July 6th, 2012
06:30 AM ET

Melinda Gates defends financing contraception in light of her Catholicism

Editor's note: Watch more of Dr. Sanjay Gupta's interview with Melinda Gates on Sanjay Gupta MD on Saturday at 4:30 p.m. ET and Sunday at 7:30 a.m. ET.

(CNN) - Responding to simmering controversy among Catholic bloggers about her new birth control program, Melinda Gates - a practicing Catholic - said she will not shrink from her role as an advocate for poor women.

"Part of what I do with the (Gates) Foundation comes form that incredible social justice I had growing up and belief that all lives, all lives are of equal value," said Gates during a recent interview with CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

About the flak over her Catholicism she said: "We're not going to agree about everything, but that's OK."

- CNN's Laura Koran

Filed under: Catholic Church • Christianity • Health care

soundoff (334 Responses)
  1. форекс

    Woah this weblog is excellent i like reading your posts. Stay up the good paintings! You already know, a lot of individuals are looking around for this info, you could help them greatly.

    August 6, 2012 at 11:28 am |
  2. Sage

    Religion is the opiate of the masses

    cant think of better proof for this adage than CNN forums like this

    July 20, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
  3. Sage

    Hey Buddy Blue

    Dont ya think that your best buddies in your anachronistic no-gays-please, women-should-be-barefoot-and-pregnant movement are the 'muslums' ya so despise?

    July 19, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
  4. TrueBlueCatholic

    In europe, the m uslums are outbreeding the christians. Mohammed was the most popular name. So go ahead, use BC, m orning after pill and a bortion and your grandkid will be saying allahu akabar

    July 18, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • whaaa?

      It seems you've got your tin foil hat screwed on a wee bit too tight.

      The percentage of muslims in Europe is about 6%. Stop manufacturing controversies to promote irresponsible, unsustainable population growth.

      July 18, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      Fact is. last year Mohammed was the most popular name in europe last year. Population grows exponentially not linearly. So small differences in growth rates amplify very quickly. learn some math.

      July 18, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • whaaa?

      Not all populations grow exponentially. Only those that are not sustainable.

      Is your answer to the 'threat' of islam really just to out-breed them? Maybe you should just ressurect the crusades and slaughter the heretics and non-believers.

      And since when does what the most popular name indicate ... anything. All it shows is a lack of variance in the names of male children in muslim households.

      July 18, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      Lets do some math

      Let there be a population of 94% A's and 6% B's
      A's grow at 2% whereas B's grow at 20%

      lets start with a total population of P

      after 10 years,

      number of A's = P * 0.94 * (1.02)^10 = 1.14 * P
      number of B's = P * 0.06 * (1.20)^10 = 0.37 * P

      B's are 24% of the population in 10 short years. This is what I meant by exponential growth!

      July 18, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      Lets do some math

      Let there be a population of 94% A's and 6% B's
      A's grow at 2% whereas B's grow at 20%

      lets start with a total population of P

      after 10 years,

      number of A's = P * 0.94 * (1.02)^10 = 1.14 * P
      number of B's = P * 0.06 * (1.20)^10 = 0.37 * P

      B's are 24% of the population in 10 short years.

      July 18, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • whaaa?

      Well, why not just assume that B's grow at a rate of 10,000% a year. Then they'll oer run the world before 10 years is out.

      Or you could not just make things up out of nowhere.

      Your assumptions are pulled right out of your ass – where it seems that most of your ideas come from.

      You know that you can take medication for paranoia, right? You might want to check that out.

      July 18, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      Lets do it another way

      if F be the fraction of B's in the population, then I can prove that F as a function of number of years (N)

      F(N) = F0 (1 + Rb) ^ N / ( (1 – F0) * (1 + Ra) ^ N + F0 * (1 + Rb) ^ N)

      where F0 = initial fraction of B's
      Ra = growth rate of A's
      Rb = growth rate of B's

      inverting this to calculate the number of years needed to reach a particular F,

      N(F) = ( Log ( (1/F) – 1) – Log ( (1/F0) – 1 ) ) / Log ( (1 + Ra) / (1 + Rb))

      Where Log is the logarithm to base 10

      Plugging in F0 = 0.06 (your number)
      Ra = 0.03 (3% non-muslum growth rate)
      Rb = 0.06 (6% muslum growth rate.. this is plausible)

      N(F) = 95.839 – 80.2 * Log ( (1/F) – 1 )

      To reach 25% muslum population, i.e. F = 0.25, N = 57.57 years i.e. 58 years
      To reach 50% muslum population, i.e. F = 0.5, N = 95.839 i.e. 96 years
      To reach 75% muslum population, i.e. F = 0.75, N = 134.839, i.e. 135 years

      Do you see the effect of exponential growth?

      To reach 75% muslum population, i.e. F = 0.75

      July 18, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      To reach 95% muslum population. i.e. F = 0.95, N = 198. i.e. in two centuries, bye bye europe.

      Where is the party like Jean Marie Le Pen's in the US? they will come to the US next.

      July 18, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      above, they = muslums

      July 18, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      Send above calculation to all of your european friends.. I just came up with it and I plan to do it.

      July 18, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      Mr WHaa, what about 3% vs 6%? does my math satisfy you now?

      July 18, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      TBC, I thought your priest told you to stop posting here. You're none other than Soldier of Conscience with a new name. Shame on you.

      July 18, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • ME II

      I think you are failing to factor everything in. Human population growth rates are hardly exponential.

      According to the CIA Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html)
      for the European Union, overall (migrations, births, deaths)
      "Population growth rate: 0.212 % (2010 est.)"

      July 18, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm sure European women everywhere are throwing out their BC so they can have 6 kids each and thereby outnumber Muslims.

      Are you stupid? People limit the sizes of their families for many reasons, not the least of which is their ability to feed, house, clothe, educate, and otherwise support their progeny. Are you suggesting that people should aim to have more kids than they can support? Who's going to pay for them? You? The Church?

      July 18, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      Congratulations on your ability to do high school math. I didn't check your work because, frankly, it doesn't make an iota of difference. An algorithm is only as worthwhile as the input data that's fed to it. In this case, if you feed your algorithm shit, given that you're simply pulling numbers out of your ass, the result is also shit.

      Thanks for trying. Fail.

      July 19, 2012 at 12:21 am |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      Ms Tom Petty -: I have been posting for the last three or four months. Have seen this Soldier person here just recently.

      Facepalm -: In engineerning (as in life) we have to make assumptions. if 3% vs 6% should make such a difference over 50, 80, 100 years, whatever the real numbers be (2% vs 4%? I dont know) it will be similar. In engineering you dont always wait for the perfect situation. you make do with what you have. That the muslum growth rate is more than non-muslum is not 'out of my ass'. That is true empirically.

      July 19, 2012 at 8:38 am |
    • *facepalm*

      If I'm building a bridge and I just make up numbers for important aspects, such as average wind speed, temperature changes, and material properties, the bridge will likely fail before it even gets built. Numbers are out there – you simply choose to remain ignorant. But then, you're a Catholic, so this is typical. You don't even fully believe in evolution.

      If you really are an Engineer, I hope I'm not using any of your products. Or at least I hope you have a really good QA team behind you.

      July 19, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      You say that the numbers are out there. Where is the data for

      1. Muslum population growth rate
      2. non-muslum populatin growth rate (NOT general population growth rate)

      In the absence of exact data we will use empirical data (NOT out of ass data). It is known that muslums have higher growth rates. So use 6% vs 3% or 4% vs 2% or 4% vd 3% or whatever and see what happens. It gives you an idea of IF muslums will overtake society or not.

      July 19, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      In engineering terms its called a simulation.

      July 19, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      I guess you don't know how to use google. That's ok, I'll type for you.

      Here's an article refuting your paranoid claims, based upon a study by the Pew: http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/01/27/will-pew-muslim-birth-rate-study-finally-silence-the-eurabia-claim/

      Here's a link to an overview of the Pew study. http://www.pewforum.org/Press-Room/Press-Releases/New-Pew-Forum-Report-Projects-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx

      So now you can feel free to go and find something else to be afraid of and stoke your persecution complex. Good luck.

      July 19, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      A simulation in which takes bogus inputs will give bogus outputs. You made up numbers, giving you and invalid, erroneous result. Again, I hope you don't make any products that I use.

      July 19, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      facepalm. all I am looking for are 2 numbers:

      Rb, average growth rate of muslums
      Ra, average growth rate of non-muslums

      Your link did not give me either. Just a lot of verbiage. I need these 2 numbers to plug into the equation.

      July 19, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      Remember Theo Van Gogh

      Remember 9/11

      Remember the london bombings

      Remember the bombay bombings

      July 19, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      I guess your reading comprehension is about on par with your simulation skills. The article clearly states that the population growth rate is expected to shrink. You overly-simplistic equations don't take this into effect.

      Try reading. Fail. Oh, and you're original numbers were well over an order of magnitude off. If you'd actually use that organ swimming around in the top of your head, you'd realize that a 6% growth rate in muslim populations is not plausible in the least.

      Let's say that an average woman can reproduce between the ages of 15 and 45. That gives them 30 years. Let's put the average life expectancy at 75. Because fertile women represent 40& of all woman, that means that the represent about 20% of the overall population. So, out of 100 people, 20 people can reproduce. To acheive a 6% growth rate, out of those 20 people, 6 have to conceive every. single. year. In other words, to acheive such a reproductive rate, a woman would have to have a child every 3.3 years every year from 15 – 45. Every single muslim woman in Europe would need to have 9 children to acheive that rate.


      July 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      Now who's pulling numbers out of their ass? any proof for above (like women's ages etc.)

      July 20, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      The article says that the growth rate is expected to shrink. It also says that muslums have double the growth rate of general population. So taking the results with a pinch of salt because the rate wont stay constant, it still shows us how the percentage will grow.

      pop. growth rate = Rb * F + Ra * (1 – F)

      where F = fraction of B's

      i.e. 2 * (Rb * F + Ra * ( 1 – F)) = Rb

      Ra / Rb = 2 * (1 – F) / (1 – 2 * F)

      F = 0.06 (your number) means muslums have 2.3 times the growth rate as non-muslums.

      Why didnt the article report it this way? because its more politically correct to miminize the impact by saying its double the growth rate as 'general population'.

      With this fact in mind, I dont trust the rest of their conclusions (e.g. total projected in 2020 etc)

      July 20, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Sage has you pegged, dude. Your pastor wouldn't be happy about your lies.

      July 20, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I doubt your pastor will be fooled by your name change, Soldier. Your style is unmistakeable.

      July 20, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
  5. TrueBlueCatholic

    I find it hard to believe that 90% of catholic women support BC. How can they go to church and partake in the mass if they dont follow church teaching? No way Jose. Either follow all the teachings or dont go to church. It's hypocritical. Dont get it.

    July 18, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • JellyBean@TrueBlueCatholic

      Agreed. I find it interesting how folks like to pick and choose what they want to believe of their religions.

      July 18, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Over 70% of abortions in the USA each year are had by believers. No hypocrisy there either!

      July 18, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      If you only included in the pews those that were 100% in line with church teachings, you'd have some AWFULLY empty pews. And some empty pulpits. A majority of Catholics support gay marriage. I'd bet that most catholics feel that evolution is a perfectly valid theory. Half of catholics don't even know what transubstantiation is, let alone buy into it.

      But if you'd rather be in some small club where you can look down your nose at others to feel better about yourself, I suppose that's your prerogative.

      July 18, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      So we should EDUCATE the followers regarding church teaching, and get them to agree. It should be a hard push. To give a concrete example by facepalm, two ideas come to my mind

      1. evils of g ay marriage
      2. transubstantiation and what it does for you

      The idea is to get 100% of congregants to agree and practice what is taught. To get them to live, breathe and vote that philosophy.

      July 18, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Are the alledged "evils of gay marriage" more dangerous (to the RCC and its cult members) than the 700,000 abortions believers have every year? I think your priorities are severly out of whack with reality, but you are a believer...

      July 18, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      Please define the "evils" of gay marriage. What harm, exactly, does gay marriage cause?

      'Get them to agree" Yeah, good luck with that. You might as well disband most Catholic schools a swell, since most of them definitely teach that evolution is a valid theory.

      July 18, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic


      your thinking is akin to asking this question: For a police force, is it more important for them to solve kidnapping cases when we have 100 theft cases and 25 domestic abuse cases?

      What you want to do is to solve ALL of the above. So the answer to you is to get the people to get out of both g ay marriage and abortions. Simple.

      July 18, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      facepalm, evolution is not an issue for most people in modern society. Except maybe, complement it with Intelligent design. Also, we can prioritize issues in the education process. evolution/ID lower than pressing cultural issues like out of control a bortion maybe.

      July 18, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • whaaa?

      Evolution is at complete odds with ID. If you think they're compatible, you don't know anything about either.

      And the RCC teaches that evolution is not a valid theory for humans. So, if you want every Catholic to believe in all teachings of the RCC, you must necessarily exclude those that feel evolution explains the origins of our species.

      Of course, at one point, you'd also have to shut the doors on anyone who didn't think the earth was the center of the universe. That's the problem with a fluid dogma.

      July 18, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      Still waiting to hear what all those "evils" of gay marriage are. Can you point to anything, outside of your ancient and immoral text, that says that a loving, committed relationship by two people of the same sex is a bad thing?

      I won't be holding my breath.

      July 18, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic


      July 18, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      Im at work cant be posting all the time.

      ok so, 3 reasons

      1. being h0mo is unnatural
      2. Once society accepts this, the p3do, b3stial, p0lygamist, inc3st, god knows whom else will be next
      3. Kids need a mom and a dad. I know this instinctively. No amount of studies can disprove this since there are things you cannot measure. Test scores are not the be all and end all. as a boy, I need dad to see how to behave in society and mom to see how girls relate to boys. As a girl, vica versa.

      July 18, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      1) How doyou define unnatural
      2) Is that slope slippery enough for you?
      3) This is merely your belief based on how you were raised.

      July 18, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      A slippery slope is somehting that you invent. It isn't harmful. Maybe we should ban kissing on tv because everyone knows that kissing leads to se x which leads to gay se x which leads to bestiality. Please.

      Unnatural? It occurs all of the time in nature.

      "I know this instinctively". That response pretty much just sums it up. You might as well just say – my hatred and bigotry is justified because I feel that I'm right. Fortunately you'll soon find yourself on the losing side of history.

      Nothing you named harms anyone. Epic. Fail.

      July 18, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • Who invited me?

      1) it is not natural to be catholic...being gay is a normal configuration of humanity
      2) attempting to equate being gay with the other things mentioned shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject, most likely due to your religious brainwashing and propoganda
      3) Incorrect statement. You do not need both parents...this is just your belief and reality shows us differently

      You are on the other hand a prime example of a religious nut.

      July 18, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
    • fred

      You ask is it a “bad thing”. In the same way what is good? If you and I disagree on what is good then we must both agree or appeal to a higher authority to resolve our disagreement, correct? Without God we are limited to some third party that we both agree is a higher authority. So, as an atheist where do you go for a higher authority on what is good? (I am not asking about apple pie vs. peach rather what is good for mankind).

      July 18, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
    • just sayin

      Interesting Fred asks what higher authority do you go for "good". His "god" comes from the hands of men...thus his faith and authority is from man. Fred you are living in self denial bro.

      July 18, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
    • Who invited me?

      There has never been a higher authority....justbecause you believe there is one, let me ask you this....How does he respond to your questions, can I get a transcript of His decisions, (and don't even try to tell me the bible...that is a book written by humans, for humans)
      gay people are everywhere...trying to deny that fact is the same as closing your eyes when the boogie man appears in a movie...he's still there, you just can't see him,so in your mind he doesn't exist.
      When did you decide to be straight Fred.... and are you afraid that a gay person will be able to convince you to be gay?
      It doesn't work that way moron

      July 18, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
    • fred

      Who invited me
      Whow…you really went in a straightafobic tangent on that one! Sounds to me like you have a lot of baggage clanking around and you need to get free of it.
      I made no reference to gay or nay as we need some basic understanding before we go off into various new forms of the core unit of our society (family). If there is no God and no acceptable known standard as to how mankind can survive then we are just making things up as we go along. Take the traditional family structure which has been the core unit of civilization for at least 10-30,000 years. Facepalm suggested an experiment with a new core family structure that does not include God or a traditional mother father relationship asking if it is “bad”. Yes, it is bad not because of the assumed gay element but because it is untested. By what authority do we run a global experiment that could have unknown consequences?

      July 18, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      There is a bias here. How can you say something is good ("traditional family unit") when it is the only one? Since you say that adding gay parents in there is untested, then you have nothing to contrast with to say that either one is good or bad.
      Also, in case you lost the other thread we were having a conversation on

      July 18, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No kidding, you don't get it, True Blue. I suspect you're male.

      July 18, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • fred

      Yes, thanks I lost that thread.
      There is of course the Bible that says God established the family but let us ignore that part. Unit recent times we did not have the technology to create a man made family where two women or two men could raise biologically related offspring. Can we agree that this process is not natural? Can we agree that it is not natural to now create a civilization where man selects the characteristics of future generations? I would agree with you that we do not know if it is bad or good simply because we cannot know the future.
      Thousands of years of traditional family has given us what we have today is a known. Exchanging a known for an unknown is an unnecessary risk when it comes to an entire species. I would call that bad.

      July 18, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It is absolutely silly to believe that the ideal family even exists, fred, or that it ever did. You seem to think "Leave it to Beaver" was real. There have been single-parent families, families consisting of grandparents raising their children's kids, and the like for eons.

      Pretending that gay marriage is somehow going to completely upset all of society is just hyperbole. Gay marriage will affect a small percentage of people-far smaller than divorce.

      July 18, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      Agreed, divorce is bad news but an excellent example. Society establishes laws that reflect core values. Divorce was once very difficult with lingering stigma on usually the wife. Enlightenment shifted the view of divorce from a traditional family focused unit for the protection of children to an individual focus of the adults involved. What was best for the happiness of the adults overshadowed stability for children and divorce was made easy. We are still concerned more for the happiness of the adults.
      What do you mean there was no real Leave it to Beaver family? Ozzie and Harriet came close…………….

      July 18, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Neither of these iconic TV families reflected real life. You seem to forget or maybe didn't know that during the Depression, parents gave up their children to orphanages or to extended family to raise because they couldn't afford to feed them. The "ideal family" you're describing is not representative of reality. Pretending that gay marriage, with two committed adults raising children, is somehow going to damage the family unit is a fear that is not founded on any sort of reality. The fact is that research shows that children in stable gay families are developing just as well as those in straight families. If you can produce any research that shows otherwise, do so.

      July 18, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      For artifical incemination (standard way that same sex couples have a biological child, at least to one of the parties) being unnatural or not, it would depend on your definition of the word. In my opinion, it is not. You then jump to eugenics (without using the word), which is fairly irrelevant to your point.
      As for your second point, we wouldn't be exchanging one system for another, we would be adding something to the existing system to provide equal rights to people who have not had them.

      July 18, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      Really?.............my att-itudes towards the opposite $ex was severely and negatively impacted by my family life. Based on personal experience I cannot imagine how the relationship between the two most significant figures in the life of a child would fail to have significant impact on the core essence of a child. The studies you point to are at worst biased and at best incapable of measuring the essence of a child.
      I am not saying gay parents are good or bad for mankind as I cannot know that. I am saying the impact cannot be the same

      July 18, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, cry me a river, you big baby. I had a traditional family and if you think that's all roses and champagne, freddy, I have a bridge for sale and you can get it cheap.

      I didn't CITE any studies, you bozo, so how would you know which ones I was referring to and then assume they're "biased"? You are beyond clueless. There is NO evidence AT ALL that children growing up in a gay household in which the couple are committed to each other are negatively affected in any way. If you can prove they are with a REPUTABLE study, fred, then do so, because otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

      July 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And fred, your entire premise is beyond absurd. Of course, they're not "the same". Name any two families and prove that the effect on the children of each is "the same", you doofus. ALL families are different. Even ALL STRAIGHT families, fred.

      You claim that your att it uses about the opposite s3x were negatively affected by your relationship to your parents. How do you know that was the cause? How do you know that you wouldn't have had similar issues regardless?

      You cannot point to anything that proves what you claim about gay parenting. It's nothing but your own biased, prejudiced opinion.

      July 18, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      You said: “It's nothing but your own biased, prejudiced opinion”
      Unless you are CNN journalist you cannot claim your opinion is not biased or prejudiced either. Besides my exact statement was “I am not saying gay parents are good or bad for mankind as I cannot know that. I am saying the impact cannot be the same”
      Who would have ever guessed that fred achieved a higher reading comprehension rating than Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son!
      Oh, wait horns are blowing looks like a celebration and parade in my honor……………….

      July 18, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      THe only one blowing a horn is you, fred, and it's your own. Read my post again. ALL families are different. One straight family is not going to have the same dynamic as another straight family.

      Furthermore, you have NO studies to back up your claims. I do.

      Try not to hyperventilate, freddy.

      July 18, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      What's good about a loving, committed relationship? You need me to spell that out for you?

      If we're going to appeal a higher power, I'm going to veto having that higher power being a deity who puts beating slaves, murdering infants, and racism into the 'good' category.

      July 19, 2012 at 12:02 am |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      Fred is right. The church position is based on what worked for 30,000 years of human evolution. Why change what works. OK lets look at last 2000 years maybe.

      what has worked is –

      Society only recognizes male+female
      Stable couples, divorce etc is not recognized
      Boys look to father as role model, mother as role model on how women relate to men
      Girls look to mom as role model, dad as role model on how men relate to women
      S3x could or could not result in pregnancy, it was out of control of the couple

      Let us keep it that way

      July 19, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • Who invited me?

      You make a bunch of false assertions and though I think you believe them, it just shows your own ignorance.
      That is what I expectfrom someone who is from the most corrupt religious organization in the world.
      Shining example of blind ignorance.

      July 19, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      TBC, you are SOC under a new moniker. Your style is unmistakeable. Didn't your spiritual advisor admonish you not to post here and didn't you announce you were going to stop doing so? Were you lying?

      July 19, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      What the?? I tell you I have been posting on various articles for three to four months. Dunno who this soldier is.

      July 19, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
    • fred

      “I'm going to veto having that higher power being a deity who puts beating slaves, murdering infants, and racism into the 'good' category.”
      =>if you want a deity that is to your liking or that you find pleasing based on your core values that would be the definition of all the man made gods since the beginning of recorded history. You have stumbled across or intentionally brought up the first requirement in coming to agreement on who shall we chose as the authority of good that we can both agree on.
      Certainly you can imagine I would counter your suggestion with Jesus as the authority of what is good for mankind. Agreed?

      July 19, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      @Fred, since when is Jesus and the God of the OT two separate entities?

      July 20, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • fred

      Jesus (the human form) was the personification of God reflecting the Glory of God. God is more like that vast powerful unknown that science continues to run flat up against every generation, that causation which reveals greater power with each new discovery, that unknown which has no beginning or end Hawking refers to, that which is outside our 4 dimensions and now theorized being in the other 7 dimensions greater than our comprehensions and outside the boundaries of current scientific knowledge.
      Jesus keeps it simple plus we can avoid judgments and speculation about biblical accounts of war, slavery etc. that related to a specific nomadic tribal people or at a minimum require taking into account a people, time and place some say never existed. Jesus also said I am the way the truth and the light then gave guidelines of good and bad. These guidelines targeted the final generations of man which includes us. You are correct to the extent that the unity between Jesus and God is such that they are inseparable.
      So, shall we go with Jesus or do you have a suggestion for a mutually agreeable higher authority for goodness?

      July 20, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      So, since they are supposedly indistinguishable, wouldn't that mean that you're just injecting your god as some kind of authority before the existence of such a thing hasn't been established?

      July 20, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • fred

      One does not need to establish the existence of truth to know if something is true.
      Why do you make the claim that the unknown causation does not point to the Hebrew God when you have not established the existence of God?

      July 20, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      You cannot posit something being the cause of another thing without first establishing the existence of the cause. To say that I would need to establish the existence of your god in order to deny that it is part of a causal chain is completely absurd.

      July 20, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
  6. SoldierOfConscience

    To Primewonk, Tom, Hawaii, whomever responded to my posts:

    I sent a link of this forum to my pastor. He gently scolded me saying you dont be rude to people, pull them down or say things like Obama Bin Biden to make your point. He's advising me to stop posting on these forums since the christian thing is to explain one's viewpoint and its up to the other person whether he accepts it or not. That I'm doing more damage than good.

    So, if anyone was hurt, sorry. That was not my point. I want to save as many souls as possible by educating people of the truths.


    July 17, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      Your pastor is a softie. With more people like him, like europe, the muslums will overrun us.

      July 18, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
  7. SoldierOfConscience

    decades ago, we didnt have this much crime. We had mom/dad raising kids in houses lined with picket fences. we had the american dream. Very few single moms, disruptive kids, ADD, drug addiction, etc etc

    Why are we in the midst of hell in a handbasket, socially?

    Because of the breakdown in the whole system. I can point to a few factors:

    a/ No fault divorce, one of the worst thing ever for marriages {and accompanying loss of social stigma on divorcees}

    b/ s@me s3x 'marriage', one of the worst thing ever for marriages, diluting the meaning of marriage. we already have the p0lygamists calling out for recognition based on the fact that g ay people have it. Be afraid what will come next...

    c/ Lack of respect for the un born child : If you cant respect the un born child, how are you going to respect living children or families?

    We just need to turn the clock back, so to speak in these areas. We can keep modern science and the internet etc etc, it will be a perfect situation.

    July 16, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
  8. csx

    Catholic in name only. She is her own god, directing life and death for the unborn children.

    How close was she to being aborted?


    July 15, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How many unwanted children have you adopted? Been to Africa to adopt any or to help feed and minister to them?

      July 15, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      And your point is? If someone is against animal cruelty are they supposed to pick up every stray dog / cat they see and bring them home? Some logic I must say.

      July 18, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      They should foster some at least and contribute to animal welfare organizations as well. If you haven't done that much for unwanted children, SOC, then you should shut up.

      July 19, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
  9. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Any child being born to religious parents must be aborted. by law. then the world will become a better place.

    July 11, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • Biblical

      Ha! very charitable of you. This is what happens to atheist. and he dares to call me Bigot.

      July 11, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You moron. Not my post.

      July 15, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      So you say now. The OP sounds like a post of yours.

      July 16, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
    • TrueBlueCatholic

      Good post. No wonder you support this policy.

      /sarcasm off.

      July 18, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
  10. SoldierOfConscience

    Its breaking my head against a wall. There are people here who want to support tacts that will damage their souls and want proof that they are bad. There is no proof in this world. To give you an analogy, if a 2-D creature were to demand proof of something in this world, we could not provide it even if we wanted to.

    You must have faith. Then you will be rewarded. Im out of here for now. got better things to do.

    July 11, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
  11. SoldierOfConscience

    human life begins at conception. I can prove it.

    Please answer true or false only

    the 2 cell embryo are alive?
    the 2 cell embryo embryo is human?
    the 2 cell embryo has it's own DNA that is unique to itself and no other?
    the 2 cell embryo is not hurting or detrimental to the mother or other humans?

    If TRUE to all four above, then it is a unique human being that is not harming its mother or other humans.

    Your ball.

    July 11, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • LinCA

      The drop in crime in the early 90s was a direct result of legalization of abortion in 1973.

      July 11, 2012 at 11:08 am |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      LinCA, I can talk about an arctic tern flying in from alaska as well. that is not the point. TRUE or FALSE to all of the above four please.

      July 11, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • Biblical

      True, True, True and True

      July 11, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
  12. SoldierOfConscience

    When I stated that C0ntrac3ption, M0rn1ng @fter p1ll and @b0rt1on are only a matter of degree, Tom Tom stated that when @b0rt1on was banned, desperate women did what they had to and many died. I have an analogy for that.

    too many people dying from drug overd0ses. So the govt takes it upon itself to build 'drug centers' where people can go and get a high. they are carefully watched, so they dont get overd0se. Anything to save a life. desperate addicts will do anything so crime also comes down.

    July 11, 2012 at 10:55 am |
  13. SoldierOfConscience

    Who has the right to kill an unborn human for their selfish purposes? Thats the point of the church's philosophy

    July 10, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • Sophia

      How do you define human?

      July 10, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      human sperm + human egg = human being (maybe 1 or 2 cells for now, but a human being nonetheless)

      hows that, sofia?

      July 10, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Thank you, Tom

      July 10, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Sophia, Please answer true or false only

      the 2 cell embryo are alive?
      the 2 cell embryo embryo is not human?

      If its TRUE to both, it is a HUMAN LIFE.

      Before somebody comes along and says the same thing about a cancer cell, the big caveat is that if its a part of the body that is hurting you, then it should go. so


      2 cell embryo is hurting the mother

      July 10, 2012 at 11:20 pm |
1 2 3
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.