Round 2: The Catholic Church vs. Pro-Choice Democrats

[Modbert]

what makes you think he hasn't?

 

[del]

no kennedy has ever exhibited evidence of a conscience, although they've always been willing to act as someone else's.

 

[Modbert]

no kennedy has ever exhibited evidence of a conscience, although they've always been willing to act as someone else's.

A ha, so it was a trick question. Damn you Elvis!

 

[JW Frogen]

you quoted that they had gone away from JFK's rule of legislating from conscience, not Rome. But didn't catholicism play a huge role in developing his conscience?

JFK's conscience was as mythical as the trinity.

 

[JW Frogen]

It would be like Barack Obama getting with Scarlett Johansson.

Their baby would be born completely lacking emotions.

 

[Tom Clancy]

what makes you think he hasn't?

View attachment 8898

Can we burn that picture?

 

[eagleseven]

If the Church seeks to deny membership or services to anyone they deem unworthy, it is their right as an organization. I don't see any problem.

Last I checked, the only ones wanting anything banned is The Catholic Church.

If you haven't noticed, banning things has been the Church's primary shtick for, oh, about 2000 years.

 

[Ryan]

I know, but still.

The Founding Fathers did not make this country a Christian state. They had a chance to when creating the Constitution and turned down such a amendment. You know why? Because religion did not belong in politics. Yes, religion is all about morality, however, they are trying to determine the law of the land.

Did you know that once upon a time, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex. This occurred until modern times. The ceremonies that the church used for Homosexuals was very similar to the ones for Heterosexuals.

It's fitting that you begin with "once upon a time." Neither the Catholic or Orthodox Church "sanctioned" or "sanctified" same sex marriages, ever. Maybe some sort of same sex marriages existed in Rome AD prior to the Theodosian Code but that is not involving the Church. The sexual perversions of the pre-Christian world were horrible including sex with children, which nothing was considered unacceptable. Christianity established new norms and mores including sexual morality, many of these values are being eroded overtime by fools that believe they are progressive and enlightened.

I also will not apologize to you for being a Catholic and supporting my Churches positions. The hypocritical religion of secular humanism is not demanding that their flock abandoning politics and also have no respect for the no "establishment clause" of the 1st Amendment.

The Founding Fathers, whatever the definition, did not want to establish a Theocracy, maybe the secular humanists want their brand of distorted religious state.

 

[Ravi]

On Social Issues, Bishops Flex Political Muscle : NPR

Exhibit A: the health care overhaul. On Nov. 6, the night before the House of Representatives voted on heath care, Speaker Nancy Pelosi received some visitors. One was Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, an anti-abortion Democrat, who wanted to amend the House bill to permanently strip federal funding for abortion. Critics say that would make it harder for all women to pay for abortions. Stupak brought with him two representatives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who said they would not support any bill without that amendment.

As Stupak later put it, "We want to send a message: If you start messing with abortion and health care, you've got a problem."

The meeting was a turning point. Pelosi allowed a vote on the amendment the next day. It passed.

DeLauro says the bishops are rejecting the tradition established by John F. Kennedy that Catholic politicians vote according to their conscience, not the dictates of Rome.

They told Catholics in Maine to vote against a law allowing same-sex marriage. It was overturned last month. In Washington, D.C., the archbishop announced that Catholic Charities may have to cancel contracts with the city to provide services to the poor if a similar law passes this month.

But DeLauro says the bishops are using Holy Communion as a political weapon, and that makes her and her fellow Catholics on the Hill uncomfortable.

"I think every Catholic member of this body who walks into a church to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist has at the back of their mind that they could be potentially denied," she says.

Now, Catholic senators will have to consider that issue as they vote on their version of health care overhaul. The bishops have sent a letter, saying they will oppose any bill that contains funding for abortion.

Thoughts?

As usual I have to wonder why they don't get so excited over the death penalty or feeding the poor.

 

[Modbert]

As usual I have to wonder why they don't get so excited over the death penalty or feeding the poor.

Can't imagine the reaction if anyone in Congress was "advised" to not get communion due to being Pro-Death Penalty.

 

[Ravi]

If the Church seeks to deny membership or services to anyone they deem unworthy, it is their right as an organization. I don't see any problem.

Last I checked, the only ones wanting anything banned is The Catholic Church.

If you haven't noticed, banning things has been the Church's primary shtick for, oh, about 2000 years.

Apparently they are getting so weak they are trying to force the government to legislate their morals.

 

[Si modo]

I know, but still.

The Founding Fathers did not make this country a Christian state. They had a chance to when creating the Constitution and turned down such a amendment. You know why? Because religion did not belong in politics. Yes, religion is all about morality, however, they are trying to determine the law of the land.

Did you know that once upon a time, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex. This occurred until modern times. The ceremonies that the church used for Homosexuals was very similar to the ones for Heterosexuals.

Please provide support for your second paragraph.

This should be a default approach, by those who care about honesty in discussion. You make a claim, you support it, you don't just type it and wait for someone to ask.

Now, please support that. I am not aware of what you claim, at least as it pertains to any intimate partnership. The Theodosian Code indicates that same sex marriages are illegal. That was 312 AD. The First Council of Nicaea (start of schism) was after that.

So, please clarify about what you are referring.

 

[Modbert]

Please provide support for your second paragraph.

This should be a default approach, by those who care about honesty in discussion. You make a claim, you support it, you don't just type it and wait for someone to ask.

Now, please support that. I am not aware of what you claim, at least as it pertains to any intimate partnership. The Theodosian Code indicates that same sex marriages are illegal. That was 312 AD. The First Council of Nicaea (start of schism) was after that.

So, please clarify about what you are referring.

I wouldn't mind it so much if you just nicely asked instead of being a bitch about it after your request.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/product-description/0679751645]Amazon.com: Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (9780679751649): John Boswell: Books[/ame]

John Boswell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Si modo]

Please provide support for your second paragraph.

This should be a default approach, by those who care about honesty in discussion. You make a claim, you support it, you don't just type it and wait for someone to ask.

Now, please support that. I am not aware of what you claim, at least as it pertains to any intimate partnership. The Theodosian Code indicates that same sex marriages are illegal. That was 312 AD. The First Council of Nicaea (start of schism) was after that.

So, please clarify about what you are referring.

I wouldn't mind it so much if you just nicely asked instead of being a bitch about it after your request. ....

Then do it right the first time. It's simple, yet you cry like a spoiled toddler.

.... Amazon.com: Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (9780679751649): John Boswell: Books ....

And you STILL can't do it right. How is it that you actually got into college not knowing how to do a proper reference? Others are not here to do YOUR work or to hear you whine because you are asked to do some work. Pages.

 

[Ravi]

Awwww....jeesh, another whiny si modo meltdown.

 

[eagleseven]

If the Church seeks to deny membership or services to anyone they deem unworthy, it is their right as an organization. I don't see any problem.

Last I checked, the only ones wanting anything banned is The Catholic Church.

If you haven't noticed, banning things has been the Church's primary shtick for, oh, about 2000 years.

Apparently they are getting so weak they are trying to force the government to legislate their morals.

The Catholic church is an autocratic oligarchy, and this is how it exercises power. If it was stronger, the Church would attempt to overthrow entire governments who disagreed with Catholic doctrine. Arguably, the liberation theologists of South America have done just that, on many occasions.

See the Crusades, Italian Wars, and the Thirty Year's War.

 

[Modbert]

And you STILL can't do it right. How is it that you actually got into college not knowing how to do a proper reference? Others are not here to do YOUR work or to hear you whine because you are asked to do some work. Pages.

Proper reference? This is not some research paper. I have not read the book, however I read the summaries of the book which make the argument.

You seriously just come into these threads just to attack me, which is both sad and pathetic. I understand you want to be the first one here to 50,000 posts, but there are other ways for you to pad your post count other than going from thread to thread acting like a petty individual.

Oh the irony that you show throughout these threads grows by the day.

 

[Modbert]

Awwww....jeesh, another whiny si modo meltdown.

How else is she going to pad her post count? Make well thought-out posts that exhibit both logic and sense? That takes up too much time!

She has already shown how she judges how one is right on this board. She uses some sort of method involving your rep.

 

[Si modo]

And you STILL can't do it right. How is it that you actually got into college not knowing how to do a proper reference? Others are not here to do YOUR work or to hear you whine because you are asked to do some work. Pages.

Proper reference? This is not some research paper. I have not read the book, however I read the summaries of the book which make the argument. ....

Then where is that summary? You linked to the book.

.... You seriously just come into these threads just to attack me, ....

Take a deep breath, kid. I don't. I saw someting interesting - something of which I wasn't aware, and asked quite nicely for the reference. You are hyperventilating over nothing and taking my request way too personally.

You are not special. I do not take the typed words of any forum poster as the truth without support.

Now, calm down. Try to think like a rational adult for once.

 

[Modbert]

Take a deep breath, kid. I don't. I saw someting interesting - something of which I wasn't aware, and asked quite nicely for the reference. You are hyperventilating over nothing and taking my request way too personally.

You are not special. I do not take the typed words of forum posters as the truth without support.

Now, calm down. Try to think like a rational adult for once.

Acted nicely.

This should be a default approach, by those who care about honesty in discussion. You make a claim, you support it, you don't just type it and wait for someone to ask.

If you call this acting nicely, then it's no wonder you can't see the truth.

I have already stated the summary previously.