Tuesday, September 3, 2013

User:Rk16ua


View the original article here

User:D77xog


View the original article here

Template:Mainpageright

Is the reason why atheists are more likely to commit suicide is that so many of them have bad relationships with their earthly father and their heavenly father?[1] See: Paul Vitz and Atheism and suicide

If Barack Hussein Obama likes Father's Day so much, then why is the Obama Administration striving so hard to have lesbians get "married".[2]

"Britain's biggest climate problem is with cold winters that lead to thousands of excess deaths." [3] Yet liberal denial continues about the hoax of a global warming crisis.

The world's biggest population of atheists run by secular leftists may implode under crushing debt in about 6 months. Hard landing may be in store for China's economy. [4][5]

Expect the explosive growth of Christianity in China to continue. Biblical Christianity thrives under economic adversity.[6]

‘Natural’ or ‘unnatural’ human behaviour? Many evolutionists consider much of today’s human behaviour ‘unnatural’ — except when it comes to homosexual ‘marriage’.[7]

Now the Obama Administration pretends they do not know where Edward J. Snowden is, perhaps to avoid criticism if Obama tried to extradite him now. [8]

Today, a Question evolution! campaign blog went over 450,000 page views. Also, 20-30 young people will be reading the newest draft of the Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students.[9]

Dr. Joseph James Kennedy: Deceit: the Modus Operandi of Evolution.[10]

Vetoed! Conservative Texas Governor Rick Perry vetoes more than two dozen bills passed by RINOs. [11] Will Perry run for the presidency next?

The President of Equatorial Guinea has warned African leaders not to tolerate, accept or allow the issue of homosexuality to get roots in their countries. Also, 7 reasons why homosexuals have lower moral standards.[12]

Unlike Darwinists, biblical creationists are raising their standards and achieving many victories.[13]

News from the Left Coast: "'Less liberal' is the new conservative," as Dems find it necessary to restrain reckless spending by other Dems. [14]

In New Jersey, candidate Steve Lonegan wages an ugly fight before an Administrative Law Judge against a prospective primary opponent. [15][16] A grassroots activist today begs him to knock it off. [17]

Kljghlkjkh.png

Happy Flag Day: "A yearly contemplation of our flag strengthens and purifies the national conscience." — President Calvin Coolidge

God gives victory when His people fight, especially in His Name. [18]

Liberal policies have destroyed Detroit, and now the city defaults on its debt. [19] It may pay only pennies on the dollar to its creditors.

New Jersey grassroots activists have reason to cheer: two genuine conservatives in a Republican special primary for the United States Senate. [20]

11970908441495821413jp draws Japanese Flag.svg.med.png

Atheism will fold like an accordion in the 4th largest atheist population in the world.[21]

Why are so many long term trends against atheism?[22]

Russians overwhelmingly reject liberal values on homosexuality. Lawmakers pass anti-homosexuality bill in a 435-0 vote. Weak gay activists are easily overpowered by police.[23]

Liberal denial continues: Joe Biden denies that George W. Bush defeated Al Gore for president in 2000, and the liberal media praises Biden for his denial! [24]

Southern Baptist Convention blasts Boy Scouts over stance on homosexuality, votes to encourage defectors. [25]

America's first atheist monument to stand outside Florida courthouse.[26]

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) deputy director Michael Morell has "decided to spend more time with his family" and resign post terror attack in Benghazi.[27]

Why moderates leave an acrid taste in a conservative's mouth. [28]

The modern civil rights movement consists of "demoralizers of the faith" – a far cry from Martin Luther King's day. [29]

The Mainstream Media always ignore this key fact about any mass murder story they cover: it happens in a gun-free zone. [30]

Pope Francis plans to purge the Vatican of the "gay lobby," and speaks candidly about the problem. [31] Why aren't Republican Party leaders as candid?

James Clapper, head of the NSA and now under-fire, said in March that he had no knowledge of the massive phone and email collecting by his agency. [32]

The socialist "paradise" of Venezuela is now on the brink of hyperinflation. [33]

Love Obamacare now? If you live in Ohio, your health insurance premiums went up 88% percent. [34]

NSA officials overheard on how to cause Edward Snowden to be "disappeared". [35]

From the IRS "Keep your religious beliefs to yourself." [36] "You cannot, you know, use your religious belief to tell other people you don’t have a belief, so I don’t believe you need the right to do this, start confrontation, protesting, uh, prot, uh, protest...you don’t apply for tax exemption."

The bright Patriots head coach treats the liberal media with disdain in dismissing their inane hostility to Tim Tebow, on his first day of practice. [37]

Is Edward J. Snowden, who revealed the breathtaking extent of how our government monitors us, a hero, or a traitor? Judge for yourself. [38]

The world's biggest mental health research institute is abandoning the new version of psychiatry's "Bible" (DSM-5).[39]

Great Conservative Sports Star Tim Tebow is reportedly joining the New England Patriots, from where he will be able to crush twice-a-year the liberal New York team that cut him. [40] God does indeed have a sense of humor.

Why is big government a Goliath and why should you fear it? Start with watching a girl with cystic fibrosis nearly die from some arcane rule, while the government waives said rule for a big campaign donor. Then remember a little bit of history. [41]

Homeschooling surge underway: Education at home is growing seven times faster than K-12 enrollment. The homeschool option makes perfect sense, "significantly higher ACT-Composite scores as high schoolers and higher grade point averages as college students." [42]

Michael Reagan: Reform the U.S. tax code. [43]

The joke sport of "rhythmic gymnastics" is part of the 2020 Olympic Games roster.[44]

2013 continues to be a TERRIBLE year for evolutionary belief just like creationists predicted. The formerly popular Whyevolutionistrue blog sees its web traffic plunge in 2013.[45]

Union jack.jpg

Britain has a debt-to-revenue ratio of 212%. Britain's external debt to GDP ratio was 390% in 2011.[46]

How long will you keep Charles Darwin on your currency Britain? How long will you run inefficient Darwinism indoctrinating public schools? Behold! Creationism will grow mightily in your land!

Multi-ethnic, Bible-believing church is adding 40-50 new members a year via the internet. Also, will a "God-ordained meeting" prove to yield more fruit than boring atheist meetings led by boring, white, atheist males? [47]

Atheists and evolutionists: Why are atheism and evolutionary beliefs so stale and boring?[48]

Conservative Rand Paul may challenge the privacy-invading conduct of the Obama Administration in court. [49] Even a few Dems express their opposition to the Big Brother program.

Promoters of marijuana are quiet about the arrest Saturday of a crane operator charged with causing the deaths of 6 people while under the alleged influence of the drug. [50] Authorities still conceal how much pot was in the system of "College Weed Dealer" Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. [51]

Trust the government? How can we in light of the recent scandals? [52]

Leftist vie for the Dem nomination for the special U.S. Senate election in New Jersey, with Rush Holt and media-promoted Cory Booker jumping into the race. [53]

Tag team of scientists show why the eye is still a thorn in the side of Darwinists.[54]

Protecting Christians in populist Muslim countries.[55]

Who is the enemy of the people? Barack Hussein Obama? Or institutions that enable him? [56]

Psychiatry and Darwinism: Pseudosciences in crisis.[57][58]

Primal scream therapy? A liberal evolutionist must have come up with that one!

Marijuana apparently killed again: six deaths in a building collapse have been traced back to a demolition equipment operator who, accordingly to toxicology reports, was allegedly high on pot. [59]

A Great Conservative Sports Star, the center who led the Ravens offense to the Super Bowl victory, declined to attend the White House celebration because Obama is so pro-abortion. [60] Obama-supported "Planned Parenthood performs about 330,000 abortions a year," Matt Birk observed.

"Reading by Bumps: How to navigate the Hebrew Braille Bible, and not go to prison" by Bishop Bert [61]

Obama administration mining Facebook data to predict crimes.[62]

New York City Mayor candidate Anthony Weiner and the New York Times are tying to rehabilitate his sleazy image, but Michelle Malkin has doubts that it will work.[63]

Flip-flops.png

Barack Hussein Obama flip-flops on the Patriot Act.[64]

Why do liberals, RINOs and Darwinist posers like to flip-flop so often?[65][66] Lack of convictions?

High unemployment, mistrust of government and a porous Mexican border makes odds of passing U.S. immigration bill longer.[67]

"The administration has now lost all credibility..."
And this statement comes from the editorial board of the New York Times, a liberal newspaper. [68][69]

The NSA's domestic spying - and they are spying on Americans - violates the Fourth Amendment. [70]

The special Senate election in New Jersey got a lot more interesting today. Governor Chris Christie named a close ally as a caretaker Senator, and several candidates said they would try to qualify. [71]

A Tea Party activist denounces Chris Christie for calling a special election instead of simply appointing an interim United States Senator. (And calling a special election so fast most candidates won't have time to qualify.) [72] While we're at it: is Chris Christie really a Republican? [73]

The Bully-crats: [74]

Trolls' attempts to silence conservatives just won't work. [75]

Robert Bauer: former White House Counsel, who could be the one most responsible for the IRS targeting of the Tea Party and conservatives in general. [76]

10-year old boy fends off armed home intruders with a gun.[77]

Remember this Father's Day: The left's policies are undermining the family.[78]

The Common Core State Standards for education are unconstitutional and illegal. See here for all the laws they violate. [79]

BREAKING NEWS: Steve Lonegan will start at once to gather signatures to get on the primary ballot in the New Jersey special Senate election. [80][81]

Chris Christie called a special election to fill Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat to benefit one man only: himself. And why is he drawing big money from prominent Democratic Party financiers? [82]

The Obama administration is as transparent as a tar pit.[83] American conservatives, like the ones in Florida and Texas, like the refreshing, clear waters of government transparency.

The IRS discriminates because they are a bunch of self-serving, liberal, money grubbers.[84] Eliminate the IRS and slash U.S federal government spending.

Real austerity and not "faux austerity" will help European economies.[85] How long will the liberal heathen rage and deny the obvious?

What's really "transparent" about Barack Hussein Obama? His war on America, and American women, that's what. [86]

Conservative landslide victory Tuesday, by a remarkable 67-27% margin, for an open congressional seat in Missouri. [87]

Tyranny gets a new face today. It is not just the IRS. It is the Democratic Party Caucus of the United States House of Representatives. [88]

BREAKING NEWS: Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey will not name an interim United States Senator immediately. He will call a special election, to take place this October, to name a replacement for the late Senator Frank Lautenberg. [89]

New Jersey voters! Vote today. A Tea Party group publishes its last list of endorsements in races from sheriff to township council. [90]

The lamestream media admit that Tim Tebow is being excluded not primarily because of his quarterbacking skills. [91] Why should the public support the NFL as it discriminates against outspoken Christians?

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) died Monday. Now Governor Chris Christie must appoint someone to replace him. Whom will that be? [92][93]

Liberal hatred of the First Amendment: [94]

Evolutionists failed to overturn Louisiana pro-creationism law - again! Also, another creationist mother is eager to have her daughter read a draft of the Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students.[95]

Forbes: Religion is an essential driver of economic growth. Evangelicalism is improving the cultures of third world countries and boosting their economies. [96]

UN Agenda 21 threatens San Francisco Bay. But two activists are preparing to sue to fight it. [97]

Liberal censorship continues, by making a big deal out of an offhand reference to "no homo" by a triumphant basketball player. [98] But there's no exception to the First Amendment allowing censorship to promote the homosexual agenda.

Are the Koch Brothers hoping to buy the Los Angeles Times? If so, conservatives should applaud, not decry, them for that. [99]

Anti-Darwinism has now entered into a mainstream public university. Indiana's Ball State University is now offering a course which is intelligent design friendly.[100]

Same-sex marriage is defeated in the liberal state of Illinois, despite Obama's push for it in his home state. [101] Has Obama become irrelevant?

The academic journal Sociology of Religion shows secularism losing momentum and beginning to decline in both Europe and America by 2050. Other academic research shows it may begin to happen much earlier.[102]

August 2012: A summer of triumph for biblical creation belief. Will August 2013 be a watershed month as well?[103]

Media-promoted Tiger Woods "shot his worst nine-hole score as a professional" but afterward his comments were again self-serving: "I'm sure I'm not the only one who struggled out there." [104] Actually, Woods' score is worse than 69 other players.

The number of adherents of liberal Christianity who will be spit out of Jesus's mouth will be many.[105]

The country with the world's biggest atheist population is very interested in information debunking Darwinism.[106]

The first review of the Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students is in! Rachel finds the book "very interesting". Sarah is "very interested" in reading the book.[107]

Evolutionists, learning science is exciting. The force feeding of stale, evolutionary bunkum is not.[108][109]

New Jersey voters! This Tuesday is Primary Day. Herewith a voter guide. [110][111][112]

The IRS and the White House definitely worked together. The visitor logs show how often IRS Commissioner Shulman visited – and how rarely anyone else did with whom he would have had meetings, of not with Barack Obama. [113]

A Tea Party activist withdraws his earlier call for a temporary criminal registry, in wake of the scandals surrounding the Internal Revenue Service. This is the same agency that will police Obamacare. [114]

Liberal double standard: when undefeated Michele Bachmann declined to run for reelection, there was liberal claptrap galore by the media. Then her Dem opponent pulled out of the race too, and the media are nearly speechless. [115]

Eric Holder gave a private party for his friends in the Mainstream Media, and less than half of them showed up. What does that say about those who did? [116]

After cutting Tim Tebow, the New York Jets now try to stop the building of a family amusement park. [117] Why should the increasingly anti-Christian NFL receive favoritism??

Associated Press reports that Americans may lose the health plan they like under Obamacare.[118]

Student Loan money profits are being siphoned off to pay for ObamaCare.[119]

An activist advises people to elect a sheriff who remembers his Constitutional duty to those who elect him. [120]

"Memorial Day 2013: How it was. What it will be" by Bishop Bert [121]

1960s liberalism is not only financially unsustainable, but its champions are a dying breed.[122]

Understanding gold market dynamics.[123]

Evolutionary racism directed towards an accomplished footballer puts a sour note on a football game.[124] Why are so many liberals racists?

When a republic turns into a democracy, it will surely fail. [125]

Remembering a fallen police officer in Phoenix, Arizona. [126]

Media bullying alert: the lamestream media spend all day picking on undefeated conservative Michele Bachmann, who repeatedly won in a liberal district. Rather their cheap criticism, the media should be asking why they could never defeat her.

Wikipedia continues to lose influence in the world in 2013.[127] Also, interest in Project 200 plus keeps expanding.

Undefeated five-term congressman Michele Bachmann announces that she will retire from her position, and may run for higher office. [128] The liberal machine was never able to defeat her in a Dem state.

Professor attacked by liberals. His "crime"? Teaching students to think for themselves. [129]

Judge-Shopping, or, How Eric Holder Got Away With Spying On A Reporter's Emails: [130]

The liberal nanny mayor of New York City doesn't like street cafes now. [131]

The IRS scandal that the news is not covering, because it's tied in with Obamacare: [132]

Eric Holder now faces investigation for perjury before Congress. Is Barack Hussein Obama paying attention? [133]

France struggles to find a strategy to turn around their economy even though it is right under their nose.[134] The Bible, Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek

Many things happen in life that cannot be explained by science or philosophy. Atheists and agnostics self intellectually cripple themselves and are clueless about much of reality.[135]

Example of how modern conservatism is more conservative than Republicans from yesteryear: Bob Dole, Republican nominee in 1996, admits that "Reagan couldn't have made it. Certainly, Nixon couldn't have made it .... We might've made it, but I doubt it." [136]

A United States Senator finally says it: Barack H. Obama is throwing away his moral authority to lead. But in fact he never had legal authority to lead, either. [137]

Conservapedia pauses in prayer (not a liberal "moment of silence") in honor of Memorial Day.

RichardDawkins.net keeps getting smited! Has a plague of locusts eaten Richard Dawkins' daily website visitors?[138]

How long will you refuse to humble yourself before the Lord, Richard Dawkins?

Vox Day and a supporter of the Question evolution! campaign agree: The speed at which the secular left is collapsing is happening at an unexpectedly fast rate. [139]

Google USA estimates 101,000,000 search results for the search "Evolution and just so stories".[140]

"President Obama forgets to salute," but the lamestream media downplay gaffes by liberals. [141]

A Tea Party activist urges Congress to seize the moment, now that Obama's luck seems to have run out. [142]

Another study finds that obesity may decrease brain function.[143] See also: Atheism and obesity and Lesbianism and obesity

Have liberal policies destroyed Sweden? "Stockholm rioting continues for fifth night." [144]

The inventor of the concept "Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder" admitted, before he died, that he made the whole thing up. Think about that when the school district tells you to drug your kids. [145]

Dems admit they lack the votes to pass their amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill, where 60 votes are the minimum needed in the U.S. Senate. [146]

The cold temperatures this spring have even hurt the sale of sporting goods. [147] Yet liberal denial about the cold weather persists, in order to perpetrate a fictional global warming.

World's most popular site devoted to atheism/agnosticism sees a massive loss of global market share according to Alexa. Also, new Question evolution! campaign group leader expected to be installed in June of 2013.[148]

Obama's paternalistic, sexist reference Thursday to a heckler as a "young lady" is no problem for the liberal media, [149] but an Hispanic golfer's offhand racial quip about Tiger Woods is unforgivable.

7 creationist groups have now joined Project 200 plus. Also, 7 ways the Question evolution! campaign is strengthening itself.[150]

An IRS official takes the Fifth Amendment. Or does she? Besides botching her plea, she shows hypocrisy in claiming a freedom she does not grant to others. [151]

Liberal double standard: racist remarks by Joe Biden are no problem, but the lamestream media and Tiger Woods make a big deal about an offhand joke by an Hispanic golfer. [152] Will media bullying enable Tiger Woods to end nearly 5 years without his winning a major?

The BBC News opened a story with this nonsense: “A study of Neanderthal skulls suggests that they became extinct because they had larger eyes than our species.”[153] Why does Darwinism spawn such lame just so stories?

Thomas Sowell recommends parents having their children read the book The New Leviathan which has a number of essays which debunk various liberal sacred cows.[154]

Barack Hussein Obama's "I am an idiot" defense about his recent scandals undermines his "cult of expertise" and statist redemption fantasies that he has been peddling.[155]

Ask yourselves right now: is this still America? Representative Mike Kelly asked that of IRS Acting Commissioner Miller. We should ask it of ourselves. [156]

Contrast the regal behavior of Barack Hussein Obama with the humble behavior of George Washington. [157]

Expert says that the discovery of a 20-year long rainfall in Ireland points to the Great Flood of the Bible being historical.[158]

Why do so many faux Christians deny the Great Flood and try to turn it into a non-Great Flood?[159] Did Jesus, Peter and Moses lie?[160]

Animals are where they are today, not because they evolved there, nor yet because of continental drift, but because they went there after the Great Flood. [161]

A description of "Common Core Education," the harm it can do, and a list of New Jersey primary candidates pledged to stop it. [162]

Outspokenly Christian Kevin Durant gives $1 million to the tornado victims. Durant uaually outscores LeBron, but the liberal media do not promote outspoken Christians.

Why does Glenn Beck, who loves to chart conspiracies on his famous chalkboards, ignore a conspiracy right under his nose? [163]

28 million Americans will be caught in a "massive game of health coverage pingpong" under ObamaCare, and even the liberal media are beginning to panic about this. [164]

Classic communist tactic by the Obama Administration: it files a document in court alleging that a reporter at Fox News is a possible co-conspirator in the "crime" of informing the public. [165] In fact this goes back further – to Henry II. Are we all Thomas Becket now? [166]

Teen awarded for improved capacitor - Intel gave a $50,000 scholarship to a girl whose titanium dioxide capacitor can store almost three times as much electrical energy as previous capacitors and is intended as a battery alternative. [167]

Most mainstream media got the story wrong, claiming incorrectly that her invention can charge a cell phone battery in 30 seconds. (Charging a battery too quickly reduces its life, which is why Motorola and Samsung and the rest keep the amperage low.)

Franklin Graham, one of America's most prominent evangelical Christians, says the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service included two of his ministries.[168]

Are many evangelical Christian churches primarily growing in America due to birth rates or due to evangelism?[169]

"Quiverfull" evangelical Christianity, which does not believe in contraception, is now spreading in the UK.[170] In the past 30 years, the number of Anabaptists in North America, including the Amish, has grown significantly, from 313,000 baptized members in 1978 to more than 535,000 in 2010. [171]

Unfortunately for militant atheists, secularist philosophy breeds sub-replacement levels of fertility. See: Decline of atheism

Reuters reports: "Europe is in the midst of its longest recession since it began keeping records in 1995 — even surpassing the calamity that hit the region in the financial crisis of 2008-2009."[172]

Biblical creationism is growing in Europe and its growth rate will accelerate amidst Europe's economic woes.[173]

The UK has experienced one lost economic decade, and it's about to enter a second. [174] When is the UK going to remove Charles Darwin off its currency?[175]

Turkey, a world leader in anti-evolutionism, had its Moody’s credit rating upgraded to investment-grade quality. [176][177]

What is the real IRS scandal? It's the tax code itself. [178]

A video was recently produced on the topic "Why Christianity and the Bible are true." [179]

Abortion: an indispensable right or violence against women?[180]

Bradlee Dean has this scathing commentary on Minnesota's gay "marriage" law. [181]

Previous Conservapedia Breaking News


View the original article here

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

(Difference between revisions)Brendon, when you have to rely on the [[genetic fallacy]] and ignore articles which cite relevant data, then you have lost the argument once again. Secondly, I did use other sources in my discussion above (including the liberal'' Guardian''). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)Brendon, when you have to rely on the [[genetic fallacy]] and ignore articles which cite relevant data, then you have lost the argument once again. Secondly, I did use other sources in my discussion above (including the liberal'' Guardian''). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)::::Cons. when you have to rely on the deliberate misspelling of an editor's name... [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:26, 17 June 2013 (EDT)::::Cons. when you have to rely on the deliberate misspelling of an editor's name... [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:26, 17 June 2013 (EDT)AlanE, it wasn't deliberate. I have never taken him seriously and the misspelling is a reflection of that. I am not saying that to be mean. It is just the way it is. The more I have been exposed to the left, the less seriously I have taken them. Plus, liberalism is imploding right now (academia, journalism, education, fiscal policies, demographically, etc.).  It would surprise me if Obama and European leaders can hold things together economically until the November 2016 elections. To me liberals are like toothless bulldogs right now in terms of the sustainability of the notions which they want to impose on others.  I am reading less and less of their material.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:22, 17 June 2013 (EDT)if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Perhaps it's just on my particular web browser, but the image of Pope John Paul II is located right next to the section on the abuse controversy. This appears to try to link him to the scandal in a way that I'm sure is unintended. Could it be relocated?HectorJ 19:08, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

It could be viewed as a subliminal message, and I remember the BBC reporting on a leaked letter by the adjacent Pope John XXIII describing the process and calling for excommunication of victims who went public. Let's move them both. -danq 23:46, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

In the "Evolutionism and creationism" section, I can't quite be certain, but if memory serves correctly offences that warrant excommunication are limited to preaching of abortion, ordaining a female into the priesthood, and engaging in schismatic actions. Perhaps someone should look into this. Pano 00:34, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

There should be a full section on the child abuse scandal, if not a full article. At the moment there is just one sentence on it. And it wasn't just in the 90's and 2000's, it's been happening for decades all over the world, and the church tried to cover it as well. I don't think the current sentence on the child abuse scandal addresses the severity and scale of the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4 watch this, it will give you an idea of how serious this issue is and why it should not be ignored. User:Danielspence 14:47, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Since this article should be about what the Catholic Church is about, the history of the church would have brief sentences and paragraphs; the child abuse scandal should have a minor sentence here as well. But, main articles on various subjects apply - both good and bad (see Pope Formosus) - and the child abuse scandal is one of them. Karajou 15:27, 17 October 2011 (EDT) The child abuse/homosexuality scandal does not define what the Church is about. It is a rather horrifying situation and a scourge to Christ's bride. Child abuse rates among the general population happen in greater numbers than Church offenders. There have been 2000 years of the Church surviving various other scandalous attacks. I think expansion beyond a couple sentences is wrong. --Jpatt 01:37, 18 October 2011 (EDT) If you don't want to fully acknowledge it on this article then a new article should be created about the scandal. Conservapedia has various other articles on much more trivial scandals such as the scandal regarding wikipedia contributor "Essjay". I'm not saying that the wikipedia scandal wasn't a notable one, but the Catholic child abuse scandal was a much more fiery controversy. Danielspence 14:38, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

The note on sex scandals seems to be repeatedly changed to imply that this is the case, was true of at least 200 years, or (most recent edit) always was the case about the Catholic Church. I have changed it to: "The aftermath of a series of sexual abuse scandals. In the early 2000s, it was found that bishops were privately settling cases of molestation of minors by priests, occurring primarily between the 1940s and 1980s." -danq 19:39, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

There seems to be one obscure saint who founded an obscure and controversial religious order at the "See Also" which I believe is a derogatory Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code reference. It keeps being put back. Why? -danq 21:48, 6 November 2011 (EST) Just updated "See Also" JPII to Benedict XVI. Putting every Saint, Blessed, Servant of God, and Pope under the heading "See Also" is not only irrelevant to "Roman Catholic Church" but is highly impractical, especially obscure figures like the Opus Dei founder I removed before. Sorry if I got mean before, but people kept changing the proven-true events to a stereotype and conspiracy theory, and the Opus Dei reference was obviously a troll-job. -danq 22:16, 7 November 2011 (EST)

The Catholic Church's take on evolution is more complex than what's written here. It does not officially endorse theistic evolution: no Pope has, so far, spoken ex cathedra on the issue, neither in favor neither contrarily and the Church's catechism does not mention evolution or Creationism. So Catholics are basically left free of deciding for themselves.

Unofficially, the Church wholly accepts the scientific version of the Earth's forming, which it has substantially helped discovering: geology and sismology are not called "Jesuit sciences" for nothing. The Big Bang theory was also formulated by Fr. Lemaitre, a French priest. Also, the Catholic Church explicitly teaches that the Bible is meant to be read allegorically, and furthermore that theology and science are distinct and compatible - science studies the universe, theology what's beyond it. So I think that we should mention that Young Earth creationism or any non-scientific theory about the formation of the Earth and the universe aren't generally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

Life's genesis is a bit more touchy. Popes Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all personally endorsed evolution; study of it has been allowed, starting with the encyclical Humani Generis in 1950. The Catholic Catechism n.302 says: "Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it." This allows for the universe to evolve... and, implicitly, life.

Mostly, Church theologians generally focus on spiritual subjects, accepting that life evolved gradually and how Darwin described it. I quote an article from the Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Pope, which is unfortunately in Italian: it's the one marked with 1. The author calls Darwin's theory "happy intuition" and strongly attacks Intelligent Design, after having summarised and endorsed evolution: "The decision of the Pennsylvania judge, therefore, is correct. Intelligent Design does not belong to science and the pretense that it should be taught alongside Darwinism is not justified. Confusion between religious and scientific points of views is only created. It is not even requested in a religious view of the forming of the universe [...]". It also attacks Darwinist scientists who pass from scientific theory to "ideology" and concludes: "... we can say that we're not men for case or necessity; human history has a superior design". So it's mostly a spiritual issue about the creation of soul and the Original Sin.

With your permission, I would like to complete this article. Thanks. --Swordsman 15:48, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Please do edit the content entry, but the Catholic Church has expressly forbidden Catholics from teaching anything contrary to one Adam and one Eve, which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church. Indeed, the Passion of Christ makes no sense without Adam's Original Sin, and Jesus himself confirmed that the Great Flood occurred.--Andy Schlafly 11:46, 15 June 2013 (EDT) "... contrary to one Adam and One even ..." That idea is not in Humani Generis and is not the Church's teaching. We are shown what we already knew: we are special creations with miraculous souls created by God. The mention of Adam in Humani Generis addresses the anathema of polygenism, which is really just a denial of God. It's not Catholic creationism. "... which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church." You are sticking to something you made up. It is even more wrong this time around. You and I have already had this discussion, but your talk page was deleted and recreated, so it has disappeared. Since Humani Generis and John Paul II's teaching, the Church has been openly hostile to intelligent design creationism. Moreover, there has never been anything like a modern Pope, College of Cardinals, Canon Law, section of the Catechism, or any other modern source embracing young earth creationism. In reality, the Pontifical College openly embraces theistic evolution and visiting academics are invited to counsel the Pope and College on matters of science as the First Vatican Counsel exhorts. Pope Benedict wrote often enough of accepting Christian theistic evolution that we know what his position was for sure. Pope Francis has a degree in some scientific field, so it is extremely unlikely that he will embrace this anti-scientific young earth creationism. Nate 13:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, would you please look at the history of your talk page and see if you can find our discussion? I would like to see the citations I made back then so I don't have to do the same research again to expand the simplistic statements about the Church's position on science in this article. I would be grateful. Nate 13:44, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

I agree and I was going to say what Nate brillantly said. I can only add one thing: with "theistic evolution," the Church doesn't mean that God made particular interventions to make hominids evolve into humans. That, it's argued, would be proof of an unskilled God - a priest, a very good one, once said to me: "Think of a clock. It can run late, lose time and so we need the clockmaker to come and fix it from time to time. This is because the clock is unperfect, as it's made by imperfect men; now, think of the universe, and life, as a clock: would God be omnipotent if he needed to come over to push things as he wants them? Wouldn't an omnipotent God have foreseen everything from the very start (save for free will, which is a gift to us), even this fly buzzing around us? Yes: this is a truly almight God." In a sense God "designed" humans, but not directly or abruptly: evolution happened following the biological and physical rules of the universe that He creates. This is a theological theory known as "continuous creation" and has been openly embraced by every Pope since Humani Generis (likely also by Francis), and it's heavily influenced by Leibniz. You can find a beautiful exposition of it on the web, by Fr. George Coyne, SJ, a Jesuit astronomer: here. What the Church does not accept is polygeny, the belief that humans come from different strains. And guess what - we indeed all come from Africa and from a single common genetic ancestor (mitocondrial Eve). The Original Sin is a subject of debate: likely there were no snakes, apples and fig leaves involved, as CCC 390 affirms that Genesis is written in a "figurative language." Even St. Augustin said that "nihil ad intelligendum secretius" than the Original Sin (nothing is more obscure than the nature of it) and, boy, he was smart. It can be about the knowledge (intended as the capability of distinguishing) of good and evil. --Swordsman 16:57, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE: from the Humani Generis, "For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that ... Adam represents a certain number of first parents." Yet that is precisely what the modern theory of evolution pretends. Also, Jesus acknowledged and referred to the Great Flood, which evolution denies.

At some point, all intelligent people are faced with a choice: question what liberals taught us in school and be open to what Christ and logic dictate, or forever be a prisoner to what liberals teach. I urge you to choose the former.--Andy Schlafly 17:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

You are not reading the encyclical correctly. That is very specifically referring to the corollary problem in polygenism of describing Adam as figuratively representing the whole evolution of mankind - in other words, denying that Adam existed in favor of claiming multiple different kinds of "men". But we know Adam existed because without him there would be no original sin. We are taught that God created the souls of men and redeemed us through Jesus Christ. God, as the omnipotent creator of the universe, also created the means by which man would appear so that he could be blessed with a soul. Please re-read at least the sections around your quote so you can see for yourself that Pope Pius is not saying what you claim he is. I don't care whether "evolution denies" the flood if I even understand what that means. I don't think it happened and I'm not alone among the majority serious students of Catholic theology. You are incorrect if you are claiming that Jesus Christ described the flood as an actual event - He's obviously referring to Noah and his family's salvation figuratively - as new "Adams" to foretell Christ's redemption of all mankind. I urge you to reexamine what you're calling logic here. It's not based on Church teaching or Catholic scholarship. Believe what you want but please don't make the insulting claim that Catholics must believe what you say or they're liberal or illogical - I don't agree with you and I've spent my entire adult life studying with some of the most "conservative" lay and ordered Catholic scholars there are. Nate 18:11, 15 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, the Roman Catholic Church does not have great confidence in evolutionism. If they did, they would put all their chips on the table and speak ex-cathedra on this issue. :) And Protestants such as myself remember the Galileo Galilei incident. Conservative 18:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT) You apparently know zilch about Papal infallibility if you keep repeating this. It's not about "putting chips on the table" because it's not about your kind of vainglorious boasting. It's about narrowly directing the entire body of faithful on matters of critical Church doctrine and there are stepwise considerations to make. Pope Benedict wouldn't even do it. I'd be happy to help you learn something new but somehow I suspect you are still filled with hate and pride. :) Nate 18:30, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Nate, Roman Catholics are still free to be young earth creationist and still hold to Roman Catholicism since no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on evolutionism. Andy Schafly and Since33AD are both Catholic creationist. Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, neither has been ex-communicated nor has the Roman Catholic Church threatened ex-communication! Conservative 18:34, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Indeed. As far as I gather Sam Brownback is a creationist (although I'm not sure if young earth or old earth) and he hasn't been excommunicated or anything. - Markman 19:21, 15 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, "stepwise considerations to make" is just another way of saying that the Roman Catholic Church does not have full confidence in evolutionism and have not spoken ex-cathedra on this matter. You are not fully confident in evolutionism. If you were, you would have challenged the creationist university biology student VivaYehshua by now. And Kenneth Miller has yet to respond to GregG's inquiry about the 15 questions for evolutionists. Conservative 19:24, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

The Humani Generis is clear, Jesus was clear, and the logic is clear. There is no logical objection to one Adam, or to the Great Flood. But once one denies one Adam or the Great Flood, then numerous logical problems arise in explaining what Jesus said and did. Why choose illogic over logic? Well, one reason is because liberals push anti-Jesus theories, and evolution is one of them, and perhaps some would rather be accepted by liberals than ridiculed by them. I choose logic any day and urge others to do likewise. Logic never fails.--Andy Schlafly 21:15, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

You are entitled to believe falsehoods if you wish. The words in Humani Generis are printed right there in black and white. People should read them. It is improper to ascribe illogic, being "liberal" or whatever other insults you come up with to people who have justified principled disagreements with you like I have. This has nothing to do with politics. There is no anti-Jesus theory that could appeal to me. I do not care who ridicules me. I care about what's true and justifiable. Nate 22:33, 15 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, you can believe whatever you like, but the logic is with one Adam committing original sin, one Flood cleansing the world of debauchery, and the Passion to redeem the original sin. If there was more than one Adam, then original sin becomes implausible, and the Passion makes no sense. It is very difficult or impossible to make logical sense of both the modern theory of evolution and the Passion of Christ. And, as a result, most people who promote the theory of evolution reject the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.--Andy Schlafly 23:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Nate, put all your theistic evolution chips on the table. Debate the creationist university biology student VivaYehshua. Unless of course, you think he would badly beat you in a debate on the 15 questions for evolutionists. We both know that he would win such a debate hands down. Conservative 02:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

I've said this over and over, yet you seem to be willfully misrepresenting my position. Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time. I am not an expert by any means but I also don't care about evolution. I care about theology and in particular about the correct representation of Catholic theology and dogma on Conservapedia. Biblical hermeneutics as it relates to Genesis is very interesting. I would like to learn more and showing you to be an ill-informed fool is a great chance to do that. I have no interest in debating an obscure "creationist university biology student" who is a stranger to this discussion. I've repeatedly challenged you to debate me on the theological basis for your beliefs because you are the one who frequently insults me and Greg and shows a very weak grasp of Biblical hermeneutics, but you always tremble like a timorous chicken in your intellectual bunnyhole and demand people debate someone else. Are those the words you use to speak to "obscure internet posers" when you use your ESP to look into their hearts to judge them? That's just silly. There's no sensible excuse for it if you're going to participate in these discussions. Either you put your chips on the table and justify your theological position or you show yourself to be a rank coward with your vain boasting, taunts, and demands that we go talk to someone else about your nonsense. If you want to say I'm not justifying that claim, let's debate it. We are instructed to be defenders of our faith. Do you have the courage and conviction to put some skin in the game? Nate 09:48, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, I welcome any theological insights you may have. If you deny one Adam, then what was original sin? If you think Jesus was speaking only in figurative terms about the Great Flood, then are other miracles in Jesus's teachings and actions also merely figurative in your view?--Andy Schlafly 11:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Thanks for the questions. I do not deny one Adam. To do so would be anathema by Church law. No, I do not believe one can say that Jesus' miracles are merely figurative, as you say. I am talking about the interpretation of specific verses, not all Gospel accounts of Christ's miracles which I cannot deny as they are described and as I've experienced personally in having Christ in my own life. Nate 11:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Historical evidence points out to a major regional disaster from which the Flood may have been constructed; surely there was no Ark. Anyway, it's its symbolical meaning that matters. Jesus spoke to be understood from his contemporaries, making parables and allegories that were easy to understand by then-Hebrews. Think about the parable of the ten virgins: it is about a forgotten Eastern tradition which seems unusual to us today, but yet delivers a never-ending message. Miracles are witnessed by the Gospels, descripted in the prose; the Great Flood is in a dialogue by Jesus. What a Catholic cannot deny is the unique fault of Adam for the Original Sin, in other words that it was Adam's sin to condemn the whole human species. Not that Adam popped out ex nihilo... I repeat: the question is spiritual, not biological. --Swordsman 12:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT) In response to Nate, the modern theory of evolution does deny one Adam. As a result, most students who are taught and believe the theory of evolution will begin to doubt the purpose of the Passion and the divinity of Christ. Perhaps you're an unusual exception to that rule, but if you accept that there was one Adam, then you reject the modern theory of evolution. In response to Swordsman, apparently you do reject one Adam, which makes original sin and the Passion almost impossible to explain in a coherent manner.--Andy Schlafly 13:10, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Anyway, I regret this discussion went downhill. Let's pick it up another time. I wish I could find my research for that article. Happy Father's Day! Nate 19:01, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

NateK, you wrote: "Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time." I realize that you said that you are not an expert, but one of the surest signs of someone erring due to pride is them bragging on how long and hard that they have been studying something. This coupled with you saying you are a proud Irish Catholic with a family line stretching back into Catholicism and family in high places in the Roman Catholic Church is a ripe recipe for error. I had a business owner boss who commented on someone bragging about how long they had been in our industry and how good they were. My boss said something to the effect of: "Has he been in the industry 20 years or one year 20 times?" People have been known to repeat the same errors over and over.

Second, we both know that you are violently shoehorning Darwinism into the biblical text and that you are supposedly "seeing" something that the early Church fathers and Jews for thousands of years "missed". It is like your myriads of "missing links" in the fossil record. Nate, "It is important to note that no major Hebrew scholar says that Genesis is poetry. This is because Genesis has all the grammatical marks of being a historical narrative."[1] Your creation compromises are not at all compelling as can be seen HERE and HERE

So why are you and theistic evolutionists committing fundamental Bible exegesis errors. It is due to valuing scientific consensus in the secular world over the Biblical text. And the history of the scientific consensus argument when weighed against the accuracy and insight/foresight of the biblical text has a very checkered past. See: Jesus vs. the scientific consensus.

Lastly, creation scientists have a history of consistently winning creation vs. evolution debates dealing with the science and winning those debates hands down. See: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates. Now evolutionists are very reluctant to debate creationists on the science. Your unwillingness to debate VivaYehshua is not surprising, but it is very telling. There must be some reason why are unwilling to debate the grassroots champion of the grassroots Question evolution! campaign who is studying biology at the university level. Is it because you are afraid of badly losing? I think it is. Conservative 13:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

NateK, one other thing. To my knowledge, it has always been the liberal Roman Catholics that I have locked horns with at CP and never the conservative ones. That is because the scientific consensus and evolutionism is such a "golden calf"/"sacred cow" to liberals and to liberal Christianity. And one of the ironies is that many liberal Catholics rarely read the Bible nor do the liberal Catholic hierarchy in the Western World stress Bible reading as can be seen by this statistic taken from a Roman Catholic website: "Far more disturbing was the poll result that showed that 44 percent of Catholics “rarely or never” read the Bible, while this is true of only 7 percent of Evangelicals and 13 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants. The level of religious vitality must be very low in a Christian church in which 44 percent of the membership almost never bothers to read the Bible."[2] Furthermore, the fruits of evolution loving liberal Christianity are quite sour as can be seen at: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity. Bill Donahue of the Catholic League recognizes that many liberal Roman Catholics in the hierarchy of the church in the Western World has yielded bad fruit as can be seen HERE. Of course, this is not surprising. When you value pseudoscience and the scientific consensus over Scripture, the results are going to be bad. Conservative 13:43, 16 June 2013 (EDT) You're really not getting it and I think people can readily tell that by how far away you get from the real points at hand when you launch into these irrelevant screeds. We're talking about theology and Biblical hermeneutics. It's time to step up to the plate, my good man. Instead of talking about other people's exegesis, I've repeatedly challenged you to debate your own with me. Each time you raise some nonsense that I've told you I don't care about, and continue publicly debasing yourself by showing such cowardice in crowing about an anonymous college kid on a chat site. Assigning him to fight the fights you stirred up with your pride and hatred of those who disagree with you is pathetic. I want to the debate the person who knows very little of what he talks about and vaingloriously accuses me of the worst sin. Let's do this. Then perhaps you'll think twice before you continue personally insulting people just because they disagree with you. That's just awful behavior. Nate 13:50, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Conservative, I think we already made very clear that obsessively proposing to debate a creationist blogger is completely out-of-place in this discussion which is about the Catholic church's theological views over evolution, so that we may improve this article. We're not biologists, we would not be suitable foes for any kind of regular debate (that are made between experts, not amateurs). So please: enough. NateK, if I thought discussing Bible exegesis with you was going to yield fruit then of course I would do it length. Instead I provide you with some valid information on biblical exegesis and then call you on the carpet about the fruits of your theology using objective facts/data. For example, you still haven't told me why Roman Catholics have such poor Bible reading habits compared to evangelicals and why the church hierarchy is evidently not leading on the issue to rectify things. I know it must be frustrating for you to be confronted with objective data from Catholic websites showing you the bad fruit of your theology, but nevertheless I will still do it. Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them." Liberals hate concrete data which show the inadequacies of their ideologies/theologies. They prefer to wrangle about more subjective matters and speculative matters and then engage in bad faith tactics about such matters and not go where the evidence leads. By the way, evolutionism has been linked to a decline in morals via a university study.[3] Conservative 19:47, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Catholics actually believe that an "Adam" somewhere, sometime existed; that he was the first "man"; that he was the first human to receive a soul by God and that he, and he alone, committed the Original Sin that spread to all mankind after him. This is what we (and I) believe. This is the nucleus of the Genesis, with everything around it being allegory and poetry - from the snake to the fig leaves. Circumstances are not defined by official dogma: we do not know where and when Adam lived, if he was really named "Adam", what the Original Sin was about, what happened next... but again, the question isn't biological or scientifical. It's spiritual. --Swordsman 13:57, 16 June 2013 (EDT) [inserted response] The modern theory of evolution teaches that there was no "first man", and that there was no Adam. All of Christianity, to make sense of the Passion, requires a first man and original sin. It cannot be that there were many humans, Adam sinned, and then the sin somehow spread, because then some would not be descended from Adam and the original sin, which the Catholic Church expressly rejects. Such a model is illogical as well, because there would be people who did not sin, or to whom the original sin did not reach. The bottom line is this: teachings that implicitly contradict Christianity will pull some naive students away from Christianity. But logic is helpful in recognizing the flaws to anti-Christian theories that don't identify themselves as such.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Swordsman, you said the issue is "spiritual". Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits." If evolution loving Liberal Christianity is so spiritual, then why do they commit adultery more often and theologically conservative Christians? See: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity. If evolution loving liberal Catholics and the evolution loving liberal Roman Catholic hierarchy are so spiritual, then why do so many Catholics fail to read the Bible compared to evangelical Christians?[4] If the Western Roman Catholic hierarchy is so spiritual, then why did Bill Donahue of the Catholic League say the Roman Catholic Church pederasty problem was the result of homosexual priests and cite statistics supporting his point? [5] Anytime you want to stop pretending that liberal Catholics and liberal Protestants (theologically liberal) are godly, that would be fine with me. Conservative 14:33, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

For God's sake, this is the most appalling and uncoherent nonsequitur I have ever read. Are you sure to be okay? We are talking about the Catholic Church's view on evolution, not your rubbish. Catholics fail to read the Bible because, banally, there's no Bible-reading culture among common believers. We trust the Church to teach it. There's no "pederasty" problem: it's outright pedophilia (and Jesus said those who made scandal to children should be drowned with a millstone, symbolically), which is a psychiatric criminal disorder; whether it has a source in repressed homosexuality in the clergy could be a subject of discussion but it's not absolutely the point of this topic! --Swordsman 14:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Swordsman, I see that your sword is quite dull. Liberals always fails to deliver the goods and that is why you cannot defend the fruits of theological liberalism when stacked up beside the fruits of theological conservatism. You retreat to less objective rhetoric and prefer to sweep the fruits under the rug. Nevertheless, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits". The fruits of economic liberalism and its mountains of debt will lay liberalism in all its forms low and the institutions that support it so I am not worrying about something as weak as liberalism or theological liberalism. Liberal Christianity will continue to shrink in the world while theologically conservative Christianity continues to prosper.[6] The historicity of the Bible and conservative Protestantism has evidence supporting it.[7] Evolution loving, liberal Catholicism on the other hand is a den of iniquity supported by nothing but hot air and blowhards who run away from their fruits and the evidence supporting biblical Christianity. Conservative 15:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT) I came here to discuss about the Catholic Church and evolution, to improve this article; we were having a productive discussion with Andrew and Nate until you came over and spawned your... this is supposed to be family-friendly, right?... your rants about the universal woes of "liberalism" (what Americans call liberalism at least). Which has absolutely ZERO pertinence to what we are discussing here, besides pounding the discussion into ridicule for those who read. Your hatred of Catholicism quite sums up your character; I'm tolerant and I will not get dragged into religion wars - just, I always wondered which one of the 41,000/30,000/10,000 protestant churches is right, since they all say they're "the one" that is right? By the way, I'm a liberale in Italy. Before you explode, go seeing what "liberalism" actually is in Europe. I will not answer to any other comment which does not return to the main point of discussion: facts about the Catholic Church and evolution. Over. --Swordsman 15:25, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Darwinism loving, Italian, theologically liberal Catholicism has a bleak future.[8] France has a history of Catholicism. No doubt what is happening in France will happen to Italy as well.[9] Morals degeneration has been linked belief in evolution via a university study and Italy/France are starting to pay a heavy price on the economic front due to their deep indebtedness and other drags on their economy. On the other hand, "Either way, not a single Protestant or Germanic EU country has so far needed a bailout."[10] See also: Protestant work ethic and European countries Conservative 15:49, 16 June 2013 (EDT) That's a parody. That's all a parody. I'm on candid camera. You can't be serious - or sane. --Swordsman 15:52, 16 June 2013 (EDT) When you have to rely on armchair internet psychobabbling and cannot address the fruits of your religion, then something is seriously amiss. Nevertheless, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits." and liberal Catholics are not "spiritual" to use a term that you used above and were unsuccessful in defending. Conservative 15:58, 16 June 2013 (EDT) You destroyed an interessant discussion over the Catholic Church and evolution with your delusions and obsessions. That's all I'm going to say, Ken. I will not communicate with you anymore unless you revert to the topic at hand. Goodbye. --Swordsman 16:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Swordsman, you may find comfort in your psychobabbling, but it cannot alter the fact that theological liberalism is imploding and has bad fruit using objective measurements nor does it have any evidence supporting it (the evidence is on the side of biblical Christianity). Keep retreating to the subjective world of psychobabbling, but you are not fooling anybody - not even yourself. Conservative 16:34, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Really, if that is the case, show me some peer-reviewed papers, from a trustworthy and reputable source! brenden 16:35, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Addendum - that isn't from QE.blogspot.com.

Brendon, when you have to rely on the genetic fallacy and ignore articles which cite relevant data, then you have lost the argument once again. Secondly, I did use other sources in my discussion above (including the liberal Guardian). Conservative 16:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Cons. when you have to rely on the deliberate misspelling of an editor's name... AlanE 00:26, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

AlanE, it wasn't deliberate. I have never taken him seriously and the misspelling is a reflection of that. I am not saying that to be mean. It is just the way it is.

The more I have been exposed to the left, the less seriously I have taken them. Plus, liberalism is imploding right now (academia, journalism, education, fiscal policies, demographically, etc.). It would surprise me if Obama and European leaders can hold things together economically until the November 2016 elections. To me liberals are like toothless bulldogs right now in terms of the sustainability of the notions which they want to impose on others. I am reading less and less of their material. Conservative 02:22, 17 June 2013 (EDT)


View the original article here

Capital punishment

(Difference between revisions)

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes. Such crimes are known as capital crimes, and tend to be grave crimes against persons or governments (such as premeditated murder, rape or treason).

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Of the main developed countries, only the United States and Japan use formalized capital punishment, though many developed countries give law enforcement greater authority to kill than allowed by the United States. For emerging countries, China uses the death penalty and in the non-developed world it is practiced in most Sharia states (those whose legal systems are based on Muslim legal philosophy), as well as many others.[1][2]

According to officially released governmental figures, the human rights organization Amnesty International estimates that Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, at 13.65 hangings per 1,000,000 residents. Saudi Arabia has the second-highest rate, at 4.65 per 1,000,000.

Based on 2004 figures, China is the world leader in total number of executions with an estimated 3,400. Following China is Iran with 159 and Vietnam with an estimated 64 executions. The United States executed the 5th greatest number of people in the world with a total of 52. [3]

Most Australian removed the death penalty in 1984 as a punishment for murder, however at that time it had not been used since 1967. Until 2010 when it was formally prohibited by federal legislation it could still have been used as a punishment for treason during a time of war or the Ashes.

Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis; 17 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the death penalty.[4] But the federal government and the military fully use capital punishment for the most heinous crimes, including treason.

Pennsylvania has hundreds of people on death row, though only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws, and all three essentially "volunteered" by dropping their appeals. But other states, such as Texas, execute convicted persons on death row with regularity.[5] Frivolous appeals and overly cautious stays of execution can create a backlog on death rows in many states.

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by age 30+ males who are Caucasian and Republican.[6]

Capital punishment for federal crimes existed for centuries. After the death penalty was suspended by judicial activism in 1973, the federal government reinstated it again in 1988.[7]

Some studies conducted since the start of the new millennium have consistently shown a deterrence factor in the United States based on use of the death penalty. It has been calculated that each person executed saves the lives of anywhere from 3 to 18 innocent people.[8] Other studies have shown that as a whole, "death-penalty states" typically have higher murder rates than states that do not have capital punishment, but obviously many other factors influence the overall murder rate, such as poverty and policies toward repeat offenders.[9]

Some have questioned how a nation such as the United States that largely identifies itself as Christian (76.5%) could have 65% of Americans believing putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable[10] They question whether or not the Bible allows such a view.[11]. The 6th Commandment is sometimes translated as, "Thou shalt not kill." This translation suggests that executions are a sin. The 6th Commandment is also sometimes translated as, "Thou shalt commit no murder." As murder is defined as "wrongful killing", when following that translation it is possible to argue whether or not judicial executions are murder. In any case, any possible moral justification for humans to met out capital punishment upon other humans is based on exactly two interacting facts: 1) humans in the fallen world already are subject to eventual death by natural means; 2) some offenses (crimes, sins) are biologically so deep that the integrity of the central victim(s) is too compromised to recover by natural means (including, but not limited to, death). Added to those two facts is a third: the maintenance of such offenders is in no way the duty of the offended, so long as the offended is not already so guilty ('let only those who are without hypocracy cast the first stone', or 'a family of thieves cannot selectively punish its members'.) Finally, and most importantly, the 6th Commandment is part of the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament, which mandates capital punishment for many offenses (see below); therefore, an interpretation of the 6th Commandment as forbidding capital punishment is nonsensical.

Lethal injection is the official method of capital punishment in almost all of the 38 states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. Several botched electrocutions in Florida in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the electric chair, which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Firing squads were conducted in Utah, most recently in 2010. The three hangings took place in Washington and Delaware, most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The gas chamber, which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow death, has been used in California, Arizona, Nevada, Mississippi, and North Carolina since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type.

The United States has never used the guillotine, which was very popular in France. The last use of the guillotine in France was in 1977. Thereafter, capital punishment in France was abolished, in 1981.

Canada does not employ capital punishment, and it has not been a possible sentence in Canadian civilian courts since 1976.

Canada long employed capital punishment as a punishment for murder or treason, typically executing prisoners by long drop hanging in the case of civilians, and by firing squad in the case of soldiers or other military. (In particular, 25 soldiers were executed for various crimes during World War I.) Canada had several notorious executioners, particularly Arthur B. English, also known as "Arthur Ellis", after whom a Canadian literary award for mystery writing is named.

While Canada's use of capital punishment was inherited from the legal system of the United Kingdom, opposition to capital punishment began to arise in the late 1950s, and came to a head in 1959, when Steven Truscott, a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder, with a recommendation from the jury for mercy. The judge passed down a sentence of execution by hanging, then the only legal punishment for murder in Canada.

While Truscott's death sentence would later be commuted in 1960, his case galvanized public opinion, and in 1961 Canada reclassified capital murder, defining it as a murder that involved premeditation, murder during the commission of a violent crime, or the murder of a police officer or prison guard. This marked the beginning of the decline of capital punishment in Canada, as the last executions would be in December, 1962. The government of Canada routinely commuted any death sentence passed thereafter (indeed, the Liberal Party made opposition to capital punishment a part of their platform).

In 1976, this de facto state of affairs became law, when the Canadian Parliament abolished the use of capital punishment under the Criminal Code. Executions were still permitted under the National Defense Act until 1998, when they were similarly abolished.

Currently, Canada's Supreme Court does not allow the extradition of criminals who may be executed for their crimes.

Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which those convicted of murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery are executed in public with a sword. As of November 25, 2007, Saudi Arabia has beheaded 136 people, 38 people in 2006 and 83 people in 2005. [12]

The death penalty has been abolished in all 27 European Union member states, and 47 out of the 50 countries in Europe (only Belarus still practices it), and Russia has had an effective moratorium since 1996).[13] The EU has long been against capital punishment, and campaigns for its abolition worldwide. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legally adopted in the Treaty of Lisbon, bans execution in all member states, and abolition is a condition of acceding to the EU.[1] EU law also bans detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.

The Associated Press has reported that executions and torture in North Korea are "worse than animal slaughter." "One inmate, Choe Kwang Ho, sneaked away from his work for 15 minutes to pick fruit. He was executed, his mouth stuffed with gravel to prevent him from protesting." "If a female inmate got pregnant, he said, she and her lover would be shot to death publicly. Then, An said, prison guards would cut open her womb, remove the fetus and bury it or feed it to guard dogs."[14]

In American history, there was regional variation in the use of the death penalty (with The South always higher), the execution rate (per million people) dropped steadily between the colonial period and the present, that the number of crimes meriting the death penalty was sharply reduced, and few women were executed, while a disproportionate number of African American, ethnic, and poor men died at the hands of the state. In Colonial America, capital punishment was used more frequently, as it fit into the context of colonial life. Rates of execution were similar to those in England and matched the general violence of colonial life. There were no prisons for long-term incarceration (only jails for brief incarcerations.) Public executions served as communal warnings. By the 1790s, executions began to decline. Many capital offenses were dropped, the methods of execution changed, and long-term incarceration in prison emerged as the preferred alternative punishment. Executions disappeared from the public square except in the cases of lynchings, which grew in numbers in the South after the Civil War. [15]

The Old Testament of the Bible has several passages that recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

According to the Old Testament, these are the offenses which merit the death penalty:

Worshiping a false god (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) Sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20) Sacrificing children to Molech (Leviticus 20:2) Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16) Desecrating the Sabbath (Exodus31:15) False Prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:5) Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27) Cursing Parents (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9) Rebellious Sons (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) Disobedience to judgments by authority established God (Deuteronomy 17:9-13) False witness in a capital crime (Deuteronomy 19:16-20) Murder (Exodus 21:12, 21:15) Negligent homicide Exodus 21:29) Homosexual intercourse (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) Bestiality (Leviticus 20:15) Adultery (Leviticus 20:10; 19:20) Incest (Leviticus 20:11; from Moses onward: Genesis 19:33,35; 4:17) Sex with a woman betrothed to another (Deuteronomy 22:25) Unchastity; marriage under false pretense of virginity (Deuteronomy 22:21-24) Daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute (Leviticus 21:9) Kidnapping to sell into slavery (Exodus 21:16) Coveting and making a wicked thing one's possession (Deuteronomy 7:26; Joshua 7:15,25)

The term "put to death" or similar explicit terms are usually used in commands mandating capital punishment, though the term "cut off from his people" (Lev. 17:4, etc.) may also denote such,[16] and which would increase the number of capital offenses. However, the latter phrase could potentially refer to excommunication instead. [17]

Conditions necessary for true conviction:

"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death." (Deuteronomy 17:6; cf. Exodus 20:16)

Requirements for Judges:

Lev 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Few people support capital punishment for non-murder offenses, and a number of Christians oppose the death penalty in all cases. Apologist JP Holding argues that the Bible including the New Testament nowhere repudiates the use of capital punishment (by the State), but that it does not necessarily mandate its use, either. [18]

In Acts 25:11, the apostle Paul stated, "...if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die", while Romans 13:1-5 states that God has ordained the just use of the sword by the government. (cf. 1 Pet. 2:14)

Some Christians who are opposed to the death penalty cite John 8:3-11, which describes how Christ saved an adulteress from death by stoning by challenging the crowd "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone", which they interpret as saying that man does not have the moral authority to condemn man to death. However, apart from the controversy regarding the canonical status of the passage, it is argued that Jesus is shown to be upholding the law[19], while only stopping the execution of the women by hypocrites, who were themselves convicted of such sins, similar to or including adultery.[20][21] (cf. Matthew 7:5; Romans 2:1) Other Christians argue that the unjust execution of Jesus demonstrates that capital punishment is immoral, though Jesus is not seen opposing the legitimacy of capital punishment itself, and only the unjust use of such power. (Jn. 10:32; 18:23; Acts 25:11) Some Christians claim that the passage was a later addition to the Bible (see article: "Adulteress story") - if it was a later addition, this might not be an issue to those Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The Catholic Church has historically supported capital punishment in many circumstances that range from combating heresy to saving lives of potential victims of crime. Traditionally, capital punishment has been endorsed by the Church for reasons beyond preventing additional wrongdoing by the same criminal.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) explains the historical use by the Church and Catholic nations to executing heretics, and even cremating the remains of heretics, as a way of expunging evil:[22]

The nations of modern Europe, as they gradually developed, seemed to have agreed upon the necessity of extirpating all influences and agencies which tended to pervert the faith of the people, or which seemed to them to betray the potency of evil spirits. Therefore, the laws of all these nations provided for the destruction of contumacious unbelievers, teachers of heresy, witches, and sorcerers, by fire.

In recent decades, however, officials within the Catholic Church have taken differing stances on the death penalty.

The renowned Modern Catholic Dictionary (1980) by John A. Hardon, S.J., which was given the "imprimatur" (official endorsement) by Joseph T. O'Keefe, Vicar General, Archdiocese of New York (Dec. 13, 1979), describes the Catholic position of capital punishment as follows:

It is certain from Scripture that civil authorities may lawfully put malefactors to death. ... Christian dispensation made no essential change [to the Old Testament endorsement of the death penalty], as St. Paul expressly says .... [citing Romans 13:4]. Among the errors of the Waldenses condemned by the Church in the early thirteenth century was the proposition that denied the lawfulness of capital punishment (Argentre, Collectio de Novis Erroribus, I, 86). St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) defends capital punishment on the grounds of the common good. ... If even with capital punishment crime abounds, no lesser penalty will suffice. The practice question remains of how effective a deterrent capital punishment is in some modern states, when rarely used or only after long delays. In principle, however, it is morally licit because in the most serious crimes the claims of retribution and deterrence are so demanding that the corrective value of punishment must, if necessary, be sacrificed.

The current official Catholic teaching, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, reads as follows:

If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender "today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent."[23]

Other Catholic officials have gone further. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has "called for an end to the use of the death penalty for more than twenty-five years."[24]

This surprising new position is at odds with the historic use by the Church of capital punishment to deal with heretics, and the cremation of the exhumed bodies of heretics. It may have simply reflected the late 20th century repudiation in Europe of all uses of capital punishment.

The Roman Catholic Church generally holds the position of a "Consistent Life Ethic." The Church teaches the protection of life for all humans, from conception to natural death[25] [26] [27]. But the Church has never embraced the pacifist position of Quakers in categorically opposing all killing, even to stop, deter, or punish evil.

Rev. Sun Myung Moon said, "Judges sometimes pass death sentences, and yet their verdicts cannot be absolutely right."[28]

Increasingly arbitrary limits have been placed on use of the death penalty. One arbitrary prohibition established by the U.S. Supreme Court on use of the death penalty is when the murder is committed by someone under the age of 18.[29] Prior to this Supreme Court ruling, states had statutory minimum ages (at the time of crime) for when the death penalty could be imposed.

The award-winning documentary The Thin Blue Line portrays the true story of the framing of an innocent drifter because the age of the real murderer was slightly below the legal minimum for imposing the death penalty. The crime was the heinous murder of a police officer during a routine traffic stop, and the outrage at the crime cried out for retribution with the death penalty. But the authorities were legally barred from executing the real murderer, and an adult drifter who was in the wrong place at the wrong time was convicted for it. He served years on death row before being released after the movie was widely seen: he could easily have been killed for a crime he didn't commit. Some would use this as an argument against the death penalty, as mistakes like this are sometimes made in court, but the death penalty ensures that when they happen, their effect is permanent.

Allen, Howard W. and Jerome M. Clubb. Race, Class, and the Death Penalty: Capital Punishment in American History (2008) 239 pp. heavily statistical excerpt and text search Mandery, Evan J. Capital Punishment in America: A Balanced Explanation (2004) excerpt and text search Masur, Louis P. Rites of Execution: Capital Punishment and the Transformation of American Culture, 1776-1865 (1991) excerpt and text search ? 1.0 1.1 EU: Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances? Encarta: Capital Punishment Worldwide? The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2008 Edition 2007, p. 99. London: Profile Books. ISBN 978-1846680908? http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2113102,00.html? A rare exception in Texas is a man who has been on death row for 31 years. [1]? ABC News/Washington Post poll: Death Penalty? http://www.justice.gov/dag/pubdoc/deathpenaltystudy.htm? Studies: Death penalty discourages crime http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html? Deterrence (English) (HTML). Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved on 2007-08-21.? http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm? http://www.itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/3524? Saudi Arabia Marks 136th Beheading of 2007, Associated Press, Fox News, November 25, 2007? http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2007/en/ACT500012007en.html Document - List of abolitionist and retentionist countries (1 January 2007)? Executions, Torture in North Korea 'Worse Than Animal Slaughter', Associated Press, Fox News, October 29, 2008? Allen and Clubb (2008)? Dr. John Gill (1690-1771) on Lv. 17:4, 14? http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/TheDeathPenalty.html? http://www.tektonics.org/af/cappun.html? http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4222897/k.64E4/John_8_is_a_Condemnation_of_Capital_Punishment.htm? John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible? John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm? [John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM? http://www.usccb.org/deathpenalty/index.shtml? Paul VI, Humanae Vitae 1968 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html? John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 1995 http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM? Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate 2009 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html? Problems with the Existing Doctrines of God? See Roper v. Simmons.

View the original article here

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

(Difference between revisions)Brendon, when you have to rely on the [[genetic fallacy]] and ignore articles which cite relevant data, then you have lost the argument once again. Secondly, I did use other sources in my discussion above (including the liberal'' Guardian''). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)Brendon, when you have to rely on the [[genetic fallacy]] and ignore articles which cite relevant data, then you have lost the argument once again. Secondly, I did use other sources in my discussion above (including the liberal'' Guardian''). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)::::Cons. when you have to rely on the deliberate misspelling of an editor's name... [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:26, 17 June 2013 (EDT)::::Cons. when you have to rely on the deliberate misspelling of an editor's name... [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:26, 17 June 2013 (EDT)AlanE, it wasn't deliberate. I have never taken him seriously and the misspelling is a reflection of that. I am not saying that to be mean. It is just the way it is. The more I have been exposed to the left, the less seriously I have taken them. Plus, liberalism is imploding right now (academia, journalism, education, fiscal policies, demographically, etc.).  It would surprise me if Obama and European leaders can hold things together economically until the November 2016 elections. To me liberals are like toothless bulldogs right now in terms of the sustainability of the notions which they want to impose on others.  I am reading less and less of their material.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:22, 17 June 2013 (EDT)if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Perhaps it's just on my particular web browser, but the image of Pope John Paul II is located right next to the section on the abuse controversy. This appears to try to link him to the scandal in a way that I'm sure is unintended. Could it be relocated?HectorJ 19:08, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

It could be viewed as a subliminal message, and I remember the BBC reporting on a leaked letter by the adjacent Pope John XXIII describing the process and calling for excommunication of victims who went public. Let's move them both. -danq 23:46, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

In the "Evolutionism and creationism" section, I can't quite be certain, but if memory serves correctly offences that warrant excommunication are limited to preaching of abortion, ordaining a female into the priesthood, and engaging in schismatic actions. Perhaps someone should look into this. Pano 00:34, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

There should be a full section on the child abuse scandal, if not a full article. At the moment there is just one sentence on it. And it wasn't just in the 90's and 2000's, it's been happening for decades all over the world, and the church tried to cover it as well. I don't think the current sentence on the child abuse scandal addresses the severity and scale of the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4 watch this, it will give you an idea of how serious this issue is and why it should not be ignored. User:Danielspence 14:47, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Since this article should be about what the Catholic Church is about, the history of the church would have brief sentences and paragraphs; the child abuse scandal should have a minor sentence here as well. But, main articles on various subjects apply - both good and bad (see Pope Formosus) - and the child abuse scandal is one of them. Karajou 15:27, 17 October 2011 (EDT) The child abuse/homosexuality scandal does not define what the Church is about. It is a rather horrifying situation and a scourge to Christ's bride. Child abuse rates among the general population happen in greater numbers than Church offenders. There have been 2000 years of the Church surviving various other scandalous attacks. I think expansion beyond a couple sentences is wrong. --Jpatt 01:37, 18 October 2011 (EDT) If you don't want to fully acknowledge it on this article then a new article should be created about the scandal. Conservapedia has various other articles on much more trivial scandals such as the scandal regarding wikipedia contributor "Essjay". I'm not saying that the wikipedia scandal wasn't a notable one, but the Catholic child abuse scandal was a much more fiery controversy. Danielspence 14:38, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

The note on sex scandals seems to be repeatedly changed to imply that this is the case, was true of at least 200 years, or (most recent edit) always was the case about the Catholic Church. I have changed it to: "The aftermath of a series of sexual abuse scandals. In the early 2000s, it was found that bishops were privately settling cases of molestation of minors by priests, occurring primarily between the 1940s and 1980s." -danq 19:39, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

There seems to be one obscure saint who founded an obscure and controversial religious order at the "See Also" which I believe is a derogatory Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code reference. It keeps being put back. Why? -danq 21:48, 6 November 2011 (EST) Just updated "See Also" JPII to Benedict XVI. Putting every Saint, Blessed, Servant of God, and Pope under the heading "See Also" is not only irrelevant to "Roman Catholic Church" but is highly impractical, especially obscure figures like the Opus Dei founder I removed before. Sorry if I got mean before, but people kept changing the proven-true events to a stereotype and conspiracy theory, and the Opus Dei reference was obviously a troll-job. -danq 22:16, 7 November 2011 (EST)

The Catholic Church's take on evolution is more complex than what's written here. It does not officially endorse theistic evolution: no Pope has, so far, spoken ex cathedra on the issue, neither in favor neither contrarily and the Church's catechism does not mention evolution or Creationism. So Catholics are basically left free of deciding for themselves.

Unofficially, the Church wholly accepts the scientific version of the Earth's forming, which it has substantially helped discovering: geology and sismology are not called "Jesuit sciences" for nothing. The Big Bang theory was also formulated by Fr. Lemaitre, a French priest. Also, the Catholic Church explicitly teaches that the Bible is meant to be read allegorically, and furthermore that theology and science are distinct and compatible - science studies the universe, theology what's beyond it. So I think that we should mention that Young Earth creationism or any non-scientific theory about the formation of the Earth and the universe aren't generally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

Life's genesis is a bit more touchy. Popes Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all personally endorsed evolution; study of it has been allowed, starting with the encyclical Humani Generis in 1950. The Catholic Catechism n.302 says: "Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it." This allows for the universe to evolve... and, implicitly, life.

Mostly, Church theologians generally focus on spiritual subjects, accepting that life evolved gradually and how Darwin described it. I quote an article from the Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Pope, which is unfortunately in Italian: it's the one marked with 1. The author calls Darwin's theory "happy intuition" and strongly attacks Intelligent Design, after having summarised and endorsed evolution: "The decision of the Pennsylvania judge, therefore, is correct. Intelligent Design does not belong to science and the pretense that it should be taught alongside Darwinism is not justified. Confusion between religious and scientific points of views is only created. It is not even requested in a religious view of the forming of the universe [...]". It also attacks Darwinist scientists who pass from scientific theory to "ideology" and concludes: "... we can say that we're not men for case or necessity; human history has a superior design". So it's mostly a spiritual issue about the creation of soul and the Original Sin.

With your permission, I would like to complete this article. Thanks. --Swordsman 15:48, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Please do edit the content entry, but the Catholic Church has expressly forbidden Catholics from teaching anything contrary to one Adam and one Eve, which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church. Indeed, the Passion of Christ makes no sense without Adam's Original Sin, and Jesus himself confirmed that the Great Flood occurred.--Andy Schlafly 11:46, 15 June 2013 (EDT) "... contrary to one Adam and One even ..." That idea is not in Humani Generis and is not the Church's teaching. We are shown what we already knew: we are special creations with miraculous souls created by God. The mention of Adam in Humani Generis addresses the anathema of polygenism, which is really just a denial of God. It's not Catholic creationism. "... which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church." You are sticking to something you made up. It is even more wrong this time around. You and I have already had this discussion, but your talk page was deleted and recreated, so it has disappeared. Since Humani Generis and John Paul II's teaching, the Church has been openly hostile to intelligent design creationism. Moreover, there has never been anything like a modern Pope, College of Cardinals, Canon Law, section of the Catechism, or any other modern source embracing young earth creationism. In reality, the Pontifical College openly embraces theistic evolution and visiting academics are invited to counsel the Pope and College on matters of science as the First Vatican Counsel exhorts. Pope Benedict wrote often enough of accepting Christian theistic evolution that we know what his position was for sure. Pope Francis has a degree in some scientific field, so it is extremely unlikely that he will embrace this anti-scientific young earth creationism. Nate 13:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, would you please look at the history of your talk page and see if you can find our discussion? I would like to see the citations I made back then so I don't have to do the same research again to expand the simplistic statements about the Church's position on science in this article. I would be grateful. Nate 13:44, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

I agree and I was going to say what Nate brillantly said. I can only add one thing: with "theistic evolution," the Church doesn't mean that God made particular interventions to make hominids evolve into humans. That, it's argued, would be proof of an unskilled God - a priest, a very good one, once said to me: "Think of a clock. It can run late, lose time and so we need the clockmaker to come and fix it from time to time. This is because the clock is unperfect, as it's made by imperfect men; now, think of the universe, and life, as a clock: would God be omnipotent if he needed to come over to push things as he wants them? Wouldn't an omnipotent God have foreseen everything from the very start (save for free will, which is a gift to us), even this fly buzzing around us? Yes: this is a truly almight God." In a sense God "designed" humans, but not directly or abruptly: evolution happened following the biological and physical rules of the universe that He creates. This is a theological theory known as "continuous creation" and has been openly embraced by every Pope since Humani Generis (likely also by Francis), and it's heavily influenced by Leibniz. You can find a beautiful exposition of it on the web, by Fr. George Coyne, SJ, a Jesuit astronomer: here. What the Church does not accept is polygeny, the belief that humans come from different strains. And guess what - we indeed all come from Africa and from a single common genetic ancestor (mitocondrial Eve). The Original Sin is a subject of debate: likely there were no snakes, apples and fig leaves involved, as CCC 390 affirms that Genesis is written in a "figurative language." Even St. Augustin said that "nihil ad intelligendum secretius" than the Original Sin (nothing is more obscure than the nature of it) and, boy, he was smart. It can be about the knowledge (intended as the capability of distinguishing) of good and evil. --Swordsman 16:57, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE: from the Humani Generis, "For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that ... Adam represents a certain number of first parents." Yet that is precisely what the modern theory of evolution pretends. Also, Jesus acknowledged and referred to the Great Flood, which evolution denies.

At some point, all intelligent people are faced with a choice: question what liberals taught us in school and be open to what Christ and logic dictate, or forever be a prisoner to what liberals teach. I urge you to choose the former.--Andy Schlafly 17:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

You are not reading the encyclical correctly. That is very specifically referring to the corollary problem in polygenism of describing Adam as figuratively representing the whole evolution of mankind - in other words, denying that Adam existed in favor of claiming multiple different kinds of "men". But we know Adam existed because without him there would be no original sin. We are taught that God created the souls of men and redeemed us through Jesus Christ. God, as the omnipotent creator of the universe, also created the means by which man would appear so that he could be blessed with a soul. Please re-read at least the sections around your quote so you can see for yourself that Pope Pius is not saying what you claim he is. I don't care whether "evolution denies" the flood if I even understand what that means. I don't think it happened and I'm not alone among the majority serious students of Catholic theology. You are incorrect if you are claiming that Jesus Christ described the flood as an actual event - He's obviously referring to Noah and his family's salvation figuratively - as new "Adams" to foretell Christ's redemption of all mankind. I urge you to reexamine what you're calling logic here. It's not based on Church teaching or Catholic scholarship. Believe what you want but please don't make the insulting claim that Catholics must believe what you say or they're liberal or illogical - I don't agree with you and I've spent my entire adult life studying with some of the most "conservative" lay and ordered Catholic scholars there are. Nate 18:11, 15 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, the Roman Catholic Church does not have great confidence in evolutionism. If they did, they would put all their chips on the table and speak ex-cathedra on this issue. :) And Protestants such as myself remember the Galileo Galilei incident. Conservative 18:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT) You apparently know zilch about Papal infallibility if you keep repeating this. It's not about "putting chips on the table" because it's not about your kind of vainglorious boasting. It's about narrowly directing the entire body of faithful on matters of critical Church doctrine and there are stepwise considerations to make. Pope Benedict wouldn't even do it. I'd be happy to help you learn something new but somehow I suspect you are still filled with hate and pride. :) Nate 18:30, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Nate, Roman Catholics are still free to be young earth creationist and still hold to Roman Catholicism since no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on evolutionism. Andy Schafly and Since33AD are both Catholic creationist. Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, neither has been ex-communicated nor has the Roman Catholic Church threatened ex-communication! Conservative 18:34, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Indeed. As far as I gather Sam Brownback is a creationist (although I'm not sure if young earth or old earth) and he hasn't been excommunicated or anything. - Markman 19:21, 15 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, "stepwise considerations to make" is just another way of saying that the Roman Catholic Church does not have full confidence in evolutionism and have not spoken ex-cathedra on this matter. You are not fully confident in evolutionism. If you were, you would have challenged the creationist university biology student VivaYehshua by now. And Kenneth Miller has yet to respond to GregG's inquiry about the 15 questions for evolutionists. Conservative 19:24, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

The Humani Generis is clear, Jesus was clear, and the logic is clear. There is no logical objection to one Adam, or to the Great Flood. But once one denies one Adam or the Great Flood, then numerous logical problems arise in explaining what Jesus said and did. Why choose illogic over logic? Well, one reason is because liberals push anti-Jesus theories, and evolution is one of them, and perhaps some would rather be accepted by liberals than ridiculed by them. I choose logic any day and urge others to do likewise. Logic never fails.--Andy Schlafly 21:15, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

You are entitled to believe falsehoods if you wish. The words in Humani Generis are printed right there in black and white. People should read them. It is improper to ascribe illogic, being "liberal" or whatever other insults you come up with to people who have justified principled disagreements with you like I have. This has nothing to do with politics. There is no anti-Jesus theory that could appeal to me. I do not care who ridicules me. I care about what's true and justifiable. Nate 22:33, 15 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, you can believe whatever you like, but the logic is with one Adam committing original sin, one Flood cleansing the world of debauchery, and the Passion to redeem the original sin. If there was more than one Adam, then original sin becomes implausible, and the Passion makes no sense. It is very difficult or impossible to make logical sense of both the modern theory of evolution and the Passion of Christ. And, as a result, most people who promote the theory of evolution reject the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.--Andy Schlafly 23:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Nate, put all your theistic evolution chips on the table. Debate the creationist university biology student VivaYehshua. Unless of course, you think he would badly beat you in a debate on the 15 questions for evolutionists. We both know that he would win such a debate hands down. Conservative 02:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

I've said this over and over, yet you seem to be willfully misrepresenting my position. Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time. I am not an expert by any means but I also don't care about evolution. I care about theology and in particular about the correct representation of Catholic theology and dogma on Conservapedia. Biblical hermeneutics as it relates to Genesis is very interesting. I would like to learn more and showing you to be an ill-informed fool is a great chance to do that. I have no interest in debating an obscure "creationist university biology student" who is a stranger to this discussion. I've repeatedly challenged you to debate me on the theological basis for your beliefs because you are the one who frequently insults me and Greg and shows a very weak grasp of Biblical hermeneutics, but you always tremble like a timorous chicken in your intellectual bunnyhole and demand people debate someone else. Are those the words you use to speak to "obscure internet posers" when you use your ESP to look into their hearts to judge them? That's just silly. There's no sensible excuse for it if you're going to participate in these discussions. Either you put your chips on the table and justify your theological position or you show yourself to be a rank coward with your vain boasting, taunts, and demands that we go talk to someone else about your nonsense. If you want to say I'm not justifying that claim, let's debate it. We are instructed to be defenders of our faith. Do you have the courage and conviction to put some skin in the game? Nate 09:48, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, I welcome any theological insights you may have. If you deny one Adam, then what was original sin? If you think Jesus was speaking only in figurative terms about the Great Flood, then are other miracles in Jesus's teachings and actions also merely figurative in your view?--Andy Schlafly 11:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Thanks for the questions. I do not deny one Adam. To do so would be anathema by Church law. No, I do not believe one can say that Jesus' miracles are merely figurative, as you say. I am talking about the interpretation of specific verses, not all Gospel accounts of Christ's miracles which I cannot deny as they are described and as I've experienced personally in having Christ in my own life. Nate 11:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Historical evidence points out to a major regional disaster from which the Flood may have been constructed; surely there was no Ark. Anyway, it's its symbolical meaning that matters. Jesus spoke to be understood from his contemporaries, making parables and allegories that were easy to understand by then-Hebrews. Think about the parable of the ten virgins: it is about a forgotten Eastern tradition which seems unusual to us today, but yet delivers a never-ending message. Miracles are witnessed by the Gospels, descripted in the prose; the Great Flood is in a dialogue by Jesus. What a Catholic cannot deny is the unique fault of Adam for the Original Sin, in other words that it was Adam's sin to condemn the whole human species. Not that Adam popped out ex nihilo... I repeat: the question is spiritual, not biological. --Swordsman 12:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT) In response to Nate, the modern theory of evolution does deny one Adam. As a result, most students who are taught and believe the theory of evolution will begin to doubt the purpose of the Passion and the divinity of Christ. Perhaps you're an unusual exception to that rule, but if you accept that there was one Adam, then you reject the modern theory of evolution. In response to Swordsman, apparently you do reject one Adam, which makes original sin and the Passion almost impossible to explain in a coherent manner.--Andy Schlafly 13:10, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Anyway, I regret this discussion went downhill. Let's pick it up another time. I wish I could find my research for that article. Happy Father's Day! Nate 19:01, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

NateK, you wrote: "Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time." I realize that you said that you are not an expert, but one of the surest signs of someone erring due to pride is them bragging on how long and hard that they have been studying something. This coupled with you saying you are a proud Irish Catholic with a family line stretching back into Catholicism and family in high places in the Roman Catholic Church is a ripe recipe for error. I had a business owner boss who commented on someone bragging about how long they had been in our industry and how good they were. My boss said something to the effect of: "Has he been in the industry 20 years or one year 20 times?" People have been known to repeat the same errors over and over.

Second, we both know that you are violently shoehorning Darwinism into the biblical text and that you are supposedly "seeing" something that the early Church fathers and Jews for thousands of years "missed". It is like your myriads of "missing links" in the fossil record. Nate, "It is important to note that no major Hebrew scholar says that Genesis is poetry. This is because Genesis has all the grammatical marks of being a historical narrative."[1] Your creation compromises are not at all compelling as can be seen HERE and HERE

So why are you and theistic evolutionists committing fundamental Bible exegesis errors. It is due to valuing scientific consensus in the secular world over the Biblical text. And the history of the scientific consensus argument when weighed against the accuracy and insight/foresight of the biblical text has a very checkered past. See: Jesus vs. the scientific consensus.

Lastly, creation scientists have a history of consistently winning creation vs. evolution debates dealing with the science and winning those debates hands down. See: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates. Now evolutionists are very reluctant to debate creationists on the science. Your unwillingness to debate VivaYehshua is not surprising, but it is very telling. There must be some reason why are unwilling to debate the grassroots champion of the grassroots Question evolution! campaign who is studying biology at the university level. Is it because you are afraid of badly losing? I think it is. Conservative 13:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

NateK, one other thing. To my knowledge, it has always been the liberal Roman Catholics that I have locked horns with at CP and never the conservative ones. That is because the scientific consensus and evolutionism is such a "golden calf"/"sacred cow" to liberals and to liberal Christianity. And one of the ironies is that many liberal Catholics rarely read the Bible nor do the liberal Catholic hierarchy in the Western World stress Bible reading as can be seen by this statistic taken from a Roman Catholic website: "Far more disturbing was the poll result that showed that 44 percent of Catholics “rarely or never” read the Bible, while this is true of only 7 percent of Evangelicals and 13 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants. The level of religious vitality must be very low in a Christian church in which 44 percent of the membership almost never bothers to read the Bible."[2] Furthermore, the fruits of evolution loving liberal Christianity are quite sour as can be seen at: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity. Bill Donahue of the Catholic League recognizes that many liberal Roman Catholics in the hierarchy of the church in the Western World has yielded bad fruit as can be seen HERE. Of course, this is not surprising. When you value pseudoscience and the scientific consensus over Scripture, the results are going to be bad. Conservative 13:43, 16 June 2013 (EDT) You're really not getting it and I think people can readily tell that by how far away you get from the real points at hand when you launch into these irrelevant screeds. We're talking about theology and Biblical hermeneutics. It's time to step up to the plate, my good man. Instead of talking about other people's exegesis, I've repeatedly challenged you to debate your own with me. Each time you raise some nonsense that I've told you I don't care about, and continue publicly debasing yourself by showing such cowardice in crowing about an anonymous college kid on a chat site. Assigning him to fight the fights you stirred up with your pride and hatred of those who disagree with you is pathetic. I want to the debate the person who knows very little of what he talks about and vaingloriously accuses me of the worst sin. Let's do this. Then perhaps you'll think twice before you continue personally insulting people just because they disagree with you. That's just awful behavior. Nate 13:50, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Conservative, I think we already made very clear that obsessively proposing to debate a creationist blogger is completely out-of-place in this discussion which is about the Catholic church's theological views over evolution, so that we may improve this article. We're not biologists, we would not be suitable foes for any kind of regular debate (that are made between experts, not amateurs). So please: enough. NateK, if I thought discussing Bible exegesis with you was going to yield fruit then of course I would do it length. Instead I provide you with some valid information on biblical exegesis and then call you on the carpet about the fruits of your theology using objective facts/data. For example, you still haven't told me why Roman Catholics have such poor Bible reading habits compared to evangelicals and why the church hierarchy is evidently not leading on the issue to rectify things. I know it must be frustrating for you to be confronted with objective data from Catholic websites showing you the bad fruit of your theology, but nevertheless I will still do it. Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them." Liberals hate concrete data which show the inadequacies of their ideologies/theologies. They prefer to wrangle about more subjective matters and speculative matters and then engage in bad faith tactics about such matters and not go where the evidence leads. By the way, evolutionism has been linked to a decline in morals via a university study.[3] Conservative 19:47, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Catholics actually believe that an "Adam" somewhere, sometime existed; that he was the first "man"; that he was the first human to receive a soul by God and that he, and he alone, committed the Original Sin that spread to all mankind after him. This is what we (and I) believe. This is the nucleus of the Genesis, with everything around it being allegory and poetry - from the snake to the fig leaves. Circumstances are not defined by official dogma: we do not know where and when Adam lived, if he was really named "Adam", what the Original Sin was about, what happened next... but again, the question isn't biological or scientifical. It's spiritual. --Swordsman 13:57, 16 June 2013 (EDT) [inserted response] The modern theory of evolution teaches that there was no "first man", and that there was no Adam. All of Christianity, to make sense of the Passion, requires a first man and original sin. It cannot be that there were many humans, Adam sinned, and then the sin somehow spread, because then some would not be descended from Adam and the original sin, which the Catholic Church expressly rejects. Such a model is illogical as well, because there would be people who did not sin, or to whom the original sin did not reach. The bottom line is this: teachings that implicitly contradict Christianity will pull some naive students away from Christianity. But logic is helpful in recognizing the flaws to anti-Christian theories that don't identify themselves as such.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Swordsman, you said the issue is "spiritual". Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits." If evolution loving Liberal Christianity is so spiritual, then why do they commit adultery more often and theologically conservative Christians? See: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity. If evolution loving liberal Catholics and the evolution loving liberal Roman Catholic hierarchy are so spiritual, then why do so many Catholics fail to read the Bible compared to evangelical Christians?[4] If the Western Roman Catholic hierarchy is so spiritual, then why did Bill Donahue of the Catholic League say the Roman Catholic Church pederasty problem was the result of homosexual priests and cite statistics supporting his point? [5] Anytime you want to stop pretending that liberal Catholics and liberal Protestants (theologically liberal) are godly, that would be fine with me. Conservative 14:33, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

For God's sake, this is the most appalling and uncoherent nonsequitur I have ever read. Are you sure to be okay? We are talking about the Catholic Church's view on evolution, not your rubbish. Catholics fail to read the Bible because, banally, there's no Bible-reading culture among common believers. We trust the Church to teach it. There's no "pederasty" problem: it's outright pedophilia (and Jesus said those who made scandal to children should be drowned with a millstone, symbolically), which is a psychiatric criminal disorder; whether it has a source in repressed homosexuality in the clergy could be a subject of discussion but it's not absolutely the point of this topic! --Swordsman 14:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Swordsman, I see that your sword is quite dull. Liberals always fails to deliver the goods and that is why you cannot defend the fruits of theological liberalism when stacked up beside the fruits of theological conservatism. You retreat to less objective rhetoric and prefer to sweep the fruits under the rug. Nevertheless, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits". The fruits of economic liberalism and its mountains of debt will lay liberalism in all its forms low and the institutions that support it so I am not worrying about something as weak as liberalism or theological liberalism. Liberal Christianity will continue to shrink in the world while theologically conservative Christianity continues to prosper.[6] The historicity of the Bible and conservative Protestantism has evidence supporting it.[7] Evolution loving, liberal Catholicism on the other hand is a den of iniquity supported by nothing but hot air and blowhards who run away from their fruits and the evidence supporting biblical Christianity. Conservative 15:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT) I came here to discuss about the Catholic Church and evolution, to improve this article; we were having a productive discussion with Andrew and Nate until you came over and spawned your... this is supposed to be family-friendly, right?... your rants about the universal woes of "liberalism" (what Americans call liberalism at least). Which has absolutely ZERO pertinence to what we are discussing here, besides pounding the discussion into ridicule for those who read. Your hatred of Catholicism quite sums up your character; I'm tolerant and I will not get dragged into religion wars - just, I always wondered which one of the 41,000/30,000/10,000 protestant churches is right, since they all say they're "the one" that is right? By the way, I'm a liberale in Italy. Before you explode, go seeing what "liberalism" actually is in Europe. I will not answer to any other comment which does not return to the main point of discussion: facts about the Catholic Church and evolution. Over. --Swordsman 15:25, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Darwinism loving, Italian, theologically liberal Catholicism has a bleak future.[8] France has a history of Catholicism. No doubt what is happening in France will happen to Italy as well.[9] Morals degeneration has been linked belief in evolution via a university study and Italy/France are starting to pay a heavy price on the economic front due to their deep indebtedness and other drags on their economy. On the other hand, "Either way, not a single Protestant or Germanic EU country has so far needed a bailout."[10] See also: Protestant work ethic and European countries Conservative 15:49, 16 June 2013 (EDT) That's a parody. That's all a parody. I'm on candid camera. You can't be serious - or sane. --Swordsman 15:52, 16 June 2013 (EDT) When you have to rely on armchair internet psychobabbling and cannot address the fruits of your religion, then something is seriously amiss. Nevertheless, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits." and liberal Catholics are not "spiritual" to use a term that you used above and were unsuccessful in defending. Conservative 15:58, 16 June 2013 (EDT) You destroyed an interessant discussion over the Catholic Church and evolution with your delusions and obsessions. That's all I'm going to say, Ken. I will not communicate with you anymore unless you revert to the topic at hand. Goodbye. --Swordsman 16:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Swordsman, you may find comfort in your psychobabbling, but it cannot alter the fact that theological liberalism is imploding and has bad fruit using objective measurements nor does it have any evidence supporting it (the evidence is on the side of biblical Christianity). Keep retreating to the subjective world of psychobabbling, but you are not fooling anybody - not even yourself. Conservative 16:34, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Really, if that is the case, show me some peer-reviewed papers, from a trustworthy and reputable source! brenden 16:35, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Addendum - that isn't from QE.blogspot.com.

Brendon, when you have to rely on the genetic fallacy and ignore articles which cite relevant data, then you have lost the argument once again. Secondly, I did use other sources in my discussion above (including the liberal Guardian). Conservative 16:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Cons. when you have to rely on the deliberate misspelling of an editor's name... AlanE 00:26, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

AlanE, it wasn't deliberate. I have never taken him seriously and the misspelling is a reflection of that. I am not saying that to be mean. It is just the way it is.

The more I have been exposed to the left, the less seriously I have taken them. Plus, liberalism is imploding right now (academia, journalism, education, fiscal policies, demographically, etc.). It would surprise me if Obama and European leaders can hold things together economically until the November 2016 elections. To me liberals are like toothless bulldogs right now in terms of the sustainability of the notions which they want to impose on others. I am reading less and less of their material. Conservative 02:22, 17 June 2013 (EDT)


View the original article here