Morals? This is about morals? Excuse me while I puke. After eight years of the most morally corrupt government in U.S. history, you have a problem with family planning programs to help lower income women? Unbelievable. And, guess what? Atheists have morals, we just don't believe in fairy tales.
First, the Bush Administration is not relevant to this discussion. Pointing the finger at somebody and saying they're worse than me or people I support is relativistic shenanigans. Pelosi is either right or wrong on the merits of this issue, not in relation to Bush.
Second, I never said I have a problem with family planning programs. The Catholic Church does, and she claims to be a Catholic. Therefore, she is either a hypocrite or an imbecile. Perhaps both.
Third, family planning does nothing to help with economic growth. If one myopically focuses on short-term state budgets, as she is, then perhaps, maybe there is a benefit. But those are more than outweighed by the long-term fiscal and macroeconomic consequences of decreased population growth.
So, I am not against family planning. I'm actually for it. What I have an issue with is a person who claims to be a self-professed Catholic advocating a policy that is both contrary to the basic teachings of her Church, i.e. she's a hypocrite or an idiot, and furthermore that the policy in question does not, in fact, make long-term economic sense.
Lastly, I am extremely uncomfortable, and I think everybody should be as well, with arguments involving birth control, euthanasia, or life in general even hinted at as an economic question. Because, as I tried to make clear through reductio ad absurdum, that's a fucking slippery slope.
Posts
32 comments:
I think we can agree that if the federal government is spending, someone is receiving, and that usually is the basis of most stimulus programs. Either the federal government is hiring more people to counsel parents (more employment!), or it is buying more contraceptives and contracting for more pamphlets (more commerce!). Millions of dollars will be poured into the economy either way. Moreover, if the program is successful, it may avert unplanned pregnancies for mothers not financially prepared to care for a child. That saves tax dollars for other purposes. We are for that, right?
I also think we can agree that Rep. Pelosi is both a Catholic and the Speaker of the House. I suspect she is the Speaker and not just a back-bencher because she has proven she is NOT an idiot or a moron. Also, as she has taken a public servant role and pledged to support and defend the Constitution, she perhaps has pushed back her Catholic beliefs in deference of the separation of church and state doctrine. After all, we witnessed emotional arguments against John Kennedy being elected from people who feared he would be loyal to the Pope rather than the Constitution. Clearly, public officials can put their country ahead of their religious beliefs. Our new President sent a shout out to several religions and "nonbelievers." Those who cannot second their religious beliefs perhaps should consider other lines of work lest they inadvertently violate the First Amendment.
Your first point is fallacious. Yes, if the government spends money on birth control then it is spending money, but that's a fucking stupid point. By that logic the government could buy anything and everything to stimulate the economy and who cares? If so, then why not buy a billion free bibles and hand them out for free. Who cares about separation of church and state IT'S STIMULATING THE ECONOMY! No. We need smart stimulus.
Second, if one accepts your first argument, that spending is spending and who cares, then why do I care if it "saves tax dollars for other purposes?" I don't. All spending is equally beneficial in stimulating the economy. So, your logic refutes itself.
Third, we should be very careful about saving tax dollars for other purposes when it comes to life issues. As I said, at the end of that slippery slope is killing old people because they cost too much. In fact, we should not talk about people, even potential people, according to their economic benefits and costs. Because, again, there is a nasty slippery slope....
Lastly, as regards, "I suspect she is the Speaker and not just a back-bencher because she has proven she is NOT an idiot or a moron."
I suspect that she represents one of the most liberal districts in the country and therefore can look like a good little liberal and can raise up the ranks. She can check every liberal interest group's checkbox without problems.
Oh, and as regards the personal belief versus public responsibility of her role, I have to say that you have a fair point there. However, I would be far more comfortable if she actually seemed to understand what she claims to be. I mean the lady has tried to square the circle of her pro-choice stance with the pro-life belief of her self-affiliation with the Catholic Church in ways that only an idiot or a hypocrite could make with a straight face.
"Either the federal government is hiring more people to counsel parents (more employment!), or it is buying more contraceptives and contracting for more pamphlets (more commerce!). Millions of dollars will be poured into the economy either way."
This is a remarkably ignorant statement as this is not how the government-funded reproductive health planning works as we do not have state run clinics and hospitals yet. The women are sent to hospital/clinics/doctors that receive federal money to help the poor - like Catholic hospitals. Currently Catholic hospitals do not do abortions. Let us see if Ms. Pelosi is planning on changing that. Also, not all OBGYNs, Catholic or not perform abortions as they took the Hippocratic oath. They believe that abortion as well as some forms of contraceptives violate the oath.
But I am delighted to see that Mr. Howe does recognize the big business that abortion/ contraception is to our economy. Particularly the after fact selling of the limbs, eyes, and whatnot of the victims of abortion for medical research. If Pelosi does get her way with this stimulus spending then I do hope that Mr. Howe will be one of the first ones in line demanding that family planning clinics since they will be receiving tax dollars from the American taxpayers will finally at long last be regulated by our government.
Mrs. P
Don't think anyone's mentioned this, but I am quite certain I have read in the Economist several times that Pelosi's district has the fewest children (or smallest proportion of children) of any Congressional district in America. Perhaps she really does think this is an economic boon. Which makes her no less of a moron.
Family Planning Services =/= abortion. So, what slope are we afraid of here? Are we worried that mothers will learn how to feed and care for their babies? Are we worried that a woman with too many children may get assistance with birth control?
We are going to spend to stimulate our economy. So, let us do so smartly as suggested above. We will build bridges for example. We will also try to avoid unplanned pregnancies and do all we can to educate and assist mothers and fathers in caring for their children so that abortions can be avoided. I think that is worth a few or several millions, but I recognize I may be in the minority. You may be surprised to learn that Democrats are also anti-abortion. We just recognize that Roe v. Wade is not going anywhere--it survived the Bush administration--and so look to practical means to reducing the incidence of abortion. Family planning does that, and since we need to stimulate the economy, we now have two good reasons to better fund these programs.
Finally, as I understand it, the Christian faith speaks of free will while Catholicism requires adherence to the Pope's direction. Therefore, I think the problem is less hypocrisy in individual Catholics than it is a dilemma in the church dogma. The many practicing Catholics who also practice birth control agree, I assume.
I thought that the Catholic Church had officially ruled birth control pills were okay. Or, something, anyhow, that made it clear they did not carry the same moral abhorrence as euthanasia. I believe statistics show that most of Planned Parenthood's effort goes into preventing not ending pregnancies, and the majority of the women they come into contact with are just there for the Pill, and that in *practice*, "family planning" mostly means "cheap and easy pill and condoms".
Also, as Alan notes, she isn't saying fewer people, period. The ramification of birth control for poor women is fewer demands on SCHIP, state-subsidized lunches, AFDC; fewer uninsured children in emergency rooms; less pressure on schools without a big property tax base; less demand for after-school services and extra tutoring, etc. So that's a clear short-term savings.
Is there a slippery moral slope there? Only for people who can't tell the difference between giving women the Pill for free and forced sterilization.
To what extent do the long-term macroeconomic consequences of decreased population growth balance or outweigh the long-term macroeconomic consequences of an uneducated underclass?
Will reducing the overload on SCHIP, poor schools, etc, mean that the institutions better serve the children they do have, thus putting fewer but better qualified workers into the global economy?
Sorry for my long comment, I was composing it while Alan was writing something similar.
I am completely fine with your long comment. Thank you.
Alan Howe's last paragraph oversimplifies Catholic doctrine (and makes it sound like Christians only espouse free will, as well as making it sound as though Catholics aren't Christians). Free will is there in Church dogma; you are free to turn away from God or towards him, free to ignore the Pope or not. The Pope has the authority he does when he speaks on Church matters ex cathedra. There is indeed a tension between American Catholics and the Vatican on a number of issues, including birth control. But if you choose to be a Catholic, yes, you must adhere to Church doctrine. I personally don't have a problem with this notion of adherence to Church doctrine. Almost every organization, religion, societies, country, club, does something along those lines. The Church is often seen as totalitarian, but often this faith required of Catholics is what has given her vitality and strength through the ages. (Go ahead, mention the Crusades, etc., etc....they can be balanced with a number of examples of the Church's good for humanity.)
As for Pelosi, I long ago concluded that she was a hypocrite and a moron on grounds besides not being the best Catholic she can be. Incidentally, don't forget that the woman tried to write her own doctrine on abortion at the DNC, making it sound as though abortion were a debated issue within the Church.
Dance, Humanae Vitae is still in force, and birth control is still held to be always intrinsically wrong.
Again another remarkably ignorant statement:
"Finally, as I understand it, the Christian faith speaks of free will while Catholicism requires adherence to the Pope's direction".
Catholics are Christians. Catholics are expected to follow Church teachings but no one holds a gun to their head as evidenced by the 51% who voted into the White house most radical pro-abort that has ever run for office. (Oh and JFK was pro-life.) The Catholic Church possesses the most sophisticated understanding of free will, save for the Orthodox Church. Read the Catechism or spend some time in the confessional if you doubt me.
The Pope (alone) is (only) infallible on issues of dogma. Translation: freedom from errors in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals. The source of his infallibility is from the Holy spirit and directly descended from St. Peter and is upon every successor of St. Peter. The condition of the infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex-cathedra. For this is required tat 1. he have the intention of declaring something unchangeably true; and 2. he speak as a shepherd and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority, and not merely as a private theologian or even merely for the people of Rome or some particular segment o the Church.
As has been noted previously, Pelosi is both an imbecile and a moron on issues of faith and morals. She also fallible as we all learned when she misquoted "Senator St. Augustine's" understanding of life to favor her position on Meet the Press. Since birth control involves life it is a moral issue that involves faith. I would venture to say that Pelosi's ridiculous statements on birth control violate the separation of Church and State clause but violate it in the way both Mr. Howe and Linda approve so they have no problem with it.
But the family planning clinics that would receive taxpayer dollars may object to being regulated like Catholic hospitals already are so let us see how this all shakes out, shall we?
Mrs. P
Thanks, Arethusa. I was thinking that the Catholic principle of "primacy of conscience" had been applied to the Pill, thus making it less morally abhorrent than other things, but Wikipedia tells me that was merely a dissenting opinion.
I noted that free will and the Pope's authority are in conflict in the Catholic Church and in Catholics. Two people have responded that that statement is wrong and then went on to offer evidence that it is right. Of course Catholics are Christians, so free will is in the church alongside the obligation to follow the Pope. The problem is free will in the Catholic Church does NOT allow one to ignore the Pope's direction. That leads to excommunication or denial of the sacrament, as was suggested in the case of John Kerry, or to being considered a "bad" Catholic, imbecile, moron, or idiot.
Pelosi can say whatever she wants about the Church or the state. What she cannot do is advance a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Per:
"The problem is free will in the Catholic Church does NOT allow one to ignore the Pope's direction. That leads to excommunication or denial of the sacrament, as was suggested in the case of John Kerry, or to being considered a "bad" Catholic, imbecile, moron, or idiot."
If what you say is true Mr. howe then why on earth is Nancy Pelosi ignoring the Pope's direction?
Catholics have the free will to commit sin. The Pope advises Catholics daily not to do this but sadly most do not listen. Catholics by their own sins excommunicate themselves. They can come back into the fold through repentance.
Mrs. P
.
If their exercise of free will leads to their expulsion, as you note above, then they do not have free will in the Church, Mrs. P. That would resolve the dilemma, but that is not how the Church functions as you also note above.
It is unhelpful for the Church and its adherents to criticize Catholics as hypocritical when this dilemma exists, especially here in the U.S. with the primacy of the First Amendment. What I said is true: Pelosi has been called a "bad" Catholic, an imbecile, a moron, and an idiot for exercising free will. (See multiple entries above.)
Would you prefer a Catholic like Pelosi, who presumably has some appeal to other Catholics, or a follower of a different or no faith pursuing the same political aims? A Catholic fully subservient to the Pope is not likely in that seat or most others. Be happy that Pelosi and the Democrats are pursuing strategies that will lead to a reduction in the number of abortions. I am. I support them in that effort.
Mr. Howe, I most respectfully suspect that you are excerising your God-given free will to be purposely difficult. Ah well, so be it. I've met worse. I am not trying to convince you of anything, merely trying to set straight all the things you have wrong about God, The Catholic Church and Nancy Pelosi.
And with that let me go back to a few earlier mistakes you have made. Family planning is indeed abortion. Visit Planned Parenthood if you need to learn this. Also, put your significant other on the mini-pill and she will abort your offspring monthly in the privacy of your domicile during her regular cycles. The mini-pill, one of the most popular forms of The Pill out there, does not prevent pregnancy. It prevents the implantation of the fertilized egg (pregnancy) upon the wall of the woman's womb by un-naturally decreasing her progesterone levels. Also, a little known fact about The Pill ; It messes with a woman's pituitary gland by tricking it into believing the body is pregnant. The pituitary gland is the gland that controls many things in the body including coping skills. The pituitary gland is also where many forms of mental illness originates so why we would put young developing girls on such a pill that is known to bring on psychosis remains a mystery. So, Ms. Pelosi needs to factor more mental health $$$$ for the increased usage of the pill.
Per:
"Also, as she has taken a public servant role and pledged to support and defend the Constitution, she perhaps has pushed back her Catholic beliefs in deference of the separation of church and state doctrine. After all, we witnessed emotional arguments against John Kennedy being elected from people who feared he would be loyal to the Pope rather than the Constitution. Clearly, public officials can put their country ahead of their religious beliefs."
You may not be aware that Ms. Pelosi pledged her support to uphold the Constitution upon the Bible. The rest of your argument can be sumed up as "the faithful need not apply". Funny, Joe Stalin encouraged, indeed ran a similar form of government to the one you seem to hint at desiring. Oh and so much for the old government by the people for the people wheeze huh? Perhaps you are not aware that even John Adams who supported the separation of church and state as firmly as any Founding Father advocated using federal dollars to build churches? The separation of Church and State understanding (by some) has certainly come a long way since the early days of our wonderful country.
Per:
"If their exercise of free will leads to their expulsion, as you note above, then they do not have free will in the Church, Mrs. P. That would resolve the dilemma, but that is not how the Church functions as you also note above.
"It is unhelpful for the Church and its adherents to criticize Catholics as hypocritical when this dilemma exists, especially here in the U.S. with the primacy of the First Amendment. What I said is true: Pelosi has been called a "bad" Catholic, an imbecile, a moron, and an idiot for exercising free will. (See multiple entries above.)"
First, the Church is not criticizing Nancy Pelosi. The Church, as far as comments made by the Pope, Archbishops, Cardinals, Priests, and bishops is merely instructing Nancy on her most grave errors. That is the Church's job.
Now, I on the other hand have (in this space) referred to Pelosi (freely) as a moron, and imbecile but I was merely employing the words my host FLG had used. - I believe it was you that tossed in the idiot label and I have used that as well. If you were to ask me what I really thought she was I would say; a most corrupted soul. But a lot of people do not like that as it implies that I employ judgement. Which I most certainly do as God gave me a brain. And to not use it is foolish. But rst assured that I do not apply final judgement -Heaven or Hell and all that good stuff as that is God's job. Not mine. But judgement in that Catholics are not supposed to be doing what Pelosi is doing. Though I'm not above saying aloud that I certainly hope Ms. Pelosi has had herself outfitted for an asbestos corset as it looks good that she will be requiring its services.
Now at last for free will.
All people, including Catholics, enjoy free will. And free will is quite simple. It is the power of the will to determine itself and to act of itself, without compulsion from within or coercion from without. It is the faculty of an intelligent being to act or not to act, to act this way or another way, and is therefore essentially different from the operations of irrational beings that merely respond to a stimulus and are conditioned by sensory objects.
The Church's job is to get us to Heaven. It's that simple. Therefore, it is allowed through the offices of Pope and all of the other levels of the priesthood to instruct us on what can cost us Heaven. Then Catholics can freely choose whether or not they will follow the Church.
Ms. Pelosi is rare as she does not openly follow the Church's teachings or instructions or even rebukes. And then she has the audacity of hope to say a loud that she is a good Catholic.
No need to respond to me as my husband has just poured me a whiskey and soda and I'm off to sit in front of the fire with him.
Good Evening,
Mrs. P
Enjoy your whiskey and soda while Rep. Pelosi works to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. Perhaps you can raise a toast to her in the spirit of good Christian forgiveness and charity. Your savior did not teach you to hate, after all.
Sleep well.
I couldn't let Dance's claim that the majority of Planne Parenthood's services are for pregnancy prevention go unchallenged. Ross Douthat explains how Planned Parenthood massages their numbers -- partly by listing all the "family planning" services that attend abortions (pregnancy test, family planning counseling, contraception, etc.) as *separate* services.
Per:
"Enjoy your whiskey and soda while Rep. Pelosi works to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. Perhaps you can raise a toast to her in the spirit of good Christian forgiveness and charity. Your savior did not teach you to hate, after all."
*Sigh*
I oppose Nancy Pelosi for reasons that do not violate my Church teachings nor were they reasons you could refute so what is your response? Why you ever so gently but deftly accuse me of being hate filled.
Mr. Howe, when it comes to discussing theology, the basic concepts of Christianity and it how has always been perfectly acceptable, if not preferable, for legislators in this country to use their religious beliefs to form their moral compass you sound as intelligent upon the subject as Nancy Pelosi.
Oh, and I forgot to add, that FLG is correct. This birth control plan is not about stimulating the economy. It is all about taking advantage of a weak economy to force through a morally repugnant social agenda. And he was even more on the money to be concerned that Pelosi was making issues of life a matter for economics.
Cheers!
Mrs. P
Mrs. P, you ARE hate filled. I realized this way back, when I first started reading this blog. I'll even go further and state that you are an ignorant (one of YOUR favorite words) racist as well. Remember your rant about the Republic Windows workers? (why, they don't even speak English!!!) I bit my tongue, so to speak, so as not to put FLG in an awkward position. But, screw it, if FLG has to delete this, so be it. And if FLG wants me to desist from commenting anymore, I'll have to live with it. But, lady, you are a piece of work! Just about everything I've read of yours has been mean and petty. Ugly stuff. But for YOU to call Alan ignorant goes beyond the pale. His responses are thoughtful and well-reasoned and he does not deserve your vitriol. Disgusting, Mrs P. Shame on you.
Linda, Linda, why do you always have to reach for the big guns? You've called me a homophobe and misogynist. Now, Mrs. P is an hate-filled, ignorant racist?
Words like these are used to silence somebody one disagrees without defeating their arguments. Alan and Mrs. P have vastly different sets of first principle beliefs that lead to vastly different political conclusions.
I understand that the beliefs of the Catholic Church may be problematic to you, but they are the product of milliena of thinking and should not be taken lightly. Even if they seem hate-filled, I assure you that they are not, and the same goes for Mrs. P.
Kate Marie, thanks very much for that link. However, that link says that even after un-massaging the numbers, 66% of PP's visitors are not there related to pregnancy and abortion. A majority. (admittedly, more than I thought, but I wrote carefully on purpose).
I was actually really hoping to learn more about the potential long-term macroeconomic consequences of a uneducated, unhealthy, underclass.
I find it difficult to imagine that Jesus would respond to me or to Rep. Pelosi or to others mentioned in this chain in the manner that some have responded. Perhaps a little soul-searching--a jihad, so to speak--is in order. It could be that some in this country are idolizing the fetus and, besides the sin inherent in that, are, as a consequence, losing sight of the larger message that Jesus preached. Sure, the Church has a mission to get its followers into Heaven, but that path is through following the life of Jesus, acting as he did and following his guide for daily living. It seems to this atheist, who happily agrees with Christ's social philosophy but not his theology, that we seem to forget that at times. Peace out.
Dance, I suppose that we do have an industry built around supporting and redeeming the "uneducated, unhealthy, underclass" which counters the negative consequences. I cannot cite figures for you, but I am content to rely on common sense that tells me we would all be better off if we broke the cycle of poverty and increased the number of productive workers in this country and elsewhere. I think we likely have driven up our costs by "nickel and diming" our approach rather than declaring a war on poverty and defeating it broadly and deeply.
What you call "idolizing the fetus" I call recognizing the value and dignity of every human life (which is what a fetus is, for those of you who idolize science).
Alan, you seem like a perfectly decent person, but I get kind of tired of the tendency among those who disagree with Jesus's theology to invoke his example as a moral caution to anyone who has a religiously-informed objection to certain progressive causes. We all know that Jesus said, "Love your neighbor." He also said, "Go and sin no more." My opposition to the great sin of abortion is perfectly reconcilable with both of those teachings.
Alan:
"I think we likely have driven up our costs by "nickel and diming" our approach rather than declaring a war on poverty and defeating it broadly and deeply."
You seem to think the problem is one of scale and not of kind. Perhaps human nature is not that malleable and it cannot be defeated through even the most enlightened and intelligent policies. Some people will always make poor decisions which will lead them into poverty regardless. That said, I am not saying we can't make a huge dent in the problem. Nor should lack of a perfect outcome be the enemy of a better outcome.
Kate Marie, I invoke the example of Jesus for all of us, not as a rebuke to those who follow his faith, and I dislike it when others do, regardless of the religion targeted. I would not argue that only Christians must practice forgiveness because their savior did, for example. We all must practice forgiveness.
As I mentioned above, we are all opposed to abortion, our great divide is over how to reduce or end its practice. That is, the fight is not between those who are anti- or pro-abortion (the latter hardly exist despite accusations to the contrary) but between anti- and pro-choice.
FLG, not entirely one of scale; people will, as you note, make bad decisions. But I do agree that we must not let perfect be the enemy of good. We could do dramatically better in using our school systems to break the cycle for a much large number and percentage of disadvantaged children.
Having spent some time reading feminist blogs, I must disagree with your assertion that "we are all opposed to abortion." The party line among those who consider themselves feminists is that there is *nothing* morally problematic about abortion.
As for the pro- or anti-choice terminology, that's kind of a matter of semantics, don't you think? If I think parents shouldn't be allowed to "euthanize" a disabled or mentally retarded infant up to the age of, say, one month (as Peter Singer would have us allow), am I not also being anti-choice?
As for reducing or ending the practice of abortion, most of the evidence I've read suggests that making it illegal is the best way to go about it.
But Kate Marie, making abortion illegal will not end the practice even if it could be made illegal again. Why should we avoid doing those things that reduce the perceived need for abortion? Just as in the case of disadvantaged children that FLG and I discussed, some opposed to abortion are allowing perfection to be the enemy of good. I, too, think human life has value, so I do what is possible to protect the most lives I can. Family Planning Services that reduce the incidence of abortion is one way to do that. So, I applaud that use of my tax dollars. After all, those services also improve the health of mothers and of babies carried to term. I see a net good here.
I suppose there could be people out there who are correctly characterized as "pro-abortion," who are advocating to women "kill your baby!" But I suspect not many. (Even if it was ALL the "feminists," that would still be a minority.) I assume that most people also do not agree with Mrs. P's assertion that not allowing a zygote to adhere to the uterus is abortion and those who prescribe birth control are pro-abortion. "Pro-choice" is not quite the equivalent, either; it is not merely semantics.
"Just as in the case of disadvantaged children that FLG and I discussed, some opposed to abortion are allowing perfection to be the enemy of good."
I didn't say that in reference to abortion, but to the war on poverty.
Of course. I did not imply that you did.
Mr. Howe, you are an atheist? I did not realize this. If I knew it, I had forgotten it. This does place your comments on this thread as well your understandings of things you do not believe in, in their proper context.
I love what we Catholics have long said about atheists:
"Without a God there would be no atheists."
Sadly for atheists, to reverse the argument doesn't work as Christians believe there is a God...
Anyhoo, let me be brief as I have said before I am not trying to persuade Mr. Howe of the validity of Christianity or the existence of God. Rather if anything I was correcting his errors about Christianity and Catholicism and what exactly family planning encompasses as well as bat down his notion that Christians in the U.S. do not have to check their faith at the door if they want to participate in the public square or even be a legislator. After all, even Mr, Howe must agree that our Constitution is not an atheistic tract as it recognizes the existence of God.
Mr. Howe is right as an atheist to espouse secular humanism and make the case for life being one of economics. As secular humanists certainly have long made life issues one for economics.
But Nancy Pelosi is not a secular humanist. She is a Christian and a Catholic. Therefore she commits a grave sin to argue life issues in terms of economic no matter if our society is a pluralistic one. Why? Being as a Christian, we believe the Christian understanding of life to be a much more compassionate one for all, even the poor, than the secular humanist understanding. Therefore Christians must always advocate the Christian solution. Not check it at the door. Oh, and to advocate it does not make a fetish of the fetus or whatever it was Mr. Howe said Christians do.
I suspect it is because Nancy Pelosi wears her Catholicism on her sleeve while advocating secular humanist solutions is why FLG originally mentioned Pelosi being a Catholic in relation to her argument. He understood she was not supposed to put forth such an argument. The irony was though, Pelosi was probably doing it in terms of economics to avoid the moral argument thereby avoiding any more heat from her Archbishop who she has been doing her best to avoid meeting with since her last round of explosive and wrongheaded statements regarding Catholicism and matters of life...
Mrs. P
Dear Mrs. P,
As you did not know I am an atheist, and as you know nothing about me whatsoever really, kindly refrain from attributing arguments to me that I have not made. You do so in extreme error. Atheists are no more a monolith than Catholics are. You go too far when you presume to think I equate life with mere economics.
Good day.
Alan Howe
A very good day to you as well Mr. Howe.
FLG, here's something that you wouldn't see at Georgetown. And it gives us more insight to the moron's (that would be Pelosi for all those who have forgotten) understanding of Catholicism. Oh, and don't forget that secular humanist society to the North of us (Canada) just forbade entrance to Bill Ayers 2 days before his peer BHO became Prez. Ayers was scheduled to lecture at one of the colleges in Toronto but unfortunately couldn't because Canada considers him a terrorist:
http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CardinalNewmanSociety/tabid/36/ctl/Details/mid/435/ItemID/375/Default.aspx
Mrs. P
Post a Comment