In Illinois, a church-state conundrum of real consequence
Here’s the crux of the issue, as described by the New York Times:
“Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money. The charities have served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children.”
The Illinois diocese sees itself as a victim of religious persecution. “In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” as Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki put it. The church believes that it should be able to use taxpayer dollars as it wishes, in line with its religious beliefs, even if its actions violate Illinois law forbidding discrimination against its gay citizens.
I would argue that the church is not being persecuted. It is not persecution to be held to the standards that are applied to every other contractor that does business with the state. To the contrary, the church is demanding “special rights” to violate the law and to use taxpayers’ money to do so. It’s akin to some church or social agency taking state money to run soup kitchens to feed the poor, but demanding the right to deny aid to black people or Hispanics.
The church, using its own funds, would have every right to refuse to assist in gay adoptions. The First Amendment gives it that protection. But by accepting taxpayer dollars, it accepts the conditions that come with it. As the Times reports, “Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its annual revenue of $4.67 billion. Only 3 percent came from churches in the diocese (the rest came from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees and community donations).”
A couple of other points:
– There is no evidence that children raised by same-sex parents are harmed by the experience. Quite the contrary. In other words, the church’s objection may be based on moral grounds in its eyes, but it cannot be justified in terms of policy or pragmatism.
– It’s a shame that Illinois church leaders decided that discriminating against gay couples was more important to them than continuing to provide much-needed services to orphans and neglected children. Catholic leaders in other parts of the country have made the opposite decision.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
487 comments Add your comment
josef
December 29th, 2011
3:58 pm
NORMAL
Canticle…well, I am 6000 years old and “tents mended here!” Wanna play some mumbley peg?
Normal
December 29th, 2011
3:58 pm
OK,
I’m done for the day…don’t know if I’ll be in tomorrow so if not, have a happy years end, all y’all.
too little time
December 29th, 2011
3:59 pm
I agreed with everything, but liberal progressive Jay just had to throw this in:
“It’s a shame that Illinois church leaders decided that discriminating against gay couples was more important to them than continuing to provide much-needed services to orphans and neglected children. ”
WRONG. They decided that following the tenants of their faith was more important that providing adoption services to homosexual couples. There is a big difference between stating the facts and twisting the facts for a self-serving blog. Committing a “small sin” to perform a greater good IS the slippery slope justifying just about any sin for any reason.
Dusty
December 29th, 2011
4:00 pm
Uh oh,,,I don’t ask Gingrich about his personal life or his marriage management so I’ll ask friends if I want more info about Catholic “rules”..
AMVET, whatcha mean “Are there any women here today?” DUH!!!
Now ,I am getting an “annulment” from this blog on grounds that I need to find more sensible endeavors to waste time. Other “engagements” are pending. It is a “marriage” of time, talent and what’s for dinner. Truth never fails but time waits for no one, etc.etc,etc.
au revoir (ersatz)
Normal
December 29th, 2011
4:00 pm
Josef,
I don’t have the Poet’s glass eye and I don’t need a blue headed goat…
Doggone/GA
December 29th, 2011
4:02 pm
“WRONG. They decided that following the tenants of their faith was more important that providing adoption services to homosexual couples.”
And you are WRONG. They decided their vieww of morality was more important than honoring the obligations of the contract they agreed to.
Thulsa Doom
December 29th, 2011
4:02 pm
keep up,
Apparently you need help with your critical thinking skills yet again. Its a long article but it cites the growing number of families and out of wedlock births rising after the rise of the welfare state and AFDC. The empirical evidence is there ma’am. You just have to read it. Why you try to dispute what is readily known and which is backed up by empirical evidence is beyond me. Go ahead. Stick your head back in the sand ma’am. Its where it belongs.
Tom in Lazybrook
December 29th, 2011
4:11 pm
The Catholic Church is unfortunately, trying to have it both ways. The Roman Catholic Church whines about supposed denial of freedom of religion in Illinois (which is really them whining about not being able to discriminate while acting as a majority-taxpayer funded state social welfare agency – not a ‘charity’) while at the same time advocating throwing members of progressive religions in prison for 10 years in Nigeria for simply attending a same sex marriage rite consistent with their religion in a private church. The Nigerian Bishops Conference (the official RC agency in Nigeria and led by the leaders of the church there) has endorsed (which has been widely reported in Nigerian mass media) legislation currently under consideration that will throw straight or gay pastors and congregants in prison for 10 years for simply attending a private same sex ceremony.
Which is worse persecution? Saying you cannot discriminate with taxpayer funds or saying if you attend a same sex marriage ceremony in your church, that you go to jail for up to 10 years.
carlosgvv
December 29th, 2011
4:23 pm
The Catholic Church coming down on orphans and neglected children is nothing new. By outlawing birth-control and abortions, they have forced countless thousands of women to have children they either cannot or will not support properly. Needles to say, once these forced births occur, the Church doesn’t lift a finger to help these helpless children. If there are any protests they reply “God will provide”.
pogo
December 29th, 2011
4:34 pm
Amvet at 3:14 pm. Good one.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
December 29th, 2011
4:36 pm
Well, looks like this thread is dead as grandma. Anyhow, I’m about to head home to write up my New Years Revolutions. You’ll see a changed man on the first of the year.
Have a good night everybody and especially the people in Mississippi. Wouldn’t want josef to read any kind of slight here.
pogo
December 29th, 2011
4:41 pm
You seem to be very “prolific” nowadays Redneck. Lonely?
getalife
December 29th, 2011
4:44 pm
Nothing wrong with change.
Go for it RC.
Economy is looking better now the gop are not there to block our recovery.
12 will be a better year.
Chin up Americans.
Thulsa Doom
December 29th, 2011
5:04 pm
Latest poll
Romney 45%
Obama 39%
The community organizer is going DOWN! Obama is done. Its all over but the shouting!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 29th, 2011
5:09 pm
Again Thelma, I realize it is difficult for you to do without childish insults and resort to your tired cliches of “critical thinking skills” but again you make sweeping claims rather than cite specific findings in the article. The proposition for which you have cited this article is actual proof that “[Monyihan predicted]…the welfare state would destroy the black family in advance and he was later vindicated” and the original claim that “all you have to do is look at generations of welfare families to realize that unconditional charity creates long-term problems.”. Your article at bests states:
Three thinkers in particular—Charles Murray, Lawrence Mead, and Thomas Sowell—though they did not always write directly about the black family, effectively changed the conversation about it. First, they did not flinch from blunt language in describing the wreckage of the inner city, unafraid of the accusations of racism and victim blaming that came their way. Second, they pointed at the welfare policies of the 1960s, not racism or a lack of jobs or the legacy of slavery, as the cause of inner-city dysfunction, and in so doing they made the welfare mother the public symbol of the ghetto’s ills. (Murray in particular argued that welfare money provided a disincentive for marriage, and, while his theory may have overstated the role of economics, it’s worth noting that he was probably the first to grasp that the country was turning into a nation of separate and unequal families.)
1. Not Moynihan
2. Presents a conclusion NOT evidence
3. Does not support either proposition directly
4. Indirectly, while there may be a correlation between welfare and single mothers, that does not prove cause and effect. Moreover nothing in the article explains changes in the “nuclear family” that arise outside of “welfare families”.
5. The conclusions have been disputed. As noted in your article a “highly sophomoric treatment of illegitimacy”.
6. The article is a recap of other works and not the original work and provides only summation and opinion NOT evidence.
7. Other influences including civil rights reform and the selective enforcement and criminalization of acts which have and are enforced on a disperate basis have not been addressed.
While you may of course continue to suggest I have my head in the sand, that particular placement is a better alternative than the current placement of your head.
Normal
December 29th, 2011
5:09 pm
AmVet,
Just got home and checked out your “righteous dude” post…
pogo
December 29th, 2011
5:10 pm
Amvet, I found this article very interesting. As Rock goes so does America. It seems everything in America is some anemic reformulation of something that has come before. There is nothing wrong with repetition if it also embraces change but that is not what we are getting. There is no originality in movies, music or literature. Are we out of ideas? Vainty Fair recently had an excellent article on this very thing and the author of that article was exactly right. It isn’t only rock but it is the politicians, the writers and the citizens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/arts/music/rock-in-2011-hot-chelle-rae-foster-the-people-chevelle.html?_r=1&hp
TaxPayer
December 29th, 2011
5:12 pm
Gallup:
Obama – 50%
Romney – 48%
kayaker 71
December 29th, 2011
5:14 pm
There are lots of things that our government should not be funding….. aid to churches is just one of them. But we don’t see the liberals complain when we fund some of these welfare baby factories in giveaway government housing projects by gazillions of dollars on the taxpayer dime. It’s OK when we give away the farm to support those who will not support themselves but when a church is aiding in placing children in foster homes when the children may have no other avenue to a normal life, that’s a no no. Sort of like not drilling for oil in a place that might have a snail darter or two in the way. I don’t agree with Bookman on raising children in a gay household. I don’t approve of the choice to be gay, anymore than they might approve of me and the way that I live. What is next?… the heavy hand of government taking away my social security check just because I don’t condone gay people?
Catholic Victim
December 29th, 2011
5:17 pm
I was born to a Catholic family but was diddled into becoming an atheist.
barking frog
December 29th, 2011
5:19 pm
K71, When did you decide to not be gay?
td
December 29th, 2011
5:20 pm
carlosgvv
December 29th, 2011
4:23 pm
Why must countless women have unwanted children in the first place? Do they not have any personal responsibility? Can they not control themselves? Why do we not make it a shameful act to bring children into the world that they can not afford?
We must blame the church instead of making people become responsible for their actions. This is a great outlook for our nation.
kayaker 71
December 29th, 2011
5:22 pm
barking frog,
I didn’t. Never was in issue.
pogo
December 29th, 2011
5:27 pm
And Michelle wears a $2,000 dollar sun dress on a days outing in Hawaii. The cost of that dress alone would easily feed an average American family of 4 for three or four months (if they didn’t buy too much fresh food). Face it folks. Obama is nothing but just another elitist and to support him is just as much a sham as conservatives supporting George W. Bush. Todays conservatives and progressives are one and the same and they all feed at the same campaign cash troughs and they all funnel taxpayer money to their campaign contributors. And all of it is to the detriment of our nation. All of them are woven of the same cloth.
midtownguy
December 29th, 2011
5:27 pm
His point, Kyaker is that we do not chose to be gay any more the we chose to be heterosexual. It is just who we are. No choice involved either way.
getalife
December 29th, 2011
5:30 pm
cons are reduced to crying about a dress.
Obama 52
willard 42.
Game over.
md
December 29th, 2011
5:30 pm
“Again Thelma, I realize it is difficult for you to do without childish insults and resort to your tired cliches of “critical thinking skills” but again you make sweeping claims rather than cite specific findings in the article.”
Says the one that leads off with a childish insult………
High road boys……high road.
AmVet
December 29th, 2011
5:31 pm
Normal, I’m just not sure which of those groups I belong in! (Probably the geeks or the wasteoids!)
Pogo, good article. And as TR wrote back in the 90s, “The TV blows, the music sucks”. And I agree, that stretches across most, if not all of our institutions.
(I suspect that the designated hitter was the cause!)
Even this guy tanked over they years. But wow, when he was good he was one of the best…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rls8cfomkBQ&feature=related
Paul
December 29th, 2011
5:32 pm
Scanned thru some of the comments, the pros and cons were about what I expected.
I’ve no problem with the ‘take public funds, be subject to public policy’ argument. But as I noted some time before, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Other, more serious issues, wait in the background.
Religious institutions do not have to receive public funds to have legitimate concerns with legislating SSM on a par with traditional marriage. This was illustrated in the arguments over Prop 8 in California.
It’s not just about losing funding for services. Being denied tax-exempt status on the basis of discrimination is a real possibility. The Supreme Court of Calif held that SSM is a basic and fundamental right on a par in every respect with traditional marriage. This was held partially on the basis of the Calif Constitution. If an organization denies fundamental rights, it can lose tax-exempt status. The Catholic Church ended adoptions in Massachusetts years ago on the basis Massachusetts demanded they allow gay couples to adopt. The Massachusetts court decisions and framework of laws let Catholic lawyers they would be in for a lengthy lawsuit and could not guarantee victory.
Yes, this it the tip of the deeper issues regarding this topic. It is also why I have advocated churches perform marriage for whichever couples they wish and government agencies perform civil unions (not marriages) for whomever they wish, for I think many individuals and organizations have agendas that go far beyond a desire for equal treatment under the law.
md
December 29th, 2011
5:32 pm
“I was born to a Catholic family but was diddled into becoming an atheist.”
And both are beliefs……..next.
td
December 29th, 2011
5:33 pm
midtownguy
December 29th, 2011
5:27 pm
His point, Kyaker is that we do not chose to be gay any more the we chose to be heterosexual. It is just who we are. No choice involved either way.
If this is true then why are there many more gays today then there were 100 years ago? If you are a believer in Darwin and scientific change then you would agree that there is a small number of the population that will be a deviation from the rest (people who are homosexual). That number is usually a small deviation (less than 1%), which is probably what the number was 100 years ago but now by the gay communities own count the number of homosexuals is around 5% of the population. This big of a change can not happen in this short of a period of time using this scientific theory.
md
December 29th, 2011
5:35 pm
Paul,
“life form” = child in my book.
Expecting parents don’t run down to get the first sonogram wanting to see the “life form”, although that is what it is.
One in the same in my book of definitions…….and yes, I’m well aware that my definition doesn’t conform to the definition on the books that was made up by someone else.
Paul
December 29th, 2011
5:39 pm
Interesting line from the NY Times article: “The Catholic providers offered to refer same-sex couples to other agencies (as they had been doing for unmarried couples), but that was not acceptable to the state, Mr. Marlowe said.”
So the Catholic Church was willing to interview prospective couples and refer them to other agencies but the state refused. Seems the issue is not about making sure kids get adopted.
Paul
December 29th, 2011
5:41 pm
md
Still on that?
Okay, so you think a fertilized egg is a child, yes?
If you just answer whether or not abortion is permissible under any circumstances you’ll have clearly stated your position, not just ’stating beliefs and gaining information from others.”
Old Timer
December 29th, 2011
5:43 pm
which is probably what the number was 100 years ago but now by the gay communities own count the number of homosexuals is around 5% of the population. This big of a change can not happen in this short of a period of time using this scientific theory.
A hundred years or so ago homosexuals were thrown in jail for being homosexual. No one came out and boasted of being gay. Read up on what happened to Oscar Wilde. There’s no reason to believe that the percentage of homosexuals today is any different than it was 100 years ago. I don’t know where you came up with this 1% figure, unless you pulled it out of a portion of your anatomy. Have a good night.
josef
December 29th, 2011
5:43 pm
td
You’re funny!
First off, there are more homosexuals today than there were 100 years ago because there are more people than there were 100 years ago, I’m not familiar with Darwin on homosexuality, a citation perhaps?
The figure most generally accepted is 10%. I have no idea myself, since I don’t go counting, but just looking at my own family over three generations, it seems to be that if not a bit higher, same in Unmentionable’s according to him. Not scientific, mind you, just a straw poll observation.
Oh, yes, Kayaker and the rest of y’all so worried ’bout the chirren, one of ours was just through and was looking over the posts here and laughing. I asked her why she didn’t respond. “Y’all taught me to be nice and act like a lady. I don’t want to reflect badly on my raising.”
Paul
December 29th, 2011
5:45 pm
midtownguy
“His point, Kyaker is that we do not chose to be gay any more the we chose to be heterosexual. It is just who we are. No choice involved either way.”
I used to make the same point, but upon further investigation into more recent studies, that is an erroneous statement.
Sexual identity is not an either/or gender issue. It’s not like saying “that person has blue eyes and that person has green eyes.” It’s conclusive that gender identity is a continuum – all the way from hardcore homosexual to hardcore heterosexual. And along that continuum there are those who can go either way.
So to be clear, I’m not saying gender identity is hardwired in and no choice is involved. That’s true for some. But not for others.
Paul
December 29th, 2011
5:47 pm
Good afternoon, josef
I enjoy those stories. You did a good job as a parent, you know that? Me, I’m amazed my kids turned out as well as they did, considering all the times I completely screwed up the on the job training.
Recon 0311 2533
December 29th, 2011
5:49 pm
Current Obama approval numbers: Gallup: Approve 41 Disapprove 50
Rasmussen: Approve 45 Disapprove 55
Yes Obama is really surging.
td
December 29th, 2011
5:49 pm
josef
December 29th, 2011
5:43 pm
I can look back on my family over the last 3 generations and say out of over 200 relatives I know there are zero homosexuals. One wonders if that has anything to do with a strong Southern Baptist upbringing the vast majority had?
josef
December 29th, 2011
5:49 pm
Old Timer
!00 years ago? Try 30…Hardwick v Georgia…for that matter, try 15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg
stands for decibels
December 29th, 2011
5:51 pm
The community organizer is going DOWN! Obama is done. Its all over but the shouting!
[...]
Yes Obama is really surging.
Sigh. Guess I’ll have to re-post a little historical reality check for you guys:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/more-cautionary-poll-tales/
And President BobDole sez “hi.”
td
December 29th, 2011
5:52 pm
Old Timer
December 29th, 2011
5:43 pm
Please point me towards the law and news accounts that this country put people in jail 100 years ago for being gay?
josef
December 29th, 2011
5:54 pm
td
Then, you’re blind as a bat! And, yes,Unmentionable even has a few Southern Baptist ones, including the cousin whose dad is a Southern Baptist minister…one of the sermons he delivers on a yearly basis, the Sunday closest to his son’s birthday, is “When it is your child you gave birth to and raised.” I wish I had a copy to pass on.
stands for decibels
December 29th, 2011
5:55 pm
heh. Noted this from my link above:
Overall, 45% say Clinton deserves re-election; 52% say he doesn’t, suggesting a close race
lessee… yeah, that’d be true, if a 379-159 electoral vote finish is considered “close.”
josef
December 29th, 2011
5:56 pm
PAUL
Whenever Unmentionable look at them it’s with awe and a comforting life’s measure “we must’ve done something right.”
Paul
December 29th, 2011
5:58 pm
josef
Yeah, good way to keep one humble (and grateful to the Powers that Be), isn’t it?
josef
December 29th, 2011
5:59 pm
td
citations provided at 5:49
midtownguy
December 29th, 2011
6:00 pm
There are the same number of “gays” as there were 100 years ago. There are just fewer covering it up. It has become somewhat socially acceptable to be gay, so fewer lie about it.
And Paul is correct, sexuality in a continuum. Only religion puts sexuality in distinct boxes of “straight/good” and “gay/bad”. And for the record, my partner of 20 years is the son of a Southern Baptist minister.
josef
December 29th, 2011
6:02 pm
PAUL
When one of the sniping jackasses was wanting to know about talking to G-d and G-d talking to you, did a lot of that when they were coming along.
td
December 29th, 2011
6:03 pm
josef
December 29th, 2011
5:59 pm
td
citations provided at 5:49
I saw that and thank you. I wonder how often the law was actually enforced? Also, I think sodomy laws were not just for homosexual behavior but also for what some believed was deviant behavior of heterosexuals.
josef
December 29th, 2011
6:03 pm
Hey, midtown guy…not just the son of a Southern Baptist minister, I understand, but a marine, too. Folks just don’t get it, do they?
Old Timer
December 29th, 2011
6:04 pm
Here y’are, TD. Read all about it. Even Thomas Jefferson proposed a law mandating castration for any man engaging in sodomy. You must be very, very young:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=anti-homosexuality%20laws%20in%20the%20united%20states&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSodomy_law&ei=SfH8TuvtBYTQgAea0KiKAg&usg=AFQjCNFM-rSzXw3BdxVQGUv9Yb6Dja8Qrg
Bo Diddly
December 29th, 2011
6:06 pm
“I was born to a Catholic family but was diddled into becoming an atheist.”
And both are beliefs……..next.
Just a WAG here but I’m thinking you missed the gist, md.
Paul
December 29th, 2011
6:11 pm
midtownguy
I’ve been thinking about that subject for a while now. So far, I’m at the point that religions had general belief systems, then following what happens when organizations become large and far-flung, they set out ‘decrees’ that often mixed personal views with doctrine, all in an attempt to provide a clear ‘this is the way it is’ framework.
Then comes along more scientific evidence and it causes a conundrum. I just don’t think the organizations can move all that fast in updating/reconciling their theology with what is pretty clear evidence…. particularly when they take a literalist approach to everything. I think those that look at issues as more symbolic have a better time of it.
So I’m a bit more charitable than many in my views of many institutions. I see a real behind the scenes struggle with some. But not all. And I’m less charitable in my views of many members of those institutions who’ll latch onto anything to justify their prejudices.
Sha'Tanya
December 29th, 2011
6:22 pm
“In Illinois,…”
Where else. Illinois is so dysfunctional on so many levels it makes California seem almost normal by comparison. Butting heads with the Catholic Church, which has its own weirdness issues…too funny.
josef
December 29th, 2011
6:22 pm
td
The enforcement varied depending on time and place. Most generally these charges, especially after the “thaw” in the 1960s tended to be in connection with other charges or for political or vendetta purposes.
That the laws existed at all left homosexuals open to blackmail by individuals and by authorities and there was a thriving business in that, reaching something of a zenith during the 1950s and McCarthyism.
At other times in the past, society has proven more open than others. During the 1920s and the jazz age there was such a thaw. The ante Bellum South was another such period, believe it or not. (Okay, Imam, we’ll get that one later!), particularly in the French speaking areas with their more open attitude toward sexuality in general…what goes on in N’awlins today has a long tradition.
In both these cases, times of social and economic stress brought back in the more rigid and puritanical.
midtownguy
December 29th, 2011
6:24 pm
joser. I am not sure what my partner’s father finds more objectionable about me. THe fact that I am 1) Gay, 2) A Democrat or 3) An Episcopalian. He has convinced himself that he raised a straight son who served honorably as a Marine and I somehow turned him gay *rolls eyes*.
JohnnyReb
December 29th, 2011
6:24 pm
My perception of the Catholic Church is that they were more tolerant and inclusive of gays long before other faiths. Notice I stated perception since I am not in either group which means I have no first hand experience. Some of you may know differently. For me, the story here is surprising.
To state the obvious, the uneducated equate homosexuality to child abuse, e.g., if gay parents have children they will sexually abuse them. That of course is garbage. There is no doubt that a normal, functional happy home regardless of the couples genders and sexual preferences is much better for a child than not having a permanent family.
I am reminded of a line in a song enjoyed as a boy in my parents church. “What wonderous love is this…” the song asks. The song is of course referencing Jesus’ sacrifice for man. I always when hearing the line think of my father’s love for me. And, I have no doubt a child raised by a dedicted gay parent would feel the same.
Broken Pope
December 29th, 2011
6:25 pm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70943.html
Hello? Is this the help line? Can I speak to Eric Holder? My guns were taken in a car stop. Can he get me more?
md
December 29th, 2011
6:33 pm
“Overall, 45% say Clinton deserves re-election; 52% say he doesn’t, suggesting a close race
lessee… yeah, that’d be true, if a 379-159 electoral vote finish is considered “close.””
It should also be noted that unemployment during that Clinton re-election had dropped from 7.3% to 5.6%. It stays around 9%, Obama will have an uphill climb…..
md
December 29th, 2011
6:35 pm
“Just a WAG here but I’m thinking you missed the gist, md.”
Didn’t miss it……just made a choice to stay off that low road.
Paul
December 29th, 2011
6:38 pm
Sure came late to this party as the regulars abandoned the topic way quicker. Must be a lot of interest in the Fl State bowl game.
0311/1811
December 29th, 2011
6:38 pm
Jay:
What was that yesterday about an “Obama Surge” ?
“GALLUP SWING: OBAMA BACK DOWN TO 41% APPROVE, 50% DISAPPROVE”
“RASMUSSEN SHOCK POLL: ROMNEY 45% OBAMA 39%”
AmVet
December 29th, 2011
6:39 pm
The first time I ever went to Mass was in boot camp. A bud of mine invited me and it beat cleaning the latrines on a Sunday morning. I was pretty impressed at the pageantry of it. And there was even a little work out involved, sit, stand, sit again, kneel, stand again, kneel again…
Old Timer, wry smile at that last comment .
Its easy to be smart but it’s a struggle to be wise
You shouldn’t be always throwing your weight around
It’s much better to be humble than to have a big hat size
Or you’ll be just begging somebody to take you down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pMhk8-lSNM
josef
December 29th, 2011
6:39 pm
midtown guy…
We’re old farts now with our memories as Vonnegut would say, and after 35 years together, our folks have had to reassess certain of their former prejudices given ours has been a lot more stable a relationship than many of theirs. Some of what they say can be downright funny from time to time. Unmentionable’s brother was rather late in coming around, but he did. One night over some firewater, he losened up a bit while we were looking through some photo albums, he smiled (or leered, I’ve never been sure which!) and said, “well, I can see what it was that turned him…” Unmentionable roared, “that? Nanh it was your best buddy so and so when he came over to spend the night!” “He’s married and’s got three kids.” Unmentionable laughed, “and just what do y’all do at deer camp?”
getalife
December 29th, 2011
6:39 pm
I think after they covered up the rape of children, they should get out of politics.
Government should not be in our bedrooms. Period.
Our moral compass is broken and need to get a new one.
getalife
December 29th, 2011
6:41 pm
Scout,
That poll had mccain up by 10 last cycle.
josef
December 29th, 2011
6:42 pm
ZamVet
It’s the 1930s. Abie tells Hymie he’s converted to Catholocism. Hymie says, “how can you remember all that stuff you have to do, like the sign of the cross?” “Oh,” sez Abie. “that’s easy, spectacles, testicles, vatch and vallet.”
Erwin's cat
December 29th, 2011
6:43 pm
calzones tonight..:)
0311/1811
December 29th, 2011
6:43 pm
Which is why is meant nothing for Jay to tout an “Obama Surge”.
josef
December 29th, 2011
6:44 pm
getalife
“Government should not be in our bedrooms”
Unmentionable sez, “don’t bother me none. Ain’t nothin goin on in there no more anyway.”
josef
December 29th, 2011
6:46 pm
Question…just what constitutes a “surge” anyway….keep hearing it all over the place…is it relative or is there a scale?
md
December 29th, 2011
6:49 pm
“just what constitutes a “surge” anyway…”
Best I can tell, it seems to be any movement in any direction that isn’t the status quo……
carlosgvv
December 29th, 2011
6:49 pm
td – 5:20
You know perfectly well I did not say every woman who has an unwanted baby is Catholic. I am talking about the large number of men and women who are bullied and brainwashed by their priests into having child after child. I am also talking about all the Catholic pro lifers who hound and harrass women outside of aborition clinics. These priests and pro lifers do eveything possible to have as many women as possible have as many babies they possibly can. However, when it comes to furnishing financial assistance for food, clothing, shelter, medical care and schooling expenses for all these children they were so anxious to be born, they are nowhere to be seen.
Paul
December 29th, 2011
6:50 pm
Erwin’s cat
Lasagne. Made with a local Italian sausage.
Well, I hope this gets worked out and governments and churches partner together to find loving homes and parents for kids no one else will take in.
And shelve their other agendas.
Pleasant evening, all -
0311/1811
December 29th, 2011
6:50 pm
Regarding Tim Tebow’s Treatment:
“Christians will make enemies. If doing right and believing the truth causes us to lose every earthly friend, it will be only a small loss.
If you follow Christ, all the hounds of the world will yelp at your heels. If you are true and faithful to the Most High, people will resent
your unflinching devotion because it is a testimony against their iniquity. Regardless, of the consequences you must do what is right.
Risking your reputation and emotions for the truth requires a degree of moral principle that only the Spirit of God can work into you.”
Charles Spurgeon
0311/1811
December 29th, 2011
6:52 pm
A “surge” goes up and down, up and down, up and down ……………. if you don’t catch it at just the right time it means nothing.
Erwin's cat
December 29th, 2011
6:53 pm
Paul – hot Italian sausage, spinach and ricotta…is my typical filling…enjoy
0311/1811
December 29th, 2011
6:53 pm
Headline USA Today: “Advocates: More gay-friendly senior housing needed”
Ah ………………………………….. nevermind.
Paul
December 29th, 2011
6:54 pm
(josef – not too get too personal, but had a conversation the other day with a friend, about Unmentionable’s age, and he had a complete physical and his doc suggested testosterone therapy I asked him what difference it made and he said he has a lot more energy throughout the day, he finally began losing weight even though his workout routine hadn’t changed…. and in another moribund department… he and his wife were going on a getaway away from the kids! He said he didn’t know who was more excited about it – him or the Mrs. Like I said, not to get to personal, but I figure I can do that with a good friend).
TaxPayer
December 29th, 2011
6:54 pm
Scout mentions one particular Gallup poll that he liked but then changed to Rasmussen rather than sticking with Gallup on a different one. No consistency from you, Scout. Could it be due to Gallup’s results on the election if it were held today:
Obama 50%
Romney 48%
Paul
December 29th, 2011
6:55 pm
Erwin’s cat
Sound delicious. Another experiment for another time.
josef
December 29th, 2011
6:55 pm
Leftover pot roast stew with cornbread…cold night comfort food…
I thought surge was relative…thanks…
josef
December 29th, 2011
6:59 pm
PAUL
Just joshing! Still no complaints that direction. The subject did come up with some of my doc’s since some of the meds we’re on have that effect. When I told them we were doing fine, he laughed and said, “I guess I need to adjust the dosage!”
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
December 29th, 2011
7:01 pm
Well, it says on Fox.com that Michelle Bachmann’s campaign in Iowa is sinking fast. It’s a shame, too. A woman that can handle a long sausage like that—show ‘em, Sooth—could probly . . . well, you know. Anyways, it looks like she won’t be the first woman President after all.
Paul
December 29th, 2011
7:01 pm
josef
Tell that doc to stop experimenting on you!
Really now, company’s due any minute and there’s two bowl games tonight.
So have a really pleasant evening, okay?
Paul
December 29th, 2011
7:03 pm
Redneck Convert
Now we know why Newt’s faltered. Every time he thinks of Michelle, his mind drifts off the campaign strategy and Callista whacks him!
Thulsa Doom
December 29th, 2011
7:14 pm
Jay said Obama was “surging” in the polls? Musta been more of that liberal doublespeak where surging actually means the opposite of what’s really going on. And in other news in the land of the kook left up is down and black is white.
Midori
December 29th, 2011
7:16 pm
That surge post of Jay’s sure has some of you hot and bothered.
And it makes you look all the more foolish.
Thulsa Doom
December 29th, 2011
7:16 pm
A woman that can handle a long sausage like that—show ‘em, Sooth—could probly . . . well, you know. – Redneck
More tasteful and eloquent rhetoric from the kook left I suppose. I wonder what’s behind their hatred of women? Palin, Bachman, Do strong women intimidate the kooks?
getalife
December 29th, 2011
7:22 pm
doomy,
He is “(R–and proud of it)”, on your team if you will.
Moonbat Michelle did better than I expected.
I liked the way she attacked her gop opponents.
Good stuff.
Abrazos
December 29th, 2011
7:24 pm
“Latest poll
Romney 45%
Obama 39%”
Ah, yes, and I see that tidbit came straight from Rasmussen. The same Rasmussen that conducted more than twice the number of polls of any other pollsters in the last 21 days of the 2010 elections, yet missed the mark by an average of 5.8%, by far the worst performance. I might suggest holding off on the crowing until a more credible polling source produces its results.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
td
December 29th, 2011
7:25 pm
carlosgvv
December 29th, 2011
6:49 pm
I did not say it was only the Catholic church. But to a more interesting part of your post:
“These priests and pro lifers do eveything possible to have as many women as possible have as many babies they possibly can. However, when it comes to furnishing financial assistance for food, clothing, shelter, medical care and schooling expenses for all these children they were so anxious to be born, they are nowhere to be seen.”
Why is it any church or government or anyone else besides the two people that made the baby responsibility to take care of the child? People should either take care of their own child or forgo the pleasure of making them. It is called personal responsibility.
I had an uncle that use to tell me and my cousin almost every Friday or Saturday night when we were heading out. “Do not play the game unless you are willing to pay the price and the price is 18 years long”
hryder
December 29th, 2011
7:30 pm
“To thine own self be true.”
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
December 29th, 2011
7:30 pm
Well, times like this I get sentimental. I wonder what @@ is doing now that Wingnut had to close his blog because of the bad behavior of his bloggers and she’s been banned by Bookman. I bet she don’t have a fingernail longer that a 10th of a inch.
josef
December 29th, 2011
7:40 pm
Jumping in here where some might think I don’t belong, but what the hey…
I don’t much care for that argument about taking care of what comes from irresponsible parenting and the pro-life/pro-choice sanctimonious. We have our own story there with its own stfu angle, but let me pass on another one.
We have some neighbors who are religious Catholics. A few years back there was a family of five kids left alone when their papa ran off and their mom was being held for deportation. No sooner did it come to attention than those two went, got the kids, took them in and have raised them including putting them through elite private schools. They have two “natural” children. When asked why, she answers, “why wouldn’t we? We’re Christians.” I’ve known many, many people, who have taken in children not their own to raise. Where are they, you ask? All about you. Just take the time to look. They may not be in your crowd, but they are in mine and Unmentionable’s.
md
December 29th, 2011
7:45 pm
Good story Jo…….too bad folks will still stereotype others by the actions of a few.
I guess the old cunard of a few bad apples spoils the barrel is true in more ways than one……
josef
December 29th, 2011
7:54 pm
md
“…….too bad folks will still stereotype others by the actions of a few.”
Sadly, they will. K’chak takes a frequent swipe at me with “still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” So, maybe I’m naif, but I want to hear the best, and I do hear it regularly. And, yes, I can most often disregard the rest. It works for me and I’m a pretty happy fellow…
Old Timer
December 29th, 2011
7:57 pm
A few years back there was a family of five kids left alone when their papa ran off and their mom was being held for deportation. No sooner did it come to attention than those two went, got the kids, took them in and have raised them including putting them through elite private schools.
A fine, inspiring story about a couple doing what should have been done. Still, as I was reading it, I was drawn to that mother being held for deportation and how frantic she must have been. There must be hundreds of thousands of such tragedies that occur as people bloviate about illegal immigration. There are a few good Christians who attempt to live their faith in such an instance, but there are many more who profess the faith and then ignore the human side of such stories.