All Comments (31)

Dr. Blazek,
Thank you so much for this article. While many say it is not well thought out, or what have you, in light of Ignatian spirituality, it seems right on mark.

God Bless.

I understand the Catholic position on abortion and I agree with it for those who believe that human life begins at conception.

However, the belief that human life begins with conception cannot be proven factually and it is an imposition on those who do not share this belief to act according to Catholic teachings and beliefs any more that we should ask them to believe in trans-substantion or virgin birth.

I understand the Catholic position on abortion and I agree with it for those who believe that human life begins at conception.

However, the belief that human life begins with conception cannot be proven factually and it is an imposition on those who do not share this belief to act according to Catholic teachings and beliefs any more that we should ask them to believe in trans-substantion or virgin birth.

SOULSEARCHER wrote:

A key tenet of the Catholic case is that the fused cell is a "human being" and has a soul at the moment of conception. I've not met a Catholic yet who can answer what then happens to identical twins - do they have half a soul, or at what point is the additional soul added?

An excellent point....And this dilemna is now getting even worse. Last week WaPo reported on a human embryo constructed from a single skin cell, cloned so there is no soulful fusion.

I'm a bit surprised. In my experience Jesuits have been quite accomplished when it comes to debates and the good Dr. does not measure up to that at all.

The first thing to recognize is that a "human being" for religious purposes is not the same as a "human being" for political purposes. Our Founders took extraordinary care to keep these separate, to write our constitution with not a single reference to God, to forbid any law establishing religion, to guarantee the individuals right to practice any religion. Mr. Huckabee could not be more dead wrong. There is absolutely no reason to get the Constitution right with God. Mr. McCain is equally wrong. This is not a "Christian" nation. It is a constitutional republic.

What we have to deal with as a nation is the point at which a human being comes into being for political purposes. What rights are granted to it at what point in its development. This would of course, be much more easily dealt with without the mixing of religions into the debate; poisoning the stew so to speak. So the Courts scratch around the edges as best they can working it out through case law.

A good Jesuit would have first established a foundation for the Church's teaching that the soul takes root at conception. There are other alternatives. At birth, when the egg is released from the ovary, on implantation, etc. How and why did the Church come to the conclusion that it did? Jesuits are Defenders of the Faith and usually well prepared to answer such questions, often very persuasively.

It is not trivial by the way. If the religious folk could just talk themselves into the "implantation" option (not very far from conception I would point out) then this whole issue involving embryonic stem cells just disappears....voila, like magic.

To add to Athena's list, the government would also have to make sure that no pregnant woman ingests drugs, alcohol, or unhealthy food while pregnant.

Ask yourselves this - do we as citizens of the world have a vested interest in maximizing the number of children produced? Consider the rate at which we're currently fouling the nest with pollution (global warming) and destroying wildlife habitat, the atmosphere-cleansing rainforest, and the life we depend on for food (overfishing).

Personally, I would love to see abortion come to an end - not because it isn't legal (I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't, and there was plenty of abortion going on then, often resulting in death for the woman), but because there are readily available means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the education to enable them to be used properly.

"Thou shalt not kill" is a simple statement. There isn't a list underneath it of the things it applies to, such as Blazek postulates. There is no asterisk referring one to a footnote of exceptions. Taken literally, one would be wrong to exterminate cockroaches in the kitchen, or to use antiseptic soap, or even to take antibiotics when you have a bacterial infection.

And, as was pointed out above, the Bible is filled with killing - *at the behest of God* - starting almost immediately after the ten commandments are presented.

It would be nice if we could drop the superstitious nonsense and do what's realistic and right for society.

I posted this on another thread. Since your arguments center on God I think it fits well here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Before we can make a determination about Gods, who's God is who's God, we need to come to an elementary understanding of God.

The God of all is revealed at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul That would be the one in the burning bush wouldn't it? You know, the God that lives in fire that's the same kind of fire found, (only?) in hell.

Last week we discovered that Christians only believe in one deadly sin, blasphemy in spite of the question indicating there are at least 7 of them. Adding blasphemy increases the set to 8 if one wishes the other 7 to be deadly as well.

It's my understanding that Jews consider blasphemy to be a capital sin as well. That's assuming there is any truth to the story about why Jesus was crucified found in the Gospels, (good newses).

Maybe we can explain all our God-woes by noticing that when the word God is spoken the being in the burning bush is the one meant. We now know without the slightest fear of error that being is the fallen angel Lucifer -the biggest Devil of them all and there's a lot of Devils.

So when we examine the Gods of candidates for high office we need to take that into account. We've already caused 86% of Americans to blaspheme every time they recite the pledge. The notion of making Lucifer the official God of the USA would seem to be in order. The country is now going to where? For the past 7, (fat years?) we've been under the enlightened tax-lowering, gas-guzzling leadership of "born again" Bush? Huck is simply suggesting making it official as though it's not already.

Sale of soul brings the big money only to those who lead the multitudes to hell. Where did Moses end up leading the Israelites? Where do the righteous candidates suggest leading the country? Where is the country right now -are we not already there? Some say the wilderness, the desert is hell while others claim it's paradise. And the Bible says both are correct.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you have any evidence that hoax buster is wrong about the being in the burning bush actually being Devil and not God? I think it's rather important for the church to defeat that argument. Don't you? We're not just taking on faith that which could absolutely lead us to hell are we?

Stripped of the theological arguments, the question of abortion is this:

1. Does the Federal or State government have a vested interest in making sure that every blastocyst that is conceived becomes a healthy, full-term infant?

2. If the answer is yes, the Government then has an obligation to ensure a positive outcome - a healthy, full-term infant. This means:
- mandated pre-natal care for all pregnant women, regardless of economic status;
- monitoring of women so that they do not attempt to solicit an illegal abortion or try an herbal abortifacient;
- government investigation of any miscarriage for signs of an illegal abortion;
- prosecution of any woman suspected of receiving or soliciting an illegal abortion;
- felony prosecution of doctors performing abortions, including the death penalty where applicable;
- expanded foster care for infants that were brought to term, but later abandoned;
- expanded health care, Medicaid, and SCHIP to ensure the continued health of the former fetus;
- expansion of services for profoundly mental and physically handicapped children and their caregivers;
- special dispensation for women who have ectopic pregnancies (one would hope).

Is this consistent with the "pro-life" position?

There is no nice way to say every abortion destroys an innocent human life, but that is the truth.

Those that perfrom abortions, those that advocate abortions, those that justify abortions, those that have abortions, and those that support the funding of abortions victimize those that are aborted, themselves, and humanity in general.

All offenders are to be pitied rather than judged for actions that contribute to the destruction of human life. However, the most grieviously guilty of wrong doing are those that know and profess the truth but act contrary to the truth for political expediency.

We are all free to think and act as we will according to the law of the land, including bringing to light the injustice of the law under which we attempt some semblance of mutual respect. It is what MLK Jr. did to confront an injustice and why so many of every race, nationality and creed sacrificed their lives to free the enslaved of this land - a fact sometimes forgotten in assessing blame for the injustice.

The muted voices of the innocent millions aborted are being heard through those willing to speak the truth. I add my voice to those that share in my love of life, liberty and justice for the born and the unborn.

"If the purpose uf humans is indeed to praise the creator, wouldn't that imply that the creator has a powerful need for praise and reverence?"

Straw man, and all that follows.

If the purpose of humans is to praise God does not mean God NEEDS praise. Just like a human's purpose is to eat does not mean that the food NEEDS to be eaten. It just is.

"One foundational component of a Catholic worldview is that human beings exist to praise, reverence and serve the Lord in this world and to be happy with Him in the next."

If the purpose uf humans is indeed to praise the creator, wouldn't that imply that the creator has a powerful need for praise and reverence? If that were the case, wouldn't that also mean that the creator has an ego of monstruous proportions that needs to be constantly nurtured by billions of humans and that the withdrawal of such nurturing could mean either the shriveling of the creator or a violent reaction by him/her that would be apocalyptic?

I for one do not believe that God has such a desperate need for praise that he created me for that specific purpose. If I am wrong on this, it would however largely validate the claim that we were created in his/her image.
The account of Jesus' days on earth certainly do not paint a portrait of a man driven by a need for reassurance and adulation.

I believe that if we humans do indeed have one common and overriding purpose then it is probably more in the direction of making the best of our days on earth including loving each other. Loving each other however has an awful lot to do with loving who and what your neighbor is and not just the fact that he/she was created from the same template as I.
One of the tragedies of the abortion debate is that we have allowed labels like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" to define us.
You won't find a more "pro-life" person than me! I absolutely love everything about life(except maybe migraines and traffic jams) yet I firmly believe that it is none of your business or mine if my neighbor decides that for her an abortion is the only or best solution or , for that matter, if she feels that an abortion for her is totally out of the question for whatever reason. She is no more "pro-life" than me either way but she is definitely supported in whichever way she goes by the fact that I am 100% "pro-choice" when it comes the her right to decide what she can most deeply believe in.

My beliefs are very, very dear to me and I would be sorely disappointed if yours, Dr. Blazek, were any less dear to you.
In a pretty awful linguistic stretch I would say that the only thing you may not do, is perform a post-natal abortion on me for disagreeing with you.
Of course you wouldn't but unfortunately less civilized believers of all stripes have performed and are performing them on a daily basis all over the world. Many of these are described in the bible as having been carried to the glory of God.
I believe much of what I read in the bible but I can't believe for one second that the God who created me was anything less than horrified by by the slaughters carried out in his name.

Thank you, Dr. Blazek for having the courage to stand up for the truth with love.

Geneva Street wrote January 22, 2008 10:59 PM:

"Abortion has been a great liberator for men at the expense of women.
No longer do men have to take responsibility for the fruit of their sexual conquests-$300 is usually enough for a man to buy his way out.
But the woman is left to bear the emotional, mental and sometimes physical scarring.
Freed from his responsibility to both his victims, the man remains free to move on to his next conquest."

Geneva Street, unless the woman was a victim of rape, you don't imply that the "conquest" and the resulting pregnancy had nothing to do with her consent?

A celibate Catholic priest choosing Gynaecology and Obstetrics as medical specialty needs to be psychoanalysed!

I am for anti-abortion but a catholic priest talking about it because "one should not kill" is pure hypocricy. I think Catholicism is one entity or body that has killed the most thru-out the human race history. They are the purveyors of communism in South America which became a battleground between communists and government forces. They were destructive when protestantism started to take root in Europe. They were even the main cause of the French Revolution. The deaths due to the actions of this church could reach to the millions if not billions.

Artificial contraception is the best method to avoid unwanted pregnancy but the catholic church prohibits it also. I can't blame the secularists if they become rebellious because most of these false religions like catholicism are not really the church of Christ but more of the devil's tool. I believe that their anti-abortion stance is purely just for show.

A key tenet of the Catholic case is that the fused cell is a "human being" and has a soul at the moment of conception. I've not met a Catholic yet who can answer what then happens to identical twins - do they have half a soul, or at what point is the additional soul added?

If history is any guide, the Catholic church will adjust it's position a few hundred years after scientific fact and common knowledge has made their "infallible" position untenable. (A flat earth, A heliocentric cosmology, evolution etc etc.)

Abortion has been a great liberator for men at the expense of women.
No longer do men have to take responsibility for the fruit of their sexual conquests-$300 is usually enough for a man to buy his way out.
But the woman is left to bear the emotional, mental and sometimes physical scarring.
Freed from his responsibility to both his victims, the man remains free to move on to his next conquest.

"If I could just have the thing and give it to you now, I totally would. But I'm guessing it looks probably like a sea monkey right now and we should let it get a little cuter," Juno tells the would-be adoptive parents in one of the character's typically acerbic lines."

If you haven't already seen the movie Juno- you should see it soon. It will make you laugh while you're watching it and remember and re-think after its over.

Dr. Blazek, SJ, chooses a comprehensive quotation by the revered Trappist martyr Dom DeCherge to begin his reflection on the morality of abortion. He places it, rightly, I believe in the context of respect for all life. However, I think that this is also very limiting when one then talks about "killing the Church." He is then in the realm of Catholic ecclesiology and internecine argumentation. Also, while persons like the late Cardinal Bernardin advanced a "seamless garment of life" in his appreciation of all life and therefore opposed the death penalty and hinted at inclination to near Christian pacifism, this argument grows too complex for a brief article about the "rights" of embryonic and fetal life compared with other elements of the "respect life" mantra. Finally, I would not attempt to remind a physician -- who has probably forgot more biology than I ever will know-- about the intricacies of human development after fertilization and before nidation, but there are relevant data that complexify the abotifacient argument at the minimum. In short, I think this shouldn't be entitled "a Jesuit argument" and the discussion about this morally loaded action deserves more focussed reflection that includes a true appreciation also of the woman who is pregnant -- or possibly becoming so -as well as the embryo or fetus.

Dr. Blazek, SJ, chooses a comprehensive quotation by the revered Trappist martyr Dom DeCherge to begin his reflection on the morality of abortion. He places it, rightly, I believe in the context of respect for all life. However, I think that this is also very limiting when one then talks about "killing the Church." He is then in the realm of Catholic ecclesiology and internecine argumentation. Also, while persons like the late Cardinal Bernardin advanced a "seamless garment of life" in his appreciation of all life and therefore opposed the death penalty and hinted at inclination to near Christian pacifism, this argument grows too complex for a brief article about the "rights" of embryonic and fetal life compared with other elements of the "respect life" mantra. Finally, I would not attempt to remind a physician -- who has probably forgot more biology than I ever will know-- about the intricacies of human development after fertilization and before nidation, but there are relevant data that complexify the abotifacient argument at the minimum. In short, I think this shouldn't be entitled "a Jesuit argument" and the discussion about this morally loaded action deserves more focussed reflection that includes a true appreciation also of the woman who is pregnant -- or possibly becoming so -as well as the embryo or fetus.

I have two points to make:
1. This man, like so many others who oppose abortion, somehow manages to make his argument without offering to take any responsibilities for its consequences. Here, like on most of the anti-abortion websites, you see silence on the question of male responsibility. You'd think all these women having abortions were immaculate conceptions. And I'm still waiting for them to surge forward, offering to take care of, and bring up the children that the women did not want to have. Let's face it, it's easy to act moralistic when you're not going to be the one left holding the bag.

2. This monk also confuses the issue surrounding the Church. The Church (Catholic, as well as all others), is a human institution with human beings at its helm. All you have to do is take a quick look at its history to see that it is full of human beings just as fallible as any of their human brethren--which is what we would expect from human beings. And being a human institution, then, the Church is not above doubt or questioning. Nor should it be. As far as I understand, even monks would frown on blind faith.

It is morally wrong to force a woman to give birth. All the fatuous Jesuitical word games in the world can't change that plain simple fact. If you allow people to run the country who think it's OK to force women to give birth, pretty soon they'll be thinking it's OK to pour water up a terrorists nose, because, think about it, which do you think most people would prefer: being waterboarded or being forced to give birth? If it's wrong to torture men, it's wrong to torture women. The Church doesn't get this because they figure, you know, human rights are for humans, not for women.

Haven't you one issue abortion voters and those who encourage them created enough wreckage in our once proud country? Wars, trashing of the Constitution, destruction of the economy - not a word from you about any of that because you care far more for blastocysts. And after all that has happened, you still care about nothing else. If you are sane, then you are completely immoral. And I don't care to be more civil about it because it's a truth you refuse to face.

Dear Fr. Blazek,

Thank you for your post's plea for more gentleness and respect in a debate that so often becomes shrill and destructive. I am strongly pro-choice, after having considered the issue from many perspectives, and yet maintain my respect for the antiabortion position; I am aware that not everyone shares the particular philosophical convictions that inform my position.

However, I must agree with Hewitt above, when he criticizes the following statement: '[A] woman seeking an abortion should recognize that exercising her “choice” will kill a vulnerable and defenseless human being. There is no doubt about this." There is indeed doubt in the minds of many. What constitutes a human being is not at all settled in my mind, but it is very clear to me that a mere embryo does not have any of the characteristics that I experientially associate with personhood and, thus, humanness.

Father, when you make statements like this one in an argument that poses as reasoned, you kill reason.

"Imagine you are running out of a burning hospital and only have time to save a little girl in a cast or a petri dish with five viable, fertilized embryos. Which do you save?"

Unfortunately, it's not an imaginary situation. When New Orleans was being inundated, a fertility clinic paid rescuers to take their boat in and recover all of the blastocysts. This happened while actual people were on top of their roofs waiting for rescues. Or worse, dying because they weren't rescued. Where was "Operation Rescue" then?

"We can kill the Church if we dissent in ignorance from the teachings of its experts and legitimate authorities."

Its experts? How laughable. I guess the "experts" are experts on what Church doctrine says, but we still have the question of whether the Church doctrine makes any sense or is worthy of respect. The "experts" are not experts on that.

It is in fact the Church that kills the Church when it promulgates ridiculous rules, doctrines, and admonitions--not to mention when it covers up countless incidents of child molestation, not just in the past in local parishes but today in religious orders that are answerable not to local bishops but only to Rome.

Prevention of unwanted pregnancies is difficult for married couples told not practice artifial birth control. I know, there strength in number and the Church wants more babies as possible. Isn't the truth?

The problem with the abortion debate, as Dr. Blazek notes, is that people argue, but nobody changes their mind. Why is that? One need look no farther that Dr. Blazek's own argument: a woman's choice to abort "will kill a vulnerable and defenseless human being. There is no doubt about this." There is no doubt about this for Dr. Blazek, because Dr. Blazek refuses to doubt. He refuses to think. He just "knows" the right conclusion.

Proving him wrong is both trivial and futile. Consider, labeling something as "human" does not make it a human being, any more than labeling something as a "body part" makes it not a human being. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike commit the same fallacy. If you can't see the fallacy, then try this.

Imagine you are running out of a burning hospital and only have time to save a little girl in a cast or a petri dish with five viable, fertilized embryos. Which do you save?

The arguments above argue neither for nor against abortion, they merely disprove an initial fallacy designed to stop you from thinking. Understanding that point is necessary to begin serious moral thought. Yet people will reject these arguments without even considering them. Press them, and their rejection becomes even stronger and less articulate. Why is that?

Emotion determines people's beliefs on abortion. People then look for rationalizations for their conclusions. The better your rational argument, the greater the threat to their emotional conclusions. They will hate you for that and not listen to such a hateful person.

But, if YOU want to be moral instead of comfortable, then you have to start THINKING!

Well, you can say it's about about people just-not listening to you, columnist, but... it's most certainly a wedge issue: when it comes to the law and civil rights, there's most certainly a divide, but the divide is not over what to-do-if-you-enforce-the-Church's view of 'human life' and related priorities: it's about who defines and enforces such things for who in our civil laws.

Unfortunately, the arguments against *you* making decisions for others about their own bodies are based in a religious presumption that 'human life begins at conception' (and in the case of contraception, apparently *before* conception, on some idea your God is being interfered with if people don't reproduce randomly: as people who want to deny women emergency contraception try to enforce upon the rest of someone else's life cause they happen to be working a pharmacy counter.)

My faith community holds *motherhood* sacred, and tends to come down on the side of taking careful responsibility for when and where a new life is brought into the world: we also don't believe that sperm and egg coming together are what form a soul: a 32 cell blastula that never properly attached to the uterine wall would certainly be an odd creature to populate the eternal afterlife with, I should think. Pagan belief tends to say that it's pretty much 'just' a chance among very very many for someone to incarnate until awareness and experience starts, anyway. The idea that it's 'murder' to *not become pregnant at a given time* is certainly something we don't believe should be enforced with government power.

(The clumps of cells that people want to prevent from being used for medical research are in fact 'just sitting there,' in that they were made en masse for fertility clinics and constitute the *leftover* ones considered least viable: all of them becoming human beings was never in the cards in the first place. Keeping them in the freezer till they go off certainly won't help. If you don't like this, then fertility clinics are what you should be objecting to, not holding back potentially-lifesaving stem cell research. )

Many believe that the focus should be on *supporting mothers and motherhood and reducing unwanted pregnancies,* with proven methods like fact-based sex education and contraception.

What a lot of religious people *don't* want to hear about this issue is that the very fact that it's so controversial and rooted in religious belief argues for personal choice to be the *law's* position. Often the anti-choice people simply have the *science* wrong, or disregard it in their fervor and cries of 'Murder!'

If you want to teach in your churches that your God says not to use condoms or educate your kids or have an abortion, then that really ought to be enough.

Then maybe we can get together on reducing the need for it to ever happen: it's never a happy option, but sometimes the only responsible call to make, especially when single motherhood is so stigmatized that it can cost someone a job when they would need it most.

To my experience, community support for mothers and children *helps.* Stigmatizing 'sinners' *doesn't.* In fact, the latter is often as counterproductive as it gets.

Our complex modern life seems to come with something of an extended childhood: one we all see as a good and healthy thing, ...but we still have a biological legacy of reproductive capability and all the instincts that come with it at a much younger age than we consider 'adult' in a modern world. Living in denial of this doesn't work: people need to be educated and empowered in order for this to result in healthy and happy adults and families.

It's pretty clear to me that the Church and the churches are too often trying to impose a punitive and control-based view of sex that comes from societies where women tended to be married off, like it or not, at ages we would consider indecently young, today. In the modern world, motherhood *waits* *because* this affords time for people to become educated and responsible. It's foolish to try and remove the education and responsibility and replace them with simple religious threats and stigmatizations.

I love how anti-choice people say that they are "pro-life", but don't care about the health and well-being of the breeder... er... woman that is carrying it. How many pro-lifers are willing to have their taxes raised in order to provide pre-natal care for every pregnant woman, regardless of economic status?

Yeah, the Bible said "Thou Shalt Not Kill", but the Israelites had no problems killing committing genocide on the Canaanite tribes that they were trying to conquer.

Joshua 8:22 (City of Ai) Israel struck them down until no one was left who survived or escaped.

Hosea 13:16 NRSV Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

I could go on.

Father Blazek -

Thank you for your point of view. The day we have ordained female Catholic priests arguing from the same vantage point is the day we can begin to take the Church's (then truly unitive) point of view on abortion more seriously.

Moral imperatives on the issues of stem cell research, reproductive practices & reproductive rights coming from a Catholic spokesman & aspiring cleric, and backed up historically by an all-male clergy, seems somehow out of balance in today's world. We should however expect this point of view from now and future priests as required by cannon law.

This may be the traditional Catholic view, but many voices within the Church are now at odds with this approach. Even today, we still find considerable (traditional) Church resistence to both teaching birth control methods and distributing birth control materials to women sorely in need of this information and assistance - thus even prevention of pregnacy is frowned upon, much less the provision of 'morning after' pills and early terminations.

Physicians and pharmacists are within their rights to follow their own personal ethical standards, but should feel morally oblidged (if not legally required) to suggest providers that will perform the (requested) legal services in a timely and professional manner.

Just my point of view -

Father Blazek,

I disagree with you:

Your Roman Church sanctions the slaughter of animals (sentient beings, even as you and I are) for food and fur.

In my belief system, which tends toward Buddhism, slaughter of animals is exactly the same as the abortion of human fetuses.

Yet neither organized Buddhism nor I attempt to force our views on you and your Church by the force of law.

You and the Roman Church should follow that example when it comes to the views of others on the subject of abortion.

Let me further state what Buddhists and I believe: your Abrahamic God does not exist and your Old Testament Yahweh* operated as a cruel and tyrannical oriental despot.

Fortunately, he is only a nightmarish delusion.

* The Cathars, that noble people whom your Church ruthlessly tortured and exterminated, called your God (Yahweh) "The Ignorant Demiurge" because he mistakenly thought himself to be the Godhead when he was only a lesser diety. He created the material world and suffused it with evil and cruelty.

It's a shame your Church remains faithful to his example.

Hello again Brethren(s) B L A Z E K, et al;

Welcome from Coney iSland, N.Y.C., U.S.A.

Question: How many people die of Car Accidents World wide?

O.K., How many people die, sucides, etc.. in Sweet sweet Holy Cosmic Miraculous (zero Sinful Americans) America, needlessly [Abortion not included]?

Note: Mr. Mozeus & Mr. Jezeues should have been Aborted! Include Mr. Mu-Ham-Madzeus, and Mr. Vaysazeus and mr. Guatamzeus et al!

Behold: ABORT-ALL Every & Any Pre-Apocalyptic [un] Holy Man-Made & Zero HUMATE-made IMPORTED 'Religions' in America!

Deport ALL Every & Any iMPORTED-Religions, Faiths and imported man-made, not ECLATi-ON made [B*O*R*N] religio competing mass-murdurous SYSTEM(s) not made in sweet sweet U.S. of A.!

VOTE: Deport ALL , not made nor bred nor raised religion SYSTEM(s) & their Leaderships out of U.S. of A and elswhere!

ABORT, All Judeo-Ju's, All Judeo-Christs, All Judeo-Islamics, ALL Judeo-Hindu's, All Judeo-Buddhist & other [un] American Made super Stupid Stitious Pre-Apocalypotic [STATIC, not DYNAMIC] man mad & not HUMATE APOCASLYPTIC System!

Hallaluja!

We are Come! We JOKTAN Eberu Race , on Sweet sweet S.pace-S.hip Momma Poppa planet EARTH, aka S.S. GAiA, aka S.S. GEOiD, aka S.S. TELLUSng something, is O.U.R. INHERETENCE! And

so, Goodbye All Pre-Apocalyptic 'Old-time-Religion(s)!

WELCOME to space-Ship Earths "NEW-SONG" comming from All O.ne U.niversal R.eligion old songs!

Good bye Jerusalem!
Good bye Vatican!
Good bye Mecca!
Good bye Tibet!
Good bye Nepal!
Good bye Hellenic
Good bye ALL EVERY & ANY Pre-Apocalyptic Not-Made in sweet swett U.S. of A. Old-Time Poisons!

hello: AMERICA!

Vote: GRIDARiAN DEMOCRACY & TRANSFINITE CiViLIZATION!

Vote: E*C*L*A*T*i-ON Party 2012!

Thanky fellow ECLATi-ON(s) and never the OFF(s)!

The Crown, Septor & Rod of the "PELEG' king David Race, is been intercepted & reversed via genuine Prophecy & thus Inheretence as promised "US" ECLATi-ON(s), aka APOCALYPTARiAN-Race, aka HUMATE-KIND(s). note: Unkinds not welcomed nor invited , here on sweet sweet Space-Ship Earth, via TRUE (opposite of MYTH) Story's and no more Pre-Apocal;yptic Biblically!

May XTRA PHOTONS shine on AMERICA & FRIENDLY's Forever more!

"Hear O America, U.S.A. is ONE!"

Thus sayth the Holy No-Mon, LORD ECLAT + "i" = LIFE/PHOTONS Philosophy, aka

the "NEW-SONG" coming from All O.U.R. Old, as Promised in "ALL" five Major Pre-Apocalyptic Religio Competing over a Name for G-D Systems!

Vote: O. U. R.! Or else Perish or be left behind! Ya Ya! Eeee Haa!

Eeeeee Haaaa Hallaluja!