Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope fails to address 'intelligent design' theory of evolution
thisislondon.co.uk ^ | 04 September 2006 | Staff

Posted on 09/04/2006 8:42:37 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

Pope Benedict and his former doctoral students spent a weekend pondering evolution without discussing controversies over intelligent design and creationism raging in the United States.

The three-day closed-door meeting at the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo outside Rome ended as planned without drawing any conclusions but the group plans to publish its discussion papers, said participant Father Joseph Fessio S.J.

Media speculation had said the debate might shift Vatican policy to embrace "intelligent design," which claims to prove scientifically that life could not have simply evolved, or even the "creationist" view that God created the world in six days.

"It wasn't that at all," Fessio, who is provost of Ave Maria University in Florida, said from Rome. The Pope's session with 39 former students was "a meeting of friends with some scholars to discuss an interesting theme".

"We did not really speak much about intelligent design," said Fessio, whose Ignatius Press publishes the Pope's books in English. "In fact, that particular controversy did not arise."

Creationism -- the view that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible -- was "almost off the radar screen of the people in this group," he added. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally.

Fessio said Benedict took part in the discussions but said nothing different from previous public statements, in which he has recognised evolution as a scientific fact but argued that God ultimately created the world and all life in it.

As the Pope put it at his inaugural Mass after being elected in April 2005, "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God."

Annual get-togethers

Benedict, who taught theology at four German universities before becoming archbishop of Munich and then the Vatican's top doctrinal official, has held these annual get-togethers since the late 1970s. The international group debates in German.

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has long been rejected in the United States by conservative Christians who want to have a Bible-based view of creation taught in public schools, where the church-state separation bars the teaching of religion.

More recently, Darwin's critics have campaigned to have "intelligent design" taught as a scientific alternative to evolution. President George W. Bush and other conservative politicians support this drive to "teach the controversy".

The "ID movement" does not name the designer as God, but its opponents say that is the logical conclusion and call this an unacceptable bid to sneak religion into the teaching of science.

Schools in some parts of the United States teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution but a Pennsylvania court banned it there last year, saying it was religion in disguise.

Catholic teaching accepts evolution as a scientific theory but disagrees with what it calls "evolutionism," the view that the story of life has no role for God as its prime author.

Vienna's Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, a close associate of the Pope, was one of four speakers who addressed the meeting. He raised eyebrows last year with a New York Times article that suggested the Catholic Church supported the "ID movement".

Schoenborn and Benedict have said several times over the past year that intelligence in the form of God's will played a part in creation and that neo-Darwinists who deny God any role are drawing an ideological conclusion not proven by the theory.

They say they use philosophical reasoning to conclude that God created the world, not arguments which intelligent design supporters claim can be proven scientifically.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; genesis1; thewordistruth; vicarofspagmonster
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last
Everyone be nice.
1 posted on 09/04/2006 8:42:38 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 390 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

2 posted on 09/04/2006 8:44:03 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Where are the anachronistic fossils?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

Ping.


3 posted on 09/04/2006 8:44:40 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Where are the anachronistic fossils?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Your state religion is safe from Vatican meddling for another season.


4 posted on 09/04/2006 8:45:06 AM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
but the group plans to publish its discussion papers, said participant Father Joseph Fessio S.J.

...where are these types of proceedings usually published?

Cheers!

5 posted on 09/04/2006 8:47:13 AM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Sure.

This is a 'non-story' since there wasn't any discussion about it to begin with.

It's like the MSM reporting 'Bush doesn't speak about Iraq at meeting today'.

If there's nothing to say or nothing planned, then the MSM gets in a snit because they were just 'sure' SOMETHING ABOUT IT would be addressed.

Like I said. NON-STORY.


6 posted on 09/04/2006 8:47:39 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Pope fails to address 'intelligent design' theory of evolution

If it's good enough for the Pope, it's good enough for me.

7 posted on 09/04/2006 8:48:49 AM PDT by phantomworker (A camel is a horse designed by committee. Sofa king crazy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

They might be Thomist. They are not interested in that Reformed stuff, which includes Paley.


8 posted on 09/04/2006 8:49:10 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Just a press opportunity to assign the word "fail" to the Vatican.
Nevermind that the basis is simply the media's FAILURE to predict the agenda.


9 posted on 09/04/2006 8:54:33 AM PDT by G Larry (Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Basically, their position is that TToE != atheism.
10 posted on 09/04/2006 9:11:13 AM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Pope fails to address 'intelligent design'

and that is the appropriate response.....he knows that the lord works in mysterious ways...why not through evolution.

11 posted on 09/04/2006 9:15:44 AM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I commend the Pope for not wasting any time on frivolous ID nonsense.


12 posted on 09/04/2006 9:26:22 AM PDT by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
True. Some religious denominations reject evolution, and others are okay with it. It's not a science issue at all.
The "Clergy Letter Project". 10,000 clergymen endorse evolution.
Statements from Religious Organizations. In favor of evolution.

There is also the recent statement opposing creationism by the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the 70-million-member Anglican Communion.

13 posted on 09/04/2006 9:26:55 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Where are the anachronistic fossils?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

>> Pope fails to address 'intelligent design'

> and that is the appropriate response.....he knows that the lord works in mysterious ways...why not through evolution.

Yes, we were taught evolution in my Catholic school science class.

I learned from my 12 years of Catholic school that science is the way we understand the genius workings of God, and that the incurious acceptance of the non-explanation of "just because..." is a sin... of rejecting God's glorious gift of intellect.


14 posted on 09/04/2006 10:18:30 AM PDT by VictoryGal (Never give up, never surrender!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"We did not really speak much about intelligent design," said Fessio...

After you've said: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," you've said it all.

15 posted on 09/04/2006 10:26:14 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
After you've said: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," you've said it all.

Sounds like something Alamo-Girl might have said... :-)

Cheers!

16 posted on 09/04/2006 10:28:45 AM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

It's a quote from Dembski. It does belie the idea that Intelligent Design isn't based on religion.


17 posted on 09/04/2006 10:34:39 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: VictoryGal
Very well said. Evolution and Christianity are not exclusive and you are right - deliberately refusing to use one's God given intellect really is a sin. By refusing to think, you have decided to reject one of God's gifts and you've made the decision to reject the special status God has given man amongst His creation.

I'm not an IDer or a Creationist, but I do know where science begins and religion ends. Evolution is quite likely manifestation of God's Creation. But that is a philosophical position. Not a scientific one. I really like the deep position your Catholic school took on the approach of science.

18 posted on 09/04/2006 10:47:11 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: VictoryGal
I learned from my 12 years of Catholic school that science is the way we understand the genius workings of God,

exactly...and you have 2 years on me....

.........I went through the 10th grade then we moved to the burbs where the schools were better and I went 11-12 in regular public HS, but the parochial education was very good...

19 posted on 09/04/2006 10:50:19 AM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Not surprising, that as a former teacher the Pope would recognize ID for what it is.


20 posted on 09/04/2006 10:58:00 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Pope "failed"?

Does he owe you anything?

21 posted on 09/04/2006 11:02:30 AM PDT by wtc911 (You can't get there from here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

What's to be mean about? The Pope hasn't addressed the issue. It's funny that it's been all over the media, Pope to address evolution! and then nothing comes of it.


22 posted on 09/04/2006 11:05:46 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Good guys" aren't always "nice guys".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Surprise, surprise. The Vatican doesn't change its stance. Yawn. Amazing how the MSM loves to hype non-stories.
23 posted on 09/04/2006 11:27:28 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
It's funny that it's been all over the media, Pope to address evolution! and then nothing comes of it.

All the major Catholic publications were saying that nothing important would come out of the meeting. Anyone who even has a remote understanding of how things work in the Vatican could have predicted this outcome.

This is a typical example of MSM reporters who no knowthing about the Church or Catholicism trying to hype a non-story. Nothing to see here. Move along.p>

24 posted on 09/04/2006 11:33:04 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Well, since I have no knowledge of the way the Vatican works...


25 posted on 09/04/2006 11:43:05 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Good guys" aren't always "nice guys".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: VictoryGal
I learned from my 12 years of Catholic school that science is the way we understand the genius workings of God, and that the incurious acceptance of the non-explanation of "just because..." is a sin... of rejecting God's glorious gift of intellect.

Very well put, and bears repeating.

Anglican communion (my own denomination, if that matters) takes the same view. I imagine (but cannot demonstrate) that many if not most Christians would agree.

The ones who don't agree make enough fuss to sound like a mahority, but I doubt that.

26 posted on 09/04/2006 11:48:19 AM PDT by ToryHeartland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"No knowthing." Yikes, what a typo! Sheesh. You'd think I could spell out "Know nothing."

I guess I need another cup of coffee.

27 posted on 09/04/2006 12:04:31 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Pope fails to address 'intelligent design' theory of evolution

Pope fails to address 'intelligent falling' theory of gravity

Pope fails to address 'intelligent eye rays' theory of vision

Pope fails to address 'intelligent softening' theory of pasta cooking

Pope fails to address 'intelligent decomposition' theory of death

28 posted on 09/04/2006 12:05:05 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; VictoryGal; Vaquero; doc30; ToryHeartland; NYer
Patrick, I'm just going to follow up what I posted to you in that other thread yesterday and say just a little more about why the Catholic Church would violate its own doctrine if it were to make a statement in support of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design which, contrary to the speculative reports suggesting that the Pope might be moving in this direction, was never in the cards. And it really does reflect what VictoryGal said when she remembered she learned in Catholic School that science is the way we understand the genius workings of God, something doc30 and Vaquero have applauded her for posting. I want to add my own voice in support of VictoryGal here, because I specifically remember learning in my Catechism classes -- I went to public schools -- that I should never fear what science might produce because science was of the material world and was therefore limited in what it has to offer mankind and that it can never bring humanity to an understanding of God.

Though we have seen no official statement coming out of this seminar -- it seems that its participants will post papers on their own -- it should have been obvious from the beginning to anyone who has read Pope John Paul II's "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in November, 1996 that the focus of the Catholic Church when dealing with the Theory of Evolution would be to delineate the separation between distinct epistemological lines of inquiry as they relate to the Theory of Evolution; and especially with the impossibility of establishing a transition from Materialism to Theology based upon observations of material phenomena. In the Catholic view, it is only through Theology, the highest form of Metaphysical philosophy, that we can even begin to approach an understanding of God. As a scientific pursuit, the Theory of Evolution is entirely within Materialistic inquiry, which does not offer anything in the way of approaching God. This is where Intelligent Design runs directly contrary to Catholic Doctrine because it holds, and quite falsely in my opinion, that there is scientific evidence which proves the physical intervention of a designer, who is generally considered to be God. If Intelligent Design were to be supported by the Catholic Church it would represent a departure from its doctrinal assertion that evidence for the existence of God cannot be inferred from observation of specific phenomena because that would represent a transition from and linkage between materialistic inquiry and Theology. Pope John Paul II was very clear on this point when he stated the sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation ("Truth Cannot Contradict Truth," part 6). So the possibility that Intelligent Design could have been endorsed by the Catholic Church was a dead issue even before the inquiry began.

But going back to VictoryGal's statement that science is the way we understand the genius workings of God, it is possible for Roman Catholics to look at the wondrous and systemic harmony in nature as evidence of a Divine Causality which is removed from any direct intervention in the workings of the natural order, and includes within it the contingent materialistic processes upon which the Theory of Evolution relies for its scientific justification. I'm going to quote the Vatican web site document Patrick was kind enough to link me to yesterday to illustrate this point, excerpted from paragraph 69:

. . . The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. . . . it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. . . .

This is why most Roman Catholics who have been schooled in the religious traditions of the Church do not fear the debate over the Theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis, and the Biblical story of creation. We still see the wondrous hand of Divine Causality at work even as scientific evidence supporting evolution and abiogenesis is advanced because there is no conflict between a truly contingent natural process and God's divine plan.
29 posted on 09/04/2006 12:22:41 PM PDT by StJacques (Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The Pope may be pondering how to fashion some homily or whatever the term is, that is more in tune with both science and the existence of a creator, as understood by Catholic theology, than ID is, as currently postured.
30 posted on 09/04/2006 12:28:18 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

What was the point in having the meeting, in your mind?


31 posted on 09/04/2006 12:30:07 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
"The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. . . . it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. . . ."

This heathen does not have a clue what the above means. There are too many inside baseball terms used - "divine casuality," "true contingency," etc.

32 posted on 09/04/2006 12:34:02 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

It's Labor Day. No biggie.

Now it's my turn to reply with a beard-melting retort, yes?

"You are a (note to self: put insult in before hitting the 'post' button)."


33 posted on 09/04/2006 12:41:23 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Good guys" aren't always "nice guys".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Torie
What was the point in having the meeting, in your mind?

The pope wanted to have a intellectually stimulating discussion with people he respects.

34 posted on 09/04/2006 12:41:37 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Torie
"This heathen does not have a clue what the above means. There are too many inside baseball terms used - "divine casuality," "true contingency," etc."

"Divine causality" means "caused by God." In Catholic doctrine -- you would really need to read that Vatican document I linked, perhaps paragraphs 67 - 70, to get a theological introduction to these concepts -- there are two levels of "divine causality," God as the primary cause, meaning he did it himself outside of any natural process he created, and God as the secondary cause, meaning that is from within a natural process he created but without his direct intervention. "True contingency" is another way of expressing secondary causes and it means a natural process that unfolds of its own accord without the supernatural intervention of God. The implication you draw from this is that evolution and Christianity are not incompatible because a natural process that unfolds of its own accord still does so according to God's plan because it is God's process.
35 posted on 09/04/2006 12:45:38 PM PDT by StJacques (Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
... there is no conflict between a truly contingent natural process and God's divine plan.

God, as Creator of the universe, can't be contradicted by anything we learn about the universe. If there seems to be a conflict, it's not because there's something "wrong" about the universe, or our explorations; it's due to an inevitable failure in our understanding of God. God is -- by definition -- far more difficult to understand than any aspect of the physical universe.

36 posted on 09/04/2006 12:47:19 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Where are the anachronistic fossils?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"God is -- by definition -- far more difficult to understand than any aspect of the physical universe."

Bravo Patrick!

By Definition!
37 posted on 09/04/2006 12:55:49 PM PDT by StJacques (Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: VictoryGal

I agree completely with the others on this thread, who have seen what you have posted as being completely sensible, and true...Evolution and Christianity do not need to be at odds with each other...


38 posted on 09/04/2006 12:56:22 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
Thank you for an excellent explanation. But if one accepts that homo sapiens are a splendid accident of evolution, and God was only there to create the processes that allowed it to happen, by accident, than we have a species created in "God's image" or whatever the correct term is, that was an accident. If it was not an accident, and it was part of God's plan, his planned end game, than you are positing mechanisms that inevitably lead to the emergence of homo sapiens, and that gets rather near to ID, does it not?

If I get lucky, and this heathen is fortunate enough to meet the Pope next month, and he seems to have the time, maybe I will ask him myself. :)

39 posted on 09/04/2006 12:56:41 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: StJacques; Torie
The implication you draw from this is that evolution and Christianity are not incompatible because a natural process that unfolds of its own accord still does so according to God's plan because it is God's process.

Or put in simple language, evolution may have created us, but God created evolution, so ultimately God is still our creator.

This stuff is really not that complicated. While I have high regard for the scholastics, using their fancy terminology often obscures things rather than clarifies, especially in a case like this.

40 posted on 09/04/2006 12:57:56 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Thanks, I appreciate it, but I gathered that from SJ using terms within my more secular vocabularly. Of course, one answer, just leads to the next question, for this lawyer's mind. :)


41 posted on 09/04/2006 12:59:53 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Wonderful Patrick Henry...we, as humans, cannot fully comprehend or understand God...


42 posted on 09/04/2006 1:00:04 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Torie
But if one accepts that homo sapiens are a splendid accident of evolution, and God was only there to create the processes that allowed it to happen, by accident, than we have a species created in "God's image" or whatever the correct term is, that was an accident.

We are all accidents. Most people's parents met as a result of chance events. This poses no problem for Catholic theology, for we hold that nothing is random for God. He sees all and knows all. Thus what appears to be an accident to us is not an accident to God.

it was not an accident, and it was part of God's plan, his planned end game, than you are positing mechanisms that inevitably lead to the emergence of homo sapiens, and that gets rather near to ID, does it not?

No. ID posits that natural processes are insufficient to explain the diversity of life on Earth. The Catholic view of evolution does not make any such assertion. It merely asserts that everything that happens on Earth, even random events and accidents, are part of God's plan, for He is outside time and knows all.

43 posted on 09/04/2006 1:04:22 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Torie
". . . But if one accepts that homo sapiens are a splendid accident of evolution, and God was only there to create the processes that allowed it to happen, by accident, than we have a species created in "God's image" or whatever the correct term is, that was an accident. . . ."

To use the term "splendid accident" is to deny God's omniscience, which true Catholics never do. Roman Catholicism holds that all creation is teleologically oriented (driven to a final point) which God has planned from the beginning and has always known how it would be achieved.
44 posted on 09/04/2006 1:05:38 PM PDT by StJacques (Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

Is the mechanism by which it is driven to a final point, simply an eternal mystery, not for science to address? That seems a bit fuzzy to me.


45 posted on 09/04/2006 1:08:55 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Whatever science finds out, is part of God's plan, with the random divinely ordained, as part of his plan. I think I get it. The composer certainly composed a lot of random notes, but in any event, those random notes, at least in one instance, produced a masterpiece.

No, I doubt that happened personally, but that is just my Baysian take on matters.

46 posted on 09/04/2006 1:13:29 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

Lovely in its eqloquence, SJ!

I am bookmarking for posting to the CreoTrolls (assuming they have the wit to understand your post).


47 posted on 09/04/2006 1:18:12 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (the war on poverty should include health club memberships for the morbidly poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

Read Post 29.


48 posted on 09/04/2006 1:21:54 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (the war on poverty should include health club memberships for the morbidly poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Imagine that: the media was wrong AGAIN.

No matter one's stance on the debate, we can all be happy the LameStream Media BLEW IT AGAIN!! BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

49 posted on 09/04/2006 1:29:32 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"Lovely in its eqloquence, SJ!"

Thanks freedumb. I rather enjoyed writing that.
50 posted on 09/04/2006 1:34:18 PM PDT by StJacques (Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson