Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti-Catholicism, Hypocrisy and Double Standards
ConstantinesRant ^ | Sunday, July 22, 2007 | Constantine

Posted on 07/23/2007 3:36:15 PM PDT by annalex

Anti-Catholicism, Hypocrisy and Double Standards

Sunday, July 22, 2007

As a young Catholic I was unaware of the amount of irrational hatred that was directed toward the Catholic Church and Catholics themselves. Growing up in Los Angeles I was not subject to the Fundamentalist “tracts” being placed on my family car while we were at Mass as I would have been had I lived in the “Bible Belt”. My exposure to people of other faiths was frequent and always positive. The majority of my friends growing were Jewish as were the girls whom I had the honor of dating. My babysitter growing up was Mormon, as was my Paternal Grandfather. My Paternal Grandmother is a Methodist and my Father was an atheist for most of his life. My Maternal Grandfather was a Presbyterian from a family that produced many deacons. However, my Maternal Grandmother was an Irish Catholic and thus my Mother was a Catholic and therefore we were raised Catholic. None of this was seen as a conflict. None of the above people in my family ever acted as though anything was “wrong” with my siblings and I being raised Catholic.

In my college years I essentially fell away from the faith. I still called myself a “Catholic” but had no particular belief in any of the dogmas that makes one a Catholic. I just knew that I was of Irish ancestry and thus was “Catholic”. My beliefs were for the most part agnostic. I thought that true believers were absurd (I included both theist and atheist true believers as absurd).

While in college I heard all about how the Catholic Church was responsible for the Dark Ages, the destruction of the Native Peoples of the Americas, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, pimples on teenagers, Milli-Vanilli and just about everything else that negatively effected anyone anywhere at anytime everywhere. I learned how peaceful and wonderful Muslim societies were and how Christians lived very well under Islamic rule. And how the Crusades were an evil move by a corrupt Pope to throw off that wonderful balance and have a huge land grab for greedy Churchman and Nobles. I heard how nothing good happened in the Christian world and no good men were produced in the Christian world until Marin Luther and later "the Enlightenment". I look back now and marvel at how I remained a Catholic even if it was in name only. All my history professors with their fancy PhDs thought Catholicism was a force for evil in the Western World who was I to disagree? Of course I just went along and got good grades and degrees not really challenging the idiocy that I was being taught.

There I was just a young guy going through life not contemplating the great issues of life and certainly not contemplating being a Catholic when I had the misfortune to meet a Rabbi that was a friend of my wife’s family. During our discussion, the rabbi told me about things that Christians “buy into” like the Trinity and the fact that Jesus was God. I was told that I could never understand Jews and their suffering at the hands of Catholics. I was told that I “would never know what it is to be a Jew or how it feels to have your children forced to sing Christmas carols (oh the horror! the horror!)”. I would never know what it is like to look at someone like me and see the Inquisition and the Crusades. Now, anyone who is not a self absorbed bigot would know that talking to a person who is half Irish and Catholic knows a little something of prejudice and persecution. My ancestors could not own land in their own country. They had to pay taxes to a foreign English master and support his foreign Church that was a parasite on their own land. They had real persecution. If they could have gotten off with simply singing Church of Ireland songs rather than pay taxes to and be persecuted by the British, I'm sure they would have gladly accepted. But why look past ones on victim-hood in order to see truth, when victim-hood is so much more of a commodity in our modern society.

At that point I made a commitment to understand my faith. I would never let someone attack the beliefs of my ancestors as this rabbi did without making a strong defense. My ancestors were willing to be persecuted (the real kind of persecution not the Christmas Carol kind) rather than abandon their faith. The least I could do is understand what they found so important as to endure what they did. Thus starting my journey toward becoming a passionate believer. The irony of a anti-Catholic bigoted rabbi bringing me closer to the truth of Christ is absolutely wonderful.

I started reading books by the usual authors that are sold at Borders and Barnes & Noble like George Weigel. While informative they were, upon reflection, very superficial. However, I happened upon a book called “Catholicism verses Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating. I thought it was simply going to be an analysis of Catholic beliefs versus Fundamentalist beliefs. What I had purchased was a wonderful combination of satire and apologetics. It has become the definitive apologetics book produced in the last 30 years. The title of the book itself mocks Jimmy Swaggarts silly book “Catholicism and Christianity”. Throughout the book I was baptized by fire into the world of anti-Catholicism. I learned about such Fundamentalist writers and “thinkers” as Lorraine Boettner, Alexander Hislop, Jimmy Swaggart, Jack Chick and others. Keating dismantled their arguments so thoroughly that one wonders how these people are not all routinely dismissed even by honest Fundamentalists. Sadly, low rent bigots like Hislop, Boettner and Dave Hunt are still widely read in Fundamentalist circles. Swaggart has fallen out of favor as we all know. Keating opened up a new door to me. I now was ready for the next step and started buying every book by Chesterton and Belloc I could find as they are the greatest apologists for the Catholic faith in the last 100 years.

The Holy Spirit has a funny way of working. I became friends with a wonderful guy who happens to be a Fundamentalist Christian. As we would talk he would mention some of the things that Keating talked about in his book. I was informed that Peter never went to Rome and that the Church was founded by Constantine the Great, and that Easter is really “Ishtar” and other scholarly insights that occupy the minds of Fundamentalist writers. I was told all about Catholicism and how it is really just paganism re-written. To his and most Fundamentalists credit, they literally do not know they are repeating lies. These books are sold at Protestant Book Stores and Churches. Also, he informed me of these things out of love as he believed my soul was in peril. So he could not process the refutations that I would make to him and just go on to the next attack. Most Catholics know about this tactic that Fundamentalists use. They will tell us what we believe and how stupid we are for believing it. 99% of the time they are wrong. The problem is that they have been told by Dave Hunt (his bio is from "rapture ready") or James White that the Calumnies that they are stating are Gospel truth.

After a while I began to pick up more and more apologetics material to refute my friends claims. I also decided that I would no longer play defense with him. I would attack his belief in sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone). When I would press him and ask about where those teachings are found in the Bible he would have no answer. This lead to his anger that I was asking too much to show me where the Bible taught either one of those Protestant Traditions (Traditions of men, not of God I might add). I would also repeat what he would say to me but re-phrase it to see if he really was willing to stand by it. For instance, he once told me that he was passionately anti-Catholic. I responded “Really? So if I were Jewish would it be okay for you to tell me that you are passionately anti-Jew?” He was taken aback and responded “Of course not!” I then responded “I guess some hatred is acceptable while others is not”. His response….silence. And then move on to the next attack. That is generally the tactic of the anti-Catholic. Never acknowledge that they are wrong, just move on to the next attack until they find something that the Catholic cannot answer. Usually it ends with some obscure Pope from the 7th century that no one knows about.

Anti-Catholicism rots the mind. It blinds people and they become obsessed with the destruction of something that they cannot destroy. People have been trying for 2000 years. Churchmen like Roger Mahoney have done their best. But the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. So this leads to desperation. Which then leads to all kinds of ridiculous theories and outright lies about what Catholics believe and do. It does not stop with Fundamentalist Christians though. Before we think “well that’s just those weird bible-thumpers” let’s examine some things that people just “know”.

People "just know" that the Catholic Church did nothing in the Americas but persecute the indigenous people and massacre them. We "just know" that Priests never stood up to the Spaniards. Of course this is untrue. It is true that there were Catholic Priests who conducted themselves terribly during colonial times. However, it was Catholic Priests who sought to make life better for the indigenous people. Jesuits armed Indians against the Spanish in Paraguay, Francisco de Vittoria pleaded with the Spanish King in defense of the Indians. Most people in the Americas have never heard of Bartoleme de las Casas. Las Casas, a Spanish Dominican Priest has been called the Father of anti-imperialism and anti-racism. There is also Antonio Montesino who was the first person, in 1511, to denounce publicly in America the enslavement and oppression of the Indians as sinful and disgraceful to the Spanish nation. There of course were villains in the Spanish system but so were there in the American and English systems that were dominated by Protestants. We don’t hear about the brutality of Protestant lands in the US. We hear about those backward Spanish Catholics (who built the first Universities in the Americas) but not about the theocratic police state established in Geneva by John Calvin or the massacres carried out by Anabaptists in Munster.

In some cases anti-Catholicism is not only profitable it can allow for common bullies to slander and desecrate the memory of men finer than themselves without repercussions. Take the case of Daniel Goldhagen. He has made a career out of slandering the Catholic Church. Commenting on Mr. Goldhagens slanderous book A Moral Reckoning, Rabbi David Dalin, described Goldhagens work as "failing to meet even the minimum standards of scholarship.” He went on to say “That the book has found its readership out in the fever swamps of anti-Catholicism isn't surprising. But that a mainstream publisher like Knopf would print the thing is an intellectual and publishing scandal." This statement is absolutely correct. Let us be honest though, Goldhagen simply represents the double-standard that exists in our society. He is a left wing Jew who attacks the only group that it is acceptable to attack in modern American society, the evil Catholics. If a right wing Catholic were to make his living by attacking Judaism and slandering a prominent rabbi while blaming Judaism for the Marxist massacres under the NKVD he would be an out of work “conspiracy kook” and a anti-Semite. He would certainly not be published in the New Republic. Goldhagen has made the absurd statement that Christianity is anti-Semitic at its core. Imagine if one were to say that Judaism is anti-Gentile to its core. They would be isolated as an anti-Semite. The message is clear. A Jewish bigot like Goldhagen gets published by Knopf and the New Republic while his mirror image would be isolated and vilified.

I would like to wrap up with some other observations. All Catholics are told endless stories about Catholics persecuting people. Generally it starts with a Catholic King who orders the persecution of a group and despite the Bishops or Pope condemning it, "the Catholics" are to blame. An example of his would be during the Crusades when Crusaders massacred Jews along the Rhine. That was “the Catholics” despite the local Bishops hiding and protecting Jews. When a Protestant barbarian like Oliver Cromwell slaughters Catholics at Drogheda and sells the women and children into sex slavery or sacks Wexford that’s not “the Protestants”. That’s just Cromwell.

Much is made about Hitler being a baptized Catholic by ignoramuses like Dave Hunt. Other bigots like Goldhagen argue that Nazism was an extension of Catholic bigotry through the ages. Yet these people do not mention that Karl Marx was a Jew and that the ranks of the NKVD, some of the greatest murderers of all time, were filled with Jews. By using Goldhagens logic should we not attack Judaism and Jews? If we Catholics are and our faith are responsible for a former Catholic who later went so far as to persecute the Church, should not Jews be held responsible for Karl Marx and Genrikh Yagoda and the fact that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish. The answer is of course not. Your Jewish neighbor has likely not heard of the NKVD, Yagoda let alone support what he and they did.

As I wrap up my thoughts on this I should say thank you to all of the people that I mention above. Especially the Rabbi who started my journey. Had he not been a self absorbed bigot, he would not have angered me and I would not have explored my own faith. I would have continued in my ignorance and would not have understood the faith that built Western Civilization and sustained my ancestors. I would not have understood the faith that Christ taught to the Apostles, that was passed on to their successors, our Bishops. I would not truly know the joy of being a Catholic. His ignorant statements brought about my reversion back to the true faith and my wife’s conversion to it. For that, I will literally be eternally indebted to him.


TOPICS: Apologetics; General Discusssion; History
KEYWORDS: anticatholic; anticatholicbigotry; bigotry; catholic; doublestandard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 1,141-1,156 next last
To: Ransomed
Like my theory, do you. Why do you think the membership rolls of wicca are so dominated by the ladies?

821 posted on 07/30/2007 4:58:38 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
If so, then how does that square with 2 Peter 3:9 and John 3:16 and other verses that would seem to indicate that He wants all to go to heaven?

Why are you so quick to throw out Romans 9:

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”[f]
16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”[g]
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

822 posted on 07/30/2007 4:58:48 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: LordBridey
Well, "mere men" have always declared policy and doctrine, since the days of the apostles.

The policy and doctrine of the disciples and Paul was developed by Jesus Christ.

823 posted on 07/30/2007 5:01:41 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

OK so you are asking Mary pray for you to make you worthy of the promises of Christ. Is that because you believe that you somehow do not have the promises of Christ by believing in Him? It’s like you think there is still some distance to bridge between you and grace.


824 posted on 07/30/2007 5:02:51 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell; annalex
I do not think your reading is reasonable, because Jesus, Who knew the approaching passion, could have made the economic arrangements for His mother ahead of time. The reason he united St. John and His Mother at the pinnacle of His sacrifice must be related to the sacrifice itself, and its purpose.

I think you read entirely too much into the passage. He probably did already arrange it and repeated Himself in the press on the cross as His body was dying.

There is definitely way too much being read into that passage. The proof is that if Mary were being elevated to the Mother of the church, there would have been some more scripture about it. As it is, that is almost the very last thing we hear about Mary in the whole bible.

825 posted on 07/30/2007 5:07:21 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 693 | View Replies]

To: LordBridey
According to Catholic doctrine, the power to "bind and loose" was passed to Peter and thereon down to the Catholic church. Save the physical blood angle, there is no difference in that and the right of royal families divinely mandated to provide rulers.

826 posted on 07/30/2007 5:08:59 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

This passage doesn’t show anything that gainsays the idea that He want all to gain the Kingdom of Heaven.

Certainly He hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to teach lessons to the many. That does not mean that He wanted to send Pharaoh to hell. It would seem to me that Pharaoh did the will of God. Hardly the road to hell.


827 posted on 07/30/2007 6:28:52 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
This passage doesn’t show anything that gainsays the idea that He want all to gain the Kingdom of Heaven.

Except the words of the passage.

Certainly He hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to teach lessons to the many. That does not mean that He wanted to send Pharaoh to hell. It would seem to me that Pharaoh did the will of God. Hardly the road to hell.

People say that about Judas also. Not very logical is it.

828 posted on 07/30/2007 7:01:22 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 827 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

What words specifically say that Pharaoh is going to hell?

I don’t know about Judas and I don’t know about Pharaoh. All I’m asking is Scriptural evidence for your point - the passage cited absolutely does not indicate anything of it.


829 posted on 07/30/2007 7:26:07 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
How would getting saved end the journey

I suggest googling the scripture for perseverance; you will find verses like "he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved". So it is a scriptural fact.

How? Baptism -- what you call "being born again" -- gives the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the cycle of confession and the Eucharist gives strength.

54 ...Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

(John 6)

St. Peter teaches:

1 ... to them that have obtained equal faith with us in the justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. 2 Grace to you and peace be accomplished in the knowledge of God and of Christ Jesus our Lord: 3 As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. 5 And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge; 6 And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness; 7 And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity. 8 For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.

(2 Peter 1)

This is a program of lifelong sanctification, and salvation is in the end of it.

830 posted on 07/30/2007 7:27:31 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
The passage simply as read is Jesus turning the care of His mother over to John, in a way that tells John to treat her as he would his own mother. Any other meaning assigned would have to be result of a prior presumption about Mary already fixed in the mind of the interpreter.

831 posted on 07/30/2007 7:30:39 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster; William Terrell
there would have been some more scripture about it.

And there is. Mary was present when the gift of the Holy Spirit was given the Church (Acts 2). She did not need to be there for herself: she was a spouse of the Holy Ghost all her adult life. She simply was with her children. Here is Our Mother again

13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child: 14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

(Apocalypse 12)


832 posted on 07/30/2007 7:33:30 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: annalex

You mean that you have to get up out of bed each and every day and reach out for God’s saving grace on a continuous basis? You mean you can’t just dunk and go?

And this eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood? Yucky. And whaddya mean that a dunk and run isn’t good enough?

What kind of theology is all this Catholic stuff? It’s hard; who can accept it?


833 posted on 07/30/2007 7:34:12 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 830 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
The passage simply as read is Jesus turning the care of His mother over to John, in a way that tells John to treat her as he would his own mother. Any other meaning assigned would have to be result of a prior presumption about Mary already fixed in the mind of the interpreter.

I couldn't possibly agree more.

834 posted on 07/30/2007 7:49:15 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies]

To: annalex
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child: 14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

That's Israel.

835 posted on 07/30/2007 7:50:08 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
What kind of theology is all this Catholic stuff? It’s hard; who can accept it?

No kidding. Quoting form the article:

When I would press him and ask about where those teachings are found in the Bible he would have no answer. This lead to his anger that I was asking too much to show me where the Bible taught either one of those Protestant Traditions (Traditions of men, not of God I might add).

836 posted on 07/30/2007 9:00:32 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 833 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster; William Terrell
That's Israel.

LOL. A woman gives birth to Christ the Lamb, -- no, she cannot possibly be Mary, gotta be something else...

I can only quote William from the posts above:

Any other meaning assigned would have to be result of a prior presumption about Mary already fixed in the mind of the interpreter

837 posted on 07/30/2007 9:00:48 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: annalex
LOL. A woman gives birth to Christ the Lamb, -- no, she cannot possibly be Mary, gotta be something else...

Because the bible never uses metaphore...LOL

838 posted on 07/30/2007 9:02:25 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

This one is about as metaphorical as Luke 1-2.


839 posted on 07/30/2007 9:06:51 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 838 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell

I do really dig your theory! I don’t agree with it, but I think it’s interestin’. I am wonderin’ if the original conditioners actually worshipped Mary or not. What do you think?

I reckon that most women who actually admit to being goddess worshippers (there’s an earth goddess in wicca, right?) are much, much more liberal than your “unadmitted” Mary worshipping women. In my expierience devotion (I guess you would say an unknowing worship) to Mary almost always means that person is a religious conservative, at least within the context of the Church. You don’t find many pro-abort, pro-woman priest not-going-to-Mass-on-sunday women showing up at the church during the week to pray the rosary. On the other hand, I don’t think that I have ever heard tale of a women who was a self declared goddess worshipper who I wouldn’t consider a liberal. Maybe goddess worship attracts liberals or something, and women are more likely to be liberal than men?
Freegards


840 posted on 07/30/2007 9:19:38 AM PDT by Ransomed (Son of Ransomed saysKeep the Faith!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 821 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 1,141-1,156 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson