Free Republic

I didn’t see the program, but I think the view being referenced is that EWTN is a Catholic network. And Philip Mango’s works for St. Michael’s Institute, an agency that attempts to “integrate the genuine discoveries of psychology and psychiatry with the teachings of the Catholic Church.” So the discussion will, pretty much by definition, be limited to findings and conclusions supporting the Catholic perspective.

<> It took off primarily through the efforts of Constantine, who made it the official religion of the empire. However, how fast or how far a religion spreads isn't, in and of itself, proof of much. Christianity got a head start of over 600 years to Islam, yet Islam now has over 1.5 billion followers. That, in and of itself, doesn't speak to whether Islam is "true" or not.

First, EWTN is only going to have on guests that support their view. You can’t look to religious groups to show any evidence that their view could be wrong.

Second, one story of a child of a neighbor is evidence of nothing.

While the question isn’t fully understood, if you want to find out anything, you can’t look at just a case here or there. You have to look at independent, scientific studies involving large groups of individuals. Preferably conducted by multiple independent universities and multiple authors. And the fact is that most such studies show there are differences between the brains of gay and straights. For example, studies have shown differences in the suprachiasmatic nucleus, prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, right amygdala, and anterior commissure portions of the brain. And gays are more likely to be left handed. It’s more commonly seen in twins. This suggests at least some genetic influence is likely.

Catholic researchers are going to come to conclusions to support the official Catholic position. There’s a lot more confidence in research conducted by independent researchers. The most convincing evidence of condom effectiveness comes from studies of couples in which one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not. Studies of such couples have found low risks of HIV infection among consistent condom users. For example, in three recent studies infection rates were less than 1% per year among consistent condom users. A multicountry European study of 256 HIV-discordant couples followed for an average of 20 months found that not one infection occurred among such couples using condoms during every sex act. As for the CDC, they state on their website “Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”

Let’s put aside the condescension, shall we?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is not trying to prevent personal expression of religion. The goverment employees can do that on their own, in private as anyone would.

In fact, this would be more in keeping with the teachings of the religion these government officials claim to follow: “But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees from the hidden place will reward you.” Matthew 6:6. But God forbid a Christian follow the actual teachings of the Bible when they can put on a big, public show of their supposed religiosity to garner a few more votes.

The problem is that goverment-sponsored prayer breakfasts and goverment-sponsored websites depicting Christian prayers and the promotion of a specific religious view is hardly “worshiping on their own”, as you claim. In fact, worshipping in public is the OPPOSITE of worshipping on their own.

When off the job, goverment officials can pray to whomever or whatever they want. When on the job, it is the job of these goverment officials to represent ALL people in their district. And here they are taking taxpayer dollars from Jews, Hindus, atheists, Muslims, and other Christian denominations and use that money to preach their own personal views on a government website, on government time paid for with taxpayer dollars.

They may not be “setting laws” in which God one worships, but they are using goverment resources to promote one specific view to the exclusion of all others. According to the repeated findings of the federal courts, this is seen as an attempt at establishment and contrary to the US constitution.

The constitution of the state of Oregon is quite specific about using goverment funds to promote religion, as well. Section 5 of the state consititution states “No money to be appropriated for religion. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any religeous [sic], or theological institution, nor shall any money be appropriated for the payment of any religeous [sic] services in either house of the Legislative Assembly.”

So using tax dollars to promote a specific religion is contrary to Oregon’s state constitution, too.

You may not be able to see this view because this group is likely representing your own specific religious view. But if you were, say, a protestant and a government website used your tax dollars to promote the view that we should all follow the teachings of he Pope, or of Islam, or Buddha, I’m guessing you’d suddenly have a very different view about whether your tax dollars should be used for this purpose.

I’m not a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), but I do know this group quite well. They are the largest non-theistic group in the United States, their primary purpose is to “promote the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state.” This is found in their bylaws and is also made clear on their website. So they’re not trying to keep you from worshipping as you wish. That is protected by the US and state constitutions. They are simply trying to get the religion out of the goverment so the goverment doesn’t ram a specific religious view down our throats. This PROTECTS your individual right to worship as you see fit.

Vile people out to destroy America? Actually, they are attempting to preserve the very freedoms we hold dear. They are attempting to uphold the US constitution and, in this case, Oregon’s state constitution, each of which allows for the freedom of religion. When a government, any government, establishes a specific religious view, they infringe upon the rights of those who do not hold that religious view.

Government should not be telling citizens whether to worship, how to worship, or to what God one should worship. This is the foundation of the United States and it is written into both the US Constitution and the constitution of every single US state.

How twisted is it that people who argue for following the US and state Constitutions are characterized as “vile” and seeking to destroy the country, whereas those who flout the founding principles of the US Constitution consider themselves patriots?