Story: "Prominent clergy are duking it out on social media over Joe Biden calling himself Catholic."

[Ender]

if we want a better party to play a role in future elections we need to raise the credibility of that party by giving votes today. That is how parties are assigned the right to be on a ballot.

Name a “better” party. Which party should we prefer over both the Dems and GOP? and explain why millions of people should feel the same way.

if everyone treats each election as if it is last one ever, this can never happen.

I’m pretty sure most people realize elections will continue from one cycle to another. What you advocate, however, is ceding victory to the party you strongly dislike for one cycle after another on the off chance that the party you actually like will achieve dominance. Talk about wishful thinking. That’s the kind of thinking that causes people to spend their rent money on lottery tickets.

 

[Buzzard3]

The Democrat may reject those arguments and exalt the freedom women have to choose to give birth.

That is a euphemism for “exalt the freedom women have to murder their baby”.

 

[StudentMI]

That is a euphemism for “exalt the freedom women have to murder their baby”.

I was reading The Catholic Catechism by Fr John Hardon and the section on abortion is uncompromising and along those lines. He really shows how opposition to abortion has been a constant throughout Church history.

 

[Buzzard3]

I was reading The Catholic Catechism by Fr John Hardon and the section on abortion is uncompromising and along those lines. He really shows how opposition to abortion has been a constant throughout Church history.

Is there a more disgusting crime than abortion? It beggars belief that many people fight for this “right”.

 

[Freddy]

I live in Australia, so no offence taken. But that comment does surprise me. Do you have an example to illustrate what you mean?

 

[Freddy]

Individual examples not on hand never bothered to memorize or bookmark them.

A common occurrence though in place like UK and CA for the clergy is that even stating or putting into print that something is a sin, unnatural, or evil is censored or penalized.

I’ve heard of examples in Canada in regards to the pro-life movement that you can’t even publish pro-life material.
[/quote]

I think we could both find examples from any country that would support and deny that claim. I really don’t think the US is any better or worse than most other places.

 

[Ender]

I think we could both find examples from any country that would support and deny that claim. I really don’t think the US is any better or worse than most other places.

These examples could not (yet) happen in the US.

Last April, Mark Meechan, a YouTuber who goes by the name “Count Dankula” was arrested for a supposed hate crime. His crime, according to British authorities, was the incitement of anti-semitism in a “grossly offensive” video. Was Meechan ranting and raving in support of Adolf Hitler to get such a serious charge? No, he made a joke video in which he taught a pug to do the Nazi salute. The video was clearly made as a joke, and even Meechan admits that it was a dumb one. Despite this, on March 20th, the court found Meechan guilty, though sentencing has been deferred to April 23rd. A man who simply made a joke will likely be imprisoned, a nightmare for advocates of free speech.

Figures obtained by The Times through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that 3,395 people across 29 forces were arrested last under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it illegal to intentionally “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”, in 2016.

In France, 12 protesters were fined for supporting the boycott of Israel. In Denmark, a politician was convicted for burning Korans. A German politician was criminally charged for calling migrants “scum.” In England, a Baptist minister was jailed overnight for preaching against homosexuality and a man was investigated for telling a Nelson Mandela joke.

The real problem with “hate” crimes is that they exist at the whim of the prosecutor by allowing selective prosecution. The US has hate crimes, but so far has resisted (thank you 1st Amendment) the call to prosecute “hate speech”, a disease with which the UK, Europe, and Canada are currently infected.

 

[JimG]

“Figures obtained by The Times through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that 3,395 people across 29 forces were arrested last under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it illegal to intentionally “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”, in 2016.”

Wow! If “causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another" is a crime, my mother could have had me jailed repeatedly as a youngster!

 

[Ender]

Wow! If “causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another" is a crime, my mother could have had me jailed repeatedly as a youngster!

This is not an issue of controlling “hate” speech, but of legalizing the right to control which ideas can be expressed and which cannot.

 

[FiveLinden]

Hi @(name removed by moderator)

The thread below has you implying strongly that the Church is as opposed to ‘controls on speech’ as it is to abortion.

I asked for evidence that the Church is in favour of free speech and regards it as a good thing.

You replied that all the things you mentioned are evil.

This has not answered my question, which was about the Church’s attitude to free speech. My own view is that there is little evidence of a Church commitment to this over the past 2000 years.

Do you disagree with this? Why? On what evidence?

Where in Church teaching is free speech stated as a virtue or the lack of it immoral? When was this point of view adopted by the Church? Or is it only considered a problem if the government is secular?

 

[o_mlly]

The Pharisees were Jews, just not good ones. Christ acknowledged their authority but called them out multiple times on their hypocrisy. The good Bishop was a bit more humorous than Matthew was in his comment on the Pharisees.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth (Mat 23:27).

 

[VonDerTann]

The Pharisees were Jews, just not good ones.

–Actually they were VERY good Jews: They followed every law to its letter, strictly.

The fact that Jesus condemned them as He did is a lesson that echoes down 2000 years.

 

[StudentMI]

The Church teaches that no one has a right to error. It has also called for governmental action against pornography, both its manufacture and distribution.

 

[o_mlly]

Actually they were VERY good Jews: They followed every law to its letter, strictly.

No, Matthew doesn’t even give them that:

Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

 

[VonDerTann]

What you’re defending is adherence to the letter of the law - perhaps blindly so. Is the law important? Sure. But not if you miss it’s purpose, which the Pharisees were doing.

Simply calling the Pharisees “not good Jews” is a total misreading and mischaracterization of the entire thrust of Jesus’ message, which was to follow the spirit of the law, rather than adhere blindly to every letter of it while missing its message.

 

[JohnStrachan]

You speak of Canada and Prince Justin’s promise to rid the country of FPTP. What a sucker was I.

 

[o_mlly]

You seem confused. Look up the meaning of “hypocrisy”. The Pharisees “did not practice what they preached”. They preached the law of Moses; the rules that “good” Jews followed. If they practiced what they preached, then Christ would not have called them hypocrites six times in Matthew 23 alone.

The good bishop did as much to Biden.

 

[otjm]

Once again, the self-fulfilling prophecy. Saying this dissuades third party voters, which causes the two party system to be upheld.

The history of the United States is that we have essentially had a two party system since 1852 (President) and 1856 (Congress), with smatterings of others which never got off the ground sufficiently to do more than perhaps be spoilers.

However, I suspect that moderate Democrats might agree with me that what we are experiencing now, with the far left radicalism being exhibited by many under 40 and the “leadership” of a minority in Congress, and the apparent buy-in of many governors and large city mayors and council members, that we may have the making of a three party system.

Should Trump win, and particularly if he wins by more than a slim majority, we may see a rethinking of the Democratic party with enough who want to disavow the radicalism to dissociate from the radicals and the Marxists and form a centrist party. It would take a whole lot of work to be able to do so, as 160+ years of status quo is hard to work against.

Currently, Democrats outnumber Republicans as far as registration goes. And as far as drawing much from the list of 3rd party member, it is unlikely they would draw enough to sustain a viable party; they would need to draw from Republicans.

One could envision a break-off from the Democratic Party which is pro life (thus able to draw both Catholics and evangelicals) and pro good policing (another whole topic), pro small business and possibly pro labor (ignored by Hillary and the Democratic Party as shown by the last election). But to be large enough to not be lost in the war of current politics it would need to take note of policies and achievements of the current administration, which has been led by a President who is more a populist than a dyed in the wool Republican. In short, they would have to draw from the best of both parties, and draw enough that they could get past a divided Left and not be steam rolled by a united Right.

In the 1960’s, while in high school I talked with my grandfather who was a staunch Democrat. He was a small business owner mechanic who worked on cars, trucks and farm machinery, and his point of view was that big business would destroy small businesses - his example then being Safeway driving out all small grocers. I for years was a registered Democrat, but have never voted for anyone pro choice/pro abortion - which left me with precious few Democrats to vote for.

 

[FiveLinden]

So you have linked to a video saying that ‘no one has a right to freedom of speech if it is going to detract from the Catholic Church’ and that there is ‘no right to non-Catholic worship’.

The video claims authority from Popes for this.

So 1) This seems to answer my question - the Church opposes free speech as it is usually understood. Have I understood what you are saying correctly? I have kept to the specific words of the video.
2) If does not tell me if you agree with this ‘teaching’ if indeed that it what it is, and whether you advocate it in your country. If you do, are you getting much support?

 

[Rasoleil]

I know. How can a Casino lose money? They don’t. The only ones that have were owned by Trump.