Posted on 06/30/2011 4:49:27 PM PDT by stfassisi
True Soldiers in the Church Militant
 King St. Louis IX of France led the seventh and eighth crusades. He enforced strict military regulations against killing noncombatants and prisoners, holding the conversion and baptism of infidels among the highest of priorities. As a child, his mother would often say to him: "I love you my dear son, as much as a mother can love her child; but I would rather see you dead at my feet than that you should commit a mortal sin." |
Spiritual warfare in modern times
The body of faithful which comprises the Catholic Church is divided into three parts: the Church Triumphant (souls in heaven), the Church Suffering (souls in purgatory) and the Church Militant (faithful on earth).1 The Church Militant has been defined as:
It is useful to consider the military metaphors contained in such a definition. As Catholics, our lives should not be seen as "business as usual" but warfare — "constant warfare". We are not regular citizens or noncombatants, but soldiers in the war against Satan; a war which has both spiritual and physical dimensions.
All soldiers are called to a particular cause, traditionally the glory of a king, emperor or state. As Catholics soldiers, we are called to fight for the glory of Christ the King and the triumph of His will. We must follow His commandments, receive His sacraments and carry out His directive to convert all nations. While a worldly soldier is concerned with physical warfare, a Christian soldier is involved in a struggle infinitely more important — the spiritual battle for the salvation of souls.
Enemies of a Christian soldier
Just as "soldier" and "warfare" take on different meanings in the context of the Church Militant, so does the term "enemy". The only enemy of Christians is and has always been Satan, but because of his powers, he must be fought both internally and externally (or spiritually and naturally). He is our spiritual enemy when we tempts each of us internally and our natural enemy when he works through other men to subvert the will of God. Since, he is capable of deceiving and tempting every person on earth, he can make accomplices or slaves of men without their explicit knowledge. Such men can be referred to as our "human enemies".
This is an important distinction to make because if Satan rather than an individual human is the true enemy, how we face battle and evaluate victory are very different. Unlike worldly soldiers, we are commanded by our Lord to love our enemies.
 St. Michael the Archangel has been battling Satan since the Fall of the Angels. |
Therefore, we must always seek that which is best for our human enemies — not their worldly comforts or success, but their eternal salvation. This is not to say the only end to our efforts is conversion since a "victory" occurs every time the desires of Satan is thwarted. And since his desires are always opposed to God's will, a victory is also each instance in which His divine will is done. Both Christ and His Mother have repeatedly told their children that all sins (even by non-Catholics) offend their respective Sacred and Immaculate Hearts. Christ's soldiers must fight to prevent any and every such offense, even if the offenders are not converted. Conversion however remains the surest and most effective way to ensure such offensives will not be committed again.
The human enemies of the Church can usually be divided into two groups — public and private enemies. Public enemies openly declare war on and attempt to carry out the destruction of the Faith or the faithful. Historically, such human enemies have included Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Freemasons and Communists.
Private enemies are those who either do not admit to (secret enemies) or do not realize (deluded enemies) their destructive intentions. These are the most difficult enemies to recognize, let alone fight. They are usually outwardly benign or "well-intentioned" people and are comprised mostly of schismatics, heretics, liberals, modernists and humanists. Their ranks include men and women, young and old, clergy and laity who cloak themselves in acts of human charity and prideful piety which only serve to confuse and seduce others. They are enemies of the Church because they spread defiance of God's laws and undermine his Church through heresy, disobedience or indifference.
They are the atheists who consider Christ to be no more than an example of tolerance, cooperation and kindness.
They are the humanists who see no need for "religion" unless it can be useful in preventing poverty and war.
They are the naturalists who perform the corporal works of mercy while rejecting the spiritual and see no use for monastic life unless it accomplishes some humanitarian goal.
They are the heretics who claim to follow God's commandments but reject the revealed Truth entrusted to His Church.
They are the modernists who seek to "evolve" or "renew" the beliefs and practices of the Church in order to "better accommodate" the changing times.
They are the abortionists who lovingly care for newborn infants days after they would have them brutally murdered.
They are the schismatics who claim for themselves apostolic succession but openly defy the successor of the Prince of the Apostles.
They are the pagans that sleep and work, laugh and cry, live and die according to the dictates of their conscience which is constantly adjusted by their environment.
These are the human enemies Satan puts in our path and how we choose to respond to them is what defines the true soldiers in the Church Militant.
The Church Militant and the modern world
 Joseph M. Scheidler is National Director of the Pro-Life Action League and one of the few modern martyrs in North America. His organization has faced lawsuits from the National Organization for Women (NOW) under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act — legislation designed to combat organized crime. |
Needless to say, today's Church Militant is plagued with indifference. Too many soldiers of Christ would rather not fight their enemies because the immediate costs in comfort and human respect are too high. When they witness God being insulted through blasphemy, heresy or denial of His law, they are content to remain silent, denying their love for Him. When questioned directly, they may defend God but only in an equivocal way, depending on how much the opinion of the interrogator means to them.
This is not a "constant warfare", it is a surrender! Soldiers don't sit hiding in the bushes, waiting for someone to accidentally discover them before coming out to fight. They know exactly where the battlefield is and go in earnest to join the war effort. Everyone they make contact with knows not only that they are soldiers but that for which they fight.
Since the beginning of time, Satan has successfully used human respect and pride to tempt the faithful into silence and defiance. How many marriages have been destroyed, profanities been committed, children been aborted, blasphemies been encouraged and souls been eternally lost to Satan because people who knew right from wrong kept silent, putting too much value in human respect? They are more worried about being seen as different or "intolerant" or childish in the eyes of sinners than virtuous in the eyes of God. However subtle this brand of "persecution" may be, the struggle between God's will and man's has always existed. It is why Christ told us in the Sermon on the Mount:
And repeated by St. John Vianney:
Catholic soldiers cannot remain silent in the face of evil and they cannot run from it in hope for better days. We must fight for the Faith at all times, especially when we are facing persecution. Our human enemies need to know that we hold and defend the Truth, even if they hate us for it. The history of Christendom is filled with saints and martyrs who chose torture and death rather than denying Christ or His Church. They could have saved their lives by going along with the popular errors of the day — be it paganism, Freemasonry, Communism or Islam, but they refused and were eternally rewarded. As beautifully expressed in the words of Blessed Sister Marie-Anne Vaillot, a martyr of the French Revolution who refused to take a masonic oath:
 St. Joan of Arc, the Maid of Orleans was an inspirational soldier during the Hundred Years War. She was guided by angels and saints from heaven but was burned at the stake after a mock trial. Among her "crimes" was a refusal to adequately submit to the "Church Militant", a phrase with which she was unfamiliar. |
These days, in most Western countries such courage and dedication is almost non-existent, even though the consequences are much less severe. Many Catholics will deny Christ rather than risk feeling "awkward" or "uncomfortable" in the presence of pagans. They care more about what the faithless think of them than what God does. How many Catholics today would be willingly burned at the stake rather than deny their Faith? What's the use of forcing a denial that is gladly and repeatedly welcomed almost every day?
The dangers of supernatural warfare
Getting caught up in battles against heretics and abortionists, it's easy and dangerous to lose sight of the supernatural aspect of the conflict. Satan and the powers of darkness are fighting to ruin every mortal soul, especially those devoted to Christ. This battle isn't just between the Catholics and non-Catholics, but between good and evil, Christ and Satan.
As such, the ways we can fall are varied. Not only can we be defeated through our own tendencies toward doubt or indifference, but also by giving into the zeal of the battle. Too often, humble soldiers fighting for the will of God give way to the vices of pride and anger. We must not lose sight of the true enemy (Satan) and the true goal (the triumph of God's will). In fighting one error, we must not fall victim to another.
Since this is a supernatural battle, we must use the supernatural weapons heaven has given to us. The Mother of God has given us the Most Holy Rosary and the Brown Scapular to assist in our mission. We also have the teaching of the Church Fathers and Catechism of Trent which prepare us to recognize error when it is encountered. We have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is hated by Satan above all, so much so that modern times have seen it subjected to his destructive power. We have been given the other sacraments which give us access to the most precious gift of grace, especially the sacrament of Penance.
Above all else, those fighting for the Christ's Church must never neglect regular prayer and sacrifice. To do so is to fall in to the very errors of the naturalists against which we fight. We cannot inadvertently become allies in the propagation of supernatural indifference. For it is only through the mercy of God and in a State of Grace that we will prevail.
Ancient advice for modern times
 St. Martin de Tours, a Roman soldier born of pagan parents would go on to become a monk, a bishop and the Patron Saint of France. |
For a reminder on how Catholics are called to live their lives and relate to the world, we will always be able to turn to the timeless words of St. Justin Martyr:
They live in the flesh but not according to the flesh. They dwell on earth but regard heaven as their city. They follow established law but in their way of life, go beyond what the law requires. They love all and everybody persecutes them. No one knows them, while all condemn them; they are put to death and still are very much alive.
To put it all briefly: What the soul is to the body, Christians are to the world. The soul is present in all the body's members; so are Christians in the world's cities. The soul dwells in the body but does not originate from it; Christians live in the world but do not have their origin there. The invisible soul abides in the visible body; Christians are seen as living in the world, but their piety is invisible. On the other hand, the body, though it suffers nothing from the soul, hates it and makes war upon it because it cannot enjoy its pleasures in peace; the world suffers nothing from Christians but hates them because they reject its pleasures.
The soul loves the flesh and members which hate it; so do Christians love those who hate them. The soul is enclosed in the body but it contains the body; Christians must remain in the world as in a prison, but they contain the world. The immortal soul dwells in a mortal home; Christians are pilgrims in a corruptible world while they look forward to heavenly immortality. God has set them in the world as His sentinels and they may not leave their posts." 5
A nice excerpt, thank you, no doubt he still holds this view. So, perhaps the line: “Historically, such human enemies have included Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Freemasons and Communists” is unnecessarily pejorative. That is, if only those Protestants without even a mysterious relationship with the Church and, to the intent of the article, historically acted against the Church qualify as an enemy, then we could include bad priests, bishops, religious and popes. Perhaps, it is just a very clumsy wording.
If that were true, then why are there so many individual interpretations of English language Scripture? Or do you now maintain that the Holy Spirit gives different revelation and understanding to each and every human being?
LOLOL! There you go again with the knee-jerk blather. That was Ephesians 2:8-9 from the New American Standard Bible NOT the KJV! Care to apologize?
For what? My statement stands and is true. The attitude that they have creeps into your posts to an alarming extent.
I do, after taking anti nausea medicine. Ever read Hagee's spew? It's endlessly fascinating, like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
Well, probably the same reasons why the Catholic Church uses "official" Catholic version Bibles. Some are good some are not. And I don't know where you are getting this "so many individual interpretations of English language Scripture". First of all no one has their "own" Bible translated/interpreted. Second, even your church has changed its Bible versions over the years. At one time, they used the Jerome translation in Latin called the Vulgate. That was late fourth century. Then there was an English translation of the Latin Vulgate they used called the Douay-Rheims Bible in the late sixteenth century, early seventeenth. There were some that refuted that version and William Fulke produced a Bible called the Bishops Bible.
Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible, however, employed a densely latinate vocabulary, to the extent of being in places unreadable; and consequently this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was in fact a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. Subsequent editions of the Challoner revision, of which there have been very many, reproduce his Old Testament of 1750 with very few changes. Challoner's New Testament was, however, extensively revised by Bernard MacMahon in a series of Dublin editions from 1783 to 1810; and these various Dublin versions are the source of some Challoner bibles printed in the United States in the 19th Century. Subsequent editions of the Challoner bible printed in England most often follow Challoner's earlier New Testament texts of 1749 and 1750; as do most 20th century printings, and on-line versions of the Douay–Rheims bible circulating on the internet. Although the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible (in the United States), the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version and the New Jerusalem Bible are the most commonly used in English-speaking Catholic churches, the Challoner revision of the Douay–Rheims is still often the Bible of choice of more traditional English-speaking Catholics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible)
So perhaps you would like to rephrase or rethink your assertion about "interpretations"?
For what? My statement stands and is true. The attitude that they have creeps into your posts to an alarming extent.
It's okay, I'll let you slide this time although it would be honest if you at least conceded you spoke too quickly about accusing me of being creepy with "those KJV'ers" since I don't always post verses from that version AND since the verse I did quote was from the New American Bible and NOT the KJV. Also, please tell me when I EVER said anything that caused you alarm thinking I had a KJVer attitude that had crept into my posts. BTW...what exactly IS that attitude???
You are absolutely correct on that! In fact, many of the Early Church "Fathers" (the Doctors of the Church) believed very much in the supremacy of the Holy Bible. Here is a great link showing some of their thoughts about it.
http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html
So have YOU run out of a basis for your personal opinions so that you felt the need to accuse me of "mind reading" and personally attacking you? Bringing the MOD into it as well? I was not attacking you, reading your mind, nor have I any reason to hide and I gave plenty of my basis for my opinion in the post. I can only hope you read it before you assumed the victim posture.
Even I don't read Hagee! ;o)
Here are a few good links for a "balanced" view of the Reformation:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/historical-roots-of-reformation-and.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/seeds-of-reformation.html
1) Where in the Bible does it say that we should only go by the Bible alone when it comes to all matters pertaining to faith and morals? What verse?
2) Where in the Bible does it list the books that should be part of the Bible? What verse?
3) Where in the Bible does it say the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? What verse?
4) Do you believe the Letter to Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
5) If you answer yes to #4, where in the Bible does it tell us who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews? What verse?
6) Do you interpret the Bible? Yes or no.
7) If you answer yes to #6, is your interpretation of the Bible infallible? Yes or no?
8) If you answer yes to #7, where in the Bible does it say you are made infallible in this world? What verse?
9) If you answer no to #7, then will you admit that your interpretations of the Bible could be wrong in one or more places? Yes or no?
10) If you answer no to #7, then does anyone have the authority to tell you that your interpretations of the Bible are wrong and where they are wrong? Yes or no?
11) If your answer to #9 is yes, then who?
12) Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? Yes or no?
13) Did the Apostles and other early Church leaders believe it was okay to have false doctrines within the Church? Yes or no?
14) Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no?
15) Did the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?
16) Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching of faith and morals? Yes or no?
17) Can you be "one" with someone who believes in false doctrines? Yes or no?
18) In your church, can two walk together if they are not in agreement? Yes or no?
19) If you answer yes to #17, where in the Bible does it list which differences in doctrine are acceptable and which are not? What verse?
20) Do you believe that a part of the Body of Christ which is His Church and which Jesus Christ heads, can teach errors in some areas of faith and morals and still be a part of the body of Christ? Yes or no?
21) If you answer yes to #19, where in the Bible does it list which errors are acceptable and which would separate the teacher from the body? What verse?
22) Are you an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Yes or no?
23) If you answer yes to #21, is your interpretation of Scripture infallible? Yes or no?
24) If you are not an authentic interpreter of Scripture, then who is?
Well, probably the same reasons why the Catholic Church uses "official" Catholic version Bibles. Some are good some are not. And I don't know where you are getting this "so many individual interpretations of English language Scripture".
Negative. The Church gives the best interpretation to the laity that they possibly can. That's why idiots like Tyndale were so irritating to the Church. They wanted to give an approximate translation which would lead to all kinds of errors, which is where we are right now.
Look at these threads and how many different ways that Protestants interpret Scripture and the Christian faith. Everybody interprets differently. If there is no Magisterium, then what is there? I will pick on Iscool at random, not because I have anything against him, but because he is a fine example of what happens when you create your doctrines. Iscool routinely posts non Christian doctrine and yet claims that he is Christian. This is the legacy of the Reformation and also the failed Catholics that have abandoned the Faith.
For what? My statement stands and is true. The attitude that they have creeps into your posts to an alarming extent.
It's okay, I'll let you slide this time although it would be honest if you at least conceded you spoke too quickly about accusing me of being creepy with "those KJV'ers" since I don't always post verses from that version AND since the verse I did quote was from the New American Bible and NOT the KJV. Also, please tell me when I EVER said anything that caused you alarm thinking I had a KJVer attitude that had crept into my posts. BTW...what exactly IS that attitude???
An elitist and arrogant attitude and extremely anti Catholic. If you go back before Lent and look at your postings and read them anew, you might see what I mean. I do not accuse you of being totally of that mindset, but that the influence of those that you have hanged out with in the past has seeped into your posts.
Thank the Lord for that!!!
Here are a few good links for a "balanced" view of the Reformation:
There is no question that the Reformation was very good for the Church. However, and this is where I get into shouting matches with my Catholic peers, the Church should never have gotten into the position where such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli would have diverted a large portion of humanity away from the Church.
Sorry, not interested in taking your “simple little test”. The reason is because I know that no matter what answer I give, it will not be acceptable to anyone who already has their mind made up.
I'm surprised to hear you say this since on numerous occasions you have criticized the Bible as being edited, massaged, rewritten and homogenized towards a specific audience. Tyndale translated the Bible into the common English language so that the people could have trustworthy and readable Scriptures. The Catholic Church persecuted him because he did not "interpret" the original language manuscripts according to preconceived "church" doctrine, unlike the Douay-Rheims. The "all kinds of errors" you accuse him of is nonsense since it can be and MUST be the Holy Spirit that illuminates the words in our hearts. They are "spiritually" discerned, remember?
Look at these threads and how many different ways that Protestants interpret Scripture and the Christian faith. Everybody interprets differently. If there is no Magisterium, then what is there? I will pick on Iscool at random, not because I have anything against him, but because he is a fine example of what happens when you create your doctrines. Iscool routinely posts non Christian doctrine and yet claims that he is Christian. This is the legacy of the Reformation and also the failed Catholics that have abandoned the Faith.
I'm sure it was a simple error on your part to not ping Iscool to a post that specifically names him and talks about his views. It would be appropriate to at least identify what he has said that you call "non-Christian". I do not recall reading something from him that made me think that about him. How about an example or two of what you call non-Christian? I will GLADLY wear the banner of "failed Catholic" since I KNOW that it is not I who has abandoned the Christian faith but instead have grasped its whole truth unfiltered by a corrupt group of self-proclaimed infallible men.
An elitist and arrogant attitude and extremely anti Catholic. If you go back before Lent and look at your postings and read them anew, you might see what I mean. I do not accuse you of being totally of that mindset, but that the influence of those that you have hanged out with in the past has seeped into your posts.
Well, I guess I could call you elitist and arrogant and anti-Protestant, but I like you too much. I feel I have been consistent in my posting and I have never changed my viewpoint about the truth of the Holy Scriptures. Actually, I think I have been MORE understanding and sympathetic towards those who I believe are on the wrong path in the last several months. I'm sorry you haven't noticed it.
Will you at least concede that you were wrong for lumping me into a "KJV only" crowd when I did NOT use that version in the verse I posted??? That was, after all, my point.
Yes ,dear friend ,we include those who do not follow church teaching knowingly as enemies of the Church as well.
I am glad to hear someone admit that the Catholic Church actually did do something wrong for a change. I also believe that, had the Church bigwigs really repented of their errors, those Reformers, who strove to steer them back to the orthodoxy, would have not needed to break off. The entire "church" would have benefited and who knows how high God might have taken it. As it is, they did not acquiesce nor admit error and instead kicked out and persecuted those who loved it and yearned for it to return to the true faith. This is why God continues to save people and is still glorified apart from the Roman Catholic Church. He will never allow men to stop his will.
It must be sad to meet such folks who have to either swear they are personally infallible or admit that they're following their own understanding exactly the same way Eve did. Nine times out of ten, though, that sort of folks resort to pretending they can read the mind of anyone who disagrees with them and then proceed to put words in their mouths. The only bright spot in such a crowd is that one in ten who don't pretend to be mind readers and who are trying to follow Christ. There's hope for that one in ten and we all pray for them. The other nine craft their own god with the hammer of their own understanding and the chisel of their personal interpretations. They then spend their lives trying to breathe life into the god they create by slandering and lying about any who follow Christ, especially those who are part of the real, physical, visible, Church Christ created to be His body on earth until He returns and to provide His flock with shepherds and guidance.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Please show how I made it “personal”. Thanks. On the contrary, I have not done so - despite personal attacks by others on non-Protestants (but I suppose those are overlooked)?
Should read “on Protestants” — but that’s probably obvious given what position I’ve taken.
I'm surprised to hear you say this since on numerous occasions you have criticized the Bible as being edited, massaged, rewritten and homogenized towards a specific audience.
Surprised? I have not criticized the Bible. We know that these things are true. Not criticism. Just recognition. The Bible was rewritten and homogenized - the greatest effort being to make Scripture Trinitarian and to make Paul more harmonious with the rest of the Apostles.
Tyndale translated the Bible into the common English language so that the people could have trustworthy and readable Scriptures. The Catholic Church persecuted him because he did not "interpret" the original language manuscripts according to preconceived "church" doctrine, unlike the Douay-Rheims. The "all kinds of errors" you accuse him of is nonsense since it can be and MUST be the Holy Spirit that illuminates the words in our hearts. They are "spiritually" discerned, remember?
There is no 'must be'. The human foolishness which daunts all of us was full in him as well. He 'knew'. And that is all we need to know. The Church, rather than stopping people from knowing Scripture in the common language (there were several versions in the common language available), wanted to ensure that any more translations were the best that the Church could do.
I'm sure it was a simple error on your part to not ping Iscool to a post that specifically names him and talks about his views. It would be appropriate to at least identify what he has said that you call "non-Christian". I do not recall reading something from him that made me think that about him.
Indeed it is and I will apologize for that oversight on the front steps of FR in full view of all. It doesn't matter that he posts non Christian theology and will not accept the Nicene Creed, I did not ping him on my last post and that is completely my oversight.
How about an example or two of what you call non-Christian? I will GLADLY wear the banner of "failed Catholic" since I KNOW that it is not I who has abandoned the Christian faith but instead have grasped its whole truth unfiltered by a corrupt group of self-proclaimed infallible men.
Why don't we start with the Nicene Creed, Iscool? BB is a proud failed Catholic by her own admission. Shall we wander on over to the 'failed Christian' by the Nicene standards?
Well, I guess I could call you elitist and arrogant and anti-Protestant, but I like you too much. I feel I have been consistent in my posting and I have never changed my viewpoint about the truth of the Holy Scriptures. Actually, I think I have been MORE understanding and sympathetic towards those who I believe are on the wrong path in the last several months. I'm sorry you haven't noticed it.
Since I am not one of those who track individuals across threads, I have not followed what you have been posting on threads that I have not read. It is quite possible and most likely probable that you have. I find you quite sympathetic towards individuals that you think are sincere. However, my charge is that you have been hanging out with arrogant antiCatholics and have supported them against the Catholics in your postings. And that has sometimes influenced the content of your prose.
Will you at least concede that you were wrong for lumping me into a "KJV only" crowd when I did NOT use that version in the verse I posted??? That was, after all, my point.
I did not call you a KJV only crazy. I only said that you hung out with them.
I think that I have been consistent in my accusations of the Church w.r.t. the Reformation and the conditions that led up to it.
I also believe that, had the Church bigwigs really repented of their errors, those Reformers, who strove to steer them back to the orthodoxy, would have not needed to break off. The entire "church" would have benefited and who knows how high God might have taken it. As it is, they did not acquiesce nor admit error and instead kicked out and persecuted those who loved it and yearned for it to return to the true faith. This is why God continues to save people and is still glorified apart from the Roman Catholic Church. He will never allow men to stop his will.
The Reformers did not want to steer the Church in any way. They just wanted to control their piece of the pie. And, interestingly enough, your prose here posits that men can thwart God and that He has to find a second recourse. Not a good fit with your Calvinist friends.
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.