The Institute for Creation Research (really!?) is suing the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board because the board will not accept their application to issue a master’s degree in science education. So now they’re suing in federal court.

Really, just how many things do they want to be wrong at? These are young earth creationists who have a literal interpretation belief in the Bible — meaning they think the world is actually 6,000 years old and was actually built in six 24 hour days.

And now they want to be able to issue science degrees that would allow their “graduates” to take jobs in Texas schools teaching science. I’m sorry, but when you have no basic foundation of the fundamentals of science, you are not qualified to teach it.

This would be like someone who actually believes that Field of Dreams happened teaching the history of baseball, only teaching what they were told by that movie.

Money quote from the original article:

Among the institute’s arguments in the lawsuit: “The monopolistic realities of the science education market in Texas (and in America generally) would limit creationist learners to science education opportunities from evolutionist graduate schools.”

It says the institute is “the only graduate school which specializes in creationism-informed science education.”

Here’s a tip for you — when you are the only “school” in the country offering a specific course, and every other school on the face of the Earth is telling you that you are 100 percent wrong about your science, there is a reason that you are the only one teaching it.

And for the record, graduate schools aren’t “evolutionist,” they’re scientific. Go ahead and take your creation theories to any of these “evolutionist” schools and put them through the scientific process. Perhaps engaging in actual science will allow you to see what science is and how it works. Only when you are willing to learn the facts are you able to understand them. Having a fairy tale and fighting anyone who dares tell you that you have no proof of anything is no way to conduct science.

I can take people going to church and being religious, but when it comes to trying to force people to believe in something that is so scientifically unsound is downright criminal.

Why is it that every creationist vs. school argument takes place in Texas? Really, at this point, that state deserves the population that it is trying to grow.

Also not to be ignored:

“Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, has introduced a bill that would, in effect, exempt the institute from state rules that degree-granting universities must follow.”

Yeah, there’s a guy who deserves to be reelected (note: sarcasm). How do these people have jobs? Introducing a bill that would exempt an institute that teaches proven falsehoods from state rules for issuing degrees? Why not offer medical licenses to witch doctors while you’re at it — there’s about as much real science in each.

Christopher Hitchens and Fred Blackwell of the Family Research Council squared off on MSNBC’s Hardball recently, tackling the question of America’s “Christian Nation” status.

The debate was in reference to the recent Newsweek article about religion in America called “The End of Christian America.” Both men were brought in to debate two points: Is America a Christian nation? and is religion suffering in today’s America.

One thing is once again clear from this video: Never go into a debate with Christopher Hitchens unless you can match his personality. You will not beat him with words, even if you are right. He’s just too good. So when you sit there and laugh and smile the whole time like you are humoring a child, you end up looking like an idiot. You hear me Mr. Blackwell?

Anyway, here is the video of the discussion.

Now, this is a topic I’ve talked about at length before. From looking at the facts, it is crystal clear that the United States is not now, nor was it ever, a Christian nation. The foundation of this country may have been influenced by Christianity, just as it was by many other beliefs, and it was certainly influenced by religion. But influenced by religion does not by definition make it Christian.

It’s good to see this being debated on a main stage. The sooner people stop believing in fairy tales and myths about this country, the sooner we can learn from past history and make it better. Jefferson, Washington and Franklin would laugh in your face if you tried to tell them that they created a Christian nation. It’s just not true, and seeing men like Mr. Blackwell chuckle to themselves when presented with facts is pathetic. Well done, once again, Mr. Hitchens.

I’m no economist, but for the purpose of this article, I’m playing one on the Internet. Clearly, you don’t need me to tell you that there are some major economic problems in America today. Instead of playing the who’s-to-blame game, we should be looking for solutions to what caused this problem.

Most people point to the sub-prime mortgages and the housing collapse as being the instigator, as well as the current banking problems that have their own causes. But I think that people are overlooking two major issues that have put us where we are.

The root of these issues is that people as individuals were not able to afford things that the bought. Perhaps it was their house, perhaps it was a car. But the reason they couldn’t afford them is because of other necessities (at the time) that they had to pay for that put them in their financial predicament.

This doesn’t go for all people, but for a lot of Americans, there are two causes to their lack of money, and reform in these fields could be a major step in fixing the economy.

Again, it’s just my amateur opinion, but I think these two reforms could go a long way towards fixing individual family’s finances, which would go a long way towards fixing the economy as a whole.

College Tuition

How many people go to college, and pay their way through with student loans? A lot. College students all too happily pay $30,000 a year for a four year education, voluntarily putting themselves $120,000 in debt before they even get a job. Paying your way through college with loans and getting a degree in art history is going to leave you in debt for years and years. You will spend the rest of your life chasing back that money.

Since many colleges are private, there is nothing that can be forced on them to lower tuition costs, but for state schools, perhaps a little relief to students would help the economy. More government grants and scholarships could help keep those who need the loans to get through school out of debt, or at least less in debt.

Colleges receive a lot of funding for research. Finding a way to lower tuition, and giving high school students more affordable options for higher education could help keep the next generation from fighting a losing battle with student loans for the rest of their lives.

If you were to hypothetically forgive every student loan in the country, think of how much additional money would be spent on reviving the economy and/or getting mortgage and other payments in line. It’s not realistic to forgive these debts, but if we worked towards a goal of lessening the burden on graduating students, we’d be helping everyone who benefits from a strong economy.

Health Care Costs

Sure the catch phrase for every politician in “health care reform,” but I’m not talking about socializing medicine, and I’m not talking about fixing Medicare. I’m talking about making basic health care more affordable, with or without insurance.

A visit to the doctor for a cut on my hand should not cost me as much as it does. If you have no insurance, a trip to the family doc to get a script for Ammoxicilian shouldn’t be a major purchase.

And more importantly, one major health issue should not bankrupt you. All too often, people (even with insurance) are sent to financial hell with one catastrophic situation, either to them or a family member. Car accidents happen, as do diseases. One case of bad luck is enough to deal with physically, but it should not ruin your entire financial future.

I have a friend who needed an angioplasty. He was told that he needed to wait for up to a month to get approval from the insurance company to have the procedure. He ended up getting the surgery when he needed to be rushed to the hospital two weeks later. The insurance companies pissing around with “regulations” nearly cost him his life, and, as health care goes, the more dire the situation, the more costly.

I have another friend — a friend of my mother’s to be exact — who has breast cancer. She was recently diagnosed and was set to begin chemo this week. Then she got a call from her insurance company that said she can’t start chemo yet, as they want to investigate whether or not this was a preexisting condition (her insurance was only a year old). Do they really believe that someone would cover up their cancer, get new insurance, then go through the discovery and diagnoses stages again to trick the company? Maybe someone has done that, but the fact is they are delaying crucial treatment for a cancer patient to save themselves a few bucks (possibly), a move that could end up costing the patient far more money by delaying the treatment.

I understand that medical procedures are costly, and the equipment is costly, and the doctors need to be well paid. But why should a room at a hospital have increased 70 percent in the last 26 years?

The three major reason that are always given for why health care costs so much here is 1) overuse of resources by patients (ie. unnecessary MRI’s); 2) administrative and paperwork messes; and 3) fear of malpractice suits resulting in costly over-testing.

Cleaning up our health care industry could save people fortunes. Rather than socialized health care (which many people falsely believe to be the cure), we need to add large numbers of government subsidized free health clinics. When you have an infection, and you know you have an infection, everyone would be better off if you just went to the clinic to get a prescription, rather than a doctor’s office. The staff at the clinic would still be qualified to confirm your original belief, but also be qualified enough to tell you if you need to see a more capable office for more treatment. Eliminating the backup at doctor’s offices, as well as the large amounts of wasted paperwork on trivial conditions could do wonders for helping the medical economy issues.

There are far more changes that could be made to the medical industry, like cutting down the costs on major treatments, finding ways to cut prices on MRIs, anesthesia, hospital stays and other things could help keep one accident from killing all of your finances.

If the government wants to improve health care, and get everyone insured like they say they want, then why not allow private citizens to buy into the government’s health care program for their employees. Or why not create a new insurance system just for the uninsured? Some people are happy with their current health care and don’t want to wait 10 weeks for their tests, as they do in England, Canada or Cuba. Some people just want to not be bankrupt when they are done getting treatment.

Conclusion

Again, I’m not economist or doctor, but I think that these are two major causes for people not having money. Everyone is spending so much time placing blame on why the housing bubble burst or why the market collapsed, but they fail to ever mention the obvious — people were short on money. Once you acknowledge that, then it comes down to why they were short on money.

I think I’d be proven right if you asked people why they were in debt that a majority of Americans are in debt either because of student loans or health care costs.

Fixing those two issues would go a long way towards fixing the economy.

*****
Tuition photo by uwdigitalcollections
Doctor’s office photo by Brittany G

Despite the Oklahoma legislatures best efforts to keep Richard Dawkins off the University of Oklahoma’s campus, the famous biologist, atheist and author spoke at the campus Friday.

Greeted with loud cheers, Dawkins began his speech by addressing the resolutions, to the delight of those in attendance.

According to insidehighered.com (HT: Dallas Morning News:

A large crowd greeted Richard Dawkins at the University of Oklahoma Friday, cheering on the biologist as he spoke about evolution and the attacks on science by creationists and others. Some legislators spoke out against the university’s invitation to Dawkins. One member of the Oklahoma House has introduced resolutions (which have not been voted on) to express disappointment with the university for giving a forum to the noted scholar because of his “biased philosophy.” Another resolution prompted by the Dawkins visit attacked the university’s zoology department, saying that it has been “framing the Darwinian theory of evolution as doctrinal dogmatism rather than a hypothetical construction within the disciplines of the sciences.” The zoology department offended the legislator in question by having material on the department Web site that explains the science of evolution

And with thanks to the same Web site for providing the link, enjoy some of Mr. Dawkins’ opening remarks.

You just have to love the “Intelligent Falling” vs. Theory of Gravity argument.

The myth of America being a Christian nation is no longer just historical — it is modern.

American Religious Identification Survey’s most recent findings show that more Americans identify themselves as non-religious and that the number of people that consider themselves Christian has fallen, both in large numbers since 1990.

In the first poll in 1990, only about eight percent of the respondents identified themselves as being non-religious, compared with 15% in the recent poll, nearly double the first finding.

Christians made up 86% of the US in 1990, but now only 76% of the respondents call themselves Christian. Catholics remained relatively steady, going from 26% to 25% since the first poll, despite growing by nearly 11 million members.

Also found in the poll was a doubling of Muslims, though they remain a small percentage, going from 0.3% to 0.6% of the population. Jews and Mormons remained relatively steady over the 19 years.

So why is it happening?

The survey’s principal investigator, sociologist Barry A. Kosmin of Trinity College in Connecticut, described the overall trend as an erosion of the “religious middle ground.”

He said many people appeared to be rebuffing denominations altogether or favoring more conservative evangelical groups that have boosted their relatively small memberships by offering emotional and personalized religious experiences.

Kosmin said the changing religious outlook also reflected an increasingly diverse and complex culture that emphasized greater tolerance for diversity while eschewing respect for authority.

I can’t really argue with the results of the poll. While religion seems to be playing a bigger role in some parts of society, notably religion and science, it is becoming more clear that there are many more people willing to stand up for facts and truth in the face of tradition and ceremony.

Religion is not going anywhere anytime soon, but I think the results speak for themselves.

People that want to fight for religion to be put back into several aspects of American culture, like prayer in schools, abortion laws and gay marriage are fighting a battle that will only get more difficult with time. Arguments and political opinions that are rooted in religion will only become more deflated over time as the United States continues to shift to a more secular society.

Those who argue that a return to the country’s religious roots will see more people fighting their political motives, making the battles tougher and tougher to win.

As the current Obama generation gets older, I won’t be surprised to see the non-religious figures double again over the next 20 years, giving us non-believers nearly a third of the population.

The question will become, as the non-religious get more power and voice, does the nation improve with those numbers. If not, expect a regrowth of religion over time if morals continue to decay. There is likely no real solution to the problems with morality that America faces, but there are many people that will always relate morality to religion.

In the meantime, this poll is good news for those of us who want acceptance first and foremost. A world without religion would be a great thing, but a country where the non-religious are accepted is vital.

What is it about the Republican Party being so anti-science. Really, if a scientist told the GOP that the sky and oceans both appeared to be blue, they’d try to find an opposing viewpoint and argue it.

First and foremost is the evolution debacle. Now, let me clarify and say that not all Republicans are anti-evolution. But I will say that I am comfortable saying that 99 percent creationists are Republicans. Don’t ask me to back that up with statistics, it’s just an educated guess.

Now, Bobby “The Page” Jindal gets on the television in the Republican rebuttal to President Obama’s address to Congress and rips on the stimulus package because it includes “$140 million for something called ‘volcano monitoring.’ Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.”

Really? Of all of the wasted money in this bill, you had to signal out one that would act to prepare for and predict a natural disaster like volcano eruptions. Perhaps the Governor of Louisiana needs a refresher course in just what natural disasters can do to people. How’s New Orleans doing these days anyway?

Others have been quick to point out that the bill does not send $140 million to volcano monitoring, but to the US Geological Survey, which happens to also do volcano monitoring.

Did anyone else think that this sounded an awful lot like Sarah Palin’s mockery of fruit fly research. Do Republicans really think that the world of science is no more than a fun little experiment kit, like the one you get when you’re eight years old? They must realize that there are actual benefits from scientific research and that for the most part, they are only seeking absolute truths.

It’s a shame that they have this across-the-board feeling about science, because at this point, they can’t even join the conversation and get taken seriously.

I happen to agree with (some) Republicans on the science of global warming. I don’t doubt a warming trend, but I think that there is too much weight being put into human influence and not enough weight put into sun variations, natural cycles and unreliable past data. I don’t deny that human caused global warming could be happening, but I don’t think that it is settled science fact, like some other issues. I have no problem with further exploration and testing and monitoring, but I think the decision to make permanent, harsh decisions about global warming are the wrong solution.

But because of their opinions towards science in all of these other ill-advised arguments, Republicans have lost their ability to be a part of the science discussion. And that’s a damn shame, since leaving one party in charge of anything is a recipe for disaster.

Not having a strong, informed Republican voice in matters of science shouldn’t matter, since government and science have no business mixing, but it does matter. Democrats have made it their goal to force people to live their way, and their way includes over-the-top regulations on the environment and probably whatever else they can seize control of to please their hippie donors.

Parity is essential, even in matters that shouldn’t be at all related to government.

If this party really thinks that Jindal and Palin are the future of their party, they are in for a really rough few years. That in turn will lead to some rough years for the American people. If the Democrats don’t fear the election of Republicans, they have no reason to get anything done. For that reason alone, it’s imperative that Republicans find themselves a smart, pro-science, fiscally-conservative, socially-moderate candidate. That is the only way they can win, and the threat of a win is the only way that anything can get accomplished.

Thanks to Pharyngula, with a hat tip to Andrew Sullivan for this gem…

Summary:

The folks at the Discovery Institute (translation: Creation Propaganda Facility) wanted to invite a real-life scientist to come “debate” their fake scientists. So they asked Prof. Nicholas Gotelli, from the University of Vermont’s Department of Biology.

First, the invitation:

Dear Professor Gotelli,

I saw your op-ed in the Burlington Free Press and appreciated your support of free speech at UVM. In light of that, I wonder if you would be open to finding a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about evolutionary science and intelligent design. The Discovery Institute, where I work, has a local sponsor in Burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this happen. But we need a partner on campus. If not the biology department, then perhaps you can suggest an alternative.

Ben Stein may not be the best person to single-handedly represent the ID side. As you’re aware, he’s known mainly as an entertainer. A more appropriate alternative or addition might be our senior fellows David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer, respectively a mathematician and a philosopher of science. I’ll copy links to their bios below. Wherever one comes down in the Darwin debate, I think we can all agree that it is healthy for students to be exposed to different views–in precisely the spirit of inviting controversial speakers to campus, as you write in your op-ed.

I’m hoping that you would be willing to give a critique of ID at such an event, and participate in the debate in whatever role you feel comfortable with.

A good scientific backdrop to the discussion might be Dr. Meyer’s book that comes out in June from HarperCollins, “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.”

On the other hand, Dr. Belinski may be a good choice since he is a critic of both ID and Darwinian theory.

Would it be possible for us to talk more about this by phone sometime soon?

With best wishes,
David Klinghoffer
Discovery Institute

Now, let the awesome begin. The response from Prof. Gotelli:

Dear Dr. Klinghoffer:

Thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more recent relabeling as “intelligent design”) with a speaker from the Discovery Institute. Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute’s website:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/

However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists.

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.

“Conspiracy” is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn’t live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don’t maintain scientific standards.

Finally, isn’t it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation at a little university in northern New England? Practicing scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science departments around the world, often on controversial and novel topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science, they would receive such invitations as well.

So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn’t science and doesn’t merit an invitation.

In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can’t tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious.

Sincerely yours,

Nick Gotelli

P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.

That is how science actually regards Creationism/Intelligent Design. Don’t believe the ridiculousness when the Discovery Institute tries to tell you that scientists are split on evolution and some support teaching ID. Don’t believe Ann Coulter or the rest of the idiots who think that evolution is “just a theory” or that scientists are just uppity liberals with an agenda.

It’s a simple scientific debate. One is right, or at least based on real science, and the other is a fairy-tale that changes every year with attempts to get accepted.

Please pass this along to the Boards of Education in Texas, Kansas, and wherever else some common sense is desperately needed.

Here at God & State, we’ve been warning since the smoke was coming out of the chimney that Pope Benedict XVI was going to set the Catholic Church back hundreds of years with his archaic way of thinking and acting, and now finally people are seeing what we’ve been talking about.

The recent controversy began when the Pope decided it was time to lift the excommunication of a British bishop who denies the Holocaust. This is especially offensive in Germany, where denial is a crime punishable by jail time.

Now, the world is fighting back against the Pope.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the Pope’s decision, saying,

“This should not be allowed to pass without consequences. This is not just a matter, in my opinion, for the Christian, Catholic and Jewish communities in Germany. The Pope and the Vatican should clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial and that there must be positive relations with the Jewish community overall.”

Additionally, eminent liberal Catholic theologian Hermann Haering called for the resignation of the Pope.

In the United States, Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, took this as an opportunity to praise the Pope’s “act of mercy,” while denouncing what the bishop had said regarding the Holocaust.

And in continuing coverage of the Pope’s quest to time travel back to the good ‘ol days, he appointed a far right Austrian bishop who warned against children reading the Harry Potter series due to its “Satanism.” That’s some solid progress this Church is making.

I suppose there is good and bad to come of this. The good (for people like myself) is that people are finally looking at the Church and seeing it for what it is, allowing this inquisitory reaction to start the crumbling of the walls of the Church. The more people see that this Church (not Christianity in general) is really a front for an above-the-law, middle-ages-living, company of criminals, the quicker the world can move past religion holding everyone down. Rearranging living locations is not the solution to sexual predators in churches, and accepting Holocaust deniers is not the way to make amends with anyone.

Taking all of the “progress” that the church has made in the last hundred years or so and trying to turn it all back is not the way to advance society. There are holy wars all over the world, and going back in time is not the way to stop them. The only solution to any of this is for parents to stop forcing their children into these cults at such a young age. Allow one generation to be raised religion free and I will guarantee you that there will be more advancements in world peace in that generation than in any other single generation since the creation of religions.

But in the meantime, I’ll sit back as an independent observer and watch the Catholic Church and the Papacy crumble for all the world to see.

President Obama has tabbed a 26-year old Pentecostal minister to run his faith-based programs, a White House aide announced Thursday.

Joshua DuBois worked for Obama during his time in the Senate and the president considers him a close adviser to the president. Prior to getting involved with Obama, DuBois was educated at Princeton and is an associate minister at a Pentecostal church in Massachusetts.

For those of you not familiar with Pentecostalism, here are some tidbits from your neighborhood Wikipedia:

• Pentecostals are characterized by their practice of speaking in other tongues. A Pentecostal believer in an ecstatic religious experience may vocalize fluent unintelligible utterances (glossolalia) or articulate an alleged natural language previously unknown to the speaker (xenoglossy).
• Pentecostals generally adhere to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, believing that the Bible has definitive authority in matters of faith, and adopt a literalist approach in its interpretation.
• The gift of tongues may be exercised anywhere, but many denominations believe that it must only be exercised with a person who has the gift of “interpretation of tongues” present whether that be another person or the one who gives the tongue. The interpreter may interpret the tongue into the language of the gathered Christians so that they can understand the message.

They sure seem like a fine group, one that should fit right in with an extremely liberal president and Congress. Oh, they’re also against gay right, same-sex marriage and abortion rights. Perfect for Obama’s camp.

According to the Washington Post, President Obama is planning on expanding the role of faith-based programs in his administration.

Obama aides have said the president’s effort will expand the faith-based office at the White House. President George W. Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives made a priority of placing faith offices within federal agencies and was criticized by some former high-ranking staff members for becoming politicized.

While many on the left fully expected the new president to shut down the office of faith-based initiatives, instead he chose to choose a very conservative Christian to head it up and expand the office.

That Obama sure is winning friends in Washington, isn’t he?

Back in July, Obama said in a campaign speech that he wouldn’t allow the discrimination that is currently legally allowed in this office to continue, but has been suspiciously mum on the topic since it became his job to have an opinion on it.

We’ll see how this one plays out, but I have a feeling that the liberals in Washington are not going to be real happy about this one. Conservatives will be getting what they want, but they’ll never admit to approving of something Obama does, so it’s really a lose-lose for him.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles is under investigation by federal authorities for the possible covering up of sexual crimes against minors by priests.

The investigation began late last year and is still in a fact-finding state, but subpoenas have been issued and witnesses called to determine if criminal charges will be filed.

Cardinal Roger M. Mahoney said that 22 priests were named in the documents but that none of them remain in the priesthood.

Back in 2007, this same Archdiocese payed out $660 million to 508 alleged victims,

This is also not the first time that federal authorities have gotten involved in the Catholic Church’s sex scandals.

While most of the investigations have been done by state and local officials, federal investigators also have gotten involved at times. In 2005, the Archdiocese of Boston resolved a federal criminal investigation into whether the church officials had withheld information about an allegedly abusive priest. The archdiocese, which denied any criminal wrongdoing, agreed to new disclosure requirements and audits regarding its child-protection practices.

The gist of the investigation is that authorities within the church failed to do enough to protect children from predatory priests.

Perhaps the real investigation should be into why so many priests are pedophiliac scumbags, and why these churches insist on their own brand of vigilante-justice, only without the vigilante part. Oh, and justice means ignoring. There are much bigger crimes here, and if the Catholic Church were any other type of “business” with all of the accusations remaining the same, the Church would have been shut down by now.

I’m sure the obligatory investigation will result in some more money being forked over to victims, but no actual changes will be filed that make any real changes. Surely this will result in another example of the Church being more powerful than anything that can challenge it.

So the real question, I suppose, is just how many children need to be abused, and how much proof of a cover up do you need before people stop trusting the Catholic Church with their children?

I’m hoping that this time the feds take a stand and make the Church understand that no matter what their codes say, when they operate inside of the boundaries of the United States, they are subject to the laws of the state.

It won’t happen, but I can hope.