“I think all the fuss over this statement as some kind of example of the new pope's tolerance is ridiculous. What did he actually say? That all who "do good" are good people. And who gets to decide what "doing good" is? I'll give you three guesses.
If I help abused teens get access to contraception, am I doing good? If I fight for a gay couple's right to see each other while one is in a catholic hospital, am I doing good? If I write my congressman to say I think all child abusing priests should be prosecuted and that so long as the catholic church fights this it should lose its tax exempt status, am I doing good?
Sorry, your papal-ness, but I don't need your acceptance or endorsement of my good works on behalf of others. This is nothing more than feel-good pablum for your followers so they can have one more reason to feel superior to the non-believers.”
nanette755 on May 23, 2013 at 15:44:03
“ALL that you have listed IS doing good. I believe the Catholics finally have a Pope getting back to basics and overlooking thousands of years of doctrine piled on to the basics by mere mortals!”
ocenbrz on May 23, 2013 at 14:14:39
“Right there with you donnie. Well said. Many of us do good things. It is past the time that Catholics start doing and actually being good citizens of the world. Many do defy these Pope's for good reason. They should not have to be persecuted by their own for doing so.
It should also be noted that any good atheist, would have voted against the torture and death of Jesus Christ. I would imagine there was at least one good atheist who hung on a cross right along with him. The difference? They didn't want or need an audience to prove they were doing good. Nor did they give their lives so that others had permission to screw up their own. Anyone can change their direction in life. You don't need Jesus. You need to start caring about others and yourself.”
edrem2 on May 23, 2013 at 14:12:00
“Well said. sounds like they hired a PR firm and this is part of the rebranding to broaden the appeal so we forget the scandals .”
u4riah on May 23, 2013 at 14:05:34
“Exactly - I wouldn't want anything to do with a 'representative' of some antediluvian advocate
of what's considered "good" giving me absolution. What a load.”
Apr 10, 2013 at 11:22:06
“I will start by saying that I am not a rap or hip hop fan. And I am a strong advocate of an artist's right to be provocative and even offensive in the service of a larger point. I tend to side with the artist in situations like these, however in this case I disagree with your slippery slope argument.
Your Eminem example is a weak one. The line "he thinks his car's possessed" clearly delivers the message that there is something wrong with "the old man" and can even be seen as a condemnation of his behavior. Where is the condemnation in the Rick Ross song? Where are the words telling his audience this behavior is morally and legally unacceptable?
And his apology is ridiculous. The "lyric interpreted as rape"? Really? Is there another way to "interpret" those words? If Mr. Ross didn't realize that a rapper is a role model for teenagers and that those lyrics clearly refer to rape, then he is too stupid to be taken seriously as an artist or as a human being.”
RichPort on Apr 11, 2013 at 15:47:35
“I don't mean to put myself in a position where I'm defending a rapper I don't like and who I think is pretty substandard at best. My point is the story the character he created is telling is a profane one. Every song tells a story, obviously some better than others. Sometimes the story is the artist in question has no discernible talent. At no point does Mr. Ross explicitly say "I'm Rick Ross, and date rape is awesome," just as Al Pacino never looks directly into the camera and says his really name and that murder is cool. I will however agree that Rick Ross is too stupid to be taken seriously.”
“You need to listen to someone other than Paul (I never said voucher) Ryan or whoever else you are listening to. The ACA's medicare savings do not come from benefit reductions. I know, there I go with those pesky facts again.
As a liberal, I am very concerned about the number of people who base their opinions on disinformation spread by conservatives of every stripe.
Forgive me for wondering if being "very concerned" means that someone is concerned enough to find out what the truth actually is.”
palmejn on Mar 15, 2013 at 17:55:15
“Don't know where you get your facts. The government says some saving will come from fraud reduction - but when I reported over $5M in fraud, they did NOTHING. Have read the bill, have fam and friends in "the business" shall we say. A lot of people are in for a BIG surprise. Have seen the brackets and regs, the taxes on medical care devices are well known - they even extend to your vets office. The dirty little secret is that docs are dropping M'care patients as the payments don't cover the costs. Also - there are simply not enough physicians in the country to care for Sixteen Million more people. Only a government schill would promote this disaster.”
“As far as I'm concerned there is no story here. All these far right conservatives are the same in one respect -- they are incapable of empathy.
They never see the havoc their policies inflict on people's lives until it affects them personally, and sometimes not even then. Are you listening Paul (I got SSI payments when my father died) Ryan?
I'll never understand how any rational, compassionate person could vote for these people.”
Observer963 on Mar 15, 2013 at 15:36:57
“Faved and fanned.”
palmejn on Mar 15, 2013 at 15:31:17
“Good you noted the "far right" in your post - as 90% of those who might call themselves conservative don't agree with the uber rightists.
As an Independent, I am very concerned about the havoc ACA will likely cause on the lives of seniors since billions were cut from Medicare funds. We all have our concerns, and they involve government as a whole.”
“So, cutting headstart, food stamps, medicaid, medicare, and social security are all fine with the repubs, but they will be damned before they will allow this socialist president to deny poor people the right to see the White House crockery up close.
It really has become impossible to parody the repubs.”
“"Boehner continued, claiming that the broader goal of the administration was "to just shove us into the dustbin of history.""
Sorry John, but you repubs have no one to blame for the decline in public opinion of your party but yourselves. When we make public the words of Romney, Ryan, Akin, Mourdock, Bachmann, Perry, Trump, etc., and my current favorite, Marco (nobody knows the age of the Earth) Rubio, I suppose you could accuse us of lifting the lid, but you repubs are jumping into that dustbin of history all on your own.
Fear not John, when you guys are all in there we will close the lid ever so gently. And then we the reasonable and the rational, we who still live in the reality-based community will get on with the work of moving this country forward into the 21st century.”
narve2 on Jan 24, 2013 at 10:43:06
“Like Clinton, the Teapublicans will work and find a reason to have a Special Prosecutor to start digging for a witch hunt in an attempt to taint the Presidency. So far we have seen the Birher movement, questioned his Religion, Fast and Furious(Bush2 program after all) and now Bengahzi in attempts to discredit the Administration. Look-out for Issa looking into the Prosecution of Arron Schwartz as Issa will try desparately to link the Administration to the over-zealous actions of one group of Corporate Media influenced Prosecutors.”
robaby424 on Jan 24, 2013 at 10:39:05
“Brilliant. I totally agree with you. The American People have had it with the lying Republicans, they are inferior and could care less about the average american.”
“Proposal for a Constitutional Amendment changing the requirements for President. Add the following:
At least six months before Election Day, a candidate for President must publicly state the age of the planet Earth. The candidates answer must fall within one billion years of the age that is the current consensus of the scientific community.”
drkazmd65 on Nov 19, 2012 at 12:10:47
“It'll never happen,.... but I would love to see it.
First, appearances. Obama looked and sounded like a President while Romney looked sounded like a used car salesman.
Second, the message. Romney's message was Obama did a bad job and he would do a better job but provided no evidence for why we should believe him. Obama's message was I did a good job and Romney is a liar, and Obama was able to provide evidence for both assertions.
If this debate had happened two weeks ago we'd be asking the question, Mitt who?
And kudos to Candy Crowley for acting like a journalist, standing up for the truth. I only wish that would happen more often given a repub campaign built on lies.”
DelKat on Oct 17, 2012 at 11:48:37
“Excellent Post. Agreed, I find it absolutely insulting that when running for the highest elected office in the country, the most Romney thinks he needs to say is, "Trust me." There is an implicit assumption that He Knows Best over every voting American. This guy is a legend in his own mind.”
“I'm pretty sure that "science doesn't deal in 'whys'" was the point of my previous comment. Try reading it again.
Oh, and thanks for the smile prompted by the idea that scientists rather than theologians base their ideas on unnecessary and subjective inferences. However, if I must choose between naturalistic inferences and supernatural inferences, I'll go with the former every time.
Funniest of all, though, is your charge that scientists rather than theists lack humility. Let's do a quick comparison.
Scientists spend their lives asking questions because they realize they don't know everything. These questions are followed by attempts to find answers based on empirical evidence through experimentation designed to disprove the original hypothesis. If it survives, they then submit their theory to their peers, colleagues and rivals who also try to disprove it. If it survives these trials, then and only then do they call this new theory a fact. This victory is, of course, tempered by the knowledge that future research and technological advances may either reinforce their findings or prove them wrong.
Theists, on the other hand, know that their very existence is an expression of the intention and will of their particular flavor of god. They know that their omnipotent and omniscient god cares about how they live their lives and can, like a disappointed parent, be hurt by their actions. In fact, theists know that every single moment of their lives is a part of their god's master plan for the universe.
Theological humility, hilarious.”
tagutcow on Sep 24, 2012 at 13:50:23
“WOW! You have seriously missed the point! When I talked about people making unnecessary naturalistic inferences, and people loudly proclaiming the cause of science, I wasn't referring to scientists, I was referring to internet atheists... like the kinds who flood these comments. Please go back and re-read my comment, because the point whizzed right over your head.”
“Theists do not acknowledge "an intention and purpose to the world," they profess it. You cannot acknowledge that which exists only in your own mind as anything other than a personal belief.
Science does not need to "obviate religion's answers" because they are meaningless in that they are incorrect answers to simple science questions. The answer to man's great question, "Why am I here?" is not a great mystery in need of solving. Whether we start with the co-mingling of our parent's genetic material or with the origins of life on Earth the answer is obvious. We all exist for one reason: genetic accident. Contending that an omnipotent being purposefully created us and our world is merely a primitive exercise in childish narcissism. Science teaches something religion never has: humility.
Everything else religion claims to answer falls under morality. The most cursory perusal of the news shows that religious people certainly have no monopoly on moral behavior. It is quite obviously not necessary to believe in supernatural beings to lead a moral life and in fact it is often counterproductive to achieving that end.”
tagutcow on Sep 23, 2012 at 13:26:03
“The idea that we're here by "genetic accident" is not in any way a finding of science, it is an unnecessary naturalistic inference— one that, at best, uses actual scientific findings as a jumping-off point. People who posit a conflict between science and religious faith often don't seem to understand where the actual science ends and their own subjective inferences begin (see my previous point about faux-scientific arguments like "If God really existed, He wouldn't make a Universe this big just for us!")
No matter how you slice it, science doesn't deal in "whys", even to negate them. You can make an exhaustive scientific description of how my car delivers me to the store, but it still doesn't explain WHY I went to the store.
And if science truly teaches humility, why is it that this trait is not at all in evidence in the people who proclaim loudest the cause of science?”
“Theologians are the funniest guys ever. When humans couldn't explain the physical world and the cosmos, they provided the answer: god did it. Now that we can explain much of the inner workings of the physical world and the cosmos they see the elegance of the solutions and say, big surprise: god did it.
Eventually the theological beliefs of Christians, Muslims, and Jews will fall into the same dustbin of history where we now find the theological beliefs of the ancient Romans and Greeks, the ancient Egyptians, and the Vikings. I only hope that day comes before we destroy ourselves over these primitive beliefs. Of course, even then we'll still have imaginary lines on a map and natural resources to wage war over.”
tagutcow on Sep 22, 2012 at 08:15:20
“Yes, theists believe the physical world is an expression of God's intention and purpose. Acknowledging that there is an intention and a purpose to the world is not- nor is intended to be- a substitute for ascertaining natural causes.
So if these theological beliefs truly fall into the dustbin of history, it will have naught to do with an expansion of scientific understanding (although it may have something to do with the aggressive propagandizing of media outlets like HuffPo, who knows.) Science does not obviate religion's answers, because they are not answering the same questions.”
“While I don't think jokes about rape are funny or appropriate (and I don't think he is funny in general), I support Tosh's right to artistic freedom. Lots of comedy is cutting edge and offensive and still funny. Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, and George Carlin come to mind.
Where Tosh crossed the line was calling for his audience to rape a heckler. That was horrible. I'm glad he apologized but the fact that he could make that "joke" in response to a heckler tells me all I need to know about what kind of person he is. Insensitive, misogynistic, jerk.”
“From a posthumously printed op-ed by Paterno: "Regardless of anyone’s opinion of my actions or the actions of the handful of administration officials in this matter, the fact is nothing alleged is an indictment of football."
All that mattered was the sacred football program and the reputation of the organization. Paterno and the others cared not at all about the decades of abuse of the child victims of the monster Sandusky. Remind you of any other organiztion's actions?
Perhaps we should call him Cardinal Paterno.”
PTAOfficerforObama on Jul 12, 2012 at 09:40:39
“It is all an indictment of football. King Football rules. I saw this at U of M as Bo's boys ran like animals around campus. They could do whatever they wanted with whomever or whatever they wanted and no one could do thing one.”