Showing posts with label New York State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York State. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 3, 2025

The Cell Phone Ban in New York State Schools

 

The Cell Phone Ban in New York State Schools: A Deep Dive into Its History, Implications, and Alternatives

In recent years, the debate over cell phone use in schools has intensified, with New York State taking a bold step by implementing a statewide ban on smartphones in K-12 schools. This "bell-to-bell" restriction, set to take effect in the 2025-26 school year, has sparked widespread discussion among educators, parents, students, and policymakers. 

The policy aims to create distraction-free learning environments, address mental health concerns tied to social media, and improve academic outcomes. However, it also raises questions about safety, equity, and the best way to prepare students for responsible technology use in the modern world. 

This blog post explores the history of cell phone bans in New York, how students use phones in schools, the dangers of social media on mental health, parental concerns about communication and safety, and why a blanket ban may not be the most effective approach. Instead, I argue that teaching students to manage their phone use responsibly—mirroring workplace expectations—better equips them for life beyond the classroom.


 The History of Cell Phone Bans in New York State

The journey toward New York’s current cell phone ban began decades ago, shaped by evolving technology, societal concerns, and educational priorities. In the early 2000s, as cell phones became more prevalent, many schools, including those in New York City, implemented strict bans. By 2010, over 90% of U.S. schools prohibited cell phone use during school hours, according to federal data. New York City, under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, enforced a particularly stringent policy, requiring students to leave phones at home or store them off-campus, often at a cost. This approach disproportionately affected low-income students, who faced stricter enforcement compared to their peers at wealthier schools, raising equity concerns. In 2015, Mayor Bill de Blasio lifted the city’s ban, citing these disparities and the need for parents to stay in touch with their children.

The pendulum swung back in recent years as concerns about social media’s impact on youth mental health and academic performance grew. In 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul embarked on a statewide listening tour, engaging with teachers, parents, and students to gather insights on smartphone use in schools. Her report, More Learning, Less Scrolling: Creating Distraction-Free Schools, highlighted smartphones as significant distractions that inhibit learning and creativity while exacerbating mental health issues. Following this, Hochul announced a landmark policy in April 2025, making New York the largest state to implement a "bell-to-bell" smartphone ban in all public schools, charter schools, and Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES). The policy, part of the FY 2026 State Budget, allocates $13.5 million for storage solutions like magnetic pouches and requires schools to develop their own implementation plans while ensuring parents have a way to contact students during emergencies.

This resurgence aligns with a national trend. States like Florida, Louisiana, and Virginia have also adopted cell phone restrictions, driven by bipartisan support and advisories from the U.S. Surgeon General and UNESCO, which recommend limiting phone use in schools to address youth mental health and improve learning environments. However, New York’s previous experience with bans suggests that implementation challenges, equity concerns, and resistance from parents and students must be carefully navigated.


 How Children Use Cell Phones in Schools

Cell phones are ubiquitous among students, with a 2022 Pew Research Center study finding that 95% of teens have access to a smartphone, and 46% report being online almost constantly. In schools, this translates to widespread use during class, lunch, and breaks. A 2023 Common Sense Media study revealed that 97% of 11- to 17-year-olds with phones use them during the school day, with a median usage time of 43 minutes. Students receive an average of 237 notifications daily, a quarter of which arrive during school hours, pulling their attention away from lessons.

In classrooms, students often use phones for non-educational purposes, such as texting, scrolling social media, or watching videos. Teachers report that these activities disrupt instruction, with 72% of high school educators citing cell phones as a major distraction, according to a 2024 Pew Research study. For example, students may film TikTok videos in hallways or browse Instagram during lessons, behaviors that not only hinder their own focus but also disrupt peers and teachers. Some schools have observed students using phones to cheat or engage in cyberbullying, further complicating the classroom environment. However, phones are not solely used for distraction. Students also rely on them for educational tasks like research, translation, or managing schedules, and for personal needs, such as coordinating afterschool plans or checking in with parents.


 The Dangers of Social Media and Mental Health

The link between social media and youth mental health has been a driving force behind cell phone bans. Research consistently shows that excessive smartphone use, particularly on social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat, is associated with negative mental health outcomes. A 2024 report from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health found that phone bans in middle schools reduced mental health challenges among girls and decreased bullying by over 40%. Longitudinal studies indicate that teens spending more than three hours daily on social media are twice as likely to experience anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem due to constant peer comparisons and exposure to curated online lives.

Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in his book The Anxious Generation, argues that smartphones and social media are fueling a teenage mental health crisis. He cites studies showing that the constant presence of smartphones reduces cognitive capacity, especially for those addicted to their devices, and notifications disrupt focus and attention. The U.S. Surgeon General’s 2024 advisory echoed these concerns, calling for warning labels on social media platforms due to their role in exacerbating youth mental health issues. In schools, social media use contributes to cyberbullying, with 59% of teens reporting some form of online harassment, according to a 2018 Pew Research study. These virtual conflicts often spill into the classroom, creating additional challenges for educators.

Beyond mental health, excessive phone use is linked to academic declines. A 2023 study from the National Education Policy Center found that limiting classroom phone use improved academic performance by an average of 15%. The presence of phones, even when not in use, can reduce cognitive capacity, as students anticipate notifications or feel compelled to check their devices. This constant pull undermines their ability to engage deeply with learning material.


 Parental Concerns: Communication and School Safety

While the case for reducing distractions and protecting mental health is strong, many parents oppose blanket cell phone bans due to concerns about communication and safety, particularly in the context of school shootings. A 2024 National Parents Union poll found that 78% of parents whose children bring phones to school want them to have access during emergencies. In an era marked by tragic school shootings, parents view phones as a lifeline for immediate communication with their children. For example, during a crisis, students can text parents to confirm their safety or contact first responders, providing reassurance in chaotic situations.

However, experts argue that phone use during emergencies can be problematic. The New York State Police Superintendent has noted that student phone use during a crisis can distract from following safety protocols, draw attention to hiding spots, or overload cellular networks, hindering first responders’ communications. Despite these concerns, the fear of being unable to reach a child during a school shooting remains a powerful motivator for parents. Additionally, some students rely on phones for practical reasons, such as coordinating caregiving responsibilities for younger siblings or managing afterschool jobs, which a blanket ban could disrupt.

Equity is another concern. The 2015 lifting of New York City’s ban was partly due to disproportionate enforcement in low-income schools, where students faced stricter consequences than those in wealthier districts. Critics, including the New York Civil Liberties Union, worry that the new ban could lead to increased surveillance or disciplinary actions, particularly for marginalized students. Parents also argue that phones serve as essential tools for students with disabilities, such as those needing medical apps or translation services, and blanket bans must include clear exemptions to avoid harm.


 The Importance of Distraction-Free Learning

There is broad consensus that minimizing distractions in classrooms is critical for effective learning. UNESCO’s 2023 Global Education Monitoring Report found that having a phone nearby reduces students’ ability to focus, with one study noting it takes up to 20 minutes for a young brain to refocus after using a phone. Teachers report that unauthorized phone use negatively impacts 40% of public schools, affecting both student learning and staff morale. A 2023 study in Spain showed that schools with phone bans saw reduced cyberbullying and improved math and science test scores, particularly for girls.

Distraction-free environments foster deeper engagement with lessons, encourage creativity, and promote face-to-face social interactions. Governor Hochul’s report emphasized that phone-free schools support the mental health of both students and teachers by reducing the stress of constant digital interruptions. In New York City, educators like Vincent Corletta have described a “night and day” difference in classrooms with phone bans, noting that students are more attentive and engaged in learning.


 Why a Blanket Ban Isn’t the Answer

While the benefits of reducing distractions are clear, a blanket cell phone ban may not be the most effective way to achieve these goals. In the workforce, adults are not typically subject to outright phone bans, yet they are expected to exercise self-discipline and refrain from using devices during work hours. This conditioning begins with clear expectations and training, allowing employees to balance technology use with professional responsibilities. Similarly, schools should prepare students for this reality by teaching them how to manage their phone use responsibly rather than removing the devices entirely.

Banning phones outright bypasses an opportunity to instill critical life skills like self-regulation and digital literacy. In college and workplaces, individuals must navigate environments where technology is omnipresent but must be used appropriately. A 2024 report from the Harvard Graduate School of Education suggests that teaching students to manage their devices fosters the self-discipline needed for these settings. For example, schools could implement “phone-free zones” during classes or exams while allowing use during lunch or breaks, striking a balance between minimizing distractions and respecting students’ needs for communication.

Moreover, a blanket ban risks alienating students who rely on phones for legitimate purposes. Students with anxiety may use phones to check in with caregivers, while others use them for educational tools like calculators or translation apps. A one-size-fits-all approach could disproportionately harm these students, particularly those from underserved communities who may lack access to alternative devices. The 2023 Lancet study found no significant mental health improvements from phone bans, suggesting that addressing underlying issues like social anxiety or peer dynamics requires more comprehensive strategies.


 A Balanced Approach: Teaching Responsible Phone Use

Instead of a blanket ban, schools should adopt policies that teach students when and how to use phones appropriately. This mirrors the workplace, where employees are trusted to regulate their device use. For example, schools could establish clear guidelines, such as requiring phones to be silenced and stored in bags during class but allowing use during designated times. Programs like digital citizenship curricula can educate students on managing screen time, recognizing cyberbullying, and navigating social media responsibly. These skills are essential for preparing students for a world where technology is integral to daily life.

Some schools have successfully implemented such policies. The Pelham school board in New York adopted a no-phones-during-instruction policy in July 2024, requiring phones to be stored in calculator caddies during class but allowing use during free periods. This approach improved attentiveness while maintaining communication options for students. Other districts have experimented with “phone-friendly” environments, where devices are permitted for specific educational tasks under teacher supervision, fostering both engagement and responsibility.

Engaging parents and students in policy development is also key. By soliciting community input, schools can address concerns about safety and equity while building buy-in for new rules. For example, providing parents with direct contact numbers for emergencies can alleviate fears about school shootings, while clear exemptions for medical or caregiving needs ensure inclusivity. Consistency in enforcement, as noted by educators, is critical to success, particularly in the early weeks of implementation.


 Conclusion

New York State’s cell phone ban reflects a well-intentioned effort to address the real challenges of smartphone use in schools, from distractions to mental health concerns. The policy builds on a history of evolving regulations, driven by growing evidence of social media’s harms and the need for focused learning environments. However, a blanket ban overlooks the complexities of modern education, where phones serve as both distractions and tools. Parental concerns about safety and communication, particularly in the context of school shootings, cannot be dismissed, nor can the need to prepare students for a technology-driven world.

Rather than banning phones outright, schools should focus on conditioning students to use devices responsibly, much like adults do in the workplace. By setting clear expectations—class time for learning, gym time for physical activity, recreation time for socializing, and designated times for phone use—schools can foster self-discipline and digital literacy. These skills will serve students far beyond the classroom, equipping them to navigate a world where technology is unavoidable. As New York implements its ban, policymakers and educators must remain open to feedback, ensuring that policies balance the need for focus with the realities of modern life.


 Sources

- Hochul, K. (2025). More Learning, Less Scrolling: Creating Distraction-Free Schools. New York State Governor’s Office.[](https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/distraction-free-schools-governor-hochul-announces-new-york-become-largest-state-nation)[](https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-unveils-plan-restrict-smartphone-use-schools-statewide-and-ensure-distraction)[](https://www.governor.ny.gov/programs/eliminating-distractions-new-york-schools)

- KFF. (2024). A Look at State Efforts to Ban Cellphones in Schools and Implications for Youth Mental Health.[](https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/a-look-at-state-efforts-to-ban-cellphones-in-schools-and-implications-for-youth-mental-health/)[](https://www.kff.org/mental-health/a-look-at-state-efforts-to-ban-cellphones-in-schools-and-implications-for-youth-mental-health/)

- Pew Research Center. (2018, 2022, 2024). Studies on teen smartphone use and cyberbullying.[](https://rockinst.org/blog/school-cell-phone-bans-restrictions/)[](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/learning/what-students-are-saying-about-school-cellphone-bans.html)[](https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/ed-magazine/24/11/no-signal)

- Common Sense Media. (2023). Report on teen phone use during school hours.[](https://rockinst.org/blog/school-cell-phone-bans-restrictions/)[](https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/insights/which-states-have-banned-cell-phones-in-schools/161286/)

- National Parents Union. (2024). Poll on parental support for cell phone access in schools.[](https://rockinst.org/blog/school-cell-phone-bans-restrictions/)[](https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/ed-magazine/24/11/no-signal)

- UNESCO. (2023). Global Education Monitoring Report.[](https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/why-schools-should-ban-cell-phones-in-the-classroom/)[](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/31/technology/school-smartphone-bans.html)

- The Lancet. (2023). Study on school phone bans and mental health.[](https://pelhamexaminer.com/74600/showcase/new-yorks-school-cellphone-ban-a-threat-to-teen-mental-health-and-safety/)

- National Education Policy Center. (2023). Study on classroom phone use and academic performance.[](https://sites.google.com/schools.nyc.gov/cellphoneuseinschools/public-policy-development)

- Norwegian Institute of Public Health. (2024). Report on cellphone bans and mental health outcomes.[](https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/ed-magazine/24/11/no-signal)

- Haidt, J. (2024). The Anxious Generation.[](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-school-phone-bans-help-students/)

Wednesday, June 19, 2024

New York: You Can Grow Marijuana at Home

New York's Green Thumb: The State's Progressive Step Towards Homegrown Marijuana

In a landmark move, New York State has legalized the home cultivation of marijuana for adults aged 21 and over, marking a significant shift in the state's approach to cannabis regulation. This progressive step not only reflects the changing attitudes toward marijuana use but also empowers individuals with the freedom to grow their own plants for personal use.

Under the new guidelines, residents can cultivate up to three mature and three immature plants individually, with a maximum of six mature and six immature plants per household, regardless of the number of adults residing there. This initiative aims to provide a safe and regulated framework for home cultivation, ensuring that individuals can enjoy the benefits of marijuana without the risks associated with unregulated use.

The state has put forth clear regulations to ensure the safety and security of home cultivation. For instance, the use of flammable materials for at-home cannabis-based product extraction is prohibited due to safety concerns. Instead, residents are encouraged to explore alternative methods such as heat, water, or fermentation. Additionally, measures must be taken to prevent cannabis odor from becoming a nuisance to neighbors and to secure plants from unauthorized access or theft.

The legalization also comes with an educational push, providing resources for residents to learn about safe cultivation practices. The Office of Cannabis Management has made information readily available on its website and through a dedicated hotline, guiding individuals on everything from purchasing seeds to controlling indoor air quality to reduce the risk of mold and fungus.

This move by New York is not just about allowing the growth of marijuana plants; it's about fostering a responsible culture around cannabis use. It's about recognizing the therapeutic and recreational benefits of marijuana while also acknowledging the importance of regulation and education in preventing potential misuse.

As New Yorkers begin to exercise their newfound rights, it's essential to remain informed and compliant with the state's regulations. By doing so, residents can ensure that they are contributing to a safe and sustainable cannabis culture in New York State.

This news will not be well accepted by people who value quality of life.  New York is clearly lost. Whether or not this state will return to reason is left to be seen. However, we can assume that it is on a downward spiral and will bring about election changes when crime gets worse and quality of life disappears.  Marijuana use as recreation is not safe, see:Sacerdotus: Dangers of Marijuana Use.  Studies are already coming out showing that the legalization of it has made things worse in states that have legalized it.  

For more detailed information on the rules and regulations of homegrown marijuana in New York, interested individuals can visit the official state cannabis website or consult the comprehensive guide provided by local news outlets.


---

References:

https://pix11.com/news/local-news/marijuana-in-ny-nj/growing-weed-allowed-in-new-york-homes/

: New York State's official guidelines on home cultivation of cannabis.

: Local news outlet's detailed breakdown of the rules for legally growing marijuana at home in NY.

Friday, June 24, 2022

Scotus Defends Second Amendment Overturns New York Tyrannical Law


Supreme Court Decision on New York Second Amendment Case: A Blog Post

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark ruling on the case of **New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen**, striking down a New York state law that required applicants for a license to carry a concealed handgun in public to show "proper cause" or a special need for self-defense. The Court held that the law violated the Second Amendment, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The case was brought by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA), an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, and two individuals who were denied concealed carry licenses by New York authorities despite meeting the basic requirements of age, citizenship, and lack of criminal record. They argued that the proper cause requirement was arbitrary and subjective, and that it effectively prevented law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional right to bear arms outside the home.

The Court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling 6-3 that the proper cause requirement was inconsistent with the historical understanding and tradition of the Second Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that "the right to bear arms is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees". He cited historical evidence that showed that Americans have always valued the right to carry firearms for self-defense, and that most states have adopted "shall-issue" permitting systems that grant concealed carry licenses to anyone who meets objective criteria, such as passing a background check.

Thomas also rejected the arguments of New York and other "may-issue" states that have similar laws, such as Hawaii, California, and Massachusetts, that their laws were necessary to protect public safety and prevent crime. He said that there was no conclusive evidence that restricting concealed carry reduces violent crime, and that some studies have suggested the opposite effect. He also said that New York's law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, as it imposed a blanket ban on most people who wished to carry a handgun for self-defense.

The majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Alito wrote a concurring opinion, in which he criticized lower courts for failing to apply the Supreme Court's previous decisions on the Second Amendment, such as **District of Columbia v. Heller** (2008) and **McDonald v. Chicago** (2010), which affirmed the individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home. Kavanaugh also wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Roberts, in which he expressed his agreement with Thomas's historical analysis and his hope that lower courts would follow the Court's guidance on future Second Amendment cases. Barrett wrote another concurring opinion, in which she emphasized the importance of textualism and originalism in interpreting the Constitution.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Breyer argued that the majority's historical approach was flawed and selective, and that it ignored the practical realities and consequences of its decision. He said that the proper cause requirement was consistent with a long history of regulating firearms in public places, and that it served a vital interest in protecting public safety and preventing gun violence. He also said that the majority's decision undermined the ability of states and localities to adopt reasonable gun regulations that suit their specific needs and circumstances.

The Supreme Court's decision in **NYSRPA v. Bruen** has been widely seen as a major victory for gun rights advocates and a significant expansion of the Court's gun jurisprudence. It has also sparked a wave of legal challenges to other federal and state gun laws, such as bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, background check requirements, and red flag laws . The decision has also been criticized by some lower court judges, legal scholars, and gun control activists as unworkable, dangerous, and out of touch with reality.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Cuomo: Abortion Fanatic

Andrew Cuomo is really an abortion fanatic. The guy just does not quit trying to push abortion, contraception and the gay agenda on New Yorkers. He participated in a Planned Parenthood event where he announced that he wants an amendment to New York's State Constitution. This amendment will make abortion permanently legal in New York State. The amendment is meant to be a defense against any laws or court decisions that may overturn Roe v. Wade while President Trump is in office.

However, republicans who control the Senate in Albany are saying "not so fast." They are vowing to fight the proposal and want the people of New York to vote on the matter.

Too bad Cardinal Dolan does not publicly rebuke Cuomo by ordering priests not to give him Holy Communion. This would send a strong message to all Catholics and those who are pro-life.  Please protest Cuomo's idea by writing to senators in New York State. Voice your concerns that New York State will not be adhering to the values of America: life, liberty and pursuit of happiness if it endorses abortion in its Constitution.

Contact the State Senators here: https://www.nysenate.gov/senators-committees

Andrew Cuomo is a very disturbed individual who lacks morals. He ignores the growing homeless population in New York and failing schools, yet has time and energy for the lgbt agenda, promoting abortion and illegal immigration.  He is not fit to serve as governor. He needs to be voted out in the next election.

 

Source:


https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-gov-cuomo-wants-to-amend-state-constitution-to-protect-abortion-rights-1485818027

http://www.ooyuz.com/geturl?aid=14743885

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/nyregion/new-york-abortion-and-contraception-andrew-cuomo.html?smid=tw-share&mtrref=t.co&gwh=25362F0A3E95581518B8223477DD3AB8&gwt=pay


Sunday, December 4, 2011

Pay day for Cuomo

Governor of NY, Andrew Cuomo when elected immediately pushed for the legalization of so-called "Gay Marriage" in New York State.  Now it is not a surprise that he had people of the Gay agenda offer him money on the side.  He is a politician right?  Politicians help those who pay them.  

"Gay Marriage" was legalized in July of 2011 in a quick manner that had political pundits baffled.  Rules and other procedures were ignored and thrown out during this process.  Senator Ruben Diaz, the sole Democrat to vote no is going after the State in courts for this.  He is joined by other groups as well in the lawsuit.  Eventually these so-called marriages will be suspended or banned just like in California.

Well now Mr. Cuomo has received his pay check from the Gay agenda.  It is sad that this man who was elected on the premise that he would get "New York Going Again" would focus on an issue that concerns less than a million New Yorkers.

New Yorkers are struggling to pay rent, find jobs, pay tuition and this guy just focuses on marriage rights for a subculture? You have got to be kidding me!   Then again, he is a politician and money talks.

I hope Archbishop Dolan and the other NY Bishops will deny him Holy Communion.  He is living with a woman and is not married, he supports Abortion and now helped legalize "Gay Marriage."  He represents immorality, not the people of New York.

Mr. Cuomo must learn that if he is to be a true Catholic he cannot serve God and man.  He cannot support good and evil.


Source:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/nyregion/cuomo-fund-fills-with-money-from-thankful-gay-donors.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Sacerdotus TV LIveStream

Labels

Catholic Church (1631) Jesus (760) God (749) Bible (618) Atheism (400) Jesus Christ (378) Pope Francis (347) Liturgy of the Word (323) Apologetics (295) Atheist (280) Science (238) Christianity (203) Theology (150) LGBT (148) Liturgy (139) Blessed Virgin Mary (127) Prayer (99) Abortion (97) Gay (95) Philosophy (93) Pope Benedict XVI (93) Traditionalists (83) Rosa Rubicondior (82) Vatican (76) Physics (74) Psychology (74) Christmas (64) New York City (62) Holy Eucharist (61) Christian (60) President Obama (59) Protestant (53) Vatican II (51) Health (49) Biology (48) Gospel (46) Politics (46) Women (44) Racism (40) Supreme Court (35) Baseball (34) Death (34) Pope John Paul II (33) Illegal Immigrants (32) NYPD (32) priests (32) Priesthood (29) Space (28) Astrophysics (27) Eucharist (27) Jewish (27) Morality (27) Religious Freedom (27) Donald Trump (25) Evangelization (25) Christ (22) Evil (22) First Amendment (21) Pro Abortion (19) Child Abuse (17) Divine Mercy (17) Marriage (17) Pedophilia (17) Pro Choice (17) Easter Sunday (16) Holy Trinity (16) Police (16) Pentecostals (15) Sacraments (15) Angels (14) Autism (14) Gender Theory (14) Poverty (13) September 11 (13) Blog (12) CUNY (12) Cognitive Psychology (12) Muslims (12) academia (12) Hispanics (11) Pope Paul VI (11) Massimo Pigliucci (10) Evangelicals (9) Evidence (9) Hell (9) Personhood (9) Podcast (9) Barack Obama (8) Big Bang Theory (8) Human Rights (8) Humanism (8) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Death penalty (7) Eastern Orthodox (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) NY Yankees (7) Spiritual Life (7) Encyclical (6) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (6) Babies (5) Baby Jesus (5) Catholic Bloggers (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Donations (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Ephebophilia (4) Plenary Indulgence (4) Pluto (4) Pope John XXIII (4) Founding Fathers (3) Dan Arel (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)