feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

Stand Up for Religious Freedom

(57 posts)
  • Started 2 years ago by fairandbalanced
  • Latest reply from Andy_brown

  1. There were rallies across the nation in response to the Sebellius/Obama power grab and attacks on religious liberty. This is only the beginning. A sleeping giant HAS been awakened and that will be evident in the exit poll analyses in November.

    "The Church is beginning to wake-up!

    Truly, we see that the Church is stepping up to the social and political attacks on faith that seek to send Christians (and all people of faith) back to the catacombs.

    Pray for Catholic Bishops, pray for Protestant pastors, pray for all religious leaders that they will have the courage to not waver no matter what the People of God must suffer!

    The grassroots faithful are taking a stand!

    The only real explanation for the incredible turn-out for these rallies is that rank and file Christians and people of religious faith see that they must make a real, public response to this HHS Mandate and work to rescind it! This opposition must not die out!

    Our message on religious freedom is breaking through!

    We are beginning to break though the media wall. Many headlines in news reports on the rallies describe what happened on March 23 as protests of the “contraception mandate”—in other words, still making it appear as though the issue is about contraception.

    Nonetheless, the content of the stories reported rightly that the real essence of opposition has to do with religious freedom. We need to continue framing the issue our way—and move the media to understand that the HHS Mandate is an attack on religious freedom!

    Our protest of the HHS Mandate has just begun!

    The goal of Stand Up for Religious Freedom is to raise nationwide awareness that the HHS Mandate is an attack on personal conscience and the right to religious liberty—but even beyond that goal, this movement seeks to strengthen the resolve of American citizens generally and all people of faith more specifically to fight against this illicit and completely unjust intrusion of government into the affairs of religious practice and belief and be ready to stand up for our beliefs in times of persecution!

    Please stay tuned—the protests have not ended!

    Indeed, they have just begun!

    We thank all who made the March 23 Rallies a success.

    http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/2012/monicareflects/#more-1370 "

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 11:23 AM #
  2. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,103

    If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 11:28 AM #
  3. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,437

    "seeks to strengthen the resolve of American citizens generally

    Total bullshit. What else you got, ace?

    The Catholic Church doesn't need more hypocrites like you.
    They're already maxed out.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 11:44 AM #
  4. Brianl

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,155

    "A sleeping giant HAS been awakened and that will be evident in the exit poll analyses in November."

    Yep. When Obama is re-elected, and the Tea Party loses seats in the House.

    Think otherwise? Name your bet.

    As for "religious freedom", your theocratic views stated endlessly in here prove the point that you want "religious freedom", as long as it's only YOUR religion.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 11:49 AM #
  5. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,736

    We thank all who made the March 23 Rallies a success.

    HUH?

    Where?

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 11:50 AM #
  6. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,736

    As for "religious freedom", your theocratic views stated endlessly in here prove the point that you want "religious freedom", as long as it's only YOUR religion.

    *ZING*

    *PLONK*

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 11:51 AM #
  7. There's no sense in arguing the point anymore with those who see government as god. They can't grasp that Obama is hostile to religion, or if they do, they approve of it.

    The voices of those who have been attacked will be heard, however. This is no small slap on the face. There's more of them that are outraged than the oppressors realize and they vote.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 12:24 PM #
  8. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,437

    The gospel according to the abortion troll.

    blah blah blah

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 12:32 PM #
  9. Brianl

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,155

    "The voices of those who have been attacked will be heard, however. This is no small slap on the face. There's more of them that are outraged than the oppressors realize and they vote."

    You are no martyr.

    You have NO concept of what it is like to be "oppressed".

    Perhaps you should ask someone like Andy and his religion about being oppressed. (I'm not speaking FOR Andy, because I don't know of his past at all in regards to being Jewish, but some six million perished at the hands of one man some 70 years ago. THAT is oppression!). Perhaps you should ask someone who is African-American who lived through the Civil Rights movement of 50 years back about persecution. Perhaps you should ask someone of the GLBT community today about oppression, a group that, BTW, you fervently wish to continue the oppression of.

    The majority of Catholics are FOR contraception. 90+% of Catholic women have come out for it. So you keep banging your little drum there, and be prepared to get your fucking ass handed to you on a platter come November.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 12:34 PM #
  10. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,437

    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
    Or the one.

    That's all you are, F&B, one diminutive thinker that sees himself as important to the survival of an organization that is in decline that in fact doesn't need nor want your help. Not to mention that you aren't qualified to act as a spokesperson for any group other than those of lesser education, hypocritical actions and internet trolling.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 12:44 PM #
  11. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,372

    "It’s easy to forget that it was once Catholics who helped usher in a sweeping disestablishment of religion in the United States.

    We once lived in a “Protestant America,” one where Franklin D. Roosevelt could safely opine that “the Catholics and Jews are here under sufferance.”

    Carlton J.H. Hayes, the first Catholic co-chairman of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, maintained that “in this country Protestants have the major responsibility for assuring justice and true toleration to non-Protestants, not because they are Protestants but because they are [the] majority group.”

    Today, Catholics and Evangelicals are the most powerful Christian groups in America. They are the majority group.

    As such, they can no longer pretend to be the trod-upon minority of years past, can no longer refuse to own their own power and privilege in our society.

    While we must certainly guarantee their religious freedoms, it must now be weighed against the rights of any and all who don’t fit into their conceptions of morality or a well-ordered society.

    Any religious exemption in a secular pluralistic nation must be weighed against how that exemption will affect the millions who don’t believe as they do."

    http://tinyurl.com/7lsgz4k

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 12:57 PM #
  12. The Master of Disaster just got home after attending a Sunday morning service.
    Having said that, we live in a country where the First Amendment has been bindingly interpreted by the United States Supreme Court that freedom of religion includes 'freedom from religion' and if one chooses not to believe in a religion that is their choice and other Americans are to respect that.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 01:19 PM #
  13. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,372

    Amus often appreciates the well thought out posts made by The Master of Disaster, but wonders why he refers to himself in the third person.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apa0nG1OfUc

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 01:26 PM #
  14. I honestly may have missed it in the previous posts on the topic, but, is there a list of Religious Freedoms that have been taken away? I mean, what items, specifically, are no longer available?

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 01:41 PM #
  15. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,736

    There's more of them that are outraged than the oppressors realize and they vote.

    The people that were outraged voted alright in 2008 and elected someone that didn't go off half cocked and fuck up America to its core like DUHbya and CO. did. As much as you preach about how much your persecuted for YOUR religion how about the one's that spoke out about what DUHbya and Co. were doing to America. Those that wanted to speak out were stifled and shunned while YOU hard right line CONers went about your business because supposedly a man of God was in the White House.

    How'd that work out for America...... NOT VERY FUCKING GOOD!

    Save us your whoa as me pitty party.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 01:49 PM #
  16. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,736

    I honestly may have missed it in the previous posts on the topic, but, is there a list of Religious Freedoms that have been taken away? I mean, what items, specifically, are no longer available?

    Nothing has been taking away just more crap from the abortion patrol.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 01:50 PM #
  17. The last push-back resulted in the 2010 massacre.

    It could happen again because of the hostility Obama has towards religious freedom.

    We'll see who's right in November.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 02:53 PM #
  18. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,437

    "the hostility Obama has towards religious freedom"

    Total horse shit from the keyboard of the troll.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 02:55 PM #
  19. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,697

    Which ones are unavailable?

    Great question!

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 03:19 PM #
  20. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,372

    F&B,

    If you can get past the crude language, Lily Allen has a song that was just made for you.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpZm1TstpjQ

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 03:20 PM #
  21. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,084

    The threat to "religious freedom" exists only in the deluded minds of people who hate President Obama with a passion. To rational people, there is nothing to worry about.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 03:20 PM #
  22. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,740

    Yes. There was a HUGE rally for religious freedom yesterday on the Capitol Mall.

    Thousands of US atheists turn out for 'Reason Rally'
    Thousands of atheists, agnostics and other non-believers turned out in the US capital on Saturday to celebrate their rejection of the idea of God and to claim a bigger place in public life.
    The Reason Rally, sponsored by 20 atheist, secular and humanist groups, was billed as the biggest-ever "coming-out" party for the fastest-growing religious group in the United States -- those with no religion.
    http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-us-atheists-turn-reason-rally-221111895.html

    Go, First Amendment!

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 03:46 PM #
  23. It takes a lot to light a fire under the US Catholic Bishops who usually seem all too willing to compromise. They are not acting out of "hatred" but because of the obvious threat.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 03:49 PM #
  24. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,437

    It's called paranoia, ace.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 03:51 PM #
  25. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,084

    F&B: It takes a lot to light a fire under the US Catholic Bishops who usually seem all too willing to compromise.

    And since they said nothing when the Bush Administration had the same rule about birth control, do you suppose they are upset now because we have a Democratic president? Or just because they dislike Obama?

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 03:53 PM #
  26. You've brought this up a lot of times Andrew, but what Catholic organizations are providing contraception because Bush forced them to?

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 03:59 PM #
  27. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,437

    You're clearly not well read on the subject, F&B.

    Before current birth-control fight, Republicans backed mandates
    Republicans are fighting a birth-control rule in President Obama's healthcare law, but several states have enacted contraceptive mandates with the support of GOP lawmakers and governors.

    February 15, 2012|By Kim Geiger and Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau
    Reporting from Washington — Since President Obama moved to require Catholic hospitals and universities to offer their employees contraceptive health benefits, Republicans have rushed to accuse the administration of an unprecedented attack on religious freedoms.

    None has been more forceful than former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who accused Obama of "a direct violation of the 1st Amendment." But years before the current partisan firestorm, GOP lawmakers and governors around the country, including Huckabee, backed similar mandates.

    Twenty-two states have laws or regulations that resemble, at least in part, the Obama administration's original rule. More than a third had some Republican support, a review of state records shows.

    In six states, including Arkansas, those contraceptive mandates were signed by GOP governors.

    In Massachusetts in 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed a healthcare overhaul that kept in place a contraceptive mandate signed by his Republican predecessor. Now the GOP presidential candidate is calling the Obama rule an "assault on religion."

    At the federal level, President George W. Bush never challenged a similar federal mandate imposed in 2000.

    The state laws were the product of a campaign by women's groups and others that began after insurers started covering Viagra for men.

    The cause has always drawn more support from Democrats, who pushed successfully in 2010 to include a provision in the healthcare law designed to expand women's access to preventive services like contraception.

    But until recently, many Republicans also supported expanding access to contraceptives, even if it meant angering some religious constituencies.

    In 1997, Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and then-Rep.James C. Greenwood of Pennsylvania cosponsored bills aimed at requiring contraceptive coverage nationally. Seven additional Senate Republicans and 15 other House Republicans signed on to the legislation, though it never became law.

    Three years later, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is responsible for enforcing laws against workplace discrimination, ruled all employers with more than 15 workers must cover contraceptives for women if they offer health plans that cover preventive services and prescription drugs.

    When Republicans took control of Washington after Bush won the 2000 presidential election, his administration could have challenged that requirement, as it did other mandates.

    But in his 2001 confirmation hearings to be attorney general, John Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would "defend the rule" promulgated by the EEOC.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 04:03 PM #
  28. I've looked at the coverage provided by many Catholic institutions, and they do not provide contraception. There must have been a religious exemption in those mandates.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 04:22 PM #
  29. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,084

    F&B: You've brought this up a lot of times Andrew, but what Catholic organizations are providing contraception because Bush forced them to?

    http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 04:45 PM #
  30. Yeah, I already know that you and Mother Jones claim it's already a law.

    What I want to know is why the Catholic organizations have not been complying with it.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 04:55 PM #
  31. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,103

    What a rube!

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 04:56 PM #
  32. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,437

    Lying hypocrite. Not smart enough to be a rube.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 05:06 PM #
  33. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,740

    "...It’s also nothing new. Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception and since 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control, many Catholic institutions offer the benefit to their employees. For instance, a Georgetown University spokesperson told ThinkProgress yesterday that employees “have access to health insurance plans offered and designed by national providers to a national pool. These plans include coverage for birth control.”

    Similarly, an informal survey conducted by Our Sunday Visitor found that many Catholic colleges have purchased insurance plans that provide contraception benefits:

    University of Scranton, for example, appears to specifically cover contraception. The University of San Francisco offers employees two health plans, both of which cover abortion, contraception and sterilization…Also problematic is the Jesuit University of Scranton. One of its health insurance plans, the First Priority HMO, lists a benefit of “contraceptives when used for the purpose of birth control.”

    DePaul University in Chicago covers birth control in both its fully insured HMO plan and its self-insured PPO plan and excludes “elective abortion,” said spokesman John Holden, adding that the 1,800 employee-university responded to a complaint from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission several years ago and added artificial contraception as a benefit to its Blue Cross PPO.

    Christian Brothers University in Memphis, Tenn., offers employee health insurance via the Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Association, a consortium of Christian Bible and other private college and universities. Its plan excludes abortion, but probably covers artificial contraception as a prescription drug, said C. Gregg Conroy, the executive director of the TICUA Benefit Consortium.

    Boston College, the six former Caritas Christi Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts, and other Catholic organizations that are located in one of the 28 states that already require employers to provide contraception benefits could have self-insured or stopped offering prescription drug coverage to avoid the mandate — but didn’t do so. Instead, they — like many Catholic hospitals and health care insurers around the country — chose to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of Catholic women and offer these much needed services."
    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/07/420114/many-catholic-universities-hospitals-already-offer-contraception-as-part-of-their-health-insurance-plans/?mobile=nc

    "...For instance, the New York Times reported in 2002 that the Catholic Archdiocese of New York extended contraception coverage before the state passed its requirement. Catholic universities, Marquette and Mount Mary in Wisconsin were also offering the benefit prior to enactment of the state’s contraception equity clause in 2010. “Marquette’s policy recognizes that a significant portion of the university’s employees are non-Catholic and that contraceptives are at times prescribed by physicians for purposes other than birth control, spokeswoman Mary Pat Pfeil said.” She stressed that “the choice to use a contraceptive is both a medical decision and a matter of conscience.”

    Once the law passed, Catholics had to provide contraception benefits. But rather than accusing the state of starting a war against religion, the organization left the decision to the consciences of its members:

    “Our employees know what church teaching is. And we trust them to use their conscience and do the right thing,” said Brent King, spokesman for the Madison Diocese, which began covering prescription contraception Aug. 1. [...]

    Diocese of Madison employees, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, sign a document when they’re hired vowing to abide by the laws of both Wisconsin and the church. He said employees would receive “strong pastoral recommendations against” using the contraception benefit, but that the diocese has no intention of policing it."
    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/09/422281/large-catholic-institutions-offered-contraception-even-before-mandated-to-do-so/

    So, there you have it. Not only Catholic universities and other organizations covering contraceptives, but the freaking Archdiocese of New York, as well. Anything else you'd like to have blown out your ass?

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 05:29 PM #
  34. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,084

    F&B: eah, I already know that you and Mother Jones claim it's already a law.

    What I want to know is why the Catholic organizations have not been complying with it.

    You mean like Belmont Abbey?

    As recently as last year, the EEOC was moderating a dispute between the administrators of Belmont Abbey, a Catholic institution in North Carolina, and several of its employees who had their birth control coverage withdrawn after administrators realized it was being offered. The Weekly Standard opined on the issue in 2009—more proof that religious employers were being asked to cover contraception far before the Obama administration issued its new rule on January 20 of this year.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 05:30 PM #
  35. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,437

    Buried in facts to the contrary. How does it feel, ace?

    Like I said, you haven't read up on this (or anything you post about for that matter).

    Pathetic.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 05:33 PM #
  36. I checked the link someone here provided to Catholic institutions in another thread, and they were not offering contraceptive coverage. There are exceptions and there are "catholic" institutions, just like the traitors Sebellius and Pelosi call themselves "catholic."

    I'm only posting the conclusion, but linked is an entire article that discusses the legal issues regarding the HHS mandate as well as the EEOC "ministerial exception," and how that might apply to the HHS mandate when it goes to court.

    "The Administration's latest health care mandate is an affront to the free exercise of religion and moral duty so long revered and protected in this country. In fact, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Hosanna-Tabor, one can only wonder at the thinking and motives behind the new rule. Clearly, little consideration was given to the legality of the mandate, suggesting that the motives were entirely political. But the Administration must have anticipated the vocal objections from the religious communities and simply decided that it didn't much care whether those communities would cry foul; it was time for them to get in line with the health care program. The message sent by this new directive is loud and unmistakable: If you're going to be an employer, an insurance provider, or participate in our health care system, you will play by the government's rules and you will provide free contraception. Religious and conscientious objections will be disregarded and dismissed; fines will be assessed.

    But the softer, subtler, and more ominous message in the Administration's most recent sermon on health care is this: the religious will confine themselves to serving their own congregations, and "inculcating values" within the confines of their own communities. They will no longer educate the children, preach the Gospel to the poor, heal the brokenhearted, speak deliverance to the captives, give sight to the blind, or liberty to them that are bruised – because that's what Government is anointed to do. Isn't that what Jesus said?

    But there is good news. Ultimately this new regulation will not stand. This mandate is far removed from the mainstream of First Amendment rulings, and badly misreads the Constitution and the important role that religious liberty plays in this country. It overlooks our founding history and relies on an erroneous view that caring acts by Americans are primarily secular acts, instead of the sacred acts of compassion and ministry that they often truly are. If the Congress doesn't quickly overturn this regulation, the courts will.

    http://nationalcenter.org/NPA632.html "

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 05:41 PM #
  37. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,740

    "I checked the link someone here provided to Catholic institutions in another thread, and they were not offering contraceptive coverage."

    How about sharing your source, or is that only available to "the faithful?" Otherwise, you're just making stuff up. This recent piece from the NYT would seem to contradict your "findings." (Note that this STILL includes the Archdiocese of New York)

    N.Y. Law on Contraceptives Already in Place, and Catholic Institutions Comply
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/nyregion/catholic-institutions-reluctantly-comply-with-ny-contraceptives-law.html

    I'm also glad that your toady from the NPP is so confident, but his OPINION has pretty much the same value as the rest of ours, eh?

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 05:48 PM #
  38. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,084

    F&B: I checked the link someone here provided to Catholic institutions in another thread, and they were not offering contraceptive coverage.

    The point is, a court ruled in 2000 that religious institutions had to provide contraceptive coverage, and the EEOC first under Bush and then under Obama challenged them when they failed to provide this coverage. Bush's EEOC enforced the court ruling and so has Obama's EEOC so far. Yet Catholic bishops never uttered a peep, it seems, when the Bush administration EEOC enforced these rules. Now I wonder why THAT is?

    There are exceptions and there are "catholic" institutions, just like the traitors Sebellius and Pelosi call themselves "catholic."

    Well, I'm sure Sebellius and Pelosi would call you a "catholic" too and perhaps a traitor. Maybe they're right and you're wrong? Maybe the 98% of American Catholic women who use/used birth control aren't the ones who are wrong - ? Maybe being self-righteous makes you feel good, but that doesn't make you "right" to anyone else but yourself.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 05:49 PM #
  39. "New York’s statute, which the Catholic Church unsuccessfully fought in court, prompted the Archdiocese of New York and the Diocese of Brooklyn, as well as the Catholic Charities organizations within their territories, to self-insure. They collect premiums from their employees and pay out claims, using insurance carriers like UnitedHealthcare for administration.

    But smaller Catholic institutions in New York could not afford to self-insure. Some dropped prescription coverage entirely, according to Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the New York Archdiocese.

    Dennis Poust, a spokesman for the New York State Catholic Conference, said “there was very little we could do” after losing the battle against the New York mandate. “Some Catholic employers are complying with the law under protest,” he said"

    So they can get out of it by self-insuring.

    Or they can be forced to drop their insurance altogether. Nice... But it gives Big Brother one more reason to step in and take care of everyone.

    And some have caved at the point of a gun. Sad, but understandable. They're trying to balance the good they do against the evil the government is forcing them to do.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 05:54 PM #
  40. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,740

    So, now you're backtracking. Ever going to admit that you're wrong?

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 05:57 PM #
  41. "Maybe the 98% of American Catholic women who use/used birth control aren't the ones who are wrong - ? Maybe being self-righteous makes you feel good, but that doesn't make you "right" to anyone else but yourself."

    "Used" is the key word here. I admit I have "used" contraception, but I stopped when I became a Catholic. Probably 100% of those women (and men too) have sinned and done something against what the Church teaches. The Church is there to cure them of their sins, not to encourage them, so regardless of the fact that 100% of Catholics sin/sinned, it doesn't mean the Church and Church institutions should enable further sin.

    I'm not "self-righteous." I just know what the "rules" are. I don't claim to never break them--I have to go to Confession regularly and thank God for the confessional. But I just don't make up my own rules or let others lie about what the rules are.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 05:59 PM #
  42. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,437

    "I'm not "self-righteous.""

    Yes, you most certainly are.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 06:00 PM #
  43. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,740

    Yep, haven't read a better "holier-than-thou" speech for a while.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 06:08 PM #
  44. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,084

    Sorry, F&B, but you really have no place pointing fingers at others and call them "fake catholics" any more than they ought to do that to you. Where do you believe you get the right to judge other people? There's nothing more self-righteous than that.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 06:23 PM #
  45. I didn't say "fake." I said "traitors."

    I don't need any special right to call a spade a spade and it's not "judging" them. They are clearly misrepresenting the Church.

    It's not just "me" saying that:

    "In May 2008, Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann said that Kathleen Sebelius should stop receiving communion because of her support for abortion rights, and that she should not again take it unless she publicly stated that she opposed abortion rights."

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 06:52 PM #
  46. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,084

    So out of curiosity, why do you feel a need to accuse others of "misrepresenting the Church" they claim to be members of? Sorry, to me that IS condemning others and judging them.

    Why can't people focus on themselves instead of judging others? If you say you sin, why not focus your energy on your own sins and doing good works instead of pointing fingers at other people? I really don't get it.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 06:55 PM #
  47. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,103

    "Why can't people focus on themselves instead of judging others? If you say you sin, why not focus your energy on your own sins and doing good works instead of pointing fingers at other people? I really don't get it.

    Because the weakminded among us must judge others in order to elevate their own pathetic status.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 08:34 PM #
  48. You know this "weak-minded" thing is kind of an interesting perspective. I wouldn't call it that because its such an ambiguous term or phrase. Being "closed minded" seems more appropriate.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 08:48 PM #
  49. Brianl

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,155

    Sadly, being "close minded" knows no religious boundaries.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 08:49 PM #
  50. "So out of curiosity, why do you feel a need to accuse others of "misrepresenting the Church" they claim to be members of? Sorry, to me that IS condemning others and judging them.

    Why can't people focus on themselves instead of judging others? If you say you sin, why not focus your energy on your own sins and doing good works instead of pointing fingers at other people? I really don't get it."

    If a Marine went into enemy territory and gave the enemy secrets, would it be wrong to "accuse" him of anything?

    Anyway, yes, my own sins should be my focus, but when we get into these discussions involving Catholic politicians, their public sins affect us all and they need to be exposed and confronted, since they claim to be Catholics, but are aiding enemies of Catholicism.

    Posted on March 25, 2012 - 10:14 PM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.