Posted on 08/21/2010 9:46:08 AM PDT by mlizzy
Catholics aren't the only ones seeing the youth desert them. But Catholics are the only ones who can reverse the process.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
“it’s the Catholic faith that has the Body to save them, the True Body of Christ.”
I disagree strongly but respectfully.
I disagree strongly but respectfully.Thank you for being respectful! :)
“The YOUTH GROUP at my charismatic/Protestant church has 120 to 130 kids ranging in ages from 12 to 24.”
Oh, and your town equals the world? Sheesh!
I can only truly comment on that which I see, or articles written by others. In that vein, I reject the main thrust of the article as written by someone that while eloquent is not remotely unbiased and substitute my own experience, reality or that of which I have personal knowledge.
If there is room for debate in the Body, then let it at least be flavored with His love, right?
I know you realized that there are true Christians in megachurches, small mainstream churches, and Catholic Churchs. We need to start remembering that our differences can be strength (the body is made up of different members)and unifying, instead of always dwelling on the differences.
First of all, most Catholics do not understand Latin. Period. Don't assume because you do...others do as well. I have numerous Catholic friends and when I speak Latin (I am clergy)...they haven't a clue as to what I am saying.
Second...Michael Voris is pulling a Matthew 7: He's pointing out the speck in his brother's eye...yet ignoring the big ole log in his own eye.
I do agree that there is a lack of substance in the megachurch movement...but I deny his premise. This is not the problem of the megachurch...it is cross denominational and cultural.
I have seen several articles on FR lately about how people are deserting evangelical churches and "coming home" to the Catholic church. What these always fail to point out, of course, is the massive amount of people who are deserting the Catholic churches and either 1) Leaving religion all-together or 2) becoming protestant.
I am a church consultant. I did my Doctoral dissertation on church growth (specifically Anti-Nicene Christianity compared to modern Christianity). Part of my library is a book entitled: "The American Church in Crisis" by David Olsen. The following statistics are taken from his book and the stats he uses are from numerous studies by Barna, Gallup...you name it.
So...for people who keep talking about people leaving the evangelical churches...etc and becoming Catholic...yes...that happens. But the NUMBERS do not show that that is the rule...they show that is the exception. To prove that point (for those who disagree):
% of people leaving one "group" for another "group." This is called switching out. It doesn't count the numbers that "DROP" out...just the numbers that SWITCH.
Evangelicals: 17.5% Switched in...12.7% switched out. A 4.8% addition.
Mainline: 18.3% Switched in...23.6% switched out. A 5.3% loss.
Catholic: 8.4% Switched in...18.7% switched out...A WHOPPING 10.3% loss.
The data are Chrystal clear...the Catholic Church is losing 10% MORE people by them GOING to another mainline or evangelical church...than they are gaining by former mainline or evangelicals coming to them...and if it weren't for illegal immigration...their membership would be in a death spiral like the mainline churches.
Catholic church growth kept pace with population growth in only 6 states. It declined in 44 states (from 2000-2005).Only 4 states saw GROWTH in attendance of worship services. 46 saw DECLINE. That is not a recipe for being able to fix your problem and saying the megachurch can't.
Mainline churches saw NO growth equal population growth. That means UMC, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. These denominations also so a decline in attendance across all 50 states. So...if you are in one of the mainline protestant denoms...your denom is dying. Period. YOur individual church may be great...but the data are clear...your denom is in serious trouble.
Now to the evangelicals...which is the point of this thread...and this is where Voris is clueless. Evangelical churches (SBC, PENT, AOG, Non-Denom, etc) GREW in 28 states...and declined in 22 states. It might be that Voris used his example from a megachurch in one of the declining states...but he left out half the country!
Some of the largest evangelical growth as a % of the population comes from the NE...where there is the largest amount of decline in the RCC and the mainline churches.
So the entire premise of this piece is false. The only reason RCC membership is steady across the country is due strictly to immigration (p. 50). The massive amount of hispanic immigration balanances out the numbers that are leaving the RCC for one reason or the other.
In 2000-17.3 million Catholics attended mass on any given weekend. By 2005...that was 15.7 million.
In 2000...6.1% of the American public attended mass on any weekend...in 2005 that number was 5.3%. That is a 14% DECLINE in just 5 years. So please...someone tell me how a 14% decline is better than the evangelical "PROBLEM" number of 9.1% for both 2000 and 2005?
B/W 2000-2005...the total number of churches b/w the RCC and mainline denoms declined by 2500...while there were 4500 additional evangelical churches.
So...bottom line is everyone has a problem. Yes...I think there is shallowness in the megachurches...but as a church consultant, I go to a lot of churches...and I see shallowness EVERYWHERE I go.
This is the era of Laodicea. Most churches are cold. Bill Hybels recently came out and said he thinks they have made mistakes at Willow Creek. But...this is a mistake being made across denominational lines.
Very good and interesting post.
You wrote:
“First of all, most Catholics do not understand Latin.”
So what? The Latin Mass is easily learned. Also, missals are easily avaiable. Anyone who wants to learn the Latin Mass can do so. I have a friend - a former Evangelical minister - who converted 18 months ago. He now sings Latin hymns (yes, he knows what the words mean) and he understands the Mass just fine.
“Period. Don’t assume because you do...others do as well.”
I don’t assume anything in this regard - I just see it happen all the time. Anyone who wants to learn the Latin Mass can do so. I have seen many converts learn the Mass in a brief amount of time. If they can do it, anyone can. Many of them, after all, are starting off in a real hole education wise. They were raised as Protestants and went to public schools. Yet, some how, they still learn Latin well enough to understand the Mass, understand their missals, sing in Latin and even homeschool their kids in Latin! It just takes some effort.
“I have numerous Catholic friends and when I speak Latin (I am clergy)...they haven’t a clue as to what I am saying.”
That is probably for one or more of the following reasons:
1) Your pronunciation was bad.
2) They never studied Latin so why would you expect them to know it?
3) They have never attended the Latin Mass on a regular basis.
“I have seen several articles on FR lately about how people are deserting evangelical churches and “coming home” to the Catholic church. What these always fail to point out, of course, is the massive amount of people who are deserting the Catholic churches and either 1) Leaving religion all-together or 2) becoming protestant.”
I don’t believe they fail to point that out. I think they are just writing a different kind of article. The real point is this: most of the articles you’re talking about are about the EDUCATED Evangelicals - many ministers in fact - are becoming Catholics even after decades of being told Catholicism is evil, a work of the devil, unbiblical or some other sort of Protestant rubbish. The fact that common Catholics who were not being well catechezied since the 1960s are leaving the Church only tells us they never knew what they had in the first place. Those Evangelicals coming, however, are discovering - through prayer and study - what those Catholics who left never knew.
“But the NUMBERS do not show that that is the rule...they show that is the exception.”
Again, you’re missing the point. We are losing people who were never devout Christians. We are gaining people who were already devout Christians. Those who left the truth never knew they left it in the first place. Those Protestants discovering the truth are becoming Catholics.
Your statistics are meaningless in this regard. I am most interested in truth and not the actions of people who do not know what that is. Evangelicals are discovering the truth - and becoming Catholic.
Thanks. I just find it funny...and HIGHLY hypocritical to read an article entitled "Evangelical Exodus" by a Catholic.
When 10%+ more people are leaving your denomination than are coming from another denomination does it really make sense to talk about the exodus of a group that has a 5% gain? Especially when that gain is at your expense?
Does it make sense to write an article entitled evangelical exodus when that group is growing in 28 states...and yours is shrinking in 46? Does it make sense to write it when the only thing that is keeping your membership numbers steady are illegals?
Oh...and a point to that (since I work with several inner city "white flight...2nd/3rd generation Hispanic churches)...Hispanics don't stay catholic forever...at least their children don't. The numbers or 2nd/3rd/4th generation Hispanics in the US that leave the Catholic church is large. They, by and large, stay more loyal than whites...but you can't count on them to remain Catholic.
So...the Catholic church needs to write more articles about "How can we fix this" instead of handpicking a few bad examples.
And this is understood by the Clergy in the RCC. I was active in the Emmaeus community and the priests understand the depths of despair they are in. Some of the people on this board need to have their sense of urgency....'cause THEY are worried about the future. I think Voris might ought to go behind closed doors and talk to a few of them.
And for the records...I am Southern Baptist...and we are worried too...at least those I work with in ministry. We realize we could lose an entire generation if we don't get it together quick.
If you really want to sit there and insult me by saying that I don't have the truth...then we really have nothing to talk about.
I will point out simply that if there was truth in what you speak...you would not be losing members in droves. You would not have LOST them in the first place.
Oh...and I do know of people who have become Catholic after being XYZ. I know of a Baptist. He is "an evangelical who is coming..."
But contrary to your assertion that he discovered the truth through prayer...etc...he is coming because his wife is Catholic. He thought it was hard to leave the Baptist church but then he got excited because he could 1) DRINK!!!! and 2) Make it home before kick-off. Those are his words...not mine.
Keep your eyes shut to the problem...that always helps.
I was going to let this go...but can't. Prove that stat.
You say you don't like my stats...well prove that stat. The stats I have...and that the Catholic church has...because we use the same data set...is that whatever growth the RCC is experiencing is due to immigration. I have seen no stats that show a growth of the Catholic church due primarily to devout Christians leaving their denoms and heading to the Catholic church.
The only stat that comes close to showing your premise is a stat that shows conservative members of LIBERAL mainline protestant denominations leaving their respective denominations to join the RCC...primarily Episcopalians.
Please show me a stat that shows devout Christian evangelicals are leaving the evangelical churches (in disproportionate numbers when compared to non-attending evangelicals) to join the Catholic Church.
You wrote:
“If you really want to sit there and insult me by saying that I don’t have the truth...then we really have nothing to talk about.”
If you consider the truth insulting, then consider yourself insulted. Protestants only have a part of the truth. Protestants sects are just that - sects. No sect can possess the full truth.
“I will point out simply that if there was truth in what you speak...you would not be losing members in droves.”
False. The truth has always lost adherents. It has always gained adherents. Is this news to you? Five decades ago we were only gaining and not losing. According to your logic that would mean ONLY we possessed the truth then. Which would also mean that Protestants didn’t. Thus, your logic doesn’t even make sense according to your own standards.
“You would not have LOST them in the first place.”
Again, false. People leave for many reasons. Why do some Protestants renounce belief in Christ and become Muslims? Is it because they were originally wrong about Christ’s divinity? According to your logic, they must have been. Your logic is irrational.
“Oh...and I do know of people who have become Catholic after being XYZ. I know of a Baptist. He is “an evangelical who is coming...” “
I don’t care who you know. Your observations are entirely unreliable.
“But contrary to your assertion that he discovered the truth through prayer...etc...he is coming because his wife is Catholic.”
Then he simply was not one of the people I was talking about. Go back and look at what I wrote. Your straw man won’t work. My point still stands. I personally now know at least half a dozen former Protestant ministers who became Catholics. None of them converted because of their wives.
“He thought it was hard to leave the Baptist church but then he got excited because he could 1) DRINK!!!! and 2) Make it home before kick-off. Those are his words...not mine.”
And taht would probably mean he was shallow as a Protestant and most likely he won’t ever be a believing, practicing Catholic. Again, I didn’t mention him at all.
“Keep your eyes shut to the problem...that always helps.”
I have never kept my eyes shut. You’re talking about one thing while I’m talking about another. I think you need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
You wrote:
“I was going to let this go...but can’t. Prove that stat.”
Prove I mentioned a stat. Again, work on your reading comprehension skills.
“You say you don’t like my stats...”
You’re being dishonest. I never said that.
“well prove that stat.”
Prove I mentioned one.
“The stats I have...and that the Catholic church has...because we use the same data set...is that whatever growth the RCC is experiencing is due to immigration.”
I am talking about one thing and you another. Again, you really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
“I have seen no stats that show a growth of the Catholic church due primarily to devout Christians leaving their denoms and heading to the Catholic church.”
I posted no stats whatsoever. What you can’t see apparently is the working of your own imagination.
“The only stat that comes close to showing your premise is a stat that shows conservative members of LIBERAL mainline protestant denominations leaving their respective denominations to join the RCC...primarily Episcopalians.”
Can you even repeat to me what my premise was? I’m guessing no, since you have completely butchered everything I said so far. Where did I mention a stat for instance? I never did.
“Please show me a stat that shows devout Christian evangelicals are leaving the evangelical churches (in disproportionate numbers when compared to non-attending evangelicals) to join the Catholic Church.”
Where is it that I claimed that that was the case? Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
If you claim that I EVER said that more “devout Christian evangelicals” are becoming Catholics as opposed “to non-attending evangelicals” then you, again, are having problems reading. Read my posts again. I never said anything about “non-attending evangelicals”.
I guess creating straw men can always replace intelligent arguing among Protestants, but it won’t work with me. When you can actually understand the plain English that was posted get back to me.
We attend what is likely by far the most traditional parish (FE weekly; no indult, for instance) — and a large one, at that — in the entire archdiocese. It is bursting at the seams. The pastor is a vocation from that very parish. The choir members look all of them to be in their 20s. Lots and lots and lots of kids. The future looks bright.
I didn't say you provided a stat...maybe it is YOU who should improve his comprehension skills. You asserted a fact: "We are gaining people who were already devout Christians. Those who left the truth never knew they left it in the first place. Those Protestants discovering the truth are becoming Catholics."
Facts, especially when NUMBERS are concerned, can be proven by statistics. Only someone who is just wanting to argue would not see that is what I was saying.
You just want to argue...otherwise...you would have clearly understood that I was pointing out the fact you have declared a "FACT" and I was asking for the proof. I come to that conclusion. The only other conclusion is 1) You are trolling; 2) You are lacking in any higher intelligence. Since you seem to string words together in a coherent manner...and you seem passionate about your beliefs...I am left to draw the only conclusion I can: You just want to be argumentative. Sure is a way to sell your point and your faith. Maybe you wish it was the "Good old days" when you could just burn us heretics at the stake for our beliefs (and yes...that is a red herring fallacy...).
I posted no stats whatsoever. What you can’t see apparently is the working of your own imagination.
Yes...I know you've posted no stats. You did, however, post that as a FACT. I was simply asking for a stat to support your argument.
Where is it that I claimed that that was the case? Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Please. If that is not what you are saying...then what is the point of saying: "We are gaining people who were already devout Christians."?
So instead of asking for the numbers...I should have simply said: "SO!" If your point was not to say that your church is growing at the expense of other denominations...then what was the point? Certainly EVERY denomination can point to a few people...here and there...that were devout Christians in their denomination and moved to another. Right? So...if you want to debate a point...why throw out a meaningless point? Sorry for assuming you would just throw out random, meaningless thoughts.
So here is one. My best friend is a former Catholic. He was a very devout Catholic. I went to mass with him several times...and he went to church with me several times. For years...he was Catholic and I was Baptist. He is now a devout Baptist. He saw the "truth" (as you put it) as something else.
There...a meaningless example. An example that proves my point...that is backed up by facts. Since for every devout "protestant" (mainline/evangelical) you can cite that leaves their denomination to join the Catholic church...I can cite a reverse example...and my examples fall within the norm of what is happening.
If you claim that I EVER said that more “devout Christian evangelicals” are becoming Catholics as opposed “to non-attending evangelicals” then you, again, are having problems reading.
I didn't quote you...I summarized you. "Those Protestants discovering the truth are becoming Catholics."..."We are gaining people who were already devout Christians." My point again is "what's the point?" The FACT (read: stat) is only meaningful in terms of church growth and this conversation if you look at the entire demographic that is switching. You have to separate the two...otherwise...you cannot make the claims you did. Correct? The number "protestants that are discovering the truth" can only be ascertained when you look at the whole group...and dissect who they are. THAT is my point. Unless you look at the un-devout group...then you have NO IDEA how many "devout" people are becoming Catholic...and thus...you have no basis in fact by which to make that statement.
As far as arguing: You say I used a straw man. Wrong. I did not misrepresent your position. I may have misunderstood it (since it is illogical to point out those "facts" unless they are Germain to the article...which was the point of my original post)...but I did not intentionally MISREPRESENT your point. That is the definition of a straw man.
You, however, have showed a classic ad hominem method. You have consistently attacked me as a person. You attacked my faith...and my ability to read. So basically...you are subtly calling me, a Doctor of Theology, an ignorant reprobate.
The numbers will show that far more Catholics become Protestants than Vice versa. I’ii attach a link.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
I mean...does it really matter if you are gaining a few "devout" Christians from other denominations if you are losing those who "never knew the truth" in such large numbers? The numbers are clear. No matter how many "true...good...devout Christians" leave their denominations to join the Catholic church...it is only a band aid on a severed limb. It can only stem the bleeding...not stop it.
And that was what I was trying to say. They ignore these numbers at their peril. Certainly there are pockets of growth in the Catholic church. There are pockets of growth in the mianline denominations. Come talk to me in 40 years. See what is left of them. They will be shells like their counterparts in Europe.
So...fine I say. Continue to think you've (not you) got all these evangelicals and mainline protestants flocking to the Catholic Church. The numbers prove otherwise. The numbers prove that for every 1 person that comes INTO the Catholic church from another denomination...2 leave the Catholic Church for another denomination.
Now...I have been accused of not being very bright...but I do know simple math: When you are losing by a 2:1 ratio...you are not heading towards positive growth. I might not be the smartest person...but I am smart enough to know that 1) a 2:1 loss to other churches...2)and a massive decline in attendance in 46 states...is not sustainable in the long term. That is attrition.
Take a bank account with $1000. Add $100 every month...and then take away $200. Its not long before you are broke. Right now...the only thing that is keeping the Catholic Church in the black is immigration...and the fact they have a very large bank account.
Take away immigration...and the Catholic "bank account" will look like Europe in 40 years. Perhaps its better to die in blissful ignorance. That's what many mainline churches are doing...and they are not alone.
You wrote:
“Is it possible to have a civil discourse?”
Not with a Protestant who makes up things no one actually said, no, it’s not possible.
“Or are you just bent on being hateful?”
I expressed no hatred. Now, do you think it is hateful of someone to completely make things up out of thin air as someone - not me - is doing here?
“I didn’t say you provided a stat...maybe it is YOU who should improve his comprehension skills.”
You sadi you wanted me to prove a stat. I posted no stat and discussed no stat whatsoever in this thread. To now say you didn’t say I provided a stat makes no sense. If you know I didn’t provide one, then why on earth did you tell me to prove one? Do you see how illogical that is?
“You asserted a fact: “We are gaining people who were already devout Christians. Those who left the truth never knew they left it in the first place. Those Protestants discovering the truth are becoming Catholics.””
Last time I checked, that is NOT A STAT.
“Facts, especially when NUMBERS are concerned, can be proven by statistics. Only someone who is just wanting to argue would not see that is what I was saying.”
Uh, no. Only someone who is dishonest would accuse someone of saying something he never said. Make up your mind.
“You just want to argue...otherwise...you would have clearly understood that I was pointing out the fact you have declared a “FACT” and I was asking for the proof.”
False. You asked me to prove a stat when I never asserted one. If you meant a “fact” you should have written more clearly. I can’t help it if you apparently can’t express yourself clearly.
“I come to that conclusion. The only other conclusion is 1) You are trolling; 2) You are lacking in any higher intelligence. Since you seem to string words together in a coherent manner...and you seem passionate about your beliefs...I am left to draw the only conclusion I can: You just want to be argumentative.”
You posted to me. Everything I have said is true while you apparently made things up out of thin air that I never said. That sounds argumentative to me.
“Sure is a way to sell your point and your faith. Maybe you wish it was the “Good old days” when you could just burn us heretics at the stake for our beliefs (and yes...that is a red herring fallacy...).”
We’ll just add it to your long list of posted fallacies.
“Yes...I know you’ve posted no stats.”
Apparently you didn’t know that a couple of posts ago. Can you please make up your mind?
“You did, however, post that as a FACT. I was simply asking for a stat to support your argument.”
You’re not getting one. No one keeps such stats nor could they.
“Please. If that is not what you are saying...then what is the point of saying: “We are gaining people who were already devout Christians.”?”
The point of saying is that it is true. What I did not say is what you assert I said. Read the words I actually post rather than apparently making things up out of thin air.
“So instead of asking for the numbers...I should have simply said: “SO!””
And that result would have been the same: what I posted would still be true and you would still be wrong on that point. Think of how much time you could have saved everyone if you went with your first instinct.
“If your point was not to say that your church is growing at the expense of other denominations...then what was the point?”
Go back and read the posts. My point was clearly written in English. If English is a struggle for you, then I suggest you get help.
“Certainly EVERY denomination can point to a few people...here and there...that were devout Christians in their denomination and moved to another. Right? So...if you want to debate a point...why throw out a meaningless point?”
I didn’t want to debate a point nor did I say anything that was meaningless. I simply posted a truth and you have been getting it wrong ever since.
“Sorry for assuming you would just throw out random, meaningless thoughts.”
I don’t think you are. You have gotten the most simple of points wrong, repeatedly, throughout this thread. I don’t think you’re sorry.
“So here is one. My best friend is a former Catholic. He was a very devout Catholic. I went to mass with him several times...and he went to church with me several times. For years...he was Catholic and I was Baptist. He is now a devout Baptist. He saw the “truth” (as you put it) as something else.”
Nope. He did not see the truth. And I doubt he was devout. Think of his opinions. Was he really supportive of Catholic beliefs? I bet he wasn’t really all that supportive. Did he believe in contraception? I bet he did. That means something is wrong. It’s a common indicator.
“There...a meaningless example.”
Yours seem to be.
“An example that proves my point...that is backed up by facts.”
I bet not.
“Since for every devout “protestant” (mainline/evangelical) you can cite that leaves their denomination to join the Catholic church...I can cite a reverse example...and my examples fall within the norm of what is happening.”
No, actually I don’t think you can cite any examples. I don’t even think you know what the word devout means.
“I didn’t quote you...I summarized you.”
Incorrectly to say the least since your summary had little or nothing to do with what I wrote.
“My point again is “what’s the point?””
The point was clearly stated. If you can’t read English, I won’t help you.
“The FACT (read: stat) is only meaningful in terms of church growth and this conversation if you look at the entire demographic that is switching. You have to separate the two...otherwise...you cannot make the claims you did.”
The claim I made is absolutely true and therefore I can make it. The fact that you lack the knowledge to know it is true and have repeatedly posted incorrectly about it in no way lessens its truth.
“Correct? The number “protestants that are discovering the truth” can only be ascertained when you look at the whole group...and dissect who they are. THAT is my point.”
And your point has nothing to do with my point. Try as you might you are still not talking about what I posted about.
“Unless you look at the un-devout group...then you have NO IDEA how many “devout” people are becoming Catholic...and thus...you have no basis in fact by which to make that statement.”
False. You are, once again, talking about something different than what I posted about. This is not about stats.
“As far as arguing: You say I used a straw man. Wrong. I did not misrepresent your position.”
I cannot help but believe you are a dishonest man after that last statement.
“I may have misunderstood it (since it is illogical to point out those “facts” unless they are Germain to the article...which was the point of my original post)...but I did not intentionally MISREPRESENT your point.”
You misrepresented my point. Whether it was accidental or intentional (as you are now claiming it was not) doesn’t change the fact that you misrepresented what I said and did it in spades.
“That is the definition of a straw man.”
You did it.
“You, however, have showed a classic ad hominem method. You have consistently attacked me as a person. You attacked my faith...and my ability to read.”
About that ability to read, if you’re going to claim to have written a dissertation on the ante-Nicene church don’t you think it would look more believable if you could spell it? It’s “ante”, not “anti”.
“So basically...you are subtly calling me, a Doctor of Theology, an ignorant reprobate.”
Again, it’s “ante” not “anti”. And no matter what you believe I am calling or am not calling you, my point was clear - unmistakeable in fact - so where whatever moniker you feel comfortable with. Quite frankly I don’t believe anything you say no matter how you spell it.
As for the rest...I refuse to get down into the mud with you. Continue on in blissful ignorance and let's resume this conversation in 30-40 years when your church resembles those in Europe.
You wrote:
“Right now...the only thing that is keeping the Catholic Church in the black is immigration...and the fact they have a very large bank account.”
What bank account? And since immigrants don’t donate much to the church since they are poor (they are actually a drain on church resources) how do you figure they are keeping the Church in the black? Most of the immigrants are from the second and third world. Do you really think they have much money? I know the two people in my diocese who handle Hispanic ministry. When they teach catechism classes in Spanish the money for the program is covered by the bishop’s appeal fund and scholarship funds. The hispanic students often have little or no money to pay for the classes. When there was a conference for hispanic Catholics, the costs were covered by the Anglos who went to a conference next door and the Knights of Columbus. I don’t think you have any clue as to what you’re talking about.
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.