Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for MattthewCScallon

( MattthewCScallon )

Comments made by MattthewCScallon

New California Law Requires Doctor's Note For Vaccine Exemptions... But There's An Out

@Peking_Duck_SD, why should the evil perpetrated for profit by Big Pharma be rewarded with shoddy reporting? Why can't this same reporter bother herself to question why the FDA refuses to approve a morally acceptable form of the MMR rather than rail against said moral positions against morally objectionable vaccines?

January 14, 2014 at 6:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New California Law Requires Doctor's Note For Vaccine Exemptions... But There's An Out

@Claire Trageser, so protecting religious beliefs in the law is something you take as a, "weakness in the law?" That certainly explains a lot.

There are moral problems with different vaccines. The MMR vaccine in this country, for example, come from the cells of a murdered baby whose cells are continually kept alive in order to produce the vaccine --with the accompanying profits . Though such a vaccine can save a child's life, that only ameliorates the evil of murdering the baby. The UK has an MMR vaccine that doesn't depend upon the cells of a murdered baby, but the FDA refuses to approve its use in this country. And, so long as reporters such as yourself consider religious beliefs and moral discernment to be a, "weakness in the law," I don't see much hope in that changing.

January 7, 2014 at 12:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

San Diego Mayor Bob Filner Resigns

He blamed his opponents for his own bad behavior. No, Bob. You're the only who's to blame. You have political opponents? Guess who's to blame for their opposition? You are, Bob, and only you. You tore apart fellow Democrats, treated anyone who was running for the same office like scum, and, as it turns out, it is you, Bob, who's truly scum.

Goodbye to bad garbage.

August 23, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Chancellor: Two-Tiered System Could Privatize Community Colleges

I don't know how the education code is written in California, but, back in Illinois, the community college attended routinely charged more for more expensive courses. For example, both my computer programming and music classes charged a, "lab" fee. Now, practice space for a bass stretches the definition of a, "lab," but everyone knew that this was the way to pay for extra equipment or, in the case of my bass class, a specilized instructor.

April 5, 2012 at 1:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Schools Trustee Says District Dropping Ball On Academic Planning

Wow! The government schools underperform yet again, and that's when they get MORE money! Maybe if they got LESS money, they might perform better --or at least it would free up the taxpayers' dollar so parents can pay for a private school that really educates their child.

I can only hope for the latter....

March 29, 2012 at 12:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In Contraception Clash, Catholic Latinas Stray From Doctrine

@DeLaRick, that is not so. The sacred seal of confession is still in place, regardless of what sin might be confessed. So you're factually incorrect.

Just, for the sake of argument, let's say that the Catholic Church "adapts" Her doctrine on Onanism. If She does, that's Her business and not the business of the government. The only one with a "just because" approach to morality are the relativists who claim that a change in doctrine is an "adaptation." The Catholic Church has reams of explanatory materials.as to why Onanism is wrong. What does the other side have? Nothing but polls. For the record, Jesus never took a poll to determine doctrine, and neither will the Catholic Church. .

@benz72, by pointing out the health risks of Onanism, I stated that Onanism is not in and of itself healthier than alternatives to Onanism. For the record, the Catholic Church isn't requiring everyone to abstain from sex, but rather teaching that we have healthier respect for their bodies and their sexuality than Onanism can ever provide. If you don't want to listen to that teaching, fine, but don't force the Catholic Church to bend to your will simply because you don't like the teaching. And, even if your claim is true --which it isn't-- what the government is trying to do to the Catholic Church in order to have Her bend to its will is not just counterproductive & rude: it's unpatriotic and unconstitutional.

What happened to liberal ethic of, "What's good for me is good for me; what good for you is good for you?" Today, liberals say to the Catholic Church, "What's good for me is good; what's good for you, Catholic Church, is for you to pay for what I say is good for me." So much for liberal ethic of tolerance.

March 28, 2012 at 5:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Review (2): 'The Hunger Games'

Since "October Baby," is playing El Cajon, is anyone going to review it?

March 28, 2012 at 11:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

In Contraception Clash, Catholic Latinas Stray From Doctrine

@Peking_Duck_SD, when you get a chance, try reading the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Churches do not exist UNDER the government; they exist SEPARATE from the government. That means that the government can not impede the free practice of religion. The HHS mandate is impeding the free practice.

You can repeat this straw man about churches taking government money over and over again, but it still won't be the point to the HHS mandate. Regardless of whether or not Catholic hospitals, schools, or charities receive government grants, HHS is forcing Onanism upon them, and that IS THE POINT!

BTW, OT, how do get bold letters? The standard hypertext doesn't work on these comments.

@benz72, not practicing Onanism is healthy behavior. Given all of the health risks with practicing Onanism --from perferated uteri to death-- it's far more healthy than practicing Onanism. I don't mind being the voice crying out in the wilderness so long the government was trying to impose itself on me, and THAT'S THE POINT!

March 28, 2012 at 11:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

In Contraception Clash, Catholic Latinas Stray From Doctrine

@radiofreem, you can be against both because, as Bl. John Paul the Great wrote in his encyclical, "Evangelium Vitae," they are fruit of the same poison tree, a tree which looks at sex as nothing more than a recreational activity and not a procreative act. When sex is treated as little more than another thrill ride, then pregnancy is treated as a disease --even though it's a natural outcome of sex-- then, in order to prevent that alledged disease, you will seek some kind of preventative measure: a vaccine, if you will. Contraception, more accurately called "Onanism," in theology (c.f. Gen. 38-7-10), becomes that vaccine. And when that "vaccine" fails, the temptation to abort, i.e., cure the disease of pregnancy, is strengthened by first treating pregnancy as an undesired outcome of sex.

In fact, the case against Onanism is so strong that all Protestant churches --that's right, all of them-- opposed it until 1920. The Church of England, ever the bandwagon church, caved in, and all other Protestant churches followed suit. So it is Catholic Church alone now in defending Scripture.

Also, if Onanism is supposed to prevent abortions, then why do we, a country with the easiest access to Onansim, have the highest abortion rate in the Western world? Why do 1 out of 3 pregnancies end in abortion? And why is that, after the former Soviet Union legalized Onanism, the abortion rate didn't go down? Simple answer: Onanism doesn't prevent pregnancy. It justs inhibits the recognition that sex causes pregnancy and keeps adults from maturing in their sexuality to recognize that.

Now, you're entitled to disagree with me. That's fine. The point is that the Catholic Church has the right to hold that view, to teach that view, and not to have the government compel the Church act in a way contrary to that view. As good American, you can't be against that, can you be?

March 27, 2012 at 11:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

In Contraception Clash, Catholic Latinas Stray From Doctrine

@Peking_Duck_SD, on the contrary, HHS is forcing Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities to do something with their money, property, and resources that is contrary to Church teaching. If you don't like the Church's teaching on Onanism --it's a free country, and you're entitled-- don't work or seek treatment at a Catholic hospital, work or attend a Catholic school, and work or seek assistance from a Catholic charity.

On the contrary, the issue is about what the Catholic Church does with its own resources. There are other issues regarding taxpayer dollar going to the Catholic Church --namely, the HHS cancelling a contract with Catholic Charities to help human trafficking victims-- but that's a different issue.

The purpose of the Catholic Church is to save souls. The corporal works of mercy which She does --and does quite well and often-- serves that end (Matthew 25:16-31). When the government threatens the Church by forcing it to make an impossible choice between following Her teachings and serving the poor, it is the government --not the Church-- which is forcing the closure of these services. If you're so concerned about the poor being left to rot, then you should join with me in defending the Church's religious liberty. If you don't defend the Church's liberty, your liberty will be next. Such a stance is only as "political" as the Civil Rights movement and the abolitionist movement, both of which were led by people of faith.

@benz72, you have a First Amendment to your bigoted view of Catholic social services --the same First Amendment whose liberties the government is threatening-- and Ms. Gonzalez has the right --IMHO, obligation-- to join a religion which shares her corrupted view on Onanism. But to claim to be Catholic and, at the same time, reject the truth of Her teachings is hypocritical.

March 27, 2012 at 11:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous