N
Nimzovik
Guest
Er… yah…
- Status
Y
yukonbrad
Guest
Catholicism does not equate to a paticular political party or more broadly ideology. Many Catholics are attracted to the left of center due to actual or percieved stances in regards to social justice issues. No individual is going to agree or support every single platform issue of any given party. That said I would hope US Catholics would finally see how “unwelcome” in todays democratic party given the kerfuffle over “God” in the platform.To say the Republicans have done similar ‘shenanigans’ avoids the** real** issue. One can not point to a (Hyothetical) wrong of the Republicans to justify a wrong by the Democrats.
All this finger pointing avoids the* truly* Alarming true issue of whether or not God should even be a Plank of the Democrat Platform.
We currently see the fundamental ‘War on Religion’ via the Secular Democrat** Party that the** elite** (Read: de facto controlling leadership) elements are manuvering to effect.
We have seen what Godless Secular Governments have perpetrated in other Countries already! China. Russia. You want more?
Are we blind to this
We can not even* begin* to imagine the atrocities to Religion, and subsequently the Country, the opening of the door of the HHS mandate will* inflict* upon us all.
Then there is the Gay Marriage issue the Democrats wink at and that** Obama** himself has retracted his opposition to it’s occurence.
Oh. Then, there is that little …er…uh…triviality < --------sarcasm… that Planned Parenhood funds the Obama bid for re-election. Which of course results in Abortion for all - even minors without Parental consent.A Pedophiles dream! Wheee! It’s a ‘Woman’s Privacy Issue’ to keep an abortion private. Ergo, with pressure by the Pedophile on the poor child, no one need know! IMHO Planned Parenthood is uh… shall we say…less than forthcoming in reportage to the requisite authorities, IMHO? See here wnd.com/2002/12/16451/ and here prolifewaco.org/ppwaco_statutory_rape.htm oh…** and** here: plannedparenthoodcorruption.org/news/links-to-national-coverage-of-recent-news-about-destruction-of-evidence-and-failure-to-report-child-rape-in-kansas/ .
Believe me. There are many more subject related links available.
Oh. Then there is the Sexualizing of our children via the, IMHO, Planned Parenhood controlled sex education curriculum for what (?)- grade school aged kids? You want a** link?** Oh. Then there is the Birth Contol mentality instilled in the Girl Scouts by…can you guess who? Ahmmmmmmm…?
Ok. Some here may not be able to vote for Romney. It grates on them. Ok. I can* get* that.
What I do **not **get, what I will never get, is how a Catholic can rationalize voting for the Democrats, in *particualr *for Obama.
What? You vote for your wallet instead of your conscience? Instead of voting to end the Holocaust of aborting children? What? Are you pro Gay Marriage? Please! Which part of you (you, as in the general sense of the readership of the thread) *claims *to be Catholic? I really want to know.:banghead:
If we kill our very own children,I ask you, how. How does one expect God to bless America with a wonderful economy? Did not Fatima inform us that war is a punishment for disobedience?
Lord have Mercy…Lord have Mercy…Lord…
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
You were wise to shift the focus of my comment to God as he’s depicted in the New Testament and away from the way he’s depicted in the Old (see Canaanite conquest). You know though, by failing to mention that representation, you run the risk that some people might jump to the conclusion that you actually disdain the God of the OT.Ok. You lost me. Yes… that is a tenent of Faith for Believers.
Show me where Christianity says: ‘Convert everyone to Christianity - and if they do not convert, kill them all.’
It is *this *that Atheism has done in the past in an incomparable manner. I reiterate, Stalin for just one example.
Now, whose bell has been rung, exactly?
It’s to your rhetorical advantage to portray all secularists as God-hating atheists, but in doing so you also continue to miss (or obscure) the main reason we instituted a secular form of government – to protect religious people from each other. Given the extreme anti-Catholic sentient and that religion’s minority status early in our country’s history, do you really think there would be six Catholic justices on the Supreme Court today if we didn’t have a secular form of government?
N
Nimzovik
Guest
Bolding mine: Italics mine:**
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
’Religion
When the Supreme Court was established in 1789, the first members came from among the ranks of the Founding Fathers and were almost uniformly Protestant. Of the 112 justices who have been appointed to the court, 91 have been from various Protestant denominations, 12 have been Catholics (one other Justice, Sherman Minton, converted to Catholicism after leaving the Court), eight have been Jewish and one, David Davis, had no known religious affiliation. Three of the 17 chief justices have been Catholics, and one Jewish Justice, Abe Fortas, was unsuccessfully nominated to be Chief Justice.'
**Hmmmmmmm… This is your idea of Equality eh? Interesting Numbers I must say.
Hmmmmmmm Since you like Wiki I will use your source:You were wise to shift the focus of my comment to God as he’s depicted in the New Testament and away from the way he’s depicted in the Old (see Canaanite conquest). You know though, by failing to mention that representation, you run the risk that some people might jump to the conclusion that you actually disdain the God of the OT.
**Noooooooo… I failed to mention nothing. I shifted nothing. *You *brought up the Cananites. No I do not disdain the God of the Old Testament. That is yourassertion.
Hmmmmm You like Wikipedia eh? Indeed… Perhaps u like Chris Matthews of MSNBC as well?
Here: Try this one instead: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03569b.htm** It is more accurate methinks. Note the mention of* Perversities.*** Note any *similarities to today? *
**There is a vast **difference in regard to Atheists, like Stalin, going on a mass killing spree. because people fail to obey his uh…er…Political Will, for crying out loud, and God removing a people that have so *descended *into perversity that they may infect all. God *can *do that. He is God. A la Sodom. Stalin is not. Stalin is not God.Stalin had no right to kill sooooooo many. (Heavens! Just the Stalinist Purges alone are scary.)
Oh. And by the way - just for your information. Killing babies is wrong as well. The Secular Govt. is not God. Presidents are not God either… Our “Inalienable rights” do not come from Secularists. They come from God. Period.
It’s to your rhetorical advantage to portray all secularists as God-hating atheists,
Nooooooooo… I just insist they have no Absolute Moral code shared by all Atheists/Secularist. They just have ‘Opinions’. Their …ahem …'truth’is simply mutually agreed upon fancies that may manifest in terms of Laws, that are often temporary, much like fads in clothing.Christians do indeed have an Absolute Moral Code. Thus the difference. This is why it is OK and Mighty fine with many (not all) Atheists and Secularists to kill their own (via Abortion) children. Is this reasonating yet?
but in doing so you also continue to miss (or obscure) the main reason we instituted a secular form of government – to protect religious people from each other. (bolding, italics mine.)
Ok…! Now that is just a wee tad off the mark now isn’t it? By the way, when you say “We’ instituted a secular Govt’…” Hmmmmmm… Are you refering to the origins of a Secular Govt, as accepted by many, of just such a philosophy? Napoleon? When he physically wrenched the Crown of Authority from the Church official’s hands and crowned himself King? Hmmmmmm… just how many people did the French Revolution end up killing eh? Now just what did they call it* back then?*
**Ah yesssssss… The 'Age of ‘Rationalism/Enlightenment.’
Might just as well substitute the ‘Age of Secularism’ eh?
Let’s see… Now just how did that line from the 60’s Rock Group, ‘The Who’ go? Ah! I remember! -----“Meet the New Boss. Same as the old Boss…”
The Names have changed, but the game remains the same-eh wot?
Given the extreme anti-Catholic sentient and that religion’s minority status early in our country’s history, do you really think there would be six Catholic justices on the Supreme Court today if we didn’t have a secular form of government?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
’Religion
When the Supreme Court was established in 1789, the first members came from among the ranks of the Founding Fathers and were almost uniformly Protestant. Of the 112 justices who have been appointed to the court, 91 have been from various Protestant denominations, 12 have been Catholics (one other Justice, Sherman Minton, converted to Catholicism after leaving the Court), eight have been Jewish and one, David Davis, had no known religious affiliation. Three of the 17 chief justices have been Catholics, and one Jewish Justice, Abe Fortas, was unsuccessfully nominated to be Chief Justice.'
**Hmmmmmmm… This is your idea of Equality eh? Interesting Numbers I must say.
N
Nimzovik
Guest
Oh yes? You think that kerfluffel is going to change **any **Caffeteria, Liberal Catholic from voting Democrat? Abortion and Planned Parenthood did not, Same Sex Marriage did not. Contraception issues did not. Perhaps the HHS Mandate? I am not holding *my *breath.
If we lose this country to the Atheists, it is, IMHO. the Catholic’s fault.
Given the fullness of truth we have in the deposit of Faith, there is** no** excuse for Failure.
None. I personally brook no debate here.When the persecutions and prosecutions for Anti - Gay hate speech (otherwise known as The Scriptures) by the Catholics, come, like what already happened in Canada, what will Liberal Catholics say then?
Old Saying:
The Catholic Faith is like a Christmas tree. When violently shaken by persecutions, the ornaments will fall off. The tree will remain.
S
Son_of_Jonah
Guest
But there aren’t six Catholic justices on the Supreme Court… they might claim to be, but a critical investigation of their interior faith lives, voting records, and beliefs regarding important issues of Catholic doctrine would almost certainly reveal that they are, in fact, Secularists who live their faith within the confines of the four walls of a church building 1 HOUR of 1 day per week.
N
Nimzovik
Guest
I am sooooooo glad you said that. I noted that as well,** however… **
**
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Nimzovik:
Your odd formatting prevents me from responding as I’d prefer to, but I’ll give it my best shot at responding to the salient points.
You asked me to elaborate on this statement: “As I understand it, the Christian God was pretty intolerant of other religions and gods…” I then presented evidence from the Bible demonstrating how that was true. Offering reasons why God might have been justified in such intolerance does nothing to disprove that God was, in fact, intolerant of other religions and gods in the OT.
I wasn’t aware that Napoleon had literally wrenched the crown from a church official’s hands. If that’s true, I’ve just found one more reason (out of very few) to like him.
I don’t have the foggiest idea what point you were attempting to make with your reference to the religious affiliations of the SCOTUS justices, but I’m certain it completely failed to answer the question I posed to you.
Your odd formatting prevents me from responding as I’d prefer to, but I’ll give it my best shot at responding to the salient points.
You asked me to elaborate on this statement: “As I understand it, the Christian God was pretty intolerant of other religions and gods…” I then presented evidence from the Bible demonstrating how that was true. Offering reasons why God might have been justified in such intolerance does nothing to disprove that God was, in fact, intolerant of other religions and gods in the OT.
I wasn’t aware that Napoleon had literally wrenched the crown from a church official’s hands. If that’s true, I’ve just found one more reason (out of very few) to like him.
I don’t have the foggiest idea what point you were attempting to make with your reference to the religious affiliations of the SCOTUS justices, but I’m certain it completely failed to answer the question I posed to you.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Sorry for not responding sooner. I missed your post in the flurry of emoticons from another poster.
Your final two sentences in this section seem to contradict others’ opinions here that God has given us an absolute standard of morality.
It has not been my impression that other religions have failed to follow Christianity’s lead just out of spite or stubbornness. They all seem to feel sincerely justified in capitalizing the word “truth”, as well.
The same laws that protect you in your practice of religion also protects those who practice no religion. If they want to ignore religion, they have the right to do just that. I’m not aware of any serious attempt, legal or otherwise, to limit religious practice to within the walls of churches.
I’m not questioning whether or not God had good reasons for doing the things he is reported to have done in the OT. My only point was that God did not tolerate other gods and religions and that regardless of which Godly principles the founders may have intended to incorporate into our secular form of government, that wasn’t one of them.
Your final two sentences in this section seem to contradict others’ opinions here that God has given us an absolute standard of morality.
“When you mix politics and religion, you get politics.” – Roger Williams
I have no complaints in how you’ve interacted with me.
It has not been my impression that other religions have failed to follow Christianity’s lead just out of spite or stubbornness. They all seem to feel sincerely justified in capitalizing the word “truth”, as well.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
I would pay good money to see you say that to Antonin Gregory Scalia.
How, exactly, does one investigate the interior faith lives of other Catholics?
They were baptized as Catholics and I’ve not seen any reports that any of them have renounced their faith. They may not be your kind of Catholics, but they’re Catholics.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
as my son would say " those people are dumber than toast"
how can that even make sense to them?
it is bad enough being taxed by the government, let alone being owned by them!
how can that even make sense to them?
it is bad enough being taxed by the government, let alone being owned by them!
N
Nimzovik
Guest
Bolding Mine:
Hmmmmmmm… I asked my young daughter if she could interpret my posting techniqes in terms of formatting. She replied in the Affirmative.
In regards to your rather ‘All Black or all White thinking’ in terms of the “Tolerance of God” of the Old (or New, for that matter) testament,I refer you to a discussion that has already probed this issue: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=202498. Also here:
catholicexchange.com/wrathful-god/
As for your comment on Napoleon, it indicates to me that you are rather… consecrated… in your beliefs. As I am in mine. Ergo we are subsequently wasting our breath with each other.
There comes a time when we must realize that people are who they* are.*
Therefore I no longer see any proffit in my continuing *this *discussion with you.
Do you?
S
Son_of_Jonah
Guest
Provide me with an opportunity to do so, and I would gladly oblige your wish. Especially if there was “good money” to be made in the offing.
To be a follower of Christ is far more than any professed belonging to a religious organization. He says, on a number of occasions in the Bible, that many will find themselves on Judgment Day (particular or general) saying, “Lord, Lord!” and He will reply “Depart from me; I know you not!”
The fact is that being baptized in a Catholic church does not make on Catholic. Being Catholic is accepting, fully and without question, the full authority of the Church as an extension of Christ Himself, who is her head. To be Catholic is to accept that the Church is the custodian of Truth, and that she is arbiter of our moral and social lives. You cannot be Catholic and pro-choice. The very meaning of Catholicism makes this a contradiction. Christ was very explicit on this point.
So the fact remains that, if they aren’t my kind of Catholic, by definition, they aren’t Catholic at all, regardless what drivel they try to spout to the contrary.
E
Ender
Guest
I think you’ve lost touch with the reality of the situation. Scalia has voted to override Roe on every occasion where the issue has come before the Court. That alone should exempt him from your (completely unwarranted) criticism. He opposed it, however, because he believes it was wrongly decided from a Constitutional point of view. His personal beliefs as a Catholic weren’t (or shouldn’t have been) considered.
On becoming a justice Scalia took an oath to uphold the Constitution. He did not take an oath to implement Catholic principles regardless of what was in the Constitution and the laws of the land. Your position that a Catholic judge should ignore the law and rule based on Catholic principles would disqualify any Catholic from serving on any court at any level as well as disqualify them from serving on juries. The Church does not require that. Her kind of Catholics appear to be different from your kind.
Ender
S
Son_of_Jonah
Guest
Firstly, forgive me for not specifying that my criticisms were meant to be applied generally. I’m sure justice Scalia is a wonderful judge. The fact remains that the poster to whom I originally replied mentioned 6 such justices. Scalia is 1.
As to your second point, we are called to uphold the Truth, as Catholics, in each and every walk of life. You don’t have to be Catholic to understand that abortion is a great moral evil. The fact that any justice, politician, or citizen would uphold abortion as legal is wrong, but the fact that a justice or politician would set aside his or her own understanding of truth in the name of his or her profession is both dishonest and wrong. We support leaders because of the positions that they uphold as persons. I have never understood this contention that our politicians should forget their faith just because they achieved office. No Catholic should stop being Catholic just because they were elected to a state post. Christ would not condone that, so why should I?
T
Teelynn
Guest
It seems pretty straightforward. They only need to say “I voted against God before I voted for Him.”/quote
In one of the articles I read that someone posted on facebook: “So, they denied God three times and then the cock crowed, what’s next”? (Clinton gave his “comments” that night)
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
I didn’t say I couldn’t interpret your technique, I said I found it difficult to respond to in a way I prefer. Try responding to someone else’s post using that technique with the forum’s “Quote” function in the bottom right corner on this box and maybe you’ll see what I mean. Note especially that any reference to the previous post will not be immediately available. Of course I could go through the post and cut and paste and separate your material from mine, but when I quote from others’ posts, I frequently snip things out and the forum “Quote” function automatically references their post at the top so that others can easily click on it to determine whether I’m quoting out of context or not. Your technique just makes things more difficult than they need to be IMO.…]
Hmmmmmm… I asked my young daughter if she could interpret my posting techniqes in terms of formatting. She replied in the Affirmative.
…]
Have a good one
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
What about the edible mark placed one’s soul when they’re baptized? Is “Once a Catholic always a Catholic” no longer true? As I understand it, even excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics.
When you hear other Catholics bragging that there are 1+ billion Catholics on Earth do you correct them? How many Catholics would you say there are?
Has the Church officially conferred some special kind of authority upon you or is this just something you’ve assumed for yourself?
I’d still like to know too, how, exactly, one investigates the interior faith lives of other Catholics.
E
Ender
Guest
It is immoral for a politician or a citizen to support abortion but a judge has the very specific duty of ruling on the law and if he cannot do that then he has no business being a judge. Judges do not make laws and they do not get to rule on them based on their own sense of morality. I don’t think you recognize that if you grant to Catholic judges the right to ignore the law and rule based on their personal understanding of morality you grant this right to all jurists of whatever persuasion and all laws would become irrelevant. All that would matter would be who gets elected to the courts.
You keep lumping politicians and justices together but this is a mistake; they have very different roles. Politicians should be held accountable for the laws they pass but a judge is sworn to uphold the law regardless of what that law is. He may not rule based on whether he personally approves or disapproves of the law; that is not his right.
We shouldn’t overlook the actions of our politicians; they are responsible for the laws they pass and promote. Judges, however, are not responsible for creating the laws and cannot be expected to ignore what they say because they personally oppose them. The politician makes laws based on what he thinks is right; the judge interprets an action based on whether or not it follows the law regardless of what that law is.
Ender
N
Nimzovik
Guest
Bolding Mine: Numerals MIne:
- You* might* just have a point there… However, if you seriously believe that judges** totally** divorce thier values, personal experiences, political affiliation (for which many a Supreme Court Judge has been appointed, yes?) when they engage in the process of interpreting law, in the same manner a computer crunches numbers, I suggest you are mistaken.
) because they, the Nazis, changed the Laws when theyhad conquered a Nation. The Nazis were the then head of Government. They made it* legal* to kill people.Surprise! The Nazis were still held accountable by the world court. Why? Because the prosecutors asserted that the ‘Natural Law’ precluded this mechanism.
See here: scribd.com/doc/67929668/Nuremberg-Trial-and-Revival-of-Natural-Law-Theories
And here: bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/war_crimes_trials_01.shtml
Hmmmmmmmm… Anyone see parallels regarding **Abortion **here?
We as Catholics do not want to prosecute anyone, rather we want to heal our Land of this dreaded moral turpetude.
Many religions, such as Baal Worshippers sacrificed their children ( a blood sacrifice) to false Gods. Such, in the Christian perpsective, is a sacrifice to the evil one.
The fact that sacrifices of such a Nature continues** today** is certainly not ‘Enlightened’ nor is it ‘Rational’
As the saying goes…The names have changed but the game remains the same.
- Status