>>How many can I pick before it no longer becomes cherry picking? There's plenty of data points. Here's one for tonight....

Yes, but you're setting out to find fault with a predetermined target. You're not reviewing the wider body of news to form a contemporary conclusion that actually can change as understanding changes. Already knowing the conclusion and hunting for examples, at best is described as cherry picking no matter how many cherries you gather.

>>Here's what's most confusing of all. Going back to Bill F's (valid) point, the Catholic Church worldwide provides 25% of AIDS care. They've been a big force in getting treatment to people. But in many of these contexts, the notion of basic education of condoms as a potentially life-saving choice...well, it dare not be spoken. Don't you find that a bit odd? Can you see how someone might conclude from this that they believe "redemptive suffering" is somehow better than going back on years of dogma?

Yes, but the edifice you build ignores a few important cues.Eg the former pope said that condoms are acceptable to prevent the spread of HIV and the current pope apparently is even more pragmatic. But how easy to build a story about "dare not be spoken" and all the other tower of invective built on a falsity that people want to believe. As I said earlier, it's so easy to issue polemics against religion. Another good example, thanks.

>>I said a few months ago that our current president often exhibits a variation of Münchausen by proxy syndrome. From where I sit, I think there's some of that here as well.

If you say so- though from here it just looks like cherry picking.