An average citizen (not a cop or member of a militia) in his home or yard, can kill a man, he's lauded for "standing his ground". A Christian who can act as judge, jury, and executioner because he has a gun; yet a doctor who's trained, licensed, and recognized is looked down upon for performing an abortion, with the woman and family consent, is viewed with shame and derision, why?

Shooting a man ("outside the womb", grown, breathing on his own) is an abortion of life? If America so concerns about life, why does she allows, almost anyone, who wants one, to purchase or carry a gun? Everyone knows that guns are instruments of death and were made to kill. Why would the American government and many "so-called" Christians" purchase, own, and use guns? Why is it that more states have more restrictions on Abortion than they do on guns?

If the Second Amendment allows a person to purchase, own, carry and use a gun as he deems necessary, Christians are silent. The U.S. Supreme Court says a woman has a right to abortion (clean/safe) in consultation with her family and doctor, Christians and states have much to say. They want to impose draconian laws, measures, and restrictions upon the abortion doctors and interferes in a private matter of a woman and her family. Can you smell the stench of hypocrisy emanating from the church's bell towers and steeples? Can you perceive the blood-soaked hand of the American government over the gun-shot dead under the guise of "enforcement ", "rights", "Second Amendment", intruders, and "I feared for my life"?

Christians "you can't have your cake and eat it too". Take a stand for life. All life. Get rid of guns. Have you forgotten, they were made to kill more than under undeveloped tissue? CM

What does "un" mean?

What does it mean to be born?

What the meaning of these words:

• un-finished
• un-known
• un-cut
• un-developed
• un-likely

For starters, "un" is "prefix of reversal, deprivation, or removal (as in unhand, undo, unbutton), Old English on-, un-, from Proto-Germanic *andi- (source also of Old Saxon ant-, Old Norse and-, Dutch ont-, Old High German ant-, German ent-, Gothic and- "against"), from PIE *anti "facing opposite, near, in front of, before, against" (from PIE root *ant- "front, forehead," with derivatives meaning "in front of, before")". 

"More or less confused with un- (1) through similarity in the notions of "negation" and "reversal;" an adjective such as unlocked might represent "not locked" (un- (1)) or the past tense of unlock(un- (2))".

In short,

1. Can something that is NOT, be?
2. Can one murder something that is NOT?

For the serious poster, let me hear from you. CM

Disclaimer My posting/linking of the video above does not constitute an endorse of the 'all' the opinions contain therein on my part. This video is posted only for the sake of illustrating various opinions on the subject.

Worse than opioids: Alcohol deaths soar among the middle aged, women

Alcohol kills more people each year than overdoses through cancer, liver cirrhosis, pancreatitis and suicide, among other ways.

Author: Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY
Published: 8:34 PM EST November 17, 2018
Updated: 8:35 PM EST November 17, 2018

The last time lawyer Erika Byrd talked her way out of an alcohol rehab center, her father took her to lunch.

"Dad, I know what alcohol has done to me," she told him that day in January 2011. "I know what it has made me do to you and mom. But that wasn’t me."

By the time she died three months later, Byrd had blocked her parents' calls because they kept having her involuntarily committed. They once had a magistrate judge hold a hearing at her hospital bed. He ordered herto undergo a month of in-patient treatment.

As opioid overdoses, which kill about 72,000 people a year, grabbed America's attention, the slower moving epidemic of alcohol accelerated, especially in Southern states and the nation's capital. About 88,000 people die each year from alcohol.

Making matters worse, alcoholism is trickier to treat – and criticize – than opioid addiction.

"Culturally, we’ve made it acceptable to drink but not to go out and shoot up heroin," Miller says. "A lot of people will read this and say 'What's the problem?' "

It might be a more socially acceptable addiction, but alcoholism is at least three times costlier to treat than opioid addiction, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And it's a far more complicated midlife crisis to address.

The proven approaches – taxes on alcohol and limits on where and when alcohol is sold – are often rejected because the liquor industry has considerable clout with policymakers.

Ron Byrd says his daughter Erika was "beautiful inside and out."

To him, there's no question about what caused her death.

That's despite the fact there was no alcohol in her system when she was found dead at home. She was so sick, Byrd says, she hadn't been able to eat or drink for days.

"The death certificate never says alcoholism," he says. "It said heart arrhythmia and heart valve disease. But nobody in our family had heart problems."

Attorney Lisa Smith has been in recovery from alcohol and cocaine addiction for a decade. The New York City woman wrote the memoir "Girl Walks Out of a Bar" and co-hosts the podcast Recovery Rocks.

Smith speaks at legal conferences and law firms such as Byrd's about the hazards of lawyers' high-stress days and booze-fueled dinners with clients. But she's fighting forces far larger than her profession.

"It is poison, and we’re treating it like it's something other than that because there‘s big corporate money behind it," she says. "A lot of people are getting really rich on something that is toxic to us."

Deaths of despair

In its Pain in the Nation report this year, the Well Being Trust called losses from drugs, alcohol, and suicide "despair deaths."

We need to rethink our counsel to teens and personal consumption of alcohol. CM

This is no time to be dismissive. This is a time to work together for reform and a new springtime of faith in the Church and in the world.

Msgr. Charles Pope
Pope Francis meets with cardinals during the weekly general audience on Nov. 14, 2018, at St. Peter's square in the Vatican.
The annual Fall Meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which took place in Baltimore earlier this week, was a disappointment on many levels. Yet there were also moments of light and strength coming from a good number of bishops. They spoke with clarity, acknowledging the seriousness of the crisis both in terms of the need to bring some semblance of justice to the victims and of the faltering credibility of the Church. Some even made the forbidden connection of the crisis to active homosexuals in the priesthood. Still others lamented the collective silence on sexual morality, wondering how many bishops and clergy do not believe what the Church teaches. (The interventions of these courageous bishops were reported in detail in the National Catholic Register here and here.)

Lamentably, the vote to encourage the Holy See to release all documents related to former Cardinal McCarrick’s alleged misconduct did not pass. The debate seemed to center on canonical issues and even wordsmithing. Nonetheless, the fact that more than 80 bishops were willing to issue even a mild-mannered insistence to Rome shows that many are finding a voice that is willing to confront when and where necessary.

The greatest disappointment was Pope Francis’ decision to suppress any vote or action on the abuse scandals by the U.S. bishops. Some bishops remarked that this decision indicates that Rome is serious about reform—a gratuitous claim. To many if not most of the faithful from whom I regularly hear, this seems yet another sad example of intransigence from Rome and the Pope. There is an almost complete tone-deafness in Rome; there seems to be bewilderment as to why these American “conservatives” are so worked up. Even worse, it appears that there is intentional resistance, obfuscation, and outright refusal to grant the legitimate requests of God’s faithful for a full and prompt investigation. These requests by the faithful are intended to ensure that tolerance of sin, violations of chastity, and clerical malfeasance will end. ## Victims deserve a prompt and thorough investigation and the faithful are right to insist that their clergy live up to the vows they take and observe the Sixth Commandment.

To most Catholics, the Pope’s actions and seeming resistance place the ownership of the scandal squarely in his court; he has increasingly become the face of the scandal. This is due to the credible accusations that he knew of former Cardinal McCarrick’s predatory behavior but even more so to the fact that he has steadfastly refused even to respond to the charges. He could deny them, but he does not. Even if he were to say, “I made a serious error in judgment and I ask the mercy and forgiveness of God’s people,” many people would do so, even if with sadness. Instead, the Pope has declared that he will “not say one word on this.” Even worse, he subsequently referred to those who have asked for answers and investigations as “a pack of wild dogs,” “scandal-mongers,” and “those in league with the Great Accuser.” This is no way to treat God’s faithful; it makes him seem more of a besieged and angry potentate than a shepherd who “has the smell of the sheep.” There is a lot of talk about mercy and accompaniment, but the Pope’s actions, including the recent suppression of the USCCB’s planned vote and actions on the sexual abuse crisis, demonstrate that such terms will be very selectively applied.

Indeed, the response of the Pope to the situation in the U.S. seems eerily familiar to his treatment of the people of Chile: Pope Francis deeply offended abuse survivors by defending Chilean Bishop Juan Barros from what he called the “calumny” and “gossip” of victims of clerical sexual abuse, stubbornly backing his appointment as bishop despite widespread advice to remove it. He even called the Chileans who protested Barros’ appointment “dumb.” So detrimental was this stubbornness, dismissiveness,and unkindness to basic credibility that even some of Pope Francis’ closest associates, including Cardinal Seán O’Malley of Boston, distanced themselves from him. Only when his hand was forced by strong protests and by actions of the Chilean government did Pope Francis alter his stance and finally remove Barros, later issuing an apology.

Americans, both clergy and lay, may well have to learn that it could take strong protest to move this pope to reconsider his seemingly dismissive stance regarding our concerns. While there were some early promises of an investigation and a canonical trial of Archbishop McCarrick, nothing seems to have materialized, and the Pope’s suppression of the planned votes and actions of the USCCB seems to indicate that it he does not consider it a high priority.

It also does not help that many of Pope Francis’ closest advisors are themselves caught up in this worldwide scandal and have at best exhibited poor judgment. For example, Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga (from Honduras) is seen as highly connected to homosexual and financial improprieties there; more than forty seminarians in his diocese published a letter asking him to root out the homosexual network in his seminary. Cardinal Rodríguez is Pope Francis’ chief advisor, the head of his “Council of Nine,” which works closely with him in bringing about reform in Rome.

Yet another associate of Francis’ in the “Council of Nine,” Chilean Cardinal Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, has stepped down to face legal charges of covering up for abusive priests.

My point here is not to recount every detail but rather to point out that Pope Francis, who was himself tasked by the last conclave with rooting out abuse and corruption, has tended to surround himself with men who are at the very heart of the scandals rocking the Church throughout the world. His credibility as a reformer who will root out scandal and insist upon accountability is nearly nonexistent; the scandal in the United States has landed firmly on his desk as a result of his own behavior. He has said to American Catholics and to our bishops, in effect, “Let me and the Holy See handle this.”

I am not confident that we will see anything close to a full inquiry or a clear adjudication of this matter in Rome. Too many there are implicated and compromised to be able to carry out a clear and forceful investigation. The testimonies of Archbishop Viganò have substantially withstood scrutiny: former Cardinal McCarrick’s misdeeds were known and ignored despite previous sanctions. However, there just seems to be little importance attached to any of this in Rome.

I cannot say strongly enough how uncomfortable it makes me to be detailing all this. Every faithful Catholic—and certainly every priest—has an instinct to support the Pope and our bishops, but this worldwide scandal has forced many of us to speak out. Just like the people of Chile, we are going to have to speak even more forcefully and persistently, focusing much of our attention now on Rome and the Pope. It will feel awkward, and we must be careful in what we say and how we say it, in what we insist upon and how we go about it.

I pray that the bishops who spoke out so courageously at the USCCB meeting will continue to do so and will also direct clear and forceful appeals to Rome and to the Holy Father. **Demands for a full and credible investigation and a canonical trial of former Cardinal McCarrick are not out of place or unreasonable. Bishops are not acolytes of the Pope and their dioceses are not mere franchises of the Diocese of Rome. I pray that they will raise their rightful voices as shepherds seeking to protect their flock. **May they have the courage to insist, not just request, actions that they deem necessary for the protection of God’s faithful and for a restoration of credibility. Restoration will take time, but God’s faithful deserve to see their bishops fighting for them and will respond well when they do. My intent here is not to bait the bishops; each must prudently consider how best to respond to this crisis. It is clear, however, that they are going to have to show a strong resolve to move Roman officials and the Pope toward the kind of actions the faithful deserve.

As for God’s faithful, pray for your bishop. If he has spoken well and strongly, encourage and support him. If he has been silent, challenge him with love. Find your own voice, too. It may feel awkward to speak forcefully and with concern toward the Holy Father, but it seems that this will be necessary. By his own actions, he has become the face of this crisis, indicating that he wants to be the one to handle it. Our focus, prayers, and insistence must now be directed toward him. Practically speaking, I would advise you to write to the Papal Nuncio in Washington D.C., Archbishop Christophe Pierre. Keep your letter brief, but be clear in stating your concerns and in insisting on the actions that the Holy See must take to begin restoring credibility; ask the good archbishop to forward your concerns to the Holy Father.

Finally, there are some in Rome and even among our own bishops and priests in the U.S. who still see this crisis as a mere tempest in a teapot, largely stirred up by “right-wing” bloggers and Catholics who simply “don’t like” Pope Francis. I know of no one from any sector of the Church who is not heartbroken about this, while also angry and insistent upon reform. This is not a storm created in the “blogosphere.” Every day I am approached by parishioners and contacted by people from all over: young adults in our Bible study and pre-Cana programs, older Catholics in our Sodality and Knights of Columbus, catechists, staff members, long-time Catholics, recent converts, attendees at Sunday Mass, daily communicants, and those frequenting Eucharistic Adoration. They are all concerned; they are on the receiving end of questions themselves from family and friends: “What’s wrong with your Church?” They are dismayed; they are deeply concerned for the Church they still love. These are the people still in our pews, who did not leave during the cultural downslide and have supported the Church through thick and thin. These are the people who look to us. No clergyman should demonize them; they have been too good to us for us to write them off as some fringe element. They are good Catholics and are looking to us for clear teaching, for some return of the love and loyalty they have shown us through the most difficult decades of the cultural and sexual revolutions. They have been exceedingly patient with us. This is no time to be dismissive; this is a time to listen and work together with God’s good people for reform and a new springtime of faith in the Church and in the world. Somebody say, “Amen!”

This seems to be one step forward and three steps back. The Sex Crimes in the RCC is deeper than first believed. Children, families, and communities are in more danger than I am able to say at this time. Where are justice and the law? CM

Old topic, fresh needs. Whose side are you own? CM

CM

Here is how I will answer you in words, in your mind, I hope it would stay. You may call it what you may. You may call it poetry, a poem, or something underway. You can read it any time, anyway, any day.

Guns Were Made To Kill by CM

Guns Were Made To Kill, rather big, long or small if shot in the woods, malls or schools' halls.

Guns Were Made To Kill, although many say they collect them just for fun, even by the tons.

Guns Were Made To Kill, even if you like the feel, shape or sound;
Oh, into the air, you just like to get off a few rounds.

Guns Were Made To Kill, you love the smell of gunpowder and the power in your hands; ignoring the spent shells that litter the ground.

Guns Were Made To Kill, whether opened carried or concealed;
Once shot, what it hits is real.

Guns Were Made To Kill, rather in the home, churches or the battlefield;
they shatter hearts, knees, and windshields.

Guns Were Made To Kill, whether made long ago or today;
no fabrications would be acceptable from the NRA.

Guns Were Made To Kill, despite the lobbyists' passionate bifurcation;
"We need more guns" they cry, for recreation and protection.

Guns Were Made To Kill, regardless of the voluminous mendacious good they can do;
heartbreak comes when death takes a loved one close to you.

Guns Were Made To Kill, I am not saying anything new;
I am just reminding you of what hospitals, churches, policemen, and cemeteries long knew.

Guns Were Made To Kill, seven lives were taken not far from Capitol Hill.
Guns Were Made To Kill, and the shooter was not mentally ill.

Guns Were Made To Kill, don't try to say it's for something else;
everybody knows it's false because guns were made to kill. CM

Let's keep focused, Guns Kill. They kill small and large people, outside the womb and long afterward. Why would a Christian support to put guns into the hands of so many who don't fear God or man? A man of God should not support the NRA or any institution that manufacture guns or sell them. CM

Now, is the time to talk about guns before the next mass shooting. This way, we wouldn't be accused of the following:

1. "Playing politics"
2. "Knee-jerk reactions"
3. "Exploiting people's grief"
4. "It's not the time to discuss gun control or laws"

What's being done since the last mass shooting?

The truth be told, it's just a matter of time before the next mass shooting. No, I am not a prophet of doom. America is washed in guns with very weak and un-uniformed requirements for carrying and usage. Tell me:

1. What happened to the Texas Governor's (Abbott) townhall report and recommendations?
2. What are the current gun safety laws on the books?
3. Can they be strengthened?
4. What measures are in place to protect our children, schools, and students?
5. What about the usage of guns in movies and television?
6. A check on video games of gun violence?
7. A ban on those with documented verifiable mental health issues?
8. A special tag or detector attached to all guns.
9. All bullets are, serially, marked like medicine or tablets.

"Come, now, let's reason together".

If America Must Have Guns -- CM's Proposal:

1. Every gun (including collectors) must be registered and licensed (like cars/driving).
2. Mandatory training for each type owned (users expense).
3. No large magazines private citizens (only law enforcement).
4. Mandatory lockbox or case (combination or key) monitored like the ADT Systems in homes.
5. All guns must be insured ($ 100,000 per gun/ $ 1 million for AR-15s).
6. Gun stolen, the owner is held liable for all damages, the cost of ownership.

Besides target practicing, shooting clay pigeons, and just collecting, what are the main purpose for guns? Answer: The undeniable truth-- To KILL! Any other non-lethal usage, guns are not required for man's survival. Manufacturers don't produce nor the NRA promotes gun ownership just for the above three uses. Killing is its heart, drive, and theme. Rather it's:

• At war (killing women, men, children, and families).
• Animals -- Food or sports--God's beautiful creatures of his creation are slaughtered.
• *"So-called" protection -- taking of a life.

The three main reasons for guns usage takes us back to the old post above-- Guns Were Made To Kill. CM

A new study shows how poorly we understand the beliefs of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular.

Americans are deeply religious people—and atheists are no exception. Western Europeans are deeply secular people—and Christians are no exception.

These twin statements are generalizations, but they capture the essence of a fascinating finding in a new study about Christian identity in Western Europe. By surveying almost 25,000 people in 15 countries in the region, and comparing the results with data previously gathered in the U.S., the Pew Research Center discovered three things.

First, researchers confirmed the widely known fact that, overall, Americans are much more religious than Western Europeans. They gauged religious commitment using standard questions, including “Do you believe in God with absolute certainty?” and “Do you pray daily?”

Second, the researchers found that American “nones”—those who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular—are more religious than European nones. The notion that religiously unaffiliated people can be religious at all may seem contradictory, but if you disaffiliate from organized religion it does not necessarily mean you’ve sworn off belief in God, say, or prayer...

See also: Being Christian in Western Europe

Full text: http://www.pewforum.org/2018/05/29/being-christian-in-western-europe/?utm_source=AdaptiveMailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=18-05-29 Western Europe ENG&org=982&lvl=100&ite=2635&lea=593443&ctr=0&par=1&trk=

The majority of Europe’s Christians are non-practicing, but they differ from religiously unaffiliated people in their views on God, attitudes toward Muslims and immigrants, and opinions about religion’s role in society

"Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians". Are you inclined to believe this? Is it possible? If so, how? CM

Get Germanized
Published on Oct 12, 2016
Here are 15 things Europeans find weird about America! I've recently been to the USA and will share my experience with you!

Get Germanized
Published on Jan 12, 2018
What things do Germany and England have in common? Where are they different? Today I'm going to discuss the general quirks/differences and similarities of Deutschland and the UK, excuse me, England, with my English friend and fellow YouTuber Hannah Montgomery!

Francis Chan solves the mystery.

So here are two evangelical veterans who fundamentally disagree on the issue. Who do you think is right?

Star Wars has undoubtedly had an impact on society. But has it been for the better or for the worse?