Category: +Religion

Down yonder a reader points us to a map of where the Catholics are by county. Here ’tis:

Click the image to enlarge.

SOURCE.

Since we’ve been looking at maps of the U.S. with different data on them, let’s look at where Catholics live.

Click the map to enlarge.

SOURCE.

Incidentally, don’t forget that population density doesn’t tell you overall population. For example, my home state of Texas is less Catholic-dense than neighboring states Louisiana and New Mexico, but its population is so much larger that it has more total Catholics. Rhode Island, by contrast, is the most Catholic-dense state in the nation, but its population is so tiny that most states have more Catholics than it does.

Since we’ve been looking at maps of the U.S. with different data on them, let’s look at where Catholics live.

Click the map to enlarge.

SOURCE.

Incidentally, don’t forget that population density doesn’t tell you overall population. For example, my home state of Texas is less Catholic-dense than neighboring states Louisiana and New Mexico, but its population is so much larger that it has more total Catholics. Rhode Island, by contrast, is the most Catholic-dense state in the nation, but its population is so tiny that most states have more Catholics than it does.

You know the biblical story of Moses needing to keep his arms up in order to help the Israelites keep winning a battle?

Well, Moses’ arms got tired.

So his brother Aaron and another guy named Hur held them up so that the Israelites would keep winning.

Flash forward 3300 years to today.

John Paul II has a horrible, degenerative disease.

Yet he is a pillar of the Church.

Question: How does he do it alone?

Answer: He doesn’t.

He has a couple of Aarons and Hurs holding up his arms (figuratively) to help him.

SANDRO MAGISTER HAS THE STORY.

The following exchange took place on August 5 on Fox News between host Stewart Varney and Disney president Robert Iger. The conversation concerned Disney’s new Dream Desk computer for children:

IGER: It’s easy to set up, easy to use, compact, it doesn’t take much room, and most importantly it has what’s called ContentWatch built in.

VARNEY: Well, you know, I — exactly. I mean, in June you have “Gay Days” at your theme parks. You got any ‘Gay Days’ on the Mickey computer?

IGER: Well, this has built into it all kinds of protective devices that protects the kid, or the child from internet sites that a parent wouldn’t deem appropriate. Also, the fact —

VARNEY: Well, you don’t protect the kids from “Gay Days” at the theme parks, do you? Why do you have to protect them in the computer?

Fight the Power, Stu!

YES!

GET THE STORY

A Boston judge recently ruled that calling someone a homosexual when he is not does not violate slander or libel laws.

In her ruling she stated:

“In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community.”

That’s nuts.

In the interest of furthering the homosexual agenda the judge has relied upon an idiotic theory of jurisprudence that would place judges in the position of philosophers. For her argument to work one would have to assume that judges should decide whether saying something about a person is objectively good or bad. This is not the job of a judge. In a slander or libel case it does not matter what the objective status of an accusation is as long as it is false and would hurt the person it is made against.

Suppose I live in a community that believes being a Martian is a bad thing. Someone then accuses me of being a Martian, when I am not. People in the community then begin to react negatively toward me, refuse me service, deny me jobs, reject doing business with my firm, etc., all because I have been falsely accused of being a Martian. In such circumstances, I should be able to sue the person who falsely accused me of being a Martian in order to get compensation for the harm that the false accusation has done to me and my reputation. It does not matter whether being a Martian is a good, neutral, or bad. The point is that someone falsely accused me of something that has negative effects on me and my reputation due to the way people react to it.

The fact is that in our society people frequently react negatively to calling someone a homosexual. Whether one approves of that or not, it happens, and judges should not prevent people from seeking legal redress of the wrong when they are falsely accused of being homosexual.

This idiot judge’s ruling would put judges in the position of adjudicating cases not based on whether a person suffers due to the making of a false charge but on whether the false charge refers to a thing that is objectively bad.

I’m sorry, but determining the objective moral status of something is a job for philosophers and theologians, not Massachusetts judges, regardless of the divine prerogatives they seem to believe they possess.

A Boston judge recently ruled that calling someone a homosexual when he is not does not violate slander or libel laws.

In her ruling she stated:

“In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community.”

That’s nuts.

In the interest of furthering the homosexual agenda the judge has relied upon an idiotic theory of jurisprudence that would place judges in the position of philosophers. For her argument to work one would have to assume that judges should decide whether saying something about a person is objectively good or bad. This is not the job of a judge. In a slander or libel case it does not matter what the objective status of an accusation is as long as it is false and would hurt the person it is made against.

Suppose I live in a community that believes being a Martian is a bad thing. Someone then accuses me of being a Martian, when I am not. People in the community then begin to react negatively toward me, refuse me service, deny me jobs, reject doing business with my firm, etc., all because I have been falsely accused of being a Martian. In such circumstances, I should be able to sue the person who falsely accused me of being a Martian in order to get compensation for the harm that the false accusation has done to me and my reputation. It does not matter whether being a Martian is a good, neutral, or bad. The point is that someone falsely accused me of something that has negative effects on me and my reputation due to the way people react to it.

The fact is that in our society people frequently react negatively to calling someone a homosexual. Whether one approves of that or not, it happens, and judges should not prevent people from seeking legal redress of the wrong when they are falsely accused of being homosexual.

This idiot judge’s ruling would put judges in the position of adjudicating cases not based on whether a person suffers due to the making of a false charge but on whether the false charge refers to a thing that is objectively bad.

I’m sorry, but determining the objective moral status of something is a job for philosophers and theologians, not Massachusetts judges, regardless of the divine prerogatives they seem to believe they possess.

This is wrong for so many reasons.

Interestingly, an (apparently well-known) athlete with a sex change who is quoted in the article agrees that the IOC is mistaken. Points to “her” for honesty!

This is wrong for so many reasons.

Interestingly, an (apparently well-known) athlete with a sex change who is quoted in the article agrees that the IOC is mistaken. Points to “her” for honesty!