Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: The TimesDespite initial "hopes for co-operation" the Vatican has fallen out with President Obama just days after his inauguration, accusing him of "arrogance" for overturning the "global gag rule" or ban on state funding for family-planning groups which facilitate abortions overseas.
Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that with "the arrogance of someone who believes they are right",
"What is important is to know how to listen, without locking oneself into ideological visions with the arrogance of a person who, having the power, thinks they can decide on life and death.
Isn't that what the Pope does? I( noticed he gave Bush a warm welcome. I guess it's OK to kill Iraqis and Afghans.
Yes, seems a bit of a double standard here doesn't it....
Well, if you count numbers, over a million abortions a year in the U.S. alone is a lot more in a year than those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan during the entire conflict, and that's U.S. viable pregnancy termniations alone.
Or red Prada slippers. The Pope is a spoiled child. He takes himself very seriously since he can never be wrong. He's infallible.
Obama doesn't have a funny hat, though.
We could get together and buy him one though. I'm thinking he'd look great in Bowler! Or maybe a Fedora ala Indiana Jones?
Vincent, you kill more potential lives when you masturbate.
The Catholic church is full of intolerance and double standards...their own arrogance is why so many of the flock are heading for greener pastures....maybe the Pope should focus his efforts on child molesting Priests and lawsuits instead of condemning those who disagree with his way of thinking.
he should restrict himself to directing the lives of catholics rather than try to play world Political leader. this new pope is arrogant and has already publicly stated his belief that islam is an evil religion. I think that white smoke after the vote was something else...and they weren't sharing
Actually I think his best choice of hats would be one those with a propeller on top LOL
Well, actually, since Islam preaches violence and killing it is a violent religion and since violence is, as Socrates says irrational, and since we have been shown a nonviolent way to change, choosing violence is evil, a deliberate choice of bad over good. Don't like Catholic nonsense about "just war" or other issues, but violent religions are evil.
Vincent, you kill more potential lives when you masturbate.
ROFLMAO
Reminds me of a song: "Every sperm.........
Vincent, you kill more potential lives when you masturbate.
ROFLMAO
Reminds me of a song: "Every sperm.........
Let's hear it for mass murder then!
violent religions are evil.
The Crusades , the Inquisition, witch burnings and involvement in Pograms and killing of Jews were all carried out by the Church. church=evil
"Vincent, you kill more potential lives when you masturbate." -biggerthebetter-620467
Biggerthebetter, So that must be why masturbation is wrong then, huh?
So that must be why masturbation is wrong then, huh?
Only when it's not done properly.
(evil grin)
Anyone see the hat that Aretha Franklin wore to the inauguration? Hmmm...
Evidently it selling out out as soon as they can make them.
Aretha is the bomb, and I have way more R-E-S-P-E-C-T for her than the pope, AND her hat's better.
Any women that can sing like that gets more than just R.E.S.P.E.C.T she gets the right to be called a Q.U.E.E.N.
Life without good music just ain't the same. You want babies put on a good album, light the fire place, pop the cork on some good wine, and "love the one your with".
Despite initial "hopes for co-operation" the Vatican has fallen out with President Obama just days after his inauguration, accusing him of "arrogance" for overturning the "global gag rule" or ban on state funding for family-planning groups which facilitate abortions overseas.
"hopes for co-operation" = "our way or else."
"arrogance" = "you have no right to determine how to spend your own money"
"global gag rule" = "we will give you no choice"
Religious extremism, anyone?
Isn't that what the Pope does?
The pope has no statutory authority to impose his will upon other people. The president does. Big difference.
The Crusades , the Inquisition, witch burnings and involvement in Pograms and killing of Jews were all carried out by the Church. church=evil
Evil is a characteristic of a person. The church is not a person, but an organization. Therefore it makes no sense to say that the church is evil.
That should clear things up for you.
I am Pro-life and Proud of it.
I am not Catholic, but I agree with that Church's statement about Mr.Obama and abortion.
The Catholic Church and most churches or "religions" with morals usually do not have "double"standards and they are not supposed to be.
But what is so wrong about having good morals, defending Life, protecting Holy Matrimony and promoting Peace worldwide?!
I don't force anyone with a gun to accept my lifestyle.
I state my comment, and we all have a freewill to make our own decisions.
The Catholic church is full of intolerance and double standards...their own arrogance is why so many of the flock are heading for greener pastures....maybe the Pope should focus his efforts on child molesting Priests and lawsuits instead of condemning those who disagree with his way of thinking.
Brilliantly said, Lisa, and sums it all up! That's why I left it years ago.
Great seed, Jade-log.
Anytime you are scathingly denounced by the Vatican----well.......
As Martha Stewart says:
"This-------is a good thing...."
Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that with "the arrogance of someone who believes they are right", Mr Obama had signed a decree which would "open the door to abortion and thus to the destruction of human life".
He added: "What is important is to know how to listen, without locking oneself into ideological visions with the arrogance of a person who, having the power, thinks they can decide on life and death.
Ah, I see. When The Vatican has the arrogance to make decisions when they believe they are right, it's OK. When the President does it, it must be condemned.
When The Vatican tells people they must know how to listen without locking oneself into ideological visions, it's OK. When the President does it, it must be condemned.
They really have no clue; no idea why people call them hypcrites.
Hypocrisy aside, we did not elect the Pope in this last election. Where does this guy get off even commenting? (other than in his capacity as a private citizen)
Evil is a characteristic of a person. The church is not a person, but an organization. Therefore it makes no sense to say that the church is evil.
Then you're ok with al Qaeda, Rickace? How about the KKK and the Nazis and Aryan Nation?
Ah, I see. When The Vatican has the arrogance to make decisions when they believe they are right, it's OK. When the President does it, it must be condemned.
When The Vatican tells people they must know how to listen without locking oneself into ideological visions, it's OK. When the President does it, it must be condemned.
They really have no clue; no idea why people call them hypcrites.
Brilliantly said, Azzix, and fits the Vatican perfectly. When it speaks on contraception, every Catholic should listen and obey, as the Church locks itself into unworkable ideology, but someone else doing something in a similar way is seen to be wrong. Talk about pot and kettle! jeeeez.
When the Catholic Church tells you what you must or must not offer or discuss, it's okay. When the President removes restrictions, it's not. I see.
Exactly where does the Pope get off telling the US how to spend its charitable contributions to the rest of the world, anyway?
Rainkiss, I don't think the Church is telling you anything; no more than Rick Warren or that former minister of President Obama, Reverend Wright.
He is adressing Catholics around the world and if you are not Catholic, don't listen. Even if you are Catholic, it is only words he offers to those of us who follow the Church and its laws. What would you have the Pope say? Kill? Maim? Treat your fellow men and women with disdain?
actually, the pope spoke against the war. Its his job to speak against that as well. Stop making things up.
I happen to like red Prada slippers. And funny hats. And the College of Cardinals and their white smoke.
It's perfectly all right to disagree with the Church and its positions on controversial matters. But the personal attacks on the Holy Father and his clergy are inappropriate.
This seed is about the Vatican's disapproval of Pres. Obama's reversing a position taken by his predecessor. It is not about pedophiles nor the abortion question nor other positions. Can we dispense with the personal attacks? Some of us choose to remain members of this Church, and we don't like being bashed.
Ah, the Vatican and it's magical sky daddy... Are they even relavent anymore?
It's perfectly all right to disagree with the Church and its positions on controversial matters. But the personal attacks on the Holy Father and his clergy are inappropriate.
Uh, why?
This seed is about the Vatican's disapproval of Pres. Obama's reversing a position taken by his predecessor. It is not about pedophiles nor the abortion question nor other positions. Can we dispense with the personal attacks? Some of us choose to remain members of this Church, and we don't like being bashed.
It's really your own problem if your identity is so intertwined with a group to which you belong that an attack on that group or its leader becomes a "personal attack".
Many of us don't feel that members of the clergy or bishops or pontiffs are any more off-limits to criticism than the current crop of politicians. One of the things that I see with increased secularization of the culture in the U.S.A. (as shown by polls) is the removal of the implied prohibition on debating religious beliefs in polite company. If you are a believer, great, stand up for yourself and defend your position. Don't sit there and whine when somebody has the audacity to call your beliefs illogical or destructive.
Ms CYPRAH, thanks the seed seems to have taken on a life of it's own. My focus as expressed in #1 is that someone talking about arrogance being knowing you're right is what this whole silly argument revolves around. It would seem that many of us are arrogant.
Comment collapsed by the communityBoneclinkz: You generalize and don't understand the objections raised. Read the CoH and you'll see that some of the comments being made here are insults, not critiques. This isn't about my "identity" being "intertwined with a group," it is about the personal attacks that are being made. Legitimate criticisms can and should be raised, but peppered throughout some of the comments are cheap shots.
I happen to support Pres. Obama in this matter. And even JFK, who was a Catholic, made it clear that he would put the interests of the American republic and its people over any dictates from the Holy See.
Don't accuse me of whining, and don't presume to tell me that my beliefs are "destructive" or "illogical" when I haven't even discussed what my beliefs are.
Well the post I was referring to was the first from you in this discussion thread, and it had a fairly defensive tone. You specifically said that attacks on clergy and the holy father were inappropriate, and I hadn't seen any bishops, cardinals, or popes posting in this thread... I think most people would say that "refrain from making personal attacks" applies to people who are actually engaged in the discussion, and to say something like B Hussein Obama is a big jerk doesn't actually violate the CoH. But I'm new here.
Welcome to my ignore list, troll.
The point that al Qaeda, the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, etc. are organizations, and thus categorically classified as unable to be evil by your own words, flew right over your head, didn't it?
I think most people would say that "refrain from making personal attacks" applies to people who are actually engaged in the discussion, and to say something like B Hussein Obama is a big jerk doesn't actually violate the CoH. But I'm new here.
You're absolutely right. The CoH applies only to Newsvine users. Unless the Pope and Obama are shown to be Newsvine users, "the Pope eats babies" and "Obama is a reptilian" do not violate the CoH.
The point that al Qaeda, the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, etc. are organizations, and thus categorically classified as unable to be evil by your own words, flew right over your head, didn't it?
Hardly. I would describe them as the creations of people with evil intent who seek to find strength in numbers. I take comfort in learning from the Southern Poverty Law Center that the KKK and the aryans are getting chased into the oblivion that they so sorely deserve.
Hardly. I would describe them as the creations of people with evil intent who seek to find strength in numbers.
Did you just try to claim that the KKK is not an organization?
From Dictionary.com:
organization - 7. a group of persons organized for some end or work
I've seen people make complete idiots of themselves trying to play semantic musical chairs, but this honestly takes the cake.
I recall reading Tyler clarifying that point recently, I'm afraid I can't recall where. Yes, the "personal attacks" clause in the CoH means we don't rip each other apart. At least, in theory.
Did you just try to claim that the KKK is not an organization?
"Naw man, they're just a bunch of good ol' boys tryin to get ahead in the black man's world. It's just fun and games!"
Did you just try to claim that the KKK is not an organization?
I claimed nothing. The KKK is indeed an organization and therefore cannot be characterized as evil. I will revise #1.21 though to say "Evil intent is a characteristic of a person."
Gonna go play World of Warcraft. ttyl
So rickace says al Qaeda and the KKK (and the Third Reich, of course) aren't evil. Duly noted.
So rickace says al Qaeda and the KKK (and the Third Reich, of course) aren't evil. Duly noted.
Jack, they were just some squirrels trying to get a nut. Don't hate the player, hate the game. What's a few thousand dead blacks and Jews anyway, right Rick?
But the personal attacks on the Holy Father and his clergy are inappropriate.
WHY??? He's just another guy with a job.
Representatives of the church have been "personally attacking" those that can't defend themselves for years now. I think the pope will make it through a few prada slipper comments or funny hat remarks.
The "Every sperm is sacred song" killed me - I haven't watched that for years - still crying from laughing so hard.
The pope should focus on how to get his "fishers of men" to put their rods away and stop worrying how we choose to conduct our charities abroad.
Jack, #1.39 is wicked logic indeed but there is no reason that I can see to refute it.
Lisa, ya got my vote on that one.....
maybe the Pope should focus his efforts on child molesting Priests and lawsuits instead of condemning those who disagree with his way of thinking.
This exercise, by the Pontiff of the Catholic church, is noting more than a call to all catholics to 'go fourth and multiply'.....logic dictates to me that all dogmatic religions encourage this in the attempt to ensure their numbers..... It's just self-centered and sinful, to call for more overpopulation in a world that cannot, or just plain will not sustain them....
lovetrust
I seeded an article on a woman that gave birth to octuplets in CA. Maybe they can take a lesson from her. With all the "Abortion is murder" talk they want to spout they forget the funds can also be used for people like her.
So rickace says al Qaeda and the KKK (and the Third Reich, of course) aren't evil. Duly noted.
I said that that they cannot be characterized as evil. A case can be made however for characterizing their members as having evil intent.
Hope this clears things up for you.
And welcome to my ignore list, troll.
And welcome to my ignore list, troll.
Troll????? Jack Huang is one of the most informed and tolerant posters on the NV. You should really think twice and check into his background before rushing to decisions based off of one thread. A little controversy does not qualify as toll-like behavior.
Jack Huang is one of the most informed and tolerant posters on the NV.
I know who he is, thank you.
Troll?????
See post #1.46. It's a blatant troll. And considering that it's a content-free submission, it has curiously garnered a handsome 9 votes so far. How would you explain that?
I don't find it "content-free". I think he successfully pointed out the fact that you don't see something which is quite apparent to him. The votes would suggest that others share the vision that perhaps you lack!
See post #1.46. It's a blatant troll. And considering that it's a content-free submission, it has curiously garnered a handsome 9 votes so far. How would you explain that?
Correction.....it's 10 votes now (and will probably continue to rise). I would not consider that statement anything even close to troll-like behavior. All he has done is call you out, thus giving you a chance to dig your way out of the semantics hole that you created by not fully clarifying and justifying your thoughts on evil when it comes to organizations and people.
That's the way I see it. I've seen a lot of troll-like behavior on the NV, but I can honestly say that I cannot attribute any of it to Jack Huang.
Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that with "the arrogance of someone who believes they are right",
"Arrogance"?! This guy's boss claims to be infallible and he's making accusations of "arrogance?!
rickace says al Qaeda and the KKK (and the Third Reich, of course) aren't evil.
I said that that they cannot be characterized as evil.
I don't see the difference. "Something is [adjective]" and "something isn't [adjective]" are both characterizations. You don't even need to go to Strunk & White's for that little English lesson.
A case can be made however for characterizing their members as having evil intent.
See, you might have an argument if you were talking about a decentralized rendition of Catholicism that doesn't pledge fielty to the Pope: some of its members can have evil intent, but it's not an organization with expressly evil intent. However, noting the mission statements of the KKK and the Third Reich, well, let's just say that I'm waiting for you to stop digging that hole.
P.S. - Placing any blunt critics on your ignore list just because your initial words were very imprecise doesn't speak well to your character.
Jack Huang, I would suggest that some 'viners aren't worth your valuable time and efforts to educate.
I have had the . . .uh . . . pleasure of running into Mr. rickace many times over on this site, and he is the absolute King of opinionated, unsubstantiated rhetoric.
IMO only, it could almost be construed as an honor to make it to his ignore list. ;-)
I hope I didn't violate any CoH in saying so.
At this point I don't Think the CoH encompasses the rhetorical excess.
absolute King of opinionated, unsubstantiated rhetoric.
LOL. No sir, that title belongs to the hordes of ankle-biting Palin bashers. I could never hold a candle to all the boorish partisan spoor they have littered the Vine with.
I have had the . . .uh . . . pleasure of running into Mr. rickace many times over on this site, and he is the absolute King of opinionated, unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Bull@!$%#. Read my posts where I'm actually making arguments. Read my articles like this one, which received kudos from many Viners including Killfile. They are well reasoned and well articulated.
The only reason you are even weighing in here is because the eloquent Alan Willingham and I took you to task a week or two ago on another thread about abortion and you're still sore. You saw an opportunity to extract revenge, so here you are making a snarky suggestion that I'm not worth the time and effort to educate, arrogantly implying I actually was in need of some education.
Get some game before you come at me again.
Correction.....it's 10 votes now (and will probably continue to rise).
15 now. I'm still waiting for your explanation for how a one-line, content-free post has managed to garner so many votes.
I answered that already, didn't I? 1.58
Yes, you did.....it must be a reading comprehension problem
Yes, you did.....it must be a reading comprehension problem
Except I posed the question to you, The_Atheist. It appears that you are the one with the reading comprehension problem.
rickace,
The only reason you are even weighing in here is because the eloquent Alan Willingham and I took you to task a week or two ago on another thread about abortion and you're still sore
Nice revisionist history there, buddy. Unless of course, you truly believe that your schizophrenic "scientific" argument: "God wouldn't like abortion", actually succeeded in trumping my personal sovereignty argument? I don't think so, Tim. And, if I'm not mistaken, I was able to discredit just about every single argument alanwillingham offered, and most especially his "slavery" analogy. Yes, that was quite fun.
Yet another fine example of your infamous delusional thinking.
I can't really believe you want to go there again, but oh well. . .
Here are some gleanings from your argument in that case:
Except it's not only a religious issue. Some see it as a Constitutional issue as well. I don't "believe" in science. I am trained as a scientist and my thought processes are scientific. If credible evidence exists to prove a point, I have no choice but to accept it. I'm a pro-life person and I have faith in God but I do not subscribe to any organized religion. Science cannot conflict with my faith, as science is tied to the physical world whereas faith is entirely within my mind. I am not anti-choice, I am pro-life. I will use science whenever it suits my purpose to make my points. An idol is a false god, such as wealth or technology or a sex symbol. An idol is of the material world, which can ultimately never satisfy. God is not. It's amusing to watch you who know nothing of faith argue as though you do.
"I don't think so, Tim" was a phrase often used by Al Borland in response to Tim Taylor's questions on Tool Time, on the early 90's television show, "Home Improvement", starring Tim Allen. Sorry if I threw you off there. :-)
alanwillingham is eloquent indeed, in a "pompous blowhard" fashion, but I did enjoy reading his barouque prose and found him pretty entertaining overall. Misguided in many of his arguments -but entertaining still.
I am not anti-choice, I am pro-life.
Are you only "pro-life" while the fetus is in the womb, or are you "pro-life" enough to insure the child is taken care of after it's born. via government programs that help poor women and children? Most people who are anti-choice in utero are also anti-choice postpartum. They don't want taxpayer funds used to help children whose mothers can't afford health insurance, rent, clothes, food and other necessities.
Anyone who won't support children's rights after birth aren't supporting the rights of an embryo or fetus. They're simply trying to control women.
Right on, Loretta! Excellent point.
Unfortunately, rickace can claim moral superiority on that one, as he funds a child or children overseas or something.
They're simply trying to control women.
That statement there is the crux of the whole thing. I have come to believe that some men are flummoxed that women actually do have this choice to make what men preceive as "life and death" decisions. It makes women far too powerful to some men, and of course, that makes them fear them and want to gain power over them in order to control their actions.
Silly, but there you have it.
I just read the excerpt and still fail to see how it argues that God wouldn't like abortion.
"I don't think so, Tim" was a phrase often used by Al Borland in response to Tim Taylor's questions on Tool Time, on the early 90's television show, "Home Improvement", starring Tim Allen. Sorry if I threw you off there. :-)
Ah, OK. Missed the reference. Very funny show. My father (who had a basement full of power tools) enjoyed it as well.
Are you only "pro-life" while the fetus is in the womb, or are you "pro-life" enough to insure the child is taken care of after it's born.
It is the responsibility of the child's parents to care for the child after birth. If they cannot do that, then it is irresponsible for them to conceive. Yes there will be situations where a teenager gets pregnant for example and must rely on the state for care. That does in no way excuse people from acting irresponsibly and selfishly creating a burden on the state just so they can have kids.
Just because you can @!$%# and make babies doesn't mean you should @!$%# and make babies. Adults need to learn that.
Unfortunately, rickace can claim moral superiority on that one, as he funds a child or children overseas or something.
Good for him. But that's not the same as supporting government programs that support children's rights, like health insurance, preschool education, food stamps, etc. Too many of the anti-choice crowd won't support these programs, in fact, they actively block them, which proves they don't really care about the welfare of the child, only about limiting the choices of women, both before and after birth.
Unfortunately, rickace can claim moral superiority on that one, as he funds a child or children overseas or something.
Thanks for remembering that. I've also volunteered for a charity that brokers food to soup kitchens, pantries, day care centers, rehabs, etc. There are many things childless adults can volunteer to do to ensure that children are cared for.
On the subject of women, I have no desire to control them. My only concern is for the new human lives that have yet to be born. I argue in favor of not aborting them as does Alan Willingham. Other people argue in favor of allowing a woman access to abortions.
But that's not the same as supporting government programs that support children's rights, like health insurance, preschool education, food stamps, etc.
When I was a child in the 1950s, parents shouldered those responsiblities. Apparently parenting isn't what it used to be as the parents are now asking for handouts for things they should be getting themselves.
There were children in need in the 1950s too. You may not have known any, but I did. Pretending they didn't exist then doesn't help anymore than pretending they don't exist now.
By your answer, I believe you don't support programs that help children after they are born. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Most people who reply as you did believe poverty is caused by immorality, but that isn't true.
You're assuming a child in need doesn't have a parent(s) doing the best they can. Usually they do. Why do you assume that a parent who is struggling financially isn't accepting their responsibilities? Many adults with no children can't afford health insurance. Does that mean they aren't working hard?
Poverty isn't a moral issue. It's a reality of life. Those who want to force childbirth upon a poor mother and then scream she isn't living up to her responsibilities are condemning her no matter what choice she makes. If you're really for preventing abortion due to the welfare of the child, then you should be able to see that supporting programs that will help her provide for her child will drop the abortion rate, and you should be supporting the well-being of the child after birth.
Sorry to jump in here but I can't help myself.
rickace - I understand your idealistic view but we have to look at this issue in a realistic manner.
Your stance is that women should not be allowed to have an abortion and therefore, you believe, they will then be more responsible and not conceive. That is unrealistic. Unwanted pregnancies will happen even if abortion were illegal. In the event abortion were illegal we will have women trying to abort themselves or subject themselves to some back alley procedure which I hope we can agree is not a good alternative.
You believe, in the event of an unwanted pregnancy a women should then shoulder the responsibly. Pull up their proverbial boot straps and raise the child properly. That would be great but again is unrealistic. Most people forced to have an unwanted baby will not raise the child well.
I know the next option, in your mind, is adoption. Adoption is a good alternative but the fact of the matter is that these women will keep the cute little baby and raise it in poverty, a bad home, and/or neglect. Sad but true.
I think that you believe yourself to be more humane because you value the sanctity of "life", which makes for a good line in a post on a blog but does not paint the whole picture. I feel that a heartbeat is not the only definition of life. Quality of life is also an issue in my opinion. Drug abusive mothers raising babies in poverty, filth and neglect is not quality. Unwanted children will be subject to physical and mental abuse and so much more. The bottom line is that these babies will not be living in the white picket fence home with PTA mothers that you must imagine in your head.
You may be my new idol, not over it, a good, common sense approach to the realities of life.
Most people forced to have an unwanted baby will not raise the child well.
Steven Levitt, the author of Freakanomics argues that the reduction of crime is tied to legalized abortion. Apparently, unwanted, unloved, neglected and abused children = future criminals.
Turns out, forcing a woman to become a mother does not a mother make.
rickace,
Except I posed the question to you, The_Atheist. It appears that you are the one with the reading comprehension problem.
I can't believe that you're still trolling around here, moping about your lack of votes and criticizing others for theirs. If you would learn how to adequately express your ideas, you wouldn't have this problem. The statement by Jack Huang (1.46) got the votes it did because he was better able to clarify your statements up to that point. If anything, you should be thanking him for pushing you to further explain your position. Had he not done this, you might now be known around here as rickace, supporter of terrorism and white supremacy. We all know that's not the way it is (at least I hope not), but the fact remains that your logic was flawed.
moping about your lack of votes
Really now? The only discussion of votes was about Jack's post, not mine.
Had he not done this, you might now be known around here as rickace, supporter of terrorism and white supremacy.
LOL. People who read my posts regularly know I am neither of the two things you mentioned.
I was having a civil discussion of semantics with Jack until he farted out #1.46. Then you jumped in and pjwrites joined the party with a few gratuitous aspersions in #1.62.
And you label me the troll. OK then, I'ma detrack and yall can go back to doing whatever it is you do for your jollies ... bashing pro-life advocates, the Pope, former President Bush, Sarah Palin, and RepuGlicans in general.
TTFN and have an Obamaramic day!
rickace
Really now? The only discussion of votes was about Jack's post, not mine.
You're right....the moping about lack of votes was just a bit of sarcasm I decided to throw in.....the same with the trolling remark.....the same with the terrorism and white supremacy remark. Look....it was not my intention to start up an argument with you, I was merely trying to point out that your reaction to #1.46 was over the top. That statement, sarcastic as it was, summarized your position at that point of the thread. Instead of accepting that and moving on to accurately explain yourself, you instead chose to view it as some kind of "content-free" attack.....so, you label him a troll and put him on your ignore list. The fact is, had it not been for that statement, you would not have been forced to clarify your point. Jack knows the semantics game just as well as anyone else around here.....do you honestly think he made that statement as a sincere remark. It seems to me that he was merely using sarcasm to bait you into offering a more accurate view of your thoughts on the subject. I notice that you went on to do so (#1.55).....so you must have been aware of it in some manner.
A case can be made however for characterizing their members as having evil intent.
This is from the same post (#1.55), in which you label him as a troll and add him to the ignore list. But before doing so, you take the opportunity to further explain your position. If you got enough out of his statement to warrant providing additional information, then I would have to say that the comment was far from being "content-free."
Anyway....as I said, it was not my intention to start an argument over this.....just trying to point out that I think you interpreted the intent of the statement incorrectly. If you go back and read everything in order, it's pretty obvious that he actually helped you out in explaining your position.
I'm done.....my thoughts on the matter.....your choice. I'm off to do my ritualistic pope bashing for the day. Hope you also have an Obamaramic day.
Who cares what the Pope says? I don't. He heads the most child abusive clergy in the world and thinks that's okay, as long as they don't get caught. Stay out of American politics.
This Pope is the most doctrinaire in centuries. I'm glad I don't belong to the church anymore; they've been hijacked by fundamentalists.
OH NO....
not ANOTHER fundamentalist religionist....
first there was the Evangelicals here, then there is the Muslim/Taliban, now CATHOLIC....whats next????
NO, NO, don't answer that......I can't deal with any more of them.
Makes me want to outlaw religion all together.
Who cares what the Pope says? I don't. He heads the most child abusive clergy in the world and thinks that's okay, as long as they don't get caught.
Exactly. He was probably out of his favorite young choir-boys and, feeling ansty, needed someone to punish.
I SAaaaID "don't answer that"....
lol
No, seriously, its a shame really. I am a spiritual person, but I do not listen to some person in charge of a 'church' to tell me what to think or how to act....Fundamentalism just ruins it for everyone.
jade-log:
Fundamentalist Shamans.
No lie; as a (vague) pagan I invite a circle of people over for assorted equinoxes and solstices to celebrate the natural cycle of the seasons. A friend of Irish heritage, who is apparently involved in a "druidic grove" blasted me last year for mocking the god/desses, and wants nothing to do with our little parties because she doesn't want to 'pay the price.'
Oy.
how about fundamentalist agnostics...now there's a self defeating group LOL
zROTFLOL. That's what I want to be if I'm ever reincarnated as a fundamentalist.
Sgt C USMC, fundamentalist atheist can I have permission to write that in when the askreligion?
I firmly think I'm a fundamentalist agnostic....but I'm not really sure....and I can't prove it anyway......so I guess I don't know.....but I'm certain of that.....basically.
Now, where's that other bottle of sacreligious wine I had cooling.
Dubbya what you need to do is take Søren Aabye Kierkegaard's "Leap of Faith" and you'll end up an existentialist believer.
Proud to be and eXtreme fundamentalist agostic with liberal leanings who loves hats, but doesn't look good in them.
You know Aretha is a biig person in any number of ways and the hat draws attention away from what some may see as her faults.
lol I'm going to write in "fundamentalist shaman" next time I'm asked for my religious preference.
Unlike those "reformation" shaman, I use actual rib bones for the Ancestral Memory ceremony, the way Granesh'el Tula intended.
If there are "reformed" shaman there must be "orthodox" shaman. One wonders if there shamanistic converts?
How about fundamentalist atheists?
No such thing, Sgt.
definitions:
a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine, especially as a return to former principles
the belief that religious or political doctrine should be implemented literally, not interpreted or adapted
It's odd how the religious see atheists as the enemy, wrongfully equating religion with values.
One could almost equate having a religion with supreme laziness - of the mind.
One could almost equate having a religion with supreme laziness - of the mind.
I agree with this. Religion is a way to "explain" things to simple people who do not want to use energy by thinking too hard.
Religion is a way to "explain" things to simple people who do not want to use energy by thinking too hard.
lol, Mars - but I don't really believe that. I know firsthand how the church indoctrinates its followers, so I don't blame them or think they are simple for what they have been persuaded to believe in. I blame the religious leaders, who have turned what should have been a good deed society into a viper's den of self-righteous moralizers.
Good point PJ,
I was talking more about the beginning of religion, and why it started to begin with. Early Man needed a way to explain things like the sun rising every day, the waxing and waningof the moon, etc etc.
Religion as we know it, is no different thatn Roman or Greek mythology, Native American beliefs, Buddism, humans search for meaning and explanations for the world around them. Right on Mars.
And Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are just modernizations of the old Egyptian Sun-Cult which argued that there was only one god, the Sun god.
"There is only one god, and he is the Sun"
"There is only one god, and he has a Son"
Religion as we know it, is no different thatn Roman or Greek mythology, Native American beliefs, Buddism
I think you mean "Christianity, as we know it," since all the things you just listed are religions.
Well guys and dolls. At least they recently have been talking about doing away with the doctrine of LIMBO. I was never good at climbing under that darn stick. Especially after a few long island ice teas.
they recently have been talking about doing away with the doctrine of LIMBO
Ok, well, that's nice of them. I'll be sure to send them a 'thank you' card. But don't they think they should ask god first? Or are they admitting that they and not god created 'Limbo' to begin with?
Hummmmmm
You piqued my curiousity, so I went looking. Here's what I found:
http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/limbo/index.htm
The Catholic Church never "believed" in limbo. The existence of limbo for unbaptized infants is not part of divine revelation, but rather was and is an educated theological "guess." The term was coined by St. Augustine of Hippo and literally means "fringe." This came about because God has not chosen to reveal what happens to deceased unbaptized infants.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm
VATICAN CITY (CNS) --
Many Catholics grew up thinking limbo -- the place where babies who have died without baptism spend eternity in a state of "natural happiness" but not in the presence of God -- was part of Catholic tradition. Instead, it was a hypothesis -- a theory held out as a possible way to balance the Christian belief in the necessity of baptism with belief in God's mercy. Like hypotheses in any branch of science, a theological hypothesis can be proven wrong or be set aside when it is clear it does not help explain Catholic faith.
Like hypotheses in any branch of science
Science has some evidence to work with before it starts drawing conclusions, so with no offence intended I don't think that's a very good example to use here. Limbo was never anything but wildly unfounded theological or philosophical speculation.....at best.
I do understand their need to come up with a rationalizationto explain away the utterly heartless hypocrisy of a theology thatdenys heaven to the most innocent of lives......but they failed.
Here's one to remember...this Pope was a member of the Hitler Youth when he was a kid!
BY the way, I take exception to the portrayal of Buddhism as being the same as those others. Gautama Siddhartha never called himself a god, never suggested that the worship of divinity was necessary or any of those other trappings of established religions. His teaching was ALL about how to be a better human by dealing rationally with the decisions one has to make in life. The "Eight-fold" path is simply a way to frame your experience and to make better choices to keep on the path.
The Catholic Church never "believed" in limbo. The existence of limbo for unbaptized infants is not part of divine revelation, but rather was and is an educated theological "guess." The term was coined by St. Augustine of Hippo and literally means "fringe." This came about because God has not chosen to reveal what happens to deceased unbaptized infants.
It's hard to believe that there are people who believe in and worship a "god" that they can have faith in this god despite having no proof but they would need to debate what this god would decide to do with infants that had died without being blessed by one of his priests. Seems like maybe their faith is misplaced if they can't have faith in their "god" to do the right thing.
Taoist....non practicing myself.
John: I agree! The church is against abortion, but they don't seem to want to take care of the overpopulation that is so prevalent in countries that are predominantly Catholic, where, as fate might have it...there are SO many people that the children live in poverty, filth and are starving to death...but hey...at least nobody aborted them!
What hypocrites. No one wants abortion to be a form of birth control, but how about discouraging people from making babies they cannot take care of!
Another vote from me! Take that Mr. Pope & flush that one down your hi & mighty toilet!!!
He heads the most child abusive clergy in the world and thinks that's okay, as long as they don't get caught. Stay out of American politics.
BY the way, I take exception to the portrayal of Buddhism as being the same as those others. Gautama Siddhartha never called himself a god, never suggested that the worship of divinity was necessary or any of those other trappings of established religions.
Well, some versions of Buddhism have no theistic tendencies, but some do worship sages as deities.
As for the trappings, well, Buddhism doesn't f--- with people as much, but it still has a set of edicts that would place it under the veil of religion.
Wow, persecuted for a joke. I figured that one was pretty clear-cut, especiailly being it came right on the heels of the 'fundamentalist shamen ' comment.
I'll make sure to be more clear and concise when I'm joking around next time.
Sorry Sgt., sometimes it's hard not to take yourself too seriously on the 'vine. Apologies if you felt a little persecuted there.
To avoid future confusion, please begin all jokes with, "A guy walks into a bar. . . "
;-)
Boo hoo for the Pope. A man that has never been married and probably never had sex has the nerve to tell others what they should do with their reproductive choices.
#3 - Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:36 PM ESTNever had sex.
Didn't you get the "We like'em Young Memo" The first line states "You must be under the age of 13 to ride this ride and don't tell your parents".
And those with multiple every things. Check out the Vatican museum. Something for every taste.
doesnt this global gag rule business get turned off then back on again whenever the dems and rebups alternate thru the white house? clinton turned it back on after reagan turned it off, bush turned it back off after clinton, now obama is turning it back on after bush.
thats my understanding anyway. its a cynical--and predictable--tradition, thats all. if the pope gets his panties in a bunch over this every time it happens....then maybe he just likes the feeling of bunched panties. which of course makes him a freak, by his own standards. perhaps he neednt throw stones?
#4 - Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:43 PM ESTI wonder how it effects the population demographics. Should there be fewer babies during Democratic rule? Conversely shouldn't Republicans have extra babies to turn into Repo-clones?
Well, statistics are out there...I guess some googling is needed....
the rates of abortions during specific 'parties'
the rates of 'pregnancies/births' during specific 'parties'
It would be interesting to see.
i believe that the red-states, with the most pro-lifers and the strictest restrictions on abortions, have the most unwanted pregnancies AND the most abortions per capita. i am sure the same thing applies. its completely self-defeating, and makes a thinking person wonder what they are REALLY trying to achieve? hmmmmm.....
factcheckme-----
I have begun to appreciate your thinking....
i believe that the red-states, with the most pro-lifers and the strictest restrictions on abortions, have the most unwanted pregnancies AND the most abortions per capita
Absolutely right, factcheckme, because they are trying to maintain the unsustainable. Of course, when things get out of hand, unlike the blue states, they probably have inadequate support for those who fall foul of their restrictions, which then makes the situation much worse all round in a very tragic revolving circle.
Outlawing abortion will NOT make it go away.....it will, however, kill off some young girls and women who will either do it thereselves or have it done without medical attention. THAT surely won't save the fetuses. But the politicians don't care.....BTW....there have been plenty of "pro-lifers" who have had the "proceedure" if you bothered to pay attention. Most woment don't use it for birth control. Not saying it doesn't happen but there are OTHER, REAL reasons. But the tighty-righties don't care about those reasions UNLESS it were to happen to them! Then abortion is OK for them! But not for anyone else!!!!!!!
You know, maybe it's just me, but doesn't this pope seem to be much more of a dick then JPII? I mean I know JPII was conservative too, but this pope just seems to be more of an ass about it all.
#5 - Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:48 PM ESTYep. This pope is one of the "good old days" sentimentalists.
only if good old days = inquisition = puritanism
Yeah, he has a really bad attitude. I wonder if he wants to start "converting" the Jews again? I'm a fallen Catholic and now a happy atheist so it's really not my place, but I just don't like this guy. I like JPII for some reason, but not this guy.
Remember before he became Pope he was a German Cardinal named Ratzinger. It's kind of poetic really.
R. Donald, please don't call yourself a "fallen" Catholic. You picked yourself up with your choice. I like to refer to myself as a recovering Catholic.
Thanks for the Monty Python on a Monday morning! What a way to begin the week. :)
jade-log: The former Josef Ratzinger and his family suffered under German totalitarianism. He was forced to enlist (though he was captured and spent time as a POW), and his young cousin who had Down syndrome was murdered under the Nazi eugenics program.
There's nothing "poetic" about the suffering of millions of ordinary Germans under the Nazi regime.
I've come to grips with the abuses of the Nazis and honestly feel the world would have been a better place had Mrs. Schinklegruber had had an abortion. Eugenics has also been practiced in this country. Not to mention the prison Syphilis experiments in the South. People are too careless with the living. e.g. There is too little sympathy for the innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza who are murdered or left bereft of family..
Yeah this guy makes JPII look awesome! I've never been so happy that I left the church!
Littlered, I love it! Recovering! That's it, that's me! I'm still trying to recover my original identity after the half a lifetime of brainwashing from the catholic church!
I love it! Recovering! That's it, that's me!
I've been using the "recovering Catholic" term for almost 20 years now.
As far as the article is concerned, maybe an international standard should be set that only leaders from nations that have a birthrate should be taken seriously by other leaders when discussing reproduction issues.
As far as the abortion issue, I could see being more supportive of forcing more people into the world when we can take care of the ones we have.Anti-abortion advocatesadopting enough kids to empty foster homes would be a start, along with the elimination of oxymoronic "abstinence only" sex-ed programs.
Pope speakth with forked tongue.
The story at the link contains complete details. This violent environment was first reported on in 2001, but it's been going on for at least two decades, probably longer. Many of the nuns who've been victimized have been forced out of their vocation for speaking the truth. The Vatican has worked hard to cover it all up, just like they worked hard to cover up the child sex abuse:
http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=NEWS&id=1128225631
In what amounts to a modern example of damning proof of the validity of the age-old Protestant charge of gross immorality amongst the priests and nuns of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican has been forced to make the extraordinary admission that priests in at least 23 countries across five continents have been sexually abusing and raping nuns....Countless cases of nuns forced to have sex with priests were cited. Some were obliged to take the Pill, others became pregnant and were encouraged to have abortions. In one case in which an African sister was forced to have an abortion, she died during the operation and her aggressor led the funeral mass. Another case involved 29 sisters from the same congregation who all became pregnant by priests in the diocese. The reports said that the church authorities had done little to tackle the problem.
Normally, we would call believers "hypocritical" when presented these kinds of contradictions - but when you look at the trend here in "Gods own country" I think we are on our way into a Century where faith is a question of spirituality paired with normal human demand for reason and a "balanced diet of ethics, moral and convenience".
#6 - Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:58 PM ESTIt would seem some balance is in order. Some simple recognition that Priests needn't only be male and unmarried or involved in a meaningful relatrionship.
hi Loretta. although I have no particular love for the catholic church and less for the pope but in this case none of the sources listed in the article by christianagression can't be verified. those attributed to the catholic reporter don't exist and the nun referenced is long dead.
Doug
This is from the National Catholic Reporte. This is where the story first broke::
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/031601/031601a.htm
how about getting upset at finicial aid and trade with countries that commit human rights violation?
how about how we ally with terror groups like the MEK?
sell drugs to fund secret wars?
yep old popey has his priorities straight,.
how about getting upset at teh gop for obstructing the planned stimulus for the middle class and lower,
surely that is something to get outraged at since we just bailed out the merchants and we know how much jesus loved the merchants,.
#7 - Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:59 PM ESTArchbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that with "the arrogance of someone who believes they are right"
A verbal self-portrait, maybe?
#8 - Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:09 PM ESTWell, THAT is an interesting twist on the perspective......
I don't see how their tongues don't tie themselves in knots when they excrete such drivel.
Hilariously hypocritical, disasterously dogmatic. This church disallows birth control, then removes a right to choose, then wants to impose its laws on people outside its faith. Fundamentalist fukwits.
This church disallows birth control, then removes a right to choose, then wants to impose its laws on people outside its faith.
Now THAT'S an observation. But then, there is ONLY THEIR faith after all. Nothing else is of any value...
Makes me sick, really.
He was forced to enlist. He is not, and has never been, a fascist.
Ahhhhh the classic Nazi defense:
"They made me do it! I was just being a Good German"
Poor little "righteous" Pope couldn't stand up to tyranny, and he expects me to give a @!$%# about what he thinks? Get real. I know better than to bow down to a Nazi first, and a false God second.
Ahhhhh the classic Nazi defense:
"They made me do it! I was just being a Good German"
Hey, it worked at Nuremberg! ... oh wait.
It's hard to understand the blind allegiance to the pope. He's never been married, had sex (supposedly), never had children and has never really experienced so much of life. And yet he's all knowing and authoritative on all these things he knows nothing of.
He's never been married, had sex (supposedly), never had children and has never really experienced so much of life. And yet he's all knowing and authoritative on all these things he knows nothing of.
Spot on the nail, ladyblue999. Brilliantly put!
He was a teenager. Yes, he was forced to enlist.
It is not a "blind allegiance," it is a respect for his office.
Like many Catholics the world over, I disagree with some of the Church's stances. We are not lemmings, we do make independent decisions. Even within the clergy there are dissenters.
He was a teenager. Yes, he was forced to enlist.
Your excuse isn't working. When I was a teenager, nobody forced me to do anything I didn't want to do, including being a Nazi. He obviously agreed with Hitler, because he avoided any kind of resistance or revolt. He was a coward, siding with Nazi to save his own hide. Reminds me of Judas.
Not an excuse, but an explanation.
At age 14, Josef Ratzinger in accordance with wartime laws signed up for the Hitler Youth. At age 16 he was drafted into the anti-aircraft corps, and later the infantry. He fell ill, and deserted, returning to his family's home. He was later imprisoned in a POW camp, only released at war's end, and re-entered the seminary.
The facts must be seen in their wartime context. Neither you nor I faced such pressures as a teenager. He and his family were staunchly anti-Nazi. He was not a coward trying to save his own hide. He was a kid who knew the authorities were after him.
He was a kid who knew the authorities were after him.
Been there, done that, didn't cause me to sell out to Nazis.
The facts must be seen in their wartime context.
Yes, Saint Ratzinger bowed to the Nazis to save his hide so he could later become Pope and help cover up molestation cases within the church. So classy.
The facts must be seen in their wartime context. Neither you nor I faced such pressures as a teenager. He and his family were staunchly anti-Nazi. He was not a coward trying to save his own hide. He was a kid who knew the authorities were after him.
And when the Nazis invaded France, the French were faced with an enemy they knew the ycould not defeat.
However, we as an entire culture still condemn the French as cowards. If anyone to be contemptuous of the French, then they must also be contemptuous of Ratzinger's cowardice.
We "as an entire culture" do? That's news to me.
France's population had yet to replenish the numbers of men lost in the Great War, the War to End All Wars. Over a million men in the prime of their youth cut down. Look into the death count from WWI. France, Italy, Britain, and even the Germans (not to mention those living in the remnants of the Ottoman Empire) suffered massive losses.
Holland, Belgium and France were vulnerable. Compromises were made to prevent another slaughter.
I don't excuse the French turning on their neighbors, allowing the deportations of Jews and the Vichy government. But I do recognize that their geographical location and topography left them with fewer options than the British, who have a water barrier from the rest of the continent.
I'm not a follower of Ayn Rand, but I see that utilitarian decisionssometimes have to get made. So, no, the condemnation you speak of is not universal, not representative of our entire culture. You'd be surprised at what contemporary historians have to say about France-- and Neville Chamberlain of Britain.
Wouldn't a true man of God, as the Pope is supposed to be, have been strong enough to not enlist with the Nazis even if it meant death?
It just seems strange that a man who is supposed to be infallible wasn't strong enough to stand up to the Nazis. It doesn't seem a strong thing to do or a godly thing.
Wouldn't a true man of God, as the Pope is supposed to be, have been strong enough to not enlist with the Nazis even if it meant death?
That's what I thought, but apparently if you are "forced" to willingly join an organization, you are excused of everything.
It just seems to me that the Catholic Church (which I was raised and educated in) could have found a better Pope than a former Nazi. The image that presents isn't a positive one for the Church.
I'm not a fan of the pope or his office, but this is really starting to resemble the anti-communist 'blacklisting' and witch-hunts of the 1940's and 50's. He was a young teen placed under influences and pressures most of us could not comprehend. I've heard no evidence that he knew what was taking place at the 'death-camps', or participated in any way, have you? I'm more interested in what he has done since, and what he is trying to do now, that is the primary issue.
I agree with you Dubbya. I have many unhappy thoughts about the vatican, but this is not one of them. I grew up white in apartheid South Africa and understand the way an oppressive society moulds young minds. His refusal to rethink contraception is far more important, in my opinion.
caroaber, you are indeed correct that not every American holds the French in contempt, but such a sentiment is still pervasive in our culture. Remember "freedom fries"? That was hardly caused simply by the refusal of the French to endorse the Iraq War in a vacuum of negative social sentiment.
Those learned in the politics and strife of the time typically don't fault the French for their actions. However, most in the US aren't learned in such things.
Personally, I'm a Randian objectivist with certain collectivist tendencies, so I don't hold the France in contempt. Similarly, I don't hold Ratzinger's joining of the Hitler Youth against him. They did what they thought they had to do.
TJG: I think that at the time, the Nazis were, to the Germans, probably far less sinister (perhaps even still seen as saviors) than they later proved themselves to be. Remember that Hitler was voted into power on an idealistic platform of restoring Germany's pride and former glory.
I stand by my words. Given how Nazis are seen today, I think it was a poor choice for the Church to install a former Nazi as Pope.
Jones Girl I understand how you feel, I just don't think 'image' is the best way to judge him or his policies, or the church's policies as they effect the rest of the world.
'Image' is how we are constantly being manipulated. It likely that 'image' played a role in how his impressionable young mind was seduced into joining such a hateful group.
What happened at that period has to be viewed in context of the social and political pressures of that time and place, and his adolescence. Judge him as a person the way you'd want to be judged. But more importently judge his actions, now, that's what the issue is here.
Yes DBM, the pope's refusal to rethink contraception is costing lives in Africa due to Aids infection, and contributing to abortions by limiting or outright denying proper information and education.
A person's past makes them who they are today. Choosing a former Nazi is more than image, it tactily puts the Church in a position that they agree with what he did and the Nazis.
As he is the head of the Roman Catholic Church and supposedly infallible, I for one think the Pope should be judged by a bigger yardstick than a person on the street.
Bear in mind, the pope is NOT always infallible, only when he's making a solemn declaration on a matter of morals or faith, stating it is a direct revelation, or directly related to a divine revelation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
The actual number of times a pope has made an infallable statement is in question, but it's not often.
If by "not often" you mean "never" then we have a winner! He has no more powers of divine revelation than I do. It's an elected office for pete's sake.
All that infallibility and revelation stuff is a ruse to insure the unwashed masses don't question what he says.
Clarification - even by Rome's standards, if you DO believe in the Papal Infallibility docrine, it doesn't always mean he's infallable.
Jonesgirl-
A person's past makes them who they are today.
Indeed. They can learn from their mistakes or not. It does not have to define who they are today or control who they become in the future. We are still talking about a young adolescent of the time, who was not in full control of his own life and choices.
My judgements of him are directed at his actions since that time. I don't think his involvement should be forgotten, just kept in proper context.
Dubbya, I think what it boils down to for me is that the Church didn't have to choose a former Nazi, but they did, knowing the baggage that comes with it. It's telling.
Yes, but everybody has 'baggage', it's just that his is more inflammatory than most. Just having 'belonged' to a vile and objectionable organization isn't enough, or everybody will be damning each other perpetually with 'guilt by association' labels. I'd rather concentrate more weight on someones actions than their associations, not disregard those associations.
Personally I thought he was a poor choice because he clearly wants to steer the church more towards religious conservatism, limited personal freedom, meddle in the political systems of democracies, and arrogantly usurp the authority of other faiths, agnostics and atheists in deciding their own future.
Most people in this world are not Catholic, and while he has a right to express his opinion as we all do, he has no political, legal or moral authority over us.
Comment collapsed by the communityHow can a bunch of eunuch men attempt to dictate about reproduction rights that effect mostly women?
They don't seem to give a rat's hinny about the poor in the countries that are predominantly Catholic and now they want to put their 2 cents worth (I'm being generous) in a country that has separation of church and state.
There was a time in history that the church ruled the world it was called the 'dark ages' for a reason.
#13 - Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:31 PM ESTthe pope need to take a look in the mirror. he sat back for years while young boys were being molested and said what. nothing. until he had to. he knew all about what the priest were doing. the catholic church always is trying to tell others how to live and they abused children. talking about the pot calling the kettle names. please pope you have no more authority.
#14 - Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:55 PM ESTWow, the Pope must have a super power capability - to know what every priest around the world is doing at all times. I am amazed. Yet, he has no authority..hmmm.
Kay, the holy pontiff may not have super powers of perception, but having been the top cardinal watchdog for church doctrine and having been made aware numerous times of issues with pedophilic priests and being complicit in hushing it up sort of makes his moral righteousness just a little bit less shiny.
Why was my comment removed for saying that Obama is white?? He is just as much white as he is black. So why does everyone refer to him as only being black? Did he use his race to win the election. Would Oprah have paid his way to become president if his white genes had been more prominenet and made his skin lighter?????????????????? I know several bi-racial individuals that have one very black parent and one very white parent and they have blond hair blue eyes and very fair skin. Obama is arrogant. The Pope is right. He has no qualifications to be president and only got to be president for that reason only obviously. Wonder what the outcome would have been if his skin would have turned out lighter or white? I have never been a racist person. I have many black friends. Obama as president is going to create more racism than ever before. will set us back hundreds of years.
#15 - Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:59 PM ESTI think it had something more to do with the part where you espoused violence to the man...The President, and "thems fighten words"...
Not your words about skin color...so you didn't need to defend that....
IN FACT...overly speaking about skin color does bring to mind that indeed people may think you are a racist if that is what you are trying to defend...
A little touchy aren't you?
holycross, where do you put the Pope, Bush and Anne Coulter on the arrogance scale? Do you have any proof that Oprah bought him the presidency? He is certainly much more qualified than Bush. By the way what is your CV? "Hundreds of years..." we only have two centuries and change.
Obama is arrogant. The Pope is right. He has no qualifications to be [P]resident and only got to be [P]resident for that reason only obviously.
That's funny, I don't remember hearing anything about Cardinal Ratzinger's qualifications to be the Pope. And at any rate, you're arrogant enough not to capitalize the word 'President'.
Obama as [P]resident is going to create more racism than ever before. will set us back hundreds of years.
And forced hysterectomies (mutilation) are a step forward? Methinks not.
Um, how will obama create racism if he's white, then? LmAO at you.
"President" is capitalized only when it begins a sentence or precedes the president's name. For example, President Bush.
Nice try Rick, but you're incorrect. President is capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, when referring to a specific person, or when the word is used as part of an official title or office. It doesn't matter if you're referring to a specific President or not. When referring to President of the United States, you always capitalize the word President because you're always referring to either a person or the Office. In the context of allie's post, she was referring to the President of the United States and it should have been capitalized.
You'll see in the Constitution that the word President is capitalized throughout. This reference may help also (see section 318).
I really should start charging people money for doing this...
Nice try Rick, but you're incorrect.
Really now? Look at the last paragraph of this article from the Washington Post. The word "president" is not capitalized. Nor is it in this article from the New York Times.
You'll see in the Constitution that the word President is capitalized throughout.
So are Power, Office, Term, Ballot, Number, etc. Shall we capitalize them as well?
I really should start charging people money for doing this...
Not such a hot idea.
I didn't want to make a humongous issue out of this, but if you insist... It is all about context. The Washington Post was quoting President Obama and Frank O'Donnell directly from their written statements. The word 'president' should have been capitalized in the instances I saw, but if that's how it came from their statements, it would be their mistake and not the newspaper's. I saw two instances in the New York Times, and it looks to me that they should have been capitalized also. It actually looks blatantly incorrect to me when I see it there as it is. That's my opinion. There is always the possibility I could be wrong, and there is also a possibility that the newspapers could be wrong. Cases could be made either way, but I really think mine is correct here.
Now that we've both made our points, let us get back to the topic at hand shall we?
while the world is dying from overpopulation, damaged ecosystems, and dwindling natural resources, the pope (and religious fundamentalism in general) is worried about the immorality of birth control and abortion. our continued survival rests solely on our ability to control our rate of reproduction (whether it is by abstinance, abortion, and/or birthcontrol). Based on cold, hard facts, the death and misery of the human race due to overpopulation far outweighs the death of a fetus...
#16 - Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:25 AM ESTIf Obama has pissed off the Pope... well then let's pack it up... were finished.
ahhhahhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa
#17 - Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:31 AM EST Comment collapsed by the community Comment collapsed by the communityOf course they think he's arrogant, he's going against their wishes.
Abortion is none of the vatican's business.
It's not the pope's business.
They should be worried about getting their OWN house in order and do something about all those priests molesting and raping children.
and allie
"Right to give life to another individual "
(god given was left out intenionally)
that's the whole thing in a nutshell...IT'S HER RIGHT to or not to, not yours or the church's or anyone else
God makes the conception occur. If you believe in God at all you will know that God is the creator. so it is not the right of the woman to cease a life. It is beyond church, her rights or anyone on this planet to tell her its ok to kill the life inside her. God created the life and you are superceding His authority if you end that life. Just as if you were ending the life of a 60 yr old. God is the creator. It is not mans right, the churches right or the governments right or anyones right to end a a creation of God. He is the one that decides if and when a life will end.
Please don't try to shove your religious beliefs down my throat.
It's NONE of your business or anyone else's what a woman does with her body.PERIOD, end of sentence
if it wasnt part of gods divine plan to have some fetuses aborted, he wouldnt implant unwanted fetuses in pro-choice women.
God doesn't design plans for abortion Satan does. Most likely God is testing those people to see if they will make the right choice or not. God will not go against or intervene with man's free will. If a woman kills a baby then that is her bad choice, not God's.
ah, more gobbledy gook about gods plan versus free will. where does the chocolate end, and the peanut butter begin? how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?
earthshattering, really.
Once again more people have been killed in the name of God than any other cause over the centuries. If you win it means you have the best God.
God doesn't design plans for abortion Satan does.
Wow. I hope that when you return to reality it isn't too difficult for you.
Wasn't it 3 licks? That's just for you factcheck. Trying to inject some humor(?) I wonder if the pro-life folks go around picking up used condoms to save lives.
I think I just threw-up...
allie- it's a good thing I don't believe GOD would allow something so horrible as Satan in my image of this wonderful universe.
so, when the pilot lands the plane safely in the water and saves 155 people, including himself, we thank god. (and the pilot.....as an afterthought). we do NOT blame either god OR satan for having knocked the plane out of the sky in the first place.
when a 16 year old girl has an abortion, we blame the girl and satan, interchangeably, one for having offered the evil choice, and the other for taking it. god has nothing to do with it.
but when a 16 year old girl gets pregnant, we blame the girl and satan interchangeably, for the premarital sex. of course, we also "thank god" because she has been blessed, with life.
when a 20 year old woman gets pregnant, we.......um, ok first we look to see if she is wearing a wedding ring....if theres a ring, we thank god for blessing her, if theres no ring, we blame the girl and satan interchangeably, and if she has an abortion, we......um, ok, we thank god for blessing her, blame satan and her for getting the abortion, curse the birds for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and thank the pilot for impregnating her in the first place?
for @!$%#s sake. can someone please pass the communion wine? i need a great big slug of it, if i am going to make any sense of this tonight.
:) Bottoms up
OOOPPPSS wrong toast when taking about the Pope and crew. I'm really sorry about the visual you all got.
I wonder if the pro-life folks go around picking up used condoms to save lives.
What a great idea!
We can form a new type of charity!
Help save the unfertilized unborn.
There is even a song to go with the ad campaign:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
I wonder if we can get a tax exempt status for the mailing and for the coolers?
Once again more people have been killed in the name of God than any other cause over the centuries. If you win it means you have the best God.
My God went 12-7 last season but two of those losses were due to injury.
allie-whatever your name is--
As a fellow 'Christian' (using the term loosely), I'm sadden that you think our God is such a heartless jerk. Don't you think that if God allowed for medical knowledge, he knew what was going to happen?
Oh yeah--I believe in abortions, family planning, and anything else that deals with the right to chose. Guess I'm going to hell with all the others, eh?
I digress--on to the story--and I have one question: The Pope's opinion matters..WHY?
LOL, 3 sheets, Don't forget there's the product of men's "self-abuse", no vasectomies, no tubal ligations, no hysterectomies, etc., I shudder to think of of lives lost in my 14-year olds bedroom. Gack!
allie-whatever your name is--
As a fellow 'Christian' (using the term loosely), I'm sadden that you think our God is such a heartless jerk. Don't you think that if God allowed for medical knowledge, he knew what was going to happen?
Oh yeah--I believe in abortions, family planning, and anything else that deals with the right to chose. Guess I'm going to hell with all the others, eh?
I digress--on to the story--and I have one question: The Pope's opinion matters..WHY?
Why claim to be a Christian if you are going to hold opinions that are so blatantly in conflict with the teachings of Christ's church? Do you think you will be admitted to the kingdom based on your word alone?
Why claim to be a Christian if you are going to hold opinions that are so blatantly in conflict with the teachings of Christ's church? Do you think you will be admitted to the kingdom based on your word alone?
To paraphrase Malcolm X, Christ didn't land on the Christian Church; the Christian Church landed on Christ.
There is far too much in the Christian Church that has nothing to do with Christ's teachings.
Since I don't believe in "God" I should stay out of this conversation but I can't resist. IF there were a "God" and he made human beings as smart as we are don't you think he would allow for thinking while deciding on a family? Animals are smart enough to kill their young if they know that too many are a detriment to the rest of the family. Animals will not allow more than they can feed or nurture or protect. Does that mean we are not a smart as the average pack of Coyotes?
Why claim to be a Christian if you are going to hold opinions that are so blatantly in conflict with the teachings of Christ's church? Do you think you will be admitted to the kingdom based on your word alone?
Still searching for the scripture that says "Thou shall not have an abortion or get on birth control"....Call my pastor...he can't find it either....Why don't you tell me what version of the bible that its in, so I can mend my oh, so wicked ways?
And I'm allowed entrance into the kingdom of heaven based on my faith and my works. I believed in my heart and confessed with my mouth. I work with and for the poor; I treat my fellow man with love and respect; I honor my father and mother so my days will be long on the earth, so please don't try and tell me that I won't go to heaven based on the fact that I believe in Family Planning and I am Pro-Choice.
There is far too much in the Christian Church that has nothing to do with Christ's teachings.
Homey, you hit the nail on the head.
God doesn't design plans for abortion Satan does. Most likely God is testing those people to see if they will make the right choice or not. God will not go against or intervene with man's free will
Allie, therin lies the rub..... you have no problem in making assumptions that you have the info from on high to just what god is thinking.... how is that??? Do you see the potential for manipulation that one can undergo, by believing some guy putting words in god's mouth???? I'm wary....shouldn't you be??? You go to church, willing to let others decide for you what makes you worthy of being....first they use fear, then they use reward, like a carrot...a carrot you never get to eat on this earth...they've got you for life.....give that some consideration, maam.... miss one sunday...mortal sin requiring confession to be forgiven.....on and on with the endless dogma.... not to exclude the Muslims or the Jews, mind you.....
God will not go against or intervene with man's free will
But you will? If God gave us free will, and the ability to make decisions, who are YOU to interfere with mine?
CHOICE is the most sacred gift God gave to mankind. To interfere with or needlessly reduce that spectrum of choice for others is an offense against God.
Well doesn't it also say pride goes before a fall. The bible (no matter what religion you follow) was written by man. With the exception of 1 man to walk the Earth (the Son of God) isn't it man trying to speak for him?
So with that what man has the right to speak for him that isn't showing there own pride/arrogance when they presume to do so?
I think I'm with you Tony. You're saying that it's arrogant and prideful to presume to tell another what God has to say to them, right?
I wonder if those who cite their god realize the book they use for backup has many gods and goddesses but does not express disapproval of abortions.
David
Nailed firmly on the head.
For anyone to say "I'm speaking God's Will" how do they know it's not there will they wish to enforce and not God's? If it is written in a Bible then knowing it was written by man (really doubt he handed them a printing press in 20 BC) didn't the man that wrote it have to interpret what God told them to write (remember the mysterious ways). It's not always clear and each person that goes to Church gets the interpretation from someone they feel is closer to his understandings then they are themselves. So whose to say he got it right?
It is not mans right, the churches right or the governments right or anyones right to end a a creation of God.
Tell that to the people who favor mountaintop removal, elimination of old-growth forests, strip mining, eliminating protection of endangered species, lowering water and air quality standards, starting preemptive wars, shrugging off civilian casualties in those preemptive wars, failing to consider health care a right to preserve lives already in existence with a guarantee of adequate medical care...
Just to name a few. All of these end some of God's "creation" but seem to be acceptable to the Republican Party.
If you believe in God at all you will know that God created that baby fetus whatever you want to call it. Not the woman or the man. It was not thier choice it was Gods. therefore it is not within their power to take that life. Because God said "Thou shalt not kill"
#21 - Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:08 AM ESTgive it up, no one is getting any benefit from your preaching...You are only embarrasing yourself further.
if you truly believe that a 16 year old girl can thwart gods plan by having an abortion, then your god is a weak-willed pushover, and doesnt deserve to be making the rules in the first place. please!
and if the afterlife is all you christian conservatives claim it is, then whats the big deal about sending a few fetuses into the afterlife a little early? where, really, is the harm? they would be taken up by the rapture anyway, wouldnt they? think about it: they are getting exactly what it is YOU want, for YOURSELF. why is this such a bad thing, in your eyes, again?
The military who die and the convicts executed are very late abortions.
First forget my tag.Don't let these people get the best of you.It's just the way they do things.If you don't agree because you think abortion is not right,it's not the way they think ,so it's wrong and you're stupid for buying into it.No one with any brains should think that abortion is reprehensible.The Pope is an ass.Pick up used condoms.That would be taking food out of the mouths of the atheists.
If you believe in God at all you will know that God created that baby fetus whatever you want to call it. Not the woman or the man. It was not thier choice it was Gods.
Well shoot, I had gone through all that trouble to boink my wife and now I find out it was because He wiggled his nose (or whatever He does at those poignant moments of creation)!
What color is the sky on your planet?
If anyone thinks that "God" didn't want humans to make decisions for their own well-being they are blindly crazy. Blind faith in scripture or interpretation is oh so very irritating to me.
If you believe in God at all you will know that God created that baby fetus whatever you want to call it. Not the woman or the man. It was not thier choice it was Gods
God owes a LOT of back child-support then.
Then obviously you don't believe in God. I am just stating facts. Not shoving anything down your throat. I am a Christian. Not a fanatic, don't go to Church anymore, haven't for years. But I do believe in God.
Murder -It is what it is. the taking of anothers life
#22 - Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:11 AM ESTI am just stating facts. Not shoving anything down your throat. I am a Christian. Not a fanatic
Riiiiight.
Murder -It is what it is. the taking of anothers life
Any other life, or just the life of another human?
Even if it's just a human, self-defense doesn't count for s---, and all combat soldiers are murderers, then?
I am just stating facts
Allie, please learn the difference between opinion and facts. What I have read is mostly opinion. And what may have been "facts" were inaccurate.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
It saddens me that your God has chosen to end the lives of so many people for so many reasons, or not, over so many centuries, and yet He gave us free will. Most of us anyway.
#23 - Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:12 AM ESTGo ahead shut me down. You are all very weak individuals. I am through now.
#24 - Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:17 AM ESTYou are all very weak individuals.
And you seem a presumptuous twit when you slash out with such outrageous and unsubstantiated remarks.
alliesantacruz
I am not attacking you. I am not accusing you. I am only asking a question. Please read the statement above at #18.2
I have noticed that you must be rushing through as my tracker can't even keep up with all the new posts. Please take your time and read the whole thing. Please consider it very carefully and respond in kind. There is no need for insults or expressions of anger. If you find the choice to difficult just say so. If your unsure than say so and that it is something you have to thank about more. Nothing more and nothing less am I asking. Just consider and then answer but answer as truthfully as you can.
alliesantacruz speaks with "the arrogance of someone who believes they are right". Maybe we should get her and pope together.
Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that with "the arrogance of someone who believes they are right", Mr Obama had signed a decree which would "open the door to abortion and thus to the destruction of human life".
He added: "What is important is to know how to listen, without locking oneself into ideological visions with the arrogance of a person who, having the power, thinks they can decide on life and death. If this is one of the first acts of President Obama, then with all due respect it seems to me that we are heading toward disappointment even more quickly than we thought".
How ironic it is to see a man who claims to know the mind of "God" and wants to see "God's Will" legislated onto others, talk about the "arrogance of someone who believes the are right"
#25 - Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:20 AM ESTThe office of the Pope and the Catholic Church have been in existance for many hundreds of years before the U.S. and will continue long after the United States has gone the way of other empires.
I personally would not have used the term "arrogant" for Obama.
I'd say he was acting uppity.
I'd say he was acting uppity.
Which can easily be said for the Catholic Church as well.
While the pope is the head of the Catholic Church, he also speaks for many others in the Christian Community and has the respect of much of the world. Most of the estblished western churches--Christian, Orthodox Jewish, and Islam--are against abortion.
Obama is only a man, and likely a seriously flawed one, as our past two presidents have been. Obama will be gone in a few years. The Catholic Church will still be with us.
Yeah but maybe the church will find another live wire like John XXIII.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
