Church May Penalize Politicians

[Judi Lynn]

November 29, 2003
THE NATION
Church May Penalize Politicians
Bishops are exploring requiring officeholders who are Catholic to back official doctrine.


By William Lobdell and Teresa Watanabe, Times Staff Writers


The three Catholics in the Democratic presidential primary quickly fired off statements supporting the Massachusetts high court ruling last week that same-sex couples have the right to marry.

Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark made the announcements despite two Vatican directives this year to Roman Catholic officeholders to never promote laws that endorse gay marriage.

Politicians' practices — known as "cafeteria Catholicism" — led U.S. bishops this month to begin exploring possible penalties for officeholders who ignore church doctrine. It would be the first time the U.S. church threatened to discipline individual politicians.

"This is a miracle," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, a Catholic-influenced antiabortion group based in Virginia. "It takes seriously the problem of pro-choice Catholic politicians."

Punishments could range from bans on speaking appearances at Catholic institutions to excommunication. (snip/...)

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-catholic29nov29,1,1159174.story?coll=la-home-politics

On edit:

Free registration required

[arcos]

1. I say bring 'em on!

That would be stupid and they would definitely alienate more people. Perhaps that would be positive...

[whirlygigspin]

2. Hey Bishop! blow me!

(you'd like that wouldn't you?)

Go scare a nun

[The White Rose]

76. Only if you're a 10 year old...

Organized religion is dispicable.

[Zhade]

80. It is the original weapon of mass destruction.

NT!

[The Zanti Regent]

32. Render under Caesar, baby!

The time has come to TAX THE CHURCHES. C'mon, you guys want to ride that faith-based GRAVY TRAIN, PAY UP!!!!!

[Castilleja]

63. Boy, would I love to see that happen..

in my lifetime. Pay Up!!!!

[Flubadubya]

3. I remember when JFK was running in 1960...

This was the very wedge issue that could have lost him the presidency. The majority of Amrericans who opposed him, did so on this basis alone. I remember the grown-ups talking about it... "You let that Catholic SOB become president and the Pope will be running this country." For the most part, thinking individuals brushed off this argument as sheer nonsense, rather retaining faith in our constitution's separation of church and state clause.

It's the same issue here, except now the Catholic church looks like it really means business. These lunatic Bishops had best leave well enough alone, because (by GOD) it is NONE of their business.

It is simply amazing to me to contemplate the possibility that the greatest challenge facing liberal America in the near future, may be to have to stave off a headlong march to theocracy in this country.

[truthisfreedom]

4. i trust Wesley Clark to protect separation of church and state much more

than bush. bush is a born-again white-knuckle cokehead who can never get the job done.

[Ferretherder]

6. There is a LOT of stuff we're trying to stave off, right now!

The list is only GROING! Try assaults on: Civil liberties; Freedom of speech rights; Access to un-biased news reporting; Guaranteed, tamper-free elections; A military meant only to DEFEND our country, not march against other countries for our own interests; Womens and minorities rights; Access to higher education; Access to basic medical care; Government programs to promote opportunities for the less-fortunate; Seperation of church and state; .......

...do I REALLY need to go on?

[LiberalFighter]

47. Just like there shouldn't be an ambassador to the Vatican

They are not a ruler of a country... of course they use to be by proxy all over Europe during the Dark Ages.

[Gman]

5. I'm a very active Catholic

and this is bullshit.

When these bishops decide to include holding candidates' feet to the fire on the death penalty and social justice in addition to gay marriage and abortion, I'll take them seriously. But that ain't gonna happen.

Total political bullshit.

This coming from the same church that at one time said it was ok for robber barons to buy their way into heaven.

[sandnsea]

70. And vasectomy

Dammit, where's the Church on vasectomy??? Hmmm? I really want to know. Why aren't they issuing position papers on that?

Do you know how fast the Church would have to shut up altogether if it made its focal point vasectomy? Men would completely come unglued. I want the Church to start picking on men and their reproductive business for a change.

[lastliberalintexas]

77. Thank you

Not that I'd be happy with any church interfering with our gov't, but at least then the Catholic Church would be acting consistently.

Whenever I used to hear about threats to excommunicate Cuomo and other pro-choice Dems, I always wondered when they were going to excommunicate pro-death penalty repubs.

[DivinBreuvage]

7. Maybe one of the candidates should support child rape

he'd be sure of winning the official sanction of Holy Mother Church then.

The sad thing about this type of Catholic is that they work for the triumph of the Protestant Theocracy without realizing that, when it is securely established, there will be no more place for Catholics in it than for Jews, Muslims, or any other non-Christian denomination.

("non-Christian" being applied here from the protestant theocratic point of view, not my own point of view).

Francoise

[mikehiggins]

8. When the Church condemns those who support war

I'll start to listen. Maybe.

An awful lot of Catholic officeholders supported the invasion of Iraq even after the Pope specifically decried the adventure. When the Church threatens to excommunicate those guys it'll have a right to claim the moral high ground.

As a practical matter, if the Church makes this issue the litmus test for holding office as a Catholic, what will happen if they all obey? How would it be if NO office holder in the US was Catholic? Would we be better off if everyone was a fundie?

You should be careful what you wish for in this world.

[Grins]

21. Now, that interesting!

You got my attention.

You point is well taken about the Church being silent on those that voted for the war in Iraq (good catch), not to mention birth control or the death penalty.

Isn't it strange that we have Senators Hatch, Lott, and Santorum beating up the democrats because of a so-called religions litmus test (Catholic) for Court nominees - and a Catholic Church that has a litmus test of its own?

[LiberalFighter]

48. How about silent with infanticide during the Middle Ages

In Europe, prior to the 1800's new borns would be left at the edge of the forest to be found by wild animals such as wolves. The new borns were deformed or had other physical ailments.

The churches looked the other way.

[sandnsea]

71. Who?

Who supported the invasion of Iraq?

[Malva Zebrina]

9. Judi Brown

thinks it is a miracle when the bloviating patriarchs interfere with the Constitution of the United States and the democratic process. That's about right-- Sounds like she is a nummerary of Opus Dei--and just as bad as the fundamentalist literalists.

and if they do not obey--PUNISH THEM--

I hope they do not take the bait--if there is something I would like to see is religion kept out of the election process.

[Liberator_Rev]

10. Any other LINK ?

This one bombs out for me. Anyone have another?

[Judi Lynn]

13. Hi, Liberator_Rev. I found one. Don't think this one is any better!

This one seems to focus on abortion:

Bishops Consider Sanctions for Politicians

Monday November 10, 2003 11:31 PM


By RACHEL ZOLL

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's Roman Catholic bishops said Monday they are considering whether to recommend sanctions for Catholic politicians who favor policies contrary to church teaching on abortion and other issues.

A task force of bishops will take up the idea of a church punishment as it develops guidelines on how prelates should respond to Catholic lawmakers who do not uphold church values in their work.

Bishop Joseph Galante, a task force member, said some dioceses already ban from church property elected officials who support abortion rights.

Asked what other sanctions may be available, he said it was an issue canon law experts and theologians would have to research. (snip/...)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3372504,00.html

[LiberalFighter]

51. There we go!! Let's sanction the Bishops

Like restricting them to church property.
Prohibiting them from owning government bonds or any mutual funds that may be government related.

Or how about requiring that they have elections for bishops, vicars and whatever other positions in the different churches be held every 4 years. AND that everyone be eligible to vote as in the Presidential elections. Be able to vote on their resolutions.

[Judi Lynn]

15. This is a more complete article

(snip) Published in the Boston Globe, November 11, 2003
Bishops may punish politicians
Proabortion position of Catholic lawmakers a source of frustration

By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- Frustrated that so many Catholic politicians support abortion rights, the bishops of the United States said yesterday that they will begin evaluating whether they can impose sanctions against elected officials who vote contrary to church teachings.
(snip)

(snip) No names were mentioned, but some Catholics have long lamented the support for abortion rights voiced by Massachusetts Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, both Catholics. In January, after the pope's statement was issued, both men cited church-state separation as their guiding principle. Kerry, who is running for president, declared at the time, "As a Catholic, I have enormous respect for the words and teachings of the Vatican, but as a public servant, I've never forgotten the lasting legacy of President Kennedy, who made clear that in accordance with the separation of church and state, no elected official should be `limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.' "

The bishops have created a task force to examine the church's relationship with Catholic politicians. A member of the task force, Bishop John H. Ricard of Pensacola-Tallahassee, Fla., said the group will try to come up with a set of guidelines that examine issues such as "honors for politicians."

"We face a serious pastoral challenge," Ricard said. "Some Catholic politicians defy Church teaching in their policy advocacy and legislative votes, first and most fundamentally on the defense of unborn life, but also on the use of the death penalty, questions of war and peace, the role of marriage and family, the rights of parents to choose the best education for their children, the priority for the poor, and welcome for immigrants."

Ricard accused some lawmakers of choosing "their party over their faith, their ideology over Catholic teaching, the demands of their contributors over the search for the common good." (snip/...)


http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/bishops_may_punish_politicians.htm

[LiberalFighter]

52. And the reason for Kennedy's statement...

Was that he is a public servant for all the people regardless of their religious beliefs. He wasn't elected to pass religious laws that would be mandatory for everyone.

And that is what abortion laws are! They are a manifestation of religious beliefs and doctrine.

[0007]

11. Isn't this what the freepers would love to see?

If this ever and I mean ever came close to reality, you'd see terrorism in the United States that would make 911 look like a picnic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Bishop wants Catholic Sharia law

"I get tired of hearing Catholic politicians say, 'I am personally opposed to abortion,' or whatever, 'but I can't impose my moral standards on everybody else,' " said Bishop Joseph A. Galante of Dallas at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C., this month. "That's a weaseling-out."

[bleedingheart]

14. As one of those Cafeteria Catholics I say "Screw off"

I have been taking my little kids to church and have been meeting some really nice people and enjoying opening up the world of religion and spirituality to my kids.
Its been a far more postitive experience than the one I had since I am the one doing the teachings from the CCD books.

However if the church is going to start messing in this arena then I am going to write a letter to my Bishop stating that I will reduce my donations by half if not entirely.

If they want to excommunicate me then to hell with them I will join the Episcopal Church (Liberal variety)....

by the way I am VERY PRO CHOICE but i can understand why the church is against it...that makes sense BUT I don't want the Roman Catholic church to start trying to supercede ole stupid Falwell in trying to bully our government...

[atreides1]

17. Maybe You Can Explain It To Me

"by the way I am VERY PRO CHOICE but i can understand why the church
is against it..."

Then perhaps you could explain why prior to 1869 the Catholic church
had no sanctions against abortion, providing that it was done prior
to the 17th week of pregnancy.

It was decided by Pope Pius IX to make abortion against church law,
and that decision was made primarily because the Catholic church was
losing its political power in Western Europe. Consider that the
church once held sway over all of Europe, this included physical
control of territory. Now all that the church has is Vatican City.

From the 14th Century until the 19th Century, 500 years, the church had no major problems with abortion, as long as it was performed prior
to the 17th week.

And like someoen else said, why listen to these same hypocrites who
supported the war in Iraq, and went against official church policy by
disobeying the Pope.

Maybe they should be excommunicated too.

[bleedingheart]

20. Actually you are quite right about the church's behavior regarding

choice...my point in my post is that I can understand that the church can have that viewpoint since they have in my lifetime termed all life as sacred.

However from my memory I recall taking a Women's History class in college (great class and great prof) that discussed birth control, abortion and infanticide in the middle ages. At that time the church actually handled cases of infanticide versus the state and there were many cases of "laying over" where poor peasants would literally smother children they could not feed. Those church records that survived showed that the church was rather lenient in these cases. (the excuse was the family bed concept..since families were so poor many had all their children sleep with them...so the chances of smothering were greater)

So its interesting that the same church which turned a blind eye to infanticide is now so adamantly against abortion. Wanna work on a book on the subject? A History of Abortion and Birth Control...we could research and write it! (I am sure there are some books like this but I haven't found one that is very interesting...


I think it is purely economic. The less Catholics born and converted, the less money for the church coffers.

[maxanne]

16. if the church wants

to influence public policy, they should pay taxes. If they want to become lobbyists, they should have to do it the same way other special interest groups do - and pay for the privilege. Hitting them in the pocketbook is the one sure way to get their attention.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Freedom of speech

Sorry, but your plan interferes with their rights. They have a right to say that Catholic politicians who disagree with the rules of the church could be banned from speaking in a church for instance.

[Flubadubya]

22. They certainly CAN do that...

but is that really the role we want to see the church playing... to influence politics by some canonistic dictate? Anything CAN be done, but this isn't going to set well with free-thinking Americans.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Yes

For those of you not raised in the black community, our churches have been the hallmark of our political power for my entire life. I can't support that and oppose this.

[lostnfound]

26. But political black church leaders push issues of justice..

more than personal morality?

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. Doesn't matter

Since there are two sides to every coin (at least), if I advocate for the political power of black churches, I have to and will advocate for the political power of other places of worship.

[Malva Zebrina]

23. they may have a right to say it

but I hardly think it admirable or even ethical. They teach it to their congregation, but do not stop at their congregation . We all know that they want to change the law of the land to fit their particular version , and eliminate abortion altogether, from all women, not just those in their congregation.

That is arrogant--and to threaten punishment on any candidate that thinks otherwise is arm twisting and inciting the congregation to not vote for that candidate in order to usurp the law of the land. It could even be called bribery to a certain extent--the threat being a fiery hell and damnation on frightened vulnerable believers who vote for a guy who is pro-choice.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Abortion

I almost hate discussing abortion here. Though we all pretty much seem to agree pro-Choice, I still understand their position. They think abortion is murder. If I did (I don't) I would be pretty vehement about it.

As for punishing a politician who doesn't vote their way -- that's just politics and I see nothing new in it.

[Malva Zebrina]

28. to people who are sincere

and who have been practically born into a religion they indentify with and love, the threat of punishment or excommunication is a serious one going way far back in the history of the church. It is a PUNISHMENT and not "just politics". As a group, Catholics are far less likely to and do not change religion, as easily as Protestants.

Those who see the priest,bishop or pope as ultimate authority in life, but who for some reason have matured and are democratic enough to understand a democracy is where they live, work and play -- understand that democracy depends upon , not authority of a patriarchal authoritarian, undemocratic religion, but upon the law of the land. which is calculated to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, not to mention the separation of church and state.

Vulnerable, frightened people will follow the authority and vote against a certain candidate , as recommended by the religious authority in their life, because they fear going to hell if they do not. This is how the bishops, priests, ministers or any other that attempt to bring a religion into the voting process, are immoral or unethical, imo.

[bleedingheart]

29. actually the Roman Catholic church used excommunication

far more frequently a long time ago... in fact even Jackie Kennedy was threatened with it for marrying Onassis because he wasn't a catholic and he was divorced from his first wife... big sin...

Abortion and birth control are both issues I think the church should keep its nose out of and it should stop trying to sway politicians. The reason the church should not try and influence politicians is because the politicians were put there by the people...not the church and not by some divine right...

If you look at history and the influence of religion over state you can see how it can really corrupt government...Henry II had it right when he started the early separation of church and state movement..(although that thing with Becket should have been avoided..)

[maxanne]

30. yes they do

but they don't have a right to engage in political arm twisting.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Why not?

They have freedom of speech just like you do.

[Malva Zebrina]

33. sure

they just do not have a sense of fairness, do not understand what expolitation means, do not respect the intelligence of their flock, or respect the democracy of the country in which they live. In a sense they are bullies like Bush.

Never fear though, they are all sitting around anxiously waiting for the faith based charity money promised by Bush--none of them want to piss off Bush at this time and some will even try to villify his opponents in order to get that monetary, church welfare windfall from our pockets. I get a picture of men in black frocks and white collars, surveying their crumbling cathedrals, which are so large and high they can no longer afford to pay the heateing costs, drooling over the prospect of getting tax payer money to propagate their religion. Could it be, like Jeb Bush, they are handing the election to Bush by intimidating their flocks with threats of hellfire and damnation from their god who does not want a pro-choice man in the presidency?

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Overly broad attack

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they fall into all the evil categories you paint them into.

If they believe that abortion is wrong, it is their right to think so, to advocate so, to tell their flock so. That is the funny thing about freedom.

[Flubadubya]

36. That's why I choose not to be a member of any church....

I know all too well how stridently political views are pushed in the church setting (especially the Protestant branch that I grew up in). I certainly cannot stop them from pushing a political agenda, but I do not have to expose myself to it.

That's my choice.

However, these people ARE indoctrinating their "flocks" in right-wing, conservative agenda. A very large part of that agenda includes gaining such vast political power that they will be able to dictate what you and I can and cannot say or do. They DO wish to stifle your and my rights,and this I cannot abide.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Not all churches are right wing

Far from it actually. And those that are not probably could be accused of indoctrinating their folks as well.

When churches lobby for aid for Africa or against the second war in Iraq, suddenly folks here like them. I think the resistance to religion is only when that religion dares disagree with people's political views.

As for stifling your rights, much the same could be said of anyone who EVER disagrees with you in politics. By voting the other way, they seek to stifle your choices. That's a democracy.

[Flubadubya]

53. Yep, oh boy, now that's democracy...

Majority rules and all that good stuff. Just because someone disagrees with my political views does not mean that they are about to take away my civil rights, and I don't see that as a threat. Whether you see this or not, there is a very large (and growing) segment of the right wing who are champing at the bit to wrest control of this governmnent and set about legislating their "brand of morality" upon the masses.

Democracy comes in many flavors. Fortunately, our founding fathers made great efforts to build into this one safeguards that are intended to vouchsafe the security and civil rights of minorities, such that the "majority" (should it ever become demented and perverted as it appears to be doing today) would not be allowed to run roughshod over them.

However, these safeguards will be quickly and summarily dismantled should the religious fanatics of the right wing get their way, i.e. full control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of this government. Call me a paranoid fool, but I think it is the one who pretends or refuses not to see that this is exactly what they are about, that this is exactly what they intend to accomplish, who is the real fool here. Mark my word, if these zealots get their way, then the precious safeguards our founding fathers set into place to protect minorities are gone in a heartbeat.

Now, is "majority rules absolutely" the kind of "democracy" that you look forward to? Not me brother, not as long as these fundamentalist, neo-conservatives are out for blood... which they are!

[Malva Zebrina]

38. of course not, but I do have the right also to voice that

I am certain you will agree and cannot argue that point.

If the church can paint those who are pro-choice as evil sinners whose rights to their own bodies must be taken from them by repeal of the law and they intend to do this by intimidating , threatening PUNISHMENT, influencing the votes of people in a democracy by implyhing a fiery hell would be their end if they support a politician who is pro-choice, then I can surely point out with equal vigor and with equal right to do so, the arm twisting methods, the sleeze, the unethical conduct of an undemocratic church with bloviating hierophants as their authority figures.

[Democat]

60. I pay taxes, that's why I have that right

Tax exempt groups have always had different rules.

As long as the church refuses to pay taxes then they have to follow the rules.

There is nothing stopping them from dropping their tax exempt status and saying anything they want.

Free speech law is full of cases where the government has been found to have the right to withhold funding or other special status to groups because they do not meet certain criteria.

Churches have no right to act as tax free political organization.

That isn't in the constitution. Free speech is. Free speech with no taxes is not.

[TankLV]

58. Then let them pay taxes, just like the rest of us "normal" folk.

They can't be politicing in church.

Tax exemption - keep your mouth shut regarding politics.

No tax exemptions - talk away.

Very simple concept.

[newyorican]

18. Good!

I'd rather they molest politicians...

[snippy]

45. Excellent comment.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rini]

37. I have no problem with any religious organization requireing obedience

of their members. I do have a huge problem with public officials not divorcing themselves from any interference, including PACs and jobs for the spouse and kids.

[0007]

61. Could you kindly explain to this ignorant fool what you mean?

PAC is an acronym meaning what? Your post is extremely vague.

[Flubadubya]

74. PAC...

I suppose s/he means Political Action Committee, those thingies that politicians derive funding from. Beats me otherwise. :shrug:

[jpgray]

40. Might want to punish the pedophiles before the politicians (nt)

[Democat]

41. No more tax exempt status for the church when they become political

They can do this all they want, but they should probably lose their tax exempt status once they decide to become a political organization.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. You can wish that all you want

but it won't happen. Most Americans are religious and like having freedom of religion protected.

[Malva Zebrina]

44. Ah but Pat Robertson did lose his tax exempt status

by doing this very thing. His "voter scorecards" that were distributed in churches were sleezy (because they were distributed with false information in a time frame that did not allow for rebuttal) Christian attempts to force voters to vote for the candidate of Robertson's and other extremist's choice. As it turned out, Bush did get in there, although not from the voter's choice. Bush supports Robertson's brand of Christianity although there has been a concerted effort on the part of Robertson and others of the extreme religious right to distance themselves from Bush. But with the influence of Ralph Reed and Marvin Olasky of the "compassionate conservatism" fame, Bush has been connected far more that we realize.

http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/Sept98/091798e.htm

http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/990618/policies.shtml

http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs7993.htm

[Democat]

59. Religious freedom has nothing to do with tax exempting a political group

They can be religious and they can have free speech, they just can't have a tax exempt political organization.

Why should anyone pay taxes?

Why shouldn't the ACLU and the DNC be tax exmempt too?

There are rules for what you can and cannot do if you want to be tax exempt and the courts have allowed those rules to stand for a long time.

If the Catholic church wants to become a political organization, then they should have their tax exempt status revoked.

That's the way it should be.

Right wingers are always trying to get left leaning non-profit groups pulled from tax exempt status, we cannot allow them to turn the entire U.S. church system into a tax free political organization for the right.

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. Separating political and religious speech

Catholics are against abortion. If their priest or bishop tells them they must make a stand against it, that is part of their religion. I for one don't want the government monitoring religious speech and trying to determine if they think it crosses the boundaries. All religious speech is the foundation for the morality of those involved and that is the foundation for their political choices.

Remember, Congress shall make NO law. Not only a few.

[coralrf]

79. Seems like you want to have your cake

and shove it up someone else’s ass too.

If their priest or bishop tells them they must make a stand against it, that is part of their religion...bullshit. That is political not religious and Churches are not to do that. If you direct a person on how to Vote you have not done the work of Christ. He specifically stated that we are to obey our governments. Remember that or is it too inconvenient?

Any Church may direct its fodder to do as it wishes politically but they must then pay those damn taxes. That is the law.

"render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar", sorry to mention it but the Man said that. Inconvenient isn’t it?

Congress is to pass “no law” like you said. That is why they have specifically allowed for exemption from religious separation any entity that enters politics. Jesus wanted it that way too.

“This I know for the Bible tell me so”. If Christians would spend more time reading that fable and less time hitting people over the head with it we might not be having this discourse.

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. Huh?

The Catholic Church is against murder -- a position they are pretty darn consistent with. They oppose the death penalty and they oppose abortion. In fact, they are one of the groups I can think of that fall on those two sides of the life/death question.

Those are their beliefs. To discuss them with their congregation is in keeping with religious and protected speech.

And no, I don't want my government trying to intimidate religion based on its beliefs, which is what you are advocating. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Congress shall make NO LAW. Sorry, but they said it.

And thanks for reminding me of your leanings with that nice anti-religion dig at the very end. It's almost hilarious how out of step on religion so many are here when compared with the American public.

[coralrf]

78. I dont think so...

There are very few Americans that are religious as you say.

On the other hand most of them are no so dumb as to buy your line of protecting the servile filthy church in the name of freedom of religion.

Religion deserves to be as free as it allows other to be free from its bigotry, hatred and love affair with the fantasy of suffering in others. The Church is a gross fucking abomination. It is vile and dishonest. It steals from the poor to guild its trinkets. It down troddens the weak in order to walk on their backs. It meddles in the affairs of State even though instructed not to by its Fathers. The Church is a threat to decency, honesty and freedom.

For all you religious fucks that would salivate over my being punished with fire and brimstone: note that I said nothing of Jesus or God. They have absolutely nothing to do with the church.



“Sooner a camel pass the eye of a needle than a rich man pass the gates of heaven”..J. Christ. Now look at that vile golden crap in the background of PTL or the 700 Gang and rectify it with Jesus.

Gluttony…the third deadly sin for you fat assed religious hypocrites. Look at the wattles on these pompous over eating TV, Box Cars religious freaks.

“Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called the sons of God..” Again J. Christ. Rectify that with the hawkish religious zealots that rain bombs on the world. How does Pat Roberson live with himself..facilitating the murder of millions for his diamond and gold money? Ill bet Jesus has a “problem” with Mr. Pats religion.

.” "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.".. Yup JC said that. Now how in the hell will the pompous critics of the Church deal with that?

And the words of a few of those millions upon millions of Relegios folks out there…


"...It would be more consistent that we call the work of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.".. -Thomas Paine


"Christians are losers."… Ted Turner

"Christianity is such a silly religion." ….Gore Vidal…and so on.

[kodi]

43. good, as an adherent of Bonkonism, i demand we all rub feet.

the christian taliban are alive and well in america

[Malva Zebrina]

46. lol you are right

this country, as was envisioned by the founders was best off not getting religion and politics conjoined and I believe it was an extraordinary genius who saw through that and had the vision.


We were off on the grand experiment-we were to disengage religion from the politics and the government. Someone who knew something of history and saw the consequences of religion and it's prohibitatory effect on a nation and it's progresseion, saw fit to establish a nation that did NOT embrace any one religion as a state religion. This was genius. This was brilliant and this has been ever since , the bitter, hatred of those who cannot stand the areas of life that are indeed the progressive and the grey areas , the explorative areas, the areas that propell us forward as human beings, as being the primary consideration of a government. They have been too afraid--too scared--too authoritative and convinced that their father figures need to be obeyed. The human spirit is more than this. The humand spirit is more than Christian conservatism--the human spirit will prevail--because it is in the evolutionary predictatory meme.

In order to progress along this life in happiness, we need to understand that there are things we do not know and will not know. We need to understand that cooperation will be our salvation and that a book that advocates killing and murdering the enemy, who is not of the same conviction , is old already and is very very wrong in today's world. We are no longer "tribes" as we were in the old testaments. We do not need to use thousand year old convictions as our map. We have become older--and we should know better by now. The god is dead. He is old--and he needs to be resurrected into a new god that accepts all people and that accepts that we all must in some way get along.

[Flubadubya]

55. Marianne...

You are absolutely right and I couldn't have said it better. I just find myself at a loss for words when I contemplate trying to discuss this issue with loved ones who are "deeply religious". They simply cannot see beyond the point of their indoctrination.

They are so hung up, caught up, i.e. trapped by their concept of "individual salvation" that they cannot even consider that if we ALL (and I mean ALL humankind) don't learn to live together and find some modicum of universal cooperation, then individual salvation is just just a moot point. Our real salvation is within and among ourselves. We need look no further than our neighbors for that, and they to us. We are all we've got and nothing else.

Yes, you would think that we would have grown beyond the myths, misperceptions, and misgivings, but it does appear we still have a very long way to go.

[dax]

66. You do understand and they can too...

I don't know what generation you are from but I can remember this-I was about five years old in Nashville, Tennessee in the 50's and we painted a mural of evolution on the inside of our school and there was picketting outside and these same fundamentalist people were threatening the Unitarian Church (which my family was part of) because we were just too involved with "those kind of folks" (like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) I feel like I have been up against the same people for a very long time and it IS ALL ABOUT obsessive need for control over others-as if one could eliminate all threats to security and unseemly behaviour if everyone toed the same line. It is just another form of fascism and refusal to allow diverse groups of people to have a say in their own self-government. The corruption, crime and terrorism we face could be dealt with very simply-we just have to make it illegal for corporations to give money to politicians, to publically fund campaigns and REQUIRE OUR AIRWAYS and FREE PRESS to give equitable coverage, tax corporations and liquidate them to the PUBLIC if they disobey the law (used to be in our laws) tax wealth, tax inheritance, respect international law and fight no wars (bye bye 400billion pentagon) and use the money provide health care, housing, education, food, environmental, worker and safety protection and community access at affordable rates. There is no reason the government can't tell banks to pay for reconstruction in American communities, no reason to allow drug companies to make more than 10% profit and no reason at all not to tax ceo's at say, 50% for every dime they make over 10 times the lowest paid worker and disallow any deduction for the corporation that cooked up the deal at taxpayer's and shareholder's expense (and consumers!)for any ammount in the red zone. Don't let moral obsessions cloud reality-anybody who values life has to realize it is more important to feed the children we have now than dictate who will have children tomorrow. period. If you sign up for fascism to protect the unborn, you are condemning the children now and those you supposedly saved, to a life of slavery.

[Zhade]

81. The Talibornagain can kiss my...feet.

NT!

[many a good man]

49. Advice: Stop Pushing Choice

This is a wedge issue that nobody wins. Politicians declaring how pro-choice they are make themselves open targets. Abortion is legal in this country and is protected by the Constitution.

When asked candidates should say plainly "I will uphold the Constitution of the United States. Constitutionality is adjudged by the SC not the Executive" and leave it at that.

What Democrat is really going to be anti-choice? Of course they should say there's no "litmus test" on the issue but of course no Democrat will nominate a religious fanatic. I know this right is under attack by fundies and pro-choice groups make a lot of money by turning up the rhetoric, but it does nothing to help Democrats win elections.

My position: America is a secular democracy; therefore the religious beliefs of a subset of Americans should not be imposed on the whole. Some religious denominations believe life begins at conception, but that belief is not shared by all. Abortion is permitted, but noone is forced to have one. Freedom of speech exists if you want to persuade others not to have abortions but it cannot be codified into law.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

87. I have had this discussion...

before when I've been asked why Dems don't stop making abortion such an issue when it only drives away some pro-life Dems and makes us a target for the GOP.

My reply is this: It isn't the Dems that make this an issue, it is the GOP, and has been since Roe v. Wade was first put in place. They make it as issue every time they put forth a lawsuit seeking to weaken or overturn Roe, they make it an issue every time they try to put forth legislation that would weaken or overturn Roe, they make it an issue every time they try to slip a judge through who would make damn sure Roe went into the dustbin of history.

As long as there is a group of determined Americans whose intent is to overturn Roe there will have to be Democrats willing to say they stand for choice.

[CO Liberal]

50. Weren't A Few Priests "Penalizing" Altar Boys????

:-)

CO Liberal
Ex-Catholic and ex-altar boy (non-molested)

[Malva Zebrina]

54. it may have been more than "a few"

but we are not to speak of that because it is best shoved under the carpet and we can be accused of being anti-catholic or some other knee jerk defensive, in support of pedophile priest, accusation.


That pedophile cover up is one of the most egregious cover ups I have ever seen in modern Christianity, although I will say that , historically, Christianity does have a lot to be ashamed of as far as abuse goes and that can be traced back into thousands of years.

Where are the trials and the convictions? Where is the justice.? Yet, the religion goes on exactly as if it had never happened, bloviating over the current candidates and telling it's subservient, frightened, obedient sheep who to vote for. LOL And they do it!!! Oh the humanity!

If one wants to continue in an organisation such as that, well, I must admit, that I might have a little prejudice against that religion--and we have heard nothing about it in several months. I mean what happened to all these priests who took advantage of children? They were CHILDREN who did not have any idea of what was being done to them--trusting CHILDREN who were indoctrinated into the religion and who though that priests were the representatives of a god, for crying out loud--Children like you and like myself have born--little, wide eyed, innocent CHILDREN who were abused , sexually, by bloviating male hierophants. And we are right along in time and what do we know of these criminal priests who abused these CHILDREN? Heh--you figure it out. I have no use for it. Where are they now anynhow? In prison?

[roguevalley]

56. Good. Now let's revoke their tax exempt status. that should shut them up.

[Liberator_Rev]

57. Germany's subsidized Bishops didn't challenge the Holocaust.

The only way to challenge the power of the Roman Catholic Emperor (Pope) and the "Princes of the Church" around the world is to expose the moral incompetence they hide under their impressive costumes! Did you know that Hitler tripled the subsidy the German government had been paying to the Lutheran and Catholic schools and churches? Maybe that's one of the reasons that the so-called "moral leaders" of those churches couldn't find anything in their holy books, or their theological ruminations about the absolute, unchanging "Natural Law", to criticize Hitler and/or the millions of other Catholic Germans for all the cruelty and the mass-murder of 10 million Jewish men, women and children, and other innocent human beings.

See http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/RCscandal
&
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/PopesvsChrist .

[Corgigal]

62. Shouldn't the Catholic Church

be more concerned with putting butts in the pews instead of butts out the door? I am a former Catholic and I don't follow the church anymore and I have not chosen to take the kids into the church either. They are so out of step with the average American and they are run by a bunch of old white guys, again, who won't move the church up a century or so. This religion over all is down in attendance.

After the giant scandal with the Priest and the young boys that was taking place all over this world you would think the Catholic church would shut up for awhile. Guess not.

[SharonAnn]

67. Nah, Fr. McCloskey (Opus Dei - Jesuit) who converted many

well know Washington DC conservative types, thinks that Catholics who don't agree with him should leave the Church. He estimates that would be about 75-80% of the u. S. Catholics.

Fr. McCloskey converted Sam Brownback, Clarence Thomas, Bob Novak, etc.

[IndianaGreen]

68. Wait until we get the Opus Dei Pope

I wonder if Cardinal Cipriani from Peru will get elected Pope. He was ordained an Opus Dei priest.

[Corgigal]

75. I SEE

well it worked for me. Then I will keep my funds and the funds of the kiddies here at the house instead. Strange way to run a church.

[IndianaGreen]

64. "cafeteria Catholicism"

Isn't that the best way to describe American Catholics, as practicing "cafeteria Catholicism"? Let's get real! How many American Catholics practice the rhythm method of birth control? How many Catholic couples do you see nowadays with 7 to 9 kids piled up in a minivan?

When I was growing up we knew who the Catholic kids were, they were the ones with many brothers and sisters. We don't see that anymore. Does that mean that American Catholics are less moral today than their parents and grandparents? I don't think so. I think American Catholics are just as moral and ethical as everyone else, which could be what the problem is from the point of view of a Vatican that sees itself as the one true Church.

If the Catholic Church had demanded such theological purity from John F. Kennedy in 1960, Kennedy would have never won the Democratic primary in West Virginia, and he would have lost the nomination to Hubert Humphrey.

The irony is that back in 1960, the Southern Baptists were the strongest defenders of separation of church and state. Today, they are the strongest proponents of religious infusion in the public arena.

[Malva Zebrina]

69. My grandmother had fifteen children

I can remember when people like Judi Brown, ( it could very well have even been Judi Brown ) egged on raucous, vociferous opponents of birth control pills. They took to the streets,screaming, yelling and hollaring much like the anti-choice people today .

[Liberator_Rev]

73. Catholics hold Guinness World Record

If only EVERY Catholic couple were as genuine a Catholic couple as the one in Peru that holds the Guinness World Record for the # of offspring from the same father and mother : 64. The Pope would be Emperor of the Universe.

[drscm]

65. I have no problem with this...

if they figure out some sanction for the man who started an unjust and immoral war - namely *Bush.

The Catholic church gets so hung up on sexual ethics that they forget their long tradition in social ethics. I wish they would apply the same standard they use for bedroom ethics to question of social ethics and the questions of war and peace.

But we'll continue to have the fundamentalist Catholics and fundamentalist bishops supporting a "president" who is anti-abortion for political expediency while he destroys the poor, the infirmed, the war-trodden, the environment and so on for the sake of the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR.

[Malva Zebrina]

83. the church took a perfectly natural, wonderful expression of love

and reproduction, and turned it into a "sin" How come? It was the male, Catholic, and Christian protestant hierophants who decided that woman was the source of the whole Adam loss of soul, sinning, very bad, thing. It was woman who was responsible for the entire human race sinning and being shackled with an imaginary crime called "original sin"--that which a newly born, fat, little screaming baby contains in it's "soul" If this baby contains original sin at birth, he or she, must also contain original sin at the moment of conception. and the entire thing, this sin, this black mark, is the fault of woman~~ And the church went through all sorts of machinations against the threat of woman, to pin it on--- you guessed it--EVE!!!

People like Judi Brown actually believe they, as a woman, are more sinful than a man or the hierophant, pedophile. They will emasculate themselves and readily accept the notion that they are corrupt by their very existence, being the inheritors of the infamous EVE and they will try to foist that disgusting concept upon other women--many of whom, who are not as willing to be beaten to death by the church patriarchs, and who will tell them to shove it.

[CBHagman]

84. Only if they start with Rick Santorum.

It's amazing how certain people only spring into supposedly spiritual action when sexuality is involved. Where was the church outcry when Rick Santorum made his snotty little comments this fall about it not being such a bad thing to make single working mothers struggle a bit more for child care? Given that the epistles of the time were from the letter of James and dealt with how sinful it is to prefer the rich to the poor, Santorum ought to have been in line for a tongue-lashing. Alas, I heard no such outcry.

But they'll bestir themselves if it has something to do with sex, yessirree.

[uhhuh]

85. That's it exactly

If the Church was consistent, then I don't see a problem here. If they hold that all life is sacred, they should discuss excommunicating all those who voted for war, or against funding programs to deliver food and medicine for those who suffer. If they threatened those who advocate the death penalty,or those who harmed the defensless by passing laws that protect the rich and destroy the air and water and food, then I would respect their pronouncements as being genuinely religiously motivated.

If they removed and excommunicated pedophile priests, and cracked down on them, calling for their arrest and conviction, I would see a moral consistency there and would say nothing about their promoting of the "views of the Church".

If they will not do this, I think that they are subject to the same rules as any other political organization.
They could still express the view that it is moral to be against abortion without pointing out the politicians that do not support that view. Once they say so and so is pro abortion,encourage their congregations to withdraw support to certain candidates, or threaten to publically sanction or excommunicate a politician, that becomes a political act. They should then be subject to taxation. If those in their congregation want to find out who is for or against abortion, or anything else, it is for them to do. Church voting guides and pronouncements from the pulpit of a political nature have nothing to do with the teaching of religion.
The function of any religious organization is to educate those in attendance in the ways of the faith. If they choose to use the devotion of parishoners to wield political power, then they should have to play for it like any PAC.

[Endangered Specie]

86. Once again...

The catholic church is trying to stick its nose where it doesn't belong. Not much has changed in 1000 years I guess.