended recipients - to communicate its contents to the intended recipients.
Clearly hand delivery is the preferred method. The nailing of documents to churches is an extraordinary measure that has to be spelled out.
So simony was Christian doctrine then?
Anyone in 1517 who believed himself to be purchasing an indulgence was committing a mortal sin that rendered any indulgence for himself impossible, and anyone who believed himself to be selling an indulgence (an impossibility) was likewise committing a mortal sin.
Impossible, and yet they were sold, you must admit, you accused Tetzl of simony. The Archbishop of Mainz split the take with Rome. More of what is believed in the field vs. what the Catechism states. The source didn't use 'scare quotes' they told it like it was.
I'm sure you'll rate an indulgence for your historical obfuscations on this thread. Monetary Cost to you $0.00
I am saying that there is no evidence at all to claim that the theses were nailed anywhere. Let alone on a church door, or multiple church doors or adjacent to multiple church doors.
Most churches had and have bulletin boards, The church at Wittenberg was no different.
The bulletin-board is a comparatively recent phenomenon. It is first attested in the early 1800s. Pasted handbills are older. Scattered leaflets are older than that, and were actually known at the time.
And, of course, the 95 theses were composed in Latin.
Printing was in its infancy at the time, and literacy was relatively rare. Literacy in scholastic Latin was arguably even rarer.
The tiny University of Wittenberg was not even 15 years old when Luther wrote his theses - it was not Paris where hundreds of passersby could be expected to be able to read and discuss theological papers written in Latin. 99% of the people in Wittenberg could not read the language the theses were written in.
Fewer could follow the arguments being made in them.
In context, it would have been an absolute waste of time to do this.
The reason why I bring up the legend of The Nailing of the 95 Theses, is because it is an example of the way folklore tends to dramatize and distort history.
If Luther was simply calling Tetzel a simoniac, that would have been no problem, since that is what he was. The problem was Luther denying the value of charitable deeds.
impossible, and yet they were sold, you must admit, you accused Tetzl of simony.
If I promised to sell you sunshine at midnight, would sunshine actually be saleable?
Not at all.
But if I signed a contract with you agreeing to deliver said goods at said time, I would still be committing fraud.
Tetzel arguably pretended to be able to sell grace (he would likely have denied this characterization), but if something is sold it cannot be grace - by literal definition.
You know where the term "simony" comes from, right?
The Archbishop of Mainz split the take with Rome.
Correct.
More of what is believed in the field vs. what the Catechism states.
Does it surprise you that human beings are not perfect, and that they are prone to sin?
The source didn't use 'scare quotes' they told it like it was.
The source quite clearly used scare quotes. The scare quotes are right there in your post.
I'm sure you'll rate an indulgence for your historical obfuscations on this thread.
If I obfuscated anything, you should be able to present contrary evidence.
But you haven't.
Proof positive that indulgences can still be bought, just not for coin.
Tetzl sold indulgences
Split the money with the Arch bishop of Mainz
Archbishop sent the cut to the Pope
The Pope wasn't Christ Vicar on earth at the time so this violation of Catholic doctrine means that the Pope/Archbishop and Tetzl weren't selling indulgences because that's impossible in the Catholic church.
Got it, no obfuscations. .Org first.
And I suspect that you do not understand what a "medium of exchange" is.
and the Archbishop of Mainz claimed 50% of the proceeds from these sales of courage,
and Tetzel sent the other half of these sales of courage to the Pope -
would that somehow prove that courage could actually be sold?
Your suspicions are unfounded.
But, let's assume he Scotch taped the theses. The fact would remain that Luther did not consider the Theses to be a mere academic exercise; he sent a copy directly to Archbishop Mainz. The fact would also remain that the Archbishop knew of Tetzel's sale of indulgences for the sins of the dead and profited from it. Whether the Pope personally knew, the Vatican also profited.
Huh? Luther's princes battled Catholics? When? Charles V the Holy Roman Emperor ordered that Luther and his followers all be arrested and burned at the stake--along with all of his books. The year after Luther died, in 1547, Charles tried it in the Smalkaldic war--and nearly succeeded.
In the 1570s the French systematically murdered TENS OF THOUSANDS of Calvinist civilians there (and even about 500 were murdered in what is now Jacksonville, Florida, by Spanish Roman Catholics--who went on to establish St. Augustine, FL.).
Throughout the 1500s it was clearly the Roman Catholics who had the upper hand...with vast amounts of money, and most of Europe's Royalty...and Protestants were nearly always defensive, not offensive.
The 30 Years War of the 1600s...which had about 1/3 of Germany killed, started on religious lines, but soon changed to nationalist lines...(French and German Catholics (or Protestants)found it easier to kill each other, than to keep alliances to kill opposite religionists of their own nationality).
Learned Catholic men from the pope on down defrauded the faithful out of their money by selling them something that can't be sold. Naw can't see why Luther was upset over that. Nor the legalistic Clintonian way it has been sold here today.
It was just a Friar?, and archbishop and the pope, but it sure wasn't the Catholics. Good job, that clears it up, thanks for your time.
Indulgences have nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins.
Again, you fundamentally do not understand what Luther and Tetzel were arguing about.
Aha! Proof positive that grace can still be bought, just not for coin.
Probably by verbally preaching his ideas in German.
Certainly the Pope assumed that nailing something to a church door would make it known.
He didn't assume it would. He hoped it would, since he was unable to have the message hand delivered.
But, let's assume he Scotch taped the theses.
Let's not. As I pointed out to another poster, his theses - written in unintelligible academic Latin - would have been as useful as posting Japanese poetry.
The fact would remain that Luther did not consider the Theses to be a mere academic exercise; he sent a copy directly to Archbishop Mainz.
The Archbishop of Mainz. Albrecht the Archbishop actually lived in Halle, right next to Wittenberg.
Like many university disputations of the time, it was not purely academic - but also political and addressed current events. It was undoubtedly a challenge to Albrecht - and one probably deeply enjoyed by Frederick of Saxony. Just as Tetzel's response was, in part, a challenge to Frederick.
The fact would also remain that the Archbishop knew of Tetzel's sale of indulgences for the sins of the dead
The terminology is confused, but much more than being aware of Tetzel's activity, Albrecht recruited Tetzel personally.
Whether the Pope personally knew, the Vatican also profited.
Oh, I'm sure Leo X personally knew. But the money not taken by Albrecht actually did go to rebuilding the basilica, as far as we know, since the work was actually done.
Probably by verbally preaching his ideas in German.
Certainly the Pope assumed that nailing something to a church door would make it known.
He didn't assume it would. He hoped it would, since he was unable to have the message hand delivered.
But, let's assume he Scotch taped the theses.
Let's not. As I pointed out to another poster, his theses - written in unintelligible academic Latin - would have been as useful as posting Japanese poetry.
The fact would remain that Luther did not consider the Theses to be a mere academic exercise; he sent a copy directly to Archbishop Mainz.
The Archbishop of Mainz. Albrecht the Archbishop actually lived in Halle, right next to Wittenberg.
Like many university disputations of the time, it was not purely academic - but also political and addressed current events. It was undoubtedly a challenge to Albrecht - and one probably deeply enjoyed by Frederick of Saxony. Just as Tetzel's response was, in part, a challenge to Frederick.
The fact would also remain that the Archbishop knew of Tetzel's sale of indulgences for the sins of the dead
The terminology is confused, but much more than being aware of Tetzel's activity, Albrecht recruited Tetzel personally.
Whether the Pope personally knew, the Vatican also profited.
Oh, I'm sure Leo X personally knew. But the money not taken by Albrecht actually did go to rebuilding the basilica, as far as we know, since the work was actually done.
Since these are of no account, I don't really care what the Catholics say about indulgences/good/charitable works and their effects. The wares bought and sold during the time were for remittance of sin. Luther complained that if the money could remove someone from purgatory, why didn't the Church do it for free for everyone. Because debts needed paying, basilicas needed building and profit must be made off the rich and poor faithful in their ignorance.
All historians of any repute, Roman Catholic or Protestant, agree that the 95 Theses began the process of Luther being stonewalled by the Roman Church authorities, not some personal spat with the discredited J. Tetzel.
Dr. Philip Melanchthon, who lived about 1/2 block from Luther, was a professor at Wittenberg University at the time--and was Luther's closest friend, co-reformer, and successor in leading the Lutherans after Luther died, said that Dr. Luther nailed the Theses to the door... That's pretty good eyewitness authority.
Nailing an announcement on the biggest door in town right off the town square, was a normal event--a lot like an office bulletin-board. Besides all that, the physical nailing is a minor point. The major point is that is was indeed the 95 Theses interference with the money trail...(for a VERY spend-thrift Pope) that got Luther in hot water.
Within 3 weeks Luther's Theses had been copied and recopied (including a version that actually goofed up the numbers...) and spread all over Germany. Without the printing press (then less than 50 years old) such a wide transmission of copies of a document would of been impossible.
I've been to Wittenberg, as I did graduate work there... and the Castle Church door is about the largest in town, and very prominent--a logical place to post an announcement, especially since tourists were arriving by the hundreds for the one of the biggest events in Wittenberg all year--the veneration of the relics in that same Castle Church, that next day, All Saints Day. Frederick the Wise had the largest relic collection outside of Rome.
Tetzel was soon arrested (probably for embarrassing his employers...Bishop Albrecht and Pope Leo X) after claiming that the plenary indulgence he was selling for those same employers....could give you forgiveness if you had raped the Virgin Mary herself...
Renaissance lover Leo was quickly spending the Roman Church into bankruptcy...and German money started to dry up with Luther's Theses, and later writings--hence the stern desire on Leo et al, to quash Luther and his kind....
All one needs to do is to follow the money trail, and the rejection of and persecution of Luther makes total sense.
To quote your own shtick, "what are you smoking?"
You've never heard of Luther's essay "Against the murderous and robbing rabble of Peasants"?
Luther called upon the princes to slaughter the offending peasants like mad dogs and held out as a reward the promise of heaven.
More than 1000 monasteries and castles were levelled to the ground, hundreds of villages were laid in ashes, the harvests of the nation were destroyed and 100,000 killed.
Glad I could help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.