The HHS Mandate gets Pwned

Here’s how you fight it:

Don’t just call it an attack on religious liberty: make it clear that contraception is *morally wrong*, and don’t let people think it’s just ritually impure like eating pork.

And do it in the confidence that this is a winning issue for the Church and a losing issue for Obama. Don’t back down. Resist the Tyrant!

"So what? So what?What does ANY of that have to do what God has told ..."

Let’s talk about Romans 13
"Then I suggest you petition your local municipality, your state and the federal government to ..."

Let’s talk about Romans 13
"Meh, you shared this already. Nice to see the bishops doing their jobs."

Let’s talk about Romans 13
"You know I do, but, with no explanation, you DON'T call what follows a "dangerous ..."

Let’s talk about Romans 13

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Yes! This is our opportunity to explain why contraception is wrong! We shouldn’t let it pass us by.

  • julian

    YEEEESSSSSSSSS!!!! Refusing to having her feminine fertility treated like a deficiency! She is good.

  • nate

    Good stuff here.
    She’s making a needed point. There is in such mandates a fulfillment of Neuhaus’s Law. Neuhaus said that if something ceases being required, sooner or later it will be proscribed. She’s saying that in so far as contraception is no longer proscribed, sooner or later it will be required. There are far reaching implications for women in and outside of the workplace here.

  • ds

    This is not good stuff. This is how Catholics will lose.

    Undergirding this idea is the perception that women, because of our fertility, are deficient and we need fixing.

    The undergirding idea of the HHS mandate is trust women, let them make their own decisions with their doctors.

    Convincing people that Catholics should be able to have a religious exemption is one thing. Convincing people that contraception is wrong is a whole other argument and one that is harder to make (even if correct).

    Arguing for a religious exemption by reason of freedom of religion is saying YOU should have the freedom to practice YOUR OWN religion as you wish. This is a winnable argument.

    Arguing against the HHS mandate because contraception is immoral is saying the law should be based on Catholic morality, or the exact opposite of freedom of religion. This argument will lose.

    This is so obvious I don’t know how you cannot see this.

    • nate

      “Arguing for a religious exemption by reason of freedom of religion is saying YOU should have the freedom to practice YOUR OWN religion as you wish. This is a winnable argument.”

      Disagree. The left looks at contraception as an issue of human rights. Human rights trumps religious freedom every time. You don’t have a religious right to marry a fifteen year old girl or circumcise your daughters. The left thinks that denial of contraception is, like these things, a denial of human dignity, but perhaps of a less severe sort (depending on the lefty making the argument). We will lose big time if we don’t address, as this speaker rightly words it, the nature of objective reality, and therefore what human dignity truly is, and what human rights truly are.
      We will not win this argument by saying, effectively, ‘we have a right to be wrong’. Because on this issue, the left thinks we are wrong about human rights and dignity.

      I repeat: we will *not* win the religious freedom argument. Guarantee you that.

      • A Philosopher

        So speaking as an actual leftist, the religious freedom argument is a winner with me. (I think there are tricky cases when religious freedom comes up against other important rights and obligations, but this isn’t one of them.)

        And the “morality of contraception” argument is a loser with me, twice over. It’s a loser once because honestly, the arguments just aren’t very good. And then it’s a loser again because it tends to make me think that you (generically speaking) aren’t really concerned with the religious freedom issue, but just want this as a foot in the door for pushing Catholic views on sexual morality more broadly. (I don’t like “foot in the door” arguments, so I try pretty successfully to suppress the tendency, and I recognize that, in any case, you’re of course free to push Catholic views on sexual morality. Still, I think these are rhetorical factors that are going to carry weight with people.)

        • julian

          So how about you start by explaining how exactly the “arguments just aren’t very good.”

          • A Philosopher

            The primary argument for intrinsic wrong seems to be (in a nutshell):

            (A) It is wrong to use a natural object in a way that makes it impossible for that object to fulfill one of its natural functions.

            (B) One of the natural functions of the sexual organs (or of the sexual act) is reproduction (or, creation of the opportunity for reproduction).

            (C) Contraception makes it impossible for the sexual organs/act to allow for the opportunity of reproduction.

            (Conclusion) Therefore, it is wrong to use contraception.

            The primary difficulty is in coming up with a sense of “natural function” that makes both premise (A) and premise (B) reasonable. Very little is really said in defense of premise (A), and on most normal readings of “natural function”, premise (A) just looks obviously false.

            (For example: it looks like the natural function of the fingers is as instruments of manual dexterity and manipulation. Wearing mittens makes it impossible for the fingers to fulfill that function. But it’s crazy to think that it’s wrong to wear mittens.)

          • A Philosopher

            (Part 2: Spam filter didn’t like the whole thing in one piece for some reason)

            Premise (A) can be, more or less, defined into correctness by taking “natural function” to be “the right way to use an object”. But then premise (B) becomes pretty openly question-begging. I’m willing to grant that there’s a biological sense of function on which the sexual organs/act have a reproductive function. But I don’t see why I should grant a moral sense in which reproduction is the right way to use the sexual organs/act.

            • julian

              You are not really addressing the specific “morality of contraception argument,” argument that the presenter in the video raises. I suppose we could address your A-C points but for now let’s stay focused on the initial post. The first point that Ms. Purvis raises is that the HHS Mandate is anti-woman. That’s a doozy, but let’s see how she explains that claim. She starts off by explaining that for contraception to be treated as health care which must be made universally available you have to hold the idea that women’s natural fertility is a liability that needs “fixing” and if it can not be fixed with a pill, then more extreme and permanent (surgical) measures must be made available. She goes on to make the point that the government sanctions and institutionalizes this view point when it requires that the fix be made available to all women as a standard and that everyone must chip in to help provide this so-called healthcare for the common good. Essentially women and all of society must be tasked with keeping women’s fertility at bay. That is her argument. I’d be curious to see counterpoints relevant to the actual post.

              • A Philosopher

                Well, I’d start by noting that nothing that you say here is an argument against the morality of contraception.

                That noted, I’d also say that I don’t see any argument that view #1:

                (1) Contraception should be covered under health insurance.

                entails view #2:

                (2) Natural fertility is a liability that needs fixing.

                There are many instances that fall under the general banner of “health care” that don’t involve viewing something as “wrong” with the body that needs “fixing”. For example, prenatal care and natal delivery are typically considered forms of health care (and, indeed, forms of health care that ought to be covered under health insurance), without that entailing that pregnancy is in any way viewed as something “wrong” with the body.

                • julian

                  Come on now, you are citing health care that supports fertility to show that things that work against fertility are on the same level . That makes no sense. Prenatal care and natal delivery are forms of health care that work WITH the natural state of fertility. Contraception is working AGAINST the natural state of fertility. Just because SOME things covered under health care support natural feminine fertility does not mean that EVERY thing that gets lumped under the umbrella of health care works towards the same end. That is bad reasoning.

                  • A Philosopher


                    I’m not attempting to put any two things on “the same level”. (I’m not even sure I know what that means.) I’m just observing that the inference from “is the proper subject of health care” to “is a liability that needs fixing” is fallacious. The case of prenatal and natal coverage establishes that. Thus the principle that your argument depends on is false, and the argument is unsound.

        • nate

          Hi A Philosopher (excuse the awkward formatting of the nested comments),
          Certainly, I disagree that the arguments for the immorality of contraception are weak. Quite the contrary. The arguments are not only good, but devastating. The standard meme among the left that one could hold to the Church’s position only if one has first been culturally lobotomized, and/or that it is only the poor and ignorant clinging to tyrannical teaching on human sexuality, has it precisely backwards. Studies show that those who accept the Church’s teaching are educated. I might point out, given your moniker, that I have an advanced degree, and my wife likewise has an advanced degree, and we are both working professionals. Those who accept the church’s position are far more likely to have credentials like me or my wife. Do these incidental facts about us and those like us show that the Catholic church is right? Of course not!

          But it puts major pressure on the meme pushed by the left that one would accept the morality of contraception only if one ceased staring at the shadows on the cave wall, and were dragged to the mouth of the cave to see the Sun of Reason. Eighteen-year-old freshman, swimming with the zeitgeist, are far more likely to stand with you than with me.

          And it is precisely because our age has such an impoverished and philosophically problematic notion of human dignity, that the Catholic has a duty to promote their own philosophically persuasive and correct alternative. Catholics are not just concerned about their own, but about human flourishing…and about the salvation of souls. We refuse to ghettoize ourselves, because we want everyone to have life in abundance. I am certainly interested in ‘pushing’ the Catholic view of human sexuality, precisely because it is correct, and because it leads to true human flourishing, and precisely because true justice is not an esoteric issue for Catholics.

          Furthermore, that you see the religious freedom argument as ‘winnable’ shows that you are an anomaly of your own intellectual camp. The left has gone on record as arguing that this is an issue of women’s rights, and that such rights trump religious freedom. I am assuming, I suppose, that the editorials offered in recent issues of Mother Jones, The Progressive, The Nation, and our paper of record are a worthy indication of how the left stands, let alone sundry blogs of note, senators and congressmen, members of the HHS, and law students testifying on the Hill. It is true that Chris Matthews, as I recall, did indeed stand with the Church on this issue. I can name influential liberals, however, who stood with Matthews, on one hand.

          When I say that the left sees this as an issue of human rights, I am not speaking in the abstract, but of what is *written* and *said* by prominent leftists.

          • A Philosopher


            I’m more or less in agreement with most of what you say here. I think the arguments for the immorality of contraception are bad ones; that doesn’t mean that I think those who agree with the arguments are stupid or uneducated. (I don’t much care whether my own views are in agreement or disagreement with the Zeitgeist.)

            And I agree that the left has, as a whole, been insufficiently responsive to the religious freedom concern. I cited myself not to establish a generalization, but just to provide a datum. In general, I think sensitivity to religious freedom issues has regrettably diminished over the last 30-odd years, as a side effect of having “the enemy” carry a visible religious tag. As so often happens, having an enemy tends to shape one in conformity to the outlines of the enemy.

            • nate

              Ah yes, Schmidt.
              Thanks for the response. I might merely suggest to you that blog comments are not the chance to find detailed arguments for nuanced positions, particularly when the positions run counter to the prevailing norm. For the same reason that Noam Chomsky won’t go on any MSM talking head shows, you should be careful in thinking you’ll be able to vindicate the pro-contraception case in this format.

              The church’s position relies on a host of phenomenological and metaethical (some of which are ontological) assumptions that cannot be adequately expressed in a blog comment. You’d be best to peruse what philosophers and theologians have had to say on the issue in monographs, etc.

    • Ted Seeber

      “The undergirding idea of the HHS mandate is trust women, let them make their own decisions with their doctors.”

      I don’t see it. If that was true, then fertility wouldn’t be treated as a disease at all.

      • ds

        I’m not trying to get you to see it. I’m telling you this is how others see it, and that’s why you will lose.

        • julian

          You are making the Sean Hannity argument that the general public is a bunch of slobs and therefore Catholic teaching is to high for them. Thanks for trying to enlighten us on how “others” see things, because we just hadn’t heard about that until now. I get it, go along to get along. I guess the ideas that this woman is articulating are just to subversive for those “others” and should be silenced. Silly woman.

    • ds, I think both arguments need to be made. People are only willing to allow for religious exemptions when they can find some semi-plausible rationale of why it’s reasonable to leave open such an exemption. You don’t get an exemption to be a racist bigot. You don’t get an exemption to be a woman-beating sexist.

      So, not only do we need to raise the religious freedom argument because it’s something people identify with, we also need to explain why it’s something we want freedom in regards to. We don’t need them to agree, we just need them to say “Hmmm… that’s an interesting, well thought out perspective. I don’t know that I completely agree, but that’s definitely something that I’m willing to grant the religious freedom they deserve.”

      It also won’t hurt for them to say “Those idiots who keep calling them woman-hating bigots just look stupid now that I know what they’re arguments are.”

      • ds

        Or they may think, “I’m not some immoral person subverting nature and hurting women, I am a woman just trying to manage my own reproductive choices that are none of their business. These people really are opposed to all contraception.”

        • julian

          Well…we are opposed to it. We would be more than happy to explain why, (Gloria Purvis does a terrific job of it in this video). It is a red herring to assume that opposition to contraception is on par with Taliban rule that is at war with the feminine. Quite the opposite in fact. Since the onset of this debate in the public square, I have not seen anyone present a more fearless praise and elevation of the feminine than what Gloria Purvis is communicating in this video. If you find fault with it you need to work correcting some specific mistakes in her argument. So far, all I can gather is that you think that her ideas are to scary or the “others” will be unwilling to consider her points.

  • LJP


    Ultimately, this is not about winning or losing. Our purpose as Catholic Christians, as disciples of Christ, is to preach the Gospel, with charity, in and out of season. Should our goal be to stop the HHS mandate? Yes. Is this our purpose? No. The fate of the HHS mandate is really neither here nor there in the grand scheme. The salvation of souls – this is the real prize. If this occasion of debate in our country affords us an opportunity to speak the truth to a wider audience, then it is our duty to do so; not simply cower in a corner and strategize how to “win”.

    We must also keep in mind that it is not our place to convince, that is the job of the Holy Spirit. We are to speak the Truth in charity, answer questions, and probably take a whole lot of flak for it.

    Gloria is correct; and this is indeed good stuff.

    Love, Justice, Peace

    • Roberto

      Exactly! It is not a matter of winning or losing, but one of presenting arguments in support of truth.
      Where is the logical fault in saying that pushing contraceptives implies saying that women are not good enough the way they are?
      Why can’t women be more like men indeed!

      • Clare Krishan

        ditto LJP Roberto, and Sherry (below)

        If you can do watch ALL the ladies (including an Ob-Gyn) on the uploaded CIC Youtube channel (or listen in to the event’s podcast here
        and challenge everyone who claims we’re lost politically because its all about “access”… that’s blatantly not true…
        “In fact, we find the very framing of opposition to the mandate as a “war on women,” a war on women in and of itself. Such framing takes all women hostage for a policy agenda about which women are deeply divided. In recent polling, women are split 47-46 for and against the mandate.”

  • Telemachus

    Why does the Church hate women so much? *rimshot*
    It’s only a bunch of men trying to tell women what to do with their bodies. *rimshot*
    The Church is out-of-touch. *rimshot* *rimshot* *rimshot*

  • Holding up a lighter for this woman.

  • If you think mittens make the natural function of fingers impossible, may I suggest you’re a moron? While worn they, at most, hamper use.

    Mittens don’t enable you to use fingers without using them as instruments of dexterity. That’s where your analogy goes teats up.

    Mittens are where we store fingers between uses. You can wear a rubber between uses as well, and nobody here will call it contraception.

    • A Philosopher


      You’re right to observe that there’s an additional problem with the argument I sketched for the immorality of contraception. Like mittens, contraception doesn’t make the reproductive function impossible – merely less likely. So a more careful version of the argument would have to weaken the occurrences of “impossible” to some threshold of unlikelihood. This would make premise (1) even more implausible, and would impose the difficult burden of finding a level of likelihood that cut between mittens and contraceptives.

      Mittens, of course, do allow you to use your fingers without using them as an instrument of dexterity. That’s why, for example, it’s possible to grip something while wearing mittens.

      If contraceptives are permissible between reproductive uses of the sexual organs/acts (while other kind of uses, such as unitive, remain permissible), then your analogy between mittens and contraceptives holds up.

      • Rosemarie


        We don’t wear mittens in order to diminish the dexterity of our fingers. We use them to prevent our fingers from getting frostbitten. The diminished dexterity is a secondary effect of this protective function, not desired but tolerated at least as long as we are out in the cold.

        Contraception, OTOH, is used for the *very purpose* of thwarting the natural function of the reproductive system. That is not merely a secondary effect, like the diminished dexterity of hands in mittens, but the primary reason why people use contraception. Therefore this is not a good comparison.

        A better comparison here would be to the therapeutic use of birth control pills to treat disorders like PCOS. In that case, the woman is using “the pill” for a legitimate medical reason – much like wearing mittens to prevent frostbite. There is also a secondary contraceptive effect – even as the mittens have the secondary effect of diminishing dexterity. Yet the latter is not the reason she is on the pill, any more than one would wear mittens constantly to deliberately inhibit the full function of ones fingers. (At least I don’t think anyone in their right mind would do that.)

        I’m not sure whether you are aware of this, but the Catholic Church is actually okay with such therapeutic use of the Pill. The unintended contraceptive result is then permissible under the principle of double effect as understood in Catholic moral theology.

        So, in the end, the mittens argument doesn’t refute the Church’s rejection of artificial birth control, though it does help illustrate the legitimacy of the principle of double effect. One can wear mittens to prevent frostbite even if the secondary effect is decreased dexterity. One can take the pill to treat a medical condition even if the secondary effect is contraceptive.

        • A Philosopher


          That’s a nice response. In essence what you’re suggesting is that my premise (A) should have been:

          (A’) It is wrong to use a natural object in a way whose primary intention is to make it impossible for it to fulfill one of its natural functions. (Or, following on Hezekiah’s point, to impair the fulfillment of one of its natural functions.)

          You’re right that my mitten example doesn’t target (A’). However, I still see no positive reason to accept (A’), and there are obvious counterexamples to it, as well. Wearing a blindfold while playing Pin The Tail On The Donkey has as its primary intention preventing the eyes from performing their natural function of sight, and hence is covered by (A’). However, it is not wrong to wear a blindfold, contrary to the verdict of (A’).

          • Rosemarie


            The kids are not preventing the eyes from performing their natural function because don’t like being able to see. Women do use contraception because they don’t like being fertile. Haven’t we heard the argument that women should “have control over their bodies” even as men do? IOW, men can have sex as much as they want without getting pregnant, so women should be able to do the same. Female fertility is an undesirable thing to be neutralized.

            If kids playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey wished to “control” their eyesight by taking a pill every morning that will render them blind for as long as they wish, I think we would agree that there is something very wrong with that. Perhaps the availability and acceptance of contraception over the past fifty years has dulled our awareness of the fact that disabling the reproductive system is similarly disordered.

            Despite their availability in pharmacies, contraceptives are not medicine; in fact they are the antithesis of medicine. Medicine renders a diseased or disordered organ or system functional again. Contraception renders a normal, functional reproductive system dysfunctional. If one were to take a pill that prevented the digestive system from digesting, so that all food would pass right through and come out in the same state that it went in, we would all see there is something wrong with that. So why the widespread acceptance of pills, shots, chemicals and devices that thwart the natural procreative function of the reproductive system?

            • A Philosopher


              You point to some differences between the Pin The Tail On The Donkey case and the contraceptive case, but it isn’t clear what general principle is supposed to produce the relevance of those differences. Here are a couple of suggestions:

              (A”) It is wrong to use a natural object in a way whose primary intention is to make it impossible for it to fulfill one of its natural functions because one disapproves of that function.


              (A”’) It is wrong to use a natural object in a way whose primary intention is to make it impossible for it to fulfill one of its natural functions for an extended period of time.

              Do either of these look like the right principle for an argument against contraception?

              (I don’t think either one is going to work. It’s obvious that there are uses of contraception qua contraception that don’t come into conflict with (A”) or (A”’). One needn’t disapprove of reproduction to want temporarily to prevent the reproductive function (just as one needn’t disapprove of vision to want temporarily to prevent the visual function), and one needn’t want to use contraception for an extended period of time. I also think it’s not that hard to come up with additional counterexamples to these principles. It’s a function of parts of the nasal anatomy to produce mucus in reaction to allergens; it doesn’t look immoral to me to disapprove of that function and take steps for that reason to prevent it from functioning (by, for example, taking antihistamines).)

              I tend to think the whole “contraceptives aren’t medicine” line is rather silly. But I’m curious about whether you view anesthetics in surgery as medicine (or, more generally, an appropriate part of health care). Or epidurals during delivery.

  • So gripping requires no instrument of dexterity?

    And note, I have made no analogy.

    I am beginning to wonder how many box tops you traded General Mills.

  • Micaela Swift

    i…….this…………video. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Amen my sister who speaks out! I want to hug her.

  • Clare Krishan

    On the origins of ospidale — womens’ relationship as beneficiaries of Catholic charity absent HHS mandates — check out Vivaldi’s patronage of La Pieta in Venice:

    That’s our culture.
    Don’t let them distrain (molest, fine with impugnity see us of it!

  • Son of James

    The problem here is my wife is arguing from the presuppositions of natural law theory.

    You OTOH are most likely unconsciously presupposing & thus responding from the perspective of utilitarian moral theory.

    Neither of you has spelled out either theory or it philosophical presuppositions. Thus I predict you might be doomed to talk past each other till you do.

    Rosemarie can not give a utilitarian argument against artificial birth control. That would not make sense. For one thing utilitarians reject final causality in nature. Natural Law theorist presuppose it.

    • A Philosopher

      Son of James,

      I’ve been granting as much as possible the background assumptions of natural law theory – that’s why I’ve been considering arguments whose first premise has been some “natural function” assumption. My major point has been that there is no precise version of that assumption that yields the desired result without producing numerous counterexamples.

      I’m not myself an adherent of natural law theory (that I think there’s no good argument for natural law theory has been a secondary background point), but I’m also not a utilitarian. I should, however, note that rejection of final causality is not part of utilitarianism.

      • Son of James

        >I’ve been granting as much as possible the background assumptions of natural law theory –

        I reply: I don’t for a second doubt the sincerity of this statement but are you granting or even familar with Aquinas’ Aristotilan metaphysics? One must hold Aristotilian Essentalist presupositions or the whole enterprise fails.

        >that’s why I’ve been considering arguments whose first premise has been some “natural function” assumption. My major point has been that there is no precise
        version of that assumption that yields the desired result without producing numerous counterexamples.

        I reply: But how do you know you are not commiting fallacies of equivocation? It’s been said many philosophers talk past each other and equivocate on each others arguments because they have no common ground. Knowing what the Essence of a Thing in Aristotlian/Aquinian terms is very important. I can talk about a very big flea and a very small elephant but given the essence of an elephant vs a flea it is unlikely the big flea is bigger than the small

        I think you are equivocating between things that don’t have like or analigous essences thus your counterexamples IMHO are non-starters/non-comparisons.

        But I don’t doubt your sincerity.

        >I’m not myself an adherent of natural law theory (that I think there’s no good argument for natural law theory has been a secondary background point),

        I reply: Rather are there good arguments for Aristotlian Essentalism? Oderberg thinks so & so does Feser and others. I find Modalism, Materialism, Empiricism, Scientism, Nominalism and Conceptionalism to have weak arguments. Moderate Realism rules!
        END of part 1

        • Son of James

          part 2

          >but I’m also not a utilitarian. I should, however, note that rejection of final causality is not part of utilitarianism.

          Perhaps I am thinking of Consequentalism?

          >(A”) It is wrong to use a natural object in a way whose primary intention is to make it impossible for it to fulfill one of its natural functions because one disapproves of that function.

          I reply: This IMHO is not a proper formulation. Forgive me but your reductionism is showing. It is wrong to use natural things in a way whose primary intention…etc. would be a better formulation.

          Sex is a Thing. In essentalism as a “thing” sex is not reduced to the sum of it’s parts but is considered as a whole & in it’s final perfection.

          The Eye as a Thing as an Eye is not reducible to it’s parts in natural law. Thus it is not an unnatural thing to cover your eyes for a game but damaging your eye to reduce sight to play a mere game even if temporary is not natural.

          A Condom disrupts the sex act. Having sex with your wife when you know she is not fertile does not. In moral and natural law the morality and nature of an act are not dictated by the consequence. I can preform an act which is good in essence that lead to bad consequences. Such as refusing to buy another person contraceptive devices and be punish by the ex-Liberal turned Fascist President
          Obama. I could proform an evil act that leads to good consequences like murder a child molester vigilante style. But it would still be wrong.

          end of part 2

          • Son of James

            part 3
            >also think it’s not that hard to come up with additional counterexamples to these principles.

            Only if you unaturally seperate Natural Law Theory from it’s Aristotilian Essentalist Metaphysical assumptions and commit the fallacy of equivocation with reckless abandon.

            >It’s a function of parts of the nasal anatomy to produce mucus in reaction to allergens; it doesn’t look immoral to me to disapprove of that function and take steps for that reason to prevent it from functioning (by, for example, taking antihistamines).)

            I reply: Neither does it look that way to me. But how is the essence of breathing clearly analigously comparible to the essence of the successful sex act? An outside element contaminates the nose & disrups clear breathing. Healing the bad breathing is not the same as thwarting the repoductive end of the sex act.

            This is the “Germs are found in nature. Germs are natural. Germs make you sick. It is natural for Germs to make you sick. Therefore it is not natural for you to kill the germ thwarting it’s natural ability to make you sick. Therefore medicine is unnatural” argument.

            But it is filled with equivocations. Try coming to Edward Feser’s blog or some place that does natural law theory by grad students & see if you can get anywhere with that argument. Good luck my friend.

            Anyway peace be with you. I have no respect for Gnu’Atheists. They are fundie trash without god-belief. But believe me when I say I have tremendious respect for Atheist Philosophers since they are an order of magnatude above the Gnus.

            Respects & Cheers! I am only posting here temporary to help Rosemarie. I’m not staying.

  • Tom

    Wow!! Sounded as if the Holy Ghost Himself was speaking. What a clear, focused truthful argument.

  • sibyl

    Sheesh, who is this Gloria Purvis woman? Let’s get her out there on the speaking circuit right away. How articulate and passionate. My only problem is that I don’t know anyone right off the bat who could benefit from this video (unusually blessed to have orthodox extended family and friends). Wow. Kudos to her.