For example, the jury in the Troy Davis trial was made up of 7 blacks and 5 whites.

And yet those cheers are not evidence of everything you claimed. The cheers do not mean that those people want "maximum application of the death penalty" nor that they "want to kill as many people as possible." All that can be said is that they cheered the executions of 234 convicted murderers.

For your statement to be true, we would have to believe that Rick Perry and the people who cheered him would also want to apply the death penalty to every person convicted of at least a felony. That would be maximizing the death penalty and wanting to kill as many as possible. Yet there is no evidence to make that appalling broad conclusion.

Furthermore, you implied that death penalty advocates rationalized the execution of George Kinney Jr as justice which is demonstrably false as there is not a single example of anyone making that claim.

No Mark, you did not merely judge words and deeds. You took a situation you disagreed with and made broad, unsupportable, and unjustified conclusions about the motivations of others.

Mark, you have called foul on the Corapi boosters for falsely judging your heart by claiming that you envy his riches or are jealous of the number of his converts.

Yet you somehow have the ability to determine that death supporters want to "maximize the death penalty" view the innocent victims of execution as "as human sacrifices to that love" (of executing the guilty), believing "better the innocent should perish than that the guilty survive", and making up "rationalizations for why killing George Stinney, Jr. was justice."

Let's look at this. Maximizing the death penalty would be to seek to employ the death penalty regardless of guilt or innocence, and regardless of severity of the crime. I do not see anyone advocating either position. Where is the campaign to hang the falsely accused or to execute the petty criminal?

There simply is no one who advocates the execution of people who are innocent of capital crimes so that the state may continue executing those who are truly guilty. Death penalty advocates seek justice and executing someone who is innocent compounds injustice. Not only is it unjust for the innocent to be punished for a crime they did not commit, it compounds the travesty because the guilty escape the justice they deserve.

As for you final accusation, you have not supplied even a single example of anyone who is claiming that the execution of George Kinney Jr was justice but attribute that view to all death penalty supporters.

You have a legitimate issue to debate. You ruin your credibility and undermine your own position when you employ hypocrisy to attack those with whom you disagree. Bad when Corapi boosters falsely judge you, good when you falsely judge other people. You object when others falsely assign motives to you, why then are you so hasty to do it to others?

A draft dodger is one who was drafted then evaded his obligation. Dick Cheney sought and was granted draft deferments. Regardless of your taste of his policies, he was not a draft dodger, and your claim that he was is dishonest.

Regarding the idea of foreign prosecution of U.S. politicians, keep in mind that last year Spain passed law with sweeping approval of abortion, and it views gay marriage as a human right. It is a country rampant with attacks against the Catholic Church. The UK has shut down Catholic adoption services over gay issues and they are now telling Christians they cannot display bible verses in a private business because it offends people.

These dream of sacrificing national sovereignty so that the likes of Spain or the UK can be the arbiter of human rights is delusional.

"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

Come on, someone had to post it.

Mark,

It is strange that you apologize for being cynical while maintaining your cynicism throughout the post. I notice that all of your criticisms of Palin are founded on negative conclusions about her motivations, not substance of what positions she actually promotes that you disagree with. In fact, you agree with the only position of hers that you actually note - the pro-life view.

I could understand you rejecting her policy positions, but you don't do that. You accuse her of not doing "the heavy lifting necessary to be qualified for the job" but she has plenty of resources out there where she has established principled positions on issues. You may disagree with them, but you haven't taken the time to do so. You attack her character.

Perhaps she is not ready to be president, but she is clearly more qualified than our current president was when he took office. Maybe 2 years as governor does not prepare one to be president, but there are plenty of people begging Chris Christie to jump into the presidential race with little more executive experience than she has.

So is Palin a fame seeker? Maybe. It is amazing how she treats the media so poorly, yet has them following her every move. Love or hate her, she is one of the most media savvy public figures in the country. Her success in getting candidates elected in the last election indicates that her real goal is to influence public opinion, and she has effectively wielded that fame as a tool to further her political views by supporting political candidates.

So instead of being cynical about her motivations, you would be more persuasive that your disagreement with her is well reasoned if you could state why you disagree with her vision for the country and her policy positions rather than the ad hominem attacks that pepper your posts.

I'm really not a Palin fan. I think there can be disagreement with her. It's just that I have never seen a well-reasoned rebuttal of her on substance. Much like your post, her critics rely on attacks that she isn't qualified (a double standard), or that she is stupid (ad hominem), or merely an attention seeker (ignoring how the media's unceasing attention is what sustains her fame).

Ron Paul endorsed Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney in 2008. Nuff said.

Distributists want to place economic planning in the hands of a few. When has this ever worked anywhere? It only leads to more corruption.

Capitalism is a horrible system. The only thing worse is EVERYTHING ELSE.

What Distributists want is equality of outcome. That will never happen. In the U.S. poverty is mostly the result of behavior: single parenthood, drugs, dropping out of school, or irresponsible spending are just a few. Economic policy will never overcome these issues.

The problem isn't that a few people have accumulated wealth. People are much better at distributing money than government or central planners. Bill Gates has just convinced 40 billionaires to give away half their fortunes. Better they decide how to spend their money, than have the government confiscate it and distribute it "equally." That just never turns out well.

The Catholic Church needs to stop suggesting the government take over the distribution of wealth in the name of social justice. As government increases, faith decreases. Look at the socialist utopias of Europe where they have some of the lowest levels of charitable giving in the West. No one gives to charity because they are taxed so much in order for the government to take on the role of distribution. Then the church is saddened by the growth of secularism. Yet the church is encouraging that growth by demanding "social justice" that is controlled by government. The church has abandoned its own role by letting the government take over what it should be doing.

Yet in comparison to Europe, the U.S. has the highest rates of charitable giving in the world. But it is declining as government expands. As people rely more on the government, they rely less on faith communities. Church attendance is decreasing and secularism is growing. The European example is being repeated here and Catholics are helping by voting to expand government in the name of social justice.

I'm a Catholic convert. Count me in the "talk about Jesus" group.

The best example in my life is how I have been teaching my daughter prayers since she was two. We started out with what I dubbed the "Good night prayer" which is "Dear God, please bless while we sleep." Seemed a good simple start for a two-year old. Now we have a series of prayers. Every night she says:
1. Good night prayer
2. Our Father
3. Hail Mary
4. Glory Be
5. The Jesus Prayer
6. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
7. Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in you.
8. Act of Hope

Only one of those is to Mary and I see the emphasis being on the Jesus. I will encourage my daughter to ask intercession of the saints, but I am teaching her that Jesus is the center of our faith as he is the source of our salvation. After all, he is present in the Eucharist, the pinnacle of our worship. Priests act "in persona Christi" not in persona Mary.

Talking about Jesus is the most Catholic thing to do.

The whole story about Amazing Grace shows that we Catholics do not have a monopoly on God's grace.

It is generally accepted that the song is a musical biography of John Newton. A slave ship captain he worked under once referred to Newton as the "most profane man" he ever knew. Think about that for a second. How bad did he have to be for a SLAVER CAPTAIN to give him that title?

Newton wasn't proclaiming anti-Catholic thought when he wrote of being a wretch, he was acknowledging his former personal depravity, a state that was beyond question.

But Newton later become one of the most well-known preachers in Christendom, a man known for his virtue. It seems the height of arrogance to condemn the song that describes the incredible change the writer experienced in his life. There is only one place a change of that magnitude can come from, and Newton correctly identified that as God's grace, something we Catholics value. Voris anti-Protestant rant rejects the idea that God gives grace to those whom He chooses - Catholic or Protestant.