Monday, July 11, 2011
Shocking article about single motherhood
Casey Anthony — Single Mom of the Year! (by Ann Coulter) - Watchwoman on the Wall
Keep in mind that the views expressed by Ann Coulter are not necessarily mine. I just think she brings out some important information in her article.
Keep in mind that the views expressed by Ann Coulter are not necessarily mine. I just think she brings out some important information in her article.
Catholic Church explores Crystal Cathedral bid
This is pretty amazing. The Crystal Cathedral is a very large church and is quite nice. So now the Catholic Church has put a bid in on it after it went bankrupt. They put a bid of $46 million. After acquiring it, if that's what happens, the Church will probably do a lot of renovations to include statues, a proper altar, etc.
Catholic Church explores Crystal Cathedral bid – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
Catholic Church explores Crystal Cathedral bid – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Monday, July 04, 2011
Thursday, June 30, 2011
If Steven Greydanus didn't write this article about gay marriage, I probably would have.
I heard something along these lines before and I must say I very much agree. When talking about gay marriage, everyone focuses on the gay community and how they are forcing us to accept changing the definition of marriage. Well, as Steven Greydanus argues, we must take some of the blame because of how society in general has changed its view of marriage to something that is completely selfish. I've thought about this before and it really makes a lot of sense. Things don't happen in a vacuum. Sin is a gradual thing which gets slowly accepted, and this is no different. If all Christians lived according to the real definition of marriage, the debate about "gay marriage" probably would not even be happening.
Article here:
Redefining Marriage, Part 1: Who s to Blame? | Blogs | NCRegister.com
Article here:
Redefining Marriage, Part 1: Who s to Blame? | Blogs | NCRegister.com
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
It's my birthday today.
Dear followers of this blog,
Thanks for being with me these past several years, over 5 now I think. Today is my birthday and I turn 29!
If you're really tempted to send me a birthday gift, hehe, then you can do so by making a donation to this blog. I know, I know, this is a shameless plug for donations. But don't feel obligated! It would just help out a lot!
To make a donation, click below:
Thanks for being with me these past several years, over 5 now I think. Today is my birthday and I turn 29!
If you're really tempted to send me a birthday gift, hehe, then you can do so by making a donation to this blog. I know, I know, this is a shameless plug for donations. But don't feel obligated! It would just help out a lot!
To make a donation, click below:
Monday, June 27, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
This Film is Not Yet Rated
So I watched (most) of a documentary called This Film is Not Yet Rated. To sum it up, it is interviews with a bunch of filmmakers who are complaining about the MPAA rating system, which rates a movie in the US as G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17.
Most of the doc revolves around the upset caused to filmmakers when they receive an NC-17 rating as opposed to R.
After seeing this documentary, I am very glad such a system exists. In fact, it seems many of the directors of films are bent on exposing more and more people at younger ages to greater levels of depravity all the time. If it wasn't for this ratings board, films would be a total wild west of filth.
The arguments presented against the NC-17 rating were completely nonsensical. They said stuff like why can't we show pubic hair in R movies, when violence is allowed there! One guy, John Waters, basically said that since kids nowadays look at pornography, why not just let them watch anything in films!
Keep in mind, this film was against the rating system and these directors were there to show why its such a stupid system. Well, this documentary had the opposite effect on me. The directors just seemed so full of themselves. They mocked any traditional notion of morality, and considered anyone with a moral fiber in their being to be outdated. They spoke about concerned parents in the most condescending way.
One director, who did American Psycho, laughed at the idea that sexual representations on film can have any impact on people whatsoever, and she ridiculed the idea that violence is sometimes accepted but on-screen sexuality is often not accepted. She then pushed her theory further by ridiculing the idea that depictions of gay sex could possibly be negative.
I'm not sure where any of these people live, but they are not normal folks. The MPAA however rates its movies with the help of real parents, mostly mothers. These concerned parents look at films and give them ratings based on certain criteria.
Some said this was a form of censorship. But the movies are not being censored, only rated.
I, for one, am glad such a system exists. I like to know the level of violence and nudity present in a film before I rent it. I would not like to rent a movie thinking it's a family classic, only to later realize it's full of violence and explicit sexuality.
I believe the system works, and the vast majority of people polled feels it is a good system to have. I believe the directors and producers who have a problem with the system need to come back to Earth. Real people have morals, often informed by their religious faith. This needs to be respected, rather than ridiculed.
P.S. I am adding in later. But I forgot to mention, one of the parts of the documentary that emerged later was that two members of the clergy, one Catholic and one Episcopalian, participate in some capacity in the review process of films. One person interviewed said they have no part in the voting process and that they just observe, nothing more, but another anonymous person who was involved says they cast a vote. Anyway, the documentary seemed particularly concerned with this development. One guy says the relationship between churches and censorship is "palpable".
The movie concludes by revealing the names of Appeal Board Members which was supposed to be kept secret.
Most of the doc revolves around the upset caused to filmmakers when they receive an NC-17 rating as opposed to R.
After seeing this documentary, I am very glad such a system exists. In fact, it seems many of the directors of films are bent on exposing more and more people at younger ages to greater levels of depravity all the time. If it wasn't for this ratings board, films would be a total wild west of filth.
The arguments presented against the NC-17 rating were completely nonsensical. They said stuff like why can't we show pubic hair in R movies, when violence is allowed there! One guy, John Waters, basically said that since kids nowadays look at pornography, why not just let them watch anything in films!
Keep in mind, this film was against the rating system and these directors were there to show why its such a stupid system. Well, this documentary had the opposite effect on me. The directors just seemed so full of themselves. They mocked any traditional notion of morality, and considered anyone with a moral fiber in their being to be outdated. They spoke about concerned parents in the most condescending way.
One director, who did American Psycho, laughed at the idea that sexual representations on film can have any impact on people whatsoever, and she ridiculed the idea that violence is sometimes accepted but on-screen sexuality is often not accepted. She then pushed her theory further by ridiculing the idea that depictions of gay sex could possibly be negative.
I'm not sure where any of these people live, but they are not normal folks. The MPAA however rates its movies with the help of real parents, mostly mothers. These concerned parents look at films and give them ratings based on certain criteria.
Some said this was a form of censorship. But the movies are not being censored, only rated.
I, for one, am glad such a system exists. I like to know the level of violence and nudity present in a film before I rent it. I would not like to rent a movie thinking it's a family classic, only to later realize it's full of violence and explicit sexuality.
I believe the system works, and the vast majority of people polled feels it is a good system to have. I believe the directors and producers who have a problem with the system need to come back to Earth. Real people have morals, often informed by their religious faith. This needs to be respected, rather than ridiculed.
P.S. I am adding in later. But I forgot to mention, one of the parts of the documentary that emerged later was that two members of the clergy, one Catholic and one Episcopalian, participate in some capacity in the review process of films. One person interviewed said they have no part in the voting process and that they just observe, nothing more, but another anonymous person who was involved says they cast a vote. Anyway, the documentary seemed particularly concerned with this development. One guy says the relationship between churches and censorship is "palpable".
The movie concludes by revealing the names of Appeal Board Members which was supposed to be kept secret.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
June 22, 1955 CATHEDRAL RAISED TO THE RANK OF MINOR BASILICA BY POPE.
This is the mother church for my area in St. John's. It happened about 100 years after the church was consecrated.
June 22, 1955 CATHEDRAL RAISED TO THE RANK OF MINOR BASILICA BY POPE. | The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. John's
June 22, 1955 CATHEDRAL RAISED TO THE RANK OF MINOR BASILICA BY POPE. | The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. John's
A Voice Crying In The Wilderness
Not sure how I neglected to mention or notice this for so long, but the Archbishop of my diocese of St. John's has a blog, which he seems to update fairly frequently with great quality content. Please check it out:
A Voice Crying In The Wilderness
A Voice Crying In The Wilderness
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)