Free Republic

We have become materialistic, and children are considered to be burdens, inconveniences, and impediments to adult “happiness.”

One of the most hateful things I ever read on the internet was from an anti-Catholic here on FR criticizing poorer Catholics for their predilection toward large families. I'll never forget it; went something like: "In my experience, those who breed like rats usually live like rats."

Gives the impression of some wild man yelling and shaking his fist at the crowd.

You mean like a prophet? As I recall the Hebrew word for prophet means roughly to be as a "wild man yelling and shaking his fist at the crowd."

Wiccan chicks put out (they think it’s an obligation) and the “wiccan” dudes know this and act on it. It’s quite a racket.

Well I can only judge by my experience. Neither of the two witches I've known personally and would call friends were particularly promiscuous. Leastways not anymore then any other girls of that age.

Ironically the one witch who was [past tense] into the darker stuff is actually very anti-abortion now. If you want to have a surreal experience try arguing against a Christian who supports abortion with the help of a witch who's liable place a hex on the former for harming what is sacred to Diana.

Yes she was admittedly disposed to dancing naked in the forest under a full moon [I jest not], but honestly, I don't think she "puts out." It's a strange world; for example another wicce I know of is married to a holocaust survivor. [shrug]

You’d think 80% of the nation was wiccan, the way the media plays up the splinter groups amongst us.

All I know is that at the age group I hang with (18-25) I know at least as many people who've dabbled in witchcraft, or various other occult practices, as I have "practicing" Christians. I've tried to convince the ones leaning to far towards the really scary stuff to come back, but hell I almost don't even bother with the vanilla wiccans anymore.

Most of the 911 were from Suadi Arabia, most of the money donated to terrorist here is Saudi funded .All Saudi schools teach jihad. Something ain’t right in this world and it stinks of an evil allied force of elites.

Allowing the Saudis to get their hands on the Hejaz through religious extremism will probably go down as one of the worst geopolitical fubars the western allies committed after WWI. Right up there with the breakup of Austro-Hungary and the Sykes-Picot Agreement (which is, of course, what guaranteed Saudi ascendancy).

Saudi Arabia is the primary spreader of Islamic Fundamentalism. Iranian belligerence is not as dangerous, ultimately, as is and has been the imperialism of that rogue clan from the Nejd.

And Ken from "Street Fighter" keeps hitting me with those "AWWWYOUGIT!" upper-cuts! Oh the horror!

Just hit him back with a fireball... his is weak. "HADOUKEEEEEEEN!"

But still there’s a certain sense of “You made your bed, buddy, and we’re not sure we can get you out of it.”

They didn't make it all alone. A combination of Communist cold-war realpolitik and the political whining of the populist left here against a reform minded anti-fundamentalist ruler gave the world the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Thank you for the leftist progressive commentary.

Should have read..."If the rebels don't like the epitaph epithet they shouldn't have left the Church."

Damn Microsoft spell check!

"It makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with the reformed family and other families of the church," the group said in a letter charging that the document took ecumenical dialogue back to the era before the Second Vatican Council.

From the Catholic position, the "reformed" Church is the post-Tridentine Catholic Church. Those who are in continuous protest are in "rebellion," and will be until they adhere to a legitimate Apostolic authority. If the rebels don't like the epitaph they shouldn't have left the Church. We don't call the United States part of the British Empire do we? The Church of Christ is ONE, HOLY, AND APOSTOLIC. If you can't trace the authority of your leaders from the Apostles you're not really part of the Church [Henry VIII was not an Apostle, England's Apostolic authority was the Apostolic See, separation from which ipso facto removes local legitimacy]. "Christian Unity" will be between the churches founded by the Apostles and their successors... period, i.e. Rome and the various Churches of the East. Before unity between the Protestants and the Catholics can even be conceptualized they would have to humble themselves in obedience to their legitimate Bishops in communion with the Apostolic See.

Frankly I think all the complaints from Protestants about the Church's claims are missing the real point. The whole raison d'être of the Protestant churches is based on the assumption that the Apostolic See is corrupt and therefor why would they want unity with a corrupt Church I ask?

I'm not delving into obscure data here. South = devout protestant. New England = lapsed Catholics and atheists.

Catholicism in America has often had that problem. It's a side effect of the fact that this country is Protestant in spirit and therefor Catholics, and especially those Catholics from Ireland, came here with an inferiority complex that resulted in an "Americanization" of culture. The upshot was that they became accepted as part of America and in politics, but at the cost of their honest Catholicism. This is why those lapsed Catholics tend to parade Protestant notions of populism in religion from their adopted country against the authority of their inherited Church. Catholic politicians are the worst in this regard.

For that matter, is there really such a thing as an "average rational person."

Hurry up, we have to finish in time for the guitar mass.

Your anger is appropriate for one outside God's love (ie His Church). Telling a priest "F you", even a lib priest, is still a gross lack of respect for the office, and a sentiment we don't need in the Church Christ founded. If you are going to let the evil of our enemies infest you, better that you stay away from the faithful then be a cause of scandal.

Amend your heart or tie a mill-stone around it, but don't waist time by frothing obscenities and mocking the Vicar of Christ. You mock His servants and you mock Him.

Very well, I’m not going to argue with you any more. You win, I’m just a hemp-smoking ACLU lawyer type try’n to unhistorical place “secular-progressivism” in a period before the Marxists. I guess even the French Revolution is probably too close to the sacrosanct Age of Enlightenment. You’re right, progressivism came out of nothing, it has no political pedigree.

If you were trying to be silly, why did you not state so in your reply to my original post, rather than posting an even more bizarre “explaination”.

First because I was angry with the tone you took; second, being a historian (specifically a historian of ideas) I was compelled to explain the foundations of the original assertion as something more then mere "bashing." After all, most "Founder bashing" is based on some ostensibly legitimate foundation. For example slave owning. Now those who wish to discredit the founders on this are selective in their reading of history; ignoring the difficulty there would have been in outlawing slavery and some of the founders own reservations about the institution, they are quick to accuse the founders of hypocrisy. Wrong tho this assertion is a counter argument that none of the founders ever owned slaves would be equally asinine in its omission.

My point in the explanation was that the Age of Enlightenment was pagan in many ways. That part which wasn't was, due to other influences (mostly Calvinism), almost pseudo-zionistic. A good the example of this latter sentiment would be the original English revolution of 1649, which, though it had strong religious undertones, ultimately led to the more secular revolutions of 1776, 1789, those of Miguel Hidalgo and Bolívar, the 1848 revolutions, and finally the revolution 1917.

The strange combination of these ideas (divinely chosen nation, with secular progressivism) in the period of the Enlightenment resulted in a teleological view of human history and ultimately led to all the "progressivist" elements of our modern world. That the Founders were products of this period means that regardless of their consciously professed creeds, they were operating in what was becoming a post-Christian world. I would even go so far as to say that Christianity itself was in many areas succumbing to this "Spirit of the Age." Indeed the contemporary "paganization" of Christianity is something that even DeTocqueville hinted at in his book On Democracy in America. I could go on for quite sometime about that, but this post is long enough already.

The survey of 4,000 people found that 71 percent believe global warming is a natural phenomenon and not caused by carbon emissions, and that 65 percent think that climate scientists’ doomsday scenarios are tommy-rot.

At the risk of being accused of eco-fascism, or eco-phila, or whatever, it should be noted that polls do not in fact represent any useful data with regard to science. The reality is the professionals opinion are really the only ones which could be argued actually matter. The 71 percent may be right, but not because they are 71 percent.

I’m done with Bush. I don’t trust him--or any member of his Indolent family.

Death to all enemies of the Republic, long live the peoples revolution!

Am I to understand that you were so antagonized by my comment you felt the need to confer with a bunch of "elitist university types" over it?

Frankly I have a hard time believing anyone could be so obsessed with an off-hand comment that was virtually OT to begin with. But then again, here were are, what is it now, the 4th exchange, and you're still trying to attack what you think is an elitist liberal snob.

I also recommend that you write in more General-American prose, rather than Northeast-Liberal-Elitist prose.

I don't even know what you mean by that? It sounds vaguely elitist though, in a plebeian sort of way. Frankly I've always been told my writing style was byzantine, with bizarre grammar and spelling errors -- which were, for the record, due to my dyslexia -- certainly not "Northeast-Liberal-Elitist." That actually sounds like a complement in comparison.

As for the BS bit, a fellow Freeper told me what it meant awhile ago, but since I'd never actually seen it used in any of the threads I usually post on I didn't know for sure. As a matter of fact I've been reading FR since 2000 (I used to post under a friends name back then), but I haven't been to FR much in the past 3 years, so there are probably lots of FR conventions and courtesy I'm unfamiliar with. Thank you for explaining it to me, and I apologize for any errors I have committed due to my ignorance.

Also, just a side point, I can understand your disgruntlement about the "pagan" bit, but "nerd?" I thought that was what made it obviously silly?

Waiting patiently for the next barrage of denunciations
Your ever weaselly aloof "liberal-straw man"

Convince me that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America were the greatest thing in the history of the world since sliced bread and I will lighten up.

You can't be serious?

But your analogy is a bizarre transformation since you are comparing the founder’s understanding of liberalism with modern-day “progressivism”, which is communism (the ideology of modern-day “liberals”).

And if you'll read closely you'll note that this isn't my analogy. I was explaining how those modern "progressivists" see it.

Why the fixation on paganism within the ranks of the Founding Fathers?

Why the fixation on paganism within the ranks of the Founding Fathers?

Your not even trying to read my posts. You've formed a character of what I must be in your mind, and it doesn't really matter what's in my posts anymore...

then you are not above criticism, contrary to your own personal belief.

Well duh... I practically accused myself of being arrogant, but you must have missed it. The point of my comment was apparently to subtle.

But I am not isolated.

Yes you are if your MO is to characterize your assumed opponents as Streisand[?] ACLU types; as you did with your original post to me. I don't know if this strategy works in some parallel universe or what, but here it's the sign of a lazy mind.