B
Brad
Guest
Being dehydrated to death is pretty severe suffering.
- Status
B
Brad
Guest
EWTN cannot produce fellowship nor can it produce the same type of Scripture study that a small group parish can.
For far too many Catholics, it is mass (if that) and out the door as fast as possible.
The concept of fellowship is good and grows a church considerably. If rooted in Catholic doctrine and orthodoxy, the problems that the liberal Protestant groups face should be much less severe (can never eliminate them entirely as humans are weak). I know what you speak of as there is a huge Weslyan church down the road of which we know many of the people and they face all the problems you mention. It is because they don’t get true teaching - they get “feel good” religion.
W
wabrams
Guest
How is that comparable with what patg is saying? So if you suffer any form of religious persecution that isn’t physical, then you really aren’t suffering?
B
Brad
Guest
Patg is implying that suffering in “sports programs” and “politics” is worse than the potential suffering faced by a people ruled by a government whose rights are not seen as coming from God.
I say that is not true. I give 2 examples.
- Holocaust victims
- Terry Schiavo
P
patg
Guest
I never implied any type of suffering was worse than any other type. Few of us suffer the ultra-extreme examples you suggest but almost all of us sense my examples.
I am talking about the day-to-day things that are experienced by religious minorities - even when you might think of yourself as part of the majority! Of course where I live, Catholics aren’t Christians.
It is basically wrong to treat someone differently because they don’t go to your church and I was just giving a concrete example as to the fact that this happens among Christians just as much as between other groups. From my experience, the more the government becomes associated with a particular sect, the less freedom everyone experiences.
T
Thekla
Guest
Are you saying the nation is the Titanic? Because if you are, I don’t think I’m on the Titanic and besides, I have the ultimate captain. Even the people on the Titanic didn’t know ahead of time that it was going to sink so who’s to say what they were supposed to be doing.
We are told to always be prepared for our own end because we don’t know when it is coming. History is littered with people who thought they had read the “tea leaves.” They are in the ground and wasted a lot of time worrying about some pretty irrelevant stuff.
T
Thekla
Guest
I’d trust a Catholic over a non-Catholic anyday. I don’t want to argue about this, but there is a lack of inclusion from some “Christians” which is downright frightening. Force Catholics to convert? I don’t know, but when you equate the Holy Father to Satan and tell Catholics they’ll burn in hell unless they are “born again” you’ve crossed over some line of tolerance that tells me that “forced conversion” isn’t far away.
P
Philip_P
Guest
Are you implying that there is no sin or suffering in countries who DO see their rights coming from God? No suffering in the Islamic theocracies? No suffering or persecution in Calvins Geneva, in Franco’s Spain, in the Vatican States, in post-Constantine Rome, in Byzantine Empire, in Puritan Plymouth Bay, in…
There’s no shortcut to a just society. The implication that the Constitution ought to be explicity Christian seems like just such an attempt. Blaming “the liberals” or “the courts” or whatever other bogeyman you like is just a way of ducking the our failures as a society and a nation. If immorality and injustice in society bother you, it’s not to a stone tablet in a Texas courthouse you should be looking at, but into our own hearts and souls.
Instead of attacking the courts on abortion, how about asking why women have abortions, and trying to address those causes? Instead of attacking gays, how about asking why heterosexuals have such high divorce rates, and addressing those causes?
C
condan
Guest
Sorry to disappoint but as recently pointed out, the United States is predominently Christian. History has shown us a lot of positive Christian acts such as the abolitionist movement.
The issue of the Decalogue being displayed is perfectly constitutional and any honest jurist knows this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
First, state courthouses or state owned property are not considered in the First Amendment which specifically addresses the Federal government. States are perfectly within their Constitutional rights to display the Ten Commandments and to even establish an official religion as was the case in the early days of our country.
Secondly, displaying the Decalogue in no way establishes nor endorses religion. In a courthouse in particular, i.e., the Supreme Court building, it illustrates the genesis of our legal system. (Pun intended.)
Third, and most important, by rendering a display of the Decalogue “unconstitutional”, the exercise clause is clearly violated.
What has happened here is that the Court has, as demonstrated as recently as last week in its decision on personal property rights, further manipulated and distorted the Constitution to pander to an idealogical belief system that is not shared by the majority of the American people. By rendering these decisions, the very democracy that was established through our beloved Constitution is in jeopardy.
R
Richardols
Guest
Having a majority of people who say that they’re Christian isn’t the same as having a Christian nation. Sorry.
Started by Unitarians, hardly Christians. And what about the other “positive Christian acts” like slavery and decimation of the Indian tribes, and the Mexican War, and the “re-enslavement” of blacks after Reconstruction? All done by believing Christians.
C
condan
Guest
That’s just silly. The things you list were not part of a Christian movement. The fact that the people who did them considered themselves to be Christian is due to the fact that, again, the majority of the people of our country are Christian.
To your point on Unitarians, since I was raised one, I can tell you that the Unitarians of today were not the Unitarians of 150 years ago. They were much more aligned with God. Further, the abolitionist movement was heavily Quaker, a distinctly more Christian group.
R
Richardols
Guest
Done by Christians, the blame can be put on Christians.
I take your word for it. But, I’d note that neither the Unitarians nor the “more Christian” Quakers were out and out Christians. A shame that overtly Christian people, including the supposedly Christian Founding Fathers, didn’t stretch their faith to include opposition to slavery.
C
condan
Guest
You are right but some did oppose slavery. But sadly, each and every country has skeletons in its proverbial closet, slavery and decimation of the Indians being just two of ours. However, that shouldn’t and doesn’t negate the power and justice of a working democracy. The point here is that we don’t lose our democracy to a handful of power-hungry idealogues.
And, whether or not Christians in this country acted as such does not alter the fact that the Constitution does not prohibit the display of the Ten Commandments in ANY setting.
R
Richardols
Guest
Sure, but in the totally politically polarized America of today, the people I’d consider power-hungry ideologues aren’t the people most others on this Forum would consider power-hungry ideologues.
C
condan
Guest
And certainly, everyone is entitled to his opinion. However, partisan politics aside, the distortion of the Constitution and the continuous abuse of judicial power by the Supreme Court is destroying the fabric of our nation. I myself am still looking for the unfettered right to abortion and sodomy in the Constitution. Can’t find them anywhere but yet we are told that they are the “law of the land” and that the “power-hungry idealogues” (who represent the majority as evidenced in our last democratic election) are trying to take this “Constitutional right” away from us.Sure, but in the totally politically polarized America of today, the people I’d consider power-hungry ideologues aren’t the people most others on this Forum would consider power-hungry ideologues.
R
Richardols
Guest
Well, you certainly have an opinion about the Court!
The two situations are separable. There’s no right in the Constitution to fornication or drunkenness, either. I’d not link abortion with those other sins.
Abortion is the law of the land today. My own sense is that even if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would still be legal in many states through local legislative action - New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Texas, the entire West Coast, Florida, Georgia, and others would most certainly retain abortion as an option, even if somewhat more restricted.
And, representing a majority doesn’t preclude representatives from being “power-hungry ideologues.”
T
Thekla
Guest
What an understatement! You liken the practice of enslaving generations of black people to having a skeleton in the closet? How benign you make it sound - as if it were akin to having your mad aunt stay upstairs when company comes by.
Slavery was a horrible practice done by Christians; MANY who used the Bible to endorse what they were doing.
I don’t want the Ten Commandments posted in government buildings, but if they are I ONLY want the Catholic version - no other.
C
condan
Guest
To which I am entitled by virtue of our democracy based on our Constitution.
The difference is that states are allowed to enact laws that prohibit both under certain circumstances (i.e., Louisiana has a law against co-habitation and in most jurisdictions, public drunkenness is prohibited) States do not have the ability to restrict abortion at any time right up to and through the moment of delivery.
And that is how it should be…decided by the people for the people. It would also give the populus the opportunity to change their laws based on increased medical knowledge and technology, i.e., 4D ultrasounds. While abortion is wrong, it is the unfettered use without restrictions that is really sickening. To say that a 13-year-old can get an abortion without her parents permission is, at very best, agregious.
C
condan
Guest
Yes, it was an understatement. To rant on the mistreatment of blacks is purposeless and the fact that it was horrific and without excuse goes without saying. So I didn’t say it. Further, just as an aside, blacks weren’t the only people who got the short end of the stick (another understatement used to illustrate a point). The Indians and the Irish probably got the worst of it. When the Irish first came to this country during the famine, many went to Louisiana to help clear swamps. Blacks weren’t sent to do this work because it was almost always fatal and a dead slave was seen as a lost investment. Sadly, no one had such concerns about the Irish. They came and died unnoticed.
Were Christians the only people in the world over the course of history who held slaves? Hardly. Virtually every civilization had slavery as a labor source at one time or another. Sadly, slavery exists today and guess what? Its not being done by Christians.
thelka:
Whether you want them posted or not isn’t the issue. The constitutionality of it is. And, the Supremes have a schizophrenic ruling on this one…constitutional and not at the same time. As I stated before, the establishment clause of the first amendment applies 1) only to the Federal government and 2) having a visible display of the Commandments does not the establishment of a religion make. The Commandments exist and did so long before we did. To pretend that they don’t suggests animus towards the entire Judeo-Christian civilization. I guess I don’t get what people are so afraid of.
B
Brad
Guest
Few suffer the ultra-extreme examples? How many millions were killed by the Nazis? How many millions were killed by the Soviets? How many millions are killed by abortion. How many millions will be killed be euthanasia?
And we are concered about a little bit of intolerance?
- Status