Posted on 02/19/2008 11:55:18 AM PST by NYer
I know that I was not the first Protestant to learn the truth about the Catholic Church; I am sure that this is a story you could probably hear from countless other people, changing only the names and places. I know that many have walked the road that I have; that road which leads home, to Rome!
I was born in 1975 to two God-fearing Southern Baptists in Dallas, Texas. My father had grown up Methodist, but became Baptist when he married my mother in 1968. From what my father has said, his family was mostly Methodist. His father and his paternal grandfather were both Thirty-Third Degree Masons. My father's paternal grandfather's father was even the founding pastor of the First Methodist Church of Dallas. Though I have heard the history of my father's family, I myself knew only a very few of them. A great majority of my mother's family was Baptist, with a smattering of Methodists here and there. I am fairly certain of one thing, however: there were no Catholics.
Since a very young age, I can remember going to church and Sunday school on Sunday mornings to listen to the preacher and my Sunday school teachers talk about Jesus, and how He would save us from the fires of Hell. Every Sunday morning, my parents and I would sing in church and listen to the sermons. Though we didn't usually attend the Sunday evening services, I knew that once a month on a Sunday evening, an event called The Lord's Supper would happen. At this Lord's Supper, the preacher would begin passing around large round trays made of chrome. One of the trays had tiny crackers on it, and the other one had little cups of grape juice. I can remember that before I was baptized I wanted to take part in this event, but my parents would not let me. They did not explain why I shouldn't, other than I hadn't been baptized yet. Just as it is in the Catholic Church, Baptism is an initiation of sorts into the active life of the church community. (Of course, to a Catholic, it is that and much more. I would not know this until much later.) A few years went by, and when I was about eight years old, I decided that I wanted to be "saved" and get baptized. To get "saved," you would pray a little prayer like, "Dear Jesus, please come into my heart and forgive me of all of my sins. I ask you to become my personal Lord and Savior. All these things I pray in Jesus' name. Amen." From a Baptist viewpoint, being baptized is only a symbol, and nothing more. In other words, for a Baptist, baptism isn't really necessary for salvation. After I got baptized, I was able to partake in the Lord's Supper. I asked my father what the Lord's Supper meant, and he said that it represented the body and the blood of Jesus. That is to say, it represented the sacrifice that He made for us on the Cross. My father then read the passage from a King James Bible that told about the establishment of what we called The Lord's Supper: "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20, KJV)" I asked why it was that we only did this once a month, and even then at the evening service (most people went to the morning service). My father thought about it for a minute, then he said that the Catholics do it every Sunday at all of their services. (In actuality, most Catholic churches have at least one Mass every day except Good Friday; Catholics are bound to attend Mass only on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.) He said that perhaps we do it less often so as not to imitate them. As you can imagine, I did not understand this for what it was. The Baptists, and many other Protestant groups, were concerned that the "Lord's Supper" would become the focus of the church service rather than the sermon. Though there are some Protestant churches that have communion every Sunday, none of them place the same importance on the Eucharist that the Catholic Church does.
My father had nothing personal against Catholics; in fact, of all the people in my family, he probably liked them more than anyone else in our family did. My mother had a problem with the Catholic Church, but if you asked her why, she really couldn't tell you. She would give the same rote answers that many Protestants had been giving for centuries. "They worship the Pope, Mary, and the Saints." "They think a person can forgive their sins rather than God." She couldn't explain why she believed these things, or in the case of the last statement, she couldn't explain why a person couldn't say that your sins are forgiven. When I finally asked her why she thought a person could not forgive sins after the Bible said that Christ gave that power to the Apostles, she said she'd just rather confess directly to God. I believe that the real reason that she did not like Catholicism was because her father did not like it. I really believe that was the main reason. For some reason, my maternal grandfather (whom we have always called "Smittie") has a fairly wide streak of anti-Catholicism in him. Even as a child, I remembered him complaining every time the Pope was on television or in the newspaper. Whenever we were at a restaurant or shopping and we saw someone with a large family (four or five kids or more), he would often joke that they must be Catholic. The ironic thing about his dislike of the Church is that virtually all of his friends (excepting those from his church) since he became an adult were Catholic. I don't think that he had anything personal against individual Catholics; it was the Church that bothered him. Smittie was in England during World War II, and he found many friends there, all Catholic. He always spoke highly of them. He missed them all very much, too; all but a few of them had been killed in the war and those few survivors had died since. To this day, I do not know what makes Smittie think that the Church is somehow diabolical or at the very least, misled. I've often wondered if it had something to do with his association with Freemasonry. By the way, he is a Third Degree Mason (Master Mason), though he has not been an active Mason for many years.
Now you can see where I came from. A Southern Baptist upbringing with lots of anti-Catholic influence from just about everyone in my family and my church, with the possible exception of my father. If, when I was in high school, someone had told me that I would one day become Catholic, I would have literally laughed in his face. By the time I was fifteen, I had truly learned to have contempt for the Catholic Church. Not Catholic people, you understand, just the beliefs of and possibly the clergy of the Church. I figured that most Catholics were simply misled, and too ignorant to realize it. After all, "everyone knows" that Catholics are forbidden to read the Bible, right?! [a common Protestant myth]
I entered high school and turned fifteen at about the same time, and high school was a much bigger place than the middle school where I had attended. I decided to get involved in some of the clubs in school to make friends, and one of the clubs was called Raiders for Christ (the Raiders was the school mascot). This club was made up of mostly Protestant and "Evangelical" Christians of various denominations. In the meetings, we talked about "witnessing" to people, getting "saved," and how we should carry our Bible around as a good example to others. I decided that I would try to talk to people in classes and invite them to church with me. From some people, I got a fairly good response. Some would say they had already been "saved," and currently attended another church. Some would say that they had been "saved" and that they felt that church was not necessary because they read the Bible often anyway. I had no problem with these people. However, I ran into some that caused problems. As you can guess, these were the Catholics.
Many Catholics that I met did not know their faith very well, but they did go to Mass every Sunday. I derided them for not knowing why they believed the things that they believed. I said that it was apparent that the Catholic Church was based on blind faith and that reason was nowhere to be found. I told several people that if they did not renounce the Catholic Church and accept Christ as their "personal Lord and Savior," that they would most certainly go to Hell. I'm sure that these people did not appreciate what I was saying, and I am quite thankful that they were more charitable to me than I was to them. One particular Catholic with whom I made friends was a teacher at the school. In fact, she was one of the sponsors of an extra-curricular organization of which I was a member for three years. She knew her faith VERY well, and for that I am glad. I admit, however, it was quite frustrating at times. After all, I couldn't win a debate with her. While she did not convert me to Catholicism, she did put me on the right track. I quit harassing the Catholics so much and tried to see them as fellow Christians rather than "the enemy."
I graduated from high school, still a Baptist, though not a particularly devout one anymore. I didn't go to church very often, and I had begun to lose faith; not so much in God as in being Baptist. I felt that there were contradictions between what the Bible says and what the Baptists teach. For instance, Baptists teach that once you are "saved," you are always "saved." That is practically a dogma of the Baptist Church, as well as some other Protestant churches: "once saved, always saved." The problem here, is that there is no support in the Bible for this position. Scripture does refute this position: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12, KJV)" (If you notice, I quote from the King James Version of the Bible because it is the universally accepted version of the Bible in Protestant churches.) Considering that a favorite saying of the Baptists was "No creed but the Bible," you can see why I was beginning to be skeptical. Here are some more (though certainly not all) doctrinal paradoxes:
|
The Baptist Myth |
What the (King James) Bible Says |
"Alcoholic beverages are inherently bad." |
"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. (1 Timothy 5:23, KJV)" "So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. (John 4:46, KJV)" |
"Dancing is bad." |
"And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. (2 Samuel 6:14, KJV)" |
"Salvation (being saved? occurs in an instant." |
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Phillipians 2:12, KJV)" |
"We only need Scripture, not traditions." (This is an attack on the Catholic belief in Sacred Tradition. It is a pillar of the Protestant Reformation known as Sola Scriptura) |
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6, KJV)" |
"Everyone can interpret Scripture for him/herself." (In other words, we don’t need an authoritative body like the Magisterium, or teaching office, of the Catholic Church to interpret for us.) |
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20, KJV)" |
"Faith alone, not works, will get you saved." (This is one of the other main principles of the Protestant Reformation: it is called Sola Fide) |
"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:26, KJV)" |
The list is seemingly endless, so I’ll stop here. As you can see, many of the beliefs of both the Protestant Reformation in general as well as the Southern Baptist Convention were at odds with the Bible. And not just any Bible, but even the one that the Protestants so cherished! (Rest assured, these verses are not much different in a Catholic Bible.)
At any rate, I was nineteen years old, and attending a major public university. I was exposed to many things that I had never been around before, mostly because my parents were somewhat over-protective of me. I felt quite far from God during my first year in college. Toward the end of my freshman year, my girlfriend from high school, whom I had been dating for over three years, and I broke up. I started dating a younger Catholic girl who lived in the Dallas area. Her uncle was actually a bishop in the northeastern United States. She was not particularly devout, but at the time, it didn’t matter to me. Actually, I figured that if we ended up together it would be easy to convert her to Protestantism and away from the Catholic Church. After we had been dating for about a month, her sister was graduating from high school, so I went to see her sister’s baccalaureate Mass. I had never been to a Mass before; I had been inside a Catholic church maybe once or twice before in my whole life. When I got home that night, I cried because I thought that since she was Catholic, she would be doomed to Hell if I couldn’t help her "see the light". However, the more I thought about what I had seen, the more intrigued I became.
First of all, the Mass was not what I had been told that it was: a pagan ceremony. To those of you reading this who are Catholic, this may seem humorous, but many Protestants, especially those leaning toward "fundamentalism," seem to think that Catholics are pagans or Satan worshippers or something along those lines. I don’t know where this myth got started, but I would sure love to put it to rest. For those of you not familiar with the Mass, here is the basic structure:
Its a fabulous book, guys. Buy and read it; you won’t regret it.
You’ve read way too much into what I said.
Faith is what saves, not the Eucharist. Faith is what saves, not outward acts. Faith is what saves, not Hocus Pocus.
>>You mean like, if I say the magic words, “I accept Jesus Christ as my Saviour”, I’m saved?<<
Exactly.
You’re mistaken if you think I believe the “sinner’s prayer” holds any merit. It’s become a “Close your eyes and repeat after me if you want to be saved” spectacle akin to “Say 5 Hail Mary’s and you will be forgiven”, and sprinkling water on a baby.
Vain acts and repititions.
But that does raise an interesting question. Don’t you M-D believe that man has to exercise his faith? So you should have found I-O-T-N’s comment agreeable. Which leads me to my question, what distinguishes a Catholic who believes they must exercise their faith from a Protestant (non-Reformed) who believes the same thing?
I’ll order it this week, if my local bookshop doesn’t have it.
Is trying an action or not? Who should perform this action? Clearly the person addressed. That's what the imperative mood means.
WHY should he perform this action? Because it works.
I'm not sure what you think I read into the words, "Try faith," or "It works."
My Point was that we often say things loosely. I knew you don't think that a work will save -- whoever you were talking to. But you spoke as if you did think so.
A lot of religious language is like that.
Faith is what saves, ...
God doesn't save? WHOSE faith saves? Does someone do something to gain faith? If so, isn't that a kind of works theology, and your complaints about Eucharist, outward acts and hocus pocus (in case I hadn't managed to pick up on the vibe that you REALLY disapprove of what we believe) - don't they amount to saying this work, "trying faith" is a better kind of work than the kind you do. And that's still works theology. And if one doesn't do anything to gain faith, then the advice "Try Faith" is useless. I'm not "Reading in", I'm thinking carefully about your words. I'm not looking for offensive characterisations of them, I'm just looking at what the words you said mean.
"Try faith. It works." I would rather turn to God than to faith, IF that's a meaningful choice.
Has anybody on this forum ever heard a priest say those words or any like them -- that is words which predicate forgiveness or absolution on the basis of performing a penance?
If not, then I say they are a slander without facts in evidence. I certainly have never had those words said to me.
It is far easier to attack s doctrine that does not exist than to attack one which does. But he would be a fool who thought himself brave or witty for winning such a fight.
But that does raise an interesting question. Don’t you M-D believe that man has to exercise his faith? Boy, is that a tough question! I have tried three times to answer it. And I keep deleting my answer.
I think it's because I don't really trust the faith-grace/works-merit dichotomy as the principle hermeneutic for Life in Christ.
I might as well say that my faith exercises me!
How about, "A man who has faith will exercise it -- 'has to' doesn't enter into it."
I don't pray Rosaries, go to Mass, undertake (and mostly fail at) various spiritual or corporal works of mercy or piety or whatever to rack up points or to "get" saved.
I rationalize doing them because I owe God worship, it is fitting to worship Him. I owe Him obedience. It is decent to try to conform my will to His -- intrinsically fitting, not because it produces a result or procures a reward. What good to me or to anyone is a will or a life NOT conformed to His?
And I can't conform it, not on my own toot. It's all up to Him. But I take some solace in my confidence that it is fitting to serve Him and the people He has made AND that such service also amounts to nagging Him. And I take the parable of the widow and the unjust judge as an injunction to nag God. So I nag.
Differences between me and the other non-reform Prottie-guy:
I think the Sacraments provide real and reliable help in nagging God. I'm not saying God limits His helps to the Sacraments. But the other guy does not have the assurance of the benefits of the sacraments.
I have some intellectual clarity (IMHO -- YM obviously varies) about God and what He wants and recommends and all that. A devout "Anglo-Catholic" Episcopalian or other Arminian type does not have the helps of the "magisterium" - or of a bunch of people who know pretty much about what the Church teaches.
We have the cults of the various saints. Yeah, I know you guys look askance, some KIND of askance, at that. But it is a help in motivating one towards seeking the knowledge and love of God. It is someting I think most Protestants would be very upset about. Fr. Brian claims Terese of Lisieux as a friend. I feel that a certain French Vincentian was amused by my suspicion of all things French and of such ju-jus, mojos, amulets, and knick-knacks as the "miraculous medal", and has taken me under her correction or something.
And because of the hugeness of the clumsy Catholic Church, I always have people to bymp up against, people who are VERY unlike me. So I ahve another help. I can neither envy others nor give myself airs in this very diverse company of not many wise or famous people.
Is that kind of thing responsive?
I want to say again, the main burden of our differences is just not important to me in my everyday life. I do not go to confession more than one a month because I feel very guilty, and fear damnation but because I want to be a better servant of Him who has given me so much. The discipline of self-examination is useful. The practice of telling someone things that shame me, is VERY good at reminding me of the importantce of God's Love and telling me to put my money where my mouth is about all my faith being in God, and not in my own self-esteem. And the absolution is a gift.
This is your standard MO, and I refuse to play along. You know full well what I meant.
Thank you. It’s because you don’t have an RCC agenda to puch - lol
This goes back to the two calls of God. There is the outward call and the inward call. Man is charged with providing the outward call. The Holy Spirit is charged with providing the inward call. Christians, of all sorts, can preach-and do preach-to "have faith", "try faith", "give your heart to Jesus", etc. These messages will not have ANY effect on man unless the Holy Spirit opens up the heart to receive the message. But this is exactly the way God set up the system. I should also note that this is consistent with Augustine's understanding when he prayed, "Command what you will, and grant what you command."
I rationalize doing them because I owe God worship, it is fitting to worship Him. I owe Him obedience. It is decent to try to conform my will to His...
And this is the sticking point. We all owe God our worship but none of us want to give it to Him. If it wasn't for the Holy Spirit leading and guiding, we would all be lost.
The scriptures do tell us to "put on the new man" and exhorts us to be conformed to His will. But the other side of this Augustinian coin is without God it is impossible. He has commanded but He must also grant the will and ability to carry it out. All good things come from Him. Our failings are our own.
Differences between me and the other non-reform Prottie-guy: I think the Sacraments provide real and reliable help in nagging God.
We don't need to nag God. God knows perfectly well what is going on. We rest upon His promise that what He has said He will do, He will bring it to completion. He has told us He will bear fruit through us, comfort us and take care of us. He has also said it won't be a rose garden but He'll be with us every step of the way. We rest on these promises.
We have the cults of the various saints. Yeah, I know you guys look askance, some KIND of askance, at that. But it is a help in motivating one towards seeking the knowledge and love of God.
There is no motivation except through the Holy Spirit. What this underlines is that you are resting upon things of this world to motivate you when you should be trusting the Holy Spirit to motivate.
Second I don't understand what I did wrong. Seriously. I am trying to discuss the difference between what I think you meant and wha tyou actually said.
Third I KNOW, and I said I knew, that you didn't MEAN exactly what you said. As I said in my first response to your post. this is about the language of piety which is, I think, distinct from the language of theology -- but when I said that, I was rebuked as though it were a bizarre idea, and the idea itself was dismissed as though it were worthless. But here was an example.
Theologically speaking, you would never say, "Try Faith, it works," unless I am mistaken about you.
But we are always saying things kind of like that to one another. The example I used was "Prayer works."
(The difference is that when a Catholic says something like that, Calvinists go into paroxysms about "works righteousness." Talk about an "agenda to push"!)
Now a week or more ago, I mentioned this, and I think it was to Harley, but it might have been to somebody else. And the reaction I got was incredulous and contemptuous, as though there were no such distinction, and it were silly to suggest one.
Now, if you think I have a standard MO I would like to know what it is. I will cop enthusiastically to TRYING (and mostly failing) to read what people actually write rather than use what they write as a kind of Rorshach which reveals only what I expect to see. But I don't see anything wrong with that. But I think I'm educable.
AND while you know and I know that "faith" doesn't really "work", it is good and helpful to this kind of difficult discussion in which participants circle each other like angry jackals to be careful, at least sometimes, about how we express ourselves, a nd to doulbe check. If we rely on others "knowing what we mean" I think we'll get a lot of misunderstandings.
When you said,"Try faith. It works." I suspected that, like most Calvinists, you decided to characterize me as NOT trying faith, as not trusting God, as relying on my works, blah blah blah. You put yourself in a position superior to me, where you could give me advice, and you assumed the worst of my religious thinking and practice. Yeah. I guess I did know what you meant. I thought the charitable thing to do was to rise above it.
I KNOW God doesn't need nagging. Just how stupid do you think I am? ,P.(Wait, don't answer that! ;-) )
But I also know that Jesus (at least as I read the parable) told us to nag Him. WHERE did I say that God needed Nagging? You read that IN to, not out of, what I said.
Prayer (glib formulation coming up - kanguage if piety, not theology) is about me asking God for A and B or C - for what I think I want and need, while God graciously takes the opportunity to conform me to His will.
What did I say that implied anything other than that we cannot come to God in prayer and cannot even WANT to come to God in prayer unless He calls and, in the Spirit, prompts, chivvies, prods, pokes, etc. us to do so? Do I have to say everything at once? Wasn't my answer long enough?
There is no motivation except through the Holy Spirit. What this underlines is that you are resting upon things of this world to motivate you when you should be trusting the Holy Spirit to motivate.
DUH!
Lord almighty I am just about fed up with the eagerness with which falsehoods about us - falsehoods based on carelss, unexamined, and prejudiced assumptions are casually tossed around!
DUH, Harley, DUH! WHAT on earth have I ever said (unless it was when I quoted, "Try Faith. It works - an expression you are eager to forgive and explain away though it makes NO mention of the Holy Spirit) that led you to think that I think that the HOly Spirit does not lie behind every good and holy motivation.
I assume you read a book from time to time, like say by Augustine. I assume you discuss your faith with people, hear sermons, sing spiritual songs and the like.
So, in those assumptions, shall I then remind you that sermons, books, poeple, and songs are all creaturely and that in doing these things you are ignoring the Holy Spirit? NO, I shall not because I impute to you a modicum and more than a modicum of sense and piety.
I am confident you did not mean to be offensive, but in your presumption of what I think and mean, a presumption seemingly unshakeable by my words or deeds, you give HUGE offense!
This segues with the "Try faith. It works," conversation. You (rightly) excuse that SEEMING invitation to works righteousness. But you quite wrongly assume that I think there is any way to communicate with the Saints or to be encouraged by them that does not involve the Holy Spirit.
And this is the sticking point.
Were you looking for sticking points? Did I say anything either way about wanting to worship God and where that wanting comes from? Did I say anything at any point that implied that the Holy Spirit was NOT involved in my perception that worship is decent and should be done?
IOTN claims I have a standard MO and that it's vicious and to be shunned. He seems to suggest I have an agenda. Is there no agenda here?
Allow me to make a suggestion: Go back and re-read my post as though it were written by someone whom you trusted to have cast all his cares on God and to put all His confidence in Him. In other words, go back and read it looking for ways it might be right, rather than ways it is wrong.
To reawd what I wrote and to come up with a notion of my piety and thought that is diametrically opposed to the reality of it is quite an achievement.
You trapped me -- or tried to. You asked for a difference between me and the other guy. You did not ask for similarities in thought and practice. So I gave you differences. And on the basis of those differenceces you go haring off in another direction entirely.
I don't presume to know what the Arminian you described thinks about the HOly SPirit. I assume the best. Evidently the Reform thing is to assume the worst of everyone who doesn't toe the Reform line.
(1) Is it possible to have a conversation that is not a dispute rife with assumptions about the wrongness of the person on the other side?
(2) Would either of you be interested in such a conversation?
(3) If the answer to (2) is 'Yes', and you think I am frustrating cuh a conversation, would you please tell me how, so I can stop frsutrating it?
Gotta go.
>>First that’s a personal assault.<<
First I would say, “Suck it up, buttercup”, we’re all adults here.
Second it’s not a personal assault. You have a history of reading way too much into what someone posts, twisting it, and using it as a launching point for further misinterpretations in your ‘debate’. You and I have gone through this before.
>>”Try Faith, it works,”<<
Again, you’ve read far too much into what I posted.
The original comment was in response to a list of links that were posted on the Eucharist. “Try Faith”, as in, “Substitute the word Faith for the intended actions of the Eucharist ceremony.”
As in, “The Eucharist pomp doesn’t save, Faith in Christ does.”
As in, “Faith is what works, not the outward act of a blasphemous ceremony”
“Try” is not an action verb in the context of my post, it’s linguistical substitution.
MD says, “I went to the store today”
IOTN says, “Try FLEW to the store today!”
You are being purposely disingenuous in your assumption. You know full well from our previous conversations, and anything written on my profile that I am not a ‘Try on Christ, he’ll make your life better!’ evangelist. Save that for Rick Warren.
Faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone, by the scriptures alone, for the glory of God alone.
LOLOL!!! I was simply going to say, "Chill out, man...". :O)
I am NOT being purposefully disingenuous. I deny it. It's not so. I have no such intent.
And as for the "Suck it up buttercup," If that's meant as evidence of the adulthood of the participants, we're in trouble. There are allegedly some rules to the religion forum.
You said, "Try faith. It works." As a matter of fact I haven't been in enough exchanges with you for me to remember who you are and what you think. But I WILL henceforth remember that you don't seem to believe that words mean things, and that the literal expression of Catholics may be used against them without fault, but when a Catholic looks at the words you use, it is vicious.
But I wasn't really tangling with you so much as trying to say almost exactly what you are saying: that the words were loosely used and that to say that you are - whatever kind of person you say (I don't know who Rick Warren is) - would be silly.
But when WE use words as you did it is taken as proof that we are enmeshed in works righteousness. Two sets of rules.
you know, I really had to point out this hilarious site that a Baptist poster here sent me on another thread: exorthodoxforchrist.com —> the funniest thing is that the site attacks Catholics for our perceived focus on “the brain”, “philosophy” and attacks Orthodox for “making everything a mystery”. The point where it says we just have to shut up and listen to Church Leaders completely misses the point of Obedience
The thing is that many folks hate The Church because of lies they’ve heard about The Church and here’s an example (other’s being we worship Mary etc. etc)
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.