home
RSS
Survey: Millennials echo parents on abortion, much more supportive of gay marriage
June 9th, 2011
01:46 PM ET

Survey: Millennials echo parents on abortion, much more supportive of gay marriage

By Richard Allen Greene, CNN

(CNN) - Ask Sarah Mattingly for the first word that comes to mind when she hears the word "abortion," and she heaves a huge sigh.

Then there's a long pause before she answers: "Sadness."

Mattingly works at Northland Church, an evangelical megachurch in Orlando, Florida, and she regularly passes an abortion clinic on her way to work.

"There are always picketers. The parking lot is always full. I see these women sitting in their cars and just feel full of sadness," she says.

There's no doubt in her mind that abortion is wrong: "not what God has ordained."

And yet, she says, she's not entirely convinced abortion should be against the law.

"I know a lot of people my age who struggle with that - who say we will never agree with it, but at what point is it the government's responsibility?" she asks. "I would tend to say I think it should be illegal, but I can see both sides of the story. It's a tough one."

Mattingly is part of what's being called the millennial generation, born in the 1980s and coming of age around the year 2000.

A huge new survey finds that she is not alone among her peers in feeling conflicted about abortion.

Just under half of 18- to 29-year-olds say that abortion is morally acceptable, but six out of 10 say it should be legal in most or all cases, and nearly seven out of 10 say it should be available locally.

The survey, by the Public Religion Research Institute, contains a number of startling findings.

One is that millennials are not significantly more supportive of abortion rights than their parents are, even though they tend to be better educated and less churchgoing - factors which tend to predict people are pro-choice.

There's no noticeable difference in the number of 20-year-olds and 50-year-olds who say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, for example, according to the PRRI.

But young people do break ranks with their elders on the other major "value voters" issue, gay marriage.

Only four out of 10 millennials say sex between adults of the same gender is morally wrong, about 60% of 50- to 64-year-olds say that, and seven out of 10 people 65 and older think it is.

The millennials are driving a massive shift in American views on gay marriage.

In 1999, just over one-third of Americans said gay marriage should be legal. Today, just over half do, according to the PRRI survey, which is consistent with other recent findings.

Views on abortion, by contrast, haven't budged in the last dozen years, with 57% of Americans saying in 1999 that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 56% saying so in the PRRI survey.

"The decoupling of attitudes on abortion and same-sex marriage suggest that these topics, which served in the past as the heart of the 'values' agenda, are no longer necessarily linked in the minds of Americans," says the survey, which was released Thursday.

It's called "Committed to Availability, Conflicted About Morality: What the Millennial Generation Tells Us about the Future of the Abortion Debate and the Culture Wars," and is based on 3,000 English and Spanish telephone interviews conducted in April and May.

One of America's most prominent cultural conservatives admits that when it comes to gay marriage, the movement is not as influential on young people as it would like to be.

"There's a lot of ground to make up there," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a Washington-based organization that promotes "marriage and family" and opposes abortion.

He disputes the PRRI findings on abortion, asserting that "young people are stronger in their pro-life views than their parents."

But he concedes that conservatives haven't had a similar impact on young people's views on homosexuality.

"Cultural influencers have weighed in heavily" in favor of gay marriage, he said.

But the millennial generation could well change its mind as it grows up and starts families, he said.

"There is certainly this live-and-let-live attitude, but once the younger generation gets married and has children it falls by the wayside out of a necessity to protect their children," Perkins predicted. "They begin to re-evaluate the value construct."

Back at Northland Church, Sarah Mattingly is torn about gay marriage the same way she is about abortion. Married to a musician who works in musical theater, she and her husband have gay friends.

"Again, I don't agree with it, I really don't," she says of gay marriage. "God specifically in his word has ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman. But at what point is it the government's responsibility to step in?"

She thinks gay marriage is "misguided," and feels the "church and believers" need to be involved.

"We would never say that this is a good thing in the sense that we don't like it, we wish it didn't exist. But the reality is, it does," she says.

And she as she wrestles with whether the government should let gay people marry, she can't come up with a definite answer: "I can answer yes and I can answer no to that."

- Newsdesk editor, The CNN Wire

Filed under: Abortion • Gay marriage • Politics • Polls

soundoff (584 Responses)
  1. Friend

    Millenials are dangerous to today's children just as the pre-war humanistic Europeans were to the Jews. Yet the 100 years ago is not too long ago.

    June 10, 2011 at 2:46 am |
  2. Reality

    The reality of the abortion and STD epidemics:

    o The numbers, the calculations and two "bottom liners":

    "Facts on Co-ntraceptive Use

    http://www.gu-ttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

    January 2008

    WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVES?

    • 62 million U.S. women (and men?) are in their childbearing years (15–44).[1]
    • 43 million women (and men) of reproductive age, or 7 in 10, are se-xually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they or their partners fail to use a contraceptive method.[2]
    • The typical U.S. woman (man?) wants only 2 children. To achieve this goal, she (he?) must use contraceptives for roughly 3 decades.[3]

    WHO USES CONTRACEPTIVES?
    • Virtually all women (98%) aged 15–44 who have ever had inte-rcourse have used at least one contraceptive method.[2](and men?)
    • Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using one.[2] (and men)
    • 31% of the 62 million women (and men?) do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had inter-course; or are not s-exually active.[2]
    • Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk of unwanted pregnancy but are not using contraceptives.[2] (and men?)
    • Among the 42 million fertile, s-exually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.[2] (and men?)

    WHICH METHODS DO WOMEN (men?) USE?
    • 64% of reproductive-age women who practice contraception use reversible methods, such as oral contraceptives or condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.[2]

    FIRST-YEAR CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES
    Percentage of women (men?) experiencing an unplanned pregnancy (a few examples)
    Method ....... Typical
    Pill (combined) 8.7
    Tubal sterilization 0.7
    Male condom 17.4
    Vas-ectomy 0.2
    Periodic abstinence 25.3
    Calendar 9.0
    Ovulation Method 3.0
    Sympto-thermal 2.0
    Post-ovulation 1.0
    No method 85.0"
    (Abstinence) 0
    (Mas-turbation) 0

    More facts about co-ntraceptives from
    guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

    "CON-TRACEPTIVE METHOD CHOICE
    Con-traceptive method use among U.S. women who practice con-traception, 2002
    Method ..... No. of users (in 000s) ...... % of users

    Pill 11,661 30.6
    Male condom 6,841 18.0

    i.e.
    The pill fails to protect women 8.7% during the first year of use (from the same reference previously shown).
    i.e.
    0.087 (failure rate)
    x 62 million (# child bearing women)
    x 0.62 ( % of these women using contraception )
    x 0.306 ( % of these using the pill) =
    1,020,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of pill use.

    For male condoms (failure rate of 17.4 and 18% use level):

    1,200,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of male condom use.

    The Guttmacher Insti-tute (same reference) notes also that the perfect use of the pill should result in a 0.3% failure rate
    (35,000 unplanned pregnancies) and for the male condom, a 2% failure rate (138,000 unplanned pregnancies).

    o Bottom Line #1: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and S-TDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or condoms properly and/or use other methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.

    Bottom line #2-
    Currently, a perfect birth control/STD barrier system does not exist. Time to develop one! In the meantime, mono-ma-sturbation or mutual ma-sturbation are highly recommended for hete-rose-xuals who need a contraceptive. Abstinence is another best-solution but obviously the se-x drive typically vitiates this option although being biological would it not be able to develop a drug to temporarily eliminate said drive?

    June 10, 2011 at 12:40 am |
  3. Marie Kidman

    .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGSvqMBj-ig
    '

    June 10, 2011 at 12:13 am |
  4. Leah

    Here's one town that drove out the gays...

    http://celebs.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979310536

    June 9, 2011 at 11:23 pm |
    • stevemd2

      Where did they put the gays – in hitlers ghettos for the Jews? In preparation for a holocaust of the gays, which HItler also gave the world.

      Go to http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm to see how the church of life behaved during the nazi era.

      June 10, 2011 at 1:35 am |
  5. dbinpitt

    Well those against gay marriage can rest assured that it's just a matter of time before gays are getting married in your town.

    June 9, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
    • stevemd2

      Just as virtually all westernized countries except the USA and no wonder Italy and greece have CUs or marriage for gays. Those who oppose it are the Islamics and most but not all of the former nations of soviet union.

      Birds of a feather, stick together. Same re haters.

      June 10, 2011 at 1:38 am |
  6. lucianne

    CM – so who's to decide which people are authorized to interpret? Unfortunately, the bible contradicts itself over and over again. Not to mention the human (interpretive) agency which picked some special books over others – often more for political control than for spiritual enlightenment. You need to meet some normal people and listen to their (educated, but differing) understand, and use your own God-given ability to think.

    June 9, 2011 at 9:18 pm |
    • stevemd2

      For all those right wing bible believers, we should have a religious law that enforces their bible beliefs on them. Death for working on the sabbath, Stoning to death their daughters and wives who were not a virgin on their wedding day.

      A gross solution but consistent with the bible believing christians who justify their opposition to gays as per the bible. Just as their forebears justified slavery as per the bible "a slave shall obey thier master"

      of course none of this will change their minds. Most who sell their moral values to the right wing churches end up with a brain refilled with hatred of people unlike themselves

      Fortunately, almost all of westtern Europe is rejecting mankinds curse throughout history – conservative religions.

      June 10, 2011 at 1:42 am |
  7. Topkatt

    If we are to stop abortion as Gods duty, then why did God not keep Christ from crucifixion? You must have FAITH that the Lord has the power to deal with it, regardless of our actions on earth.

    June 9, 2011 at 9:11 pm |
    • stevemd2

      the christian right wing – what has happened is that long ago, the catholic and some successor christian faiths began to focus on death, not life. Its all about the death of christ etc. And of course they had to have a victim to blame. It reached its zenith in the holocaust of the Jews.

      And go to http://www.nobeilifs.com/nazis.htm to see why the catholic church – most of it did little to sttop the holocaust and has yet to excommunicate the worst murderer in history – Hitler, born and baptised catholic in very catholic austria in 1888

      the book named A moral reckoning" by Daniel Goldhagen exposes the catholic church's guilt for the holocaust and how the church supported the nazis. Including giving Nazis passports so they could escape to Argentina at the end of WWII

      tjhe current pope was born in 1928 and brought up in the Nazi era., He learned his lessons well re the gays. He even wants to go back to the old form of the Mass (Trinitine?), which was also includes hatred of the Jews.

      June 10, 2011 at 1:49 am |
  8. Bucky Ball

    @Artist
    Exactly. "Dont need the bible to know that if you fool around and get pregnant, men and Women then decide to abort (KILL) the child"
    -- Not sure from that if they ARE appealing to those texts as an authority or not. If not, are they saying a concept of "natural law" precedes here ? If so that would take a few weeks to discuss.
    -- The choice to use the legal terms "murder", (which is a specific legal usage in some circ'umstances, (why not man-slaughter ?)) and "kill", (do they use that term in self defense, or in military actions ?) is problematic. The act of stopping a human life is relative to the situation, as everyone knows. It's only "murder" if that's what the law says. It doesn't.

    "Saying that a child is not a child while its in the womb is so absurd, All of us know in our gut that that unborn is going to be a child in 9 months"
    -- So which is it ? If it's a child it IS a child, if it's "going to be a child" it's NOT a child. If you grant rights to potential people, then who knows where that ends. Also they are projecting their "gut" opinions onto others with no evidence.

    Sorry she regrets her decisions. Sort of makes her non-objective.

    June 9, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
  9. Blatowkasta Purpshmurpa

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wctTgF5vDnE&w=640&h=390]
    🙂 😀

    June 9, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
  10. Dan

    Nice to see evolution of the human race except for the people stuck in the dark ages clinging to the bible.

    June 9, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
    • Peter South

      Any evolution we might be having would be haphazard with no guarantee that the changes are positive for us. Evolution is just change. There is no guarantee that it be an "advance", just genetically viable. Nothing more.
      But eugenics of some sort might have a better effect if we knew what we were doing, but I don't think we're quite there yet.
      The mutation known as ho-mo sapiens is not the end-all-be-all so many people view it to be. We aren't much better than our neanderthal ancestors. We just have a few useful differences, nothing more.
      Consider how badly our cognitive abilities are compared to the "ideal" that so many love to espouse when they talk of humanity. We suck and we're all messed up in the head, so this is yet more proof that any god who involved itself in our evolution just ain't worth a tinker's damn.
      No gods here. But so many cannot seem to think straight I don't think it matters much. We're all gonna die without much hope of any better mutations cropping up in the foreseeable future. Thanks, religion, for making it worse. What a mess.

      June 9, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      @Peter South
      "Any evolution we might be having would be haphazard with no guarantee that the changes are positive for us. Evolution is just change. There is no guarantee that it be an "advance", just genetically viable."
      -- Evolutionary changes which don't favor survival, are selected out. The changes may be random, but the survival factor is not.
      "We aren't much better than our neanderthal ancestors. We just have a few useful differences, nothing more."
      -- You make my point. the changes that survive ARE useful.
      "Consider how badly our cognitive abilities that are compared to the "ideal" that so many love to espouse when they talk of humanity. We suck and we're all messed up in the head, so this is yet more proof that any god who involved itself in our evolution just ain't worth a tinker's damn.
      No gods here. But so many cannot seem to think straight I don't think it matters much. We're all gonna die without much hope of any better mutations cropping up in the foreseeable future. Thanks, religion, for making it worse. What a mess."
      -- Sorry you are SO pessimistic. Do you realize that within the lifetimes of our grandchildren, there will be self-evolving robots, (if not implantable nano-systems for humans) which will possess the abilitiy to figure out how to engage almost every environment, which will have downloaded and know how to reference every book and article that was ever written, and possess the ability to adapt to every mistake that it/they make, and self-change (evolve) on a constant forward on-going basis. The evolutionary graph is about to go parabolic. Cheer up !

      June 9, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      @Peter South
      ..sorry, I meant to add :
      It may not continue to be a carbon based intelligence system, (silicon seems to work OK), but the development of earth based intelligence seems to be on a tear.

      June 9, 2011 at 9:06 pm |
  11. Winston Lennon

    So the future generation is already more humanist than their parents. That's good news for the forces of reason and enlightenment, and bad news for the dark side.

    Now they just need to apply their powers of reason and humanity to the whole "invisible man in the sky" thing, and we will be a secular nation at last, free of the strange bondage of ancient superst-itions.

    June 9, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
  12. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    The morons railing endlessly about abortion must have lots of free time on their hands. Don't you wonder why they're not using that time to take care of the teenage parents and their unwanted children?

    June 9, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  13. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    People who think abortion is 'sad' or 'a sin' or 'immoral' are welcome to have an opinion as far as it concerns their own lives and bodies; they are NOT welcome to decide what is best for others. That's why this is a nation of laws. We don't let religion or "morals" (which are subjective) determine what is legal for others. Our laws are not made solely to enforce what is right; they are made to preserve and safeguard our freedoms. One of those freedoms is the right to be secure in one's person. It is the right to privacy and to the expectation that one's body is not to be regulated by third parties.

    June 9, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • Objective in CA

      The false assumption that, because one holds the opinion or belief that abortion is wrong, they must be simple-minded fools that follow religion and wish to impose their opinions on others, is no more clear-headed than forcing others to pay the consequences of someone else's choices. I believe, personally, that abortion is repugnant but would never impose my beliefs on someone else, or try to "control someone else's body." But PLEASE... Quit forcing me to pay for a "choice" that someone else has made, but was unable/unwilling to accept the consequences for. If you wish to have others remove their morality and choices from your body, take your hand out of their wallet.

      June 9, 2011 at 8:16 pm |
    • Don't let the facts stand in the way of your opinions

      There is no governmental funding of abortion. None. There are actually laws against it.

      All the same, there should also be laws against religions getting taxpayer money also, which I find totally repugnant. I also dislike the fact that get-rich-quick religious hucksters (you can see their faces in the many idiotic videos some moron is puking all over this blog) get posh tax-exempt status for their scams while honest people pay their taxes. The Consti-tution should bar this, but the Consti-tution has been loop-holed into Swiss cheese over the centuries.

      June 9, 2011 at 8:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Objective, you need to change your handle. Your taxes don't pay for abortions. No one asked you for a handout, you dipwad.

      June 10, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
  14. Brett

    Back at Northland Church, Sarah Mattingley decided to add an "e" to her surname. "A lot has happened in the last 20 paragraphs," she said. "I just don't know how I should spell my name anymore."

    June 9, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • frank

      haha

      June 9, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
  15. frank

    Daddy! Daddy! when are those people with the bright smiles and nicely ironed clothes and hearts full of hatred and minds full of revolting horseshit going to go away?

    June 9, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
    • Free

      "They won't go away son but, some day, they may become extinct or, at least, evolve into people better adapted to living in the modern world."

      June 10, 2011 at 1:11 pm |
  16. Marvin

    "Mattingly is part of what's being called the millennial generation, born in the 1980s and coming of age around the year 2000."

    I have never heard this term before, ever. Stop making up stupid phrases.

    June 9, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • Tom

      They changed the name after they realized how stupid it was to use letters like 'X' and 'Y'.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  17. Reality

    The reality of creating then taking a human life i.e. abortion:

    The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill and male con-dom have led to the large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and ST-Ds (19 million/yr) in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or condoms properly and/or use other safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.

    Currently, a perfect birth control/ S-TD barrier system does not exist. Time to develop one! In the meantime, mono-masturbation or mutual masturbation are highly recommended for heteros-exuals who need a contraceptive. Abstinence is another best-solution but obviously the se-x drive typically vitiates this option although being biological would it not be able to develop a drug to temporarily eliminate said drive?

    Since Roe vs. Wade, there have been ~38 million abortions involving ~76 million "mothers and fathers" in the USA. These people aka the Immoral Majority (or Stupid Majority) represent the largest voting bloc the USA today basically guaranteeing Obama's re-election.

    June 9, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • Grinnin

      u mad?

      June 9, 2011 at 7:57 pm |
  18. CatholicMom

    A young woman walked into her doctor’s office and asked, ‘Doctor, can you help me?…I have this child in my arms who is barely a year old and I am pregnant…I did not want two children so close together; I don’t get enough sleep as it is.’ The Doctor asks, ‘Do you want me to make it possible for you to just have one child?’ ‘Yes’, she said, ‘will you help me?’

    The doctor said it would mean taking a life, and she said, ‘I know, that is what I want you to do’. So the doctor said, ‘I would advise you this way….take the life of the baby in your arms…then you would just have one baby, as you wish.’ The mother exclaimed, ‘That would be murder!’ The doctor said, ‘Yes, taking a life is murder. But if you take the life of the baby in your uterus it could mean harm could be done to you…but if you take the baby’s life in your arms, you will get plenty of rest now and still only have one baby.’

    That was a smart doctor and the woman made the right choice.

    June 9, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      That doctor (and I have no doubt the story is apocryphal, so who cares) was lying. It is not illegal to abort a fetus. It is murder to kill an infant.

      Too bad if you can't figure out the difference; no one cares about your opinion on the matter. The courts have already done the hard work for you.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
    • Jonathan

      That's a great story. I don't understand how any doctor, someone who's first and most important oath is to "do no harm" could possibly condone abortion.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
    • Charles

      I probably wouldn't quit my day job to become a professional fiction writer if I were you.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • Andrew

      Jonathan, because those doctors might not consider a fetus a living human being. Considering that most brain functions are fairly limited for most of the pregnancy, killing a fetus is not necessarily seen as morally wrong. You may view it as wrong, but you should recognise that you are not the only side of the argument, and to advocate banning the practice seems like imposing your own moral standards in a hardly black or white debate. Don't go advocating laws which require your own personal line to be drawn in a very grey debate.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Good thing you're not doctor material then, Jonny.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
    • CSnord

      She made the right choice? Meaning that she aborted the fetus, right?

      June 9, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      meanwhile .....
      There was another women with a slightly higher IQ who was sitting in the OBGYN office next door, asking her doctor for some birth control pills.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
    • LinCA

      @CSnord. No, no, no. She killed the baby in her arms.

      June 9, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
    • hurpaderp

      She had a baby in her uterus? How did she fit it back in there after giving birth to it? That can't happen! What nonsense!

      –Now if it was a _fetus_ she had in her uterus, and she made the right decision, that means she aborted and reported this doctor as a quack with the licensing board, right?

      June 9, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      hurpaderp, you am da man, um, or da girl.

      In any case, huzzah. I loved your post.

      June 9, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
  19. BADGUY

    I don't quite understand! If I were a uneducated peon in medieval Europe I might need a priest or a minister to interpret what's in the bible. But I'm not. I can read and interpret the bible myself. Why do I need to pay some organized religion to do this for me? "Oh" you say "You need the bible passages filtered through the lens of an educated clergy who "really" know it's "real" meaning". Well maybe yes, maybe no. How do I know THEIR interpretation is the correct one? All in all, i think I'll avoid a slavish devotion to ANY organization that asks me to pay money for info I can get on my own.

    June 9, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      BADGUY,

      The Bible tells you that scripture is not a matter of personal interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

      John 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
      John 13:20 ‘Amen, Amen I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.’

      Jesus Christ said that He was Sent by the Father [with Authority] and that is how He sent His Apostles out…with His Authority so if you receive those He sent you would not have to worry about their interpretation because they will speak with the authority given them and by the guidance of the Paraclete [Holy Spirit] which was promised them.

      Saint Matthew 28:18-20
      [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

      June 9, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What "the Bible tells you" is up for individual interpretation, not your take, CM. You don't get to tell others what the bible says or intends to say. Get off your pulpit and mind your own business. Do what Christ commanded and stop demanding that others do as you say.

      June 9, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      @CM
      Hi ! I respectfully submit that there is no understanding of that book other than interpretation. It was never spoken of, read, or written about without the agency of a human brain, which would necessarily involve "interpretation" in every case.

      June 9, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Gee, CM. What wisdom and reason you espouse. The bible sez "you can't interpret me, I's da final word." I say, "Sez who?" Da bible say, " I sez and I right cuz I's de bible."

      Do you see anything wrong with this picture? If not, see a shrink, ya nut-bag.

      June 9, 2011 at 7:50 pm |
  20. High MyNameIs

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms2ajqlNHeI&w=640&h=390]

    June 9, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
    • Tom

      Slim Shady?

      June 9, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.