Well here's a question I have, coming form a Catholic's standpoint.

Several times recently, and less frequently in my younger years, some non-Catholic Christians have essentially told me that Catholics are not real Christians. A lot of other Catholics I know have said they've encountered the same thing. Why do some other Christians think that? I remember being a freshman in college, and a girl I became friends with down the hall grew up in the Baptist faith, and she would come to my room and I would do her eyebrows for her, and she'd always ask me stuff like "Why do you pray to saints? Why do they matter? Why do ya'll love Mary so much? Why do you go to confession?" And I'd answer her to the best of my ability (13 years of Catholic school prepped me for these visits!), but at the end of our conversations, she'd still say "Well, ya'll still aren't "real" Christians." What the hell does that MEAN?!?!

The most memorable one in recent memory was I went to a local Christian bookstore by my house this past spring, hoping to find a gift for my God-daughter's First Holy Communion. I wandered around for a while, not seeing what I was looking for, so I asked the girls at the checkout counter. Never in my life have I felt like such dirt! The one girls response, complete with sneer on her face, was "Well, you're just gonna have to go to a 'Catholic' bookstore for stuff like that, we don't recognize all that stuff, so we don't carry anything to support it." I'm standing there thinking... wtf? All I could say was "Ok, thanks." and I walked out.

Oh, and I found a perfect childs book of saints at a Catholic bookstore.

Hmmmm.....I always thought that Catholics were the "original" Christians.

Well that can be argued lol. A lot of Non Catholics think that Catholics aren't Christians because of a misunderstanding of the RC theology. The devotion to Saints, The focus on the Virgin, the highly hierarchical and traditional system of government etc..

Me and Mary, we're tight. I pray a Hail Mary every day. But we also say a Lords prayer and the Nicene Creed at every mass. I always want to say the Nicene Creed when people tell me Catholics don't beleive the same thing "real Christians" do.

Oh I know. I was raised a Roman Catholic, and still hold to some of the ideals, like devotion towards Mary. I also think the Bishop of Rome is first among equals.

Are you trying to get banned?

OK, I'll jump in! I was raised Catholic but am firmly in the Agnostic camp these days. The easiest way for me to explain it is I don't believe in RELIGION. I think the movie Dogma does a tragically good job of explaining what's wrong with organized religion.

I took a couple religion courses in college (taught by a Rabbi who was one of the most popular professors there) and really enjoyed them but they probably were a big cause of me dumping religion as a practice. The more I learned about the bible the more I felt like it's simply a work of fiction, is in general not a manual for a good life (even though that's what we're told), stole so fast and loose from older religions that it's laughable and has been modified too many times for political reasons to be trusted. By the time I'd reached my late 20's the writing was pretty much on the wall for me, and after meeting my husband, the son and grandson of THREE evangelical ministers (2 were the bad kind; one actually believed in helping people less fortunate), it became very easy to quit the pretense of belief in dogma. Yes, he's everything you'd expect - took drugs, in a punk band, dropped out of high school, etc. etc. If I'd have met him as a younger man there isn't a chance I'd have looked twice at him; well, except for his awesome rock star hair.

Interestingly, I work for an organization now that teaches the culture of the Emirates, and among that is the religion. So I know quite a bit about Islam. I have come to respect some parts of it, but again, most of the dogma is retarded and based in something important from 1600 years ago. The reason, for instance, that you don't eat pork is because you'll get trichinosis and die. Nobody has died of trichinosis in a seriously long time and I think that rule could be eliminated, but they can't because GOD told them so, 1600 years ago when there was no refrigeration and they lived in the desert.

So what DO I believe? And yes, there are several disconnects here, and I'm ok with that. I don't have to understand why these things resonate with me; they just do.
I believe in reincarnation, along the Buddhist principles of continuing on a path toward enlightenment. It helps me accept why some people who've never done anything bad to anyone seem to be constantly punished.
I believe that Ganesh is the cutest god, and the easiest to please (all you have to do is feed him).
I believe "god" is the spiritual life force in us, and is responsible for the Big Bang.
I believe evolution is real and people who don't believe this are seriously pathetic.
I believe being good is better than being strong
I believe going to church does not make you good
I believe any religion that focuses on negativity or punishment should be avoided at all cost. Do you go to church to feel better or to avoid going to hell?
I believe Catholicism is polytheism, which is fine with me. I think this is probably why non-Catholic christians probably see it as non-christian.
I believe everyone should have a day of rest.
I believe every marriage should start with a marriage contract, like that used in Islam.
I believe the world would probably be a better place without organized religion.
I believe in angels and ghosts but I have some work ahead of me to clarify that position.
I believe the incredible focus on christian based religion in US politics right now is to the detriment of the society as a whole. These people who think the founders were all christian are sorely mistaken and they are hurting everyone as a result. (cutting to the chase, UU and Deism are not christian)

And I was going to make a crack about the designated hitter, but I'll skip it. Suffice it to say I think it's the woosy way out. Man up and grab a bat!

Those "Christians" are misinformed and ignorant. They usually get their information regarding Catholicism from their Protestant minister or even better, Dan Brown. What is sad is they are usually not interested in learning about what Catholicism teaches (which - hey - is not a big secret. It's all out there) They are quite happy with their misinformation and holier-than-thou piety.(see HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE for a fine example) It's truly sad. Just say a Hail Mary for them. :)

eta - I'll have to see if I can find it - there was a video of a Baptist minister who was quite upset at Baptists who wear choir robes. Apparently, that made them almost Catholic. My great - grandmother's comment when learning about my mother when she was engaged to my dad - "Bobby, what religion is she?" "Episcopalian". "That's almost as bad as a Catholic!"

That's not a very Christian way for her to act.

The average person is not well-read and well informed regarding other denominations, other religions, and other anything for which they are not an affiliate.

On that note, there are nonCatholic Christians who have studied Catholicism (or used to be Catholics) and find Catholicism to be against the central tenets of Christianity. That includes people with degrees in theology and divinity who are fully aware of the "Christian aspects" of Catholicism, but chalk that up to the similarities across many religions. Along those lines1, there are Christian denominations/affiliations beyond Catholicism (i.e. Jehovah's Witness) that are very much dismissed by many mainstream Christians. If you ask the members of those denominations/affiliations (i.e. Jehovah's Witness) why they are dismissed they say "those 'Christians' are misinformed and ignorant...they get their information from their ministers...they don't want to learn about us...they are holier than thou and judgmental...." Along those lines2, Christian denominations/affiliations unfortunately exist for a reason and one of those reasons tends to be that people think that certain denominations have Christianity more figured out than the others.

Since we're discussing theology and not simply the internal mechanisms of religiosity and faith.

The Eastern Orthodox would argue with you on that one.

This, and historical prejudices and anymosities. And it can work both ways. I've heard the same thing from some Catholics -- that non-Catholics are not real Christians. Meanwhile, I've had some Baptists assure me that I'm not really baptized, as I was baptized as an infant. And so it goes.


Just to be clear, there are lots of Protestant ministers out there that don't perpetuate steroetypes or mis-information about Catholicism. It's a certain subset of Protestantism where this is found.

And oy, Dan Brown.

Dubaisis, "Dogma" is one of my favorite movies. :)

IrishLake, you might like the book "Hail Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God" by Scott Hahn. He was a Presbyterian Minister, and fiercely anti-Catholic, later converted, and has written a bunch of good books about Catholicism through scripture. It was a great read, and uses scriptural references to defend Marian Devotion, which was one of Hahn's biggest problems with Catholicism. As a disclaimer, I don't agree with everything Hahn has written in some other works, but this one is solid.

The United Methodist Church of my birth regards Catholics as the OGs of Christianity - they just think they do it better. ;)

I haven't been big on the church or God thing in a few years. At this point, I don't know if I'll come back to the flock or not.

Does anyone else think you're not really a fill in the blank thing about religion is just another way of saying I'm a better person than you and here's why?

If you put it in another context it sounds as icky as it is. You're not really Greek because you don't know the secret of LIBOS, or you're not really Greek because ADPi is the oldest. How long would any of those arguments last before the person was hammered into the ground?

All of the religions mentioned have their reasons for successful continued existence and every one of them has something that makes them ridiculous. Except for the Church of DubaiSis which is far superior and proves that you are all going to hell.:p

AND the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because really, how could you go wrong there?

And Gusteau, I will look it up the next time I'm at the library!

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god. It makes me laugh that people seriously don't get it about FSM.

My logical brain is part of me, and I can't turn it off and on at a whim. I'm aware that this is how I perceive the world and isn't the same for everyone. However, I also don't think I've ever considered the afterlife as a place for me to reconnect with others who have passed. I've felt like celebrating their life and mourning the loss of their presence is one thing, and the concept of them in the afterlife is another. But perhaps I've just never really expected an afterlife for myself. I'm not sure. I do certainly understand your perspective on it though.

MC - Oh, there are plenty of Catholics who don't know their own religion and end up spreading disinformation. That recent survey - http://religions.pewforum.org/ - which I take with the grain of salt with which I take all surveys - does point to the fact that most people are perfectly content to do what they've always done without being very concerned about knowing their - or anyone else's - beliefs very well.

I read that as "I blew up in a Baptist-y home." LOL.

I'm nondenominational so I go to whatever kinda church that I choose. Take dat! Take dat! :p

Heh. My father believes I'm a heathen (as he defines it, "an irreligious, uncultured, or uncivilized person"), and has called me this to my face, because I am not Catholic. According to him, you're either Catholic or you're doomed to hell. It has apparently completely escaped his notice that Jesus was Jewish.

For the last few days I’ve avoided this thread like a plague (couldn’t resist that biblical reference). My father is a former seminary professor and my husband is a minister, so I’m not exactly starved for theological discussions, and usually public forums aren’t the best formats for it.

Curiosity won out and I opened what I expected to be Pandora’s box. I was pleasantly surprised to find a generally civil, thoughtful discussion about some good issues. You don’t see that much anymore – particularly not on internet forums.

I don’t know a specific definition for my theological persuasion-probably conservative Christians or Christian Biblicists. I was fortunate to be raised by parents who had strong beliefs that they hoped I would share, but they felt I needed to form my own conclusions and not follow a belief system out of habit. My dad wanted me to know what I believed and more importantly, why I believed it; he also held that it was impossible to stand up for or defend your own convictions if you didn’t know or understand anyone else’s, so he encouraged me to listen, research, and expose myself to other viewpoints.

So I spent four years at the University of Oregon where I was exposed up the wazzu. All four years I listened to people whose views were usually diametrically opposed to every belief I had and while it often frustrated me (they weren’t terribly open to opposing schools of thought), it forced me to figure out what convictions were really mine and not just something I inherited.

I agree with what many posters on here have already said – too many times people from all different belief systems make generalizations about what others believe without taking the time to find out if those generalizations are accurate. Too often we just accept what we hear.

That just leads to – well, exactly what I assumed I would find when I opened this thread – people trading useless insults on a forum - clearly a mistaken assumption on my part.

In addition to reading the Bible itself much more thoroughly during my college years, there were three books on theology and apologetics that helped me sort through what I believed: GK Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity, and Lee Stroubel’s The Case for Christ. I throw those out there not because I think they will necessarily change anyone’s viewpoints, but if you have an interest in theology and apologetics or if you just are curious about what orthodox Christians believe, these are probably the clearest and most concise in their explanations.

I for one am equally interested in hearing about things others have read that have had an impact on their theological views (I know some have already been mentioned), so please pm me with suggested reading.

Drollefille, I’ve appreciated you contributions to this thread in particular. I obviously have come to different conclusions than you on the claims of Christ, BUT you’ve clearly put a lot of thought into your positions and done your research. It comes across in posts that are reasoned and well-articulated. Public discourse needs more of that.

To the OP – I give you mad props for starting a thread that was a little deeper than whether one should wear black flats or silver heels for preference. Still, threatening to put sacred literature in a body orifice is probably not the best way to begin a thread designed to encourage open theological discussions. :D Of course, I didn’t read the thread that prompted that outburst, so maybe it was deserved. The English teacher in me also has to agree with Sensuret that your discussion topic was overly broad; you might narrow the field next time.

Whew….I’m long winded – proof that I’m a minister’s daughter. This thread has pushed my deep thoughts boundary. I’m going back to the mindless entertainment of recruitment stories and football forums now.

I'm with you AXOMom. I was sure this was going to be just what you described but have actually enjoyed following this. And for as far to the other ends of this discussion as the two of us are, it's nice to know we can have a chat about it.

For an alternative viewpoint that DOESN'T say all spirituality is stupid, read or listen to anything by Joseph Campbell. He's the one who coined the phrase "follow your bliss" which is maybe the best guide to life ever. I have to admit I have not personally read his books, but saw a lengthy PBS thing on him, and have gotten active recaps of the books from my husband. You know... when he reads so much of the book to me, a year later I can't remember if I actually read it myself or just got the lecture so many times it's ingrained.

For the more argumentative authors, try Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Although I do on some level agree with them, I feel like they just come off as angry. But DH eats it up. Frankly, I don't care that much, but I think he's coming from a very different upbringing than I had and finds comfort in reading about the discrepancies and inaccuracies in christianity that match what he believes. Don't make me try to explain that one!

For an explanation of why I am vehemently opposed to teaching creationism, google flying spaghetti monster. It is VERY funny stuff, but does point out the key issue for why creationism can't be taught in public schools - who's version of creationism do you want to teach? But I'd be all over it being taught in a sociology class.

DubaiSis,

Thank you for the suggestions. I'm very familiar with Richard Dawkins, but I'll look around for the others.

Actually, I'm not a proponent of teaching creationism in public schools. I agree that there are many religions with creation beliefs, and they can't possibly cover them all in a science class nor should they necessarily. All that I would like to see is science teachers being respectful of these differing beliefs. Evolution is still a theory and a simple acknowledgement of that would be enough for me. If a science teacher says, "We teach evolution because most scientists and our school system believe that this is where current scientific evidence leads and this is the theory they think is most likely, but there are many other beliefs out there about how life came to be on this planet. If you are interested you are free to research those on you own," then I would be a perfectly happy camper, and I think its a compromise most people on both sides of the fence could live with.

What bothers me is when a student who holds to some form of creationism sits in a classroom and is told that evolution is fact (no doubt whatsoever), and their belief is a myth (no doubt whatsoever). That happened to me - often.

My daughter sat in an anthropology class last winter and on the first day the professor said (and I'm quoting pretty much verbatim here), "I teach evolution because I think any belief that says some diety created life is ridiculous. I might as well say some spaghetti man came down and made the world." This is at a university (my alma mater) that, again, prides itself on open mindedness, tolerance, and diversity. Apparently the concept that respect for diversity includes people who hold religous beliefs was news to her. My daughter certainly expected the prof to teach evolution - nothing new with that - she just didn't expect that level of disrespect towards opposing viewpoints publicly from a teacher at a university.

Anyway - end of my vent. As I said, most everyone here seems much more capable of handling those differences in a civil, respectful way.

Thank you again for the reading suggestions. I'll look for them and add them to my reading list.

Many thanks, and thanks for your contribution. I'm often afraid that even my well reasoned positions won't be taken well as I can not always recall my sources, or pull them up to double check my own recollections. But I had the privilege of a Jesuit education, one that encourages questioning. Even if they wouldn't be thrilled with my conclusions either, they would respect them :)

As far as evolution being "just a theory." That is not how the word "Theory" works in science. Being a theory means it is supported by all the evidence and both predicts and describes behavior. Gravity is also a "theory" for example. A more appropriate acknowledgment to me is "Evolution is based on scientific facts. Science doesn't take an opinion on matters of faith or religion. Hopefully you will explore these issues in an appropriate theology/philosophy/etc. class or on your own." I'm not sure such a disclaimer is even necessary unless the issue is actually raised. (Then again, Catholic grade school/high school/college taught evolution so I never had that struggle in school.)

The professor is an asshat, and lifted the Flying Spaghetti Monster concept without doing it well and being rude in the process. The FSM was created in response to people who wanted to introduce intelligent design into schools in Kansas (i think) arguing that they had just as much evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as the proponents of Intelligent Design had.

They're right, as far as science goes, and that was their point. Intelligent Design is creationism re-wrapped in fudged science and a pretty name. And it doesn't belong in a science class. While I personally disagree with teaching "Young Earth Creationism" as it both contradicts all evidence and implies that God put dinosaur bones there to trick us, it's a private school's right to do so. In contrast, the "evolution was guided by God with a plan" theory that Catholics subscribe to supports the science while providing their religious perspective as well. All of this makes sense in private schools only though. Public schools don't need any of it taught whether packaged as Intelligent design or not, not in Science/Natural Science/Biology/etc.

Long story short, I have no problem with keeping science in science class and religion in religion class. But neither side needs to be an ass about it. (The being an ass thing is why I'm not a fan of Dawkins or some of the other 'new' atheists. )

This one bothers me for a slightly different reason -- typically the person spouting a view like this doesn't understand what "myth" means. Myth = untrue. In fact, one could say that a myth is, by definition true. A story doesn't have to be factual to be True or to convey Truth.

Agree on this. Coming from a mainline Protestant background, I never saw either the reason for controversy or the reason to set up evolution and the Bible as mutually exclusive alternatives. To me, it was sufficient to say that evolution seeks to explain the "how," while religion (or philosophy) seeks to explain the "why" and the "what it means."

I always liked the statement of:

I'm not going to debate creationism and evolution in this course. In this course we are learning about evolution, and it makes no difference if you believe in it or not, but you better know it for the test. If you have a problem with this I have a list of courses you can take that will fufill the same requirement this course does, and you will be signed in immediately.

Thank you professor in large lecture Physical Anthropology course freshman year. I'd also like to thank my biology professor who kindly discussed with me that if I can have faith and believe, why not believe that God can have a hand in evolution.

I get so frustrated with people who criticize something they don't understand that challenges their religious beliefs. With that statement I'd like everyone who thinks evolution means "we came from monkeys" and who doesn't understand the shared people and stories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to all STFU and go to the library before they pass judgment. they could also get different versions/translations of the Bible and have a nice etymology lesson while they are at it. Greek & Latin sholarship for the win.

I live by the first sentance, it's how I can be a scientist and have a Faith at the same time.

And as for the second - one of my biggest pet peeves when people think the theory of evolution means we came from monkies. HATE IT.

And as for Drolefille's dinosaurs - the only time I was ever excused from a class in high school was my freshman religion class, when the ancient nun insisted that fossils and dinosaurs were a hoax, a clever science fiction story in the works. We obviously didn't agree. My private Catholic high school also taught evolution, and this lady was a whack job. (Of course, she also roller skated through the lunch room playing an accordian at the same time - no joke, it was her yearly thing).

OMFG you got to live Sister Act! Jealous of the Sister Mary Clarence action.

http://www.roller-blade.info/wp-cont...ler-blades.jpg

That's it, I am emailing you my Jesus Pony pictures. You're now in my special club. I think for us though, we have a hands on relationship with the fossil record. No Archbishop Ussher can tell me any different about things I've touched and uncovered with my own hands and trowel. I did meet someone in the field who really though people and dinos lived together, and I couldn't believe they were working with science. The Flintstones and Land of the Lost are not documentaries.

This is almost verbatim what I was told in high school science, along with "this is what we're going to be learning about in this class. Go home and discuss it with your parents." This to me is the absolute best advice for a bunch of reasons, forcing your parents to explain what they believe and why among them.

Oh, and the whole "theory" argument drives me up a tree, much like a monkey. The word has 2 mutually exclusive definitions.

Her name was Sister Mary Bernita, and we called her Sister Bernita. She was pushing 70 back in '95, and I think she's still alive. (shiver) And I think I really do need to see Jesus Pony pictures, will make my Monday much better!

Someday VS, if you're ever in the Greater Cinci area, you and me, we're going to the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky!!!!

There is one in Kentucky? I visited one in Indy.

Oh yeah, it's only a few years old, but it's insanely popular. http://creationmuseum.org/

My bad. That's the one I went to. I thought it was in Indiana for some reason lol.

Can one or both of us wear a gorilla suit? Maybe we could do a chimp and Jane Goodall costume pairing, that'd be awesome. Or I could sport a shirt that says "Archaeologists don't dig up dinosaurs" and you could have one of the Paleontologist/Geologist shirts.

Sometimes I look at those Jesus Pony photos and want to find out who drew them. It wouldn't be that hard, but I think the story behind them makes it even funnier. What a thing to find in a strange place, after living Jesus Pony life in the field.

Drollefille – Thanks for your response. Sorry it has taken me a few days to respond . I’m one month into the school year and already drowning in grading and suffering a sinus infection.


In reading through DubaisSis’s response, I didn’t even key in on the web site (I’m less observant in middle age) and focused instead on the books she recommended. Thanks for making the connection. I was aware of the issue in Kansas, but not of the website, so when the professor made the comment (last winter), we were not only annoyed, but baffled. Now it makes sense and yes, your description of her is apt although since I don’t know her personally, I’ll have to go on the evidence I have available, so I suppose that makes her “jackassness” a theory in the general sense of the term (not the scientific sense). ;)

You are entirely correct about the definitions, and my use of theory was not accurate for science. My intent was simply to point out a respectful way to acknowledge different beliefs and that at this point there are very few things in the world (evolution included) that can be proven beyond dispute. I would add that evolution is broad term that generally refers to three different things- well, three primary things, and the typical high school science class deals with two: macro and micro evolution. Of those, my opinion is that only micro evolution fits the scientific definition of a theory and macro doesn’t work within that definition (on a much more minor and completely irrelevant point – gravity can be both a theory and a law depending on its use).

I would disagree with the website's contention that creationism is fudge science. I would add the qualification that creationism, like evolution, is a broad term that can cover many points of view, so I suppose, depending on what curriculum they were specifically proposing it could have been, but if they are talking about it in the general sense, I would see that as an unfair characterization. I know that the majority of the scientific community holds to evolution as an explanation for the origin and development of life on this planet, but there are scientists who disagree or at least see some flaws in macro evolution, hold to creationism, and who are qualified to know enough about the subject to have credible opinions.

I’m going to leave it at that (although I have a great book recommendation on this as well) because I don’t want this thread to become a discussion of evolution rather than theology. That wasn’t my intent. My point, and I think you and I agree on this, would be that no matter what you think of another person’s beliefs on any subject, you need to treat him or her with civility. Debating ideas is always a good thing and disrespectful side swipes like the professor’s just shut that down. I hold that they are used by those who know very little about opposing viewpoints and are somewhat insecure in their own.

Originally, I understood and somewhat agreed with your point that as long as they weren’t making offensive comments directed at those who hold to creationism, there was no particular reason for a teacher to mention that creationism was another viewpoint students could research on their own. As I gave it some more thought though – I guess my question would be: Why wouldn’t they? I don’t think they HAVE to say that, but if it keeps a substantial group of parents and their children happy, what’s the harm? What concerns would a teacher have about a student doing that?

This isn’t a perfect analogy because English is a more subjective subject than science, but let’s say I’m getting ready to teach Huck Finn. I know that recently there have been controversies surrounding the book, and it’s been pulled in a lot of districts because there are those who feel it has racist undertones. The district and I both disagree with this. I don’t think there is much evidence for that view, and I feel there is substantial evidence to the contrary. Still, there are many who disagree, and I know there are some literature professors who disagree (although they are a decided minority). As a teacher, the first thing I would do when I introduce the book is to acknowledge the controversy. I would explain why I feel the book is anything but racist while acknowledging that there are those who feel differently and have every right to do so. At that point, yes, I would let my students know that while we aren’t going to spend time debating that issue in class, they are more than welcome to read material on their own from those who feel otherwise and draw their own conclusions. Why? Well, my job as a teacher isn’t to determine what they shouldn’t learn or know. My job is to expose them to information, beliefs, and viewpoints as much as I can and to give them the tools (evidence and logic among others) to determine the validity of those beliefs and viewpoints. I can’t mention every idea coming down the pike, but when they know full well there is a substantial amount of controversy surrounding some part of my curriculum I honestly feel I would be irresponsible as a teacher not to at least acknowledge that fact. I can guarantee that someone in that classroom will bring it up, so I might as well be prepared for it and “head it off at the pass” so to speak.

I would say again, you have been a great example throughout this thread of how to debate an issue with reason and respect. That is, no doubt, a by-product of that Jesuit education!

Swerving off topic here, but my husband spent three years as the one and only protestant chaplain in the history of Gonzaga University (proudly Jesuit). We had a lot of lovely evening dinners with the priests, and when we weren’t discussing basketball, we had some great theological discussions. Listening to them discuss their opinions of the Dominicans was entertaining as well, but I admit, not very respectful.

Vandal Squirrel - The monkey thing bothers me as well from those in my own group. If someone is going to disagree with evolution, they shouldn't attribute to it things that it doesn't say. However, on a rather funny side note. This same anthropology class was on human sexuality. Apparently the professor felt actually discussing human sexuality or watching videos of it would be inappropriate for the classroom (this was U of O, so I personally think she could have swung it without much fallout). She decided to focus on monkey sexuality instead because she pointed out that monkeys were our closest relatives. For the next month my daughter was treated to a daily dose of videos showing monkeys well....doing their thing. Her boyfriend started referring to it as her "monkey porn class".

IrishLake - Don't mean to turn you against the Jesuits, but our Gonzaga buddies HATED Notre Dame....with a holy passion. Not sure why. My husband says it has something to do with Digger Phelps. :confused: