It may have been written by Christians (who were also masons and not Catholics) but it puts error on equal footing with truth rendering it incompatible with the traditional Catholic concept of the Social Kingship of Christ.
When I said “Catholic” I meant a man who is faithful to the teachings of the Church.
Hmmm. That’s what they say. But how can we know for sure?
Well, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention are known:
I agree! Mr. Biden is a Catholic but far from a competent leader
I was born in a predominantly Christian/Catholic country. In a way, moving here changed my perspective on a lot of things. It sort of made me more sympathetic to minorities, because here, I am one.
I don’t get any of it. But then I’m planning to vote for Bernie Sanders assuming he makes it until my state’s primary and is on the ballot. I will vote for Methodist Hillary Clinton assuming she is her party’s nominee. I would vote for Catholics Joe Biden or Martin O’Malley if either of them were their party’s nominee. If I resided in Minnesota and lived in Muslim US Congressman Keith Ellison’s district. I’d be voting for his reelection based on what I know about his political views. I’ve voted for Baptists Jimmy Carter and William Jefferson Clinton and Al Gore. For Catholic Edward Kennedy. For Christian Barack Obama when he was a member of the United Church of Christ and after when he was known to attend Episcopal services and receive communion. When I vote in an election and I have never once missed, I weigh the sum total of their overall policy positions and vote accordingly. I Not whether their religious faith is Catholic or Protestant, Trinitarian, Unitarian, Jewish, Muslim, male, female, black, white, brown, or if they were red, yellow or purple for that matter.
Whew. Oh good. I was pretty certain though I was following the Constitution.
Thanks for clearing up what you meant.
I agree with competence and gifting. I would say a competent leader inherently has God like leadership qualities. Now if such a leader would also be competent to uphold all of God’s principles and values.
Thanks edwest2. Will be looking that up. But even w/o reading it, I’d say the masons or the illuminati, or someone, is up to something - and I’m not a conspiracy type person.
Hello Patrick457. Are you from the states? Funny. I think we have the same history; I’m no longer in the states either. Which really makes me appreciate our heritage all the more.I was born in a predominantly Christian/Catholic country. In a way, moving here changed my perspective on a lot of things. It sort of made me more sympathetic to minorities, because here, I am one.
Assuming that our hypothetical Muslim leader is the type that will actively impose Muslim law on the nation - including non-Muslims - and favor Muslims over people of other religions (or none), then that will be a disadvantage to Christians. But at the same time, I personally would also call a Christian who’ll do the same thing - preferring people of his own religion or ethnicity and treating the peoples of other religions like they’re second-class or something - to task. Or any people of any religion.
I was tongue-in-cheek in the last post, but then again, part of me thinks about making that a sort of serious suggestion. Why not just carve America up into ‘Catholic America’, ‘Evangelical America’, ‘Muslim America’, ‘Jewish America’, ‘Atheist America’, etc. That way every faction will have a leader that shares their religious affiliation. Everybody wins. Unless of course all these territories suddenly go to war with each other.
Yeah, the US may be a European, (Judaeo-)Christian nation at its inception (yeah, well, there were the Native Americans and the black slaves too), but now you already have like half of the world represented within your borders. The situation is no longer the same. … I don’t know. No offense (honest question), but if you people really don’t want all those non-Christians around, then why did you allow them to come to your land in the first place?
Sorry, no. Never was an American nor European. Though I have relatives in the US. (Frankly speaking, I kinda don’t want to be American. Sorry.
)Who’s ‘they’? I could understand it if we’re talking about the likes of ISIL, but just because somebody was born a Muslim does not necessarily mean that he’s either practicing or that he subscribes to the exact same kind of Islam the media is usually fixated about.
Sometimes I feel that there are fundamentalist Christians out there who given the chance will probably resort to the same tactics radical Muslims do. Actually, not just Christians. I see it in certain nationalistic movements in say, India who are pushing for a ‘India for Hindus’ - in other words, an India where there would be no Muslims or Christians. That’s the thing with radicals / fundamentalists, no matter what belief system they belong to: they so want to make everyone think exactly in the same way they do that they’ll resort to things up to and including sticking a knife in somebody’s throat. There’s no allowance even for things like unity in diversity (which I believe should exist - that’s why I welcome the existence of the different rites and churches in Catholicism).
Again, who is ‘they’ here?
I’ve been reading on the history of Iran/Persia, and I can tell you, Persia didn’t become Muslim overnight (it took two to three centuries for it to finally seep in), nor was the process as simplistic as Muslim armies grabbing people by the wayside and forcing them to convert. What I can say is, one of the main reasons Islam eventually spread among Persians is because Islam allowed the common Persians to gain greater access to influential positions in the government, society and religion than they were before under Zoroastrian rulers. In other words, people eventually adopted Islam because it was much better compared to the system that they had been living in. Islam took advantage of the political chaos and religious corruption.
Sorry if I insulted you by thinking you might be an American. Europeans either hate or love America too; can’t really understand why. I always thought envy might have something to do with it. But perfect English. Lebanon, Israel, Singapre, Australia, New Zealand and who knows where else - but you’re living in Japan now and the rest will remain yours alone to know.Sorry, no. Never was an American nor European. Though I have relatives in the US. (Frankly speaking, I kinda don’t want to be American. Sorry.
Who’s ‘they’? I could understand it if we’re talking about the likes of ISIL, but just because somebody was born a Muslim does not necessarily mean that he’s either practicing or that he subscribes to the exact same kind of Islam the media is usually fixated about.
e same way they do that they’ll resort to things up to and including sticking a knife in somebody’s throat. There’s no allowance even for things like unity in diversity (which I believe should exist - that’s why I welcome the existence of the different rites and churches in Catholicism).
Again, who is ‘they’ here?
I’ll admit, if there’s one thing I’ll critique some Muslims and critics of Islam is the relative lack of acknowledgement of the diversity and pluralism that exists within it. It’s always the rabidly anti-modern / anti-Western / anti-diversity brand that gets the airplay and people are fixated about. Islam is really a decentralized religion historically: AFAIK it’s only fairly recently in history that certain imams and ulemas became ‘the’ definitive voices of Islam.
I’ve been reading on the history of Iran/Persia, and I can tell you, Persia didn’t become Muslim overnight (it took two to three centuries for it to finally seep in), nor was the process as simplistic as Muslim armies grabbing people by the wayside and forcing them to convert. What I can say is, one of the main reasons Islam eventually spread among Persians is because Islam allowed the common Persians to gain greater access to influential positions in the government, society and religion than they were before under Zoroastrian rulers. In other words, people eventually adopted Islam because it was much better compared to the system that they had been living in. Islam took advantage of the political chaos and religious corruption.
On the other hand, in most of India, China and Europe, the spread of Islam was inhibited because the local socioreligious systems (Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc.) were already deeply-ingrained among the people there, and some of these religions really took up the challenge of the rise of Islam actively.
This is true. In the U.S., people of faith should be working together, not fighting one another. Let us remember that in unity there is strength but also out of many, one.
You said some of my favorite words: SHOULD BE working together. A lot of things should be that aren’t.