| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JTEM" |
| Date: |
25 Nov 2005 01:01:11 AM |
| Object: |
Catholic Church shoots self in foot |
Subtitle this one: Idiots Rejoice
Back in 1960 America elected its first & last Catholic
President, John F. Kennedy. It was a tough race --
a young, dynamic, handsome genious pitted against
a pile of rags concealing Richard Nixon -- and two of
the biggest issues were containing the spread of
Communism & the fact that John Kennedy was Catholic.
Many people, Republicans & anti-Catholic bigots,
insisted that if John Kennedy were elected he would
be an agent of the Pope. America would lose its
soveriegnty, they claimed, because the Pope would be
issuing orders to Kennedy who, as a Catholic, would
be required to obey them.
Well that was just nonsense... back then. Today it's
not so much nonsense at all. We have yet to completely
reach the point were all Catholics in a position of
authority must obey the Pope's edicts -- despite the
efforts of partisans like Bill Donahue of the Catholic
League -- but we're close enough to it now for you
to reach out & touch it.
| BOSTON --Disagreement over Mayor Thomas
| Menino's views on abortion and same-sex marriage
| has prompted Archbishop Sean O'Malley to cancel
| plans to attend the annual Catholic Charities
| Christmas dinner next month.
| http://tinyurl.com/c7cas
So maybe they haven't yet completely driven away
*Everyone* with power & money (influence) from
the Catholic, but they're certainly trying.
And what happens when partisan Catholics, like
William Donahue of the Catholic League, do finally
succeed in ousting everyone with influence from
the Catholic church, for the crime of representing
the voters or shareholders instead of the Pope?
Well there's nobody to stop the fundies from imposing
their fundamentalist Protestant views in public schools,
for starters.
They'll be nobody to stop the fundies from posting
"the" Ten Commandments -- the Protestant-only
version lifted straight out of the King James bible --
and elevating it above all others.
Skipping to the end here: They'll be no Catholic
church. There won't be. Everyone's kids (and I do
mean *Everyone's*) will be indoctrinated in
fundamentalist Protestant religious teachings from
the earliest age.
Yes, granted, changes like this take generations. It's
the kids who aren't born yet who will be force-fed
fundamentalist Protestant doctrine... who'll grow up
memorizing the Protestant-only version of the Ten
Commandments lifted straight out of the King James
bible... who will be SOCIALIZED as Protestant
fundamentalists even if they are educated Catholics.
Two generations from now, looking back, they will
point to today. Not as the time when the Catholic
church -- and religious freedom for all -- died in
America, but when the bullet was fired.
William Donahue will already be in his grave. It
will be too late to stop him. And the Archbishop
O'Malley will be gone too. You won't be able to
change his mind.
You have to act now, or you have to accept much
of the blame.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: P.S. ( Catholic Church shoots self in foot) |
25 Nov 2005 01:20:15 AM |
|
|
BOSTON --Disagreement over Mayor Thomas
| Menino's views on abortion and same-sex marriage
| has prompted Archbishop Sean O'Malley to cancel
| plans to attend the annual Catholic Charities
| Christmas dinner next month.
| http://tinyurl.com/c7cas
In case anyone was mistakenly sympathetic towards
Archbishop O'Malley....
| In O'Malley's letter, dated Friday, he says the
| archdiocese's opposition to same-sex marriage "is
| not based on an animus against people with a
| homosexual orientation," but is rather an effort to
| defend the institution of marriage.
What's missing from the above is the word "Secular."
Purely religious marriages have *Always* been
legal for gay people... and have taken place for
hundreds of years.
You're right, maybe the Catholic church won't perform
a purely religious gay marriage, but there are other
churches which do perform them.
So Archbishop O'Malley isn't ignoring the edicts of
Christ (by involving himself in earthly politics) over
any RELIGIOUS issue. What's got him so upset is
"Legal" -- sometimes called "Secular" -- gay marriage.
It's funny, but in Archbishop O'Malley's eyes Jesus
has gotten along just fine with some churches (though
perhaps not the Catholic church recently) conducting
religious marriages for gay couples "in God's name,"
but Jesus loses his lunch when a SECULAR bureaucrat
stamps a forms and pronounces a gay couple "married."
And what about Satan worshippers?
They can get married. Yes they can. And, yes, they
do exists. And I don't mean Pagans or followers of
eastern religions whom some claim are really
worshipping the devil in disguise. I'm pointing out the
fact that there are people who worship Satan by
name. In America. And they can & do get married.
Legally. Their Satanic unions are officially recognized
by the state.
Satan worshippers can get married. Not in just their
Satanic rituals, but legally married.
Where are the "Special laws" to stop them? Where
are the "Special Interest Groups" created specifically
to fight them? Where are the constitutional amendments?
If we judge a man by his deeds then, it seems that
Archbishop O'Malley hasn't any problems at all with
the worship of Lucifer. He willingly urinates on the
edicts of Christ -- involving himself in politics -- in
order to stop purely SECULAR gay marriage, all the
while turning a blind eye towards government
recognition of Satanism.
Well, at least Archbishop O'Malley isn't helping to
destroy the Catholic church in America over soemthing
stupid...
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: P.S. ( Catholic Church shoots self in foot) |
25 Nov 2005 01:21:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:20:15 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
In case anyone was mistakenly sympathetic towards
Archbishop O'Malley....
| In O'Malley's letter, dated Friday, he says the
| archdiocese's opposition to same-sex marriage "is
| not based on an animus against people with a
| homosexual orientation," but is rather an effort to
| defend the institution of marriage.
What's missing from the above is the word "Secular."
Purely religious marriages have *Always* been
legal for gay people... and have taken place for
hundreds of years.
But not spiritual unless between one man and one woman.
You're just going to have to admit the obvious - man on man or woman on woman
are not unions made in heaven.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: P.S. ( Catholic Church shoots self in foot) |
25 Nov 2005 02:29:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:21:55 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<5s3eo1dkvoupl2q2s522d9ocvo9smp6j4n@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:20:15 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
In case anyone was mistakenly sympathetic towards
Archbishop O'Malley....
| In O'Malley's letter, dated Friday, he says the
| archdiocese's opposition to same-sex marriage "is
| not based on an animus against people with a
| homosexual orientation," but is rather an effort to
| defend the institution of marriage.
What's missing from the above is the word "Secular."
Purely religious marriages have *Always* been
legal for gay people... and have taken place for
hundreds of years.
But not spiritual unless between one man and one woman.
You're just going to have to admit the obvious - man on man or woman on woman
are not unions made in heaven.
Since there is no evidence for heaven, I would have to agree and add
that you forgot that one man and one woman is not made in heaven either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: P.S. ( Catholic Church shoots self in foot) |
25 Nov 2005 08:24:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:29:10 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:21:55 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<5s3eo1dkvoupl2q2s522d9ocvo9smp6j4n@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:20:15 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
In case anyone was mistakenly sympathetic towards
Archbishop O'Malley....
| In O'Malley's letter, dated Friday, he says the
| archdiocese's opposition to same-sex marriage "is
| not based on an animus against people with a
| homosexual orientation," but is rather an effort to
| defend the institution of marriage.
What's missing from the above is the word "Secular."
Purely religious marriages have *Always* been
legal for gay people... and have taken place for
hundreds of years.
But not spiritual unless between one man and one woman.
You're just going to have to admit the obvious - man on man or woman on woman
are not unions made in heaven.
Since there is no evidence for heaven, I would have to agree and add
that you forgot that one man and one woman is not made in heaven either.
Hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, tsunami's, lightning and the
resultant thunder, and floods would be made in heaven, too.
AIN'T. (IS NOT).
<buuurp>
TheRain
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: P.S. ( Catholic Church shoots self in foot) |
25 Nov 2005 09:35:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:24:42 -0500, wrote:
You're just going to have to admit the obvious - man on man or woman on woman
are not unions made in heaven.
Since there is no evidence for heaven, I would have to agree and add
that you forgot that one man and one woman is not made in heaven either.
Hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, tsunami's, lightning and the
resultant thunder, and floods would be made in heaven, too.
These are laws of physics. They are man's influence wasting his time trying to
marry one of his own kind instead of doing good for mankind.
Atheism is bad for humankind.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: P.S. ( Catholic Church shoots self in foot) |
26 Nov 2005 03:40:17 AM |
|
|
in article 4p0fo1hfs6oauqr0hqephs1ck0sf157rvv@4ax.com, duke at
duckgumbo32@cox.net wrote on 11/25/05 4:35 PM:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:24:42 -0500, wrote:
You're just going to have to admit the obvious - man on man or woman on
woman
are not unions made in heaven.
Since there is no evidence for heaven, I would have to agree and add
that you forgot that one man and one woman is not made in heaven either.
Hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, tsunami's, lightning and the
resultant thunder, and floods would be made in heaven, too.
These are laws of physics. They are man's influence wasting his time trying
to
marry one of his own kind instead of doing good for mankind.
If God can't be bothered to do good for mankind, why am I expected
to take up the slack?
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: P.S. ( Catholic Church shoots self in foot) |
25 Nov 2005 09:33:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:29:10 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
But not spiritual unless between one man and one woman.
You're just going to have to admit the obvious - man on man or woman on woman
are not unions made in heaven.
Since there is no evidence for heaven, I would have to agree
Yet there is evidence galore that a supreme being created the heavens (get it)
and the earth and absolutely no evidence that they created themselves.
So marriages are made in the sight of God, ie, in heaven.
and add
that you forgot that one man and one woman is not made in heaven either.
Except that God calls for one man and one woman (only) to join in his sight.
And there you have it, marriage is made in heaven.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: P.S. ( Catholic Church shoots self in foot) |
25 Nov 2005 10:19:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:33:08 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<uh0fo1pkrulht9s9c40jakofu1qbe5j1f0@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:29:10 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
But not spiritual unless between one man and one woman.
You're just going to have to admit the obvious - man on man or woman on woman
are not unions made in heaven.
Since there is no evidence for heaven, I would have to agree
Yet there is evidence galore that a supreme being created the heavens (get it)
and the earth and absolutely no evidence that they created themselves.
Please point to this evidence.
So marriages are made in the sight of God, ie, in heaven.
and add
that you forgot that one man and one woman is not made in heaven either.
Except that God calls for one man and one woman (only) to join in his sight.
And there you have it, marriage is made in heaven.
Where is heaven?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: P.S. ( Catholic Church shoots self in foot) |
26 Nov 2005 03:39:26 AM |
|
|
in article uh0fo1pkrulht9s9c40jakofu1qbe5j1f0@4ax.com, duke at
duckgumbo32@cox.net wrote on 11/25/05 4:33 PM:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:29:10 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
But not spiritual unless between one man and one woman.
You're just going to have to admit the obvious - man on man or woman on
woman
are not unions made in heaven.
Since there is no evidence for heaven, I would have to agree
Yet there is evidence galore that a supreme being created the heavens (get it)
and the earth and absolutely no evidence that they created themselves.
So marriages are made in the sight of God, ie, in heaven.
and add
that you forgot that one man and one woman is not made in heaven either.
Except that God calls for one man and one woman (only) to join in his sight.
And there you have it, marriage is made in heaven.
I thought "Till death do us part" meant you WEREN'T stuck in it in
Heaven...
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: P.S. ( Catholic Church shoots self in foot) |
26 Nov 2005 03:29:27 AM |
|
|
in article 5s3eo1dkvoupl2q2s522d9ocvo9smp6j4n@4ax.com, duke at
duckgumbo32@cox.net wrote on 11/25/05 8:21 AM:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:20:15 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
In case anyone was mistakenly sympathetic towards
Archbishop O'Malley....
| In O'Malley's letter, dated Friday, he says the
| archdiocese's opposition to same-sex marriage "is
| not based on an animus against people with a
| homosexual orientation," but is rather an effort to
| defend the institution of marriage.
What's missing from the above is the word "Secular."
Purely religious marriages have *Always* been
legal for gay people... and have taken place for
hundreds of years.
But not spiritual unless between one man and one woman.
You're just going to have to admit the obvious - man on man or woman on woman
are not unions made in heaven.
But what woman is stupid enough to make Duke on earth?
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "News Post" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholic Church shoots self in foot |
25 Nov 2005 01:18:40 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Subtitle this one: Idiots Rejoice
Back in 1960 America elected its first & last Catholic
President, John F. Kennedy. It was a tough race --
a young, dynamic, handsome genious pitted against
a pile of rags concealing Richard Nixon -- and two of
the biggest issues were containing the spread of
Communism & the fact that John Kennedy was Catholic.
Many people, Republicans & anti-Catholic bigots,
insisted that if John Kennedy were elected he would
be an agent of the Pope. America would lose its
soveriegnty, they claimed, because the Pope would be
issuing orders to Kennedy who, as a Catholic, would
be required to obey them.
If one is to continue calling oneself "Roman Catholic". If a person wants
all the goodies that go along with being a "Catholic" they should be
expected to adhere to Catholic teaching [more or less]. But if a person goes
directly AGAINST what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, especially on
issues that the Chruch thinks are life and death issues, then how can they
go on calling themselves Catholic? They're not.
If America elects a President who says he or she is firmly Roman Cahtolic,
America should expect an anti-abortion, pro-life, anti-euthanasia,
anti-death penalty, anti-war-mongering moral postion in said person.
No, the Vatican will not willy-nilly 'dictate' to such a President .. and
such a President will, of course, act in the best interests of the United
States. But don't expect a morality that differs greatly from the Church's.
Why would you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholic Church shoots self in foot |
25 Nov 2005 02:03:07 AM |
|
|
"News Post" <newsgroup@post.internet> wrote
If a person wants all the goodies that go along with
being a "Catholic" they should be expected to
adhere to Catholic teaching [more or less].
That isn't the issue here.
Believe me, there is no doubt in my mind that Boston's
Mayor Menino has *Never* had an abortion. Heck, I
would be quite shocked if he even recommended to a
woman that she have an abortion! And Menino isn't
gay. In fact, I bet I could gross him out if I could get
a couple of gay men to kiss in front of him.
To the best of *Everybody's* knowledge -- including
Archbishop Sean O'Malley -- Menino DOES adhere
to Catholic teachings!
They're not upset with Menino because of what he
believes or how he conducts himself, they're upset
with him for representing the people he was elected
to represent... ALL of the people!
You're saying that Catholics shouldn't be allowed to
do that. You're saying that someone of influence
either has to represent the Pope or renounce the
Catholic church.
That's what I'm saying too.
The difference bewteen us is that I'm pointing out what
the result is going to be.
No influence.
America is a nation of nearly 300,000,000 people,
of which only about 65 million are Catholic.
Why should any of the other 235 million vote for a
Catholic politician, when they KNOW FOR A FACT
that the politician will be respresenting the Pope's
interest and not their own?
And does it just stop at politicians? What about CEOs?
You know, like the CEO of a company that manufactures
medical equipment, or drugs?
Do you take the HUGE RISK of allowing Catholics
to obtian some authority -- some influence -- in such
a company, knowing the Pope may order them to
place the Vatican's interest ahead of the shareholders?
Selling to reproductive health clinics? Birth control?
"Morning after" pills?
"Oh, well, that's different! Money is involved. Jesus
would want the church to stay out of things if there's
piles of cash at stake. It's only politics that Jesus ever
worried about"
Please. That's nonsense!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Catholic Church shoots self in foot |
25 Nov 2005 01:38:02 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:18:40 -0500, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Subtitle this one: Idiots Rejoice
Back in 1960 America elected its first & last Catholic
President, John F. Kennedy. It was a tough race --
a young, dynamic, handsome genious pitted against
a pile of rags concealing Richard Nixon -- and two of
the biggest issues were containing the spread of
Communism & the fact that John Kennedy was Catholic.
Many people, Republicans & anti-Catholic bigots,
insisted that if John Kennedy were elected he would
be an agent of the Pope. America would lose its
soveriegnty, they claimed, because the Pope would be
issuing orders to Kennedy who, as a Catholic, would
be required to obey them.
If one is to continue calling oneself "Roman Catholic". If a person wants
all the goodies that go along with being a "Catholic" they should be
expected to adhere to Catholic teaching [more or less]. But if a person goes
directly AGAINST what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, especially on
issues that the Chruch thinks are life and death issues, then how can they
go on calling themselves Catholic? They're not.
If America elects a President who says he or she is firmly Roman Cahtolic,
America should expect an anti-abortion, pro-life, anti-euthanasia,
anti-death penalty, anti-war-mongering moral postion in said person.
No, the Vatican will not willy-nilly 'dictate' to such a President .. and
such a President will, of course, act in the best interests of the United
States. But don't expect a morality that differs greatly from the Church's.
Why would you?
Having those positions is not the same as allowing the state to not
have those positions.
Only a corrupt official would insist that a secular state have laws
that enforce his religious views.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholic Church shoots self in foot |
25 Nov 2005 02:09:53 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
Having those positions is not the same as allowing the state
to not have those positions.
They know. They don't care.
If you look back in 2004 -- and I've posted the cites before
(and can again) -- it was the REPUBLICANS, George Bush
himself, who lobbied for the Vatican to involve itself in
internal U.S. politics.
Seriously. When a REPUBLICAN knowing he would be
facing a Catholic sees some advantage in getting the
Catholic church involved, you'd have to be a jackass
(or anti-Catholic) to think it was a good idea for the Pope
to get involved.
That was the HUGE, neon-green sign warning Catholics
that people like William Donahue are their enemy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholic Church shoots self in foot |
25 Nov 2005 08:19:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:09:53 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
Having those positions is not the same as allowing the state
to not have those positions.
They know. They don't care.
If you look back in 2004 -- and I've posted the cites before
(and can again) -- it was the REPUBLICANS, George Bush
himself, who lobbied for the Vatican to involve itself in
internal U.S. politics.
Seriously. When a REPUBLICAN knowing he would be
facing a Catholic sees some advantage in getting the
Catholic church involved, you'd have to be a jackass
(or anti-Catholic) to think it was a good idea for the Pope
to get involved.
That was the HUGE, neon-green sign warning Catholics
that people like William Donahue are their enemy.
((if i were gonna take over a nation, I'd involve the church so i
could browbeat the people. another thing i'd do is take over the
telephone business.) Speaking of communication - who owns most of TV
and radio, let alone printed media? it all traces back to the major
money people running this sham of a "government"))
TheRain
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholic Church shoots self in foot |
26 Nov 2005 05:59:59 AM |
|
|
<TheRain@storm.net> wrote
((if i were gonna take over a nation, I'd involve the church so i
could browbeat the people.
Think about what you're saying. I'm not telling you that you're
wrong, only that you have yet to realize the implications.
Only about 65 million out of about 300 million Americans are
Catholics. The vast majority ARE NOT Catholics.
Secondly, Bush was facing a November election against a
Catholic. Whatever Bush's plans, he believed they would
draw a comfortable majority of Americans AWAY from a
Catholic.
So Bush personally lobbied the Vatican to get active in a
election in which he -- Bush -- knew to a level of certainty
that he would be facing a Catholic....
Are you thinking that Bush wanted to lose, or are you
thinking that by drawing religious lines in such a way
as to HURT a Catholic opponent would mean bad news
for Catholics, for the Catholic church?
I hate to say it -- because Catholics themselves couldn't
be less interested -- but the only organization in
America large enough, organized enough & with incentive
enough to try and stop the Protestant fundamentalism of
the Religious Reich is the Catholic church.
The fundy whack-jobs of the Religious Reich know this.
Bush knows this. Heck, I've got to believe that even
William Donahue of the Bush campaign...errrr..."Catholic
League" knows this (because he couldn't be stupid enough
to not know it and still manage to dress himself).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "News Post" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholic Church shoots self in foot |
25 Nov 2005 01:44:20 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:18:40 -0500, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Subtitle this one: Idiots Rejoice
Back in 1960 America elected its first & last Catholic
President, John F. Kennedy. It was a tough race --
a young, dynamic, handsome genious pitted against
a pile of rags concealing Richard Nixon -- and two of
the biggest issues were containing the spread of
Communism & the fact that John Kennedy was Catholic.
Many people, Republicans & anti-Catholic bigots,
insisted that if John Kennedy were elected he would
be an agent of the Pope. America would lose its
soveriegnty, they claimed, because the Pope would be
issuing orders to Kennedy who, as a Catholic, would
be required to obey them.
If one is to continue calling oneself "Roman Catholic". If a person
wants all the goodies that go along with being a "Catholic" they
should be expected to adhere to Catholic teaching [more or less].
But if a person goes directly AGAINST what the Roman Catholic Church
teaches, especially on issues that the Chruch thinks are life and
death issues, then how can they go on calling themselves Catholic?
They're not.
If America elects a President who says he or she is firmly Roman
Cahtolic, America should expect an anti-abortion, pro-life,
anti-euthanasia, anti-death penalty, anti-war-mongering moral
postion in said person.
No, the Vatican will not willy-nilly 'dictate' to such a President
.. and such a President will, of course, act in the best interests
of the United States. But don't expect a morality that differs
greatly from the Church's. Why would you?
Having those positions is not the same as allowing the state to not
have those positions.
Only a corrupt official would insist that a secular state have laws
that enforce his religious views.
Yada yada .. blither blather on and on why don't cha?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholic Church shoots self in foot |
25 Nov 2005 02:11:20 AM |
|
|
"News Post" <newsgroup@post.internet> wrote in message
news:-vSdnQ97-v_p8RveRVn-tw@rogers.com...
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:18:40 -0500, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Subtitle this one: Idiots Rejoice
Back in 1960 America elected its first & last Catholic
President, John F. Kennedy. It was a tough race --
a young, dynamic, handsome genious pitted against
a pile of rags concealing Richard Nixon -- and two of
the biggest issues were containing the spread of
Communism & the fact that John Kennedy was Catholic.
Many people, Republicans & anti-Catholic bigots,
insisted that if John Kennedy were elected he would
be an agent of the Pope. America would lose its
soveriegnty, they claimed, because the Pope would be
issuing orders to Kennedy who, as a Catholic, would
be required to obey them.
If one is to continue calling oneself "Roman Catholic". If a person
wants all the goodies that go along with being a "Catholic" they
should be expected to adhere to Catholic teaching [more or less].
But if a person goes directly AGAINST what the Roman Catholic Church
teaches, especially on issues that the Chruch thinks are life and
death issues, then how can they go on calling themselves Catholic?
They're not.
If America elects a President who says he or she is firmly Roman
Cahtolic, America should expect an anti-abortion, pro-life,
anti-euthanasia, anti-death penalty, anti-war-mongering moral
postion in said person.
No, the Vatican will not willy-nilly 'dictate' to such a President
.. and such a President will, of course, act in the best interests
of the United States. But don't expect a morality that differs
greatly from the Church's. Why would you?
Having those positions is not the same as allowing the state to not
have those positions.
Only a corrupt official would insist that a secular state have laws
that enforce his religious views.
Yada yada .. blither blather on and on why don't cha?
Brilliant refutation. You've certainly convinced me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholic Church shoots self in foot |
26 Nov 2005 05:25:23 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 02:11:20 GMT, "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
"News Post" <newsgroup@post.internet> wrote in message
news:-vSdnQ97-v_p8RveRVn-tw@rogers.com...
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:18:40 -0500, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Subtitle this one: Idiots Rejoice
Back in 1960 America elected its first & last Catholic
President, John F. Kennedy. It was a tough race --
a young, dynamic, handsome genious pitted against
a pile of rags concealing Richard Nixon -- and two of
the biggest issues were containing the spread of
Communism & the fact that John Kennedy was Catholic.
Many people, Republicans & anti-Catholic bigots,
insisted that if John Kennedy were elected he would
be an agent of the Pope. America would lose its
soveriegnty, they claimed, because the Pope would be
issuing orders to Kennedy who, as a Catholic, would
be required to obey them.
If one is to continue calling oneself "Roman Catholic". If a person
wants all the goodies that go along with being a "Catholic" they
should be expected to adhere to Catholic teaching [more or less].
But if a person goes directly AGAINST what the Roman Catholic Church
teaches, especially on issues that the Chruch thinks are life and
death issues, then how can they go on calling themselves Catholic?
They're not.
If America elects a President who says he or she is firmly Roman
Cahtolic, America should expect an anti-abortion, pro-life,
anti-euthanasia, anti-death penalty, anti-war-mongering moral
postion in said person.
No, the Vatican will not willy-nilly 'dictate' to such a President
.. and such a President will, of course, act in the best interests
of the United States. But don't expect a morality that differs
greatly from the Church's. Why would you?
Having those positions is not the same as allowing the state to not
have those positions.
Only a corrupt official would insist that a secular state have laws
that enforce his religious views.
Yada yada .. blither blather on and on why don't cha?
Brilliant refutation. You've certainly convinced me.
The drooling idiot spent much brain energy on that 'refutation.'
***** on the human formed toilet and walk on.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "News Post" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholic Church shoots self in foot |
25 Nov 2005 01:47:05 AM |
|
|
Sorry about the blither blather comment .. I'm tired and have had a bad cold
these past few days and ran a bit rough shod .. sorry.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholic Church shoots self in foot |
25 Nov 2005 05:03:13 PM |
|
|
Spare us the phony headlines.
BAM
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-I2dnTH7LvUjwhvenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Subtitle this one: Idiots Rejoice
Back in 1960 America elected its first & last Catholic
President, John F. Kennedy. It was a tough race --
a young, dynamic, handsome genious pitted against
a pile of rags concealing Richard Nixon -- and two of
the biggest issues were containing the spread of
Communism & the fact that John Kennedy was Catholic.
Many people, Republicans & anti-Catholic bigots,
insisted that if John Kennedy were elected he would
be an agent of the Pope. America would lose its
soveriegnty, they claimed, because the Pope would be
issuing orders to Kennedy who, as a Catholic, would
be required to obey them.
Well that was just nonsense... back then. Today it's
not so much nonsense at all. We have yet to completely
reach the point were all Catholics in a position of
authority must obey the Pope's edicts -- despite the
efforts of partisans like Bill Donahue of the Catholic
League -- but we're close enough to it now for you
to reach out & touch it.
| BOSTON --Disagreement over Mayor Thomas
| Menino's views on abortion and same-sex marriage
| has prompted Archbishop Sean O'Malley to cancel
| plans to attend the annual Catholic Charities
| Christmas dinner next month.
| http://tinyurl.com/c7cas
So maybe they haven't yet completely driven away
*Everyone* with power & money (influence) from
the Catholic, but they're certainly trying.
And what happens when partisan Catholics, like
William Donahue of the Catholic League, do finally
succeed in ousting everyone with influence from
the Catholic church, for the crime of representing
the voters or shareholders instead of the Pope?
Well there's nobody to stop the fundies from imposing
their fundamentalist Protestant views in public schools,
for starters.
They'll be nobody to stop the fundies from posting
"the" Ten Commandments -- the Protestant-only
version lifted straight out of the King James bible --
and elevating it above all others.
Skipping to the end here: They'll be no Catholic
church. There won't be. Everyone's kids (and I do
mean *Everyone's*) will be indoctrinated in
fundamentalist Protestant religious teachings from
the earliest age.
Yes, granted, changes like this take generations. It's
the kids who aren't born yet who will be force-fed
fundamentalist Protestant doctrine... who'll grow up
memorizing the Protestant-only version of the Ten
Commandments lifted straight out of the King James
bible... who will be SOCIALIZED as Protestant
fundamentalists even if they are educated Catholics.
Two generations from now, looking back, they will
point to today. Not as the time when the Catholic
church -- and religious freedom for all -- died in
America, but when the bullet was fired.
William Donahue will already be in his grave. It
will be too late to stop him. And the Archbishop
O'Malley will be gone too. You won't be able to
change his mind.
You have to act now, or you have to accept much
of the blame.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
