In "Papa Ratzi toying with abolishing Limbo."

Strikes me as interesting that one basis for rethinking Limbo is that church members tend to reject the concept. Somehow, I've never seen the Catholic church as allowing voting on dogma. Yes it is, and it's part of the basis of papal infallibilty, which sort of says the pope's infallible when he says something the faithful already knew was true. Do you suppose that contraception could be up for election at some point? Most of the church's teaching on contraception is from the Encyclical Humanae Vitae. The church views encyclicals as fallible. John Rock, a principle in the development of the pill, was a practicing Catholic and designed the pill to mimic the rythmn method.

In "Curious George: why are the Democrats and Kerry so inept"

The polls seem to indicate that almost half of the public has already decided in favor of Bush, and almost half the public has already decided in favor of Kerry. (Yes, a dangerously sweeping generalization. Bear with me.) I think the reason neither campaign seems to meet with the approval of their faithful, is that neither is really directed toward its faithful. Candidate X knows he has my vote; Candidate Y knows he won't get it. Both are doing their best to court the handful of undecideds out there. The campaigns are courting this unique group in a way that neither an avowed liberal nor conservative really finds compelling. One of the outcomes of highly polarized national debate?

(limited to the most recent 20 comments)