Dave,
I agree with Chuck Colson and you on this and condemn the Anti-Catholic bigotry.
And I am an Evangelical, Reformed, Calvinistic and a Baptist, and disagree with Dave (you) on many doctrinal issues; on the issues that separate Evangelicals from the Roman Catholic Church.
But we are united in our equal opposition to abortion, which is murder; especially the hideous and evil Partial Birth Abortion. (as you put it, "barbaric")
Roman Catholics should be treated with respect and grace. And these 5 Roman Catholic justices are very intelligent! ( In the past, Kennedy seemed very liberal to me, but he got it right on this issue.)
Other Roman Catholics are great cultural commentators: Laura Ingram, Sean Hannity, and Bill Bennett. And two other Jewish radio commentators are two of my favorite, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager. They would have agreed with the Roman Catholics and evangelicals and not the abject secularism of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and JPS and Souter.
I am glad that FINALLY there is some sanity restored to our culture; and that the immoral, ugly and barbaric Partial Birth Abortion is now officially banned.
Dave, I agreed with your post on the issue after the Supreme court decision was announced, about restoring sanity against the barbarism of Partial Birth Abortion.
I always find Anthony Scalia one of the smartest minds I ever read whenever I have read his Supreme Court decisions.
By the way, I have not been around because my Internet connection was not working right for the past 2 months; but I am back now.
Sincerely in Christ,
Ken Temple
Roman Catholics are like blacks, always trying to get accredited victim status.
Thanks for your kind and charitable words, Ken (esp. striking in contrast to the idiocies and non sequitur inanities of Jeb). I appreciate them very much.
Dr. Hyme Gordon, professor of medical genetics and a physician at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota): [T]he question of the beginning of life-when life begins-is no longer a question of theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or the purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at conception. I have never ever seen in my own scientific reading, long before I became concerned with issues of life of this nature, that anyone has ever argued that life did not begin at the moment of conception and that it was a human conception that resulted from the fertilization of the human egg by a human sperm. As far as I know, these have never been argued against. (Citation finished)
(cont)
The above is from a subcommittee report of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 1981. Why would the above be an exclusively religious view? When we are talking about established scientific facts, we aren’t talking about exclusively religious views at all. This is a powerful quote “Hence, the pro-life advocate could argue that the fact that a philosophically and scientifically plausible position is also found in religious literature, such as the Bible, does not make such a view exclusively religious. If it did, our society would have to dispense with laws forbidding such crimes as murder and robbery simply because such actions are prohibited in the Hebrew-Christian Scriptures.”
(cont)
Abortion is not as such a religious question. Do human beings posses intrinsic moral value (a philosophical question)? Is the developing fetus a human being (a scientific and medical question)? Those are not religious questions. That explains why there are very strong opponents of abortion that are humanists. Why do a lot of pro-lifers seem to be Christians? “On the Christian worldview, then, one single human being is worth more than the entire material universe. Because of their exalted view of man, Christians are deeply committed to the cause of human rights.”
(cont)
Scott Klusendorf wrote: Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this. Prior to his abortion advocacy, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would question this. "This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge," he wrote in his book Life in the Making.
See T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988 ) p. 2; O’Rahilly, Ronand and Muller, Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.
Welcome back Ken. I was wondering what was happening in your life. Glad you are doing well.
Haha, this is great news! They think they can hurt us with those comics? I love that comic, its one of those "in your face and here to stay" type comics, its just pointing out the reality of the situation.
I dont know if these Catholics were sleepers or what but we shouldnt downplay the truth, we have a MAJORITY on the BENCH and they are CATHOLIC!
Imagine the power! America has always not liked Catholics, but now, 5 on Supreme Court! Take that anti-Catholics!
At the same time, Im not holding my breath, are these guys really Catholic??? To come together and crush Partial Birth Abortion is clearly saying something...but then again, I wouldnt be surprised if they werent supporting Catholic teaching down the road. At least the abortion ban is something worthy of honor.
Good comments Kyl.
Abortion is the killing of innocent human life. This is not a religious statement, instead it is a biological and judicial fact. How then can it be justified.
Scalia is my favorite justice up there.
And BTW Colson is spot on.
Chuck Colson is a real class act.
Unlike Jeb . . . .
Welcome back Ken!! I, for one, have missed your comments.
Here's the definition of bigotry according to Dictionary.com: "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." and American Heritage: "The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance."
Is this really bigotry? As Nick said, "it's just pointing out the reality of the situation." The cartoonist is simply pointing out that the RC Justices all voted in agreement with RCism. If a reporter writes that all 5 RC justices voted against partial birth abortion, does that make him a bigot; or is he just reporting the truth? That's really all the cartoonist did.
Obviously bigotry is wrong and shouldn't be condoned or encouraged. I'm just not sure this picture should be classified as bigotry. Tons of people want complete separation of church and state. It doesn't make them bigots; it just means they want something different than what I want. I'd rather not have an atheist for a president. If I articulate that in a cartoon, am I a bigot?
Please don't read this the wrong way; I'm not condoning bigotry. Nor am I posting this comment simply to be disagreeable. I'm wondering publicly if this cartoon really falls under the category of bigotry. What do y'all think?
.
I think exactly what Colson thought in the article: what if five had been Jews and a cartoon was done of them wearing yarmulkes and having Star of David badges? It always has to be a double standard. Catholics are an open target because it is one of the last acceptable prejudices.
I don't think it is the only acceptable prejudice, though. I would also add to the list anti-Protestantism, anti-overweight people, and anti-native American prejudice (imagine a team called the Brooklyn Jews; but we have the Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves and the Washington Redskins. How about the San Francisco Yellowskins or the Washington Blackskins?).
The apparent double standard proves it is prejudicial and stereotypical in the worst sense of that word.
The cartoon also presupposes a one-way relationship between their Catholicism and their pro-life affinities in this case, as if pro-life rests solely on a religious dogmatic basis: it does not at all; it is based on natural law and universal moral sensibilities.
Maybe it's because I'm from a younger generation, but I'm not at all offended by that cartoon. We'd be in much better shape if all the teachings of the Church were publicly manifested in every Catholic's daily decision making processes. Let them ridicule the judges for following their consciences, at least they did, which is more than we can say for the average Catholic. We should all be so lucky as to face contempt for following the Truth.
(imagine a team called the Brooklyn Jews; but we have the Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves and the Washington Redskins. How about the San Francisco Yellowskins or the Washington Blackskins?)
Um .... New Orleans Saints, San Diego Padres, and Minnesota Vikings come to mind. I don't think anyone finds those names to be offensive. Oh and just to add some Michigan flavor to it for Dave -- Michigan State Spartans.
Dave,
I dont think anyone here denies that there is a double standard when it comes to anti-Catholicism. We all agree that if that comic was in regards to 5 black or 5 female justices we would see an outrage. The issue here should be that of the fact of an existing DOUBLE standard, NOT if this comic was truly offensive or not.
In this case I am simply not offended because unlike the media I believe people should be able to express themselves freely (but within legal guidelines)...in other words I dont pretend to be free speech but in reality have a DOUBLE STANDARD like the media.
I have no problem with people "telling it like it is." In fact one huge problem with America today is that when people "tell it like it is" they often get shouted down and attacked by the same liberal SOBs who parade the "free speech" banner when it suits them (ie double standard).
If the 5 judges were the majority and Catholic there is nothing to hide from, its the simple truth. That is no way bigotry. I wouldnt consider it bigotry if the comic was about 5 black judges who voted on some black rights issue. The problem is that if someone were to comment about 5 black judges the media would be jumping up and down in rage...its the double standard that is the problem.
The REAL danger about Protestants and Catholics not speaking up however is that the Catholic Church is the last stronghold, if the Catholic Church goes so does the conservative protestant voice.
Nick (and Brian),
You seem to misunderstand my point a bit. The double standard is precisely what proves the prejudice. You [Nick] admit the double standard yet seem to overlook the prejudice, or manifest bias or bigotry (choose your term).
The analogy to other situations is precisely the proof that it is wrong to make the idiotic equation of "Catholic automatically equals imposition of blind dogmas onto others" and/or "these Justices think as they do only because of religious [Catholic] dogma." This is what the cartoonist is driving at, I'll guarantee it. I know how these people think.
I understood the liberal mind well even in college, because I majored in sociology and minored in psychology: two of the most secularized fields of study. And I've studied the secularist outlook ever since (now 30 years).
If prejudice is not at play here, then why do you think Chuck Colson -- a Protestant -- was outraged by it? You can't say he was too sensitive because he isn't even the target. But he thinks in terms of Christian solidarity over against secularism (as I do if a Protestant is subjected to anti-Protestant bigotry: I consider him "one of us", as a fellow Christian).
But back to the double standard: women and black people would be offended by these things being pointed out because they are "minorities" in this country (either in numbers or in power and influence). In that case, it would be the insinuation that they voted a certain way JUST because they are black or female.
I am saying, from a broader perspective, that it is foolish and insulting to pretend that Catholic Justices vote as they do only because of that factor. It's as if they don't have a brain and are puppets controlled by the Vatican.
We never hear it said by the mainstream media that liberal judges vote the way they do simply because they are liberals, or secularists, or (in the case of two: liberal Jews). It's only conservatives and pro-lifers and Protestants and Catholics that get painted in this way.
Hi Jamie,
Um .... New Orleans Saints, San Diego Padres, and Minnesota Vikings come to mind. I don't think anyone finds those names to be offensive. Oh and just to add some Michigan flavor to it for Dave -- Michigan State Spartans.
Nice try and clever, but no cigar. This isn't analogous, and I'll explain why I think it isn't. "Saints" is not pejorative or offensive in that context because it is an obvious allusion to "when the saints go marching in." It's simply referring to that song, from New Orleans.
"Padres" is similar. If I'm not mistaken, that would have to do with the Spanish heritage of the area and (perhaps) the old missions that are on the California coast.
Vikings and Spartans refer to groups of the past, so that no one is being referred to today. Again, it doesn't involve the double standard.
You could just as well bring up the "fighting Irish" of Notre Dame or the Boston Celtics. In thos
(cont.)
. . . those instances it was the association with the Irish in both places. I think it makes a difference if something is a proud self-description, as opposed to using stereotypes and mere physical features of another ethnic group. George Carlin used to do a comic routine about when people made fun of themselves it was okay, but if they went after other groups, then it was unacceptable. He hit upon a profound "social more" there.
One must also factor in the atrocious treatment that the American Indian has received in this country: being virtually subjected to genocide or at the very least what can only be called selective extermination.
To have that history, and to see even today the terrible living conditions that many Native Americans live in, and to name sports teams after an entire ethnic group, is classic superior-subordinate behavior. I don't see that it is even arguable. And it is not for the same reasons I gave above: other groups wouldn't stand for such treatment.
That's why I gave the examples I did. We have the Redskins, so why not the yellowskins or blackskins or brownskins? The very citing of such names sounds ridiculous. But we oh-so-tolerant, baby-killing, freedom-loving Americans have no problem with naming a team the Redskins. Why?
I don't think "Braves" is quite as offensive as Indians and Redskins. The Indians logo is ridiculous, and also classic prejudicial use of images to belittle and condescend to a group other than one's own. I found a logo that compared the Indians' logo to other possibilities, that I will post above, on this blog.
Like they say: a picture speaks a thousand words. Now, it seems to me that those who think such things harmless should, then, believe that the other theoretical analogies are just as harmless and inoffensive to the groups involved.
But all four of the groups in these logos (real or imagined) have had a long history of discrimination in America. The Chinese were treated like dirt when they were building the railroads out west: Hispanics have often been treated very poorly. I need not go over the miserable history of blacks in this country.
But the American Indian tops even African-Americans for past maltreatment and exploitation. This country didn't embark on a program of extermination even on those who were kept in the bondage of slavery (and for no noble reasons: they wouldn't get the free labor and all the riches therefrom if they killed their slaves, after all).
And so cultures make fun of groups that they have oppressed. It's part of the whole package. This is why black people objected so strenuously to all the stupid stereotypes they were subjected to in the minstrel shows and in the movies. The Jews have sought to show that such stereotyping was a key part of the Nazi propaganda machine that helped lead to the Holocaust.
It ought not be this way.
My objections are not at all about being "offended" simply because it was noted t
(cont.)
. . . that these men were Catholics. I did that myself in my blog post commenting on the decision. I'm proud of that (which is why I made a note of mentioning it).
Rather, it is about the attitudes of lots of folks towards Catholics exercising their right to influence the public realm, just like anyone else, and about the low ethical standards and inconsistencies of stereotypical prejudice, as I have been trying to explain (however poorly).
I don't have the experience working with people of other denominations that you do, Dave, so maybe I'm just not exposed to enough of it to be offended. My wife is Presbyterian, and I will admit there is a built-in fear and suspicion of the Catholic Church throughout her family; but in my experience they aren't prejudiced against Catholics as people, they're prejudiced against the Church and the Truth She proclaims (or what they believe to be the Church and what they believe She proclaims). I don't see that cartoon as attacking Catholics so much as it's attacking the Truth. Rather than anti-Catholicism, I just see a secular mindset that has no room for morals and absolute truths in the public domain.
I think that this is a stupid cartoon that tries to pretend that no one but Catholics are pro-life.
On the other hand, it's true that I might not have discovered the hideousness of abortion if the Church had not so clearly required that I condemn it.
In general, as an orthodox Roman Catholic, I am all in favor of anti-Catholic "bigotry". Catholics are not an ethnic group. The Catholic Church makes certain claims and people have to be free to find those claims and the influence of the Church to be deplorable and to say so.
I want people to be free to engage in harsh condemnations of religions. This is part of life in a free society where we have to make our way through persuasion. We may get rosy compliments sometimes and we may get folks who honestly think that Papistry is Satanic. I'm fine with both.
Nick said:
I dont think anyone here denies that there is a double standard when it comes to anti-Catholicism. We all agree that if that comic was in regards to 5 black or 5 female justices we would see an outrage. The issue here should be that of the fact of an existing DOUBLE standard, NOT if this comic was truly offensive or not.
I think this highlights the reason I don't find the cartoon offensive. You wouldn't expect five black or five female justices to come to the same decision on this case. Such a cartoon would be offensive. But five Catholic justices should come to the same decision on PBA. The cartoon tells it like it is. If this cartoon were published about a decision that had nothing to do with morals, then I would be offended.
I just realized something. I've been commenting under the impression that this was published as a reacting to the court's decision on the PBA ban. If it wasn't about that, my opinion will change.
Dave,
I see what you're saying now. I didn't before, but now I realize you're offended that the justices are portrayed as RC dolts who simply voted the way the Pope told them to and have no social or intellectual collateral to back up why they voted as they did. Obviously there are intellectual reasons to vote against partial birth abortion as well as social reasons and moral reasons (even if one isn't a Christian).
I'm not so sure your analysis is completely correct (despite your many years of social education). The caption read "Church & State". The biggest secular movement right now isn't to show that RCs and PTs are mindless dolts (although that may be one of their tactics), it's to get church out of gov't in every way, shape, and form. Maybe he's trying to say church should be completely separate from state, because church goers are mindless dolts; but initially I thought he was just making the point that church & state should be separate, and the RC Justices are proving that they aren't.
But even if one or all of the justices voted as they did simply because it was the RCC's stance, you'd be ok with that, right? That would be them submitting to their church's authority. And in that instance, the cartoon (as you've interpreted it) would actually be correct.
Just an observation.
.
Good comments in this thread.
Grubb,
My opinion is that infanticide is clearly, undeniably wrong, and that this should be self-evident to any conscious, sane person, and so to vote against it is simply a function of being a moral, normal human being. Any religion of any sort (and even a humanist or secularist worldview) should agree with that.
So, while it is true that Catholic teaching is squarely against such gruesome, brutal acts of murder, it is no more solely a "Catholic" issue than is the prohibition of murder itself, which is a common moral / ethical theme in all societies: from Hammurabi and Hippocrates in the ancient world, to the tribes in the Amazon jungle or Eskimos in the Arctic today. And that is, of course, because God put a moral sense and a conscience in all men.
The main reason both abortion and infanticide continue in this warped, evil society, is because they are hidden. Imagine if every partial-birth murder had to be performed on live, prime time TV. The practice would have been outlawed within a week.
Even if early abortions were all on TV via ultrasound, abortion, too, would be illegal in short order, and the game-playing and idiotic, insult-to-the-intelligence "pro-choice" / "it's my body" rationalization would be no more. But since it is behind closed doors and no one sees anything (much like the Nazi Holocaust), our lovely society can live with it and give it the sanction of law.
So, while it is true that Catholic teaching is squarely against such gruesome, brutal acts of murder, it is no more solely a "Catholic" issue than is the prohibition of murder itself
This is exactly why I don't see the cartoon as anti-Catholic. It's opposed to anyone who believes that the evil of abortion is a matter of absolute truth founded in the natural law, not just Catholics. You can't call people bigots for being relativists and advocating their position (you can, of course, call them dead wrong).
I just don't see what stereotype the cartoon is propagating. Is it that all Catholics follow the Magisterium? I wish it were true. Is it that all Catholics in political positions base their decisions on their faith? Again, I wish it were true.
One more point, not that it necessarily means anything. But if you take that same cartoon and change the caption to "Only the Catholics were right!" it becomes pro-Catholic. In fact, maybe I'll do that and hang it on my fridge.
I think Fulton Sheen said it best when it comes to anti-Catholics and/or anti-Catholic sentiments:
"If I were not a Catholic and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, he must still be hated as he was when he was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world."
"Look for the Church that is hated by the world as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times as our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at a socially inferior as they sneered at our Lord because he came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil as our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible as Pilate rejected Christ because he called himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as our Lord was rejected by men."
"Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions its members love as they love Christ and respect its voice as the very voice of its founder, and the suspicion will grow that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ himself. But only that which is divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is divine"
Here is a relevant article:
"Abortion Ruling Sparks a Backlash for Catholic Justices" [ABC News]
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/s...tory?
id=3071697
Excerpt:
---------------
"All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic," wrote Geoffrey Stone, now a professor at the law school, in a faculty blog. "The four justices who either are Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out. But it is too obvious, and too telling to ignore."
Stone said it was "sad" that the justices in the majority had "failed to respect the fundamental difference between religious belief and morality."
University of Chicago Law School professor Richard Garnett wrote a critical response, saying Stone "misses the mark" in suggesting the justices imposed their religious views on people who do not share their beliefs. Garnett earlier had strongly criticized the Inquirer cartoon.
Garnett said what troubled him was the claim that the justices voted to uphold the ban because they are Catholics "and not because they think, as intelligent and engaged lawyers, that the Constitution does not disable legislatures entirely from regulating what most people (not just Catholics, fideists, and sexists) regard as a particularly gruesome abortion procedure."
See also Christianity Today's excellent compilation of links on the decision:
http://www.christianitytoday.com...y/117-
41.0.html
More discussions:
http://titusonenine.classicalang...an.net/?
p=19016
http://patterico.com/2007/04/25/...n-the-majority/
http://blogs.abcnews.com/
legalit...based_just.html
http://bench.nationalreview.com/
...jE2NTkwYzJhYWU=
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g...f3-
54e0ac0e49b8
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/
f...thbased__1.html
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/
f...aithbased_.html
Here's an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal by non-Catholic John Yoo:
"Partial-Birth Bigotry"
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB...days_us_opinion
This again shows that reaction to certain motifs in reporting does not flow from simply Catholic partisanship or oversensitivity, knee-jerk victimhood, as some commenters on this blog seem to assume.
In fact, I'm quite sure that I would have had the exact same opinion when I was a Protestant. I would have readily agreed with Colson and Yoo, because this is a "secular media vs. Christians" (who happen to be catholic) scenario, and it is a matter of fairness and principle.
Dave,
I agree completely with your comment to me. How often will you hear Grubb say that?
Brian,
I agree with you too. Grubb's in an agreeable mood today. Had this cartoon been printed in a RC weekly magazine, the whole meaning would have changed. It would show the positives of our faith influencing our decisions as the founding fathers were prone to do. And even if they weren't as prone to make public rulings based (at least in part) on personal beliefs as we've been led to believe, they certainly didn't prohibit it and even condoned it.
As Carman said, "We need God in America again." I've memorized much of that song as it shows our founding fathers put a lot of stock in Christian principles. According to the song, "George Washington said in his farewell address, 'You can't have national morality apart from religious principle.'", "James Madison said, 'We have staked our future on our ability to follow the 10 Commandments with all our heart.'", and "'Give me liberty or give me death' Patrick Henry said,'Our country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.'"
If y'all haven't heard this song, I highly recommend it. It's a good way to learn some quotations from our founding fathers and is very compelling in showing that our founding fathers really didn't believe in separation of church and state as it's now being taught.
.
Grubb,
I live near Washington, DC. When you walk around the national mall, all the quotes on the monuments reference God. Even the more modern FDR monument. It's insane to think of how quickly things have turned around.
Dave
Well, I guess you pointed out something that I missed. The bigotry resides in the claims that the Judges did so simply because they were Catholic with the bigots having TOTAL disregard to the fact it is murder plain and simple and THAT in fact is the driving issue for the ban. I agree, that is bigotry and I didnt recognize that.
That being said, I just cant erase from my mind the fact we have a Catholic majority on the bench and with such power we could bring about great change. Really the sad thing here is the fact there is no such thing as law and justice with the supreme court but instead personal private opinion. If only 4 of them were Catholic then nothing would have taken place and PBA would still be on the table. This whole mess with abortion and other moral meltdowns is precisely because the Supreme Court was guided by a liberal bias majority, not natural law nor personal integrity. If those scum on the bench would have been driven by natural law and common sense they would have looked at the ultrasounds and such and recognized that the "thing" in the womb was clearly a human. The only answer for the fact it was said to be a blob in the first place was liberal bias, not science or natural law. Its time to play hard ball and the Catholics are in position to get stuff done.
Fair enough. Not that Justice Kennedy is a paragon of virtue. He thought sodomy was fine to be legalized. But a start is a start.
His seat would have been Robert Bork's, if the liberals hadn't gone on a lying rampage and sabotaged his nomination. Roe may have been overturned in 1992 if Bork was there. Instead, Kennedy voted the wrong way in Casey. Bork (like Thomas) later became a Catholic and wrote books about America's decline into the sewer.
And we should point out in fairness that it is not Protestantism per se or Judaism that are to blame for these liberal Justices. Stevens is scarcely of any religion at all (he may be an agnostic) and Souter is certainly no traditional Protestant. Breyer and Ginsburg are probably the typically secularized liberal Jews. They may not be observant at all (I don't know, but I would bet good money on it).
Conservative Jews like Michael Medved and, of course, conservative, evangelical Protestants wholeheartedly agree with us on this issue.
It's just that the Catholic Justices were consistent with traditional Catholic morals on this issue, whereas the others were not in accord with the best moral traditions of their own religious faith communities (insofar as that applies at all in their case).
Noticing your site made me think about my site.
Commenting by HaloScan
