Anti-Catholicism, Hypocrisy and Double Standards

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.

You are writing: I don't think God ever ignores - is unknowing about - any of His creation. All the time, "His eye is on the sparrow," and rumor has it that you are of more worth than many sparrows. So I'll need help with what you might mean by God ignoring me.

You were writing: “I try to hang around Him as much as He lets me.” I am not understanding this. God is limiting your access to Him? He is saying to you “not now” ? Or He is not saying to you anything at all? In my thinking this would be God abandoning the person to Satan. I am thinking that would be putting a person into temptation, much harder for the person to remain loyal, very lonely for the person. Would that not be leading the person into temptation? A person might always wonder is God with me? The devotion of the person to God would never be completely because the devotion of God to the person would never be completely?

He is slowly teaching me to choose Him every minute - using both positive and negative reinforcement. And that's kind of where the physical Therapy image comes back in. You know those therapists HURT you! They cause you PAIN! But it's easy to believe that they are doing it to help heal the wounded part of you. I tink GO is doing something like improving my strength and range of motion. And sometimes it hurts. That's when the erotic images, the wooing and courtship language comes into play.

I am thinking very different from you. God is Love. God does not create pain for us to learn, we are experiencing pain because it is a consequence of we are fallen, and we are easy target for Satan. When we are stopped listening to Satan and we are started listening to God, we canot respond without pain. We have let Satan break us. I am thinking that what you are calling pain and negative reinforcement from God is the pain we are feeling as Satan is pulling us to return to him. I am thinking that others are not making pain. Our bodies are making the pain. I am wanting another person to be moving me. I am wanting my body to be making the pain, to be telling me that I am being restored. I do not like to be thinking of others as people who are hurting me, most certainly not when they are being kind and are helping me.I d not want to be greeting them: “hello person who hurts me.” I am wanting to say: ”Hello person who makes me well.” I am not wanting names in my head that are not remindng me that this person is being made in the image of God and they are showing me God and that God is loving that person very much.
I am not understanding “erotic images” and I am not wanting to.
I am thinking that I am stepping into Hell every time that I am stepping towards Satan. One day I will not be stepping back to God unless I am now fighting for getting out of Hell.

We are thinking very different. Thanking you,

I am a convert (from Orthodoxy), so the Rosary prayer is new to me. It is a deep, powerful prayer that works miracles.

Madonna of the Pomegranate (Madonna della Melagrana)

Sandro Botticelli

c. 1487
Tempera on panel, diameter 143,5 cm
Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence

The picture's title is explained by the pomegranate in Mary's hand: this should be understood as symbolizing Christ's Passion, the wealth of seeds conveying the fullness of Christ's suffering. A comparison of this painting with Botticelli's earlier tondo Madonna del Magnificat reveals that the artist has now arranged the angels symmetrically, thereby avoiding the compositional difficulties of the older depiction. The Christ Child, whose hand is raised in blessing, is lying securely in the arms of Mary, but the sad, melancholy expression on the faces of mother and child are intended to remind the observer of the torments the Son of God will suffer in the future. The angels are worshipping Mary with lilies and garlands of roses. The Rosary is a prayer that was created in its present form in the 15th century, and rapidly became widespread. The beginning of this prayer is embroidered on the left angel s stola: AVE GRAZIA PLENA (Hail Mary, full of grace).
(Source)

While the present Rosary form with its association with the Psalms and the Gospels can be traced to 13th c., and is associated with Saint Dominic de Guzmán (AD 1170-1221), the practice of moving a knotted string through the fingers while at prayer probably predates Christ.

“No, the terms mediatrix and coredemptrix do not make God, but the use and meaning of those terms put her on the same level and with the same job as Christ Jesus.”(WT)

Though you keep claiming to not be a protestant, you insist on using protestant methods to argue. No one, and I mean NO ONE (except you) have ever claimed that Mary was “...on the same level...” as Christ. Those titles likewise, do not. That’s why I told you to look up what Catholics really mean by them instead of fooling yourself about them.I also notice you make a clear distinction between "God" and "Christ Jesus." Does that mean you do not believe in the divinity of Christ?

“The group of men that make Catholic policy, doctrine and settle dogma. I understand it’s called magisterium. As a Catholic, you knew that , didn’t you?”(WT)

Yes I do know what the magisterium is, but you are changing the subject, midstream. You said a council declared Mary divine. (You said “deified”) I asked for a reference, since I know that never happened.

“What did King James use?”(WT)

He used the existing Catholic Bible. He just changed it, and I do not even know if it was “King James”

“Very interesting. Since men can say whatever they please, we have a credibility problem.”(WT)

“We” don’t have a credibility problem; you do. You are claiming that your proof must be written, but that is not what Christ said. (SAID, not wrote) You are under the impression that written word is true, but not spoken word. Well, WT, men can write lies just as simply as tell lies, or the reverse, write truth as well as speak truth. Christ wrote only one time that we know about, and you know when that was, so I won’t repeat it. But He did say to listen to His Church....the same “Simon” you claim is a con artist in other notes. And, once again, let me remind you of the conveniently forgotten fact that there was no bible (Gospels) to read until the year 399, when the pope (the “Simon” in that year) approved the canon of the Bible. The “Gospel” was (and is) the spoken Word, as Christ very clearly said. Some parts of it were written down by four of the bishops, but they were not declared true and worthy of belief (by your “Simon” the con-man)in the year 399AD. According to what I understand of your concept for finding salvation, between the years 33 and 399 AD, no one could have the possibility of being saved. Is that it?

“However, Mary is nowhere found in the teaching of Christian principles by the disciples and Paul, nor is there mention of her past the Gospels. There is no misinterpretation and misunderstanding; there is nothing to misunderstand or misinterpret. All passages about Mary are clear and unambiguous, and to interpret otherwise is to require a preconception.”(WT)

You are using slight of hand here, WT. That is another protestant method to to deny. “Teaching of Christian principles by the disciples and Paul...” were by word of mouth; spoken word. Then you say, “All passages...” Paul wrote about specific problems to specific churches or people. There is no reason why Mary should be mentioned by him. You are talking about two different things, and making a connection which does not exist, and using that to bolster your point of view. What you are saying is that you did not hear the words from Paul’s mouth with your ears, nor did you hear Christian teaching from Simon-the-con-man with your own ears, so therefor, it cannot be true. I guess that’s beyond my ability to reason with.

“Worshiping Mary, described by kneeling before statutes thereof, praying to and calling “mediatorix” and “coredemptrix”. And, praying to any human being living or dead for any reason whatsoever instead of exclusively to God.”(WT)

There you go again, WT. Just how many times in this thread have you been told that Catholics don’t worship Mary, that she is not a god or deity. I know it’s at least a 1/2 dozen times, so far. It’s very hard to take a comment seriously, when you start off with what you know is a lie. I really wish you had read the link I put up about Bulverism, so you could, perhaps, try using legitimate argumentation methods.

“I disagree. Everything one needs to know to seek the kingdom of God and approach the Throne is found in the four Gospels only.”(WT)

That is a breathtaking statement, since the Gospels themselves say that is incorrect, not to mention, the written Gospels weren’t known to be true until 399AD. Is this the theory, “sola part scriptura”? Even Christ referred His listeners to OT scripture. I suppose when you make your own church, with it’s own dogma, that can be just as valid as any other non Catholic church.

“No problem, the way to god is simple and clearly laid out int he Gospels. Jesus said to seek the kingdom of God and all else would be added to you and that the kingdom of God is within. Leaves no room for any church whatsoever other than those of believers desiring to worship together. Especially not a church that cons it followers in order to suborn them.”(WT)

You are correct in this part: “No problem, the way to god is...” Your lower case “g” makes that statement true. It’s the thought that follow which is illogical. The “church that cons...,” is the Church that gave you the Gospels you claim to believe (with a few exceptions), so I assume you must say that, “I believe with all my heart what the Catholic Church says, concerning the Gospels,” but nothing else?

“And the kingdom of God’s exists within each human being. Jesus said to seek it, in belief and faith. The pope is a con artist, nothing more, if he departs from this simple teaching one scintilla. So are any Protestant church organizations.”(WT)

Christ departs from your teaching more than one scintilla. Does that make Him a con artist, too?

“In leaving a heir determined monarchy dependent on “royal blood”? Absolutely. the “royal blood” has simply been replaced by “royal spirit”. “(WT)

The Chosen People were guided by the blood line of Aaron. That was not only allowed, but demanded by God. Then again, you claim we need not believe anything from the OT, so I guess I can’t win this argument.

“I’m saying that the Spirit of God, within and available to each and every human soul without outside intervention, does not respond to any attempt of man to pass It one like some aristocracy, and place a human head over it so as to determine who passes and who does not.”(WT)

Well, I guess I need to make a decision whether to believe you or believe Christ. Ummmm...I think Christ.

“To assign a human gatekeeper, my friend, is patent blasphemy. You have been, and continue to be, conned. I don’t believe God blesses fools. “(WT)

I guess I’m a fool for Christ. -Glenn

“Point it out. Give me specific passages that somehow credibly validate May is placed on the same spiritual level with Jesus and shares in His work.”(WT)

Passages from what? I can give you historical writings, but you claim not even to believe the OT or St Paul, or the Acts. I have a funny feeling, I’ll be wasting my time and typing fingers. Besides that, I never said Mary is placed on the same spiritual level with Jesus, and as a matter of (forgotten) fact, I denied that repeatedly, but you seem to keep bringing up the same phrase, regardless. That she shares in His work is beyond dispute, since had it not been for her fiat, He would not have been born Incarnate.

“It’s indication that when venerating the Mother of God, she will always lead one to her Son.
This requires conditioned preconcreption to reach.”(WT)

It takes a conditioned preconceived notion to deny it. That’s what’s recorded in the Gospel, she said, and the teaching of Christians for 2000 years. If Pope William Terrell declares it doesn’t make it true.

“Why, no, it has always been simple to con people using their desire to save their asses. Simon did it and the Catholic church does it.”(WT)

And, some people are doing it now.

“Again, I am not a Protestant. I have the same problem with some Protestant churches that I have with the Catholic church, i.e. arrogance. “(WT)

Hehe, I guess you mean knowing for sure, regardless of facts and logic, insisting on their own opinion?

You may claim to not be a protestant, but you have sure learned their methods of “arguing.”-Glenn

I use the Bible as it is written and what it says. If that's consistent with Protestant arguments, then the arguments may be right.

The terms put Mary on the same level and with the same job as Christ. Words mean things. The prefix "co-" has a precise meaning that the Catholic church cannot change without sophistry.

I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but if you'll notice He makes a distinction between He and His Father. Referring to Mary as "co-" next to no distinction between God and Christ places the Catholic in the position of putting Mary equal with the throne of God.

Then whence came "Mariology" and the seed doctrine for it?

The written New Testament and the books therein were written by those who lived at the time and even knew Jesus, if not actually with Him. Then comes a council of men centuries afterward and make pronouncements on those writings, saying that they know things that weren't written. Then, they proceed to make labored interpretations of scripture and new doctrines not found in scripture that benefits the power and wealth of the organization to which they belong.

I'll stay with the written word, thank you. Even if there were additional valid material not written down, that which is written must be entirely sufficient for salvation. The addenda would make no difference at all.

IF it does, then we have serious problems across the Christian world, and Hell is full already.

So, you're saying that Mary, being assigned Mediatrix with the Lord God and Co-redemtrix with Christ Jesus was not worthy of mention by those who charged to bring the Gospel to the world? It was a "secret" word of mouth thing?

Simon was a con man. Peter was pretty clear about that don't you think?

There you go again, WT. Just how many times in this thread have you been told that Catholics don’t worship Mary, that she is not a god or deity.

If you treat a person like a deity, do things toward that person you would do toward a deity, acknowledge the deity of a holy one and place that person on the same level as that tone by terminology, you are worshiping that person.

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck and lays duck eggs, it's a duck, regardless of what you call it.

That is a breathtaking statement, since the Gospels themselves say that is incorrect, not to mention, the written Gospels weren’t known to be true until 399AD.

The complete plan, belief and faith through belief, seeking the kingdom of God first and the kingdom of God being within each individual, submitting to the laws of God already written and the frame of mind taught by Jesus is entirely sufficient by itself and all is written with great clarity.

The “church that cons...,” is the Church that gave you the Gospels you claim to believe (with a few exceptions), so I assume you must say that, “I believe with all my heart what the Catholic Church says, concerning the Gospels,” but nothing else?

Did the Catholic church write the texts of the Bible?

Christ departs from your teaching more than one scintilla.

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Matthew 6:33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Mere men are con artists. Every one of the Catholic leaders are, and always have been, mere men running an artificial entity dependent for its existence on membership of the only entities with souls that need saving. The organization has no soul.

You're right, you can't, because what you claim is false, Old Testament or not. The Laws of God are found in the Old Testament. The bloodline of Israel was necessary because Israel as a whole entity was a subject for salvation. Christ brought a new covenant. Now some con organization wants to garner power over men's souls using the same aggregate principle.

The individual is the only entity with a souls that needs saving. Jesus said that the kingdom of god, which we are to seek first, is within each of us. That gives no church on Earth any sovereignty beyond a meeting place for believers.

When individuals are ascendant, royalty, whether blood or spirit means nothing. That, and nothing else is needed.

Well, I guess I need to make a decision whether to believe you or believe Christ. Ummmm...I think Christ.

Well, then, good. Christ said the same thing I'm saying. That's Who I got it from.

I guess I’m a fool for Christ. -Glenn

No one is a fool for Christ if he follows His teachings. You may be a fool for a man made organization, though. Lot's of those nowadays.

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.