If pro-abortionists were really interested in making abortion “safe, rare, and legal” as they claim, then they would welcome anything that helped make it rare. Of course, for most pro-abortionists, especially the activists, it’s really about getting every pregnancy possible to end in abortion.
Thus, it doesn’t surprise me to hear that NARAL Pro-Choice America (nilled and includes plenty of bashing of the President and Christians for daring to suggest that perhaps not having sex outside of marriage is the best way to avoid disease and unplanned pregnancy.
Tired of Bush & Co. spending your tax dollars on abstinence-only-until-marriage initiatives that promote dangerous misinformation? Throw your hands up and say it loud: ‘Screw Abstinence!’”
Actually, what I’m really tired of is my tax dollars being spent on Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups under the guise of family planning. When their business is abortion, then that’s what family planning is.
While the national NARAL office isn’t sponsoring the eventbettnet.com/?p=5599
Ave Maria University revealed the new design for its massive campus chapel today. It’s no longer the glassed-in hothouse of the originally proposed design, but is a soaring stone building, more than 100 feet tall, that looks vaguely like a bishop’s miter.
It will face east, has stone facades, a rose window and a relief of the Annunciation over the doors. The previous walls of glass remain in smaller, less prominent form in that the roof ridge is a continuous skylight. The building itself is also smaller, seating fewer people. The original was supposed to seat 3,000, I believe, but this one is planned for 1,100. More pictures of the model and renderings are available on their web site.
In fact, it looks like the same essential design, but they just made it stone instead of glass. So is that bad or good? It’s not my cup of tea, but it’s not hideous either. With all the awful blimp hangars and blockhouses built as Catholic churches in the past 40 years, anything even close to traditional architecture is a breath of fresh air.
I don’t think church architecture must remain stuck in the Gothic, Baroque, or Renaissance styles, but they must be rooted in history. I think this building does have its roots there while reflecting the personality of those responsible for building it. You may like or dislike it, but it doesn’t make it a bad church. As for the earlier design… that was just a bad church, sorry. I’m not sorry to see all that glass replaced with stone.
I wonder if Michael Rose, the chief critic of the earlier design, will like this one any better.
