Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Pro-choice Gaffes

Pro abortion supporters are very zealous when it comes to defending the "right to kill" an unborn child - so zealous that they do not think what they state through.   Notice how this pro-choice advocate erroneously claims that "any human cell is a potential human being."  Really?  Really?!?

So I guess we don't need sexual reproduction anymore.  All we have to do is clip our nails, lose some hair or scrap skin and voila we will have a new human being!

This is similar to @realtinconnor's gaffe.


Monday, October 29, 2012

Hurricane Sandy

As I write, the east coast is getting hit with one of the biggest storms ever to hit the region.  Hurricane Sandy also called "Frankenstorm" made its way up the Atlantic and is now veering west into the northern eastern states.

With winds over 80 MPH and heavy torrential rain, Sandy will bring about much destruction and most likely loss of life.  If things could not be worse, a full moon is out that will increase tides causing massive surges and flooding which these areas are not prepared to handle.

New York City, a city that has been dubbed "the city that never sleeps" is indeed laying low.  The MTA suspended all buses and trains.  Bridges are also shut down.  Those in areas prone to flooding were ordered to evacuate with stern warnings of arrest and charges of misdemeanor.  Cabs both yellow and livery were ordered off the streets to allow emergency vehicles to pass with ease.  Drivers were also told to stay home.

The storm was expected to hit the area Sunday night but is moving slower than expected adding to the expectancy of even more severe damage.

Trees are being snapped in half or uprooted,  millions  are without power.  Half of the city of Hoboken is without electricity and is flooded.  A power-plant in lower Manhattan exploded.

A nuclear power plant in upstate has taken in water and officials are worried it might explode as well causing literally an atomic bomb affect throughout New York.

A building on 8th avenue collapsed in Manhattan as well.  Con Ed cut power to areas below 40th street.  A crane near Carnegie hall broke apart and is dangling.  A landmark Ferris wheel in New Jersey came down as well.  Part of the board walk at Atlantic City floated away.

NYU hospital lost power and is evacuating over 200 patients including newborns down 25 flights of steps in darkness.  Bellevue hospital is also reporting that it is about to lose power.  Coney Island hospital has lost power and is preparing to evacuate patients.

Schools and Colleges throughout the area are closed and people are advised to stay home.  The storm has already cost many lives including that of 2 children who were killed when a tree fell on their home as they played.

Please keep the east coast in your prayers and assist the Red Cross and other charities as those affected work to get back to normal.  I will update this blog as more info become available.

Lord God, creator of all seen and unseen, nothing is impossible for you.  Nature obeys at the sound of your word.  People are suffering with Hurricane Sandy.  I ask for mercy during this time.  I understand that storms are a part of nature, but please spare us from the dangerous aspects of them.  

Our nation, and our states have gone far from your will by promoting a culture of death, perversion of marriage, promiscuity of youth, and a rejection of new life.  Our nation and our states even pass laws attempting to silence your Word and the defense of life, morality and marriage.  

Nevertheless, with your grace and love, man always returns to you.  Please have mercy on us all.  Allow nature's tempests to sustain life without destroying it.  

I pray for those who are suffering now.  For those without food, water and shelter.  For those without power especially the elderly and sick who need it to maintain life aiding machines.  I pray for those who are alone now, those who are scared and don't know what the future will bring.  I pray for those who are hurt and may have died.  Have mercy on us all.  




























Sunday, October 28, 2012

Judge warns of Civil War

A Texas Judge recently made a statement that should be of great concern to all Americans.  He claims that if President Obama is reelected, the nation could split creating another Civil War.

These are Judge Head's comments from Fox:

"He's going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the U.N., and what is going to happen when that happens?," Head asked.
"I'm thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we're not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.
"Now what's going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He's going to send in U.N. troops. I don't want 'em in Lubbock County. OK. So I'm going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say 'you're not coming in here'.
"And the sheriff, I've already asked him, I said 'you gonna back me' he said, 'yeah, I'll back you'. Well, I don't want a bunch of rookies back there. I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me."

I think the Judge is a bit paranoid.  While Obama has made many mistakes, I don't think he is that stupid to do the things the Judge claims he will do.  What I do see happening is the Constitution slowly being dissolved.


Bill Nye says Creationism is not Good

"Bill Nye the Science guy"- I remember watching his program as a kid.  Well, Bill Nye is making news after claiming that Creationism is not good for kids.

He says:
"I say to the grownups, 'If you want to deny evolution and live in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we've observed in the universe that's fine. But don't make your kids do it,'"
Nye adds that teaching kids Creationism will make the the United States of America fall behind in science.  To a certain degree he is right.  We cannot read the accounts of Creation in Genesis literally.  This will bring about many problems.  

The Catholic Church does not have an official position on creation only that God created us.  However, Evolution seems to be the side the Church takes.  The recent pontificates of Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have publicly voiced approval of the theory of Evolution.

The first mention of evolution was in the encyclical Humanis Generis. Pope Pius XII states:
"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."

Pope Pius XII basically says that evolution can be accepted as long as the teaching that souls are immediately created by God is held alongside it.  

Blessed John Paul II had this to say to the Pontifical Academy for the Sciencesin 1996:
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

Here the late Pontiff states that evolution and faith are not in disagreement.  He even goes as far as giving merit to the theory of evolution as being supported by evidence.

Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratizinger wrote:
"We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities." -In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

Evolution is an important theory to teach our children.  The story of Creation is also important to teach.  However, this story must be taught in a way that children can understand it in relation to what we know today via evolution.  Who cares if we came from slime, fish, apes or a rock.  The important thing is that God created us and we are here now.  

In 1987, the United States Supreme Court ruled the teaching of Creationism unconstitutional.  In light of this, I think Bill Nye is a bit paranoid and going down a slippery slope.  Our children will learn evolution regardless of their faith.

Evolution does not disqualify God as Creator.  If anything, it shows the genius of God and how He uses natural processes in order to bring about life.




Bullying of Gay Students Down

A survey of over 8,000 young LGBT people ages 13-20 shows a downward spiral of gay bullying.  According to the 2011 National School Climate Survey by the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, gay bullying of students is down by significant numbers.

As you may know, bullying is a big problem all over the world, particularly among LGBT youth.  Unfortunately, many of them opt to kill themselves after feeling there is no escape from the constant harassment.  This survey shows some hope.  No one should be bullied for whatever reason and no one should take their life because of it.




Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Pink Glove Dance

    Please help St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx win the $10,000 prize for its breast cancer charity.

  1. Go to the site http://pinkglovedance.com/home/  
  2. Where it says "Select an Organization" click it and select "Organization S." 
  3. When that page loads find St. Barnabas Hospital, Bronx NY click vote.  

Please help this great hospital win the funds so it can help women suffering with breast cancer.  

Please spread this blog posting around on Facebook, Myspace, other blogs, Twitter etc.  

Thanks and May God bless you for your time and support.  

Monday, October 22, 2012

Final Presidential Debate

The final Presidential Debate took place in Boca Raton, Florida at Lynn University.  The debate was moderated by well known news correspondent Bob Schieffer.  The main focus of the debate was on the issue of Foreign Policy.  Foreign policy is a big issue in today's world.

The United States seems to be involved in every nation's business nowadays.  This brings about both good and bad things.  Many see it as the United States helping the rest of the world while some see this as the United States attempting to control the planet.  Nevertheless, many of the roles the United States of America engages on a global scale are due to necessity, not because it wanted to get involved.

Since colonial times, the United States pretty much remained in isolationism.  It wasn't till the world wars that the United States began to take a stronger and leading role in the global stage.  As a result, presidents since that time have made strong efforts to keep America on the forefront.

President Obama and Republican candidate Romney were questioned regarding foreign policy.  These questions would help the public see who is the candidate that has a better grasp of foreign policy.  Moreover, some see this final debate as a way of seeing who is more presidential and can hold the honor of being the Commander in Chief.  This title is one that must be accompanied with great wisdom, strength, courage, determination and astuteness.

CNN polls show Obama as the winner on points; however, CNN as well as other networks say Romney showed he is presidential and can be the Commander in Chief based on his demeanor and responses.

Obama seemed more comfortable in this debate.  Perhaps this was because as sitting president he has more experience in Foreign Policy than Romney.  This position would of course give him an upper hand since he gets daily briefings from all agencies involved in foreign policy.  However, Romney did pretty good despite being an "outsider," so to speak.  He managed to tie Foreign policy with the United State's economy by stressing that a strong economy means the United States will be more respected in the world and therefore have more influence.  Romney also exposed Obama's weak leadership skills.

He shot back at Obama by implicitly mentioning the incident in which Obama's conversation with the President of Russia was recorded:

"I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin, and I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election he’ll get more backbone."

Obama throughout the debate was feisty and more aggressive.  He tried to make Romney look like a liar by quoting Romney and telling him that the American people can check for themselves.  Romney criticized Obama's plan to cut 1 trillion in defense funds citing that the military will be under supplied.  Obama responded by claiming that Romney was out of date in his statistics, he said:

"But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets — (laughter) — because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."

Some say this hurt Obama because he came across as condescending and presented a tone similar to that of Biden during the Vice Presidential debate.

Some military personnel even tweeted that the military still use bayonets.

Obama even insinuated that Romney seems to see the military and its spending as the game "Battleship."  The debate was pretty controlled and I think Bob Shieffer did a great job moderating it despite his "Obama Bin Laden gaffe."

This debate will most likely decide who will be the next President of the United States and in the next few days we will see both candidates take advantage of their funds in a manner that will help their campaigns.  Money will go where its needs - particularly states that can go either way.  








Sunday, October 21, 2012

All Arguments For God Refute God - Critique

"Rubicondior" in the blog All Arguments For God Refute God claims that arguments for God somehow refutes God.  Is this really the case?

Let's examine:

"Rubicondior" writes:
"You have to pity religious people who get their religion from a book."

I would say this is not entirely true.  Books are "sacred" whether they are religious or not.  Books are recorded thoughts, if you will.  They contain the knowledge of an individual or society within its pages.

As we know, "everything must be in writing."  From contracts, to rules, to laws, even to meeting minutes; they all must be in writing in order to be valid and relied upon when needed.   This is why many religions have texts that detail their beliefs.   This provides a source that can be accessed by those interested in the religion.  

"Rubicondior" continues:

"Well, that isn't much good because no holy book has ever managed to convince anything like a majority of people so it can't have been written by an omniscient god. Besides, it should be manifestly obvious to anyone that no book or mere piece of writing can be proof of it's own truth, not even when it claims it is, otherwise anyone could create truth merely by writing it down and saying it's true. For example, this blog is all true because I said so and I should know, I created it. Convinced?  So, no holy book alone can be proof of a god."

If this claim were true, then how did religion spread so fast, in particular, Christianity?  The Bible holds the record of the most popular, most published and well distributed book ever in human history.  This book or collection of books has brought faith to millions of people in all periods of time.  All continents on Earth have been exposed to this literature and the result was Christianity becoming the largest religion on Earth.  It is absurd and foolish to claim that no holy book has convinced a majority of people.  The Bible is even highly regarded by many pioneers of Science.   Explorer Christopher Columbus even used it to calculate his journeys which led to the European discovery of the "new world."

I disagree with "Rubicondior's" suggestion that "no book or mere piece can be proof of its own truth."  In school we use textbooks, in colleges we use journals and other sources in order to present truth in a particular field.  The Bible is no different.  It presents the Truth of God.  Man is free to accept or reject it.  The popularity of the Bible is testament to its importance.

"Rubicondior" can claim that a blog is true, but its readers can tell otherwise by researching particular claims.  I myself have shown that many things on the blog are not true.  This would be hard to do with the Bible because one must read the Bible properly in order to comprehend its real meaning.  Any literal interpretation will open the door to doubting it.  History has shown that the Bible has been enough proof of God for millions.  "Rubicondior" must not be well read in history.

"Rubicondior" writes:

"Well, that isn't much good either because any god which needs evidence outside its holy book obviously can't write a good enough book to convince people, so its power must be limited. Therefore the claims of omnipotence in the holy book mustbe false."

God never wrote any book as one would write a book with a pen or computer.  The Bible is the inspired word of God written by men.   The Bible did not fall from heaven, nor did God sit and pen the literature down on scrolls.  His Spirit moved writers to put into words His will for the salvation of man.  The "word" or Logos describes how God has influenced human history towards the goal of salvation.  The suggestion that because a book does not convince people, then it must be false is fallacious.  People are entitled to their opinions regarding anything.  One may like sports another may not.  Either of the aforementioned do not dictate whether a sport is likable or not.

"Rubicondior" concludes:

"So that just about does it for all the arguments followers of any god can muster and yet they both refute the god. The book manifestly isn't enough on its own, yet having to rely on anything else refutes the claims about the god in the book.
Who'd be religious eh? No wonder religious people have such an allergy to evidence and need to rely on 'faith', i.e. believing something they know isn't true.
[Note to religious people: Don't let me hold you back but if you try to argue that this logic doesn't hold, you will be arguing that all the other religions are true too. Sorry about that but that's what happens when all the different religions have to use each others arguments to try to prove they are the only true religion.]"

Again, people will hold any opinion regarding any particular thing.  It takes an objective mind to analyze any piece of evidence and come to a conclusion without a filter.  I know of no religious people who are "allergic" to evidence.  Many offer to debate atheists as I have done with "Rubicondior" who simply bowed out for obvious reasons.  See http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/10/poor-thingchoking-on-defeat.html 

Faith is not believing something that is not true.  This is a fallacious statement made by Mark Twain.  In order for this statement to hold, one must know for a fact that what is being believed is indeed false.  To date, no Atheist has proven that there is no God.

The Atheistic position is pretty much taken on faith.  There exists no Atheist who has incontrovertible proof that God does not exist.  Many have tried to discredit God's existence by the use sophistry in arguments; however, those arguments have all been challenged and dismantled by those who believe in God.      



"Why Religious People Are So Atheistic" my critique

Blogger "Rosa Rubicondior's" blog "Why Religious People Are So Atheistic" is another example of how ignorant so-called atheists are in regards to prayer.   "Rubicondior" implies in the blog that Christians are similar to atheists in everyday life.  Using examples such as: crossing a road and a sinking ship, "Rubicondoir" attempts to make a connection that Christians do not pray at every instant in which danger may arise.

"Rubicondior" writes:
"Take, for instance, crossing a road. You will never see a religious person standing at the roadside praying for the road to be clear, then just stepping out into the traffic secure in the knowledge that their god has stopped the traffic and made it safe for them to cross. Instead, they behave exactly like an Atheist would. They check first and wait for a safe gap, or wait for the lights to change."

This is a claim that "Rubicondior" does not provide evidence for.  When has "Rubicondior" observed every Christian on Earth crossing a road?  Moreover, it is not necessary to pray before crossing a road.  Prayer is not a direct line for personal security when it involves being in dangerous situations.  Some have the misunderstanding that prayer is some sort of wishing technique.

Prayer to them is like someone making a wish that will be granted by a genie.  This is not what prayer is.  Every Christian who follows a spiritual life will always pray for safety during the day.  One prayer is all that is needed.  We do not need to pray every second asking for God's protection.  This would be vain and repetitious prayer that would show doubt as in the case with Moses striking the rock twice. (Numbers 20:9-13)  Christians believe God will protect them to the point of even assigning a Guardian Angel to accompany them in their journey in life.  (Psalm 91:10-13)

Therefore, there is no need to pray for safety every time we cross a road especially if we already prayed prior to leaving our home.

"Rubicondior writes:"

"They even behave like Atheists and bet their life on the absence of evidence being evidence of absence just as Atheists do with cars and gods - which is why Pascal's Wager fails to work on people who aren't already afraid of a god."

This makes no sense at all.  What absence of evidence being evidence of absence is "Rubicondior" referring to?  Pascal's Wager has nothing to do with fear of God.  Pascal's Wager deals with the suggestion that there is nothing to lose with belief in God.  If there is no hell, heaven or God, then the believer lost nothing, whereas, if the non-believer lived life and died and there is indeed an God, heaven and hell, then that non-believer lost big time for doubting.

"Rubicondior" continues with more nonsense:

"What would we think of religious fundamentalist parents who taught their children just to pray then walk across the road, instead of doing what normal people like Atheists would do and teach their children about road safety?"

First, religious parents do teach their children to pray always.  However, as stated before there is no need to pray at every instant if one already prayed for safety prior to any traveling.  For example, when I leave any place I ask God to get me to my destination safely.   It would be silly to pray for safety every time we make a slight movement.

Second, "Rubicondior" implies that Atheists are the sole "normal" people in society, says who?  Psychologically speaking, those who are abnormal are a minority in society.  Atheists are a minority.  They suffer high rates of mental illness and suicide.

American Journal of Psychiatry:
"Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found."  

As you can see, the "normal" is questionable when regarding Atheists.

"Rubicondior" continues with more sophistry:

"Take the example of people on a sinking ship. Religious people might take a moment to say a prayer then get into a lifeboat. Atheists of course will already be getting into the lifeboat. It might be that a few honest religious people who haven't thought things through properly will refuse to get into a lifeboat but will just rely on prayers, thinking their god is going to miraculously lift them off the boat and put them on dry land. There is no record of this ever happening so they will drown unless they abandon their touching but futile faith in time and realise the Atheists are right after all."

Religious people will pray in this situation and will most likely help others.  Again, prayer is not a "force" like in Star Wars.  It is meant to direct our attention to God and remind us that we are always in need of Him. There have been cases of miraculous rescues after prayer was involved.  To my knowledge, not to the point of someone being "lifted onto dry land" - nevertheless, the event is described as miraculous due to the odds against the survivor and the circumstance.

Even more silly nonsense:

"The other day I was in Tescos buying the weekly shopping and a woman in a burkha paid for her shopping with money from her purse, just like I did. I expect the woman with the large and conspicuous cross on a chain round her neck did the same thing. It's a good bet that their money came from earnings, just like mine did. None of it came from prayer and Tescos won't accept prayers in lieu of money. These two religious women had had to behave like me, just as though they were Atheists too. In fact, just like any Atheist, they actually went shopping and didn't just pray to a god to have food appear in their cupboards. Obviously, like Atheists, they know that wouldn't work."

This is one of the most fallacious things I have read on a blog so far.  Being a religious person does not mean one must stop being a citizen of a particular society.  Even in Biblical times currency was used in the exchange of goods and services.  This is all tied to free will.  God created man to be a free creature.  What good is life if God does everything for man?  This would be like a parent spoiling his/her child and never emancipating the child.  God will provide in His way.  This can be done directly as in the case of the manna from heaven, or indirectly as in the case of setting up the stage for something to happen without interfering with free will.  Moreover, we must work to survive.  This is what God ordained after the fall of Adam and Eve.


"I suppose it's possible that a religious person, especially one like a Christian who believes they just need to say sorry to their god and all wrongs are forgiven, could have tried stealing the shopping and confessing in church on Sunday, so there isthat. Fortunately for civilised societies, not that many Christians seem to believe that part of their faith so it isn't a major, major problem."

No Christian would steal if they are indeed Christian.  We do have common ownership of the goods of the Earth and in need can take.  This would not be stealing because humanity has common ownership of the planet and its contents.

The Cathechism states:

The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . ..) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.191 para. 2408

 "Rubicondior writes"
"It could explain the disproportionately high numbers of religious fundamentalist and the disproportionately low number of Atheists in prisons, and the fact that atheistic societies like Sweden are the most law-abiding whilst the most religious tend to be the most criminal. To be fair to most religious people though, this probably isn't a significant advantage to them."
More hyperbolic rhetoric.  Religious people outnumber Atheists in many instances.  Therefore, the ratio of prisoners will of course be higher among the majority as opposed to the minority group in a society.  This is an appeal to popularity.  

"Rubicondior" against shows us the ignorance atheists have regarding prayer:

"You're probably thinking now about that old chestnut that religious people always spout when the prayers they believe will work don't - "God helps those who help themselves" (which is a really useful slogan if you have an indifferent or an absent god). But, if you think about it, that's just like saying God helps those who behave like Atheists. Strange then that all preachers and holy books tell their followers to behave exactly not like Atheists and no religious person would ever admit to doing so, even though we can see them doing so nearly all of the time in order to lead a normal, independent life, free from constant adult supervision."

The saying "God helps those who help themselves" is not of Christian origin.  Some believe this to be of ancient Greece.  Here "Rubicondior" makes a bare assertion based on ignorance of Scripture and Christian theology.

"Rubicondior" simply does not get what prayer is.

This is what the Catechism says on it:

For me, prayer is a surge of the heart; it is a simple look turned toward heaven, it is a cry of recognition and of love, embracing both trial and joy.1 2558

Saturday, October 20, 2012

New American Saints

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has canonized 2 Americans:  Kateri Tekawitha and Mother Marianne Cope.

Kateri Tekawitha was a Native American who converted to Catholicism.  She was known as the "Lily of the Mohawks."  After her conversion, she faced many hardships including harsh treatment from her tribe.

At a young age she contracted small pox which left her extremely scarred and nearly blind.  She spent her life in prayer, penance and caring for the sick.

Nothing would stop her from doing these things, not even the harsh northern winters.  She died at age 24.  Her feast day is on July 14.  Tekawitha is now the first Native American saint in the Catholic Church.

Mother Marianne Cope was a pioneer in modern healthcare in the United States of America.  Mother Cope dedicated her life with caring for lepers in Molokai.  She founded many general hospitals and made cleanness and good healthcare a top priority.

Hospitals during this time were places where people went to die instead of to heal.  They were filthy and run by people who did not have the experience or knowledge to care for patients.  Prior to desegregation, Mother Cope welcomed patients of all races, faiths and genders.

These two woman are great examples for us all.  Kateri never renounced her faith despite rejection from her own tribe.  She was very devoted to the Holy Eucharist and presented that devotion by caring for others.  Mother Cope helped form the hospital system we see today.  Despite the contagious nature of leprosy, she ministered to lepers not caring if she herself might have gotten sick.

Let us imitate these great women saints.  May Saints Kateri Tekawitha and Marianne Cope pray for us all and for all the Native Americans and all people who are suffering from any sickness.


Lord God, You called the virgin Saint Kateri Tekakwitha, to shine among the American Indian people as an example of innocence of life. Through her intercession, may all peoples of every tribe, tongue and nation, having been gathered into Your Church, proclaim your greatness in one song of praise. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son, Who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen

Lord Jesus, you who gave us your commandment of love of God and neighbor, and identified yourself in a special way with the most needy of your people, hear our prayer. Faithful to your teaching, St. Marianne Cope loved and served her neighbor, especially the most desolate outcast, giving herself generously and heroically for those afflicted by leprosy. She alleviated their physical and spiritual sufferings, thus helping them to accept their afflictions with patience. Her care and concern for others manifested the great love you have for us. Through her merits and intercession, grant us the favor which we confidently ask of you so that the people of God, following the inspiration of her life and apostolate, may practice charity towards all according to your word and example. Amen.

Through the intercession of St. Marianne Cope, I ask for the grace of (mention your request).

Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be




Friday, October 19, 2012

Bronx Bummers....

The New York Yankees have just been swept by the Detroit Tigers.  It is a good thing I did not bet. :)   I do not understand at all how the Yankees lost steam at this point.  They faced so many things during the regular season to then end on this bad not.

Arod, Cano, Swisher, Grandersonm Chavez - all great hitters were just dead at the plate.  It just does not make any sense.  To add to the hardship, Yankee's captain Derek Jeter broke his ankle and will be out for four months!

I was hoping to see the Yankees win their 28th championship... oh well.. can't win them all right?  The Yankees need to make big changes.  The salaries do not match with their performance during this post season.  Performance should be a key factor in deciding salaries.  It is unfair for a player to make 20 or more million dollars a year and not be able to hit a ball a little leaguer can hit.

Moreover, the umpires have been making bad calls against the Yankees which I found troubling.  At first I was against using replay, but after witnessing the disaster from the limited cognitive abilities of human umpires, I now think we do need replays.

Anyhow, better luck next year.  

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Al Smith Dinner

Today both presidential candidates participated in the Archdiocese's Al Smith dinner which was hosted by New York's Archbishop, His Eminence Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan.

The dinner is an event that political candidates love to participate in for selfish reasons.  The photo opportunities and how they can steer votes is a major reason for accepting an invitation.

Both candidate spoke and exchanged one liners which were hilarious.  I personally enjoyed Romney's joke about Biden laughing at anything and "In the spirit of Sesame Street, the president’s remarks tonight are brought to you by the letter O and the number $16 trillion.”  Obama also made a good one when he said, "Please take your seats, or else Clint Eastwood will yell at them."

A recent gallop poll showed Romney leading Obama.  Apparently, the second debate helped Romney.  I think Romney's witt has showed a side of him many Americans are not used to seeing due to the bias in the media which he too joked about.  



Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Presidential Debate II

Tonight the second presidential debate took place at Hofstra university.  The format was a town hall one in which audience participants ask questions of the candidates.  The candidates then respond to the audience member and to one another.

In this debate, President Obama did much better.  Both candidates were feisty and battling each other.  Obama was more assertive this time.

He countered Romney's statements better than in the last debate.  Romney of course countered.  Controversy surrounded the debate due to the fact that Candy Crowley was to be the moderator.  Crowley stated that she would actively participate in the debate.  Both campaigns protested this.

Crowley's bias was not masked at all.  It was obvious that she is an Obama supporter.  She constantly interrupted Romney and even helped out Obama by contradicting Romney's claim that Obama did not state at the Rose garden conference that the attack in Libya was a terrorist attack.  She was obviously wrong.  Obama DID NOT state that the attack was a terrorist attack.

ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
OBAMA: That's what I said.
ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.
It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?
OBAMA: Please proceed governor.
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
CROWLEY: It did.
ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest -- am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the -- your secretary --
OBAMA: Candy?

Obama seemed uncomfortable addressing Romney's point.  Crowley's interjection gave more attention to Obama's apprehension.  Obama even said, "lets move on."  This shows that Obama had no rebuttal to Romney's statement.

The media is calling Obama the winner; however, others say it was Romney who won again by responding to Obama's statements and cornering him .








aMaleFeminist response

A tweeter @aMaleFeminist left mentions for me attempting to "refute" my Prochoice debunk post.

He attempts to do so by using Feminist rhetorical sophistry.  His comments are in blue and my response is in black:


Today I came across a post via Twitter on the religious site Sacerdotvs that made me chuckle like Joe Biden sitting across from an unqualified VP candidate at a debate.  The post itself is eloquently titled “Prochoice Debunked” as if the writer had found the magic pill that would finally silence anyone who believes that a woman has a right to have an abortion.  While the person does make a complete and total a** out of themselves within the first paragraph of their explanation, it’s important that we, as people advocating for women’s right to an abortion, respond to it in a calm, peaceful, and intelligent way…
Nah, who am I kidding.  This is me we’re talking about.
Those first two are out the window.

Sacerdotus replies:

First, you should ask for permission before using my writings as my blog states.   Second, the blog post cannot be debunked because it deals with science that is universally accepted.

From reading your replies, you merely recirculated Prochoice rhetoric.    

Here’s my systematic dismantling of Sacerdotvs’s “Prochoice Debunked.”
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2011/10/prochoice-debunked.htmlPerhaps I should title it “Prochoice Debunked Debunked.” Nah, sounds stupid. I like my title. Anyway, I’ll take it section by section, giving you highlights of Sacerdotvs’s post, and my responses.

Did I not tell you they make an a** out of themselves right in the very first paragraph? Firstly, starting an argument with a debate of semantics is never a strong way to start an argument. Personally, I already started losing interest, but forced myself to keep reading.

Point of the matter is, the author uses the definition of right as an adjective, not a noun, to support their objective. In other words, they used the definition that describes when something is “correct.” Somebody doesn’t know how to scroll down on Merriam Webster’s online Dictionary. The real definition, in pertinence to this particular argument, is:

“The power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.” Enough said. Now, let’s fight semantics with semantics, and allow me to pontificate my opinion as is MYright under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Firstly, this document that the author believes they support their argument so eloquently with was ratified on December 10, 1948. Funny how these folk who base arguments like this keep having to refer to documents that are decades old (or, in some cases, milennia.)

Secondly, the author leaves out the careers of those who authored the Declaration following the Declaration, which is the most poignant way for us to glean exactly what was going through their minds when they wrote the phrase, which so eloquently begins the Declaration:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

John Peters Humphrey, a Canadian author of the Declaration, spent his next 20 years at the U.N. Campaigning for freedom of the press, status of women, and against racial discrimination. Charles Malik, another author, is credited with the quote “The fastest way to change society is to mobilize the women of the world.” Yet another author was the United States’ own Eleanor Roosevelt.

With the years following this Declaration has become increased worldly consciousness from which has arisen the pro-choice stance. For all persons to be truly equal, there has to be equal security of person for every human being, not just men and fetuses.

Oh wait, that whole security of person thing is in the U.N. Declaration, too. Hmmm…

Sacerdotus replies:

Whether noun or adjective, the definition is pretty much synonymous.  Notice that both definitions mention the word "just" and imply that this is a possessive trait.

"The power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.” “being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct>”

This is where you failed to understand my point.  If a right is "just" and entitled as your definition provided, then how can the killing of human offspring articulate this?   In other words: is it just to kill human offspring?  

I then link this to the UN's idea of Human rights and how reproductive rights are not mentioned nor is the killing of human offspring.  Despite the document being decades old, it is still a valid document accepted by the UN and its members.  Until a new one is written, this one is the one that has weight to it.  

I do not understand your foolish attempt to dismiss a valid document that is used today in 2012.  The United State's Constitution is over 200 years old and is still valid.  The careers of those who authored the document are irrelevant.  Again, the document still stands today and is used to define what a Universal Human Right is.    

Your inferences are not part of the document so it is unfair for you to imply that Prochoice rhetoric has arisen from it.  Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the term legalese.  What the words explicitly state in a legal document is what goes, not what is inferred by its readers.

Here’s a continuation of my blog post in which I systematically dismantle Sacerdotvs’s blog post in which they believe they “debunk” the pro-choice stance.
This is the reason we can’t let all the religious folk in the abortion sandbox play with the science toys. They end up spewing out a whole bunch of factual bull*** that they strongly believe supports their cause but in fact just leaves pro-choice folk giggling because they completely and utterly missed the point of their argument and just made themselves look like an a** to everyone but those who share the same ridiculous belief system they do. Allow me to explain:
The phrase “this is my body” is said by feminists with no scientific intent. It’s purely a matter of human rights. The same human rights which they believe they so eloquently dispelled in section one. The phrase is said because a woman believes that, as a human being, that she is allowed the security of not having an authoritative figure, especially one who will NEVER go through what she is going through as far as a pregnancy, to make a decision about what takes place inside the confines of her own body.
What if you had cancer, and the government could decide that it would be illegal for the doctors to remove a tumor that was implanted against your brain? Hell, it’s a bunch of living cells, right? The most fundamental block of human life, right? What about a tapeworm living inside your stomach/intestines? What if the government told you that you couldn’t remove that because, well, it’s a thing that’s ENTIRELY alive living inside your body, and that would be murdering something for no reason? Isn’t that wrong? Your viewpoints would allow the government to invade the human body to a point where they can decide who lives and who dies. They’d be playing god.
Personally, I’d rather give one single individual the power to play god over one single life, than give the United States power to play god over the life of every. single. United. States. citizen.

Sacerdotus replies:

To date you have not debunked anything.  You have not even touched the scientific facts that support the Pro Life cause.   Prochoice rhetoric as you have demonstrated, relies on sophistry.  Those ideas only work with the ignorant.  

The term "this is my body" is irrational.  Biologically speaking, during pregnancy there are TWO bodies.  Moreover, as I have shown, the destruction of human offspring is not listed as a 'human right.'  Whether you like it or not, governmental bodies have control of all of us.  
  • Do you grow your own food?  
  • Do you teach yourself? 
  • Can you do whatever you want with your body?   
The answer to these is no.  You rely on the government and private businesses to take care of most of your needs.  This indirectly controls your body because the processing of food can alter your body in ways you may not have intended.  Hence, the obesity epidemic in the United States of America.  

If you urinate on the street, or use your body to attack another person, you will be arrested.  What then of "bodily autonomy?"   It seems to not apply here does it?  

Bodily autonomy has its limits in society.  Every government in order for it to be valid must protect human life.  Women, being the ones who carry human offspring are not above the government in this regard.  Just because they are biologically determined to carry human offspring does not give them the right to kill them at will.  

If you saw a pregnant lady punching her stomach, would you stop her or let her do it?   Most likely, your conscience will compel you to run and stop her.  Furthermore, if your mother wanted to jump off a roof, would you stop her?  She has bodily autonomy correct?  Who are you to put your love and feelings for her above her right to take her body and throw it over a roof?  

Your analogy of cancer is the typical attempt to correlate a tumor with an unborn child.  An unborn child is not a tumor.  Your analogy fails.  The removal of a tumor, or tapeworm is not related to pregnancy which is a biologically determined aspect of being a female.  Women have sex organs specifically designed to ovulate and conceive offspring.  You cannot compare this natural occurrence to that of an illness or invasion from a foreign organism.   

Do you not see how ridiculous your argument is?   

You are implying that pregnancy is the same as cancer or an invasion from another foreign organism!   Cancer is a mutation that only serves to destroy human life.  Pregnancy is a natural course of evolution that allows a species to continue.   It is NOT a disease.  

The removal of a tape worm is not the same as a child living within the womb.  Remember, this child comes from an ovulated egg of the mother that was fertilized.  It has her genes and that of the father.  This conception is a new human being with its own DNA - geno/phenotype.  This is the normal function of having ovaries, a cervix, Fallopian tubes, and wider pelvis.  Having a tapeworm is not a function of the human being so therefore it is not murder.  See the rest of my blog:

3) Fetus is an aggressor

This is one of the strangest arguments to date. Some claim the fetus somehow attacks the woman. However, biology teaches otherwise. A woman's body is designed to reproduce. She has ovaries, fallopian tubes, a uterus, and vagina. The ovaries regulate hormones and also produce eggs with the genes of the women. These eggs are released at different intervals and wait for fertilization in the Fallopian tube. - (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/gettingpregnant/understandingovulation.html) (http://www.thefertilityrealm.com/what-is-ovulation.html)

Once fertilized, the egg travels to the uterus as a zygote. It implants and starts to gestate. -(http://www.webmd.com/baby/slideshow-conception)
This fertilization, or conception is the beginning of a new human person - “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.” - (Moore K. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology.)

Moreover, a female's pelvis is different than that of a male. It is wider and symmetrically set up to hold and deliver a baby. - (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9034 ) The vagina/cervix itself dilates during birth in order to allow a baby's head/body to pass through. - (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/signsoflabor.html) That being said, a woman's body is biologically and naturally designed to house and help develop a zygote, embryo, and fetus. To say the fetus is an aggressor is not science. It is hateful feminist rhetoric based on fallacies.

4) Fetus is a parasite.

This is another strange argument presented by some prochoice advocates. They claim at fetus is a parasite or parasitic because it is "living off" the mother. Once again, this attack on human life is based on fallacious feminist rhetoric. All life comes from a beginning point. No one or thing appears "fully developed."

A cat does not fall out of the sky fully developed, neither does a dog, fish or human being. All organisms; plant or animal begin at one point. From that point they go through a series of developmental stages that do not end at birth. -(http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Humanities/Images-Multimedia/green/plant-life.jpg) (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309051762/xhtml/images/img00022.jpg) (http://www.milleprime.com.sg/htm/elearning/lifecycleanimals/human.gif) ()http://www.embryo.chronolab.com/fertilization.htm)
This is how it has been for however long life has existed on this planet called Earth.

Now, is a fetus a parasite or parasitic? The answer is no. A parasite has to be of another species. It invades a different species and survives off of it. "A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host)"-(Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology.) The relationship between a zygote, embryo, fetus and the mother is solely dependent, not parasitic if we are to believe the biological classification of a parasite. Now, there are changes in the woman that are caused by the pregnancy; however they are related to hormonal changes, not disease as would be the case in a parasite invading a host.

A fetus does not cannibalize his or her own mother. This relationship is called "motherhood." If a fetus were a parasite, it would not have come from within the woman's own genetic material. The woman's immune system would attack it as if it were a foreign body. The antibodies of the woman actually help with the growth and development of the fetus and placenta. -(http://www.rialab.com/book_ch5.php) The idea that a fetus is a parasite or parasitic is flawed and not compatible with science. The fetus lacks the qualities for being classified as a parasite. Claiming that a fetus is a parasite because he/she is dependent on the mother is absurd and a misuse of definitions. It is a misrepresentation of the natural function of reproduction and pregnancy. If a fetus were a parasite, then the mother is one as well; however, that is not the case, because for a parasite to be classified as such, it would have to be of a different species invading another species. A parasite is a parasite, and a human fetus is a human fetus. Prochoice cannot twist taxonomy to suit feminist rhetoric. They are both incompatible to one another.


A fetus is a "blob of cells" "tissue."

Prochoice advocates disregard the destruction of a fetus by claiming it is merely "cells" or a "tissue." It is a "cancer," or a "tumor' as I have seen some post on twitter. According to the medical dictionary and fetus is: "The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo" - (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424 )

Now notice that the definition says, "when the major structures have formed." What are these major structures? They are organ systems. Biology teaches that life takes different forms. The most basic form is a "cell." A cell is a structural biological unit of an organism - (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Cell) Some definitions add the word basic to this. - (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2661) In layman's terms, a cell is a building block of life. They contain a nucleus with DNA, cytoplasm, endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, etc.

When these cells are together, they form cellular tissue. - (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/biobookanimalts.html) This cell tissue can come in many different forms; i.e, connective, smooth, epithelial and so on. When these tissues come together they form what is called an organ.

An organ is defined as "A group of tissues that perform a specific function or group of functions." - (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organ) This definition seems to match the prochoice's one of a fetus. However, notice the error in classification. A fetus is "unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week -when major structures have formed.." so a fetus cannot be an organ or a "group of tissues that perform a specific function.." as prochoice suggests. A fetus is an organism, or "am individual living thing that can grow, respond to stimuli and so on." - (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism) Once again prochoice rejects biology in favor of feminist rhetoric which contradicts truth.

The government has a duty to protect all human life.  Allowing pregnancy is not dictating who lives or who dies.  On the contrary, abortion is what is really an act of playing God.  Abortion decides who lives and who dies.  It is heavily promoted in poor neighborhoods with minorities.    

It is no wonder why Planned Parenthood founder and abortion/contraception supporter Margaret Sanger fought hard to eliminated blacks, latinos and the disabled who she saw as unfit to exist because of "imperfection."  

You write "I’d rather give one single individual the power to play god over one single life" I am glad you call the unborn "life" and acknowledge that the unborn are indeed alive.  Since they are alive, then what does terminating them do?  You are showing the cognitive dissonance that is found in so called "prochoice" supporters.  

"How Christians lie to us - Fact and Fiction"

Blogger "Rosa Rubicondior" has a blog posting which basically copies and pastes the late Christopher Hitchens' poorly cited book,  "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice."

In this book, Hitchen's attempts to defame Blessed Mother Teresa by using appeal to authority and false cause.   Atheists who are impressionable like Rubicondior obviously fall for this tactic.  "Hey if it comes from Hitchens' it must be true right?"  Well... not quite.  

Rubicondior writes:

"In this one, I'll use the testimonies of those who witnessed Mother Theresa and her 'Missionaries of Charity' at work to contrast the reality with the myth of tender, loving care for the needs of the sick and dying which the Catholic Church and much of the uncritical media have assiduously manufactured."

There is no "myth" in regards to Mother Teresa, nor was her global recognition as the model of altruism in the 20th century any manufactured occurrence instigated by the Catholic Church and/or the media.  In reality, the fruits of Mother Teresa's work is self evident.   Unfortunately, like with any kind of good work, there will always be a minority who will find ways to criticize.   If you open an orphanage some might accuse you of being a pedophile.  If you open a soup kitchen, some might accuse you of stealing food paid for by tax dollars that is meant for the poor.  I can go on and go, but I'm sure you get the point.   These so-called "testimonies" are no different.  

Notice, that the testimonies provided do not name particular sisters in the Missionaries of Charity.  They are general accounts that no one can really verify.   We are just left to accept them as true.   One is of a doctor, others are from volunteers, and one is from a disgruntled "ex sister" Susan Shields.  What proof do these individuals offer other than their account?  Nothing at all.  

Mother Teresa is a well respected person.   A decade after her death she is still relevant and seen as the poster child of charity.  Many nations welcomed her to their lands with great joy.  India even gave her a state funeral which is something reserved for the highest dignitaries.  She is held in high regard there, probably second only to Gandhi   If the negative claims that these people make regarding her were true, why would India give Mother Teresa this honor?

It is obvious that these testimonies are bogus and must not be taken serious since they are not supplemented with evidence.  

Susan Shields is obviously an individual who could not handle the religious life and now is speaking ill of it.  This happens far too often.  Religious nuns and brothers, even priests who leave sometimes leave with a chip on their shoulders.   They could not handle the discipline and deflect their failure against the order or seminary they defaulted from.

In regards to Charles H. Keating, Jr, Mother Teresa wrote to the judge in a sincere way. She was a humble lady who saw things through the eyes of the Gospel. This is something Hitchens and others do not understand.  Moreover, understanding the American judicial system, she had Keating as "innocent until proven guilty" in her mind. Keating gave her money which she used for the poor. I know of no charity that asks of the origin of money.   Attorney Paul W. Turley's request that she return the money is foolish and unrealistic.

  1. First, she did not know what Keating was doing or how he got the money.  
  2. Second, Keating was most likely seen as innocent until proven guilty so she could not just hand over money without knowing what Keating's status was in the judicial system, 
  3. Third, I know of no law that states that charities have to return funds given to them that may have been obtained in a legal manner.  

In every religion, one will find people of all walks of life.  In Catholicism, Drug Dealers, Mafiosi, Gangsters, crooked Bankers and Politicians attend Mass.  The clergy are not aware of this until a scandal involving the aforementioned is publicized in the media.  To a priest at Mass, the people are just people.  We do not know where they come from or who they really are.  No one can observe covert behavior.  That being said, donations given to Churches or any charity may or may not be legitimate.  This is not the fault of the Church or charity.   If a boss of a cosche in Palermo gives $50,000 eros to a local parish and the priest is not aware of this individual as belonging to this underworld, then what can be done?  Is the priest greedy for money or an accomplice to the sins of the benefactor?  No, of course not.    

Running a religious order that cares for the poor is not inexpensive.  Turley is foolish to think that Mother Teresa had the funds donated by Keating handy in a check ready to be reinbursed.  Most likely, that money was spent the day it was deposited.  In order to return it, she would have had to take money from another source.  This would not be fair to those who gave that money for the work of the poor.  Instead of asking her to return the money, it would have made more sense to get Keating to pay it back by selling his things as in the case of Benard Madoff whose mansions and other things were repossessed and sold.  The money was then returned to his victims.    
Rubicondior, Hitchens' and company imply that Mother Teresa was this money hungry individual.  That is far from the truth.  The aforementioned are delusional for even suggesting such a calumny.  Let's say Mother Teresa was guilty of being a money hoarder, where are her mansions, her yachts, her expensive cars and motorcycles?   The lady lived in strict poverty having only 2 habits, a bible, rosary and bucket to wash her habits.  Her spirituality was very rigid - similar to that of St. Francis of Assisi.  To my knowledge, the order has not broken any laws.  They do their ministry under local laws and within the umbrella of the Catholic Church.

Hitchens' even apologized for speaking ill of Mother Teresa.  This is something Rubicondior left out.  Atheist Brendan O'Neill even criticized Hitchens and the so-called "New Atheists" here: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7638/.

It seems that Hitchens and Rubicondior are envious that this tiny woman was able to do so much.  She helped so many while Hitchens and Rubicondior - both self-proclaimed humanists - only provide vitriolic rhetoric that serves no purpose for humanity.

How did Hitchens help humanity?  What is Rubicondior doing to help the poor?  Rubicondior constantly spams twitter with mendicant pleas to buy from her blog with the claim that funds will go to charities.  Where is the proof that these monies do go to the charities intended?  Has any atheist who reads the blog bothered to ask for documentation?  

Neither Hitchens or Rubicondior can wear Mother Teresa's sandals, so to speak.  She is a saint and inspired many to do good work, even British royals such as the late Diana.
Mother Teresa's poem says it best:  

People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind,
people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.

If you are successful,
you will win some false friends and some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and frank,
people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank anyway.

What you spend years building,
someone could destroy overnight.
Build anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness,
they may be jealous;
Be happy anyway.

The good you do today,
people will often forget tomorrow;
Do good anyway.

Give the world the best you have,
and it may never be enough;
Give the best you’ve got anyway.

You see, in the final analysis
it is between you and God;
it was never between you and them anyway.







Catholic Church (778) God (408) Jesus (347) Atheism (343) Bible (317) Jesus Christ (287) Pope Francis (233) Atheist (228) Liturgy of the Word (194) Science (156) LGBT (146) Christianity (139) Pope Benedict XVI (81) Gay (80) Rosa Rubicondior (79) Abortion (75) Prayer (66) President Obama (57) Liturgy (55) Physics (53) Philosophy (52) Christian (50) Vatican (50) Blessed Virgin Mary (46) Christmas (43) New York City (42) Psychology (42) Holy Eucharist (38) Politics (34) Women (34) Biology (32) Supreme Court (30) Baseball (29) NYPD (27) Religious Freedom (27) Traditionalists (24) priests (24) Health (23) Space (23) Pope John Paul II (22) Racism (22) Evil (20) Theology (20) Apologetics (19) First Amendment (19) Pro Abortion (19) Protestant (19) Astrophysics (18) Christ (18) Death (18) Child Abuse (17) Evangelization (17) Illegal Immigrants (17) Pro Choice (17) Donald Trump (16) Police (16) Priesthood (16) Pedophilia (15) Marriage (14) Vatican II (14) Divine Mercy (12) Blog (11) Eucharist (11) Gospel (11) Autism (10) Jewish (10) Morality (10) Muslims (10) Poverty (10) September 11 (10) Easter Sunday (9) Gender Theory (9) Holy Trinity (9) academia (9) CUNY (8) Cognitive Psychology (8) Human Rights (8) Pentecostals (8) Personhood (8) Sacraments (8) Big Bang Theory (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Spiritual Life (7) Barack Obama (6) Hell (6) Hispanics (6) Humanism (6) NY Yankees (6) Babies (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (5) Massimo Pigliucci (5) Podcast (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Pope Paul VI (4) Catholic Bloggers (3) Death penalty (3) Evangelicals (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Eastern Orthodox (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)