Comment history

Catholic Cardinals choose 266th pope

No, they don't. What a bunch of b.s. Just because you spew it out doesn't make it true.

March 13, 2013 at 7:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Catholic Cardinals choose 266th pope

And how do you know that. Before this afternoon, you probably have never even heard of this man, much like 99.9% of the people on this board and yet, all of a sudden, some of you think you are an expert on the man.

March 13, 2013 at 7:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Catholic Cardinals choose 266th pope

Not true. Southern Baptists do believe that Catholics are Christian. The two religions have sometimes had a contentious past but are working much more closely in recent years on social issues both religions agree on.

March 13, 2013 at 7:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Catholic Cardinals choose 266th pope

There is no legitimate evidence of that. It is only speculation and rumor. If you have a legitimate source, post it.

March 13, 2013 at 7:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Local priests praise selection of Argentine cardinal as new pope

Rev. Schmeidler was not referring to Pope Benedict. He was referring to Pope John Paul II who was the first non-Italian. Pope Benedict was Pope John Paul II's successor and as such, the second non-Italian in 4 centuries.

March 13, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Archaic beliefs

Wow, where to begin. It is letters like these that give women a bad name. The letter is devoid of reason and is filled with nothing more than outlandish stereotypes and conjecture. It is also demeaning to women. Women are not mindless idiots who can not defend themselves nor do they all think alike. There are many women in various different professions, including the clergy, the legal fields, and politics, that do not support abortion or the government's interference in the free practice of religion. They are not subserviant, mindless robots nor are they married to cavemen who want to put them back in the kitchen. They are not puppets of a vast "war on women" or grey haired men with some sort of Eve complex.
Women make up the majority of college graduates in this country. Nine out of the ten fastest growing jobs in the U.S. are female dominated. And 40% of households now have a woman who outearns her husband. And contrary to the hysterical tone of this letter, 99% of American women have used and/or have access to birth control.
Lastly, women do not need a new breed of men--not governed by archiac beliefs--to marry/rescue us. I think we can figure it out ourselves--grey haired old men notwithstanding.

June 21, 2012 at 6:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Archaic beliefs

The Immaculate Conception does not refer to Mary's conception of Jesus but rather Anne's conception of Mary.

June 21, 2012 at 5:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Others have choice

"Looks like it made everyone happy"

Not exactly momof3--you might want to check today's news.

June 15, 2012 at 7 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Others have choice

This has nothing to do with "freedome of choice" because the government has not given religious institutions a choice. What some people do not seem to understand or care is that President Obama has essentially told religious organizations that you either provide contraceptions, sterilization or the morning after pill or the government will fine you 300,000 dollars the first year and 500,000 dollars the second year. Where is the freedom of choice in that? And even scarier, where is freedom of religion in that mandate/threat?

Regardless of where one stands on contraception, abortion, etc, every single American who claims to value their freedom should be outraged that the governement has dictated that religious institutions must go against their basic tenants. It is totally irrelevant is x% of Catholics practice birth control. It is totally irrelevant if one agrees with the Catholic Church. It is totally irrelevant if one has a religious belief system or if one thinks its just a bunch of hooey. This isn't about the Church or about birth control. This is about the U.S. Constitution.
This is about the U.S. govenment taking one of our most basic rights--that of freedom of religion--and interfering in that practice.
Where is the choice in that???

June 15, 2012 at 2:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

A rush to — or from — judgment?

I actually agree with BAA. I don't think it is sanctimonious at all to assert that George Zimmerman be given his right to a fair trial. Do we really have to go through the whole sordid history of when, in our country, people have not been given their right to a fair trial? Poor, white, black, Jewish, Irish, Mexican, the list goes on and on and on. And they didn't get that fair trial because everyone just "knew" that so and so was guilty because obviously the alleged perpetrator was ___________ (fill in the blank.)

Add in the inflammotory nature of our media and these is even less of a chance. Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the last 100 years. The media has always cared more about getting people riled up about a crime than actually reporting on what happened. All this speculation soon becomes fact. The newspapers, even if they wanted to get it right, don't have the space to print it all. The writer has a set amount of inches that he or she has to fill in. Do you really think the writer is going to go into detail about forensic anaylysis or is the writer going to talk about how the alleged perp "looked shifty' and the victim's wife cried "silently but with dignity?"

I have taken quite a few law classes and what I have found out from reading trail manuscripts is that the media only gets about 10% of it right. The other 90% they are only reporting what other people have said or it is wong. And people take it as fact. Bernie Goetz was portrayed in the media has some kind of vigilante savior but if you read the actual trial documents, quite another picture emerges--one of a cold-blooded killer.

The fact is, whether you are Leonard Pitts or just some person posting on here, if you are getting your information from the media, more than likely you are rushing to judgement because you are not, in any way, getting ALL the facts. And you are probably not even getting unbiased facts no matter how much your news sources claims to be.

If you want to honor Treyvon Martin, make sure George Zimmerman gets his fair day in court. If he goes to jail for killing Treyvon Martin, let it be based on actual evidence. Not innuendo. Not speculation. Actual evidence, of which, none of us have seen in its entirety.

April 4, 2012 at 9:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )