We (GULC) also had a kerfuffle last year about a girl getting a public interest type fellowship for summer work at a planned-parenthood type organization. I forget the details, but it made for some good copy in our school paper. Always made me think if volunteering at Bnei Brith would similarly violate their Catholic codes.

On the one hand you have organizations killing babies, on the other an organization that killed their God.

This is ridiculous. If you have a problem with Catholic beliefs, then don't go to a Catholic law school!

It really is that simple.

What a crap school. How about upholding the Supreme Law of the Land? Ya know? That whole SCOTUS thing?

This "school's" mission is fundamentally in conflict with the core values of our legal system.

pretty much all law schools are secular so if you don't want to go to a religious one you don't have to. st. thomas should be able decide both how religious they want to be and what policies they'll have, not encouraging volunteering at planned parenthood seems very reasonable.

10:57 - What if I wanted to establish an Islamic law school that gave full scholarships to male students and forced female students to pay their own way?

Would that be legal?

What 10:57 said. By the way, St. Thomas is no Georgetown, in fact, it was started by a bunch of folks who didn't think Notre Dame was Catholic enough. If you go to St. Thomas, you should know what you're getting into.

And by the way, you don't have to go to Georgetown either. You can always go to GW.

I think this is great. If a public interest group started that tried to work against minorities (let's call it the KKK Action Center or something) and a school didn't want to give pro bono credit for working there, fine. St. Thomas obviously doesn't see abortion groups as working in the "public interest" and fair enough.

Whenever your polls say "do you support" instead of "do you agree with" I always say 'yes' since I support any decision that is not any of my business, whether or not I think it is a good idea. (This happened most recently with the Jerry Springer poll.) I think that phrasing the question like this skews your results. In fact, I can't think of an instance where the 'no' side won in a question framed this way.

Where are the limits though?

If they say only "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" groups are opposed to their Catholic values, they are sadly mistaken.

Would they prohibit pro bono work at ANY organization that could potentially conflict with their values? If so, more power to them, but it could have some absurd results.

If not, they shouldn't single out these groups simply because the issue happens to be very divisive.

oh one more thing: 11:01 There's clearly no law against that. You probably will be ineligible for federal funding, however, via Title IX.

I like this idea of an Islamic Law School where women have to pay to attend school and men don't. It's about time women learn there place in this world. Go Islam!

"Some students are just there for the former, and discomforted by the influence of the latter.:

Where's Mr. Grammuh Time?

A few years ago, an alum of Fordham undergrad donated money to purchase bronze school crests to be put in all Fordham University classrooms. They were put in, but there were complaints from some law students because the University crest had a Catholic Cross in in it, so the law school caved and took them down. It was pathetic because they were basically just ripped off the walls so you could still see the outline. It didn't seem reasonable to me that students could complain that a school's crest, a jesuit school which they voluntarily chose to attend, offended them and it would be taken down, but it seems like these are they days we live in: If my beliefs offend you and I am Christian, you will be accomodated, if your beliefs offend my sensibilities, its my problem. Oh, well.

11:12 - What is the grammatical problem? I don't see it.

Also, it seems you inserted a colon where you wanted to insert a quotation mark. Physician, heal thyself.

"What a crap school. How about upholding the Supreme Law of the Land? Ya know? That whole SCOTUS thing?

This "school's" mission is fundamentally in conflict with the core values of our legal system. "

The Supreme Law of the Land prevents private schools from telling schools what they can and can't do? Get a clue.

11:10- their standard is those groups "whose mission is fundamentally in conflict with a core value of a Catholic university" so your tangential conflcts theorectically shouldn't be an issue. Whether they are in practice is another question but that is the same issue we have with any of these type determinations which require some interpretation generally in the law.

Edit: ^students, not schools

11:09(2) - People who hold your views should not vote in these polls. If you don't think it's any of your business, don't cast a vote.

You are making this more complicated than it has to be. Most people read "support" as synonymous with "agreement."

Jeez, lawyers....

10:57 - There already is one. It's called Harvard. See recent press re: institution of Sharia law at the Harvard student gym (though I'm not sure if the administration has since come to its senses).

11:19 ----> Sharia law at the Harvard Law School gym???

If you forget to wipe down the stairmaster after using it, they cut off your hands.

And your legs, too.

Sorry 'bout that. I meant 11:01.

"10:57 - There already is one. It's called Harvard. See recent press re: institution of Sharia law at the Harvard student gym (though I'm not sure if the administration has since come to its senses)."

Six times a week at Harvard, no men are allowed to work out at a particular gym, due to requests from Muslim students. You may agree or disagree with this policy, but to describe it as institution of Sharia Law is quite a bit overboard.

Part of being an institution of higher education means being open to all ideas -- including ideas that the institution may not necessarily support. This is bogus.

11:14 - You are right about Fordham. Deeply disappointing, a Catholic school in name only.

Of course they have a right and a responsibility to protect Catholic values as a Catholic institution. You don't like it? Then don't go there. Get over it.

"People who hold your views should not vote in these polls. If you don't think it's any of your business, don't cast a vote."

There is an important distinction between "support" and "agree with" that is lost on most people. Many people "support" the right to abortion, but don't "agree" that abortion is morally proper. The whole point of federalism is that state rights should be "supported," even though the federal government may not "agree" with the choices made by the state.

St. Thomas is obligated to follow the Papal mandate of the Ex Corde document. A Catholic University is an interesting animal, though not an oxymoron. A University can be a place of learning and open its students to many different types of thinking without openly supporting an institution that is clearly opposed to a core Catholic value.

Harvard's gym rules barring men from using the gym = total wackadoodle nonsense. If everyone is charged the same amount to their student accounts for use of the gym, the men should either get a pro-rata discount or given the option of using another gym (maybe BSC) when the Harvard scarf dancing team practice is in session.

"Part of being an institution of higher education means being open to all ideas -- including ideas that the institution may not necessarily support. This is bogus."

Right, but providing public interest credit is offering support, not listening to ideas. There's no false advertising here; the student chose to go to a Catholic Law School. Students who don't see people when they look at sonograms, and want their educational institution to support that view, have plenty of educational options.....like, nearly every law school in the country.

Why are Catholics such assholes? I could care less about this post, but Catholics in general just suck (but don't swallow, that would be a sin).

First of all, a private school should be able to set pretty much any policy it wants to set, as long as it isn't getting federal funding and doesn't violate any laws. That's part of what makes this country great. You don't have to believe what everyone else believes, and you don't have to have the same values either. And if you want to discriminate based on something like abortion, there is no law saying you can't.

Isn't this St. Thomas policy more petty than asinine?

At Boston College, you can use your "Eagle bucks" at local stores, unless you plan on buying condoms. You can't get them at campus health services, and they won't allow you to use their institutions to get them anywhere else. Same principle here, just writ a bit larger.

Just petty really.

Sucking is also a sin... unless it is foreplay to intercourse within the context of marriage. Get it straight.

I think what 11: 43 meant to say was:

Why are Catholics (or conservatives, or liberals, or jews, or gays, or vegetarians, or evangelicals) such assholes? I could care less about this post, but Catholics (or conservatives, or liberals, or jews, or gays, or vegetarians, or evangelicals) in general just suck....

OK. Good points.
SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNEN TO 190K !!!

Does working for a prosecutor's office violate a "core Catholic value"? Because they sometimes kill people too when they request a death sentence. What about volunteering for Street Law, since public schools teach evolution, and evolution conflicts with the literal word of the Bible? I'd like to know the school's positions on these.
The problem here is that this seems to be a political preference rather than a religious preference, unless you're willing, as a Catholic, to embrace the staggering logical inconsistencies here.
The views of the Pope notwithstanding, it's hard to believe (and very alarming to see) that free-thinking adults undertake this kind of wholesale acceptance of book that was largely composed with an Iron Age worldview. Here in America, there is an intellectual emergency in progress.

Catholic dogma is in no way opposed to the theory of evolution. It conflicts where scientists say evolution implies that God doesn't exist.

I don't know how you came under the impression that Catholics interpret the Bible literally. That is certainly not the case.

11:51 - You should at least attempt to understand what Catholics believe before you criticize them. 1) Catholics have no problem with evolution; never have, never will; 2) Catholic teaching over the past 2,000 years generally does not object to the death penalty (see e.g., Aquinas or Augustine - not that you would).

To the extent there is an 'intellectual emergency in progress' in America, people who indulge in ill-informed criticisms may be part of the problem.

11:10(1) provides a nice example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. The problem is that the school isn't Catholic enough? So it should only be allowed to implement this policy if, say, it also bars pro bono credit to students who work with Iraq veterans (who fought in a war the Church views as immoral)?? Sheesh...

11:57 - Well then where, other than a literal interpretation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" would a Catholic find reason to oppose volunteering for Planned Parenthood? Keep in mind that the school specifically referred to "Catholic" values when stating its opposition.

11:51, the DP is not a big concern in Michigan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Michigan

Hey, 11:29, you're bogus. Being "open to all ideas" doesn't mean the school has to give credit for them. Some ideas are pretty odious.

12:00 - Evangelium Vitae (JPII, 1995) definitely objects to the death penalty and permits it only in extraordinarily rare situations.

Why the hub-bub? If you want to volunteer for an organization that will put you into the eternal fires of hell you can go to Cooley or GULC. We at St. Thomas will not be a part of anyone's eternal damnation.

12:02 - There is a humongous difference between a literal interpretation of a single line of the Bible and what is generally acknowledged as a literal interpretation of the Bible (e.g., the universe was created by God in six days).

There are numerous sources of authority in the Catholic tradition outside of the Bible alone.

I wish all Catholics and Muslims would just sack up and abort themselves.

"Well then where, other than a literal interpretation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" would a Catholic find reason to oppose volunteering for Planned Parenthood? Keep in mind that the school specifically referred to "Catholic" values when stating its opposition."

It's hard to know where to start, but 'thou shalt not kill' is hardly a specifically Catholic or Christian or Jewish concept. Catholics, like anyone else who opposes abortion, oppose it because it is the taking of an innocent human life (an intrinsically immoral act). This is a moral intuition common to humanity, although of course the Jewish and Christian Scriptures reflect it as well.

What 'catholic values' refers to is the process of moral reasoning that follows from that intuition. Namely, that it does apply to the fetus, which as a distinct genetic identity and often gender from its mother. Because of the gravity of the issue, the Church has said that it is required for Catholics to oppose abortion.

Your proposed 'literal' reading of 'thou shalt not kill' would forbid killing in self-defense or in a just war; none of which Catholics oppose.

One time I took a bible and smacked a Catholic's face with it.

"12:00 - Evangelium Vitae (JPII, 1995) definitely objects to the death penalty and permits it only in extraordinarily rare situations."

Yeah, but like I said, there is ample support for it in the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, etc. It's not a matter, like abortion, which basically has been opposed by the Christians since the 1st Century.

I strongly support any action by a religious institution which demonstrates the mental retardation of said institution.

This comes up quite frequently at GULC, where the Law Students For Choice group has basically been denied funding, forbidden from using certain campus space, etc. Likewise, students pursuing internships with - say - Planned Parenthood are denied summer funding through the pro-bono funding program.

It always strikes me as somewhat curious, and inconsistent, that the school seems to target the Law Students for Choice group, but appears to be less concerned about groups that advocate for gay rights....

If we're going to tow the Vatican line, shouldn't we just go all the way, or, admit that we're just a secular institution?

Yeah, I agree. Adhering to one's religious beliefs is kind of goofy.

I love how it has become so trendy to bash Christians. The people that do so usually see themselves as very sophisticated for doing so. Wow! You can mock a person. You're so hip!

Can I now pretty please here your thoughts on why all white males are evil?

Georgetown and, to an extent, the Jesuits, are known for being fairly ambivalent when it comes to matters like this. I'd guess that their permissive attitude toward a gay-straight alliance or whatever you have going on is probably a function of the strength of the pro-life movement with the church and the much more malleable standard when it comes to homosexuality. To be homosexual is not in and of itself a sin, it's the sex out of marriage, just like hetero sex.

White Christians suck. White Jewish Muslims to 190!!!

"To the extent there is an 'intellectual emergency in progress' in America, people who indulge in ill-informed criticisms may be part of the problem."

What could possibly be more ill-informed than accepting something (i.e., your belief that the Bible is the word of "God") without evidence? Justifying a belief by "faith" is asking me to take your belief out of rational discourse.

12:00,

If only you knew your own church as well as we uninformed atheists do. From a speech delivered by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2005:

Within the teaching about evolution itself, the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmary and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: "There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens."

This is a standard ID line, acknowledging the phenomenon (based on an utterly nonexistent distinction) of "micro" evolution and the change over time of the animal "kinds" that were supposedly on Noah's ark, but denying the phenomenon of speciation or the fact of a single origin of all life on Earth. In other words, the Pope is just another Discovery Institute hack.

Forgot to include the link to the speech: http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2509&page=2

--12:31

Abortion has not been consistently banned by the Christian Churches since the first century.

Augustine himself stated that abortion was not murder because a fetus did not have a soul. Modern Catholic thinking is that ensoulment happens at conception; but prior to that time, ensoulment was thought to happen at quickening, i.e., when the baby kicks/moves around.

Also, before you go saying "oh, people just shouldn't go to Catholic schools"--perhaps you should count up how many law schools are Catholic schools. In some parts of the country, they may be the only game in town. Boneheads.

And the vast majority of American Catholics use and believe in contraception, and a slim majority are pro-choice. So please don't conflate Church doctrine (which, as other Catholics on the thread have pointed out, you are ignorant of) with the beliefs of individual Catholics.

Not only are we not literalists, we also believe that the ultimate authority is the individual conscience, not the Pope or any other clergy. The Pope may say that abortion is murder, and if my conscience tells me otherwise, I am bound by my faith to differ.

What Cardinal Ratzinger said about evolution before becoming Pope may change, since his predecessor stated that there was no conflict, and further, that "evolution is more than a theory."

That may seem like a tepid endorsement, but JPII was a smart guy and knew the difference between scientific fact and theory, so that statement is actually a very strong endorsement.

12:35,

That's true, but I'm more concerned about what the current Pope thinks on the matter than what his predecessor thought. Contrary to Catholic belief, I don't quite buy the line that the man sheds all of his prior attitudes upon assuming the papacy.

--12:31

12:35 and 12:38 - Are you telling me that the Pope has a more rational view of the world than the President?

12:43,

My dog has a more rational view of the world than the President.

12:26 -- Slavishly parroting Richard Dawkins doesn't make you "rational," just reflexive and unimaginative.

Ok 12:47, pointing out that believing in fairies for no better reason than you want them to exist is "reflexive and unimaginative"? Idiot.

12:31: "denying ... the fact of a single origin of all life on Earth"

Congrats. For apparently nailing down that "fact," you're a Nobel lock!

Back when I was in student government at GULC (mid 90's) one of the evening reps successfully argued to stop funding of the pro-life student organization because the pro-choice organization wasn't allowed funding. Maybe thats an approach.

There's where you're wrong 12:50. It's atheists that believe in fairies. Catholics are against that belief. Haven't you been following along? Come on!

12:50: more Dawkins tripe, right down to the name-calling. Expand your worldview. Read.

Lol-- do you have anything but ad hominems to offer, 12:54?

Yes. The only Dawkins I care about is Daryl. Break'n rims, baby! Break'n rims!

12:54

12:57, that last post was an ad hominem argument, in and of itself.

lol

Uh huh. You can scream "Dawkins!!" all you want (though I have no idea why that's an insult) but until you can give some defense of belief in the absence of evidence, you've got nothing.

I'm glad some people are backing me up here. Actually it's not Richard Dawkins, but Sam Harris. You would do well to read his book. I've read the Bible and heard your side of the argument, now it's your turn.

1:05: Even if that is true, what do you care for? You say you don't believe in God or religion, but your rantings against it are a religion. So what is I believe in Santa Claus? How gives a shit? Why is it your job to disprove that? I'm not forcing you to believe. Your argument is based on the fact that religion, having no verifiable proof of God, is devoid of logic . . . thus the followers are idiots, right?

Does your behavior seem rational or logical? Dawkins is making a ton of money from this. What's driving you?

Why is it my turn now? Your statement assumes that you are important enough for me to care about your opinion. You're mistaken.

None of you guys believe in that whole "god" fiction, right? You're all pretty well education? Or is it just easier for you than staring into the abyss of existential terror?

Digging yourself deeper and deeper, 1:14. Pointing out the bullshit of others is now a "religion"? That's a load of crap. And yes, belief in an invisible man in the sky without a shred of evidence in support of that proposition makes one an idiot.

GULC is full of it. The only Catholic identity GULC consistently represents is a seemingly arbitrary ban on pro-choice funding. The administration strongly supports gay rights. There is not a single cross on campus. In December the campus is decorated with Christmas lights, but no manger. Condoms are sold in the campus convenience store. GULC should just recognize that it is a secular institution and give up its ridiculous fight against the campus pro-choice movement.

1:05 - Let me give the (well my) honest answer.

I am Catholic. I use dogma to influence how I act. I defy anyone to find fault with "Love thy neighbour as thy love oneself" [please don't correct it, I know that is not it exactly]. Anyone have a problem with "Turn the other cheek"? Coz I don't. I am Catholic so, unlike pat robertson nutjobs, I don't take everything literally, I am not obssessed with the OLD testament, and I listen to my conscience. This last part is the ultimate loophole, as I look back at my teaching and my moral soul and follow the course that I believe based on my faith. I was taught by Franciscans, and the final leason they taught me was that it does not matter what your religion, what your faith, what you belive, our God rewards those who lead a good life. So lead a good life.

And why do we believe without proof, honestly, because we so badly want to believe it. I'm with Pascal on this one - When the option is nothing or everlasting life, I'll choose to believe in the latter. If you are right, we're all fucked anyway, If I am right then I get past teh pearly gates. Ultimate zero sum game.

12:43 - Charles Manson has a more rational view of the world than the president. My Chocolate Lab has a more rational view than the president.

"If only you knew your own church as well as we uninformed atheists do. From a speech delivered by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2005."

You'll notice if you read the whole speach that Ratzinger doesn't endorse this view; he notes it and moves on to his main point, which is that there is nothing incompatible with faith and science. The quote you have selected is from a speach which endorses precisely the opposite point of view you are imputing to him.

1:25, I am not talking about moral philosophy, I am talking about the empirical beliefs underlying the Christian religion, which many liberal Christians prefer to ignore these days. Could you not follow the same moral code without professing to believe in a lot of superstitious nonsense that underlies it? I accept a lot of the moral philosophy in the New Testament as well, but I do so because I find that it comports with my independent moral judgment, not because I believe that it has been dictated from on high by some invisible creator of the universe in whose existence I haven't the slightest reason to believe.

"Abortion has not been consistently banned by the Christian Churches since the first century. Augustine himself stated that abortion was not murder because a fetus did not have a soul. Modern Catholic thinking is that ensoulment happens at conception; but prior to that time, ensoulment was thought to happen at quickening i.e., when the baby kicks/moves around.
."

According to what you've said, Augustine did teach - once it was clear the baby was alive - that abortion was immoral. That's the same thing the Church holds today. Augustine was relying on the Aristotelian principle that movement indicates the presence of life. What you've demonstrated is that science has advanced, showing us that life in fact begins earlier than they were able to verify in Augustine's time, not that the Church hasn't opposed abortion.

"his main point, which is that there is nothing incompatible with faith and science." Which is of course a load of horseshit.

1:19, belief without current proof does not make you an idiot. Why go to name calling.

How about gut instinct? Have you never felt something, but had no reason to base your feeling on, only to see it come through. What about those who where sure sun was not centre of universe but could not prove it at the time? Or those who believe man could go into space before it was proven possible? Or those who believed we could get teh same satisfaction in a cookie but with just 100 calories? Were these people idiots or just a head of their time?

If Stephen Hawkins an Idiot? most of his ideas cannot be proven. We do not know that there are worm holes. What about those studying String Theory, are they idiots? No proof for multi universes.

What was there before the big bang? Do you KNOW? Are you so sure?

I like to think of the uiverse as an Ant Farm. To the Ant, the owner of the farm is God. I can't prove it, can't disprove it, just my gut. Put me there with the other idiots I mentioned above.

Correction, 1:19 - only if I'm wrong. But if I'm not, then you're the idiot.

Man, you're really getting worked up over something you don't believe in. Try talking a nice walk.

"his main point, which is that there is nothing incompatible with faith and science."

Which is of course a load of horseshit."

Well, he's probably more familiar with the issue than you. What's your argument?

1:30, So your problem is angels, abortion etc? That is like hating NFL because of the cheerleaders.

Whatever. Both schools get to be what they want to be. Students are the ones who choose where to go. If we made these schools support killing unborn babies then no one's school/club/organization would be safe. Next thing you know they'd make law schools get rid of the kosher kitchens so that the Jewish students would have to eat the same food as the goy. Everyone likes their space sometimes. Give St. Thomas and GULC theirs.

And for real, if you're in DC and just like abortion so much you want to do pro bono for it, go to American or GW, not GULC or Catholic. Figure it out.

"And yes, belief in an invisible man in the sky without a shred of evidence in support of that proposition makes one an idiot."

First, there is evidence. Perhaps you are too close-minded to see it. Calling over 90% of the world an idiot and thinking you know better than everyone else is the height of arrogance. For all the ranting about Christians being narrow-minded, this is a prime example that narrow-mindedness is not a function of one's religion but that one lacks the ability to recognize that intelligent people can disagree. You lack respect for others and your inflated ego is obnoxious.

1:33,

Your arguments are way off on many levels. First of all much of modern cosmology is based not on observation but on mathematics; it is therefore a deductive rather than an inductive process and observational verification is not a requisite to belief. There's also an enormous difference between string theorists who posit their view as a plausible hypothesis based on the available observational evidence and religionists who claim a monopoly on absolute truth and morality without any evidence whatsoever beyond the hearsay statements and nonsensical prophecies set forth by a semi-barbaric tribe of desert dwellers 2000-5000 years ago. Men in space and diet cookies were not beliefs unfounded in evidence; there's nothing irrational about looking at the current state of the world and extrapolating to what might be possible in the future based on current observations and understanding. No comparison to religion whatsoever in that. Finally, yes, the rationality of a belief is unconnected to its ultimate truth value, so a person who claimed to *know* (as opposed to offering a plausible alternative hypothesis; cf. string theory) that the heliocentric model of the universe was inaccurate prior to observational and experimental verification of that would themselves be acting irrationally-- but I don't believe historically that anyone actually held that view.

1:33 - the main difference is that Dr. Hawkins and his colleagues are constantly trying to prove (or disprove, if you listen to Karl Popper) their theories and models. Scientist do not ask you to have "faith" that a theory is correct, they want to prove it to you.

And really, are you equating Sting Theory with virgin birth and a talking snake?

Catholics are poor and smell funny. Muslims just smell funny and like to bomb things.

Jesus actually existed. Many people swore that they witnessed him perform miracles. Isn't that at least some evidence? Hell, it's more evidence than what's used in a lot of courts to get convictions . . . beyond a reasonable doubt.

1:39, Reality is not determined by democratic vote. I don't particularly care what percentage of the global population still clings to antiquated superstitions; even if I were the only person in the world to see through the gauze of religious nonsense I would be no less correct. I certainly, and with some humility, accept that I am fortunate to have the benefits of a strong education in a first-world nation and sufficient natural intelligence and curiosity to have reasoned my way out of the superstitious haze that continues to confound most of the world; if that is arrogance, so be it. My arrogance or lack thereof has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God or the transparent poverty of the arguments in his favor.

1:36,
My problem is with *God*. If you think that belief in God is tangential to religion, I respectfully suggest that that's absurd. But more to the point, as I suggested perhaps too implicitly in my comment to which you're responding, I also object to the religionists' approach to moral philosophy. Although, as I noted, I share some of the moral conclusions of contemporary Christianity, I do so on the basis of independent judgment rather than simple passive acceptance which religion holds to be the highest good.

1:41, you do realize that you are acting as if YOU have a monopoly on absolute truth.

FAITH is not KNOWLEDGE, if it were it would be FACT and not FAITH. These are very basic principles that you are falling down on. Anyone who says they KNOW there is a God and says that this KNOWLEDGE is based on their FAITH is using the word KNOW incorrectly. I believe in God, I do not know he is there but I choose to believe he is. Thus I am like the man who believed that Man could stand on the moon - joe bloogs who felt in his gut it was possible, bit the scientist guy who had the numbers in front of him.

My point is that they look at things at the time and had beliefs that were not grounded in evidence at that time. History is fulll of people who had BELIEFS and set about trying to prove them or make them work. Not all work. I BELIEVE you are being very insulting and judgmental when you mock those who believe.

It is you that is acting as if they KNOW there is no God, when really all you do of believe there is no God. True? Can you conceed that or are you too full of self assurance to accept that you act the same as those you despise?

One last point, who is to say that there will not come a day when science gets to the poin that we find the exact origin of the Universe (you do know that this is still unknown). We may get to meet our maker and discover we do have a soul that allows us to cross from this world to the next (somewhat similar to parts of string theory). And then we will be exactly like those who believed until science caught up with them.

12:25, you are wrong. The Bible says homosexuality is an "abomination."

1:25, you are a poster child for abortion.

GULC is private. It can do what it wants. If you don't like it, go to a state school.

Um, can I vote for "I don't care about how law students at some TTT law school fulfill their pro bono requirement?"

1:46, for the last time you have got Catholic confused with Evangelicals. We do NOT believe in a literal reading of the bible. Most Catholic Scholars accept that the first few books of the OLD tESTAMENT were written by several sourse and contain errors due to copying etc. Genesis is a story told to explain the world to a bunch of lost jews wandering the dessert.

Before you sput anything more please accept that with CAtholics we reside in the NEW Testament, with moral teachings from Jesus - who did exist, I hope you can conceed that - Letters from Peter and Paul, etc. Leave talking snakes out of the conversation (unless you are talking about Jesus in the Dessert, in which case again that is accepted as a vision he had.) And Virgin births, not impossible. The natural world has given us animals that impregnate themselves, so the power is there.

If you go to st. Thomas, what the hell did you think you were getting in to? There are plenty of other equally bad law schools that are non-catholic.

"Although, as I noted, I share some of the moral conclusions of contemporary Christianity, I do so on the basis of independent judgment rather than simple passive acceptance which religion holds to be the highest good..."

A couple comments: 1) I think you are a little too dismissive of Christians; you seem to be implying that they 'passively accept' rather than think through there positions. You may mean to say this, in which case I would question the basis for your assumption that you are some sort of heroic seeker of truth, whereas Christians who disagree with you are not. Rest assured, if Christianity did not meet the fairly exacting criteria of my 'independent judgment' I wouldn't be a Christian.

2) You say that you share 'moral conclusions' with Christianity. If there is not an absolute standard of goodness, then moral reasoning as an enterprise is a fool's errand. There is no point in stating you agree that something is right or wrong, when you reject the idea that there is a standard of right and wrong. If you do believe in a standard of right and wrong, then what is it's origin?

No 1:53, even if the existence of God is ultimately scientifically established (I don't see how that's possible, but we'll accept it for the sake of argument), the non-believers will *still* have been right to have rejected belief until acceptance became rational. It reminds me of what Bertrand Russell said in response to being asked what he might do if, upon dying, he found himself face to face with the Almighty, who demanded an explanation for his avowed atheism in life: "Sorry, God, not enough evidence."

Capitalization aside, your tenuous grasp of epistemology is hardly convincing, nor is the moon example. We know the moon exists. We can see it. The question of whether, and when, it would become technologically possible to travel there is of a different order entirely than is the empirical question of the existence or non-existence of God. There is no empirically observable answer to questions about the future because they are not statements of present existence. "There is a God" and "There are unicorns" are statements of present fact that presumably have an empirically testable truth value; statements about the future are simply not comparable.

"even if I were the only person in the world to see through the gauze of religious nonsense I would be no less correct."

This is the greatest example of what you speak against. How do you KNOW that you are correct?

1:55, You are also looking at the Old Testament that says Homosexuality is wrong. I wouldn't do that. Reread the passage on Sodom and Gomora, but read past the end. You know, to the bit about the father in the cave with his two daughters. If that section is used to knock homosexuality then it can be used to condone incest. Which is why I like being CATHOLIC AND NOT HAVING TO BELIEVE IN THAT Word for word.

2:00

1) That's interesting. Your acceptance of Christianity is based on your independent belief in the value of its moral precepts rather than in the factual truth of its empirical claims? Why? Would it be less true that God exists and that Jesus is the savior of man if the Bible commanded us to lie and steal and murder and commit adultery, rather than commanding us to abstain from those things? That's my point about passivity; it seems to me that a Christian who accepts the (empirically dubious) factual claims of Christianity is compelled to accept its moral claims as well without reference to their objective plausibity.

2) Nonsense. This is the classic religionist canard that atheism leads to moral nihilism. I assure you it is perfectly possible to make value judgments about human behavior without the belief that such judgments are compelled by an invisible parental figure.

GULC students give themselves abortions in class all the time. Its very distracting. I hate it.

"This is the greatest example of what you speak against. How do you KNOW that you are correct?"
That was probably worded inartfully, but my point was that the number of people who accept or reject a given proposition has nothing to do with its objective truth value. To put it differently, I could be wrong, but the fact that everyone else in the world disagrees with me doesn't establish that fact.

There is a cure for cancer.

Statement of present fact.
No cure has yet been found.
However we believe that we can find a cure.
Should we just stop looking?

Once a cure is found then it will exist, and as such it would have existed from day 1, we just did not find evidence for it yet. But the cure was always there.

There is a God.

Statement of present fact.
No God has yet been found.
However we believe that we will find God.
Should we just stop looking?

Once God is found then it will exist, and as such it would have existed from day 1, we just did not find evidence for it yet. But God was always there.

"I assure you it is perfectly possible to make value judgments about human behavior without the belief that such judgments are compelled by an invisible parental figure."

That's why I asked you to explain the grounds for those value judgments

Go read Kant and Mill, for a start.

"Your acceptance of Christianity is based on your independent belief in the value of its moral precepts rather than in the factual truth of its empirical claims?"

It's based on both; they are inextricably linked. If the moral claims appeared ridiculous, then I would reject the empirical claims, and vice versa. Why do you find the empirical claims dubious?

2:12 here, I have not read any response to my post, if any, but wanted to nip something in bud. I have a feeling that someone will attack evidence for a cure and evidence of God.

I take the Bible, Jesus, Miracles and Faith as evidence of God, but not proof. They do not establish clear cut God exists, but they offer evidence, they point the way, same as all the trials for cures.

Kant "Reason compels us to admit such a ruler, together with life in such a world, which we must consider as future life, or else all moral laws are to be considered as idle dreams… ."

He seems to agree with me...

The funny thing is that an argument for or against God is as pointless as debating how many angels can dance on top of a pinhead. My faith is mine, I do not seek to impose it on anyone else. Your faith that there is no God is yours, but you seem hellbent on imposing it on others. Your apparent desire that everyone accept there is no God is no different from a desire that everyone becomes Catholic.

You are the same as those you attack, because you refuse to conceed any ground, you insult people who disagree with you, anyone not enlightened as you is an idiot, nothing exists unless science proves it - thus science acts as religion (the ultimate final authority) to you same as those who believe that the bible is the final authority.

I enjoyed these posts as it allowed me to examine my faith, why I believe, and also introduced me to concept that it is not just religious people who are intolerant, narrowminded and stuck in their ways. That must be a human thing as opposed to a religious thing.

2:12, the big difference is that rational scientists looing for a cure for cancer don't have "faith" that there does, in fact, exist a cure for cancer. Current medical knowledge coupled with the observation that cures exist for other diseases suggests that there MAY be a cure for cancer, and these scientists' actions are motivated by their estimates of (1) the probability that a cure can be found and (2) the rewards of finding a cure. Their attitudes can be summarized as, "if there's a cure, we think we can find it!"

1:48, you said "Many people swore that they witnessed [Jesus] perform miracles." If I'm not mistaken, which I may be, these individuals did not each write down their testimonies. Instead, their purported testimonies were combined into one source, which is what we've received. We don't have many witnesses. We have one witness, which says, "Oh no, there were like totally a bunch of people there who all saw it, too." Don't be confused by one source telling you there are lots of sources--it's still just one source.

In other words, I could write a book tomorrow that says that on January 23, 1998, aliens came down from Saturn and ate all the earth's cheese, and a full 50% of the earth's population personally witnessed this event--3 billion people, give or take. Hide my book in a cave for 600 years. When future-people dig it up and say that they have 3 billion witnesses to the Great Cheese Eating Incident of 1998, they are being stupid, because in fact, they have one source. My bullshit book.

I think there is actually more historically reliable evidence that:

(1) A man named Jesus lived in the Middle East approximately 2000 years ago, he died by crucifixion, and subsequently appeared to many people who knew him.

than...

(2) The universe arose from nothingness without the intervention of some outside force, and then life on earth arose out of the random combinations of chemicals that happened to combine into single-celled life, and then that single-celled life randomly grew or combined into multi-celled life, and then that multi-celled life randomly became more and more varied to the extent that we can witness today.

Many people who personally observed the central truth claim of Christianity were transformed in such a way that they were willing to die for that faith. How do you "rationally" explain that?

Hi 2:31,

I'm an athiest Buddhist, and I enjoyed reading your post. I can't speak for the other athiests around here, but I have no problem with your faith, and I don't think you're an idiot. Faith is not logical, but who says people have to be 100% logical all the time?

To be honest, I still have some prejudice against the faithful, but I think it's because my only exposure to faith has been courtasy of the people who try to shove it down others' throughts. The reason I enjoyed your post is because you seem like an example of how faith can actually be a positive influence rather than a negative one. You are probably happier and kinder than most of the people posting here, including me.

Isn't this the greatest thread on ATL ever?

1:58 - I believe Jesus existed based on the writings of Peter, Paul etc., as I believe Winnie the Pooh exists based on the writings of A.A. Milne. Rather than to describe contemporay (althogh that's debated) events, could the Testaments not have been creations written to aid the Church's effort to convert the sun-worshippers?

Is it the official Catholic (as opposed to Evangelical) position that Mary was a hermaphrodite?

-- 1:46

2:34, Fine. You seem to live in a world were everything is cold and rational. I have experience in the science cancer world - not me, as I am a lawyer but mother and sister are in research. If you don't think that scientists involved in this are gripped by belief, and almost religious fervor, well you are mistaken based on my experiences. Humans are not robots, or scientific beings. We rely on gut, we rely on belief, we rely on that feeling that there is something more.

I also disagree with your sentance that rational scientists don't have faith there is a cure. I think history has shown that the best scientists have indeed had a *faith* behind a theory and they pursue it to its ends. In my experience, a scientist only gives up on a theory (and I mean truly abandons it) when there is clear evidence that it is wrong. I intend to do the same. I will believe until I have evidence that I was wrong. That evidence is not there.

I love when Christians call atheists arrogant.

Christians believe they have all of the answers to life, the universe, and everything (and more, that the being that created everything takes a personal interest in their sorry asses) while atheists are happy to answer "I don't know" to questions regarding the origin of the universe, but somehow it is the atheists that are arrogant.

2:40 - -You must have read the Jeff Spicoli Bible. That must have set you back some righteous bucks!

2:43, I assume you believe that there was a spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet that took the Heaven's Gate cultists to the afterlife? After all, people were willing to die for that belief.

In other words, willingness to die for a belief does not make the truth claims assumed by the belief objectively true.

Also, there are plenty of problems with the history of the bible if you care to look (start with Misquoting Jesus).

2:45, then these "scientists" are also idiots. Faith is poison.

"while atheists are happy to answer "I don't know" to questions regarding the origin of the universe, but somehow it is the atheists that are arrogant."

uh, no.....agnostics say "I don't know"....atheists say 'NO!, and it's child abuse for you to instruct children in Christianity.'

"I will believe until I have evidence that I was wrong. That evidence is not there."

This is a really sad statement.