markomalley

Not an option, Abi. People are no better than animals. They can't be expected to control themselves. You know that! (groan)

Dot, This is a fundamentally doctrinal issue. That's why I said what I said. The issue about birth control, responsibility for one's children (society, community, individual, etc.), and all of these issues are, imho, fundamentally theological issues. This is not the doctrinal forum. It is not the place here to discuss that type of issue. It's not that I can't provide any information, it's just not the correct place to do so here. Out of respect for those who don't care to read about the Bible, about fundamental principles of Catholic Social Doctrine, and so on, I just don't care to discuss it here. If you ask me MY OPINION of what the fella said, I think he's a bum. If you want me to go into theological reasoning, there's a time and place. This ain't the place. The doctrinal basement is.

True! LOL And who brought that injustice (no sarcasm) to the attention of the board participants here?

Absolutely. After all, the cemetary administration of the VA classifies atheism right up there with Christian, Jewish, and Taoist: Source: VA

Garth, So then, you believe that the BBC was in error to group atheism in with other world religions, as they did?

So are you saying that he did not have the opportunity? Or are you saying that he did not take advantage of the opportunity?

Sounds like this one should go down to doctrinal, actually.

Fine with me Geo. Frankly, the fact that it was even listed in a group of religions was rather interesting (and what I wished to point out).

See this link: BBC Religions page What do you all think? Does the BBC have it right? or are they all wet?

Did Zarqawi have a chance to repent and be saved? If St. Therese de Lisieux have had her way, yes. Folks, many of you know by heart the story of St. Therese de Lisieux. There's an episode in her life that I find very meaningful, majestic. It is, in fact, "a teaching moment." You might remember, then, the story of Henri Panzini, who had murdered two women in Paris. He was seen as an irreformable criminal and condemned to death. Therese prays and offers sacrifices for him. She asked she be given a sign of is conversion. Upon approaching the guillotine, Panzini asked for a crucifix and tenderly kissed it three times. I have prayed for Zarqawi, Bin Laden, and Zawahiri, but definitely not with the spiritual perfection of a St. Therese. In the very beginning, I prayed for their swift termination; then, as the Lord continued to teach me patiently, I prayed for God to met out His justice in any way He saw fit. I thought, and continue to think this is a more righteous prayer than just asking God to cut them down. The Lord loves them too, I figured, and fervently wished their conversion, repentance, healing, and salvation, by the infinite merits of Jesus Christ. After that insight I actively started praying for their conversion. No, I didn't enlist the intercession of St. Therese but in retrospect, I should have. This kind of prayer is the most perfect kind of prayer, the prayer we say for our enemies according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. My point is that there are numerous, holy, hidden souls in the world praying more perfectly for these very bad, bad people and like St. Therese before them, they too are praying and offering sacrifice for the conversion of people who are "confirmed in evil." Now we find out that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi survived for a few minutes the bombs that ultimately took his life. Just suppose for a moment that he had one last minute to choose, to repent, to see the import of his life; one moment in which he saw Him and the desire for Him confirmed his repentance, conversion, and salvation. And like the Good Thief, Zarqawi entered the Kingdom that very day. We will not know for certain on this side of the curtain of death, but it is possible, according to the teaching of the Lord, that a late coming laborer be paid the same as those who came in early. Thus it is Written. That's why we can't judge any one conscience, any one soul. Only the Lord judges. It is easy to say, as Delware's Senator Biden said, that "there's a place in hell for Zarqawi" and frankly, that was my initial reaction as well. At some guttural level, I still feel so. Yet, I also know that's not what the Lord wants for me. How can I forget the import of my own prayers for Zarqawi et al? Was I just praying to assuage my own conscience, too "feel good" but never really meaning it? And if I, a very imperfect soul, can at least come up with the idea of praying for the conversion of someone like Zarqawi, what about those who prayed for him in this manner and "really meant it"? Couldn't the Lord have answered their prayers? To end, let us bring to mind what the Lord himself had said: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. St. Mathew 5:43-48, NIV This is from a blog I read regularly, called Vivificat. Although I recognize that the vast majority here do not subscribe to the intercession of St. Therese of Liseaux or any other saint, I would ask that you consider the basic issue raised: what if, at the moment of death, Zarqawi repented?

Well, it looks like we may have an Alberto in a couple of days... Looks as if three people may have the lucky number for that part of the pool.

Free2Love: Thank you for the nice response. It's interesting that you almost verbatim quoted a teaching promulgated by Wierwille in your argument. You said, As far as that goes, I know that religion, at its best, is still man-made. The word in the bible chosen by God for religion in Greek is threskia which means “the outward show of piety” as opposed to the Greek word eusebeia, translated godliness and defined as “a real, true, vital, spiritual relation(ship) with God” That was a false dichotomy put forth by Wierwille and company: that threskeia and eusebia were opposed one to another. In addition, developing paragraphs long definitions for words that hardly require them...and putting definite spin into them... Threskeia means ceremonial worship. Eusebeia means piety. Threskeia is definitely external: it speaks about the practices used in worship. Eusebeia is definitely internal. It refers to an attitude... The implication given was that they are mutually exclusive. But I would submit that one would have a very difficult time with authentic threskeia without having eusebeia inside. The epistle of James speaks extensively about genuine religion versus false religion in this regard. The word "threskeia" is used but twice, but...reading the entire epistle for what it is (not like it's horribly long)...we can see that true religion performs acts of mercy. "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead." You are absolutely correct that Our Lord said to the Pharisees said, Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Mt 15). Of course, we need to understand the context of this statement. (Sorry for the length of this, but it is interesting and critical for my argument). Mat 15:1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, Mat 15:2 "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." Mat 15:3 He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? Mat 15:4 For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.' Mat 15:5 But you say, 'If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.' Mat 15:6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. Mat 15:7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: Mat 15:8 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; Mat 15:9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'" The key verses that you need to focus on are verses 4 and 5. To really understand this, though, you should look at the parallel in Mark 7: Mar 7:5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?" Mar 7:6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; Mar 7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' Mar 7:8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." Mar 7:9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! Mar 7:10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die'; Mar 7:11 but you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God)-- Mar 7:12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, Mar 7:13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do." Note verses 10 and 11 above. An example of what the Pharisees were doing is shown there. Resources that they should have used to take care of their mother and father were declared to be "Corban" (in Hebrew, Qorban or Qurban). Qorban is sacrifice or an oblation to God. I would encourage you to take a look at the Jewish Virtual Library article on the subject of sacrifices. I would also encourage you to look at the Christian Courier article on the subject. The key paragraphs that explain what was going on are pasted here: Some of the Jews, however, had concocted a scheme to avoid parental responsibility. They would designate certain of their financial resources as “corban.” The Greek word korban is related to the term korbanas, signifying the “temple treasury.” In Jewish practice, therefore, the word “corban” had been coined as a sort of “vow” term. According to the prevailing tradition, one could designate his financial resources as “corban,” which, practically speaking, was a way of “tagging” them, suggesting, “this belongs to God,” and thus was not to be used for personal interests. There is a passage in the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus, that illustrates the fact that funds from the temple treasury were “corban,” hence could not be used for secular purposes, e.g., city improvements, as in the building of an aqueduct for water supply (Wars 2.9.4). Thus, in the manner just described, the covetous, ungrateful Jews callously neglected parental responsibility by an appeal to this perverted human tradition. In so doing, they flouted the law of God. And yet, on this occasion, they had the unconscionable nerve to accuse the Lord and his disciples of a breach of spirituality because they ignored uninspired rabbinical tradition. This was the epitome of inconsistency. Understanding the context, it is pretty clear (to me, at least) that a blanket condemnation of tradition is not being made. Rather a condemnation of traditions that end up making void the Word of God. Consider this verse in regards to that: 1Cr 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions (note: KJV=ordinances) even as I have delivered them to you. 2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thes 3:8 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. You'll note that St. Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to live in accord with the tradition they received from them (Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy). Again, words that are basically neutral in nature have been shown to be in opposition to other words. Tradition=bad. God's Word=Good. The word, paradosis (tradition) is a neutral word. It literally means that which was delivered by word or in writing. It is derived from the word paradidomi (a verb), meaning to deliver, to impart verbally. It's origin is from para (from, by) and didomi (to give). Some of the interesting verses using this verb are: Rom 6:17 (darby) But thanks [be] to God, that ye were bondmen of sin, but have obeyed from the heart the form of teaching into which ye were instructed (paradidomi). 1 Cor 11:23 (rsv) For I received from the Lord what I also delivered (paradidomi) to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed (paradidomi) took bread, 1 Cor 15:3 (rsv) For I delivered (paradidomi) to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, Jude 3 (rsv) Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered (paradidomi) to the saints. There are also a number of verses that use paradidomi for Jesus being handed over for Crucifixion. The point is that the words are neutral...the concept is that authentic traditions are not at odds with God's Word...and, in fact, Christians are commended to follow them. False tradition, those that are not in harmony with God's Word, are not a good thing. Your statement, though, That’s pretty much how I feel now about Christian religions. Christ is preached; far out. …but I also know that the doctrines and traditions of men make God’s word “of none effect”. has a lot of truth in it. When ecclesiastical communities go off in their own direction without regard for God's Word, they mess up and do much to hurt the people that choose to follow them. I won't say all are that way. I won't say that ANY of them are perfect. But I think that many of them have much to offer...some more than others... As to the "Sower" article you cite, I understand the references within 1 Cor 14. I understand that everything should be done for building up (cf v 26). Of course, this is done since He is not the God of disorder, but of Peace (cf v33). I, frankly, am not sure how these verses that you cited have anything to do with any type of hierarchy one way or the other. Of course, I am not able to look at this issue of "the Sower," so there might be something else that I might have missed. I still go back to the fact that had bishops, priests, and deacons not been needed, their offices wouldn't have had been established in the New Testament. Thanks again for the thoughtful response.

Strong Catholic Content: Rated "PG" - "R" (last movie with Strong Catholic Content was Therese...PG) Don't know about the others...

000 AXNT20 KNHC 091703 TWDAT TROPICAL WEATHER DISCUSSION NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL 205 PM EDT FRI JUN 09 2006 TROPICAL WEATHER DISCUSSION FOR NORTH AMERICA...CENTRAL AMERICA...THE GULF OF MEXICO...THE CARIBBEAN SEA...NORTHEASTERN SECTIONS OF SOUTH AMERICA...AND THE ATLANTIC OCEAN TO THE AFRICAN COAST FROM THE EQUATOR TO 32N. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS BASED ON SATELLITE IMAGERY...WEATHER OBSERVATIONS...RADAR... AND METEOROLOGICAL ANALYSIS. BASED ON 1200 UTC SURFACE ANALYSIS AND SATELLITE IMAGERY THROUGH 1700 UTC. ...TROPICAL WAVES... TROPICAL WAVE IS ALONG 29W S OF 11N MOVING W 15 KT. A SLIGHT INVERTED V-PATTERN IS EVIDENT EMBEDDED WITHIN THE ITCZ...ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT AS WELL-DEFINED AS YESTERDAY. THIS WAVE HAS FAIR CURVATURE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THERE ARE NO AREAS OF DEEP CONVECTION DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED. GFS HAS THE WAVE SOMEWHAT INITIALIZED AND CARRIES IT QUICKLY WWARD AS A FAIRLY WEAK FEATURE. TROPICAL WAVE IS ALONG 56W S OF 9N MOVING W 10-15 KT. WAVE IS MOSTLY INLAND OVER SOUTH AMERICA AND HAS BECOME DIFFICULT TO LOCATE. LITTLE...IF ANY WAVE SIGNATURE IS NOTED ON SATELLITE IMAGERY. ASSOCIATED CONVECTION IS WITHIN THE ITCZ AND IS DISCUSSED IN THAT SECTION. TROPICAL WAVE IS ALONG 69W S OF 12N MOVING W 10 KT. WAVE REMAINS INLAND OVER SOUTH AMERICA AND HAS BECOME VERY CHALLENGING TO TRACK OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS. NO WAVE SIGNATURE IS EVIDENT. TROPICAL WAVE IS ALONG 79W/80W S OF 13N MOVING W 10 KT. THE SOUTHERN EXTENSION OF THE WAVE IS ACROSS THE EPAC AND CUTS ACROSS PANAMA INTO THE W CARIBBEAN. MUCH OF THE CONVECTION IS ALONG AND TO THE SOUTH OF THE ITCZ IN THE E PACIFIC REGION. THIS WAVE HAS SOME SIGNATURE ESPECIALLY S OF PANAMA. ITCZ... ITCZ AXIS IS CENTERED ALONG 9N13W 6N23W 5N40W 6N54W. CLUSTERS OF MODERATE CONVECTION LIES FROM 4N-10N BETWEEN 15W-19W. SCATTERED SHOWERS AND ISOLATED TSTMS ARE WITHIN 60 NM EITHER SIDE OF THE AXIS W OF 34W. SCATTERED MODERATE CONVECTION IS OFF THE COAST OF AFRICA E OF 4W N OF 1N TO INLAND OVER AFRICA. ...DISCUSSION... GULF OF MEXICO... THE DEEP UPPER TROUGH THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ACROSS THE GULF OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS HAS MOVED TO THE NE NOW COVERING ONLY THE NE SECTOR. UPPER RIDGING EXTENDS FROM AN UPPER ANTICYCLONE OVER S MEXICO NWARD TO TEXAS. THIS UPPER RIDGE IS BUILDING EWARD INTO THE W GULF. ESSENTIALLY...THIS UPPER LEVEL CONFLUENT PATTERN IS GENERATING STRONG SUBSIDENCE ACROSS NEARLY THE ENTIRE GULF OF MEXICO. AT THE SFC...A WEAK DISSIPATING TROUGH LIES FROM LAKE OKEECHOBEE FLORIDA SWWARD TO 24N87W. THIS TROUGH IS MARKED BY A NARROW THIN BAND OF CLOUDS AND A WIND SHIFT. A WEAK 1015 MB HIGH IS CENTERED IN THE NW GULF NEAR 27N95W. MAINLY FAIR AND DRY WEATHER EXTENDS ACROSS THE GULF WITH LIGHT SFC WINDS. THE DRY WEATHER IN THE REGION OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS MAY COME TO AN END FOR A PORTION OF THE GULF THIS WEEKEND AS A SLOWLY DEVELOPING SYSTEM IN THE NW CARIBBEAN MOVES NWARD DRAWING TROPICAL MOISTURE INTO THE E/CENTRAL GULF. THIS SYSTEM MAY DEVELOP INTO THE FIRST TROPICAL DEPRESSION OF THE ATLANTIC SEASON IN THE NEXT DAY OR TWO. (Remainder snipped)

Let doctors kill without consent, says ethics expert By Ian Evans DOCTORS should be allowed to help to kill terminally ill patients with or without their consent, a leading professor of medical ethics said yesterday. Emeritus Professor Len Doyal said that doctor-assisted deaths were already taking place in Britain on a “regular and recurring basis” and needed to be better regulated. He said that many doctors took part in a form of euthanasia by withdrawing essential treatment to “alleviate suffering”. Writing in the Royal Society of Medicine journal Clinical Ethics, Professor Doyal said: “When doctors withdraw life-sustaining treatment, such as feeding tubes from severely incompetent patients, it should morally be recognised for what it is — euthanasia where death is foreseen with certainty. “Doctors may not want to admit this and couch their decision in terms such as ‘alleviating suffering’ but withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from severely incompetent patients is morally equivalent to active euthanasia.” (snip) Referring specifically to the Joffe Bill, Professor Doyal claimed: “Some supporters of euthanasia remain silent about non-voluntary euthanasia, presumably because they believe that focusing on voluntary euthanasia offers a better chance of legalisation. “Yet, in doing so, they ignore important arguments for their own position. “If doctors are now allowed control and should be able to exert even more control over the deaths of severely incompetent patients, why should competent patients not be able to control the circumstances of their own deaths if this is what they wish? “Proponents of voluntary euthanasia should support non-voluntary euthanasia under appropriate circumstances and with proper regulation.” Source: London Times Note to self: next time I go to the UK, make sure not to get sick or injured... Just remember, is people!

That post is, therefore, rated:

And these folks should be rated:

Last time I checked, he had a total of one post on his group and three members. ((yawn))

Sudo, Thanks a lot...

If a movie needs to be inoffensive, can anything at all be rated "G" anymore? After all, EVERYBODY in this country is offended by SOMETHING? (I think they should make the teletubbies movie "PG" -- after all, that amount of insipidness is highly offensive to me!)

I personally don't care, as long as it's evenly applied. But I can just see this flick not being allowed to be shown in a Baptist church...because of a policy of only showing "G" flicks for their kids LOL the MPAA site says the following: This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. that would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film. The G rating is not a certificate of approval nor does it signify a children’s film. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated films. The violence is at a minimum. Nudity and sex scenes are not present, nor is there any drug use content. This is a film which clearly needs to be examined by parents before they let their children attend. The label PG plainly states parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but leaves the parent to make the decision. Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, to PG-rated movies. The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. However, these elements are not considered so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film. The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement. As long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning. PG-13 is thus a sterner warning to parents, particularly when deciding which movies are not suitable for younger children. Parents, by the rating, are alerted to be very careful about the attendance of their under-teenage children. A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use content will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. In effect, the PG-13 cautions parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before they allow their 12-year-olds and younger to attend. If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13 category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating. A film’s single use of one of the harsher sexually derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents. PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children and moviegoing. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can make. Its purpose is to give pre-screened informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make parental decisions easier for films between PG and R. In the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely contains some adult material. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about this film before they allow their children to accompany them. An R-rated film may include strong language, violence, nudity, drug abuse, other elements, or a combination of the above, so parents are counseled in advance to take this advisory rating very seriously. This rating declares that the Rating Board believes this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not necessarily mean obscene or pornographic; in the oft-accepted or legal meaning of those words. The Board does not and cannot mark films with those words. These are legal terms for courts to decide. The reasons for the application of an NC-17 rating can be excessive violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children. So, PG signifies: This is a film which clearly needs to be examined by parents before they let their children attend. That is interesting in this context. I can imagine that an atheist would want to seriously examine this flick before letting his kids attend it. The label PG plainly states parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but leaves the parent to make the decision. Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, to PG-rated movies. Again, I can imagine that an atheist might consider the film unsuitable. The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance. Sure. A religious theme would call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity in these films. I suppose to some, hearing a prayer might be considered profanity. I can see that. There may be some violence or brief nudity. However, these elements are not considered so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. Or there might be an advocacy to become an evangelical Christian. That would not be a good thing. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film. The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement. Well, we can see that disagreement here, can't we? As long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning. Thank you, Big Brother. I really don't find it to be an issue too much. I just find it sort of funny that a PG rating is applied. I would hope that a film that advocated Islam or a film that advocated Buddhism or a film that advocated skepticism receives the same scrutiny.

Yawn...old news. (btw, it was "leg press" not "bench press")

Unless, of course, one was to ask the owner of a pizzaria in Italy.....

Joe Weber, who recently purchased WWAA-AM/1690, will be migrating his eclectic music format (everything from Pavoratti to Springsteen, Beethoven to Aretha) from 1160 starting Monday June 12. 1690 has run liberal talk show syndicate Air America the past couple of years. Weber is planning to keep only Al Franken from noon to 3 p.m. He says his focus is on mornings and drivetime and by keeping Franken, he hopes to grab a few of those Air America fans. This does mean no more access to Rachel Maddow, Janeane Garafalo, Jerry Springer and Randi Rhodes unless you have XM Satellite radio or you can listen online. 1160 will simulcast until he creates a new format there. He wouldn’t say what he’s going to put there. Source: Access Atlanta Why would somebody ever dump that network? I can't possibly understand it! Can anybody possibly explain? Garth, is this Joe Webber guy a terminal dittohead or something?

The Motion Picture Association of America is crystal clear when it describes why its "PG" rating exists _ it's a warning flag. "The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance," states the online explanation of the rating system. "There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. ... The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw." Disagreements are a given. The Christian moviemakers behind a low-budget film called "Facing the Giants" were stunned when the MPAA pinned a PG rating on their gentle movie about a burned-out, depressed football coach whose life _ on and off the field _ takes a miraculous turn for the better. "What the MPAA said is that the movie contained strong 'thematic elements' that might disturb some parents," said Kris Fuhr, vice president for marketing at Provident Films, which is owned by Sony Pictures. Provident plans to open the film next fall in 380 theaters nationwide with the help of Samuel Goldwyn Films, which has worked with indie movies like "The Squid and the Whale." Which "thematic elements" earned this squeaky-clean movie its PG? "Facing the Giants" is too evangelistic. The MPAA, noted Fuhr, tends to offer cryptic explanations for its ratings. In this case, she was told that it "decided that the movie was heavily laden with messages from one religion and that this might offend people from other religions. It's important that they used the word 'proselytizing' when they talked about giving this movie a PG. ... "It is kind of interesting that faith has joined that list of deadly sins that the MPAA board wants to warn parents to worry about." Overt Christian messages are woven throughout "Facing the Giants," which isn't surprising since the film was co-written and co-produced by brothers Alex and Stephen Kendrick, who are the "associate pastors of media" at Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga. In addition to working with the megachurch's cable-television channel, they created its Sherwood Pictures ministry _ collecting private donations to fund a $25,000 movie called "Flywheel," about a wayward Christian used-car salesman. (remainder snipped) Source: Scripps Howard News Service (Yes, I know this article was linked on Drudge. No, I didn't locate it from there) Despite the article having been listed on Drudge, I thought it would make for an interesting discussion here...especially considering the diverse beliefs embraced by gs'ers. I'm not sure exactly what to think, as I haven't seen the film (and, in fact, am not likely to see it either). The last big really evangelical/prostletyzing (sp?) movie I remember coming out was Left Behind, and that one was PG-13. Of course there is The Passion of the Christ, which had strong religious overtones (duh), and that one was rated "R." So who knows? I didn't see the former, did see the latter and, for violence, the latter earned the "R" rating. The former movie may well have earned the PG-13, due to content. So what do you think? Is it appropriate to restrict a movie (PG vice G rating) because it is too religious? And if that is the case, should that categorization apply solely to evangelical movies or to Christian movies or to movies that advocate any religion at all (too one-sided)? What about movies that advocate a non-theistic viewpoint (too one-sided)? Or was this just a slap because the reviewers didn't like Baptists?