Even though I'm a horrible debater/public speaker/you name it, I found the debate to be completely eye-opening. For instance, I didn't realize that some libertarians don't believe in rights. I also didn't realize how fully utilitarian both Katherine and Ron were. This has caused me to give quite a bit of thought to all sorts of things.

I'm working on a post so the libertarians here can discuss this rights/no-rights thing (that I somehow was somewhat oblivious to ... ) in libertarianism.

I'd like to see the exchange in context, but as I was saying at the debate mentioned above -- the question is always whether you think you have the right to initiate force against another. Some people are all for it, in a variety of contexts. Some people are reticent to play God when it comes to other's lives.

Luther himself said something similar -- we can hope but we mustn't put certainty beyond where God himself has put it in the Scriptures.

Who was the dude at NR who assured everyone that Holder was a stand-up guy? I want to go back and make fun of him.

It's difficult to discuss what Lutherans call Justification and Sanctification without getting into very difficult debates but we wouldn't say works aren't necessary -- we do think they're necessary, just not necessary for salvation. You can read more about this in Section 4 of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, but we believe that good works are the result of faith and that faith is a gift from God.

Whoa. I told my husband I thought that Holder had only talked about his lack of involvement in the AP case. But did Holder lie about his involvement with the Rosen case? Another thing worse investigating, as he testified just last week:

In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.

For what it's worth, we are at the very least aware that Firefox seems to be struggling the most (it's also my preferred browser, and it's working absolutely fine for me ... today ...).

Chrome, Safari, etc. all seem to do much better.

Friends, I do not have the technical know-how to explain all that we're going through but in our attempts to upgrade our services while staying online, massive disruptions are taking place. And I, for one, definitely share your frustration.

While I've only had to log in once on my computer and a few times on my phone, there have been all sorts of technical snafus (seen and unseen). We're trying to keep our eyes on the prize of Ricochet 2.0 ...

I'll notify the suits in case this log-in thing has not been brought to their attention, too ...

Actually, the reaction of the atheist community has been surprising to me. They seem to be really into their interpretation of what Pope Francis said. I can't figure out why.

Anyway, we already were discussing this on a previous thread and it's probably worth visiting that one, too.

And then I'd like to highlight the comments from a Lutheran friend of mine. She wrote:

1) there is a difference between becoming "good" (which the pope did not say) and doing a "good" thing. 2) No one can be saved without faith (see their catechism #161); 3) There is all the difference in the world between those redeemed by the blood of Christ (everyone, not even just those with good works) and those to whom the redemption is applied--an article we Lutherans share. To quote [Catholic friend] "Nor can an atheist be saved precisely insofar as they are atheists; rather, insofar as they reject God, they are rejecting that redemption.  But today's atheist is potentially tomorrow's believer." Also, what is perhaps more disturbing is the implicit assumption of the articles that whatever the writer defines as "good" actually is good, when the popeexplicitlysays that he wants to work with atheists towards fighting for human dignity. I'm about 99% sure that the Huff Po. guys missed the part where abortion is an assault on human dignity.

Second, I'd like to point out what my boss Terry Mattingly wrote over at GetReligion in a post headlined

Yes, Pope Francis said: All are ‘redeemed!’ Is that news?

So, let’s repeat the theological “nut ‘graph” in this journalism class.

The pope said all are redeemed through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Check.

The pope said that it is important to recognize that all can do good and, thus, to move closer to God — even if they are not believers. Check.

Did the pope, to be blunt, say that hell is empty, that all have chosen to accept the redemption offered by Jesus Christ? Did he say that no one has chosen to remove themselves from the cleansing fire of God’s love? No check.

Was this sermon worthy of coverage? You bet. However, it helps if reporters interview a source or two, or three (these are ultra-complex issues) who understand Catholic tradition and thought.

I have more thoughts on this but the first thing to remember about papal media coverage is that it is almost always wrong.

If I might quote a friend:

"Nothing he said in his Wednesday homily contradicts Dominus Iesus. First off, he was not speaking about other faiths, he was speaking of those with no faith.  As Fr Z reports: Moreover, Francis was clear that whatever graces are offered to atheists (such that they may be saved) are from Christ.  He was clear that salvation is only through Christ’s Sacrifice.  In other words, he is not suggesting – and I think some are taking it this way – that you can be saved, get to heaven, without Christ."

This is in response to the initial claims that Francis wasn't reaching out to atheists so much as being a universalist.

You wouldn't know that from her media coverage. Despite being smaller than my church body (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod), ECUSA gets tons and tons more media coverage. Much of it quite friendly.

I'm a huge fan of Janelle Monae's videos. I think Tightrope is my favorite:

I'm already a huge fan of Dolby but you're right that this is an undervalued song. How about Aliens Ate My Buick? One of my desert island albums.

I spoke too soon!

Here's what we can assume happened at yesterday's messaging meeting (via John McCormack):

Josh Marshall (10:15a.m.): Lerner Must Go http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/she_has_to_go.php … Ezra Klein (9:45a.m.): Heads should roll at IRS http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/22/yes-heads-should-roll-at-the-irs/ …

Wheels on the bus go round and round! White House wants Lerner out.

And to think she was so very good at harassing people for their religious views!