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

Skip to comments.

Darwinian Evolution Incompatible with Catholic Faith says Cardinal and Author of Catholic Catechism
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 07.11.05

Posted on 01/07/2007 1:28:33 PM PST by Coleus

On July 7, after years of media-generated confusion, Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, a theologian who helped author the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, wrote in the New York Times clarifying the Church’s understanding of human origins.  Since 1996, the world’s secular media have claimed that Pope John Paul II endorsed Darwinian evolution as being “more than a hypothesis.” The remark, taken out of context, established in some minds that the Catholic Church was ready to abandon its adherence to the notion of a personal God who created life, the universe and everything.  In his article, Schonborn said, that the “defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.”

“This,” the Cardinal says bluntly, “is not true.”

Schonborn unequivocally establishes that the Catholic Church does not endorse Darwinism. “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.”  Cardinal Schonborn, a close associate of both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, continued, saying, “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

The New York Times, never missing an opportunity to bash prominent Catholic prelates, has suggested that Schonborn has changed his tune regarding the legitimacy of Darwinian evolution. But Darwinism, the idea that life sprang and developed into its myriad forms by means of “an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection” has never been supported by Catholic teaching.

As early as 1950, Pope Pius XII wrote that it is Catholics teaching that all human beings in some way are biologically descended from a first man, Adam. “The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all,” Pius wrote in his encyclical Humani Generis.  Two days after the Cardinal’s article appeared, the New York Times followed up with an interview with Schonborn in which he reiterated that he had been encouraged by Pope Benedict XVI to continue to refine Catholic teaching on evolution.

Read Cardinal Schonborn’s essay:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html
Read New York Times coverage of scientific reaction (free registration may be required):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html?pa...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: cardinalschonborn; catholic; catholiclist; crevo; crevolist; darwin; darwinism; evolution; popepiusxii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-144 next last

1 posted on 01/07/2007 1:28:35 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


2 posted on 01/07/2007 1:29:03 PM PST by Coleus (Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

The heliocentric model was also proclaimed incompatible with the Catholic faith, yet the Earth does move, and Catholicism abides.


3 posted on 01/07/2007 1:32:39 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Once upon a time, a sun-centered solar system was incompatible with Catholicism.


4 posted on 01/07/2007 1:33:32 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

he needs to evolve.


5 posted on 01/07/2007 1:37:25 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
meanwhile, in his grave, Galileo rolls over.
6 posted on 01/07/2007 1:38:06 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. .... you'll run the bill up kid!....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

“Further, he (the Pope) seems to be cautioning those who have been claiming Church endorsement of the full-bodied, design-defeating version of Darwin's theory of evolution, which, after all, is often little more than philosophical materialism applied to science,” added Chapman.

Chapman noted that in his very first homily as Pope, Benedict XVI had rebuked the idea that human beings are mere products of evolution, and that, like his predecessor, John Paul II, the new Pope has a long record of opposition to scientific materialism."

excerpt from: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3015&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage


7 posted on 01/07/2007 1:38:26 PM PST by Sun (*MERRY CHRISTMAS!* And during this beautiful season, let's all pray for good to win over evil soon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

"Once upon a time, a sun-centered solar system was incompatible with Catholicism."

Who told you that?

And did you know that the Bible told us that the earth is round?


8 posted on 01/07/2007 1:39:53 PM PST by Sun (*MERRY CHRISTMAS!* And during this beautiful season, let's all pray for good to win over evil soon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv; Brilliant; GSlob; bert
How the Catholic Church Built Western CivilizationThe Galileo affair must stand as the most devious distortion of scientific facts ever propagated. The chapter dealing with these events ought to be read by every human being on earth. As an amateur astronomer, I was aware that scientific evidence in Galileo's time compellingly favored Ptolemy's geocentric solar system model (especially regarding accurate prediction of planetary positions-the critical test of celestial mechanics). I did not know how freely Galileo had been allowed to expound the heliocentric theory in Catholic universities before his arrogance brought him to butt heads with the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It was astronomers in Catholic Church observatories (under the leadership of Cassini) who irrefutably validated Kepler's heliocentric model by measuring the positions and apparent diameters of the Sun.

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Hardcover) by Thomas E. Woods Jr

 

9 posted on 01/07/2007 1:40:41 PM PST by Coleus (Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Uhh, from a fellow Catholic: Call the Pope's office, Cardinal, if you want the church's official position on this.

Guys, just ... stop. Do your globes still have areas that read, "Here be dragons?"

10 posted on 01/07/2007 1:41:16 PM PST by Western Civ 4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Atheists, by definition must not accept intelligent design in any form. Theists, on the other hand obviously believe there is a designer behind the scenes. Either God created the universe or the universe created itself. Which is more fantastic?

There can be no compromise by the atheistic view, since it is cast in concrete. There is no god, therefore there could be no intelligent design, period, end of story. The intelligent design view, on the other hand, can have an infinite number of interpretaions and beliefs within it.


11 posted on 01/07/2007 1:41:47 PM PST by OK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OK
Either God created the universe or the universe created itself. Which is more fantastic?

What created God?

12 posted on 01/07/2007 1:47:06 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Cardinal backs evolution and "intelligent design"

PARIS (Reuters) - A senior Roman Catholic cardinal seen as a champion of "intelligent design" against Darwin's explanation of life has described the theory of evolution as "one of the very great works of intellectual history."

Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said he could believe both in divine creation and in evolution because one was a question of religion and the other of science, two realms that complimented rather than contradicted each other.

Schoenborn's view, presented in a lecture published by his office on Tuesday, tempered earlier statements that seemed to ally the Church with United States conservatives campaigning against the teaching of evolution in public schools.

A court in Pennsylvania is now hearing a suit brought by parents against a school district that teaches intelligent design -- the view that life is so complex some higher being must have designed it -- alongside evolution in biology class.

"Without a doubt, Darwin pulled off quite a feat with his main work and it remains one of the very great works of intellectual history," Schoenborn declared in a lecture in St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna on Sunday.

"I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition -- that the limits of a scientific theory are respected," he said.

Science studies what is observable and scientists overstep the boundaries of their discipline when they conclude evolution proves there was no creator, said the cardinal, 60, a top Church doctrinal expert and close associate of Pope Benedict.

"It is fully reasonable to assume some sense or design even if the scientific method demands restrictions that shut out this question," said the cardinal.


13 posted on 01/07/2007 1:47:11 PM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Oddly enough, the heliocentric system was later proven to be just as inaccurate as the Ptolemaic system. FWIW


14 posted on 01/07/2007 1:48:03 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Oddly enough, the heliocentric system was later proven to be just as inaccurate as the Ptolemaic system.

No, it wasn't - at least not in the macro sense as you've framed it.

15 posted on 01/07/2007 1:49:37 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OK

Can we please get away from the notion that Darwinism has anything at all to do with cosmology or the origin of the universe?

It deals strictly with biology, specifically the origin of new species on an already existing earth. Not with the question of how the earth, solar system or universe came into existence.


16 posted on 01/07/2007 1:51:03 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

When I look a painting, I know there is a painter. When I look at creation, I KNOW there is a Creator.


17 posted on 01/07/2007 1:52:28 PM PST by Arcy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Varda
DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution
18 posted on 01/07/2007 1:52:31 PM PST by Coleus (Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Galileo and Copernicus taught that the sun was the center of the universe. That's what heliocentric means. From a modern perspective that is only slightly less ridiculous than the theory that the earth is at the center.


19 posted on 01/07/2007 1:53:15 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

By which, to be clear, I mean in the sense of heliocentric vs geocentric. In that sense, the heliocentric system is most certainly not as innacurate as the Ptolemaic system.


20 posted on 01/07/2007 1:53:37 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
"The New York Times, never missing an opportunity to bash prominent Catholic prelates . . ."

Gee, what are the odds that the old gray whore has ever closely questioned muzzie immams as to the origins of life, etc?
21 posted on 01/07/2007 1:54:19 PM PST by Jacquerie (Social Justice: An impossible dream so enticing it will justify any crime to achieve it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sun

It's a historical fact that reading Copernicus' book would earn you death at the hands of the Church. The book was on the Church's prohibitted books list.


22 posted on 01/07/2007 1:54:59 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Well, if it's even slightly less ridiculous then it can't be just as innacurate. :)

In fact, we can probably approximate it as less innacurate by an order of 332,946 magnitudes. ;)


23 posted on 01/07/2007 1:56:32 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Either God created the universe or the universe created itself. Which is more fantastic?

"What created God?"

You can't be serious. You also can't be completely unacquainted with the Catholic Church and the concept of the Trinity.

So the only thing remains is bad manners.
24 posted on 01/07/2007 1:56:56 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

I've read two or three statements which look like claims that the evolution/creation debate should have been over the day DNA was discovered, i.e. game, set, and match to the creationists.


25 posted on 01/07/2007 1:57:13 PM PST by jeddavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Slight modification. It appears that Galileo believed the sun to be one of many stars. I believe Copernicus taught true heliocentrism, that all heavenly bodies, including of course the stars, orbited the Sun.


26 posted on 01/07/2007 1:57:33 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

Whatever answer works for the Trinity works just as well for the universe.


27 posted on 01/07/2007 1:58:23 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

DNA the unit that evolutionary biology measures.

Whether you like this science or not is irrelevant. You slander the Church when you claim it's anti-science. The church has no problem with evolutionary biology and never has.


28 posted on 01/07/2007 2:13:14 PM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Whatever answer works for the Trinity works just as well for the universe.

Only if the adherents of scientism admit to being faithful.

29 posted on 01/07/2007 2:21:31 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Golly, you must have been reading Dawkins. Actually the notion of evolution by blind chance is essentially agnostic about the intellligibility of the universe. Neither you nor Dawkins recongizes that Darwin posit a demiurge, called Evolution, to produce the evidence we have in hand. The early stages of the earth as as remote to human beings as the remotest galaxies. More remote, because we can through telescopes faintly see them. The earth of earliest times we can see only with our imaginations.


30 posted on 01/07/2007 2:21:32 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Varda
The church has no problem with evolutionary biology and never has.

Your's is a correct statement but id certainly doesn't address the thesis of the article.

31 posted on 01/07/2007 2:22:57 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Varda
And here it is in a nutshell:

"“Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.”

32 posted on 01/07/2007 2:24:00 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; OK; IrishCatholic
Only if the adherents of scientism admit to being faithful.

Umm, no. My own answer is the correct answer: I don't know. Most people simply can't handle that truth and prefer to make up fairy tales.

But regardless, no matter what answer one finds satisfactory for the origin of the Trinity then from a rational standpoint that same answer will always be equally satisfactory for the origin of the universe, which is why the false dilemma that was set up by OK is a meaningless argument, and a fallacy.

33 posted on 01/07/2007 2:39:07 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

" an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

Nobody is saying entirely "random." Mutations can be caused by many things. There are scientific laws governing things.... except, perhaps, at the quantum level.

Anyone who believes a magical deity created decided to create human out of mud is certainly not following modern science.


34 posted on 01/07/2007 2:43:07 PM PST by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Umm, no. My own answer is the correct answer: I don't know. Most people simply can't handle that truth and prefer to make up fairy tales.

Um yes. Catholicism is faith based. When you state " Whatever answer works for the Trinity works just as well for the universe." I take that at it's face value. The answer that works for the Trinity is faith. Feel free to edit your statement.

As for fairy tales, I have no opinion or interest in what you do or do not consider to be fairy tales.

35 posted on 01/07/2007 2:46:06 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

It had slipped my mind that the original heliocentric model also posited a stationary sun at the center of the universe. Thanks for reminding me! I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that, although he did hold that the sun was one of many stars, Galileo was at most vague about the centrality of the sun. Whatever the case, it was not until the period between Kepler and Newton that it was widely accepted that the sun as well was neither fixed nor central.


36 posted on 01/07/2007 2:46:36 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
That 's the problem the science of neo-Darwinism doesn't address whether the process is unguided or unplanned (except in the proximate cause sense). In the larger theological sense all processes are guided and planned whether we can detect that through measurement or not (if we can't than modern science calls it "random").

It was the Catholic Church that determined that there is a lesser science under which "modern science" falls. It does not look into ultimate causes. That is the purview of the greater science "theology". I don't expect anything less from a conservative Catholic Church.

"Vatican Policy: Not Evolving (ScienceMag, Sept. 2006)

Don't look for a big change any time soon in the Catholic Church's views on evolution. Although supporters of evolution had feared that the Pope would embrace so-called intelligent design, Pope Benedict XVI gave no sign at a gathering last week as to how he thought the topic should be taught.

The pope said little during the meeting, which included his former theology Ph.D. students and a small group of experts near Rome. Peter Schuster, a chemist at the University of Vienna and president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, attended the meeting and gave a lecture on evolutionary theory. "The pope … listened to my talk very carefully and asked very good questions at the end," he says. And the Church's most outspoken proponent of intelligent design, Cardinal Schönborn, seemed to distance himself from the theory."

37 posted on 01/07/2007 2:46:42 PM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The answer that works for the Trinity is faith.

Uh, yeah, and as you yourself pointed out when you incorrectly thought that would be my answer, that answer works equally well for the universe.

38 posted on 01/07/2007 2:48:49 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sagar
Nobody is saying entirely "random."

Darwin is. Darwinian evolution theorizes RM/NS/heritability.

Mutations can be caused by many things.

Certainly.

There are scientific laws governing things.... except, perhaps, at the quantum level.

I think there are no exceptions to scientific laws, just scientific laws that are not well understood.

39 posted on 01/07/2007 2:49:33 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Uh yeah, which is what I said that you took exception to. Why? I have no idea.


40 posted on 01/07/2007 2:50:55 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Arcy
When I look a painting, I know there is a painter.

You know this how?
41 posted on 01/07/2007 2:52:39 PM PST by Vive ut Vivas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; OK
Oh, and perhaps you should go back and double check what we're talking about. We are talking about this statement from OK:

Either God created the universe or the universe created itself. Which is more fantastic?

As I pointed out, whatever answer works for God works for the universe. So, it is no less "fantastic" to think that the universe created itself, or that the universe is eternal and uncreated, than it is to think that God created itself, or that God is eternal and uncreated.

Whatever the answer it doesn't matter. It will work equally well for the one as for the other, in terms of rational credulity.

Well, except for the fact that the universe demonstrably exists.

42 posted on 01/07/2007 2:53:59 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sagar

"Anyone who believes a magical deity created decided to create human out of mud is certainly not following modern science."

Well... except for stories like this -

Study suggests life sprang from clay
WASHINGTON (Reuters) --
" Science backed up religion this week in a study that suggests life may have indeed sprung from clay -- just as many faiths teach..."


43 posted on 01/07/2007 2:57:55 PM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Uh yeah, which is what I said that you took exception to. Why? I have no idea.

Science doesn't operate by faith. I took exception to any role whatsoever for faith in science. However, I free acknowledge that if one considers faith to be a satisfactory answer then one can equally have faith in the universe springing out of nowhere or in God springing out of nowhere. Neither is more incredible than the other if one looks beyond the fact that God is rationally indistinguishable from a phenomenon that doesn't exist.

44 posted on 01/07/2007 2:58:38 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Like I said, I have no idea what you took exception to. Creationism is a faith based belief. Believing the universe created itself is a faith based belief. You disagree?


45 posted on 01/07/2007 3:01:05 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

No, I agree with that. But science does not hold that the universe created itself. That was a false dilemma set up by a random freeper. Science holds that we do not know how the universe originated.


46 posted on 01/07/2007 3:04:29 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
"The second law of thermodynamics (entropy) dictates that an infinite amount of organization (hence, design) existed in the singularity of the Big Bang.

Life is organization. From prokaryotic cells, eukaryotic cells, tissues, and organs, to plants and animals, families, communities, ecosystems, and living planets, life is organization, at every scale. The evolution of life is the increase of biological organization, if it is anything. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress. Most darwinists just ignore this staggering problem. When confronted with it, they seek refuge in the confusion between the two kinds of entropy. Entropy [logical] has not decreased, they say, because the system is not closed. Energy such as sunlight is constantly supplied to the system. If you consider the larger system that includes the sun, entropy [thermodynamic] has increased, as required.

It is surprising that mixing entropy and biology still fosters confusion. The relevant concepts from physics pertaining to the second law of thermodynamics are at least 100 years old. The confusion can be eradicated if we distinguish thermodynamic from logical entropy, and admit that Earth's biological system is open to organizing input from outside."

That outside source is God. ;)
47 posted on 01/07/2007 3:05:10 PM PST by divine_moment_of_facts ("So, I put on some tangerine lip gloss and answered the door.. I was one lucky woman.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

OK.


48 posted on 01/07/2007 3:05:38 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

http://www.near-death.com/physics.html


49 posted on 01/07/2007 3:06:00 PM PST by divine_moment_of_facts ("So, I put on some tangerine lip gloss and answered the door.. I was one lucky woman.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
He doesn't want to admit that all those Roman Catholics who use birth control , who practise abortion, and who are oragnizing demographic warfare against the USA from Mexico, are particpating in their own natural selection process to strengthen the human species.
50 posted on 01/07/2007 3:10:52 PM PST by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-144 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