The shameful gay marriage ban. [Archive] - Page 8

JeffreyWKramer

12-12-2004, 01:25 PM

I wonder... is it really Catholicism that you hate, or conservatism? If a Catholic said "I go to church every week and I'm a firm believer in the church and God, but I vote for Democrats, am fine with gay marriage, and think the War on Terror is just about oil, and wouldn't mind if every nation on Earth were ruled by a left-wing liberal govt...", would that change your view of them? And what about an Atheist who said "I never go to church and don't believe in God, but I vote Republican, am opposed to gay marriage, support the war, and wouldn't mind if conservative govts ruled every country on the planet"?

No, what I hate is stupid statements like yours, and invalid debate tactics such as you almost uniformly utilize.

I don't hate Catholics at all. I disagree with their stances on some things, and I don't want to see them in charge of the world, any more than I do much of anyone else, but that's not hate.

I'm also not liberal. Since I know you can read, I'm sure you know that. I'm Libertarian, but you like to try to present everything as dichotomous because it lets you dismiss all opposition in one broad swoop.

What I also hate is people feeling they have the right to make choices about private/personal matters for other people. In the areas social conservatives want to do that, I have nothing good to say about them. In the areas liberals want to do the same, I don't have anything good to say about them.

And you, Samurai... well, I really have nothing good to say about you, because you are so intellectually dishonest and will stoop to outright lies, quotes out of context and other similar strategies to try to make a point.

Cam63

12-12-2004, 01:42 PM

JeffreyWKramer

12-12-2004, 01:53 PM

I know this post wasn't directed at me, but I think it would be helpful if people did state where they fall, so there isn't confusion.

The best overall descriptor for my political stance is traditional libertarian - what the GOP used to be, before it became the party of big industry and, later, religious extremism.

I believe strongly in individual liberties, and that the only legitimate role of government is to do for the people what they can't realistically or efficiently do for themselves - things like defending the country, negotiating between the states and other nations, etc. Thus, government has no right telling private citizens what they can or cannot do, so long as they are doing things that do not harm or restrict other people or their property. Laws against theft, rape and murder are fine, as are laws against environmental pollution, but sodomy laws and things like that are not legitimate. It's not anyone else's business - and thus that of the government - who has sex with whom, or how, so long as all involved consent and are able to give meaningful consent. It's also not the business of others - or the government - how people worship, or whether they worship, so long as said worship does not impose upon others. Thus, human sacrifice is wrong.

Things like taxes - to support the government in supplying necessary functions to all - are a necessary evil, but still necessary.

I also believe that individuals do not have a duty to the government, but rather that the government is in the service of the people. People do have a certain duty to the community at large, if only for purposes of mutual respect and cooperation.

Beyond that, I agree with conservative POVs in some areas, liberal in others. I'm pro death-penalty, simply for reasons of societal self-defense. Serial murderers, rapists and such are going to be a threat no matter what we do, and we're better putting down severe threats like we would rabid dogs. I do believe there are problems with how capital punishment is applied, though, and these need to be addressed. I'm pro-choice re: abortion, simply because I trust individuals to make decisions about their bodies better than I trust the state, and because since the woman who becomes pregnant has a tangibly greater stake in what happens than does anyone else, it should be her decision.

anthony!

12-12-2004, 02:00 PM

Wow, or fucking hell, to be more precise.

I just read the posts where Spackling said he thinks Taliban had done something right re how they apply their religious beliefs and how he'd be OK with the fucking Catholic church running the world.

Fuck. Me. Dead.

Just to clarify something. The Catholic Church doesn't actually seek to rule the world. Convert it, sure. Govern it. No.

Since the mess of the Reformation and all the revolutions that followed, the Catholic Church has pretty much taken the stance that it tries to influence the decisions of government through advice and council, as opposed to doing the actual governing.

Interestingly enough, this isn't too different from the way it was before the Reformation, its just the prior the relationship between church and state was very f-ed up. It's just that they were so intertwined, and the church held so much sway with the monarchies of Europe, that it governed in many ways, if not in name (with various exceptions, such as Italy).

A Comparison: The case of Joan of Arc. She said and did a bunch of crazy stuff, which got her in trouble with the government and the church. The government sought her execution, while— on the surface— the church did not. The church would attempt to get her to confess her sin, then "forgive" her. Either way she still got burned at the stake— the issue was whether she wanted to die in a state of sin or forgiveness. Of course, later the church saints her, which is an entirely different issue.

on the flip side: the Catholic Church was officially against the war in Iraq. As what I've read the church sent emissaries to the White House to try and— how shall I say— "correct" the president in his rather unbalanced view of what constitutes a just war. He clearly disagreed with the Catholic Church, and the church was powerless to do anything to stop him. Had this been a couple hundred years ago, it would have been a much larger problem for the president.

-A!

Samurai

12-12-2004, 02:33 PM

Just to make it official:

I am Catholic, I go to church every week (sometimes more often), I voted (reluctantly) for Kerry, I'm pro-life, I think the War on Terror isn't all about oil but is extremely misguided and mismanaged, and would be really disturbed if the whole world became a harmonious left-wing democracy. Because no such thing exists.

I know this post wasn't directed at me, but I think it would be helpful if people did state where they fall, so there isn't confusion.

-A!

-A!
I'm an agnostic, I voted for Bush, I support the War on Terror but feel if could be handled a bit better, and my views on abortion are a bit complex... 1st Trimester it's just cells, the mother should be able to abort it at will. 2nd Trimester it's beginning to develop more and abortion should still be legal, but discouraged if possible. 3rd Trimester it's almost completely developed and it should only be aborted to save the life/serious health of the mother. I don't want any 1-world government, neither right, left, or center. I feel it would ruin the unique cultures and civilizations around the world, and such a centralized authority would be very out of touch with the needs of average folks. I'm in favor of the death penalty, opposed to legalizing drugs, and favor lower taxes and smaller govt. I'd be fine with civil unions for gays (and straights, get govt out of marriage), but I'm not in favor of gay marriage all that much. I feel there should be Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. In other words, people should be allowed to worship how and what they wish, or not at all, as opposed to enforced secularism to make sure no one is "offended" by a Christmas carol in school.

Jeffrey, it sounds like we may actually agree on many more things than we disagree on. I'm not sure why the venom...

JeffreyWKramer

12-12-2004, 03:30 PM

Jeffrey, it sounds like we may actually agree on many more things than we disagree on. I'm not sure why the venom...

I've explained the venom. I don't agree with your tactics or your debate style. You cite stuff that is bullshit, or which comes from illegitimate sources. You quote things out of context in attempt to support your arguments, or in attacking others' arguments. You continue to make arguments which have been thoroughly discredited, without either changing the argument or acknowledging the criticisms.

You and I do agree on quite a few things, though we also disagree on several. The fact is, though, unless someone is arguing in favor of something pretty horrendous - trying to justify the Holocaust or the US internment of Japanese-Americans during WW II, for example, or expressing support for Al-Qaeda or the Taliban - I'm generally less concerned with what one argues (which can be a matter of personal opinion and belief) than how one argues. When one uses biased or bogus sources or mis-cites scientific/statistical data, this cheapens the debate, and it continues the unhappy trend of people confusing spin, opinion and fact. Some things are a matter of opinion, but not all opinions are equal - and some things are simply a matter of facts. One can even disagree upon interpretations of facts, but when one misstates the facts, that is not to be tolerated.

Part of why it pisses me off when you do this stuff, Sam, is because you are obviously an intelligent guy who is capable of making coherent arguments, and another part is that for the most part, your viewpoints are legitimately defensible - yet you go for the cheap and dishonest win. Since you are smart and articulate, yet continue to do that even when it is pointed out, my conclusion is that you are more concerned with a supposed "win" than with honest debate of opinions or facts. That puts you in the category with people like Ann Coulter, Karl Rove and Michael Moore, as far as I'm concerned, and that's not good company to keep.

Adam Crocker

12-12-2004, 03:49 PM

Just to clarify something. The Catholic Church doesn't actually seek to rule the world. Convert it, sure. Govern it. No.

I've been reading what's been happening in this conversation since I went to bed last night and all I can really say is...

Did you actually read what Spackling said?

Yes I am aware that the Church seeks converts not political dominance, but that is not what Spackling actually said. Boldido asked him, "So if a vote came up saying that we are abolishing the Constitution and all law in the country would be based upon the edicts of the Pope and the church hierarchy, would you vote for that as well?" His response?

Yes. Yes I would.

What's wrong with that?

He then went on to say...

If the Church took over the world, I'd be okay with it.

Like the Taliban, you bet, if you mean having a convicted, strong and unwavering society focused on the truth and eternal life.

Unlike the Taliban, we don't go out and fly planes into buildings. But the Taliban has it right. They at least have that fundamentalism down to a science.

He said he had no problems with the Church taking over the world and then goes onto praise the Taliban, despite the fact that they were a horrible, murderous theocracy that denied basic rights to women (including health care because they didn't want male staffers and doctors exposed to them) while disallowing any television, radio, movies, or whatever they deemed idolaterous. (Hey Spackling! Under the Taliban you wouldn't get to read comics either!)

Seriously. Why are Kramer and others' negative reactions to these statements so mystifying? This isn't an attack on Catholicism, this is an attack on someone endorsing theocracy and totalitarianism. To give the secular equivalent of his statements:

Y'know, I wouldn't have any problem if the U.S. Constitution was aborgated in favour of rule by the UN Security Council. In fact I wouldn't have any problem if we had a one world government under the UN.

And that Stalin fellow sure was on the money on how to run things!

And for the record I know of plenty of sane Catholics who actually like things like religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc. So this isn't an attack on one person for being religious so much as it is someone advocating that we have our affairs governed by theocracy. I've got no respect for Stalinism, I don't see why I should respect religious authoritarianism be it Islamic, Catholic, Shinto, or whatever.

I'd be fine with civil unions for gays (and straights, get govt out of marriage), but I'm not in favor of gay marriage all that much. I feel there should be Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. In other words, people should be allowed to worship how and what they wish, or not at all, as opposed to enforced secularism to make sure no one is "offended" by a Christmas carol in school.

How does gay marriage = freedom from religion? Moreover, how is it even like those ridiculous rules that some Universities have posted to keep down Christmas decorations because they might offend some people? (Which actually infringes upon people's freedoms.)

Samurai

12-12-2004, 04:09 PM

How does gay marriage = freedom from religion? Moreover, how is it even like those ridiculous rules that some Universities have posted to keep down Christmas decorations because they might offend some people? (Which actually infringes upon people's freedoms.)
It doesn't... it was just the next item in the list. Lower taxes doesn't equal gay marriage either... it was just immediately preceeding it in the list, the same way religion followed it.

Samurai

12-12-2004, 04:19 PM

I've explained the venom. I don't agree with your tactics or your debate style. You cite stuff that is bullshit, or which comes from illegitimate sources. You quote things out of context in attempt to support your arguments, or in attacking others' arguments. You continue to make arguments which have been thoroughly discredited, without either changing the argument or acknowledging the criticisms.

You and I do agree on quite a few things, though we also disagree on several. The fact is, though, unless someone is arguing in favor of something pretty horrendous - trying to justify the Holocaust or the US internment of Japanese-Americans during WW II, for example, or expressing support for Al-Qaeda or the Taliban - I'm generally less concerned with what one argues (which can be a matter of personal opinion and belief) than how one argues. When one uses biased or bogus sources or mis-cites scientific/statistical data, this cheapens the debate, and it continues the unhappy trend of people confusing spin, opinion and fact. Some things are a matter of opinion, but not all opinions are equal - and some things are simply a matter of facts. One can even disagree upon interpretations of facts, but when one misstates the facts, that is not to be tolerated.

Part of why it pisses me off when you do this stuff, Sam, is because you are obviously an intelligent guy who is capable of making coherent arguments, and another part is that for the most part, your viewpoints are legitimately defensible - yet you go for the cheap and dishonest win. Since you are smart and articulate, yet continue to do that even when it is pointed out, my conclusion is that you are more concerned with a supposed "win" than with honest debate of opinions or facts. That puts you in the category with people like Ann Coulter, Karl Rove and Michael Moore, as far as I'm concerned, and that's not good company to keep.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disgree then, because I don't feel I've used the tactics you describe. Just because you disagree with a website doesn't mean it's "thoroughly discredited", but I certainly understand the impulse to say it is... I happen to feel the "10% gay" figure and "100,000 dead in Iraq" are thoroughly discredited claims, and provided a lot of evidence to support my opinions, but some still believe them. I've spent a great deal of time debating issues and don't think I go for any "cheap and easy wins" except when the point has already been discussed several times previously in that thread, and some newbie to the discussion didn't read very far back and brings it back up again. If I weren't interested in debating the facts, though, I wouldn't be here. I would start a blog to air my views without debate or discussion. I prefer the give and take of a forum, though. What makes you think you are more open to "honest debate and facts" than me, anyway? I haven't seen you as a paragon of enlightnment and understanding... you sling mud with the best of them.

JeffreyWKramer

12-12-2004, 04:32 PM

What makes you think you are more open to "honest debate and facts" than me, anyway? I haven't seen you as a paragon of enlightnment and understanding... you sling mud with the best of them.

Oh, I can sling mud just fine, no doubt about that. And I get snarky at times. And one can rightly criticize me on those grounds. But not on grounds of honesty regarding facts.

I defy you to find a time in which I quoted someone out of context, or a time when I was wrong about some point of fact and did not admit that when it was discovered (point in fact, I've several times corrected my own statements upon referring to primary sources). I also defy you to find some instance of me citing extremist/dingbat sources as legitimate authorities.

As to the "10% of people are gay" argument, I've also stated that is not correct, but I've cited numbers which differ from the ones you prefer - with said numbers being based on actual consensus opinion of experts, rather than the biased, selective citations found on some Christian sites... yet you persist in citing those numbers, and that site, as if both were not obviously and demonstrably biased.

Spackling Compound

12-12-2004, 07:21 PM

I just can't stay away from this thread...

I did say the Taliban had it right. But I said it in the context of the marriage of culture and relgion.
The ancient Romans had it right. The Hasidic Jews have it right. The Amish have it right. The stricit Hindi have it right.
And by right, I meant that the relgion of the society dictates the behavior of the society.

Believe it or not, we Catholics actually consider ourselves more than a lil' place where slobbering superstitious fools go to hear about fictitious angels and such. We think of ourselves as a nation. It's in our Scripture and in our Traditon. That whole "new Jerusalem" thing. Also, we have a seat in the UN.

So as a nation, the members adhere to a certain code and lifestyle.

The Catholic abuses...even to the nuns in Ireland...mentioned on this board are not what I consider to be the Church I am talking about. Since the second council of the Vatican, there have been great changes in our worldview and philosophy. I would not mind that worldview being the view of the world.

To say that my beleif that the Church being the government of the world is wanting to bring great evil in the world is just wrong (and I think I now can use that word since 4thpip introduced it in the thread). To say the Catholic faith of 2005 is just like the way the Church flexed its muscle in the days of 1233 or 1503 or even 1957 is not correct.
It would be like saying psychology is harmful because of the electrc shock treatments used on patients.

I agree with Anthony in that the argument for/against the Catholic Church---my Church---cannot be discussed seriously until there is recognition of what the Church has been in the past 40 years.

I've been to some wacky Masses but have yet to have "Whack a Cathar" night at my parish.

Corrina

12-12-2004, 08:18 PM

Well, no.

If the Amish followed the dictates of majority of American or even Pennsylvanian society, they wouldn't exist.

ONLY the fact that America (and Americans) are willing to tolerate beliefs other than themselves allowed the Amish to found their community in the first place and only the tolerance of the majority allows them to continue to exist.

The majority of Americans consider themselves Christian of one sort or another. But, hey, we tolerate those Jews. We even allow them to hold their Sabbath sacred---even if their employer insists they work on Saturdays, the law backs up the minority, not the employer (the majority.)

Adam Crocker

12-12-2004, 09:40 PM

I did say the Taliban had it right. But I said it in the context of the marriage of culture and relgion.

How did they have it right since according to Taliban culture women are less than full humans and all freedom of expression is banned?

Believe it or not, we Catholics actually consider ourselves more than a lil' place where slobbering superstitious fools go to hear about fictitious angels and such.

No one ever said that.

Though it is the Vatican City that has a seat at the UN, not Catholics as whole, who do not make up a nation in the sense that Ireland is a nation or Canada is a nation.

To say that my beleif that the Church being the government of the world is wanting to bring great evil in the world is just wrong (and I think I now can use that word since 4thpip introduced it in the thread). To say the Catholic faith of 2005 is just like the way the Church flexed its muscle in the days of 1233 or 1503 or even 1957 is not correct.

Did you even read our objections? Our problem is the very idea of imposing a religious theocracy on the world. You spoke in favour of the idea of abolishing the U.S. Constitution and its laws in favour of a government of the Pope and his edicts. The Catholic church has done many positive things (even in the medieval period where some of its worst crimes lay; I'm particularly thinking of its efforts to curb the violence of Europe's knights and its preservation of learning and books), but structurally speaking it is not as accountable as the representative democracies in places like the U.S., Canada, the UK, western Europe, etc. I don't want that. I have enough problems with governments that are actually somewhat accountable as it is.

Moreover, what you are proposing is imposing a government where the religious edicts of the Pope are backed by the coercive force of the state. As near as I can tell that will lead to the Vatican slipping back into the 1500s, in that it will start dictating religion to people and how they may live their lives. I have no problem with the Pope disagreeing with me on things like birth control, but I don't want him telling me I can't use birth control (in the context of him backing this up with the coercive powers of the state) simply because he thinks it will damn me to hell, especially when he's not an elected official.

An unaccountable government, and one ruling the world no less, is a surefire recipe for authoritarianism. And theocracy only helps it along since most theocracies don't respect religious freedoms, but are governments based on the administrative hierarchy of religion and for the most part. Hell what business of it is the government's anyways to tell me whether or not I can use condoms?

Sure Vatican City is run pretty well, but its an incredibly tiny state. It's borders are 3.2 kilometres total, 0.44 km in area. Much of its residents are Priests, nuns, high dignataries, the Swiss Guard, while most of its lay workers reside outside of its walls. Its finances come from donations by Catholics around the world, and exists, landlocked, within the capital of a democratic society. Not a very powerful state when it comes down to it.

Giving it the power over a country such as even Iran will lead to authoritarianism, even if the rulers are relatively benevolent at first because an unaccountable organizational structure helps to insulate its leaders from criticism of their action. Back that with the power of the state's control over infrastructure and law, as well as the full coercive powers of a sufficiently powerful police force and military force and well...take a look at history and you'll find the corresponding amount of power a central state is given the greater the abuses.

Which is why I brought up those examples from Medieval and early modern Europe. That's what happens when organized religion's beliefs are enforced by the power of an authoritarian state. You get the slaughter of the Cathars by the French Barons, empowered by the Catholic Church, the Spanish Inquisition, the English Crown's prosecution of Catholics and Puritans alike, Oliver Cromwell's bloody conquest of Ireland. Even with the relatively well intentioned villagization project in Tanzania led by Julius Nyerre, a man from rural Tanzania who loved the traditional Tanzanian village, the project slide into violence on the part of the government and the state when people resisted its attempts to relocate and organize villages according to government planners' whims.

That I am somehow to believe that things will be magically better with the Catholic Church running everything is laughable. That's been the delusion of every utopian thinking the world would be better if everyone were simply told to do things this way by the right people, and look how well that turned out. We got Soviet Russia.

Sir Tim Drake

12-12-2004, 10:10 PM

And personally, a dime will be a boon to one man with no money. A condom may stop HIV to a man having sex with an HIV infected man. BUT..dimes and condoms do not eradicate the problem.

Condoms are not intended to "eradicate the problem" of AIDS, just to stop their users from getting AIDS. Are you incapable of making this distinction?

There is a valid ideology that homosexuality is just as much a social problem as poverty. Social problem in the sense that it is particular to some countries and/or cultures. In some cultures neither is a problem or even both may be a virtue.

Okay, name one culture in which poverty is viewed a good or neutral condition, rather than a social ill which needs to be cured.

Homosexuality is only a social problem in the minds of bigoted people.

Melissa

12-12-2004, 10:27 PM

Did you even read our objections? Our problem is the very idea of imposing a religious theocracy on the world. You spoke in favour of the idea of abolishing the U.S. Constitution and its laws in favour of a government of the Pope and his edicts. The Catholic church has done many positive things (even in the medieval period where some of its worst crimes lay; I'm particularly thinking of its efforts to curb the violence of Europe's knights and its preservation of learning and books), but structurally speaking it is not as accountable as the representative democracies in places like the U.S., Canada, the UK, western Europe, etc. I don't want that. I have enough problems with governments that are actually somewhat accountable as it is.

Moreover, what you are proposing is imposing a government where the religious edicts of the Pope are backed by the coercive force of the state. As near as I can tell that will lead to the Vatican slipping back into the 1500s, in that it will start dictating religion to people and how they may live their lives. I have no problem with the Pope disagreeing with me on things like birth control, but I don't want him telling me I can't use birth control simply because he thinks it will damn me to hell, especially when he's not an elected official.

An unaccountable government, and one ruling the world no less, is a surefire recipe for authoritarianism. And theocracy only helps it along since most theocracies don't respect religious freedoms, but are governments based on the administrative hierarchy of religion and for the most part. Hell what business of it is the government's anyways to tell me whether or not I can use condoms?

Sure Vatican City is run pretty well, but its an incredibly tiny state. It's borders are 3.2 kilometres total, 0.44 km in area. Much of its residents are Priests, nuns, high dignataries, the Swiss Guard, while most of its lay workers reside outside of its walls. Its finances come from donations by Catholics around the world, and exists, landlocked, within the capital of a democratic society. Not a very powerful state when it comes down to it.

Giving it the power over a country such as even Iran will lead to authoritarianism, even if the rulers are relatively benevolent at first because an unaccountable organizational structure helps to insulate its leaders from criticism of their action. Back that with the power of the state's control over infrastructure and law, as well as the full coercive powers of a sufficiently powerful police force and military force and well...take a look at history and you'll find the corresponding amount of power a central state is given the greater the abuses.

Which is why I brought up those examples from Medieval and early modern Europe. That's what happens when organized religion's beliefs are enforced by the power of an authoritarian state. You get the slaughter of the Cathars by the French Barons, empowered by the Catholic Church, the Spanish Inquisition, the English Crown's prosecution of Catholics and Puritans alike, Oliver Cromwell's bloody conquest of Ireland. Even with the relatively well intentioned villagization project in Tanzania led by Julius Nyerre, a man from rural Tanzania who loved the traditional Tanzanian village, the project slide into violence on the part of the government and the state when people resisted its attempts to relocate and organize villages according to government planners' whims.

That I am somehow to believe that things will be magically better with the Catholic Church running everything is laughable. That's been the delusion of every utopian thinking the world would be better if everyone were simply told to do things this way by the right people, and look how well that turned out. We got Soviet Russia.

This is all very good and valuable, but overlooks one other very important thing: I don't want to live by their rules, thanks very much. They might think they're got the answers, but I don't, and so thanks but no thanks.

Adam Crocker

12-12-2004, 10:35 PM

This is all very good and valuable, but overlooks one other very important thing: I don't want to live by their rules, thanks very much. They might think they're got the answers, but I don't, and so thanks but no thanks.

Well there's that too, though I might've gone over it in my statements on birth control. However the main thrust of my argument was explaining why this would lead to an authoritarian theocracy, and thus is not desirable even by those who agree with the Pope, unless they like the idea of a Papal dictatorship.

Sir Tim Drake

12-13-2004, 04:06 AM

Fine. Then prove how the ban on gay marriage is harmful.

Ask Tom.
....

the4thpip

12-13-2004, 05:15 AM

Or me.

° °

Spackling Compound

12-13-2004, 07:28 AM

That I am somehow to believe that things will be magically better with the Catholic Church running everything is laughable. That's been the delusion of every utopian thinking the world would be better if everyone were simply told to do things this way by the right people, and look how well that turned out. We got Soviet Russia.

That you would pose the question that the Vatican would be able to repeal the Constituiton and take over the American system is just as "laughable" and "delusional".

You gave me a hypothetical situation and I responded with my answer. I am not saying that I'm drawing up blueprints or even praying for such a situation.

And to whit, the country would be in better shape under the guidance of Catholicism than free-willing Evangelicals any day.

Did I say I was giving up on this thread? Ok, ok, for real. I'm bailing now. I'll pray for the patronage of St. Ian Boothby, the patron of Thread-deserters to help me. Ora pro Nobis!

Pia Guerra

12-13-2004, 07:36 AM

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Thomas Jefferson September 23, 1800

This quote inscribed on Thomas Jefferson's tomb wasn't about the British monarchy, but of the evils of fundamentalism.

And I think Ian is too busy getting his work done to argue with the insensible, but that's just my opinion.

Adam Crocker

12-13-2004, 07:41 AM

That you would pose the question that the Vatican would be able to repeal the Constituiton and take over the American system is just as "laughable" and "delusional".

I didn't, Boldido did, and in response to your statements that you didn't have a problem with the government enforcing religious morality. I merely responded to your answer.

You gave me a hypothetical situation and I responded with my answer. I am not saying that I'm drawing up blueprints or even praying for such a situation.

No, but you still spoke in favour of replacing a system of elected representatives and Constitutionally guaranteed liberties with government by an unelected Pope and Church edicts. That isn't the same thing as having a Catholic as a opposed to Evangelical President, that's effectively speaking out in favour of what would be an authoritarian government, far moreso than the current abuses of power that go on within the American system. That people reacted to these statements negatively really that hard to understand?

anthony!

12-13-2004, 08:01 AM

Did you actually read what Spackling said?

Of course. But seeing that so many people are so blatantly incorrect in their knowledge of the Catholic Church, I had to make sure that no one actually THOUGHT that that is what church seeks.

I just wanted to make sure that was clear, thats all.

-A!

Spackling Compound

12-13-2004, 08:03 AM

That people reacted to these statements negatively really that hard to understand?

No I understand the negativity but the majority of negative reaction does not mean that I am "wrong" and I suppose that brings us back to square one...

anthony!

12-13-2004, 08:11 AM

This quote inscribed on Thomas Jefferson's tomb wasn't about the British monarchy, but of the evils of fundamentalism.

I don't see anything particularly fundamentalist about being okay with Catholic rule in theory. Again I think Spack is being misunderstood here.

He seems to be dealing entirely with hypotheticals, and in earlier post/threads— voting his personal opinion.

If I were forced to vote on the issues like abortion and gay marriage, I would more than likely take up the Catholic side of the argument. Additionally, if a true Catholic candidate (not cheesey fake Catholic, John Kerry/ Ed Kennedy style) were to finally introduce Catholic ideas into American thinking and politics. I'd be all for it. Not simply because I'm Catholic, but because I believe these ideas to be beneficial to all.

But again, all of this is dealing with hypotheticals (as we have been for quite a while now)— which is sort of pointlesss.

-A!

p.s. LOVE your work on Y: The Last Man.

anthony!

12-13-2004, 08:32 AM

Seriously. Why are Kramer and others' negative reactions to these statements so mystifying? This isn't an attack on Catholicism, this is an attack on someone endorsing theocracy and totalitarianism. To give the secular equivalent of his statements:

Y'know, I wouldn't have any problem if the U.S. Constitution was aborgated in favour of rule by the UN Security Council. In fact I wouldn't have any problem if we had a one world government under the UN.

And that Stalin fellow sure was on the money on how to run things!

And for the record I know of plenty of sane Catholics who actually like things like religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc.

Actually isn't the over all long term goal over everything is for the world to eventually all be one? Maybe im getting a little kooky, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if in a few hundred years and a few more bloody wars nations started slowly making their borders disappear. In fact I might even be for it it there were a system of checks and balances in place. I guess that makes me totalitarian. Oh, well.

The biggest roadblock to that right now isn't political so much as the blatant economic inequality in the world.

As far as sane Catholics that believe in free speech. Well, sure, all American Catholics believe in free speech. Of course, if those Catholics were saying and believing things that contradicted the church... they may not have a legal problem, but they certainly would have a problem with there diocese. I'd go so far as to say that if a Catholic really did believe that abortion was a-okay, they probably shouldn't be Catholic.

-A!

anthony!

12-13-2004, 09:50 AM

Adam Crocker

12-13-2004, 10:39 AM

Actually isn't the over all long term goal over everything is for the world to eventually all be one? Maybe im getting a little kooky, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if in a few hundred years and a few more bloody wars nations started slowly making their borders disappear. In fact I might even be for it it there were a system of checks and balances in place. I guess that makes me totalitarian. Oh, well.

Again you missed some of the pertinent points I stated: namely that the heirarchial structure of the Catholic Church itself isn't necessarily accountable. Spackling never said anything about checks and balances in place so much as a government of the Pope and his edicts, and would have no problem were it imposed upon the world. He never said anything about guaranteeing people's rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

And this is in the context of him also praising the Taliban as having "got it right in marriage and culture." I have no respect authoritarianism or anyone endorsing such a thing, even in hypotheticals. If he's endorsing it "in theory" what means he wouldn't have a problem with it in practice? After all Marx endorsed total control of the economy by the state in theory, and look where that ended up. My years of studying history for University as well as James C. Scott's excellent book Seeing Like a State (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300078153/qid=1102958466/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-7559053-1328743) have made me allergic to monothlithic plans for improving the human condition, even in theory.

As to whether making everything over the world one being the long term goal, that's debatable. Studying history I've found plenty of examples of how trying to make the world one from the top-down has led to tyranny, violence, and some of history's great atrocities. The Church's attempts to do so by using the power of Europe's noble led to things like the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars. Spain, Britain, France, and various other European powers tried this in their colonial endeavours. This led frequently to colonial regimes and actually helped to exacerbate or create tensions between local peoples, i.e.; the whole dispute between the Hutus's and the Tutsi's in Rwanda is due to Colonial powers of Germany and Belgium favouring the Tutsis over the Hutus for running colonial policy and thus creating an animosity towards Hutus.

And I don't think I need mention the matter of Communism and attempts to impose that as well. I will add however, that I see this at work as well in American attempts to impose liberal democracy and free market capitalism seem to be working along the same lines as well. Most often its meant imposing governments amiable to American interests in other countries (see Cuba and Platt Amendment following the Spanish-American war, or Guatemala in 1954, or Iraq now). The result is often economic policies that serve more to perpetuate corrupt authority and government's that are otherwise outright authoritarianism or only a pale shade of the representative democracy that Canadians and Americans enjoy.

You can't expect world peace by imposing one system on everyone and every country. The kind of nationalism and government that we have may not necessarily work for Maya in Guatemala who have a much more locally oriented identity. (Hell with their various regional differences Canadians and Americans have a hard time working it through as it is.) Perhaps Catholic rule would work if eveyone was Catholic and agreed with the Pope about 100%, but that's not going to happen. Even theoretically it's easy to see why one-world Catholic rule wouldn't work.

That doesn't mean that when applied to real life that Catholicism can't be beneficial, such as the base communities that arose in places like El Salvador in the 1970s out of campesinos learning to read and interpret the Bible for themselves and deciding that they should organize to improve their economic situation. However, that was an example of people who believed in it voluntarily applying it to their own lives, not imposition of it. Moreover, it was their own interpretation. If a better world is the goal it is not going to come from trying to impose a single system on a complex, variegated world, which in history usually breeds violence, but people being able to choose how they live while respecting others differences that do not infringe on their freedoms or cause harm to others.

The biggest roadblock to that right now isn't political so much as the blatant economic inequality in the world.

I've found that frequently the two go hand in hand. The economic misery of most of the inhabitants of Saudi Arabia is partly due to the corruption and extravagance of the House of Saud that makes little effort to change the country. Moreover, authoritarianism of the regime guarantees that there will not be change since any dissent is stamped out. In Latin American nations, landed oligarchs with a government largely controlled by people sympathetic only to their needs employed death squads against political dissidents of all stripes, but especially anyone involved in organizing poor campesinos who had suffered the most from the land arrangements that the oligarchs benefitted from.

anthony!

12-13-2004, 10:45 AM

Again you missed some of the pertinent points I stated: namely that the heirarchial structure of the Catholic Church itself isn't necessarily accountable.

And again you keep taking my response as solely limited to your comments. I'm merely taking a thought or comment and taking it to another place for further discussion. I think most of your comments are completely valid.

-A!

TCJohnson

12-13-2004, 11:12 AM

Just out of curiosity, in this theocracy (and this goes for any theocracy of any religion) that Spackling is so for, what would happen to non believers? Re-education? Concentration camps? Executions? Deportations? How would you keep the non-believers out?

Adam Crocker

12-13-2004, 11:15 AM

And again you keep taking my response as solely limited to your comments. I'm merely taking a thought or comment and taking it to another place for further discussion. I think most of your comments are completely valid.

I apologize, but your comments came after quoting me and seemed in response to my arguments, so I took them as such. Moreover, I was also responding to the "I guess that makes me totalitarian comment," since my and most others objections to Spackling have been favouring a theocratic world government that made no mention of such checks and balances. So I guess I got my communication with you muddled.

Melissa

12-13-2004, 09:03 PM

Well there's that too, though I might've gone over it in my statements on birth control. However the main thrust of my argument was explaining why this would lead to an authoritarian theocracy, and thus is not desirable even by those who agree with the Pope, unless they like the idea of a Papal dictatorship.

Absolutely agree. I just wanted to add the bit about self-determination. Personal freedom is pretty important to me.

Pixies Chick

12-14-2004, 07:09 AM

Actually isn't the over all long term goal over everything is for the world to eventually all be one? Maybe im getting a little kooky, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if in a few hundred years and a few more bloody wars nations started slowly making their borders disappear. In fact I might even be for it it there were a system of checks and balances in place. I guess that makes me totalitarian. Oh, well.

The biggest roadblock to that right now isn't political so much as the blatant economic inequality in the world.

As far as sane Catholics that believe in free speech. Well, sure, all American Catholics believe in free speech. Of course, if those Catholics were saying and believing things that contradicted the church... they may not have a legal problem, but they certainly would have a problem with there diocese. I'd go so far as to say that if a Catholic really did believe that abortion was a-okay, they probably shouldn't be Catholic.

-A!
I don't see anything particularly fundamentalist about being okay with Catholic rule in theory. Again I think Spack is being misunderstood here.

He seems to be dealing entirely with hypotheticals, and in earlier post/threads— voting his personal opinion.

If I were forced to vote on the issues like abortion and gay marriage, I would more than likely take up the Catholic side of the argument. Additionally, if a true Catholic candidate (not cheesey fake Catholic, John Kerry/ Ed Kennedy style) were to finally introduce Catholic ideas into American thinking and politics. I'd be all for it. Not simply because I'm Catholic, but because I believe these ideas to be beneficial to all.

But again, all of this is dealing with hypotheticals (as we have been for quite a while now)— which is sort of pointless....

Speaking of hypotheticals, you'd toss me out if I ever tried to return to the church, wouldn't you?

See, I think "pro-life" legislation makes about as much sense as "just say no". Drugs are illegal. So nobody uses drugs? Kinda naive, don't ya think?

Nobody plans an unplanned pregnancy. It's illogical. There's lots of ways to intervene to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and improve people's lives that result in fewer abortions. That's one reason why the abortion rate is going up now -- these programs and services are less available. Improving the quality of people's lives helps reduce the abortion rate, and that's nothing that this administration intends to do, for all their talk about being pro-life.

I see Pro-Life as a way to turn your back on something you don't want to know about. Are you going to give someone a ticket when they have an abortion? Like jaywalking? Making abortion illegal won't end abortion. Not when you can accomplish it with a pack of birth control pills or a bicycle spoke. It'll just happen in unsanitary conditions without medical care, in the neighborhood methlab and abortionary perhaps.

I know a couple dozen lapsed Catholics who feel the same way. The "My way or the highway" approach to political questions doesn't work for people who like to think. Not that the appeal isn't still there. A friend commented that when that five o'clock bell tolled, she expected all of us to walk lockstep to church, like The Time Machine.

So I hear you arrogantly slur another Catholic because of a political disagreement, and I think, man, do not invest your heart with this croud because they'll break it and kick you to the curb when they hear you disagree with them. You can't see John Kerry's heart, and you can't see mine. It's a vicious thing to say. I'll remember this if that bell chimes and I find myself headed to that door, and I'll sit myself back down.

anthony!

12-14-2004, 12:59 PM

Speaking of hypotheticals, you'd toss me out if I ever tried to return to the church, wouldn't you?

See, I think "pro-life" legislation makes about as much sense as "just say no". Drugs are illegal. So nobody uses drugs? Kinda naive, don't ya think?

Nobody plans an unplanned pregnancy. It's illogical. There's lots of ways to intervene to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and improve people's lives that result in fewer abortions. That's one reason why the abortion rate is going up now -- these programs and services are less available. Improving the quality of people's lives helps reduce the abortion rate, and that's nothing that this administration intends to do, for all their talk about being pro-life.

I see Pro-Life as a way to turn your back on something you don't want to know about. Are you going to give someone a ticket when they have an abortion? Like jaywalking? Making abortion illegal won't end abortion. Not when you can accomplish it with a pack of birth control pills or a bicycle spoke. It'll just happen in unsanitary conditions without medical care, in the neighborhood methlab and abortionary perhaps.

I know a couple dozen lapsed Catholics who feel the same way. The "My way or the highway" approach to political questions doesn't work for people who like to think. Not that the appeal isn't still there. A friend commented that when that five o'clock bell tolled, she expected all of us to walk lockstep to church, like The Time Machine.

So I hear you arrogantly slur another Catholic because of a political disagreement, and I think, man, do not invest your heart with this croud because they'll break it and kick you to the curb when they hear you disagree with them. You can't see John Kerry's heart, and you can't see mine. It's a vicious thing to say. I'll remember this if that bell chimes and I find myself headed to that door, and I'll sit myself back down.

Your more than welcome to whatever political opinions you want. Unfortunately, when your political opinions contradict your supposed faith, I do see a problem with that. Whats the point of having a faith and being part of a religion if you don't believe in it? Oh, I'm sorry, this is all about "personal" opinions versus undeniable truth.

There are four areas in Catholicism that are pretty much mandated for the Vatican to not politically support. Abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and gay marriage are three of them (I can't recall the fourth, I believe its birth control). Abortion I absolutely oppose, for reasons that require another thread. I don't think government should be involved in marriage period, so that pretty much neutralizes that gay marriage debate. And I pretty much support any stem-cell research, as long as its not embryonic and creating life solely to be destroyed.

Heck, even after all of that Catholicism believes voting is a matter of personal conscience. When push comes to shove, if your conscience truly does tell you to vote another way (such as voting for Kerry, which I did by the way) then there isn't a problem.

And how have I slurred another Catholic? John Kerry severely fudged his Catholicism. Their is no way around that. He went to non-Catholic churches that offered services "in the Catholic tradition", so that he wouldn't cause a scene when it came time to take the eucharist. I voted for the man, and still was pretty disgusted by that. He had two choices: leave the Catholic Church, or grow a pair and see if the Cathlic Church really would deny him communion. But again, that a matter of personal opinion.

And since when does taking a "my way or the highway" approach not mean I'm thinking? I see, so sticking up for what you believe in makes you a total a**hole. Is that how it works? And being an "enlightened" person means keeping beliefs personal and letting anyone and everyone else get away with whatever they want?

I take the attitude that I do because I believe that the Catholic positions on certain issues are irrefutable and undeniable truth. Does that mean that my heart doesn't ache for women who, as you have brought up, have unwanted pregnancies? No. But I also feel bad for the unborn child that isn't even going to get a chance to have a life period. This isn't the discussion to talk for paragraphs about abortion anyway, I suggest you start your own thread if you want to and I'd be happy to discuss it further.

If a person is in the Cathlic Church and believes that birth control is fantastic, abortion is perfectly fine, that the church should allow gay marriage, and killing unborn children is okay in the name of science, then I would suggest that they not be Catholic. That doesn't mean that I think they are bad people, or that they are stupid, a bad American, or even that they are going to hell or whatever. It's not for me to decide, and I've got plenty of friends who would disaggree with me till we were blue in the face. I don't look at my gay friends or Protestant friends and think "hope you like hell, hethen!" It's not in my vocabulary, and it shouldn't be in any Catholic's— even the Vaticans, in my opinion.

But being in a religion (Catholic or otherwise) is supposed to encompass your entire being. You can't be a Cathlic and pick and choose what you want to believe in like your at a buffet. Just as being an American, I can't pick and choose which rights I want to recognize. Again, if you believe in things the church doesn't, go right ahead, I would just suggest you not be Catholic or your going to cause yourself a lot of confusion.

And you know what, your right— I can't see into John Kerry's heart or yours for that matter. But niether can you see into mine. If you saw arrogance in my post I apologize, but none was intended. I only know what my faith dictates vs. the actions of other people. Im certain John Kerry was conflicted. I just disagree with his decision. He tried to have it both ways. And in this world, trying to have it both ways too often means everyone loses. I'm in advertising for God's sake, I oughta know.

-A!

Spackling Compound

12-14-2004, 01:52 PM

There are four areas in Catholicism that are pretty much mandated for the Vatican to not politically support. Abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and gay marriage are three of them (I can't recall the fourth, I believe its birth control).

A little fraternal correction--

The issues you speak of are "non-negotiables" introduced in the election cycle in the United States. This does not mean we stand for anything else, such as racism or usury, it just means that these 5 non-negotiables were brought up because we have candidates on either side of these issues. No candidate actually says, "I'm pro-racist". If they did, the Church would add another item to the non-negotiable list.

The Vatican didn't "mandate" these as much as some Bishops in the US since this was done in light of the 2004 election.

And there are five non-negotiables in the election for Catholics:
Abortion
Euthanasia
Embryonic Stem Cell research
Cloning
Gay Marriage

anthony!

12-14-2004, 02:02 PM

A little fraternal correction--

The issues you speak of are "non-negotiables" introduced in the election cycle in the United States. This does not mean we stand for anything else, such as racism or usury, it just means that these 5 non-negotiables were brought up because we have candidates on either side of these issues. No candidate actually says, "I'm pro-racist". If they did, the Church would add another item to the non-negotiable list.

The Vatican didn't "mandate" these as much as some Bishops in the US since this was done in light of the 2004 election.

And there are five non-negotiables in the election for Catholics:
Abortion
Euthanasia
Embryonic Stem Cell research
Cloning
Gay Marriage

Checked on it. Spack is correct.

-A!

Cam63

12-14-2004, 05:59 PM

Absolutely agree. I just wanted to add the bit about self-determination. Personal freedom is pretty important to me.

That's why I'm not interested in ever joining a religion. It's their way or the highway and they give the cold shoulder to anyone who don't quite fit in according to their requirements.

My personal belief there is no God or if there is one, he's an uncaring prick rules me out, too.

Spackling Compound

12-14-2004, 08:06 PM

Talk about a never ending thread!!
This sumbitch has over 20,000 views...

daYum

Dry Observer

12-15-2004, 01:14 AM

Yeah, I was wondering where all the posters had gone... =)

Ralph

Dry Observer

12-15-2004, 01:33 AM

Well, of course I wouldn't want to distract anyone from the heated conversation taking place here. Instead, I shall add fuel to the fire by posting my entire extended paper on genetic anomalies found in the common mollusk. A brief, chirpy little piece of dry scientific analysis that only runs about 225 pages.

And that only because of all the densely packed footnotes and equations.

Yes, I look forward to this thread becoming almost legendary in its popularity. We'll have to drive people away from YABS with the metaphorical stick.

Well, here I go to get my files. Don't forget to keep checking in -- my little distilled draught of unnatural excitement will be here shortly.

Ralph

Spike-X

12-15-2004, 02:17 AM

if a true Catholic candidate (not cheesey fake Catholic, John Kerry/ Ed Kennedy style) were to finally introduce Catholic ideas into American thinking and politics. I'd be all for it. Not simply because I'm Catholic, but because I believe these ideas to be beneficial to all.

Can you tell me how banning birth control would be "beneficial to all"?

Poka Lola Luau

12-15-2004, 05:34 AM

"And how have I slurred another Catholic? John Kerry severely fudged his Catholicism. Their is no way around that. He went to non-Catholic churches that offered services "in the Catholic tradition", so that he wouldn't cause a scene when it came time to take the eucharist. I voted for the man, and still was pretty disgusted by that. He had two choices: leave the Catholic Church, or grow a pair and see if the Cathlic Church really would deny him communion. But again, that a matter of personal opinion."

He probably thought Jesus wouldn't give a hoot which building he was in when he took the eucharist. The pope might mind . You might mind. But from what I've been taught about Jesus, what would matter is what's in his heart when he's taking it.

Isn't it more likely that America would be governed by a Protestant theocracy? Pentecostals and Baptists are against the idea that Mary is an intermediate in prayer. How would you feel if your idols to saints were smashed by the government and prayer to Mary was outlawed?

Spackling Compound

12-15-2004, 07:25 AM

He probably thought Jesus wouldn't give a hoot which building he was in when he took the eucharist. The pope might mind . You might mind. But from what I've been taught about Jesus, what would matter is what's in his heart when he's taking it.

Isn't it more likely that America would be governed by a Protestant theocracy? Pentecostals and Baptists are against the idea that Mary is an intermediate in prayer. How would you feel if your idols to saints were smashed by the government and prayer to Mary was outlawed?

What you've been taught about Jesus is what you've been taught by people obviously not Catholic. The whole "it's your heart that matters" is more Disney than doctrine. And, sorry, we Catholics have the Eucharist so we get to say who does and does not receive. Jesus also said he'd go with what the Church decided.

And as far as our idols being smashed? I think the term "idol" says a whole lot about what you've been taught about Catholicism. Secondly, what we'd feel about the matter as Catholics goes back to the "in your heart" philosophy. Catholicism is by far a religion of reason not emotion. So what we feel about the government is not as important as what we think. And as a man thinketh..

Poka Lola Luau

12-15-2004, 08:12 AM

My cousins belong to a church that was once a porno theatre in an area with a lot of prostitution. I wasn't brought up in the Church of the Uppity Jesus. I don't believe it matters where you pray or receive communion. I received communion weekly at my Uncle's Pentecostal Church. Are you going to tell me that it didn't count for any of the members because it wasn't a Catholic church? That's bollocks.

I'm just saying that you should be careful about dreaming of a church-ruled nation because your church may not be the one that's in charge. I'm not religious nowadays, but I've seen many Evangelical articles and writings by Jimmy Swaggart on how the Catholic Church teaches false methods. They'd use you to get what they wanted and after that they'd "help you see the light".

Fair is fair, though. Sounds like the Catholics would outlaw communion in any other church if they had the power.

anthony!

12-15-2004, 08:12 AM

Can you tell me how banning birth control would be "beneficial to all"?

Catholics don't believe in the use of birth control. Yet as far as I know, no Catholic politician has advocated banning it. I'm not sure if the Vatican is actively pushing to ban it (I wouldn't be surpised if they did decades ago, as more and more forms of birth control were being introduced).

What they DO do is push for people not to use it. They also refuse to support programs that advocate the use of birth control. Which is safely within their rights. People just don't like it.

And really, when it all comes down to it this is all about sex, isn't it? For all the good the church does, everyone tends to just focus on the sex part. The church could solve poverty, war, and hunger— and people all over the world would still be up in arms over the Catholic beliefs on sex. Don't we have bigger problems to solve with out time?

-A!

anthony!

12-15-2004, 08:26 AM

I'm just saying that you should be careful about dreaming of a church-ruled nation because your church may not be the one that's in charge. I'm not religious nowadays, but I've seen many Evangelical articles and writings by Jimmy Swaggart on how the Catholic Church teaches false methods. They'd use you to get what they wanted and after that they'd "help you see the light".

Fair is fair, though. Sounds like the Catholics would outlaw communion in any other church if they had the power.

Whoa. See, now this is what I tend to get up in arms about. I don't mean to be insulting at all, but from what I've read from your posts— you've really been given some wrong information about Catholicism.

In my personal opinion, Evangelicals warp nearly everything about Catholicism— its how they try to pull you into the whole "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" b.s., and then fall into the old Martin Luther "salvation can be acheieved solely by faith" routine.

If the Catholic church believes in its methods, they can't be false (hence the faith part). I wouldn't trust Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Swaggart or the 700 Club at all. Those guys are really crazies in my book. They give Christianity a bad name by being overy authoritarian, judgemental, irrational, and frankly hateful. Unfortunately those qualities have helped drag down the reputation of Catholicism right down with all the other extreme denominations.

As far as outlawing communion— that would be pretty hard to do considering what the other denominations perform is not communion. Catholics believe that the eucharist is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ (hence the phrase"transubstanciation"). Protestantism (and nearly all its forms) clearly defind communion as merely a symbol of the body and blood. There is a portion of the Methodist Church that believes it can swing both ways, depending on personal preference.

Now, if you are not a Catholic who has gone through the sacrement of your first communion, then no— you cannot receive communion. Makes sense to me. If you are a Catholic that is in a state of mortal sin— you shouldn't take communion. This is what confession is for— to put you back into a state of grace. (For example, I haven't taken communion in quite some time, because I've haven't gotten my ass to confession in a while).

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "outlaw" communion. If you mean not give Communion to non-Catholics— well, that would make sense. Obviously the church can't prevent others from taking another form of communion in another denomination.

I'm actually quite concerned with what I've read in you last two posts. It really does sound like if you've been given wrong information, or at least have not heard the Cathlic side of things.

-A!

Sam

12-15-2004, 08:45 AM

And really, when it all comes down to it this is all about sex, isn't it? For all the good the church does, everyone tends to just focus on the sex part. The church could solve poverty, war, and hunger— and people all over the world would still be up in arms over the Catholic beliefs on sex. Don't we have bigger problems to solve with out time?

Given that the Catholic policy on birth control is directly and measurably increasing the suffering due to AIDS throughout large portions of the world, not really, no.

(The overpopulation problem isn't being helped much, either.)

Sam

12-15-2004, 08:51 AM

My cousins belong to a church that was once a porno theatre in an area with a lot of prostitution. I wasn't brought up in the Church of the Uppity Jesus. I don't believe it matters where you pray or receive communion. I received communion weekly at my Uncle's Pentecostal Church. Are you going to tell me that it didn't count for any of the members because it wasn't a Catholic church? That's bollocks.

Yes, it is Catholic doctrine that communion doesn't count unless it is administered by a member of the Catholic clergy. They hold that their Church has Apostolic succession, and no Protestant church does; therefore, only Catholic priests possess the ability to deliver communion. Everyone else is just faking it.

(Except the Eastern Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Church does acknowledge Apostolic succession for the Orthodox Church, though they still say they're wrong.)

Spackling Compound

12-15-2004, 08:51 AM

Given that the Catholic policy on birth control is directly and measurably increasing the suffering due to AIDS throughout large portions of the world, not really, no.
Again, a misunderstanding...

The Catholic teaching on birth control is only for CATHOLIC MARRIED COUPLES! There is no teaching on birth control being used outside the context of marriage.

anthony!

12-15-2004, 09:09 AM

Given that the Catholic policy on birth control is directly and measurably increasing the suffering due to AIDS throughout large portions of the world, not really, no.

(The overpopulation problem isn't being helped much, either.)

Catholics have a right to fight AIDS without sacrificing their religious beliefs pure and simple. Catholics believe in fighting AIDS through teaching abstinence, fighting the economic factors that contribute to the diseases' spead, finding a cure and of course comforting those that have been afflicted.

However, to ask a religion to change its belief system is unfair. If other organizations think the only way to fight AIDS is through birth control, go right ahead— just expect the Catholics to help in their own way.

-A!

Tommy

12-15-2004, 09:09 AM

In my personal opinion, Evangelicals warp nearly everything about Catholicism— its how they try to pull you into the whole "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" b.s., and then fall into the old Martin Luther "salvation can be acheieved solely by faith" routine.

If not through faith alone how is one saved?

If the Catholic church believes in its methods, they can't be false (hence the faith part).

They believed in the Inquisition.

As far as outlawing communion— that would be pretty hard to do considering what the other denominations perform is not communion. Catholics believe that the eucharist is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ (hence the phrase"transubstanciation"). Protestantism (and nearly all its forms) clearly defind communion as merely a symbol of the body and blood. There is a portion of the Methodist Church that believes it can swing both ways, depending on personal preference.

Actually it is. They just have a different interpretation on what communion is than you do. Nowhere in the Bible is Transubstantiation actually substantiated.

Now, if you are not a Catholic who has gone through the sacrement of your first communion, then no— you cannot receive communion. Makes sense to me. If you are a Catholic that is in a state of mortal sin— you shouldn't take communion.

At a Catholic church. Although closed communion is a false doctrine. Communion is for the community of souls. It is meant to bring all Christians together united in our love of God and not divided. No one should be excluded other than those who have not learned about its significance.

This is what confession is for— to put you back into a state of grace. (For example, I haven't taken communion in quite some time, because I've haven't gotten my ass to confession in a while).

Wrong. The only person who can forgive you is God and that forgiveness is free to all. Confession is not required.

Sam

12-15-2004, 09:19 AM

Again, a misunderstanding...

The Catholic teaching on birth control is only for CATHOLIC MARRIED COUPLES! There is no teaching on birth control being used outside the context of marriage.

And yet, the Church has done everything it can to stop condoms from being distributed in Africa, which has upped the death toll considerably.

Sam

12-15-2004, 09:21 AM

Catholics have a right to fight AIDS without sacrificing their religious beliefs pure and simple. Catholics believe in fighting AIDS through teaching abstinence, fighting the economic factors that contribute to the diseases' spead, finding a cure and of course comforting those that have been afflicted.

And fighting AIDS through actively misinforming the people of Africa about what effect condoms have in stopping the spread of AIDS.

However, to ask a religion to change its belief system is unfair. If other organizations think the only way to fight AIDS is through birth control, go right ahead— just expect the Catholics to help in their own way.

...by trying to stop the spread of condoms in nations where doing so directly helps spread the AIDS virus.

Look, your religion can think birth control is bad all day long. That's your right. But if your Church thought antibiotics were evil, and went into a continent being annihilated by the black plague and did everything they could to stop the distribution of antibiotics, it would be pretty much tantamount to the Catholic Church's activities in Africa right now.

anthony!

12-15-2004, 09:37 AM

If not through faith alone how is one saved?

Faith and good works. Catholics believe it is impossible to achieve salvation by simply believing in Jesus. Catholics believe that if you are to enter heaven, you should have actions in your life to back it up. Faith without good works is a hollow faith. If your going to talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk in Catholicism.

They believed in the Inquisition.

False. The Inquisition was carried out by extremely misguided and warped members of the Catholic Church. The pope didn't believe in the Inquisition, so much as he did turn a blind eye to it. A mistake, yes. Hardly believing in it.

Also I would add that it is inherently unfair to say that the methods of the Catholic Church are the same as they were hundreds of years ago. You wouldn't say the United States is the same as it was 200 years ago would you? Also, the church has had Vatican II since then, which has proven to be a major realignment of the way the church works and whose ramifications have still yet to be fully felt.

Actually it is. They just have a different interpretation on what communion is than you do. Nowhere in the Bible is Transubstantiation actually substantiated.

No, actually it isn't. I'm using the Catholic definition of course, which is the whole point of this. If another denomination believes their communion is true, go right ahead.

Also, in regards to the Bible— the Catholic Church does not limit itself solely to what is in the Bible. The Faith is not contained in a book. Its a combination of the Bible and the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit.

To say that something is false because its "not in the Bible" is an inherently Protestant and fundamentalist quality. This has more in common with Islam, which basically limits itself solely to the teachings of the Koran.

At a Catholic church. Although closed communion is a false doctrine. Communion is for the community of souls. It is meant to bring all Christians together united in our love of God and not divided. No one should be excluded other than those who have not learned about its significance.

I don't know where you are getting this. A requirement of Catholicism is that you believe that the eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ in the Catholic sense of the term. Its practically the focal point of the entire faith.

So yes, any one who doesn't believe this should not receive communion in the context of a Catholic mass. Thats not to say Protestants and non-Catholics cannot approach the alter in the sarcement of Communion. However, they cannot receive the body. Instead they receive a blessing. This happens all the time.

Its also my understanding that the sacrement is a communion with the devine, not "all souls". I could be wrong in interpreting your language here, but I fail to see what your getting at.

Wrong. The only person who can forgive you is God and that forgiveness is free to all. Confession is not required.

Correct and Incorrect at the same time actually.

Confession is not required to receive forgiveness from God, correct.

However, God is not the only "person" who can forgive you. Because Catholicism believes that through the church "what is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven", it is possible to receive forgiveness through the sacrement of confession.

In other words, Confession is the only guranteed way to ensure forgiveness in the Cathlic Church. It puts you back into a state of grace. However, if your willing to take your chances with God, go right ahead.

I'm glad were having this discussion, as this is starting to reveal the clear differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

-A!

Spackling Compound

12-15-2004, 09:38 AM

And yet, the Church has done everything it can to stop condoms from being distributed in Africa, which has upped the death toll considerably.
Damn if we do, damn if we don't...

If we say, "It's a good idea to have a single spouse and live chaste lives outside of marriage so therefore we will work to instruct these people in the ways of our faith," you'd say we are ignoring the AIDS epidemic and not being realistic to the point that people are just going to have extramarial, pre-marital and intramarital sex no matter what.

Then if we say, "Then we won't do anything if it involves promoting, remotely, sexual relations outside of marriage." You'd say we are uncaring about the AIDS crisis in Africa.

The Bishops of Africa have made the call. However, they are making the call for CATHOLICS. The act of sex is more than getting your rocks off. It also has a lot to do with the dignity of man and woman in relationship as well as having a keen eye on the oversexualization of African women in sex slave trade and abuse.

The Church wants to see the human condition as positive and able to come to a respect for others. To say, USE CONDOMS, is to give up.

By the way, the largest group of people in the world who are converting to the Catholic Church are African.

anthony!

12-15-2004, 09:40 AM

And fighting AIDS through actively misinforming the people of Africa about what effect condoms have in stopping the spread of AIDS.

...by trying to stop the spread of condoms in nations where doing so directly helps spread the AIDS virus.

Look, your religion can think birth control is bad all day long. That's your right. But if your Church thought antibiotics were evil, and went into a continent being annihilated by the black plague and did everything they could to stop the distribution of antibiotics, it would be pretty much tantamount to the Catholic Church's activities in Africa right now.

The differnce is that antibiotics had nothing to do with the sanctity of life.

And I'd like you to prove that the Church is actively spreading disinformation, please.

Spackling Compound

12-15-2004, 09:44 AM

But if your Church thought antibiotics were evil, and went into a continent being annihilated by the black plague and did everything they could to stop the distribution of antibiotics, it would be pretty much tantamount to the Catholic Church's activities in Africa right now.

Black Plague-transmitted by food, air, contact with the plague directly through touch.

AIDS- transmitted by sex (largely gay and extramarital sex), unclean needle use and tainted blood tranfusions or internal intake of tainted blood.

The Church won't try to stop something that doesn't run the risk of promoting a "sin". I can't see us with this set up saying, "Don't take antibiotics! They are evil. Rather, just don't eat food! Stay away from breathing!"

We can say: "Don't have promiscuous sex and stay clear of needle drug use. Not only can you die, you are jeopardizing your soul."

Sam

12-15-2004, 09:52 AM

The differnce is that antibiotics had nothing to do with the sanctity of life.

According to your religion. There are other Churches which do, in fact, believe that taking medicine is a sin against the God-ordained course of human life. What would you say if one of them started actively attempting to convince people in disease-wracked nations that taking medicine was not only a sin, but that it wouldn't help stop the spread of the disease?

And I'd like you to prove that the Church is actively spreading disinformation, please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3845011.stm

The Vatican has published a document which says condoms have holes in them, allowing HIV - the virus that causes AIDS - to pass through.
The document, called Family Values versus Safe Sex, is a detailed and passionately argued defence of the Church's position on condoms.

Its author, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, serves as the President of the Pontifical Council for the Family and is known for his hard line stance against contraception.

It goes so far as to suggest that condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The document claims that so-called safe sex using condoms is like playing "Russian Roulette."

"Leading people to think they are fully protected..." the document says, "is to lead many to their death."

The problem being that this is quite simply flat out untrue. Every bit of scientific study ever done on the subject refutes it. Even the scientific studies cited in this very document actually say the opposite of what is being claimed here. But that hasn't stopped the Catholic Church from spreading this out and out disinformation to anyone in the world who'll listen.

Sam

12-15-2004, 09:54 AM

We can say: "Don't have promiscuous sex and stay clear of needle drug use. Not only can you die, you are jeopardizing your soul."

This is fine.

The problem is when they add, "And also, condoms don't really work! Honest! Wearing a condom won't stop you from getting AIDS, really, we swear!"

anthony!

12-15-2004, 09:57 AM

This is fine.

The problem is when they add, "And also, condoms don't really work! Honest! Wearing a condom won't stop you from getting AIDS, really, we swear!"

Isn't that true though? There is no 100% guarantee with condoms. They do break after all. And isn't it possible for the virus to still get through the laytex (I'm aware this is only about a 1% chance of happening).

Still, they break. Therefore they are imperfect.

I don't see that as disinformation. Both sides seem to be citing their own sources, so how do we know which one is correct/incorrect?

The point is they aren't a total guarantee. Are they effective? Sure. Do they offer more protection compared to unprotected sex? Sure.

Seems to me everyone is just pointing to the evidence they want to so they can justify their own opinion.

-A!

Tommy

12-15-2004, 09:58 AM

Faith and good works. Catholics believe it is impossible to achieve salvation by simply believing in Jesus. Catholics believe that if you are to enter heaven, you should have actions if your life to back it up. Faith without good works is a hollow faith. If your going to talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk in Catholicism.

But how many? And of what sort? Give me a laundry list of how to get salvation. The fact is that if you have faith in God and love him you will want to live your life by him. And thus you will do good works not because it is a requirement (like gym class) but because you truly love God.

Also, in regards to the Bible— the Catholic Church does not limit itself solely to what is in the Bible. The Faith is not contained in a book. Its a combination of the Bible and the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit.

To say that something is false because its "not in the Bible" is an inherently Protestant and fundamentalist quality. This has more in common with Islam, which basically limits itself solely to the teachings of the Koran.

Faith is not in the Bible. Personally I believe that you can make different interpretations of what is in the Bible. However that is all it is: an interpretation. The Catholic Church has a long history of claiming its interpretations are fact when at best many of them are a bit contradictory. And you cannot add to the Bible.

Its also my understanding that the sacrement is a communion with the devine, not "all souls". I could be wrong in interpreting your language here, but I fail to see what your getting at.

We are receiving the Body of Christ. And we (as Christians) are the body of Christ. How is it not simultaneously a communion with God and our fellow Christians? It was expressly stated that way.

Confession is not required to receive forgiveness from God, correct.

However, God is not the only "person" who can forgive you. Because Catholicism believes that through the church "what is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven", it is possible to receive forgiveness through the sacrement of confession.

Yes he is. The church cannot forgive you. The church is not that powerful. If you want to believe that the Church can then you may go right a head but it is not Biblically based. I would take my chances with God and put my faith in him rather than a human institution.

Sam

12-15-2004, 10:00 AM

Isn't that true though? There is no 100% guarantee with condoms. They do break after all. And isn't it possible for the virus to still get through the laytex (I'm aware this is only about a 1% chance of happening).

Still, they break. Therefore they are imperfect.

I don't see that as disinformation.

Except the Church isn't just claiming they're imperfect. If you read the link, the Church claims that latex condoms are permeable enough that the HIV virus will pass right on through and infect you even through a condom even in cases where the condom doesn't break.

Technically, there is a chance of this, but it's actually far, far less than 1%. The study that the Church document in question cites found only a single condom in their study that would allow it -- and even that one was estimated at a 1/400 chance.

And yet, the Church read this study, quoted a few bits out of context, turned around and claimed that most condoms were permeable to the HIV virus. It's a flat-out bald-faced lie.

Again, this is a situation where the facts allow the defenders of the Church little wiggle room. The Church is engaging in an active disinformation campaign in Africa, telling anyone who'll listen that condoms are ineffective against HIV transmission, when in reality they're somewhere in the neighborhood of 99% effective.

And that 99% figure is allowing for the occasional break or tear that provides the 1% failure. Condoms used correctly are even more effective than that.

Poka Lola Luau

12-15-2004, 10:10 AM

Whoa. See, now this is what I tend to get up in arms about. I don't mean to be insulting at all, but from what I've read from your posts— you've really been given some wrong information about Catholicism.

In my personal opinion, Evangelicals warp nearly everything about Catholicism— its how they try to pull you into the whole "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" b.s., and then fall into the old Martin Luther "salvation can be acheieved solely by faith" routine.

If the Catholic church believes in its methods, they can't be false (hence the faith part). I wouldn't trust Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Swaggart or the 700 Club at all. Those guys are really crazies in my book. They give Christianity a bad name by being overy authoritarian, judgemental, irrational, and frankly hateful. Unfortunately those qualities have helped drag down the reputation of Catholicism right down with all the other extreme denominations.

As far as outlawing communion— that would be pretty hard to do considering what the other denominations perform is not communion. Catholics believe that the eucharist is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ (hence the phrase"transubstanciation"). Protestantism (and nearly all its forms) clearly defind communion as merely a symbol of the body and blood. There is a portion of the Methodist Church that believes it can swing both ways, depending on personal preference.

Now, if you are not a Catholic who has gone through the sacrement of your first communion, then no— you cannot receive communion. Makes sense to me. If you are a Catholic that is in a state of mortal sin— you shouldn't take communion. This is what confession is for— to put you back into a state of grace. (For example, I haven't taken communion in quite some time, because I've haven't gotten my ass to confession in a while).

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "outlaw" communion. If you mean not give Communion to non-Catholics— well, that would make sense. Obviously the church can't prevent others from taking another form of communion in another denomination.

I'm actually quite concerned with what I've read in you last two posts. It really does sound like if you've been given wrong information, or at least have not heard the Cathlic side of things.

-A!

I apologize if you took the "idols of saints" comment as being what I think. It's definitely what some radio evangelists think. I just found it odd that Catholics would argue the merits of theocracy when I don't think that it would likely be a Catholic theocracy in America, but an Evangelical one. Our current President surrounds himself with Holy Rollers. It appears that Protestants are more active politically. I don't think it would be good for either if the other had control. I suspect that whichever one came to power would use the other until they could later establish which one was the "true" church and the "true" way.

I know you weren't attacking Evangelicals as a group, but I have to say that they're not all angry accusing vipers with veins throbbing in their necks and heads bobbing arrogantly. Most of my relatives (unfortunately not all) take the "mote in your eye" scripture and the golden rule very seriously. The cousins that go to the former porno church live in the suburbs and only go there because it's where they are most needed. My Uncle Jack came back from Viet Nam pretty screwed up until he joined a Pentecostal church (different church) and later became pastor. He's helped a lot of people. I'm sure there are many similar Catholics.

They've (not all) given me shit about being gay, but the most embarrasing moment was at my cousin's funeral years later after gays were welcome as long as they followed the party line. Someone must have gotten word to them that I was dabbling in astrology and tarot because the woman who spoke after my cousin did the eulogy was doing a little preaching about how one of the prophets followed astrology and going on a bit about gays in the church. She was looking right at me with a smile on her face. When they got to the part where you go up to the front and accept Jesus, (yes, at a funeral. They do this at weddings, too), people were staring at me. I felt like a lowlife for not going up while all these other people were, especially at my cousins funeral when they went to all this trouble, but I knew I didn't believe and that it would be sacrilege for me to go up there. My face was beet red. I decided to just think about my dead cousin since that's what I was there for. Maybe I should've just played along, but i've still got respect left for the idea of God and didn't want to fake it.

anthony!

12-15-2004, 10:28 AM

They've (not all) given me shit about being gay, but the most embarrasing moment was at my cousin's funeral years later after gays were welcome as long as they followed the party line. Someone must have gotten word to them that I was dabbling in astrology and tarot because the woman who spoke after my cousin did the eulogy was doing a little preaching about how one of the prophets followed astrology and going on a bit about gays in the church. She was looking right at me with a smile on her face. When they got to the part where you go up to the front and accept Jesus, (yes, at a funeral. They do this at weddings, too), people were staring at me. I felt like a lowlife for not going up while all these other people were, especially at my cousins funeral when they went to all this trouble, but I knew I didn't believe and that it would be sacrilege for me to go up there. My face was beet red. I decided to just think about my dead cousin since that's what I was there for. Maybe I should've just played along, but i've still got respect left for the idea of God and didn't want to fake it.

Look I know that Chritianity/Catholicism believes that homosexual acts are sins— but no one should ever give you crap about being gay. Christian or otherwise. Period.

You've made the decisions you've made in life and thats it. You are who you are. No one should ever take away from your human dignity at all, regardless of the beliefs and opinions that divide us.

I think we can all agree on that much at least.

the4thpip

12-15-2004, 10:32 AM

Isn't that true though? There is no 100% guarantee with condoms. They do break after all. And isn't it possible for the virus to still get through the laytex (I'm aware this is only about a 1% chance of happening).

-A!
Then you are aware of more of the lies spread by the Vatican and other so called Christians who'd rather see all gay people dead.

There is not a 1% chance of a virus passing through a condom!

There is some in vitro research that shows that glass pearls the size of the HIV virus (which have a completely different consistency than HIV) when not in a sticky fluid (like, say, sperm) can be passed through the pores in a latex of a quality that has much larger pores than the kind used for condoms.

The whole experimental setup looks suspiciously like all they tried to do is demonize condoms and discourage people from using it, which I find criminal.

There is not a single known instance in the world, with millions of people infected, where infection occured by the virus passing through a condom. I am the executive director of our local AIDS center, and I can tell you that pretty much every HIV-positive person I have come across there had at least an educated guess where they got infected.

Yes, condoms break, but in the vast majority of cases that is because people did not use them properly. Which is why we need to teach teenagers early the essentials of condom use. You'd be surprised how many people don't know that vaseline and other oily lubes break up latex.

So, PLEASE, think about what you're doing with repeating the anti-condom propaganda in a public forum like this. You are helping to spread lies that could cost real people's lives. Don't have their lives on your conscience.

Tommy

12-15-2004, 10:35 AM

You'd be surprised how many people don't know that vaseline and other oily lubes break up latex.

What lubricants would you recommend?

anthony!

12-15-2004, 10:36 AM

Then you are aware of more of the lies spread by the Vatican and other so called Christians who'd rather see all gay people dead.

There is not a 1% chance of a virus passing through a condom!

There is some in vitro research that shows that glass pearls the size of the HIV virus (which have a completely different consistency than HIV) when not in a sticky fluid (like, say, sperm) can be passed through the pores in a latex of a quality that has much larger pores than the kind used for condoms.

The whole experimental setup looks suspiciously like all they tried to do is demonize condoms and discourage people from using it, which I find criminal.

There is not a single known instance in the world, with millions of people infected, where infection occured by the virus passing through a condom. I am the executive director of our local AIDS center, and I can tell you that pretty much every HIV-positive person I have come across there had at least an educated guess where they got infected.

Yes, condoms break, but in the vast majority of cases that is because people did not use them properly. Which is why we need to teach teenagers early the essentials of condom use. You'd be surprised how many people don't know that vaseline and other oily lubes break up latex.

So, PLEASE, think about what you're doing with repeating the anti-condom propaganda in a public forum like this. You are helping to spread lies that could cost real people's lives. Don't have their lives on your conscience.

Okay, so there's not. What I was trying to say was that even if there WASN'T a chance, they still break. Hence they are imperfect, hence the church can say they aren't a guarantee.

And by the by, I wasn't tought that 1% chance thing due to "propoganda". I was tought it in a SECULAR high school all they way up through SECULAR health classes in college. So much for your propoganda arguement. I feel pretty assured that I'm NOT spreading lies. I am spreading differing opinions on the other hand, which in my book isn't a bad thing.

-A!

Tommy

12-15-2004, 10:43 AM

Just because something is secular does not mean it is not laced with moral propaganda. Ohio's schools got a hefty amount of federal founding removed because we didn't teach abstinence only education.

Spackling Compound

12-15-2004, 10:44 AM

Then you are aware of more of the lies spread by the Vatican and other so called Christians who'd rather see all gay people dead.

So, PLEASE, think about what you're doing with repeating the anti-condom propaganda in a public forum like this. You are helping to spread lies that could cost real people's lives. Don't have their lives on your conscience.

Actually, the Vatican does not want to see all gay people dead. That would create a bigger shortage among the clergy and probably wipe out the papal staff.

Just the same, the Church has been reactionary concerning the sciences since the Enlightenment. We had to apologize recently and say, "Hey, ok, we made a mistake. Galileo was right." This was 1995.
Also we have made strides to confirm that a Catholic can believe in Evolution and maintain his/her Christian faith.

The condom argument, upheld not officially but by a few cardinals, is sort of embarrassing. The main goal is to stop the evils promiscuity brings about.

Sam

12-15-2004, 10:44 AM

Okay, so there's not. What I was trying to say was that even if there WASN'T a chance, they still break. Hence they are imperfect, hence the church can say they aren't a guarantee.

THAT ISN'T WHAT THE CHURCH SAYS.

The Church is not merely saying that they "aren't a garauntee." The Church is stating, explicitly, that condom latex will allow the HIV virus to pass through it, and will not prevent you from getting infected even if the condom is used correctly. They are making claims that this is a scientific fact.

They are lying.

And it has cost lives. And will continue to cost more until it is stopped.

--Sam

anthony!

12-15-2004, 10:52 AM

But how many? And of what sort? Give me a laundry list of how to get salvation. The fact is that if you have faith in God and love him you will want to live your life by him. And thus you will do good works not because it is a requirement (like gym class) but because you truly love God.

That would be up the person, now wouldn't it? Why would that have to be defined, seeing as how different people sin differently, people do good works differently and people have different abilities.

I would answer that you should use your time and talent to do good works, but thats just me. I don't see where the church is required to somehow DEFINE what a good work is, and how much you should do.

Faith is not in the Bible. Personally I believe that you can make different interpretations of what is in the Bible. However that is all it is: an interpretation. The Catholic Church has a long history of claiming its interpretations are fact when at best many of them are a bit contradictory. And you cannot add to the Bible.

The Catholic Church makes its decisions by observing reason and natural law. Your "you can't add to the Bible" is a matter of personal conviction. I'm not even sure what you mean by "add" anyhow.

Your Protestant, clearly. I'm Catholic. I disagree with you.

We are receiving the Body of Christ. And we (as Christians) are the body of Christ. How is it not simultaneously a communion with God and our fellow Christians? It was expressly stated that way.

Again, I think this is a difference in belief between Protestants and Catholics. A communion between Catholics, sure, but all Christians? I severely doubt that. Again, I'm using the CATHOLIC definitition of communion. It seems pointless to go back and forth on this, seeing as how your denomination clearly defines communion differently.

Yes he is. The church cannot forgive you. The church is not that powerful. If you want to believe that the Church can then you may go right a head but it is not Biblically based. I would take my chances with God and put my faith in him rather than a human institution.

Yes the church is that powerful. Again, we are talking the differences between denominations, which is sort of a viscious cycle.

I believe that Christ set up the Catholic Church, so that mankind could be brought closter to Him. Confession is but one of these ways to be closer to God and the state he originally intended for us to be in.

As far as your human institution comment goes, well there is nothing that says your confessor, or the church for that matter, has to be perfect. The church isn't perfect, even Catholics would tell you that.

-A!

anthony!

12-15-2004, 11:05 AM

Actually, the Vatican does not want to see all gay people dead. That would create a bigger shortage among the clergy and probably wipe out the papal staff.

Hilarious. True, and hilarious.

Why would the church want to see anyone dead? I think we'd rather just convert them...

Just the same, the Church has been reactionary concerning the sciences since the Enlightenment. We had to apologize recently and say, "Hey, ok, we made a mistake. Galileo was right." This was 1995.
Also we have made strides to confirm that a Catholic can believe in Evolution and maintain his/her Christian faith.

This harkens back to my "the Church thinks in terms of centuries" comment ages ago. If I had to offer a critique, I do wish the church was faster when it came to this sort of thing. I'm sure Galileo, whose been dead hundreds of years now, would appreciate it.

The condom argument, upheld not officially but by a few cardinals, is sort of embarrassing. The main goal is to stop the evils promiscuity brings about.

If this is true, then the problem is with a few zealous cardinals— not the church.

Admitely, since I don't believe in birth control, I don't spend much time keeping up with the latest surveys on condom use.

-A!

JeffreyWKramer

12-15-2004, 11:11 AM

What lubricants would you recommend?

Avoid all oil-based lubes, such as Vaseline. Water-based lubes such as KY, Astroglide and Wet are fine, and are safe for use with condoms.

the4thpip

12-15-2004, 02:03 PM

Avoid all oil-based lubes, such as Vaseline. Water-based lubes such as KY, Astroglide and Wet are fine, and are safe for use with condoms.
My favorite is something called Liquid Silk. It does not get sticky at all, unlikw Wet or KY. And they do not pay me.

Samurai

12-15-2004, 02:59 PM

Moving away from the Church and back to the topic of gay marriage for the moment...

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/12/08/unmarried_gay_couples_lose_health_benefits?mode=PF

Unmarried gay couples lose health benefits

By Kimberly Blanton, Globe Staff | December 8, 2004

Many of the state's largest employers are dropping health benefits for unmarried gay couples, seven months after Massachusetts became the only state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Massachusetts companies, some of which pioneered so-called domestic-partner benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners, said they are now withdrawing them for reasons of fairness: If gays and lesbians can now marry, they should no longer receive special treatment in the form of health benefits that were not made available to unmarried, opposite-sex couples.

Large employers terminating or phasing out domestic-partner benefits for some or all Massachusetts workers include IBM Corp., Raytheon Co., Emerson College, Northeastern University, the National Fire Protection Association, Boston Medical Center, Baystate Health System, and The New York Times Co., which owns The Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

"We're saying if you're a same-sex domestic partner, you now have the same option heterosexuals have, so we have to apply the same rules to you," said Larry Emerson, Baystate's vice president of human resources.

Health, dental, and other benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners became a mainstay at large US employers over the past decade, led by Cambridge-based Lotus Development Corp., which adopted them in 1991. After unemployment hit rock bottom during the economic boom in the late 1990s, about one in three Fortune 500 companies offered them to compete for top talent, though fewer small employers did.

No data are available on how many employers that offered the benefits are dropping them in Massachusetts. Typically, the proportion of employees who avail themselves of domestic-partner benefits is small, ranging from less than 1 percent at some employers to perhaps 2 percent.

Some companies now in the open-enrollment period for next year's benefits are informing gay employees they must marry to retain health benefits for partners. Some who are changing policies will drop domestic-partner benefits Jan. 1, while others gave employees up to a year to respond to the new marriage law. Baystate notified employees of the change in June and will grant extensions through December 2005 to gay employees considering whether to marry and preserve their benefits. The Springfield health system employs 9,000 in three Massachusetts hospitals, of which about 50 enrolled in domestic partner benefits.

Brad Salavich, global program manager for workforce diversity at IBM, which acquired Lotus in 1995, said unmarried gay employees should not be surprised by a decision to end domestic-partner benefits, effective January 2006. "We were very clear," Salavich said. The domestic-partner benefit "was an extension to equalize benefits for gay and lesbian employees who were not legally able to have their relationships recognized, he said. "If they choose not to continue to receive the benefits, that is a personal choice."

Cathleen Finn, an IBM employee in Cambridge, said she hasn't heard any complaints from colleagues. Finn, a lesbian who married her longtime partner on July 17, said, "It's not fair to offer a benefit to one group and exclude another group."

Yet, legalization of gay marriage has exposed entirely new sets of issues for human resource departments. Some companies, such as the Times Co., are dropping domestic-partner benefits for nonunion employees, while coverage for unionized workers remains subject to collective bargaining agreements. For others with workforces spread across the country, the benefits package offered in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, differs from benefits packages in other states.

"By changing the policies now, it's suggesting they weren't authentic, and that's a problem," said Bob Witeck, chief executive of Witeck-Combs Communications.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, or GLAD, a New England advocacy organization, argues that taking them away is an unfair hardship, because the decision to marry is still more difficult for gay and lesbian couples. Unlike opposite-sex married couples, gay married couples will have to pay taxes on their benefits to the Internal Revenue Service, because federal law defines marriage as a partnership solely between a man and a woman. Gay marriage can also jeopardize enlistees' military status, and gay couples who marry may be barred from international adoptions. Some said they simply aren't ready to marry just because a longstanding barrier to marriage was suddenly lifted.

"There are layers of discrimination," said Michele Granda, GLAD staff attorney in Boston. "This is a civil rights battle, and it's going to take a matter of time but we are taking steps forward."

Among employers that provide domestic-partner benefits, those dropping them are the ex