I have watched with great dismay Benedict's attempts to both marginalize and co-opt rationality and reason. He attempts to marginalize it with his opposition to the "lesser evil" doctrine (which argues that condoms are a lesser evil for married women than getting HIV from HIV status partners who can force sex on them in a number of African nations). He also attempted to marginalize reason a couple of weeks again a speech on science and faith. His call for opposition to the Canadian legal acceptance of gay marriage also argued for accepting faith over reason/science, as does the Pope's insistence that Catholicism/Christianity be written into the European Union Charter.

The Platonic ideal of authoritarianism in the Catholic Church is hard to separate from the Paullist influence. Vatican II attempted to elevate Jesus's word and the Catholic conscience over Platonic autoritarianism. It was only allowed to go so far.

JPII also believed, to a certain extent, in Platonian authoritarianism. His ecumenical dialogues have defined limits. He kept ratzinger/Benedict as Defender of the faith because he believed in him.

The line between Platonic authoritarianism/Paulism and the clericalism is so fine it appears at time to be non-existant.

What a good question. You should take it to Beliefnet.com. I don't think it will get a good airing or serious discussion here.

The bigger issue is that Zakarias prtected the man from a legitimate question, and did not follow up. The UN's information is pretty well backed up by news reports and video from the region. WOmen are being abused and in some areas, kept from education. The president's response was awful and inexcusible. It is part of the corruption that is allowing the Taliban a comeback.

That Zakarias did not call him on it speaks volumes more to his lack of professionalism and insight than his making fun of Glamour magazine.

I don't care about Annie Leibowitz or whether she was a lesbian. Whether to out her or not is a question of etiquette, while the question of Afghan women's safety and the corruption of the Karzai government is a matter of national security.

I've been married almost ten years. We balance the chores, so I'm not too exhausted, and he's not too exhausted, for lovemaking. We get babysitters and do fun things and exercise together. We encourage each other's dreams.

I see my husband through my eyes, and other women's eyes. That constantly reminds me that I have married a handsome, vital man. I think what sucks the life out of lovemaking is the combination of fatigue, letting the bodies and looks go, putting everything ahead of the marriage, and being disrespectful to each other (in fighting and everyday negotiation). How can you maintain desire for someone you called stupid? How can they desire you after you have called them that?

A hot marriage can be maintained. But both parties have to work at it.

Webb had black men with him in Vietnam, and has worked with numerous since. If this had actually happene, it would have come up way before now.

Webb has been prasied for his treatment of blacks, while Allen kept a noose in his office and did queasy stuff all along. This smells of politics.

For one thing, Latin America is upping it's use of birth control and becoming more secular, as is Asia. Birth rates are dropping. African countries are still resistant, but that has more to do with technology, distribution and rural issues than desire.

Birth control is private in a way abortion is not. You have to deal with a doctor for any abortion. Other birth control methods can be practiced without a doctor.

Third, the "contraception =devalued children" argument is stupid in a world of child soldiers, etc. The fewer children, the MORE they are valued. More children equals less value. WHen you look at places like large numbers of homeless children (Rio de Janiero comes to mind), you see the results of the LACK of birth control. When you look at the COngo, where child soldiers are widely used and abused, you also see the results of a lack of birth control.

Last, most people think these people are loony tunes. The pharmacists who refuse to fill have not received widespread support. Poll after poll shows that great majorities in the US support access to birth control. Whenever these nuts attack birth control, they lose. Rapidly.

These activists should get more publicity. The more publicity they get, the more trouble they get. Conservative publications like Reader's Digest call them kooks and prints articles about them as a threat. Anti-contraceptive activists have no traction.