Obama at Notre Dame

Re: Obama at Notre Dame

Would the Mayor of a city of mice invite the Pied Piper to play a concert at the city hall? Would an institution of learning give an honorary Law degree to a lawyer who knew not the Law?

Should a School of Law confer an honorary law degree on a person that contradicts the Bill of Rights and denies that certain human rights are inviolable? Obama believes an unborn person has no right to life. That contradicts the 4th and 5th Amendments, Natural Law (NL), the Natural Moral Law (NML), the basis for all Civil Law, notwithstanding Catholic theology.

While Obama asks, “How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions,” Obama ironically is moving to overturn a policy that allows health care workers not to participate in any service that violates their beliefs viz. Abortion.

Obama’s solutions are a dialectic materialism that attempts compromising the uncompromisable, the NML. How do you compromise an intrinsic evil? Do we equate gay sex to conjugal love, traditional marriage to gay marriage as the Court has done?

Obama ignores the NML that flows from NL. All Civil Law is based on the NML that dictates the Justice due man. The NML is not lubricious, capricious, or negotiable.

The Obama compromise allows Evil to exist and attempts to alleviate its consequences. Namely, keep the sin and mitigate its evil. Unfortunately, Evil begets Evil.

Obama Solutions: For Abortion: Murder less unborn, support adoption, and motherhood. For Marriage: Allow both Traditional Marriage that protects families and Gay marriage, the antithesis of Marriage. Gay Sex: Allow gay sex, but prevent AIDS and STDS. Embryo Research: Here the end justifies the means.

Embryos are human persons. “Those who speak out against stem cell research,” said Obama, “may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.” Are some lives expendable? Are all men no longer equal?

The Unborn are children. So what children is Obama talking? Obama says, “It would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God's children?”

Obama’s address was an implicit statement that truth is relative. It was a rebuke of the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church, and an escapade into Marx’s didactic materialism.

Thus, Obama says, “The ultimate irony of Faith is that it necessarily admits to doubt. It is a belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity to know what God has planned or what He has asked of us, and those who believe, must trust His wisdom is greater than ours.”

To the contrary, faith is not a blind trust in God. Obama rebukes everything Catholicism teaches. Man does know what God’s plan is; it has been revealed to man by God and His Church He instituted on earth. It is eternal happiness in Heaven. We know what God ask us, it’s written in the Ten Commandments, and the Beaititudes.

Faith is not a belief in things that are not seen. Faith is a belief in Divine Revelation, reason, and man’s experience in God’s Church, Her teachings and dogmas. Her universal truths have been revealed by God. Her teachings and doctrines are infallible. The certitude of Her teachings is inerrant.

To claim belief is beyond our capacity to know God’s decrees is a contradiction of a Catholic university’s mandate to teach man to seek. find, know, and love God.

Obama told ND there is one law that “binds all religions, and that is the Golden Rule, the call to treat others as you wish to be treated. But Obama the advocate of Partial-birth Abortion voted three times to allow an abortionist to finish murdering the victim of his botched abortion, an innocent defenseless child that survived.

“The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion,” said Obama, “and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts.” The thief and the honest man have the same desire, money, but one obeys the law, the other breaks it.

However, the NL and the NML is not discriminative; it is not a cultural divide; it is ubiquitously personified in all cultures, equally applicable in every human nature.

Obama told ND, “Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well lived. Remember that in the end, in some way we are all fishermen.”

Yes, Obama, but there’ll be no children when you make them dead on arrival.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CCNL:
“THE TRINITY”

"Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!"

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CCNL:
“THE TRUE CHURCH IS THE ONE FOUNDED BY GOD AND NOT MAN””

IRT;
"3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions, and immaculate conceptions).”

ANS;
The above mentioned suffered from a good deal of things, but the major one was they defied the Church Jesus had instituted and founded their own Churches that are subject to error.

God is Omnipotent and can do all things. The Resurrection, apparitions, ascension, and Immaculate Conception were the acts of God who is Omnipotent. If God can create man, and He did, it shouldn’t be a problem for God to perform the miracles that Jesus, who is God, did.

Moreover, it wasn’t a problem. The Founding Fathers believed God created man and wrote a whole Constitution on that basis. We’ve seen the fruits of that belief.

Moreover, the believers came to believe in Jesus, at the time, because they saw the miracles of Jesus. They weren’t victims of closed-minded critics who were neither there but arrogantly attempt to tell those who were there, some 2,000 years later, what these witness saw.

I imagine if you or Obama had been standing by Ramsey, the Egyptian Pharaoh, and saw his complete Army washed down the sewer, you and Obama would be at that prayer breakfast praying yourself to death, unless you were insane.

IRS:
“Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology, all male hierarchies and strange banking and funding.”

ANS:
All men are created with a free will. That means man may choose to do good or evil. God will not take away man’s free will. Therefore, man can choose to sin or not sin, and the consequences are man’s own choosing. Unfortunately, the man who chooses to sin doesn’t have the choices of consequences.

IRT:
“4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.”

ANS:
Mohammed wasn’t a Christian. Mohammed made his own religion. Manmade religions are not protected from errors as demonstrated by the turmoil in the Middle East and Africa.

Anytime man strays from the council of the Catholic Church, he engages in social suicide. The social order of any nation is only successful in proportion to its adherence to the Catholic Church’s Commandments that embrace Her Natural Moral Law of which She is the guardian.

IRT:
“This agenda continues as shown by the … bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

ANS:
You just proved the point above. All these occurrences are violations of the Church’s Natural Moral Laws.

IRT:
“6. Buddhism-
Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.”

ANS:
Buddhism failed as has Hinduism because they are human religions that begin in the world and end in the world. Man is not of this world but in it to achieve eternal salvation for all eternity in Paradise that exist in the Creator. Hence, St. Augustine says, “Lord our hearts are restless until they rest in You.”

IRT:
“Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.”

ANS:
Solution: It simple; follow the one true Church God established to lead all men to eternal salvation and total eternal happiness.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CCNL:
“THE TRINITY”

IRT
“The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer, and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.”

ANS:
How do you know all these civilizations even existed during or before the time of Jesus if you cannot rely on the witnesses at the time, and their recordings? You claim Jesus, Moses, and Abraham are myths and yet you authenticated Jesus' existence. Did the Martians inform your sources about all these things?

The same God that created Adam & Eve was the same God that was born in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph. So who did Jesus borrowing from, Himself? You might try asking His Father in Heaven. In fact, Jesus came to fulfill the promises of the Old Testament and establish a new covenant that the Old Covenant had only awaited.

Christ didn't come to borrow, He brought a regeneration of a new covenant bearing the Wisdom and Powers of God. It was foreign to the Jews and still is for some of them.

He created a marvelous institution, His Church, so substantial not even the gates of Hell would prevail against, and so exacting of Truth that it cannot be impugned because it is protected by the Holy Spirit of Whom there is no greater Wisdom.

Hence, many of the old Jewish laws were done away with. The center of the Jewish rituals, the sacrifice, became a completely new kind of sacrifice. Baptism of water became a baptism of the Spirit of Divine Majesty.

Though it is said that the Ten Commandments were around before the Jews and the Jews borrowed them from other civilizations, the contrary was true. No other religion or culture had the first Three Commandments God given to Moses in the Ten Commandments. They demanded loyalty to God their Creator.

The pagans had multiple Gods but Judaism’s God was monotheistic. Moreover, no other religion had God take them, so authentically and ostensibly, under the protection of God visibly and spiritually.

Luke 13:34
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets; and stonest them that are sent to thee, how often would I have gathered thy children as the bird doth her brood under her wings, and thou wouldest not?"

Second, how can you make any judgments about the early civilization when you have impugned all the historical records of its witnesses? You apparently are claiming these tribes, Greeks. Persians and Babylonians existed before Adam and Eve. Anthropologist have recently reported that Adam and Eve actually had to exist and all humanity was originated from Adam and Eve.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb21/0,4670,OutofAfrica,00.html

"DNA Study Supports African Origin of Man
Thursday, February 21, 2008

WASHINGTON — A new genetic analysis of people from around the world adds further confirmation to the African origin of humans. The study of genetic details from 938 individuals from 51 populations provides evidence of how people are related and different, researchers led by Richard M. Myers of Stanford University report in Friday's issue of the journal Science. The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health."

IRT:
“For added "pizzazz,” Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider.”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

ANS:
Hmm, more hallucinations? I don’t think Catholic Theologians wrote the Scriptures, the New Testament, or invented anything. If you didn’t know, the New Testament was written by the Four Evangelists and their disciples; theologians only interpret Scriptures, and Church councils with the Pope are the final arbiters of the validity of theological studies.

Jesus spoke to His followers about God the Father in Heaven, the Spirit to come and guard His Church, and Jesus is God, that makes three persons in One God, I believe.

The Catholic Theologians would have a hard time denying the Trinity when the Scriptures speak of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. In fact, no one can understand the Trinity since it is a Divine mystery. We know the Trinity exists because it was Divine Revelation by Jesus who is God.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CCNL:
“CREDITABILITY AND SCRIPTURE””

IRT:
"Current crisis:
Realization that the Jews are not god's chosen people.

ANS:
You mean God didn’t know what He was saying and you do? Were you there?

www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

How can we even know there were Jews at the time, if we can’t rely on the historical records? If Scripture is a lie, what isn’t a lie and why? By the way, is the Holy Land also a façade, viz. a propaganda front for Jewish and Christian hustlers?

IRT:
2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish

ANS:
How do you explain this?

Luke 2:45cf.

“And not finding him, they returned into Jerusalem, seeking him. 46 And it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them and asking them questions. 47 And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers.”

Jesus sure faked a lot of people not to be able to read. How could Jesus quote Scripture to the Jewish Scholars in the Temple, holding a scroll in His hand and interpreting the Scriptures to the amazement of the Jewish Scholars?

He was more knowledgeable of the Scriptures of the OT than were the Jewish Scholars, the Pharisees, the Scribes, and the Sadducees who studied them all their lives. In fact, Jesus astounded the Jewish scholars. Did all these great scholars that are telling you this live at the time of Jesus, since they know more than those who were there and told about it?

I wondered how Jesus faked His death. When the Jews, if there were such people, left the Crucifixion, I guess Jesus got down off the cross and was a fugitive until he faked His ascent into Heaven. So who was in Jesus’ grave?

So you must believe Jesus, a man so dumb He couldn’t read, yet a carpenter, who evidently couldn't read a measurer, yet became the Greatest Con Man in World.

More so, you apparently believe all the historians at the time were in a great conspiracy to fake Jesus’ death in front of the Roman Army, then acted like He rose from the dead after they buried Him in a grave with only one entrance and they sealed the entrance with an enormous rock. Notwithstanding, it was guarded by a platoon of Roman soldiers. Since you claim Jesus is a myth, do you think Jesus might have been actually Houdini disguise as Jesus working his black magic?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CCNL:
“CREDITABILITY AND SCRIPTURE””

IRT:
“e.g. for those eyes that have not seen:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.”
‘
ANS:
How do you explain magic? Is it splitting the sea, walking on water, feeding thousands with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish?

Is the magic making the dead rise, the blind see, the cripple walk, curing the lepers and the sick by merely saying it be done? Does it include calming the seas, and controlling all that is in the heavens and the sea below?

What kind of magic did Jesus perform when they crucified Him and He rose from the dead in the face of a Roman squad of soldiers guarding His Tomb? Do you have better witnesses than the soldiers? Duh, I think that's why we call Jesus, God.

God's miracles are still around, you know. Try Father Pio who restored the sight of a young girl born without pupils. What about the 70,000, including pagans and atheists, who saw the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima? Did three little Children, who also couldn’t read or write, mesmerize the seventy thousand and, bewitch them with magic? How do millions at Lourdes keep getting fooled by magic every year?

IRT:
Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

ANS:
I assume you performed a little magic yourself and must have been living at the time of Moses and Abraham. How else could you be such an authority on their history.

However, it baffles me how two myths that didn’t exist could cause so much magic and fool centuries of Jewish people. The Jews are pretty smart people, not to mention over a billion Christians mesmerized for over 2,000 years by the magic of two antediluvians you claim did not exist.

Dianna and the girls, Zeus and the Greek boys didn’t come near to lasting anything like 2,000 years. Why Jesus and the Apostles and not Zeus or the Goddess of Love? They knew how to read. There wasn’t any sacrificing with Greek gods was it? Christians were getting killed because of what you call a charlatan that didn’t even exist, a myth.

Moreover, I am sincerely confounded how the millions of people that have existed since the time of Abraham, including all the people who were not Jewish could be so naïve.

Consequently, the recorded history by all these foolish people, many who were pagans and agnostics and were witness to these delusions were all lying. What was the pagan’s game for this fraud?

Can you imagine 12 Apostles in a conspiracy to get themselves crucified upside down to prove something they knew was a lie? One even hung himself to be more convincing. Thus, accordingly, these great scholars you’ve enlisted must have been there or you were. You wouldn’t want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge would you?

Such buffoonery brings to question of who is your source. Is one Bagdad Bob, Saddam’s old PR man?

It would seem that the only way you could believe that the history from Abraham, the multitude of authentic recordings and records by the Jewish, anti-Jewish, and pagan writers, who existed at the time, were all bogus is to be there.

Can you tell me how the Jews managed to make Ramsey think the sea opened up and swallowed all of his army? How could a Pharaoh loose his whole army and never ever find it?

Maybe you can tell me how the Jews faked the Great Flood, Noah, and the Ark, when all the geographical and archeological records we have today showed the flood occurred. Scientist just discovered Adam and Eve had to exist. Are they myths too?

Namely, if you can’t trust the millions of witnesses, who at the time, witnessed these things and wrote about them, how can you know anything about the period? Somebody sure played a joke on Pharaoh Ramsey, notwithstanding the joke they played on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. Either the Pharaoh was on drugs or your sources are.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CCNL:
“CHARITY”

IRT
“The US taxpayers far outshine and outspend all charities to include the very caring and cost-conscience Catholic charities in providing assistance where needed on all levels, domestic and foreign.”

ANS:
It all depends on what you mean by outshine. Try outshining Mother Theresa in Calcutta, or Pope Pius XII whose Church saved nearly a million Jews during WWII. To Catholicism, human life is sacred, to the State, human life is politically expedient.

Christian Charity has been very propitious for the poor for over 2,000 years, and I have never seen the Secular Abortionist and those who support the Culture of Death, give anyone anything but the right to kill their unborn, the pill, a cocarcinogenic contraception, a right to “gay-sex,” a prelude to STDs and AIDS.

Today, the so-called Charity on the Left is contraceptives, and Abortion. Obama, our government, is proposing to give $50 million to the UN for Population Control, viz. money to kill poor people’s unborn, contraceptives and eventually STDs.

Moreover, Obama plans to fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) a fund that will unfortunately exploit Third World poor women for hyperovarian stimulation and the transfer of their human eggs. That fully funded process in England killed five women and maimed 35 according to a Congressional hearing on ESCR.

It has been said, it will take 80,000 women to retrieve eight million eggs just to find a possible cure for diabetes, if there even is one, to be found by ESCR.

ESCR researchers must be permitted to invade the women’s bodies. The process portends a grave risk to their health and to some, their lives. To obtain these eggs it is expected third world women will be exploited. So not only is our government acting as a misanthrope but as a misogynists as well.

Christians choose to give mankind their love, that's why they're called Prolife. Secular Humanist, called Pro-Abortionists, have wrought the death of 50 million unborn, AIDS, and STDs, and promote ESCR. They think compassion and charity consist of giving a mother a right to kill her unborn child

Christians believe in traditional Marriage and the stability of the Family. Instead of Marriage, the Secular Humanist Government gave man contraceptives. Human values, to the Humanist, is a right to gay-sex, and gay-marriage, the destruction of the family,.

So who is the more flawed, Christians or Secular Humanists? One offers the dignity of human life, the other gives us its extinction.

Did you ever stop to think how many taxpayers are Christian, and let alone are Catholics? You might also remind yourself that this America is founded on our Judeo Heritage, and that is what has made her the envy of the whole world, at least until the Secular Humanist took over and instituted the Sexual Revolution and the Culture of Death.

More so, the services that distribute and administer the taxpayer assistance are predominately Christian and more so Catholic. Notwithstanding, the motive for giving is on the majority Christian and Catholic. Catholic Charities is the largest NGO in the world.

The American funded UN assisted the Tsunami victims in the Far East. The UN aids raped the orphan children there. Not much outshining Catholic Charities, who were there after the UN left, and the last to leave the people of 9/11. What’s that worth?

IRT:
“Also, being a charitable religion does not mean said religion is not severely flawed historically and theologically. All religions to include Catholicism have these issues that need to be addressed.”

ANS:
Nor does it mean the Church is severely flawed. Nor does it exclude that the government's assistance is severely flaw in their aid either. So what, do they have to be perfect?

As to Catholic doctrine and its teachings, they are an inspiration to Christian charity. Its two great Commandments, “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you,” and “Love your neighbor as you would love yourself, as God so loves you,” are not flawed in the least.

Moreover, the Command “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a corollary to “Love your neighbor,” ”The Church is not flawed; it members are flawed. So what is your point. If you’re flawed, your charity is of no value, is hypocritical, or is it that only flawed government assistance is acceptable?

In fact, only two people on earth have ever been born perfect, one is Jesus and the second, is His Mother. Now if you wish to proscribe people who aren’t perfect from being charitable, you might try to be a Buddhist; they do not recognize the virtue of Charity.

"The Third Noble Truth of Buddhism is the ending of “dukkha.” To be free of ‘dukkha,’ one must extinguish this very craving so that no passion and desire remain." Hence, to be excluded from passion is to be excluded from love, and the great Commandments of Christianity.

it depends on what you think about that. Lying in the sun! The sun will always shines!
http://www.nowgoal.com/22.shtml

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,

The US taxpayers far outshine and outspend all charities to include the very caring and cost-conscience Catholic charities in providing assistance where needed on all levels, domestic and foreign.

Also, being a charitable religion does not mean said religion is not severely flawed historically and theologically. All religions to include Catholicism have these issues that need to be addressed.

e.g. for those eyes that have not seen:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a
mythical character as was mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

Current crisis:

Realization that the Jews are not god's chosen people.

www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology, all male hierarchies and strange banking and funding.

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the massacre in Mumbai, the assassinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Current crises:

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."
The caste/laborer system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

Current crises:

The caste system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence.

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories and reincarnation theories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
LEESMITH1:
“SOCIAL SERVICES”

IRT:
If Jesus was walking among us today, he'd show compassion for these people, not demonize them. He would pray for them and show them love, even if he disagreed with them.

ANS:
Isn’t that what Christianity has done? Its orphanages, its schools, its hospitals are legion. Christianity is the forerunner of education. Its universities are more than all the non-secular universities combined.

Have you ever heard of Mother Theresa? She established a Christian charity in a hostile and violent country of Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhist. She taught the poor and needy, she picked up the dying from the streets covered in maggots, bathed them, and assisted them in a happy death. She fed the hungry, the treated the sick and the dying.

She and her Sisters lifted, from the streets and gutters of Calcutta, over 60,000 abandoned and dying. They bathed them and comforted them that they could die in the dignity God made them.

India gave her a military funeral after she died. Millions lined the streets of Calcutta to mourn her death, giving her homage the day her funeral motorcade passed them through the city.

She was a beloved Catholic in a world of India’s anti-Catholic religions, but she was officially honored by India and all religions as an inamorata and friend of India and the world by all. She was a national hero because she did not distinguish race, class, creeds, or sects, but loved every creature and man made by God.

Her labors were not just “stuff”; they are real.
Moreover, “Catholic Charities DREAM (short for "Drug Resources Enhancement against Aids and Malnutrition) has proven to be an efficient means of giving access to free ARV treatment with generic HAART drugs to the poor on a large scale. So far, 5,000 people are receiving ARV treatment, especially in Mozambique, but the program is being built up also in other countries: Malawi, Guinea, Tanzania and others.

Have you ever heard of Dream?

“The clinic is run by the Italian Catholic charity, Santo Egidio, and treats 2,500 patients, among them 100 inmates from the local jail.

“Despite being FREE, the program aims at excellence in treatment, providing the best existent range of drugs (HAART) and regular blood testing according to European standards.

“Treatment is linked with a nutrition program as well as guidance and sanitary education by volunteers (and other HIV patients). Today Dream has saved the lives of some 20,000 AIDS victims.”

“Two million people in Africa are getting drug therapies for AIDS as part of the DREAM project. Twelve laboratories already exist in eight different African countries.” Are Catholics brainwashed? Do they hate gays or the sin? Ask Dream.

http://dream.santegidio.org/homep.asp?Curlang=EN

CATHOLIC CHARITIES:

Emergency Services:
“In 2000, more than 5.9 million people received emergency services such as cash assistance, clothing, help with utility bills, temporary shelter, and food through soup kitchens and food banks.

“Millions of working poor families who do not earn enough to provide for their basic needs are turning to Catholic Charities for support. These families face daily dilemmas: Will we pay the heating bill, or buy clothes for our children? Will we pay the rent, or fix the car that we need to get to work? Do we fill the prescription for high-blood pressure when we need that money to buy food?

Social Services

“In 2000, more than 4 million people received what we call social services. These services work to strengthen individuals and their families, as well as the communities in which they live.
Social services include adoption, family support, and help for at-risk children, housing assistance, job training, respite care, home care, parenting education, pregnancy counseling, prison ministry, refugee and immigration assistance, and treatment for drug and alcohol abuse.

“Catholic Charities agencies provide a wide range of immediate services such as disaster relief and soup kitchens, as well as long-term services like family counseling and they help for at-risk children.

Vision Statement
“Believing in the presence of God in our midst, we proclaim the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the person by sharing in the mission of Jesus given to the Church.

“September 11 Relief and Disaster Recovery Work

“Catholic Charities agencies respond immediately to natural and man made disasters as during 9/11 in the N.Y. and D.C. surroundings. Catholic Charities volunteers were still supporting relief efforts after others had long gone.

“Their desire to help is not limited by age, race, geography, or faith. Their desire is simply to give something of themselves to make a difference in someone else's life.

They are in the world serving as mentors, food bank workers, or senior citizen companions, giving the most important gift to those in need—selfless service.

“The bottom line is the Secular gives us the Culture of Death, Christianity gives us its Love from God.”

Nevermore aka Gaby?,

The pagan/Wiccan?

Person of the Book of Wikipedia?

As defined by the following?

"Wiccans, as followers of Wicca are now commonly known, typically worship a God[3] (traditionally the Horned God) and a Goddess (traditionally the Triple Goddess), who are sometimes represented as being a part of a greater pantheistic Godhead, and as manifesting themselves as various polytheistic deities.

Other characteristics of Wicca include the ritual use of magic, a liberal code of morality and the celebration of eight seasonal-based festivals.

There is dispute as to what actually constitutes Wicca. Initially, it referred to the lineage of one of Gardner's rivals, Charles Cardell,[4] although in the 1960s it began to refer instead only to lineages stemming from Gardner and operating as initiatory Mystery Priesthoods (such as Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wicca). These are now collectively known in North America as British Traditional Wicca.[5] A third usage, which has grown in popularity in recent years, and which was debatably the original usage,[6] considers Wicca to include other forms of Goddess-oriented neopagan witchcraft that are similar to but independent of that lineage, including Cochrane's Craft, Dianic Wicca and the 1734 Tradition; these are sometimes collectively termed Eclectic Wicca.[7][8][9]"

CCNL:

"And now the Immoral Majority rules life’s door!!! "

I would rather be part of the Immoral Majority than think along your lines.

You are neither Christian or Catholic, nor are you liberated in any way, shape, or form.

All you ever do is spout and spew.

You hate just about everything from what I gather by your posts. Maybe you should study Bhuddism, it would do your "soul" good!

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
LEESMITH1 :
“SOCIAL SERVICES”

IRT:
"Get behind the social services that will feed, clothe and educate these kids. Either that, or admit that you only care about children while they're in the womb and not after they get here."

ANS:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2014&units=p&chart=40-fed_40-statelocal&title=Total%20Welfare%20Spending

TOTAL WELFARE SPENDING
YEAR BILLIONS/ GDP FED % ST/FED %
1980 2789.5 1.97 2.42
1981 3128.4 2.03 2.56
1982 3255 2.10 2.66
1983 3536.7 2.29 2.68
1984 3933.2 1.78 2.34
1985 4220.3 2.01 2.36
1986 4462.8 1.66 2.24
1987 4739.5 1.58 2.26
1988 5103.8 1.53 2.21
1989 5484.4 1.51 2.33
1990 5803.1 1.58 2.46
1991 5995.9 1.86 2.93
1992 6337.7 2.15 1.55
1993 6657.4 2.19 1.58
1994 7072.2 2.11 1.45
1995 7397.7 2.07 1.54
1996 7816.9 2.00 1.41
1997 8304.3 1.91 1.34
1998 8747 1.83 1.22
1999 9268.4 1.79 1.19
2000 9817 1.75 1.20
2001 10128 1.81 1.28
2002 10469.6 2.14 1.54
2003 10960.8 2.21 1.62
2004 11685.9 2.03 1.49
2005 12421.9 1.98 1.54
2006 13178.4 1.89 1.48
2007 13807.5 1.84 1.48
2008 14280.7 2.19 1.49
2009 14240.2

Isn’t that adequate? In 2009 we’ve spent some total $580 billion welfare.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
LEESMITH1 :
“ABORTION”

IRT:
“First off, this has always seemed to me a convoluted debate - positioned as Pro-life vs. Pro-choice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the opposite of "Pro-life" be "Anti-Life?" Who, really is "anti-life?"

ANS
If you don’t know what Pro-Choice means the argument should be convoluted. Pro-Choice is an euphemism for the right of a mother to have her unborn child murdered.

IRT
"And can somebody please speak up about how the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate among industrialized nations?"

ANS:
Since ‘Roe v. Wade,” over 50 million unborn have be murdered by abortion. Do you think that might have something to do with the mortality rate?

IRT:
If you're pro-life, then get behind President Obama on universal health care, especially for the children who make it to full term.

ANS:
That would be quite ridiculous to be Pro-Life and support one of the most egregious Pro-Abortionist in the country. Obama voted three times to allow an abortionist to finishing murdering a child that survived the abortionist's botched abortion.

Obama supports the “Freedom of Choice Act” that denies those Hospitals and Doctors to conscientiously object to performing abortions, an invasion of one’s religious beliefs.

More so, Obama furthers his assault on religion by supporting the repeal of the Gay Marriage Act that can be potentially implemented to force all Churches to marry gays.

Hence, if “FCA” passes hospitals that don’t allow abortions will have to shut down and doctors will not be allowed to practice if they conscientiously object to abortion.

Obama is a hypocrite. On the one hand, he says he wants abortions reduced and on the other hand he promotes their funding and proliferation with funding and legislation world wide.

In addition, Obama has not only proposed to proliferate the number of Abortions in America, he has promoted worldwide Abortion. More so, Obama has appropriate some $50 million to the UN for Population Control. Thus, Obama will inadvertently fund the Abortions of China, the most notorious Abortionist in the world. Worldwide, some 43 million abortions occur per year. It is not enough for Obama.

The murder of the unborn is not just with the unborn in the womb. Obama has proposed to fully fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR). That is in light of the facts that ESCR had been fully funded for 10 years in England and has produced health benefit.

On the contrary, Other Stem Cell Research has, to date, presented 73 health benefits and are more promising than ESCR of which its own researchers predict will not be propitious to man for the next 10 to 20 years, if it has any benefits at all.

Congressional Hearings
March 7, 2006
House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
Drug Policy and Human Resources -- Hearing on Stem Cell Research

“Extraction of multiple eggs involves both ovarian suppression and what is known as “ovarian hyperstimulation” using powerful hormones into a woman’s body to manipulate it into producing many—often a dozen or more—eggs at a time rather than the normal one or two. The mature eggs are
then collected for use in infertility treatments, in vitro fertilization, or research.

We do know that a coalition of 35 women’s groups is suing the South Korean government on behalf of women who have been harmed in the process of egg extraction.”

It has been said, it will take 80,000 women for egg retrieval for some 8 million human eggs , The ESCR researchers must be permitted to invade the women’s bodies.

The process portends a grave risk to their health and to some, their lives. To obtain these eggs it is expected third world women will be exploited.

So not only is Obama a misanthrope but he is also a misogynists as well.

In addition, Obama proposes to replace a Supreme Court Pro-Abortionist Justice with one even more radical than the one retiring.

Differences between Jesuits and Holy Cross Fathers:

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Cross_Fathers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus

Typically, Jesuits are thought to be the most liberal thinkers in the Catholic teaching orders.

Regarding the brouhaha over President Obama's speaking at the Notre Dame commencement; people have a right to their opinions, but whatever happened to the pursuit of intellectual facts and academic freedom? If it is inappropriate for a President to speak there if his views disagree with members of that faith, then perhaps it's inappropriate for non-Catholics students or students who are pro-choice to study there. Methinks we as a nation do protest entirely too much.

Jesuit?
Holy Cross Congregation?

and the difference is?!

Sorry, but actions speak louder than words!

Their actions are similar in regards to Catholic Church Teaching...both are hubris in their roles within the larger Catholic community.

First off, this has always seemed to me a convoluted debate - positioned as Pro-life vs. Pro-choice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the opposite of "Pro-life" be "Anti-Life?" Who, really is "anti-life?"

And can somebody please speak up about how the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate among industrialized nations? If you're pro-life, then get behind President Obama on universal health care, especially for the children who make it to full term. Get behind the social services that will feed, clothe and educate these kids. Either that, or admit that you only care about children while they're in the womb and not after they get here.

Second, religion has always gotten into the most trouble when it tries to dictate other people's actions. Jesus himself knew this was pointless, which is why he offered his teachings as opposed to mandating them.

I could go on, but I'll close with this: Jesus, for all you believers, admonished us that "as you do unto the least of these, you do also unto me." That can certainly be applied a number of ways to this debate, but one key way is this: whoever you would consider "the least of these" -- the very people you don't even think are worthy to be spat upon -- treat them as you would Jesus. Even if it's a doctor who has performed abortions, or a conflicted mother who's had one.

If Jesus were walking among us today, he'd show compassion for these people, not demonize them. He would pray for them and show them love, even if he disagreed with them.

He would tell us to focus on our own souls and to get the log out of our own eyes. Tending to your own soul will keep you plenty occupied.

TO: all who protest obama's speaking at notre dame,

to see how stupid, narrow-minded and faux-principled you're being, imagine if i told you i agree with you. he should not have been ALLOWED to speak there. what if i got on my separation-of-church-and-state high horse and protested the use of my taxpayer dollars going to pay for his security, transportation etc... and all the time he wasted. it is the government FAVORING the catholic religion - all but declaring it our national religion. there are many catholic teachings i find offensive: for instance, "transubstantiation" amounts to cannibalism - and i'm against cannibalism. he should only be allowed to speak at secular colleges...

you'd rightly laugh me off as crazy.

Notre Dame is NOT a Jesuit school.

http://www.nd.edu/aboutnd/

"The University of Notre Dame, founded in 1842 by Rev. Edward F. Sorin, C.S.C., of the Congregation of Holy Cross, is an independent, national Catholic university located in Notre Dame, Ind., adjacent to the city of South Bend and approximately 90 miles east of Chicago."

In discussing this topic, its important to recall that Notre Dame is a Jesuit university.

Jesuits are indeed Catholic but their many distinctions include a commitment to education and continuing open dialogue, interactions across and within faith groups, those with differing beliefs, etc. http://www.jesuit.org/WhoAreJesuits/default.aspx

Inviting speakers who aren't 100% aligned with individuals (or even the Vatican) is completely in keeping with longstanding Jesuit tradition. Folks may not like or relate to the Jesuit Rule (agreed with Pope in 1500s), but this shouldn't be surprising or controversial to anyone familiar with their approach.

Also, please note that Catholics HAVE put up an uproar about the pediphilia and sexual abuse misdeeds. Most (if not all) parishs have gone through a crisis in processing these horrors and in many cases are working on healing. Some left. Some fight for change from within. VOTF was but one example of Catholics pushing back. Boston College, a brother Jesuit university, created a Church in the 21st Century initiative to shed light on and explore this and other challenging topics of Catholicism today.

Only those not paying attention could assume Catholics didn't notice or care about clergy abuse. This is a deeply painful topic to an overwhelming majority of Catholics. Even those who were not physically abused in many cases felt their trust and core beliefs abused. One's church, faith and religion are deeply rooted and such horrible events left many feeling traumatized, uprooted and lost. Catholicism is a church of its people, not the majority of public opinion online. A little sensitivity is appropriate, folks.

The Catholic Church is a lot broader than soundbites imply. Jesuits are not the same as Trappists, diocesean priests, Poor Clares, Cappucins, etc. Franciscans and Opus Dei fit under the same umbrella.

Post, please pay attention- these are critical distinctions that shouldn't be missed.

"Should the Catholic university have invited a pro-choice president to speak and be honored? Or should the Church be open to dissenting views?"

Should all the people who DON'T belong to the family of David Waters tell him and his spouse when to start potty-training their child? Or should they just mind their own fences and stay the heck out of the Waters' family affairs?

Should a bunch of non-Catholics tell the Catholic Church what to do, or go around discussing its strictly internal affair? Or should the world just be quiet and live and let live?

Lol. Sorry, but Mr. Waters' question is such an obviously loaded, self-righteous, irrelevant, and trivial one that the only response I could think of was sarcasm.

Whyone - only in some kind of fantasy world do humans execute perfect reproductive planning in advance, so as to prevent any and all unwanted pregnancies - until such a time as we find ourselves in that far distant world of the future, women will frequently find themselves in a position of having to exercise control over their reproductive rights 'after the fact' of conception.

If the Catholic Church were WAY more sensible with regard to birth control issues, they might have a leg to stand on when it comes to their anti-abortion stand. Fewer unwanted prenancies may even occur with the responsible use of all available birth control methods (including the morning after pill, of course).

Instead, the Church continues to approve a solitary 'natural' rhythm method that takes a rocket scientist to understand - and which more than likely fails in preventing pregnancy for the most part anyway. Ah, the wisdom of the Vatican in all matters sexual!

Meanwhile, we have Roe v Wade to prevent a complete state and government takeover of female reproduction, as the anti-abortionist would have it. This is a private matter in every way, and no place for the state or the church of your choice.....

Um, no-one is forcing women to bear unwanted children in any of the posts previous to yours. Since when has the law forced women to do this?

I remember a discussion I had long ago with my then college student daughter and several of her student friends. It was a civil discourse about abortion 'rights' with 3 young men and 3 young women. All the women started off as firmly favoring the right of any pregnant female to an abortion. We brought up talking points and each had a turn. My thrust in the discussion was to clarify their viewpoints on the act of abortion and to confirm that they were fully informed about the action without any viewpoints exercised on my part.

I asked two simple questions:
If you had to retrieve a spontaneously or un-naturally aborted fetus from a research bank which carried all kinds of species' fetuses, how would you communicate that you wanted only a fetus from a human being. Woman's or girl's fetus sufficed for them, so be it. When questioned as to whether the fetus would be considered human, and explaining that logically it is impossible for it to be otherwise in this context they averred that by negative implication about the other species' offerings, it must be human.

The other question was whether it was a therefore human being. Upon discussion they all agreed that if it did not exist, it would not have to be aborted. Being equals existence.

Simplistic, but lineal thinking was necessary in order to prevent the discussion from going off in various distracting directions.

After this admission by the students that there was no wiggle-room on the human being attributes of the fetus, we covered possible exclusions from those who had a 'right' to an abortion. They were unanimous in their conclusion that there should be no exceptions in the right to choose.

Then we went on to the factor that these young men and women were admitting that the fetus is a human being, and that no-one should be denied access to an abortion. I said fine, you are saying that there is a right to kill an existing human being for any personal reason you may choose. One of the students did change her opinion, the others did not.

This was a novel introduction to the triumph of feelings over thought in such a definitive discussion over a life or death matter. No religious arguments were had and no scare tactics were used, no photos of aborted body parts, nada. Just the exposition of thoughts on the subject. In fact, according to Obama's words, this is exactly what he wants us to do, dialogue in a civil manner.

To infer that not allowing available abortion to women is forcing them to have unwanted children is specious at best. That decision is to be made some 9 months before the birth of a child. Work on that concept instead.

Forcing women to bear unwanted children by rule of law seemed exceedingly stupid before Roe v Wade, and seems just as stupid today - if not more so.

Obama and Notre Dame are really beside the point other than as a briefly flickering metaphor - the real battle here is between the Vatican, various elements of the Church leadership hierarchy in the USA and abroad, the local clergy, and a billion Catholics worldwide.

A good many of those billion are beginning to think for themselves - now that's a big problem .... for Rome. What next? Birth control practiced by married priests??

Disparage Obama, but be thankful John McCain isn't getting the honorarium instead - but then, I reckon he wouldn't have been invited, no matter how pro-life he pretended to be.......

Today at Notre Dame Obama brought out many good points regarding the controversy swirling around his invitation and conferred honorary degree. That there cannot be change in opinion without dialogue is a given. However, where there are totally disparate views on the validity of legal mandate regarding ethical stances, there is little, if any common ground available to access. During the hearings regarding the legal validity of bringing impeachment charges against President Clinton, the "greatest legal minds" present at the hearings were asked by, if I recall correctly Lindsey Graham, if, (paraphrased), Judeo/Christian ethics were a base factor in deciding law. He was firmly told...no.

If this is true the underpinnings of law are baseless, except as an exposition of power. And as such with no "higher" basis than power to enforce, the law is open to manipulation, for better or for worse. This is the main concern of those opposed to abortion, the connection between a power based entity, (law), and an ethically questioned act, (abortion).

Since a political entity of the law, (government)in the form of the President of the United States was chosen by a proffered ethical institution, (a CATHOLIC university), a preference is descerned in the choice of recipient of this particular honor. So the university aspect of this Catholic institution was chosen over the inferred object of said university, CATHOLIC education. One is supposedly able to get an education of some sort at any accredited facility, but not necessarily a CATHOLIC education, as is supposedly offered at Notre Dame. As such, unless I am incorrect about that offer, both the law of the land and the law of the Church apply and are expected to be adhered to. If those two laws are in moral conflict, dissent is not a bad choice as a tool to bring this to the attention of the authorities. There are far worse "tools" available.

The question given in regards to this topic is extremely limiting, we seem to have an either/or choice in how to answer. It implies that by opposing Obama as speaker/honoree one must make a choice between supporting opposition to that choice and being open to dissenting views. Since the church has not declared abortion to be a divine command, (ex-cathedra), the opinion of the church regarding abortion does present the option of dissent. However, like a country club the "rules" of the club apply to all the members and one should keep that in mind. Why join if you don't believe in the rules?

No, Notre Dame should not have invited a pro-abortion president to speak at this Catholic institution. This event was thereby turned into a platform for exposition of a political stance on an ethical dilemma. While President Obama was very thoughtful in his responses to the conflict, making no declaration of opposition to abortion except for a genteel statement that it should be reduced, he avoided the issue of the objections to abortion while putting on the mantle of concilliation to both parties. It's as if Lincoln had had sympathy to the plight of the slaves prior to the Civil War, but refused the obligation to bring this nation to force the offending states into a position where they were required to demolish that hateful institution. Firm Catholics who obey the church's stance on abortion, are faced with the same kind of thing, the absolute horror of the taking of life from an impotent existing human being, for personal reasons of course.

In a perfect world everyone could be satisfied but this will never be a perfect world. Therefore all decisions of power regarding the welfare of those they have power over are open to dissent. The law has favored one existing entity, the pregnant female in distress, over another, the existing growing life inside her. And don't start with dragging those qualifiers into the "whether it is a person etcetera" debate. If that entity doesn't exist one wouldn't have the ability to abort it, and if it cannot be designatd as human as a qualifier try to differentiate the human fetus from among those of other species for research purposes without that qualifying term.

Eternally torn between the potential hardship of carrying to term of the mother and the welfare of the burgeoning life within her I have to side with the growing child. After all, millions of babies have been aborted, I doubt that many women have perished because of their unwanted pregnancies. Who has the greater odds in this contest?

To me all of this seems depressingly trivial--on all sides I might add. First Notre Dame. What is this self-importance of institutions of higher learning that they feel honorary degrees in general let alone from themselves are worth a damn? And then this controversy at Notre Dame over whether to honor Obama. Would you not think that if a controversy were to erupt over something so trivial in the first place as an honorary degree that the whole thing would be called off? But no, Notre Dame not only had to wade into the controversy, they called into question their entire integrity (and is there any other?) about whether or not they are a conservative not to mention Catholic institution.

And then we have Obama. I see no integrity from him at all on this matter. You would think he would reflect a bit on whether he deserves such a thing for the simple reason why would any man be eager for an honorary degree, would feel deserving of such without having done any work for such--no matter if in the first place the whole notion of honorary degrees is trivial. Then we would ask why a man would be willing to accept one if a controversy exists about whether or not he should be so honored. You would think at least the person receiving the honor would question himself as to whether he was ever such as to receive the honor without controversy, and generally you would expect the person receiving the honor to state that he will modify his behavior (or whatever) to be worthy of the honor without controversy. But no, Obama just steps forward and accepts the honor.

Who is more corrupt, Obama or Notre Dame? Then we have the students of Notre Dame without a shred of integrity themselves, more a pack of noisy animals than anything else, although I suppose Notre Dame can be blamed for corrupting them--for they are corrupt, not at all thinking about what is taking place. It just stinks on all sides. Not least because I am reading Machiavelli with his descriptions of VIRTU and all the astounding character traits and decisions of great military leaders. In Machiavelli's terms, Notre Dame is not an army worth joining, and Obama is not worthy of being in any army. However, ironically, he might be worthy of Notre Dame. Yes, Obama and Notre Dame deserve each other.

The opening of the Notre Dame graduation ceremonies should have begun with the following poem instead of a prayer:(should also have been read at the White House poetry slam):

BO

Barack Obama is his name,
Presi' because of his skin tone?
Because of the normal race game?
No, because 35M dead babies moaning!!

Voting “moms / dads” of said life forms,
Yes, 70 million indeed they voted for Obama, as pro-abortion he conforms,

And now the Immoral Majority rules life’s door!!!

Did President Obama ask Notre Dame to invite him to speak at graduation? No. They say they are angered by the president's pro-choice stance. How draconian of the "thought police." No divergent lessons for young students. So, now for the snarkiness. Where are the placards and the raised fists over the pedophile priests who have not been defrocked, but just moved from parish to parish. Not a peep from the Notre Dame crowd.

The answers to these questions depend on whether Notre Dame wants to be an institute of higher learning, or a Sunday school.