Church burnings

[ChronicMisadventures]

Reminds me of a lesson we had about Cults in class once: we were told to go to any verse in the Bible, change one word all through the text with another word of our choosing, and create a cult in fifteen minutes.

...you are aware, I presume, of the comment regarding Rimmer's parents in Red Dwarf, yes? They were Seventh Day Advent Hopists. A typo in their copy of the Bible said God provided man with 'faith, hop, and charity. And the greatest of these is hop'. So they'd spend every seventh day hopping. This was particularly bad when soup was being served for a meal on that day.

[Hortmage]

I disagree with several points RHJunior made, and I respectfully object to his accusation that I am a bigot. However, this is his forum, and I don't wish to be banned, so I'll let him say whatever he wishes.

Chronic, though....

I talk about nobody rounding up Christians by the boatload and exterminating them, and you talk about kings attacking individual popes. If I remember my history correctly, most of the Middle Ages popes played pretty fast and loose with politics. And that the election of popes promoted campaigning that was more brutal and dirty (but behind the scenes) than any red state/blue state nonsense we see today. Regardless...you did not disprove my point.

To comment on your ridicule of my assertion that the Church was anti-Science, I present to you Gallileo. I suppose if I cared enough, I could dust off my old history books or search Google and find more examples.

Many of your other comments, such as European kings sacking Rome and trying to assasinate popes, are irrelevant, because it was Christians attacking Christians. I will grant you that the Muslim invasions of much of much of southern half of the "known world" during the 7th and 8th centuries was pretty much anti-Christian, but I've always likened that to an early World War 1. But I'll concede that as a point.

I'll admit to not remembering too much of ancient European history lessons from when I was but a wee lad in the 1960s (LOOONG before political correctness came about), but I do not recall there being much beneficial about the Crusades. But let's say I grant that you are correct that the first and 6th Crusades had merit. That still ignores the 2nd through 5th, and 7th through 9th crusades to the Middle East. And, as Wikipedia states:"The Crusades were a series of military campaigns of a religious character waged by Christians from 1095-1291, usually sanctioned by the Pope[1] in the name of Christendom,[2] with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule..."

I will also grant that you are correct that there is some definite disparity in what religious icons are allowed on government property (menorahs are OK, but not creches). I wish I had an explanation for that, and I agree, it's not fair. My personal belief has always been to either allow all religious holiday icons, or deny all of them.

I think, though, that in a friendly forum (this IS a friendly forum, right?), calling one an ass for claiming that discrimination exists is quite unfriendly and uncalled for. Likewise for your sidestepping my assertion of Christian dominance of state politics with the Blue Laws by hinting I'm an alcoholic. (Same goes for you, there, Ralph). If you feel that alcoholism is such a problem that one day per week should be booze-free, why not choose Tuesday? That's nobody's religious Sabbath, and there can be no claims by heretics such as myself that the ban is for religious reasons. Or, ban alcohol sales on all the Sabbaths (Fridays for Muslims, Saturdays for Jews, and Sundays for Christians, and any other day that any other denomination calls for).

I understand that religion is a delicate topic, especially in this forum, but let's at least TRY to be civil and not resort to ad hominem attacks?

[ChronicMisadventures]

I talk about nobody rounding up Christians by the boatload and exterminating them, and you talk about kings attacking individual popes. If I remember my history correctly, most of the Middle Ages popes played pretty fast and loose with politics. And that the election of popes promoted campaigning that was more brutal and dirty (but behind the scenes) than any red state/blue state nonsense we see today. Regardless...you did not disprove my point.

Since you seem to like Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

To comment on your ridicule of my assertion that the Church was anti-Science, I present to you Gallileo. I suppose if I cared enough, I could dust off my old history books or search Google and find more examples.

Galileo is the _one_ person that is constantly pointed out. Note that the Church has since officially issued a pardon regarding him. Saying the Church is anti-science however completely ignores A) individuals within the Church such as Gregor Johann Mendel. And B) ignores that the Church didn't have a regular habit of going after scientists. I don't seem to recall either the Vatican or Church of England burning Darwin at the stake and his research was more controversial than Gallileo's had been.

I'll admit to not remembering too much of ancient European history lessons from when I was but a wee lad in the 1960s (LOOONG before political correctness came about), but I do not recall there being much beneficial about the Crusades.

,[2] with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule..."

Sounds like a beneficial concept to me, given what that lot's done with the place since then. One theory put forward by a few historians is that a secondary purpose in sending the Crusaders to the Holy Land was to get rid of some of the converted Viking descendants who were causing problems in the northern part of Europe. As one historian put it "shove them all in a little postage stamp-sized playground called the Holy Land". ...on a less snarky note, another benefit of the Crusades is that it led to the creation of the Knights Templar (founded after the First Crusade, originally with the goal of protecting Christian pilgrims). Templars brought back to Europe a fair bit of knowledge that had been lost in the Dark Ages but had been preserved in Islamic libraries. Templars also brought chess to Europe, made advances in navigation and financial services (the world's first 'traveller's checks' in the form of coded chits to redeemable at other Templar outposts so you didn't have to carry currency), and other fields.

I will also grant that you are correct that there is some definite disparity in what religious icons are allowed on government property (menorahs are OK, but not creches). I wish I had an explanation for that, and I agree, it's not fair. My personal belief has always been to either allow all religious holiday icons, or deny all of them.

On this we can agree. I have no problem with showing icons from multiple religions. I do chafe against the idea of banning any from being shown, as the ACLU and its friends prefer. (Current case in Florida: A small town has set up a 10 Commandments monument in front of their court house. No one complained about it at all. An out of state atheist group is now canvassing the county trying to find someone, anyone, who'll let the group sue on their behalf).

I think, though, that in a friendly forum (this IS a friendly forum, right?), calling one an ass for claiming that discrimination exists is quite unfriendly and uncalled for.

You said, quote:

When a powerful entity physically or verbally represses a weak, disenfrachised entity, it's called being a bully, or totalitarianism. When a weak, disenfranchised entity physically or verbally harrasses a powerful entity, it's called "the underdog getting a couple of shots in".

That kind of behavior is behaving like an ass. It's saying 'it's alright for a small group to harass a larger'. It's either ok for people to discriminate or it isn't. No making up 'it's ok if you're in the minority' claims.

Likewise for your sidestepping my assertion of Christian dominance of state politics with the Blue Laws by hinting I'm an alcoholic. (Same goes for you, there, Ralph). If you feel that alcoholism is such a problem that one day per week should be booze-free, why not choose Tuesday? That's nobody's religious Sabbath, and there can be no claims by heretics such as myself that the ban is for religious reasons. Or, ban alcohol sales on all the Sabbaths (Fridays for Muslims, Saturdays for Jews, and Sundays for Christians, and any other day that any other denomination calls for).

Geez, learn to take a joke, that's what the AA comment was intended as. And I've got no problems with people drinking. Hell, my ancestors were moonshiners and we've still got part of the old family still. Honestly though, griping about not being able to sell alcohol once a week is really grasping at straws to try and find something to attack Christians with. Here's a clue though as to 'Christian dominance of state politics': If most of a state's population is Christian then, yup, you're going to have a Christian influence in what laws the majority of the voters in that state are going to want passed. Or should we ignore the will of the majority of the voters because they're using their faith as part of their decision making in such things?

I understand that religion is a delicate topic, especially in this forum, but let's at least TRY to be civil and not resort to ad hominem attacks?

I am being civil, as Kerry Skydancer can attest to as Kerry's seen me in such discussions elsewhere in the past.

[Kerry Skydancer]

Heh. Oh, yeah, he's been -much- nastier in other venues.

I'll have to say that religious leaders have not always been the greatest friends of progress - but neither have political leaders. The powerful are always nervous about things that upset the status quo. Galileo is a bad example as far as the Evil Church goes, in any event - he managed to turn the Church against him by insulting practically everyone in the heirarchy, including people who -agreed- with him.

[Sapphire]

To comment on your ridicule of my assertion that the Church was anti-Science, I present to you Gallileo. I suppose if I cared enough, I could dust off my old history books or search Google and find more examples.

Galileo is the _one_ person that is constantly pointed out. Note that the Church has since officially issued a pardon regarding him. Saying the Church is anti-science however completely ignores A) individuals within the Church such as Gregor Johann Mendel. And B) ignores that the Church didn't have a regular habit of going after scientists. I don't seem to recall either the Vatican or Church of England burning Darwin at the stake and his research was more controversial than Gallileo's had been.

I'm not eager to get involved in this debate, it's just this one area I have commentary about.

I just want to throw out, also, Copernicus, the man who originally thought the Earth went round the Sun, which the church though was 'unbiblical' in comparison to Psalms 93:1; 96:10; 104:5, 1Chronicles 16:30 and Ecclesiastes 1:4,5. Copernicus wasn't put on trial since his treatise came with a then-anonymours foreward warning anyone from taking the model literally, claiming it was more a mathematical tool than a serious scientific theory. Some cosmologists still sometimes use geocentric models simply for matematical purposes.

Also of note, Descartes' masterwork, "Le Monde" (The World) was kept under wraps since its creator was afraid that claiming that nature, and all phenonemon therein, could be explained by numbers, was too much like Galileo's theories.

Or Devil Wagons. Remember Devil Wagons? It's what American preachers used to call Brass-Era automobiles. And they weren't being cute, either.

Or Psychology. Most Christian denominations rejected what was widely called 'The Jewish Science,' much of which led to Freud to choose the Gentile Jung as his hand-picked successor, despite the young man being hostile to many of Freud's ideas.

And let's not forget the Church's oposition to pagan philosophical thought like Platonistian logic until St. Augustine, and Aristotelian methods until St. Aquinas. And, no, just because it was someone in the church that eventually convinced them doesn't mean they never opposed it.

Of course, Aquinas, being one of the first to use the Argument from Design in the 13th century in the Summa Theoligae, brings us right into the whole Intelligent Design thing.

Or, even still in the present day, the path has shifted from suppression to subversion, spreading misinformation along with the real information, on subjects like contraceptives, abortion, or homosexuality. For instance, Jack Chick or Eric Keroac will tell you a condom will not protect against HIV, when the NIH says that protected sex can reduce your chances of infection by as much as a millionfold. And Dobson over at the "Family Research Council" will tell you that pedophilia occurs more often in homosexuals than in heterosexuals, when the consensus of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association is that the data says otherwise. Dr. Fred Berlin, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at John Hopkins Medical School, and sexual deviancy espert, has gone on camera saying that "There is a stigma that homosexuals must be somehow at more risk to children... [when] there is simply isn't any scientific evidence to support that."

Okay?

[ChronicMisadventures]

For instance, Jack Chick

Erg, please don't refer to Jack Chick as an example of Christianity of any kind. I'm not even sure what brand of Christianity he claims to represent given his little pamphlets tend to attack Catholics and other Christian groups.

[Sapphire]

For instance, Jack Chick

Erg, please don't refer to Jack Chick as an example of Christianity of any kind. I'm not even sure what brand of Christianity he claims to represent given his little pamphlets tend to attack Catholics and other Christian groups.

But Eric Keroac agrees, and He's a recent Bush-appointed, Congress-doesn't-have-to-approve-him head of the OPA, including the Family Planning council. I'm using Jack Chick as an example because, in this instance, he seems to represent the feelings of the far Dominionist right, which are anti-science.

[ChronicMisadventures]

But Eric Keroac agrees, and He's a recent Bush-appointed, Congress-doesn't-have-to-approve-him head of the OPA, including the Family Planning council. I'm using Jack Chick as an example because, in this instance, he seems to represent the feelings of the far Dominionist right, which are anti-science.

Chick doesn't generally represent anyone other than himself. It's like Phelps and his "church" that consists mostly of his own family members but claims to speak for a wider audience.

As to Keroac:
Never heard of him, or his department, before this.

Personally tho, I don't see any problem with the views expressed in the CNN article. That article says nothing about his views on preventing HIV with condoms tho. Just that in general his organization values abstinance rather than contraception. Same view as the Vatican has (and yes, I'm Roman Catholic).

That he's ticking off Planned Parenthood counts as an added bonus in his favor.

...the second article's full of loaded language like "spreads all the usual lies about abortion". I disagree with the whole oxytocin commentary it attributes to Keroac, but lacking medical training won't comment on it.

Given 'Alternet's 'About Us' page babbles about 'Right Wing Media' and calls for the "creation of a progressive echo chamber", I'm about as likely to believe anything sourced from that site as I am to believe that pigs can fly. Calling for establishment of an echo chamber of any kind, as if the mainstream media isn't one already for the left, basically translates to "we're going to stick out fingers in our ears and go 'lalalala' so we can't hear any dissenting opinions."

The CNN article I'll accept, it's a recognized news source, even if I've given up on watching it due to the consistant behavior of one of its founders.

Think I'll add Alternet to my list of 'anyone annoying these people has to be doing something right'.

[BrockthePaine]

For instance, Jack Chick or Eric Keroac will tell you a condom will not protect against HIV, when the NIH says that protected sex can reduce your chances of infection by as much as a millionfold.

And abstinence reduces your chances to a big fat zero.

I was certain I'd heard somewhere that the manufacturers say one will fail one out of every six times. If true, that's no better than Russian roulette with a revolver...

[Hortmage]

This change in topic (Jack Chick, Keroac, etc.) reminds me of something that causes me a great deal of confusion.

You have someone vocal claiming that, as a Christian, you must believe so-and-so. And then you get other people stating that he is not a true Christian, and that we really need to belive in this-and-that. How do I know who I'm supposed to believe?

As a young Jewish child, I was indoctrinated in an "us and them" mentality. You had Jews, and anyone who believed in Jesus was by definition a Christian. My synagogue made little effort to try to teach us the range of differences in the beliefs of different Christians. It wasn't until I took a class in comparative Western religions in college that I learned anything about the differences in Catholicism and some of the more major main-stream Protestant faiths.

I've asked this at another forum in my home community, and have never received a usable answer... How is someone supposed to know when rhetoric is part of overall Christian doctrine, and not just the mouthings of a fringe fanatic? How do I know when to attribute an attack as coming from a fringe lunatic, or has the "blessing" of Christians everywhere? Especially when there is rarely universal condemnation about something controversial, such as Phelps' cult?

[BrockthePaine]

I've asked this at another forum in my home community, and have never received a usable answer... How is someone supposed to know when rhetoric is part of overall Christian doctrine, and not just the mouthings of a fringe fanatic? How do I know when to attribute an attack as coming from a fringe lunatic, or has the "blessing" of Christians everywhere? Especially when there is rarely universal condemnation about something controversial, such as Phelps' cult?

Let me try to help you with that. I'd call a Christian "any person who believes Christ is the only way to salvation, by grace and not works." This is fairly broad - I use the term to encompass Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox as well as a hatful of the smaller alignments. On the other hand, being part of those groups does not make you a Christian. Most Christians tend to limit their number to people who believe the following:
1. The omnipotence and goodness of God
2. The sonship of Christ
3. The atonement of the Cross
4. The resurrection of Christ
5. The futility of any way outside Christ
6. The inerrancy of Scripture
7. The need for human salvation
8. The grace of salvation
9. The priesthood of believers
10. The finality of revelation (all prophecies are fulfilled in Christ, and there's no further revelations afterwards).
These are the "core doctrines" of Christianity, upon which the vast majority of Christians agree, and if necessary would be martyred rather than resign them. (I'm going to catch flak for including inerrancy of scripture, as I have before, because it's the one thing in this list that is most debated in present times.) The current denominations have more to do with "secondary doctrines" as I call them such as predestination, double-predestination, the ability to lose salvation, the hierarchy of the Church, etc. These are important issues which must be decided, but they ought to be decided within the bounds of the church. FWIW I don't particularly think our denominations are entirely Biblical, but it will be nearly impossible to knit them back together at this point.

Like I said, these are the big issues which divide Christianity from all other religions. Islam disputes with us 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and probably 8 and 9 as well; the same thing applies for Mormons (particularly on point 10). Having hit those basics, there is an expectation within Christianity of a proper way to act among other Christians and non-Christians. First is the expectation that Christians act in peace and goodwill towards all men, as an example for nonbelievers. This is where Jack Chick and the Phelps cult fails. Do they have their doctrine correct? Maybe they do - and I stress MAYBE - but saying the right things does not make a man a Christian. Christians must demonstrate love while speaking the truth, and sometimes the best way to do that is to shut the heck up and NOT say anything verbally. (Preach the gospel at all times: if necessary use words.)

So, when Phelps gets up and blasts homosexuals as sinners and declares we're all going to hell for tolerating them, that is NOT Christian, because he is not acting in a manner worthy of the message he is trying to say. If Phelps was truly concerned about homosexuality in the US, he would do as REAL Christians have done, and reach out to them to convince them that they're sinners in need of a savior. I feel personally that Phelps is tearing down the work of Christ and true Christians by his hatred, for which I believe he will receive a most terrible reckoning. (If you should ask if I think Phelps is going to heaven, I'll say - Maybe. He's certainly not acting like he will, though.)

Phelps et al are fringe fanatics because they do not speak the truth in love, nor do they act in a manner befitting ambassadors of Christ. The hatred they preach is the antithesis to true Christianity. That's how you can tell the difference.

[ChronicMisadventures]

5. The futility of any way outside Christ
10. The finality of revelation (all prophecies are fulfilled in Christ, and there's no further revelations afterwards).

These are the "core doctrines" of Christianity, upon which the vast majority of Christians agree, and if necessary would be martyred rather than resign them. (I'm going to catch flak for including inerrancy of scripture, as I have before, because it's the one thing in this list that is most debated in present times.)

Like I said, these are the big issues which divide Christianity from all other religions. Islam disputes with us 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and probably 8 and 9 as well; the same thing applies for Mormons (particularly on point 10)

Good list, couple of notes tho:
Correct as to commentary on #10 and Mormons which is why some Evangelical Christian groups refuse to consider Mormons to be Christians (this may cause Mitt Romney some problems if he tries for a presidential run as it's expected he will).

On #5 tho...there's actually been some disagreement on this as well. As of Vatican II, Catholic Church's position is basically that non-believers who lead a good life can go to Heaven....it's just a lot easier to get in the door if you're Christian (preferably Catholic). This is most likely an attempted theological 'fix' as to the usual 'what about everyone who died before Jesus' time?' question, much as the creation of limbo was.

Paragraph 16 of:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html for the exact text.

Relavent excerpt:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

[Kerry Skydancer]

The bat chuckles at Brock. "Let's put it this way. If Phelps IS going to heaven, I'll be volunteering to go -anywhere- else. I've got standards, and that boy don't meet 'em."

[BrockthePaine]

The bat chuckles at Brock. "Let's put it this way. If Phelps IS going to heaven, I'll be volunteering to go -anywhere- else. I've got standards, and that boy don't meet 'em."

I understand completely, unfortunately... he and his little cult are a serious annoyance to people like me. Almost makes me wish Protestants had something with the same force as an excommunication with which to beat them.

To Chronic: I'll have to mull over that one a bit more. As I recall, parts of that particular text were refuted by the Catholic Church in recent years, weren't they? And they've certainly changed their opinion from past doctrine. In any case, this is part of the place where debating Biblical inerrancy can produce more problems: since Christ said "I am the Way, Truth, and Life; no one comes to the Father except through me." It seems to me that's pretty clear. To get anything else, you have to ignore Biblical inerrancy, which, of course, a lot of modern people are entirely willing to do, for just that reason.

[Sapphire]

For instance, Jack Chick or Eric Keroac will tell you a condom will not protect against HIV, when the NIH says that protected sex can reduce your chances of infection by as much as a millionfold.

And abstinence reduces your chances to a big fat zero.

I was certain I'd heard somewhere that the manufacturers say one will fail one out of every six times. If true, that's no better than Russian roulette with a revolver...

I'm hard-pressed to believe you, since your syntax is simply not the kind used by people in the field of contraceptives.

Is this number about disease prevention, or pregnancy prevention? Is this breakage, or is it deseases moving past the barrier? Where does this number come from, in what context, how limited the subject? This is incredibly insulting, to me, to think that I'm simply supposed to listen to something you're certain you heard. Not due do disagreement, but because if you're going to post with information, it is your dute to cite source of some kind, and, if you can't remember your own, look it up. You're on the interenet, it can't be so hard to find this information.

Here's an example:

Condom effectiveness, in preventing pregnancy, and used perfectly, has a 2% chance of failure, and a 14% chance of failure if used incorrectly. It should be remembered that methods are rarely used alone, often used with spermicides. (14% rounds down to 1 in 7, by the way.)


For comparison, The Rhythm method has a 9/25 perfect/incorrect percent record, withdrawal has a 4/19, Lactational Amenorrhea Method has a .5/2, and male sterilization is .1/.15%.

Condom effectiveness, in disease control, reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected, reduces the risk of gonorrhea for men by approximately 71% relative to risk when unprotected, and decreases the risk of transmission for human papilloma virus by approximately 70%

The Center for disease control says, and I quote

Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate conclusively that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection.

In regards to the second article about Keroack being more convincing that dissuading, not because of its content but because of the messenger:

Here's the San-Diego Union-Tribune about him.
Op-ed in the Seattle Post-Intelligence
The Inter Press Service, picked up by Commondreams.org
Blurb from the Patriot News

Quote from The Times Herald-Record

To be fair, Keroack does have some odd ideas. He contends, for example, that contraception is damaging to women because it thwarts their procreative power. He also has compared premarital sex to drug addiction and says it's damaging to marriage.

Keroack's opposition to birth control is problematic, given that his job involves administering funds to groups that provide birth control, primarily to low-income women. Otherwise, his ideas about pregnancy counseling are sensible. I've long argued that education is the best tool in reducing abortion. Show girls and women their child in utero and abortion will eliminate itself.

And let's not forget the original discussion:

Christianism has been, is currently, and will be anti-science. I provided other forms of proof and rather wished not to be forced onto this field relative to the others.

[Hortmage]

Brock:

Thank you VERY much for that clear outline of the definition of a Christian. I appreciate the bullet format, which makes it much easier for me understand.

I have saved that post for future study. Thanks again!

[The JAM]

reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%

Oh dear, that means that 3 times out of 20......you're done for?
I wouldn't call that "safe sex", I'd call that suicidal sex....

[NydaLynn]

Reminds me of a lesson we had about Cults in class once: we were told to go to any verse in the Bible, change one word all through the text with another word of our choosing, and create a cult in fifteen minutes.

...you are aware, I presume, of the comment regarding Rimmer's parents in Red Dwarf, yes? They were Seventh Day Advent Hopists. A typo in their copy of the Bible said God provided man with 'faith, hop, and charity. And the greatest of these is hop'. So they'd spend every seventh day hopping. This was particularly bad when soup was being served for a meal on that day.

Hop? Hmm... now see I would have interpreted that as 'proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.' to quote Ben Franklin about beer. But that's just me.

[Detrius]

reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%

Oh dear, that means that 3 times out of 20......you're done for?
I wouldn't call that "safe sex", I'd call that suicidal sex....

Are you serious about this?

[ChronicMisadventures]

To Chronic: I'll have to mull over that one a bit more. As I recall, parts of that particular text were refuted by the Catholic Church in recent years, weren't they? And they've certainly changed their opinion from past doctrine.

Nope, Vatican II is still in force in the Catholic Church. It was the largest set of changes in Church teaching in centuries. Which caused some groups (Mel Gibson's church, for example) to schism and claim to be the 'true Catholic Church' (problem is they all claim this seperate of each other, so there's at least eight people running around claiming to be the 'true Pope' at any given time, plus others who just claim there's been no 'true Pope' since Vatican II). Any suggestion of revisiting Vatican II tends to draw cries of protest from the more liberal voices within the Church.

The current Pope, however, seems to be wanting to revisit a few issues at present to try and reverse some of the schisms. For example, allowing local bishops and priests to use the old Latin Mass if they and their congregations so wish. (yes, some churches schismed just over the idea of having to give mass in local languages rather than Latin). What gives the current Pope a lot of sway in this is that he was actually a participant in Vatican II who was originally in favor of some of these changes. (Benedict was originally a liberal...right up til he saw the student protests first-hand as a professor in Germany in the 1960s and the moral relativism they were praising).

In regards to the second article about Keroack being more convincing that dissuading, not because of its content but because of the messenger:

Lesse...
San Diego Union Tribune: Ok, this is an opinion article, the guy's stated his opinion. I disagree with his opinion and don't really see anything objectionable in this about Keroak. I am leary, however, of people using phrases like 'world population control' as this usually translates to 'everyone I disagree with should be forced into it'. See example: The Texas university prof who last year recommended releasing ebola and other virii to reduce human population to 'save the planet'.

helped Margaret Sanger create the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1952. Its purpose: to protect the health of women and combat poverty around the world by distributing practical information related to birth control

The columnist neglects to mention Sanger was a fan of eugenics. To borrow a 1932 quote of hers from Wikipedia:

A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring

...yeah, I'm sure there were only worthy goals by that individual in creating such an organization.

Next up, we have the Seattle Post-Intelligencer with an editorial...in which I don't see anything objectionable at all.

InterPress Service (which I've never heard of, despite reading a half-dozen or so news sites a day from five different countries), via Common Dream (another 'progressive website', as it states in its own title): Hey, this one's got a quote from a Naral official hating Keroac. For those who don't remember Naral's stunt a year or so ago, they're the ones that made up tv ads claiming Justice Roberts supported abortion clinic bombings...an ad they finally pulled when the other pro-abortion groups got on their case for 'hurting the cause' by playing even more fast and loose with facts than usual. Keroac seems to be upsetting all the right people as far as I can see. Annoyed the LA Times too in this article, which is usually a good sign of someone doing something right. Only thing in that article I can find objectionable in regard to Keroac would possibly be the breast cancer claims at the bottom, but again, medicine's not my field so I don't know enough to argue on that point.

Patriot News: 'Blurb' is right. It doesn't really say about the guy except that the author of the blurb dislikes him.

Honestly, the more of these sites you point out, the better the guy's looking as an appointee. You can tell as much about a person from who their enemies are as you can by looking at their choice in friends. Looks like this guy's picking all the right enemies.