Hate Crimes Against Catholics Increase

Statistics released Nov. 24 by the FBI show hate crimes against religious groups increased by 9% from 2007 to 2008.

USA Today reported that in 2008, there 1,519 incidents against people based on their religion, the statistics show.

The figures reveal that while anti-Jewish attacks made up the highest percentage of the attacks (17%), there was an increase in hate crimes against Catholics — 75, up from 61 in 2007.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the increase may be due to the Church becoming more vocal on life issues such as abortion and homosexual unions.

As the Catholic bishops take a stronger stance, he said, it filters down to the laity, and as more traditional Catholics become more vocal, they become targets for those who disagree with them.

“Unfortunately, it spills over into violence,” he said, adding that it’s just going to get worse before it gets better.

“I’ve never seen our country so culturally divided and so polarized,” he said. “These issues are not going away.”

So, what did you discover?

I was referring to what I said before, as a general consensus of objective historians what could be agreed upon was: "A man called Jesus existed and was thought to be a miracle worker."

What makes you think this is true Jesus' saying rather than the popular apocalyptic Jewish belief credited to Jesus?

It could also be both. If memory serves, it is, again, the most reliable and seems to be a teaching he repeated to different groups.

How can we speak of universal reality. To an aboriginal tribesman stock market is not reality, it's not even a dream.

The stock market does exist in reality. The aboriginal's experience of reality is an example of the wide range of human possibilities for same.

While the stock market is not part of the aboriginal experience, we and they do share the reality of what a human is and what our relationship is to creation, to the cosmos, including birth and death, suffering, joy, everything that exists in the universe including the shared human experience. This is universal - for all humans in the universe. Whatever that reality is is available to all in this set: how we experience it - and what "facts" we thereby derive is a dependent variable. This does not necessarily mean it is purely subjective, for example, we could agree that that a human who sees two moons orbiting the earth has a defective instrument.

Every five seconds a child dies of hunger in this world of ours. How "real" is that for you? How real is that for an average American?

Any accurate, true, experience of reality must include suffering. If it doesn't it is in error. To be true it must include all that is real - hunger, suffering, cruelty, compassion... everything.

In order for us to "know" the truth, to even seek the truth is to presume that we can be aware of and experience everything and all at the same time!

Everything is presented at the same time, there is always the material world, and always compassion and cruelty and love and suffering going on. I think you are talking about attention or focus. This is a capacity of mind that can be developed and controlled, reduced, enlarged, etc.

But this is beside the point. I don't think we have to have all that exists in our attention at one time. As an analogy, consider a map or an area of geography: You study and explore a portion, then another and so on. You focus on different parts, small and large, trees, leaves, rocks, different groupings (rivers, roads, houses, cities). You develop a series of views in your mind and one grand view of how they all fit together. I don't see a need to have every detail in focus at the same time.

And the purpose of looking at what is presented in your attention is a big picture, the biggest possible. As I mentioned earlier, and it's not original with me, religion can be described as who we really are and what our relationship is to the cosmos, to everything else that exists.

It's not for the lack of desire, but for the lack of capacity that we cannot find "how the universe really is."

Maybe so, but we normally use very little of our capacity for this. Our instrument for observation is poorly calibrated and significantly biased. One way to look at spiritual practice, purification for example, is as a method for calibrating this instrument, cleaning it, removing distortions, etc. We can look at much of Jesus' teaching in the same way.

What I meant regarding Irenaeus, who I read translated in English (I know...), is that he never used the word Trinity nor expressed the modern (post-trinitarian) formula for God.

Correct. That belief was not developed to the extent that it was at Nicene. These early guys labored their whole lifetimes to get us to where we so easily accept ourselves now. Origen is a perfect case in point where he simply could not accept where the Church developed its doctrine.

Belief in the Trinity is not a Biblically stated doctrine of salvation.

No, however, if one believes in an unrecognizable Jesus or God, then one is pagan.

We read that Christ grew from grace to grace.

Which on the face of it is so much gibberish. Christ is God. We do not believe that God 'grows' since he is the be-all and end-all and is one with the universe. Indeed, there is no universe without God; God exists without the universe, since it is His creation. We believe that 'time' was invented for us. God certainly has no need of it.

Cannot the formula be: follow the precepts/behavior of Christ (works) and Christ will fill the gaps needed (faith) to in the end become an heir, a full heir with Christ?

Both elements are required, although, I don't believe that the order is necessarily a given. God enables us to reach out to Him and gives us all the help and aid that we require. What we do with that aid, or simply refuse it, is up to us. A further question: what would be your definition of 'full heir with Christ'? One might mistake that to be a Sidney Rigdon development if one is not careful.

I don't want to get involved in the excellent discussion y'all are having, but I couldn't let this one statement go unopposed. To say that there were only eleven, at most, eyewitnesses is quite untrue based upon Scripture and oral tradition. The apostles accompanied Jesus nearly at all times, but there were quite a few others, called disciples and/or followers that did frequently as well. There were also the people that were healed, their families at times, more than five thousand (men were only counted in that number so we could guess that they may have had wives and children with them, too), that were miraculously fed several times. Don't forget the women that went to the tomb after the resurrection and the numerous witnesses in the “upper room” where Jesus appeared. We are also told that over five hundred people saw him after he rose from the dead and others watched him ascend into the heavens.

When the records were written of these events, many people were still around that witnessed the events and could have disputed the telling of these events if they were in error. Let's also not forget that, ultimately, God chose to communicate this way like he did in Old Testament times. It is he that sees to it his words are preserved and that anyone who seeks truth has the truth available. I'm done now. Proceed. :o)

Belief in the Trinity is not a Biblically stated doctrine of salvation

What is the Biblically stated 'doctrine' of salvation?

What I think is missing from the modern doctrine is the concept of theosis.

Not in Eastern Orthodoxy. It is salvation. It is becoming 'god-like,' being restored to the likeness of God which was lost in Eden. It means dying unto oneself, and to the world, and, through grace, being restored.

Those who are like Christ are saved (see Matthew 25).

Cannot the formula be: follow the precepts/behavior of Christ (works) and Christ will fill the gaps needed (faith) to in the end become an heir, a full heir with Christ?

Matthew 25 doesn't ask for faith; neither do the Beatitudes (Matthew 5). Basically, it boils down to this: do the right thing with the right intention (love in your heart).

Other writers (Luke and Paul for example) see salvation differently.

Do you actually KNOW most Christians?

I have known man a Christian and not one ever told me the Gospel names are misnomers because the Gospels are anonymous works. I think that's a pretty good random indicator.

But I’m sorry to hear the Christians you’ve met don’t study much...

I would say, again, based on my entire life's experience that i have met very few Christians who studied very much. I have met many a Protestant who would quote the verses to me, but not much thought behind it. Most of the time they don't even get the context right because (1) they don't know Greek, (2) they don;t know Church history and (3) don't know Mediterranean culture.

For and against theories about who wrote them. Overall, I’d say the majority of conservative Protestants would have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the writers, based on reasonable evidence "Reasonable evidence," such as? The Church did it on traditional belief; you say Protestants have reasonable evidence?

Generally tradition [as external evidence], with tradition sometimes including multiple possibilities.

Since when do Protestants follow man-made traditions? BTW, just because something is traditional doesn't mean it is right; it simply means it has been there for a long time.

Kosta: “The Hebrews would have not been accepted had they not been assumed to be Pauline.” <

Mr Rogers: Some still say it is. Others say Barnabas, who was a close associate of Paul’s. Luke was accepted, and Mark, without requiring direct Apostolic authorship.

You are only helping me. What were the criteria for "inspired" works? Mark allegedly wrote what Peter said, and Luke followed Paul and collected allegedly eyewitness (apostolic) accounts.

Where do you find Hebrews being attributed to Barnabas?

Maybe because removing them didn’t affect doctrine?

That's not the point. The point is the claim that every iota in the Bible is a word of God. It seem that is a big lie. How can i trust anything that's in the Bible then? Blind faith?

We’ve argued the trustworthiness of the text before...you believe the authorities you trust, and I believe the authorities I trust.

If the text is being peddled as pristine word of God and we have to remove corruption from it, how can it be trustworthy>? How is one to know which words are true and which were put there by someone?

To say that there were only eleven, at most, eyewitnesses is quite untrue based upon Scripture and oral tradition

Er, Mat 28:17 there were eleven and some doubted. Seems pretty clear to me.

That would be the same people. While Jesus was still on earth, according tot he Bible, the twelve/eleven were called Jesus' disciples (students); after Jesus ascended they became the apostles, which means the sent. They were commissioned and sent to preach and baptize (Matthew 28:19).

The other followers got disgusted and left when Jesus said they had toe at his body and drink his blood; only the 12 disciples remained with him.

Don't forget the women that went to the tomb

How many women were at the tomb? Depends who you read? Anywhere form 1 to 3.

the numerous witnesses in the “upper room” where Jesus appeared.

Only some of his disciples (Thomas wasn't there). Yet some still doubted to the last moment (Mat 28:17).

We are also told that over five hundred people saw him after he rose from the dead and others watched him ascend into the heavens.

really, where does it say that?

When the records were written of these events, many people were still around that witnessed the events and could have disputed the telling of these events if they were in error

And you read that where?

God chose to communicate this way like he did in Old Testament times.

Hardly. Jesus was walking, talking and eating with his disciples; the OT God appeared as a burning bush, and talked through the clouds and the prophets.

"A man called Jesus existed and was thought to be a miracle worker."

Based on what evidence?

Kosta: What makes you think this is true Jesus' saying rather than the popular apocalyptic Jewish belief credited to Jesus?

D-fendr: It could also be both.

It could be neither too.

If memory serves, it is, again, the most reliable and seems to be a teaching he repeated to different groups.

Like which different groups? And what makes it reliable? Just because it's popular? What makes you thin it's his teaching and not the popular world view of the time?

The stock market does exist in reality

To an aborigine in Laitn America, no such thing exists. It may exist in your world but not his. The fact that it may exist independently of your world is meaningless. It begins to attain meaning when it begins to affect your world, if ever.

we and they do share the reality of what a human is and what our relationship is to creation, to the cosmos, including birth and death, suffering, joy, everything that exists in the universe including the shared human experience.

What is the reality of a human? What does it matter to an aborigine what my relationship to the creation is?

we could agree that that a human who sees two moons orbiting the earth has a defective instrument.

Why would he need an instrument to see moons orbiting the earth? You can see the moon quote well without any instruments.

Any accurate, true, experience of reality must include suffering

How odd. Accurate and true by whose yardstick? And why must human experience experience suffering?

I don't think we have to have all that exists in our attention at one time. As an analogy, consider a map or an area of geography

What makes you think we have the brains to conceptualize the "big picture" of "everything that exists" any more than your dog can conceptualize that what he lives on is really a planet in a solar system! he will never even realize why you leave your house to go to work, let alone where he lives in the universe. Sure he can put together some reality for a "small picture" but not the big one; and neither can we. Since we cannot know everything, we can never know/conceptualize what this is about, or recognize the Truth.

Maybe so, but we normally use very little of our capacity for this.

We use what we need, and how much we have at our disposal. It's like having millions of dollars in CDs that cannot be cashed. The potential is there but not the maturity.

I am sorry for slow responses. I am looking for a job (C++ programmer for hire!), and need to complete a project quickly for an employment prospect.

I often get a feeling that it is not mere difference in interpretation. Sometime it is, but more often it is an effort to minimize a passage to the point of rendering it unrecognizable. This happens to John 6 and John 20:21-23 very often. I know that no individual really intends to deceive, but the exegetical system to which he is accustomed has this effect.

St. Paul does not say anything about the priests in 1 Cor. 11. That is because, like is usually the case with Pauline letters, he is correcting a particular error. You cannot argue from an absence of comment. Let us again remember that the Bible generally does not contain a complete instruction on faith. It even leaves such a divisive issue as baptism of infants unresolved, and we just saw how the Trinity is not really taught anywhere in the scripture. Nevertheless, the general tone of 1 Cor. 11 is compatible with the practice of the Eucharist offered by a priest, and not compatible with a spontaneous thanksgiving feast of potluck: "have you not houses to eat and to drink in?".

Of course there are priests in the New Testament, do a word search for "πρεσβυτερ..." and find out for yourself. That you decided to use the bizarre translation of "elder" for that does not mean there are no priests in the New Testament.

I don't see how it would follow from your remarks about John 20:21-23 that Christ did NOT send a certain group of people as Himself and gave them a supernatural power to forgive or retain sins.

What Jesus and the Apostles quoted is a different question from the original one: which was the content of the Scrupture for them? That content was the Septuagint -- more quotes match the Greek text than the Hebrew text, and the Septuagint contains the Deuterocanon. Note that using imprecise terminology ("Apocrypha") is akin to mistranslating πρεσβυτερος -- not a straightforward way of arguing.

Sorry KOSTA50, but you can't just trash passages here and there based on YOUR understanding of major doctrine. I looked up Isaiah 9:6 in about 15 different English translations and they say the same thing:

Isaiah 9:6 (American Standard Version)

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

If the child that is born, son is given, is also called Everlasting Father and Mighty God, it sure sounds like this is speaking of the Messiah being Jehovah incarnate. Jeremiah, among other OT books, also speaks of Mighty God:

Jeremiah 32:18 (American Standard Version)

who showest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them; the great, the mighty God, Jehovah of hosts is his name;

They all speak of Jehovah. Jesus said if John 8:24

(New International Version)

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,[a] you will indeed die in your sins."

Based on what evidence?

The evidence available to historians. I'm just reporting the results of my own research, not suggesting you should accept it.

Like which different groups? And what makes it reliable...What makes you think it's his teaching and not the popular world view of the time?

My statement was the beatitudes, the sermon on the mount/plain is the most likely, most reliable of Jesus teaching, relative to all the rest. And my main point doesn't even rely on this, or other of Jesus' statements about God and humanity, being accurate. My suggestion is to follow the instructions and see for yourself. If it's true, who cares who said it. If it's false, then who cares as well. Isn't the point of all this knowing whether it's true or not? Well, it is for me; and, I'm suggesting that even if it isn't for you, it does allow another avenue for evaluating the validity of the Christian religion.

To an aborigine in Latin America, no such thing [stock market] exists.

But it does exist in reality. As do woomeras to the Australian aborigine which we are unaware of. But, again, that's not common, not part of what is universal among all humans.

What is the reality of a human?

My point of inquiry is just that and I'm referring to a possible method of researching it.

What does it matter to an aborigine what my relationship to the creation is?

Depends on the aborigine I suppose, but what does matter to you both is each of your relationships.

Why would he need an instrument to see moons orbiting the earth? You can see the moon quote well without any instruments.

I was referring to the human instrument. If he sees two then something is defective in his biological instrumentation. Perhaps cataracts, perhaps a brain defect, or perhaps he's just not paying attention.

And why must human experience experience suffering?

That's part of the inquiry isn't it? Fact is we do.

Accurate and true by whose yardstick?

By the yardstick of being part of reality. Suffering is an unavoidable universal part of being human. Any accurate and true experience or view of reality has to integrate it because it's real, it exists.

Since we cannot know everything, we can never know/conceptualize what this is about, or recognize the Truth.

Perhaps not, but that has never stopped some humans from trying. And giving it an honest effort entails exploration, observation, accurate instrumentation, comparing results and so on. No one is promising perfect truth or knowledge.

We use what we need, and how much we have at our disposal. It's like having millions of dollars in CDs that cannot be cashed. The potential is there but not the maturity.

We have a lot more at our disposal that we don't use or use poorly. We are teachable, trainable, we can improve our bodies and our minds, we can learn attentiveness, we can work to remove distractions, we can be better observers - much much better.

My suggestion was along these lines. Here is an attempt to boil it down, way down:

There is this argument going on - the Church says these guys said that Jesus said and Jesus was this and that and the other. And one way to approach this seeking the truth is what we see on this thread and what you have engaged in masterfully.

Another way is to focus on what they said Jesus said do in order to know and see what he said is real - about God and man and our relationship.

Now, given this, we could test this - do it and see if what they said he said is true - by experiment.

The result of this gives us certain information. It still has its limitations, but if whether the result is true or false we have valuable information to apply to the topic.

Personally, if the whole point is an intellectual exercise to determine the history and theology... well, that's nice, but so is a hobby. If we're just discussing history for its own sake, then why do we invest so much in this relatively little part of it?

For me, the point is seeking what's true as best we can as human beings. The value of Jesus and Christianity stands on this. IMHO, again. And the historical method is not the only one at our disposal. I don't think it's anywhere near the method Jesus taught.

He doesn't claim he was. He said Jesus appeared to Peter, it doesn't say he appeared to Peter "first" and then to the "other" twelve, does it?

What other Twelve, boatbums? There were a total of eleven disciples left, one of them was Peter. If he appeared to Peter then he could appear only to the other TEN. C'mon, that's simple algebra. :)

Did not the apostles choose another to take Judas' place?

Yes, they did. Do you know when? Apparently not! or else you wouldn't be asking me: it was after Jesus left (i.e. ascended to heaven)...not when he resurrected 40 days prior to that. You've got to keep your time frames in order, dear lady.

What about the part concerning the five hundred witnesses?

What about it? What about Matthew 28:17 who was there and says he only appeared to his eleven disciples?

You're not going to just toss that out because you think Paul couldn't count, are you?

Nor are you going to toss out Matthew, just because you feel Paul is know-it-all.

I see no contradiction between Matthew's and Paul's account, so choosing one or the other isn't necessary.

LOL! I suppose 500 or 11, not really important is it? perhaps you need to re-read the NT. Paul's claim is a blatant contradiction.

But since you decided to pick at this scab, let's look at some Bible FACTS:

To How Many Disciples does Resurrected Jesus Appear?

Author	Verse	# of Disciples
Paul	1 Cor 15:5	12
Matthew	28:16-17	11
Mark	16:14	11
Luke	24:33-37	11
John	20:24	10*

*John says 10 because Thomas wasn't there, else it would have been eleven. But he did appear later before Thomas, so all four Gospels have the right number.

Paul obviously couldn't count or, better yet, was making ti up base don what he heard form someone since he wasn't there.

The contradictions just keep piling up when we ask

To Whom did Jesus appear first after Resurrection?

Author	Verse	Person
Matthew	28:1, 9	two Marys
Mark John	16:9 20:11-14	one Mary (Magdalene)
Luke	24:13-31	Cleopas and another
Paul	1 Cor 15:4-5	Cephas

You don't see any contradictions?

The evidence available to historians. I'm just reporting the results of my own research, not suggesting you should accept it.

And I would like to know what evidence shows so convincingly that it converted you to believe that Jesus actually did exist. I would be very curious to see historical evidence that's not a hearsay.

My statement was the beatitudes, the sermon on the mount/plain is the most likely, most reliable of Jesus teaching, relative to all the rest.

Based on what?

My suggestion is to follow the instructions and see for yourself

What instructions? To be merciful because there are rich rewards in heaven for you? How do you "see for yourself" that this is indeed so?

Isn't the point of all this knowing whether it's true or not?

Sure, and just how do you suggest we go about determining if it is or isn't?

But it does exist in reality

You don't know that. It could have been blown to smitherins while you were sleeping. You could go on believing it exists when actually it doesn't. Unless you are actively focused and aware that something exists (seeing, hearing, feeling), it "exists" only as a memory, and it actually could be just that. We only know what exists here and now (by seeing, hearing , feeling).

Depends on the aborigine I suppose, but what does matter to you both is each of your relationships.

My relationship with the "creation" extends to my awareness (seeing, feeling, hearing), and whether it is biologically pleasing or noxious, whether it feels good or bad. Experimental psychology shows that all living beings respond in that fashion, be it humans or flat worms.

We apaprently build our value system on those two opposite perceptions, repeating what feels pleasant, avoiding what feels noxious.

Kosta: what is the reality of a human

D-fendr: My point of inquiry is just that and I'm referring to a possible method of researching it.

I guess I should have known it was not worth repeating. Reality of a human is a "possible method" of researching it?

I was referring to the human instrument

Are you serious? You are referring to human eyes as human instrument!

Perhaps cataracts, perhaps a brain defect, or perhaps he's just not paying attention.

He is seeing two moons because he is "not paying attention?" I am sorry, I must have missed something here.

Kosta: And why must human experience experience suffering?

D-fendr: That's part of the inquiry isn't it? Fact is we do. And why must human experience experience suffering?

No, I asked you for a reason. The inquiry is not the reason why human must suffer, , but a consequence of the awareness of human suffering. Also, the fact that humans suffer is also not the reason why they do.

By the yardstick of being part of reality

Which reality? Yours, mine? Cosmic?

Suffering is an unavoidable universal part of being human

Not it's not. Animals suffer too. Suffering is brought on by the world God supposedly loved so much (natural disasters) or simply the biblical wrath of God, or because for some reason Satan rules the world, and similar nonsense. But good part of suffering is caused because we choose to be inhuman.

Perhaps not, but that has never stopped some humans from trying

Pure vanity. Your dog can spend his entire life trying to figure out why you leave the house in the morning and his little brain will, by design, deliberate or not, be unable to do so. Apparently some humans feel that if they just keep trying...

DF, who has time for that? The amount of information is oberwhelming our brains as it is; no one can possibly read all of history, or even all of narrowed down history. I think we are rapidly approaching the limit of our capacity, unless we learn how to use the potential that's there.

Another way is to focus on what they said Jesus said do in order to know and see what he said is real - about God and man and our relationship.

How doe one see "what he said is real?"

I'm sorry if I've "slipped out". My computer crashed several weeks ago and I have been rebuilding the thing. I had to replace the hard drive and then found that backups only backup files-not programs. So I had to reinstall all my programs. May God grant us a non-crashable computer. :O)

I would like the opportunity to pursue the following with you:

As for a change in His "nature", well, there was no change in His nature, but there was the additional "human" nature as a result of the Incarnation. The Holy Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 explaining the two natures of Christ wrote:...

Blue-duncan gives some very excellent examples of how the Holy Spirit was know to "overshadow" people throughout scriptures such as the tabernacle or the Mount of Transfiguration (which was vividly remembered). I would also suggest that our Lord Jesus appeared several times in the Old Testament in human form, so that wasn't an issue for Him. For example, there was the situations with Joshua I believe Joshua 5 (I don't have my on-line Bible working yet) or with Abraham and Melchisedec.

While I don't wish to minimizes without a doubt perhaps the greatest miracle of all, the incarnation, there are other biblical examples of 1) the Holy Spirit overshadowing, 2) the human form of Christ preceding the Virgin birth, and 3) yes-there is another example in Isaiah of a virgin birth.

The blessedness of the event does not lie in the fact that Mary was so good that God chose her to work this miracle. As our Lord pointed out, he could have used rocks. The blessedness of the event lies in the fact that God would want to identify with us.

I would like the opportunity to pursue the following with you:

In what way? I fully agree that there are other instances of the Holy Spirit overshadowing people in the bible. Prefigurings of Christ such as the mysterious Melchizedek or His presence as part of a prefiguring of the Trinity in Genesis 18 are very well known instances of the Logos taking a human (or maybe angelic) form. I trust you are not suggesting that these prefigurings presuppose earlier incarnations?

The blessedness of the event does not lie in the fact that Mary was so good that God chose her to work this miracle.

Of course not, though indeed it was a blessed event. The Church has never taught that, HD.

As our Lord pointed out, he could have used rocks. The blessedness of the event lies in the fact that God would want to identify with us.

Not simply that He would "want to", but that He in fact did. The danger here for all Christians lies in the Western compulsion to "understand" and "explain" Divine Mysteries, to "rationalize" the Incarnation as has been done here. +Athanasius the Great's "On the Incarnation", the Nicene Creed and the Christological declarations of the Councils of Chalcedon and Ephesus go as far as is safe, maybe in the case of Chalcedon beyond that point, in explaining the Incarnation so that all Christians can accept that the Logos really did become "enfleshed" of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became Man, and died for us so that we could fulfill our created purpose, because that's the way God wanted it to be.

The best modern work I have ever read on the theology of the Incarnation is by Fr. George D. Dragas, one of the preeminent Orthodox theologians in the world and a respected friend of mine. It's called "Saint Athanasius of Alexandria: Original Research and New Perspectives".

Here's a link:

http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Athanasius-Alexandria-Perspectives-Theological/dp/1933275006/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260105638&sr=8-6

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.