Catholic Cardinal calls the election of Obama "Apocalyptic"

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Nothing personal here... but, you seem to be the Renter long after the Architect has completed his work. That you conclude which Condo suits your tastes you seem to demand (perhaps not that strongly) that all Condo units should be as yours is... Me thinks I don't like the floor plan of yours and prefer the one down the street... IT IS OK Right?? I hope.

You seem to feel that truth is a matter of opinion and, therefore, that multiple truths may coexist without any contradiction. I disagree. I have never suggested that what I think is the truth is the Truth, nor that what the Catholic Church thinks is the truth is the Truth. The Truth is not something any person or organization can monopolize - it is simply the Truth. If my truth disagrees with the Truth, my truth is wrong. In the end, everyone votes in an effort to inflict their truth on everyone else because everyone thinks that their truth is Truth (otherwise, why would they hold such beliefs?).

Truth... Faith is belief with out proof... ergo, Faith cannot be asserted as truth.
I have no problem with anyone proclaiming they have found the 'Truth'... but we know it only means they have faith they found the 'Truth'... My issue is to do with folks attempting to regulate what to me are 'Fundamental Rights'... and doing so not based on law but, rather, based on their faith's dogma.
I am a Christian... A Catholic, I suppose given I was baptized and attended a Catholic Academy and High School and etc... I live my life my way but don't expect you or anyone else to follow my lead.. I expect you and others to find their own way to live and defend my way as I defend their's....

 

[CycloWizard]

M: You know that we are forgiven. The reason, though not so obvious, is that there can be no guild. People are asleep. They do not know what they feel. You can't be responsible when you act for reasons you are totally unconscious of. Only the awakened could really be guilty of anything. You have this notion of personal responsibility because your position falls apart in its absence. It is totally false. There is no good or evil. But there is a powerful urge to point fingers and punish the result of the use of violence to produce conformity.

C: In your position, I can't be culpable for enslaving the woman either, so why should I care? I am free to enslave her, rape her, shoot her in the head, or whatever I please because I am incapable of choice. This presents a contradiction, since the only way one can be a slave is if they are forced to act against their will, though the heart of your argument is that there is no will. If there is no will, we are already slaves and nothing will change if my position is enforced.

M: Take the case of a woman who has been raped and is pregnant. She doesn't want the child. It reminds her of her horror and cause tremendous emotional pain. The fetus will know nothing feel nothing if it is aborted because it is at the level of an amoeba. The woman has priority because she is conscious, fully human, and in pain. You claim that your fantasy of the value the fetus could have as a fully conscious and mature person outweighs the fact that's the actual condition of the woman, now. You value your hypothetical over the real. This is why absolute thinking is insane. You value your fabrications over real human pain. Somebody real should suffer for your beliefs. Nope.

C: You assume that the fetus is at the level of the amoeba, though you have no way of knowing that with any degree of certainty. You assume that it is unaware and does not feel pain. Given these assumptions, I would arrive at the same conclusion as you: let the woman do as she pleases. Unfortunately, I have examined these assumptions and found them to be the same fantasy that you ascribe to my assumption: that I don't know the Truth of the matter. In this case, the Truth is either that the fetus is alive, conscious, feels pain; it isn't any of these things; or somewhere in between. You claim to know the Truth, but it is only your truth - it is what you believe to be true.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
OK then you will have to argue for yourself how the truth was hidden in favor of convenience, turning hierarchy on its ear. You can't just say that and have it be true. How do you ignore that your truth makes women slaves? How has a man come to decide what women should do? I maintain that when absolutism leads into contradiction, the violation of other absolutes it may be an absolute but it isn't being properly applied. Truth can't violate itself. That you fixate on one aspect of things makes no sense to me and indicates you went screwy somewhere. The usual reason is blindness due to bias. If you are an architect then I'm a demolition expert, because when I got done nothing was left standing.

My truth is that the fetus is a person. Therefore, its right to life exceeds the mother's right to freedom. Even at that, the mother still had the freedom to choose whether or not she became impregnated in nearly all cases. Thus, if she is being enslaved as you claim, she is enslaving herself by willfully undertaking actions that can, and often does, result in her "enslavement." At what point in your model does culpability of the woman come into play, or does it ever?

That you believe that is fine by me... and I'd hope you'd protect that fetus with great vigor... but the question is, I think.. why do you want me to believe that way too? Suppose I believe that once a fetus can sustain its own life outside the mother as defined by medical doctors I say that is when it has the rights of a person... in the mother or out of her.... to me that is a reasonable way to view the issue on an across the board way... for all people that is the limit..

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Truth... Faith is belief with out proof... ergo, Faith cannot be asserted as truth.
I have no problem with anyone proclaiming they have found the 'Truth'... but we know it only means they have faith they found the 'Truth'... My issue is to do with folks attempting to regulate what to me are 'Fundamental Rights'... and doing so not based on law but, rather, based on their faith's dogma.
I am a Christian... A Catholic, I suppose given I was baptized and attended a Catholic Academy and High School and etc... I live my life my way but don't expect you or anyone else to follow my lead.. I expect you and others to find their own way to live and defend my way as I defend their's....

How did you find "your way?" Teaching fundamentals of "good behavior," "right and wrong," and so on are a basic component of human civilization, at least for the past several thousand years for which we have written records. You are essentially suggesting that we stop such practices and let people decide right and wrong for themselves, allowing each person to behave as they see fit, thereby effectively reversing one of the fundamental pillars which holds humans above the animal kingdom. I fail to see an evolutionary advantage to the loss of such a pillar and can predict the consequences accordingly. While I won't advocate creating a master list of every possible action, thought, word, and deed and labeling it right and wrong, I feel it is important to educate people on what millenia of humans have collectively decided are generally acceptable actions. Throwing aside this framework, which has obviously given us a firm foothold on the evolutionary ladder, is a good way for us to fall off that ladder.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If his intent was to affect the election, one would assume that these statements would have been made before the election. Since they weren't, I can only assume that there are drugs involved in your analysis.

It's actually sad to see you betray your own signature.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Truth... Faith is belief with out proof... ergo, Faith cannot be asserted as truth.
I have no problem with anyone proclaiming they have found the 'Truth'... but we know it only means they have faith they found the 'Truth'... My issue is to do with folks attempting to regulate what to me are 'Fundamental Rights'... and doing so not based on law but, rather, based on their faith's dogma.
I am a Christian... A Catholic, I suppose given I was baptized and attended a Catholic Academy and High School and etc... I live my life my way but don't expect you or anyone else to follow my lead.. I expect you and others to find their own way to live and defend my way as I defend their's....

How did you find "your way?" Teaching fundamentals of "good behavior," "right and wrong," and so on are a basic component of human civilization, at least for the past several thousand years for which we have written records. You are essentially suggesting that we stop such practices and let people decide right and wrong for themselves, allowing each person to behave as they see fit, thereby effectively reversing one of the fundamental pillars which holds humans above the animal kingdom. I fail to see an evolutionary advantage to the loss of such a pillar and can predict the consequences accordingly. While I won't advocate creating a master list of every possible action, thought, word, and deed and labeling it right and wrong, I feel it is important to educate people on what millenia of humans have collectively decided are generally acceptable actions. Throwing aside this framework, which has obviously given us a firm foothold on the evolutionary ladder, is a good way for us to fall off that ladder.

Under the law there are fundamental rights that we each have and under the law we have certain restrictions.. all else is ok... We cannot have different laws for sets of people based on what ever criteria seems in order.. we must have uniform rules.. It is in that notion that we find our dilema... Some folks prefer to restrict to a greater degree that other folks cuz they feel that is the way this society ought to live.. but in every case one must consider the law must consider the totality of the peoples..
This is not "... One Nation Under God ... " God comes into play because the folks who believe in God vote. They tend to vote as their views dictate.. I accept that... I support that. BUT, the SCOTUS is the god of the land's law.. IF they determine something it then becomes all of our law.. It is in this aspect that folks become labeled bigot, overly biased, what ever.. I suppose I expect the Catholic Church to be intolerant of issues that violate its dogma... and ergo, bigoted... It is what the organization does.. From its POV some things are evil.. they must not be tolerated but that means (to me anyhow) in my life... how you live is up to you.. As a citizen, it seems to me, you should consider the nature of the issue and vote to support what you claim as a Fundamental Right for others regardless of the conflict between church and society and not what the Church suggests - if they do.

 

[Moonbeam]

M: Why indeed. I don't. I don't believe in anything.

C: Yes you do. You believe that when you flush the toilet, the water will go down the drain rather than shoot you in the face.

M: That was true before I got a low water volume toilet which I have to flush three times.

But we are talking about metaphysical truth here, not informational or fact check truth.
----------------

M: But what is it you are saying here? You propound that there is a truth but that you have not suggested you know what it is, yet you say, further, that everyone votes in an effort to inflict their truth on everyone else because everyone thinks their truth is Truth. You are included in everyone so you inflict and your think your truth is Truth even though you just got through claiming you don't claim to know the truth. You can't have it both ways, no?

C: I'm not asking to have it both ways. I'm simply stating the pragmatic solution to the problem: truth by majority. That's how this nation works. I think my truth is better than yours, so I vote according to mine rather than yours. If I thought yours was better, then I would make it my own and vote accordingly. Voter's evolution, if you would.

M: But that is not the case. The truth was Constitutionalized by the founding fathers who separated church and state and propounded the notion of fundamental rights the majority can not take away except by amendment. Majority is not enough.
---------------

M: And if everybody thinks he or she knows the truth that is Truth and few people agree on everything, then certainly we all prefer different Condos and even if the various truth conflict it will be necessary that those of differing opinion do not in so far as pushing their ideas onto others as law. Otherwise it will be necessary for me to maintain my freedom by making certain everybody else is dead, no? And this necessarily follows because if everybody thinks his truth is Truth and nobody agrees of everything, then only I have the one and only real truth and you, like LunarRay only hold subjective opinions. In short, you are saying that truth is a matter of opinion too.

C: Who said there is Truth in all matters of opinion? I can say that green is the best color and you can say it's red and both of us can be right because we can define "best" as we see fit. If, on the other hand, you argue that red light has a wavelength of 532 nm and I argue that its wavelength is 900 nm, then we're both wrong since red is somewhere in between, as is often the case.

M: But we are talking about metaphysical truth, not scientific notions that can be got at with instruments of precision. My argument stands.
-------------------

M: And there are further problems. If you don't claim to know the Truth then you can't really have any opinion as to what it is. Like me, you don't know anything. And what you particularly can't know is if there is anything called Truth. You believe but your belief is irrational. So did you get this idea from an old text?

C: I can't be absolutely certain that my truth is Truth any more than I can be absolutely certain that I'll wake up tomorrow. All I can know for sure is that my truth is the best approximation of Truth that I have been able to formulate given my limited perspective, experiences, predispositions, abilities, and thoughts. I can hope that my truth is Truth just like I can hope to wake up tomorrow. If my truth was the same as yours, I'm not sure that I'd have the same hope that I assume you do - to wake up tomorrow. Maybe that's why our truths are different.

M: You are entitled to your hope. I came to a different place. I said, no, I will follow the truth even to the ends of despair, which I did. I was always unmercifully and hopelessly honest. I saw that any hope for truth is totally meaningless, that truth of the kind you believe in does not exist. I discovered that when you die to everything you ever believed in, when you die to hope, to truth, to good over evil, when you have given up on everything that can be taken you are left only with what can never be taken. The truth, to my utter amazement, was that love was not out there in God, but that God is inside me. His light can shine only out of me. For me there is nothing at all. There is only love.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
M: You know that we are forgiven. The reason, though not so obvious, is that there can be no guild. People are asleep. They do not know what they feel. You can't be responsible when you act for reasons you are totally unconscious of. Only the awakened could really be guilty of anything. You have this notion of personal responsibility because your position falls apart in its absence. It is totally false. There is no good or evil. But there is a powerful urge to point fingers and punish the result of the use of violence to produce conformity.

C: In your position, I can't be culpable for enslaving the woman either, so why should I care? I am free to enslave her, rape her, shoot her in the head, or whatever I please because I am incapable of choice. This presents a contradiction, since the only way one can be a slave is if they are forced to act against their will, though the heart of your argument is that there is no will. If there is no will, we are already slaves and nothing will change if my position is enforced.

M: Take the case of a woman who has been raped and is pregnant. She doesn't want the child. It reminds her of her horror and cause tremendous emotional pain. The fetus will know nothing feel nothing if it is aborted because it is at the level of an amoeba. The woman has priority because she is conscious, fully human, and in pain. You claim that your fantasy of the value the fetus could have as a fully conscious and mature person outweighs the fact that's the actual condition of the woman, now. You value your hypothetical over the real. This is why absolute thinking is insane. You value your fabrications over real human pain. Somebody real should suffer for your beliefs. Nope.

C: You assume that the fetus is at the level of the amoeba, though you have no way of knowing that with any degree of certainty. You assume that it is unaware and does not feel pain. Given these assumptions, I would arrive at the same conclusion as you: let the woman do as she pleases. Unfortunately, I have examined these assumptions and found them to be the same fantasy that you ascribe to my assumption: that I don't know the Truth of the matter. In this case, the Truth is either that the fetus is alive, conscious, feels pain; it isn't any of these things; or somewhere in between. You claim to know the Truth, but it is only your truth - it is what you believe to be true.

I lost an extensive reply to this post

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
It's actually sad to see you betray your own signature.

How did I "betray" my signature? I suppose that's a great copout line when you can't disagree with what I've said anymore. :roll:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Under the law there are fundamental rights that we each have and under the law we have certain restrictions.. all else is ok... We cannot have different laws for sets of people based on what ever criteria seems in order.. we must have uniform rules.. It is in that notion that we find our dilema... Some folks prefer to restrict to a greater degree that other folks cuz they feel that is the way this society ought to live.. but in every case one must consider the law must consider the totality of the peoples..
This is not "... One Nation Under God ... " God comes into play because the folks who believe in God vote. They tend to vote as their views dictate.. I accept that... I support that. BUT, the SCOTUS is the god of the land's law.. IF they determine something it then becomes all of our law.. It is in this aspect that folks become labeled bigot, overly biased, what ever.. I suppose I expect the Catholic Church to be intolerant of issues that violate its dogma... and ergo, bigoted... It is what the organization does.. From its POV some things are evil.. they must not be tolerated but that means (to me anyhow) in my life... how you live is up to you.. As a citizen, it seems to me, you should consider the nature of the issue and vote to support what you claim as a Fundamental Right for others regardless of the conflict between church and society and not what the Church suggests - if they do.

The SCOTUS is the god of this land, though their whim is subject to change, especially over long periods of time. I simply cannot agree with the idea that right and wrong can change with time as that allows, or change per person as you would allow. As a citizen, I see that allowing your theory to govern would allow civilization to spiral into chaos. I'm sorry if you think that makes me a bigot.

 

[CycloWizard]

M: But that is not the case. The truth was Constitutionalized by the founding fathers who separated church and state and propounded the notion of fundamental rights the majority can not take away except by amendment. Majority is not enough.

C: The right of the unborn to life (that pesky right that the founding fathers placed above freedom on the list) was compromised without an amendment. It is exactly that which I disagree with. Thanks for agreeing with me in an effort to dodge my point.

M: But we are talking about metaphysical truth, not scientific notions that can be got at with instruments of precision. My argument stands.

C: No one is claiming that we can use instruments to measure Truth. Until 100 years ago, people had only very crude scientific instruments to measure physical Truths, but that did no mean that they did not exist. The laws of physics existed long before we discovered them.

M: You are entitled to your hope. I came to a different place. I said, no, I will follow the truth even to the ends of despair, which I did. I was always unmercifully and hopelessly honest. I saw that any hope for truth is totally meaningless, that truth of the kind you believe in does not exist. I discovered that when you die to everything you ever believed in, when you die to hope, to truth, to good over evil, when you have given up on everything that can be taken you are left only with what can never be taken. The truth, to my utter amazement, was that love was not out there in God, but that God is inside me. His light can shine only out of me. For me there is nothing at all. There is only love.

C: Your understanding of love informs your truth, just as mine informs mine. I have hope because of love, whereas you have no need for hope because of love.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
M: But that is not the case. The truth was Constitutionalized by the founding fathers who separated church and state and propounded the notion of fundamental rights the majority can not take away except by amendment. Majority is not enough.

C: The right of the unborn to life (that pesky right that the founding fathers placed above freedom on the list) was compromised without an amendment. It is exactly that which I disagree with. Thanks for agreeing with me in an effort to dodge my point.

M: But we are talking about metaphysical truth, not scientific notions that can be got at with instruments of precision. My argument stands.

C: No one is claiming that we can use instruments to measure Truth. Until 100 years ago, people had only very crude scientific instruments to measure physical Truths, but that did no mean that they did not exist. The laws of physics existed long before we discovered them.

M: You are entitled to your hope. I came to a different place. I said, no, I will follow the truth even to the ends of despair, which I did. I was always unmercifully and hopelessly honest. I saw that any hope for truth is totally meaningless, that truth of the kind you believe in does not exist. I discovered that when you die to everything you ever believed in, when you die to hope, to truth, to good over evil, when you have given up on everything that can be taken you are left only with what can never be taken. The truth, to my utter amazement, was that love was not out there in God, but that God is inside me. His light can shine only out of me. For me there is nothing at all. There is only love.

C: Your understanding of love informs your truth, just as mine informs mine. I have hope because of love, whereas you have no need for hope because of love.

Your point was not compromised. It was judged invalid. The truth you think was placed above freedom was not so placed. Your opinion lost to a better understanding, one that lead to the end of women's death in back rooms, a triumph of law and reason over emotional religious dogmatic confusion.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Under the law there are fundamental rights that we each have and under the law we have certain restrictions.. all else is ok... We cannot have different laws for sets of people based on what ever criteria seems in order.. we must have uniform rules.. It is in that notion that we find our dilema... Some folks prefer to restrict to a greater degree that other folks cuz they feel that is the way this society ought to live.. but in every case one must consider the law must consider the totality of the peoples..
This is not "... One Nation Under God ... " God comes into play because the folks who believe in God vote. They tend to vote as their views dictate.. I accept that... I support that. BUT, the SCOTUS is the god of the land's law.. IF they determine something it then becomes all of our law.. It is in this aspect that folks become labeled bigot, overly biased, what ever.. I suppose I expect the Catholic Church to be intolerant of issues that violate its dogma... and ergo, bigoted... It is what the organization does.. From its POV some things are evil.. they must not be tolerated but that means (to me anyhow) in my life... how you live is up to you.. As a citizen, it seems to me, you should consider the nature of the issue and vote to support what you claim as a Fundamental Right for others regardless of the conflict between church and society and not what the Church suggests - if they do.

The SCOTUS is the god of this land, though their whim is subject to change, especially over long periods of time. I simply cannot agree with the idea that right and wrong can change with time as that allows, or change per person as you would allow. As a citizen, I see that allowing your theory to govern would allow civilization to spiral into chaos. I'm sorry if you think that makes me a bigot.

First, I think we each look at the term 'bigot' in such a negative light that we overlook its underlying meaning... I'm probably a bigot too in some area or another... I don't think a person intolerant of a group that violates the law is a bigot because that should not be tolerated.. It is when a group or individual meets the criteria of bigot regarding another group or individual that is within the same sphere of rights trying to assert their claim to them that it starts to make no sense...

SCOTUS does change the legality of issues over time... Although a few of the current Brethren view doing so as an abomination of the Constitution and the power of the Court. It is in the legality of issues that we both must come to grips... Marriage is a term that is controlled by the various States... The State determines who can perform the contract and the other criteria associated therein. It is because it is a State function the law must allow any otherwise legally existing citizen (as it applies to getting married) to exercise their individual fundamental right.
It is also possible for the state via the same Prop 8 route to disenfranchise the Catholic Church clergy from performing marriage contracts... Or the Mormon folks, and etc.
I strongly feel that if being homosexual was illegal then no rights of marriage should attach... but they are a legally existing group and there are a plethora of rights (some 1138 Federal that are massive in their application) especially amongst the various States... DOMA violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause... no boutadoubt it... Any State that does not recognize the just laws of any other State based on flawed Federal Law opens the door for other issues... Keep in mind the SCOTUS said that the word "shall" means "may" regarding extradition to avoid inter state squabbles...

To take this to an extreme... IF SCOTUS made law by saying that it was legal for a couple where one was only 13 and so long as the other was over 21 they could be married so long as the State law did not provision against that then it would be deemed that the 13 year old had the right unmitigated by age except to 13... they then might claim that it was an individual right and, therefore, two 13 year olds can marry... You argue "sure.. but not to each other"... I argue... yes.. to each other.. just like the Gay folks...

edit: What God may say about all of this is NOT relevant cuz God is not a citizen and holds no power over the just laws of the States nor Federal jurisdictions (Except perhaps as it applies to Moonbeam who has revealed that God is in him... ergo... he IS God... or at least when I look at him... somewhere I see God... maybe read God... not sure there... God works in strange ways, for sure)

 

[styroe]

Originally posted by: evident
man the catholic clergy need to stfu. they are pissing off me and the rest of the rational thinking catholics. all that's gonna be left in the church are the riduclous nutjobs you see at palin rallies.

I don't think he's a catholic cardinal, however, he's definitely christian with all his Jesus-speak. Catholic cardinals like to keep fire and brimstone vague, whilst subjecting you to the thought of eternal damnation

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You know that we are forgiven. The reason, though not so obvious, is that there can be no guild. People are asleep. They do not know what they feel. You can't be responsible when you act for reasons you are totally unconscious of. Only the awakened could really be guilty of anything. You have this notion of personal responsibility because your position falls apart in its absence. It is totally false. There is no good or evil. But there is a powerful urge to point fingers and punish the result of the use of violence to produce conformity.

So another application of your logic in the bold would be, "you think you're a human because if you didn't your idea of your humanity would fall apart?" You're logic is kind of silly. By your own reasoning, if there is a God, which you can't prove there is or isn't, you're whole world falls apart. If you are honest with yourself you would at least consider it a posibility, a frightening one if you are really honest.

How do you know? You can't prove there is a supreme being any more than someone can disprove it. If there is one how do you know yours is 'the one'? What if you're wrong? What if you're praying to the wrong one? What if you're praying to nothing at all?

FWIW, I don't like the idea a god I would be frightened to learn of.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Here is how the desert religions work:

The infant is brought into the religious community and indoctrinated and trained from the earliest possible age using ceremony, gifts, fear, and threats. The child makes the connection promoted by the church - that God is the father and the father is God. The pathways of the child's brain are conditioned to have certain responses when stimulated by fathers, authority, certain types of words and music and images.

This works, in practical terms, as a fetish - the properly reared child makes a fetish of authority. Many of the proscriptions have to do with sex, so sexuality becomes part of the fetishization of feelings of authority and love. The properly reared child grows up to be a productive member of the community, which means that he goes out and earns money, which he gives to the church. He becomes a tool of the church - promoting doctrine and conformity, giving wealth, getting advice and an unfulfillable promise of "eternal life". He also gets to hate and fear others - that's an important part. Faith is subjective, religion is about conformity, power, and wealth. If you can't distinguish between the two, you will never understand what religion is for - it is for the consolidation of power, just like government, the military, etc.

Churches are afraid of divine retribution for tolerance of homosexuality & womens rights. Like when Robertson blamed 9/11 on "homosexuals and abortionists." And there are people who blame all of our failures of humanity on abortion and homosexuality & "sin". They really think that "God will stop protecting us" if we show tolerance. I'm afriad the churches' fears are not as logical as many so generously believes.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
One good thing about Catholic Priests is that nobody and especially Catholics pay any attention to what they say. Everybody knows they are wind up toys for a broken religion.

Which can also be said of any religion as they all suck.

in your own little bubble, according to a USA Today poll last week 93% of the united states believes in God and belong to a church.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: styroe

Originally posted by: evident
man the catholic clergy need to stfu. they are pissing off me and the rest of the rational thinking catholics. all that's gonna be left in the church are the riduclous nutjobs you see at palin rallies.

I don't think he's a catholic cardinal, however, he's definitely christian with all his Jesus-speak. Catholic cardinals like to keep fire and brimstone vague, whilst subjecting you to the thought of eternal damnation

he is an American Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church

Bishop of Memphis
1982?1986

Archbishop of Denver
1986?1996

President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity
1996?2003

Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary
2003?present

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
One good thing about Catholic Priests is that nobody and especially Catholics pay any attention to what they say. Everybody knows they are wind up toys for a broken religion.

Which can also be said of any religion as they all suck.

in your own little bubble, according to a USA Today poll last week 93% of the united states believes in God and belong to a church.

WTF? I don't think 93% of bible belt state residents would say that. Link?

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Citrix
in your own little bubble, according to a USA Today poll last week 93% of the united states believes in God and belong to a church.

WTF? I don't think 93% of bible belt state residents would say that. Link?

I suspect that's actually a throw away quote from a study (see Report 2) by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, that found, "...[f]or example, while more than nine-in-ten Americans (92%) believe in the existence of God or a universal spirit, there is considerable variation in the nature and certainty of this belief. Six-in-ten adults believe that God is a person with whom people can have a relationship; but one-in-four ? including about half of Jews and Hindus ? see God as an impersonal force. And while roughly seven-in-ten Americans say they are absolutely certain of God?s existence, more than one-in-five (22%) are less certain in their belief."

Best I can tell, you could argue that the study found that 78.5% of the US belong to a religion with a church (Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox, Other Christian, and Unitarians).

 

[filterstb]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda


You have no clue dude...so don`t assume that you know what you speak of....
I am catholic and I am Jewish....
But with that said I don`t agree with all the hate that is spewed forth by others who believe they are doing or stating the will of God....
Just like I side with those who believe that Proposition8 is NOT a religious issue and as such there is NO valid reason except for ones own fears and prejudices to deny gays/lesbians and anybody else the same rights that we all enjoy!!

It's a relief for me to read your post, and that you have a balanced view of Prop 8 even though you are religious. I don't understand how people can continue to see it as a religious issue when it is the state and the state alone that can legalize marriage.

Do you know many other Catholics who see the issue the same way you do?

 

[BoomerD]

I don't know if this has been posted yet or not, but in like with the topic at hand:

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/515762.html

"Parishioners of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Modesto have been told they should consider going to confession if they voted for Barack Obama, because of the president-elect's position condoning abortion.

"If you are one of the 54 percent of Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion candidate, you were clear on his position and you knew the grav- ity of the question, I urge you to go to confession before receiving communion. Don't risk losing your state of grace by receiving sacrilegiously," the Rev. Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph's, wrote in a letter dated Nov. 21."

This has stirred quite a bit of controversy locally. The Bishop over this priest has publicly disagreed with him on this stance.

Oddly enough, if life is so sacred, why aren't the Catholics up in arms over Bush's war?

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: BoomerD


Oddly enough, if life is so sacred, why aren't the Catholics up in arms over Bush's war?

the pope comdemned the war numerous times. catholics, like other christians in this country, are still manipulated by the religious right and neocons into thinking that abortion and gays > everything else

 

[Alistar7]

A president's personal or religous view on abortion is hardly enough to overturn Roe vs Wade, otherswise Reagan, Bush I, Bush II would have made it happen.

Having a belief and having the political power/ability to make it law are two totally different animals....

 

[idiotekniQues]

where is the outrage from catholics?