Further, the only really sinful thing is if you knowingly vote for a candidate because they support intrinsic evil.  You can vote for Obama (I just did) if you support him for the likelihood he can do more good overall, and despite the intrinsic evils he supports.

If a dude with no animal control background who is terrified of dogs runs as the “pro-life dog-catcher” because he opposes abortion, you’d be entirely reasonable to vote for the pro-choice dog catcher with years of animal experience.

same way one can easily reason (even if you are against all abortion) Obama supports abortion, but Romney won’t do shit about abortion either way because he’s a lying sack of crap trying to take those evangelicals for their votes.  Obama will at least do much more for the poor, so I will vote for him.

“The “eye of a needle” has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no evidence for the existence of such a gate.”

This is apologetics.  It’s called “apologetics” because the point is not to fight fair or find out the truth but to defend (the current interpretation of) Christian dogma tooth and nail.

As a fundamentall untenable metaphysical worldview, Atheism is in a technical sense a religion.

A technical sense which you made up right now to justify your assertion that atheism is a religion.

To say atheism is a fundamentally untenable metaphysical worldview is to beg the question.  It’s actually quite tenable, thank you very much.

Why do we humor people who still cling to beliefs that are just wrong?

Seriously, though – if the ACLU or someone similarly legally educated and willing to take on difficult tasks is willing to pursue the removal of tax-exempt status from those who hide behind their religion while attempting to manipulate our election process, put me down for a couple grand in support of the effort.

See:  http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp and comments at http://www.chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/

YMMV, depending on how you want to define words, especially around here where people seem so willing to define anything to mean anything as long as the resulting snippet of snark sounds cooler than the one immediately prior.

P.S. It turns out he has a conflict of interest. He did backup vocals on Mitt Romney’s debut album, “Romney and the Neocons – World War 3″.
(Sorry, the artwork isn’t available yet.)

If Romney wins, the album is sure to sell better and he’ll get more royalties.

The law is clear, he should not be using his office to attempt to influence an election. The letter is clear, he intends to influence the election and uses his office to do so. 

His vagueries of naming without naming and threatening without threatening aside, I’m glad we’ve got it down to “it has gone before, therefore”.

I don’t doubt that nothing will come of his violation (no inquiry by the IRS and Obama will win anyway and most of his flock will ignore him like most good Catholics already ignore even the legitimate politics of their clergy)  and that it is one of the reasons he is confident enough to instruct voting if not enough to do it honestly or plainly.

From whatever angle you look, that bishop is on the wrong side. 

There is nothing bad in homosexuality, it is a personal decision and in fact it is a positive development for our society (less reproduction). 

And Abortion is nobodys business except each individual pregnant woman’s – a personal decision, no one else has any right to interfere.