Why do you dismiss the first person accounts and books I list?

I already answered this question. You gave me accounts by devoted Catholics and an authorized biographer. I gave you accounts that have been documented (and described by book reviewers of varying backgrounds as documented).

It sounds like her basic beliefs are a problem for you. They aren't for me, but then, her attitude towards pain and towards contraceptives (what a combination!) makes sense if you know Catholic doctrine. As I said before, a Catholic who is not a hypocrite would have to hold those very positions.

Well, sure, totalitarian beliefs that deny basic human rights to women (and homosexuals) bother me, as they should any thinking person. But what bothers me more is that a person who held to totalitarian philosophies is considered to be a standard of beneficence by people who really know nothing about her.

And it's utter nonsense (not to mention historically ignorant) to suggest that Catholics who actually believe that women should control their reproductive facilities and that homosexuals deserve the same civil rights as heterosexuals are "hypocrites." They're actually the best kind of religious believers there are: the kind that won't be led like sheep by a bigot like the Pope.

...your example of Poe is a poor analogy. First, Poe never appointed Griswold as his "literary executor." They had been minor enemies for years before Poe's death. Second, there was no way for the average person to verify facts the way there is now. Third, Poe WAS an alcoholic, despite the lies Griswold told.

In regards to Teresa, I'm not sure what counts as documented evidence for you. If a reporter says she claimed that her Calcutta school educated 5,000 children (despite the fact that no such school ever existed), you can always say, "Well, why should I believe this reporter?"

It's like the war-hawks who, when told that every poll in Iraq shows most Iraqis want us out, will respond by saying, "Well, I don't believe that poll."

If you think that a devoted nun's or authorized biographer's reports are as objective as reports by the editor of The Lancet or visiting doctors initially sympathetic to Teresa's work, then what we're engaged in the equivalent of a conversation between a biologist and a young-earth creationist.

I'm no biologist and you're obviously not a fundamentalist. But unless we can agree on what constitutes "evidence," we're just spinning our wheels. Which we really shouldn't do on a Sunday.

It certainly is surprising considering the Inquisition was occurring at the same time.

Wow. I had no idea. That's just plain crazy!

I actually laughed when I read that fact because it was so ironic. I use the word "crazy" way too often.

Of course I'm not saying any of those things. I'm saying to ask why "groups name" acts like "individual's" is bigoted.

The question I responded to asked why atheists act like Hitchens acts. That's as bigoted as asking why blacks act like 50 Cent acts or why Jews act like Joe Lieberman acts.

Well, like I said, we'll agree to disagree.

But I will just say I really have no problem with Catholicism or any other religious denomination. What I have a problem with is fundamentalism, which I see as inherently barbaric and destructive.

"...granting five million kids health insurance and improving care for "women with breast cancer and men with prostate cancer."

I think that counts as exaggeration. But besides that, what's wrong with supporting Hillary?

Someone who voted to give the least qualified president in history unprecedented war powers. Someone who supports a flag burning amendment and government regulations on video games. Someone who supported her husband's policies of: kicking gays and lesbians out of the military (at an unprecedented rate), hounding medical marijuana growers (and causing the death of one, Peter McWilliams, by denying him the marijuana he needed to control his symptoms of cancer and AIDS), devoutly supporting the death penalty, and denying gays and lesbians the right to marry via the Defense of Marriage Act (hilarious coming from an out and out womanizer like Bill Clinton).

Is it that since she's not a Republican, she must be okay? Why not vote for Lieberman, then?

I honestly don't understand how people who call themselves liberals could support a person who is anything but.

Why did you have to be so insulting? Is it necessary to personally attack anyone who disagrees with you?

Baby steps, shmaby steps, the woman is a (pathetically stupid) bigot and a happy slave who encourages bigotry and happy slavery, so her ideas deserve to be attacked. If she was a fundamentalist Christian saying the same things, I wonder if so many here would be defending her.

...grumpy even. Sorry. But you understand my concerns.

...you should try to read a few more comics before condemning an entire art form and insisting that those who enjoy it are wrong for doing so.

Have you read Joe Sacco's "Palestine" or "Safe Area Gorazde?"

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-8333766-2042317?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Joe+Sacco&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

Have you read Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean's "Signal to Noise" or "Mr. Punch?" Or McKean's "Cages?"

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-8333766-2042317?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Dave+McKean&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

Have you read any of Dave Sim's "Cerebus?"

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-8333766-2042317?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Dave+Sim&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

What about Eric Shanower's "Age of Bronze", an explicit and exquisite retelling of The Illiad, praised by archaeologists and fan-boys, alike?

http://www.amazon.com/Age-Bronze-1-Thousand-Ships/dp/1582402000/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-8333766-2042317?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182567362&sr=8-2

There is a long list of comics that are the equal of any great work of literature or painting or film. And a lot of the people who make great literature, paintings, and film enjoy comic books.