Free Republic

How many children have you adopted from Russia?

I'm curious. If misterrob is not qualified to give an opinion because he hasn't adopted any children from Russia, how are you qualified to comment when this particular child has not lived in your home, and you haven't had to deal with the Russian orphanage involved?

Russian orphanages and adoption workers have a reputation for being dishonest about the history and condition of the children they put up for adoption, and will first unload the most problematic children on adoptive parents from other countries. The serious issues which often require professional help don’t become fully evident until the children have spent a longer amount of time with the new parent(s).

What death threat? Stake through the heart is a metaphor as is the grenade comment. Let’s pull it together here.

Exactly. Next thing you know Hayworth is going to accuse McCain of using the N-word 15 times. You got a problem with McCain, fine. But sometimes its hard to tell the difference betwen the anti-McCain hysteria and the liberals' anti-tea party/Republicans/conservatives/Palin/Fox News/Etc. hysteria.

The fact that you care is exactly the problem

Bring on the hysteria. I personally could less about the MSM, what matters is that voters from the mushy mainstream middle do care. You're living in dreamland if you think you're going to win any elections without them.

MSM is going to have a field day anyway. Their best weapon against conservatives is making them ashamed of themselves.

Wow, now that is truly ironic. It seems people like you and many on this thread are doing a bang-up job toward that end yourselves.

I quote Reagan only because so many on the right have made him the patron saint of conservatism in spite of the fact that, as much as I admire him, too, he did in fact have his own baggage.

You are right about the earmarks and it drives me crazy when Republicans don't differentiate themselves from the Dems that way. But that seems to me a plus for McCain, who has campaigned against them and authored the amendment banning earmarks from the omnibus spending bill March of 09.

We are never going to have candidates who we agree with 100% and it makes no sense to cut off our noses to spite our face. All I can say is, I'd rather have McCain in there than Obama. Say what you will, McCain would have never allowed a bill like Obamacare to get past his desk. He would never go abroad apologizing for this country, nor make enemies with Israel, etc., etc.

She didn’t have to “turn” on him. She just didn’t have to go out and actively campaign for someone who continuously compromises with liberals.

There is no question ignoring a campaign request from the McCain camp would have been perceived as a snub. The MSM would have had a field day with it. Right now, the Republicans appear as a very united party with their solidarity against Obamacare. That will really help them in November. They don't need something like a perceived Palin snub to give the impression of division. I question Hayworth's wisdom far more than Palin's.

You lost your country thanks to McCain-Feingold. Maybe you should wake up. No one gives a sh*t about RINO Romney.

The bill that Fred Thompson - who was crowned THE "Conservative" Choice - helped sponsor. McCain was obviously not the perfect candidate, but there is no such thing. Reagan himself recognized that when he mentioned the line that goes something like "The person who votes with me 80% of the time is my friend." But based on some of Reagan's votes as governor of CA, I've no doubt some of you would have labeled him a socialist when he first ran against Carter.

Going through this thread, based on all the hysterical invectives, it sure is hard noticing any difference between some so called "conservatives" and liberals at times. It's that hysteria that may have actually cost us the election last fall by driving up McCain's negatives and suppressing the conservative turnout.

To those who think Palin should have turned on the guy who put her in the national spotlight, all I have to say is, with friends like you who consider backstabbing a virtue, who would need enemies?

Look, people gotta get over this, seriously..MOVE ON, she feels obligated to him, if she had endorsed Hayworth, the same people would be trashing her for being a traitor, notice she has NOT said one bad thing about Hayworth, she is hardly talking about McCain, she is talking more about Obama

Agree completely. Would folks respect Sarah more if she stabbed in the back the guy who helped make her a household name?

They decided to re-create the church as a kind of dining club with a social conscience.

Great line, all too true.

1 Timothy 4:1-6

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.

I am not a practicing Catholic, so I can cheer on all day long for such people to be excommunicated, but it is up to the Catholic Church itself to do this.

The RCC can be commended for its official stance on these kind of social issues. Unfortunately, there is its official posture on the one hand and the dominance of indifferent, cafeteria Roman Catholics on the other. One solution is for the hierarchy of the RCC to crack down on the most public deviants from its teachings via excomunications or by not allowing these folks to receive the Eucharist. It's the very least they can - but hardly ever - do. Which is why the RCC's "authority" is ultimately toothless, and RC Dems like Pelosi, Biden, Gutierrez, Granholm, etc., etc. continue to flaunt their anti-RC positions in the RCC's face.

What he is telling these people gathered in front of him is that these practices (prayer, fasting, almsgiving) are good in and of themselves and that doing them for the purpose of social status - like so many of the Pharisees do - is a misuse of these practices.

Jesus does NOT tell those people in Matthew 6 to basically keep on doing what they've always been doing, only make sure their hearts are in the right place. Nowhere in Matthew 6 does he say anything close to that. I am wondering what is so hard to understand about this:

"...your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

As has already been noted, ashes reflect the exact opposite of righteousness. Gotta do a little reading up there, fella.

Having been raised Roman Catholic, I am quite familiar with the spin put on the the practice. If something is in direct contradiction to what Jesus taught, do you think it really cuts any ice with Him if we say, "Well, you gotta understand Lord, this is what it represents."

I think it fairly amusing that you use a Chesterton quote in your anti-Chatholic posts...

And I find it amusing that quoting Jesus is considered by you to be "anti-Chatholic."

It is clear that you do not.

If you respect someone, then you do not quote them out of context.

Please check out Matthew 6 in its entirety, then, and enlighten us how the context is different from the passages cited.

The fact is, most of the chapter has to do with warnings against putting acts of piety on public display.

Mark 7:9 - And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"

That said, I find it disgusting that people are objecting to the wearing of ashes, by this lawyer, by Joe Bidet or anyone else.

That is a traditional observance in their faith and should be respected as such.

I tend to have more respect for what Jesus has to say about such practices. Just my opinion.

That should be Matthew 6:16-18.

Matthew 16-18 - "Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

Matthew 6:1 - “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.”