Pope orders NJ laws to Conform to his Decrees

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
In DelCo it was $1200 in 1970, a lot of paper work and several months. Probably Kerry got it on the phone, in 5 minutes, for free.
It's good to be a friend of the king, too.

$1200 in 1970? Jesus Christ!

My mom's took almost 2 years. IIRC, sperm donor initially didn't fill out the paperwork correctly...figures.

[tw]

The church says Marriage is a sacrement. But bribe the bureaucracy with the going rate, and suddenly one of god's sacrements is recinded. Wow. Can I pay to have my baptism recinded? Why not? Oh. It just costs even more money. Amazing how this pope knows the going rate.

What happened to the biblical principle of throwing the money changers (business transactions) out of the temple? Even sacrments can be bought and sold? Only according to a bureaucracy that OynxCougar says we should trust to decree *correct* laws.

Sorry folks. I condem some bought and paid for bureaucracy - that would even hide and protect child molestors - because it would interfere with the relationship I have with my god. They would actually attack my religion. Thank god that we have more devout Catholics as governor of NJ - who know from the bible that this pope is wrong - possibly senile.

[Griff]

Originally posted by tw

Sorry folks. I condem some bought and paid for bureaucracy - that would even hide and protect child molestors - because it would interfere with the relationship I have with my god. They would actually attack my religion. Thank god that we have more devout Catholics as governor of NJ - who know from the bible that this pope is wrong - possibly senile.

No. From previous commentary, you generally condemn all Catholics all the time. This is just a convenient opportunity to exploit a breach. If you really want to live in a democracy, you have to understand that folks who think differently from you get to vote as well.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Griff


No. From previous commentary, you generally condemn all Catholics all the time. This is just a convenient opportunity to exploit a breach. If you really want to live in a democracy, you have to understand that folks who think differently from you get to vote as well.

...but that they cannot and should not impose their will upon those who disagree with them. One of the arguments for a republic like the United States instead of a true democracy is that it prevents a 'tyranny of the majority'.

Religious/social rules that have stood the test of time

Killing is wrong.
Stealing is wrong.

Religious/social rules that have failed.

Drinking alcohol is wrong.
Pornography is wrong.
Doing business on a Sunday is wrong.
Unconventional sex is wrong.
Allowing non-Christians in some hotels, country clubs, and businesses is wrong.

I'm not even going to go into women's suffarage and civil rights, since the church was on both sides of these issues. Sometimes religion brings out the best in us, and sometimes it absolves the worst behavior we can come up with.

Sometimes it was the Catholic church, sometimes it was the Protestants, but their have been times when 'community standards' went beyond keeping your lawn trimmed and your house painted to who you were.

This is not restricted to Christianity. There are a number of organizations which spend their time keeping Christians from being persecuted in non-Christian countries. It can happen wherever a single religion becomes dominant in a country and decides to make it's laws fit itself.

Fortunately, our goverment resists this the way the human body resists an invading microbe. We pick and choose those concepts which can be applied to all and make that Federal law, and leave as much to the states and communities as we can. This insures that there will always be some corner of the country where those who disagree on some set of social rules can go.

Even our prejudices work towards insuring a balance. We have religious factions as much as any country in the middle east. It is just the separation of church and state which gives each of them the security in knowing that the other cannot seize power.

I am sure that Catholics in this country are happy that an Evangelical like Bush cannot impose his will more directly than he already has. His stance on pornography and abortion might be in line with the Vatican, but there are other items which would set their teeth on edge.

[elSicomoro]

Pretty much every organized religion has used a heavy hand at one point or another to try and sway the masses...look at the Middle East right now.

Catholics are no worse than any of the others. It's just that the Pope is probably the 2nd most important individual in the world, following the President of the United States.

Griff, if it'll make you feel better, I'll start making fun of other religions...after all, I am an Equal Opportunity Offender.

[Griff]

Originally posted by sycamore
Griff, if it'll make you feel better, I'll start making fun of other religions...after all, I am an Equal Opportunity Offender.

No es necesito. That's not a sore point with me, just an observation. My thinking on tw's position is that while he wishes to be free of irrational burdens imposed by the Pope, he thinks nothing of imposing his irrational religion of omnipotent government. I am more than willing to keep my religion in the private realm, unfortunately some secular statists and many religious statists feel no such public / private burden. I can't disagree with any of the richlevy commentary, as usual you're a voice of reason.

[tw]

Originally posted by Griff
No. From previous commentary, you generally condemn all Catholics all the time. This is just a convenient opportunity to exploit a breach. If you really want to live in a democracy, you have to understand that folks who think differently from you get to vote as well.

Then you were not reading carefully. Condemnation of Catholics who would forcefully impose their beliefs on me - a Catholic.

[Griff]

Normally, you seem honest here. Why do this now?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by tw
Then you were not reading carefully. Condemnation of Catholics who would forcefully impose their beliefs on me - a Catholic.

Then let me ask you this, tw:

A state (we'll say Arizona) is predominently Catholic, and therefore, both of the Senators that were voted in are also Catholic.

Let's say they are true to their word and their faith, and vote no to abortion, gay marriage, and all that other stuff.

That's 2 votes.

Now lets say that 15 other states are ALSO predominantly Catholic, and THEY vote no on those issues.

That's 17 senators. STILL not a majority.

You are going off about how this or that Governor (which doesn't have nearly as much power as say, the President) will FORCE Catholicism down your throat.

If the government is created BY the people OF the people and FOR the people, and the PEOPLE vote in Catholic representation, why on earth would that representative go back on all his beliefs and teachings? I thought America was ruled by democracy (the majority rules, 2/3 majority votes and all that).

Doesn't even have to be Catholic. Insert Methodist or Muslim, or Ba'hai. I'm using Catholic as an example because it's a predominant religion in the US.

What I'm saying here is that unless a predominant section of American voters are Catholic AND vote a Cathloic into office, then the Catholic views will not matter. But that doesn't mean that those rep can vote against their belief system.

Being a politician does NOT mean a "get out of hell free" card.

"Yes, I'm a DEVOUT Catholic, but I will vote yes to allow abortion (against my religion), and I will vote yes to ban those sicko gay marriages (against my religion) and I will vote this way or that way (against my religion)." Well then, dude, you better STOP calling yourself a DEVOUT Catholic, because you aren't one.

[tw]

Originally posted by Griff
Normally, you seem honest here. Why do this now?

Where was the lie?

[tw]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
A state (we'll say Arizona) is predominently Catholic, and therefore, both of the Senators that were voted in are also Catholic.

Let's say they are true to their word and their faith, and vote no to abortion, gay marriage, and all that other stuff.

That's 2 votes.

Now lets say that 15 other states are ALSO predominantly Catholic, and THEY vote no on those issues.

That's 17 senators. STILL not a majority.

You are going off about how this or that Governor (which doesn't have nearly as much power as say, the President) will FORCE Catholicism down your throat.

If any Senator is elected because of his religion, then we must ask what happened to American principles in those voters. Stated previously - I am a Catholic. And I would actively oppose anything this pope demands in American law.

Honest people don't vote based upon their religion. Religion is only between one man and his god. That means one human whose religious belief says abortion is wrong will not have an abortion. That also means that same religious belief is never used deny another his religious belief that abortion is acceptable.

In fact, an honest discussion about abortion laws first attacks anyone who who would bring religion into the discussion. Religion only says what he [the one believer] will do - and never says what he will impose upon others. It is the secular duty of politicians to not bring any religious beliefs into the job - a principle on which America was founded.

Every politician must separate his religion from his secular duties. His religion only says what HE will do. His religion - no matter how devout - has no place in his job as politician.

"I am Catholic and will promote Catholic doctrine into the laws" should be reasons enough for every devout Catholic, every Presbyterian, every Jew, every Hindu, every B'hai, every Buddist, and every Muslim to vote against him. A man who says he will promote his religion into laws is a source of hate, intolerance, and violates the principles on which America is founded. Wars end up being fought only because religion was permitted into government.

This does not say the people of mythical AZ would not vote for the man. People, like the pope, are fallible. Sometimes they forget basic principles. In fact the good people of Germany did just that when they elected Hitler. They too made a mistake. People are fallible. Principles on which this country is created should always be raised no matter how politically incorrect it may be at that time. That means we the people should rise up in one voice to condem the pope for demanding church doctrine in American laws.

The people of mythical AZ should have been reminded by their priests, rabbis, and ministers of their obligation to separate religious beliefs from their secular government - or suffer the inevitable secular violence. Just because a mythical AZ votes to impose Catholic doctrine on a secular government does not make their decisions right. Those mythical citizens have simply forgotten the principles on which this country was created.

No religion belongs in a secular government. Thank god that Mississippi Supreme Court judge got his butt handed to him as he was cast out the door. Such religious extremists are a threat to America because they would impose their religion upon others - would even violate principles upon which America created the United States.

[Griff]

I'm suggesting you add a modifier to your label. I find it hard to believe that you could be in communion with people you find satanic. For the record, I took you for a mainline protestant of some sort, since that is the language you use and there was some mention of a minister uncle a while back.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


"Yes, I'm a DEVOUT Catholic, but I will vote yes to allow abortion (against my religion), and I will vote yes to ban those sicko gay marriages (against my religion) and I will vote this way or that way (against my religion)." Well then, dude, you better STOP calling yourself a DEVOUT Catholic, because you aren't one.

That depends on the definition of devout.
If the politician in question were your definition, he'd have been a priest instead. Most catholics are not that rabid about it.
The constitution says it doesn't matter if the majority wants something, they're not allowed to shove it down the minorities throat.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar



"Yes, I'm a DEVOUT Catholic, but I will vote yes to allow abortion (against my religion), and I will vote yes to ban those sicko gay marriages (against my religion) and I will vote this way or that way (against my religion)." Well then, dude, you better STOP calling yourself a DEVOUT Catholic, because you aren't one.

Because when a individual takes an oath of office, he swears to god that s/he will fulfill a duty to that office. While s/he can base decisions on the ethics which were instilled by his/her religion, using his/her office to impose his/her religious beliefs on constituents would violate that oath, which would mean bearing false witness which would violate the second and possibly the eight commandments, depending on your interpretation.

If a majority of your community was muslim and the majority of your city council passed an ordinance that all women should wear a burka, would you consider that fair? After all, the council would be following their religious beliefs, attempting to end a practice that offends a majority of the community. Since you would be in the minority, it would be your choice to adhere to the religious beliefs of your elected officials, as well as the "community standard", or move. What would you choose? Would you be happy about it?

"Community standards" and the separation of church and state has never been a black and white game. In reality, it is only possible to regulate the public behavior which most reasonable people across the entire USA would agree was improper. A city council could ban public nudity, but could not successfully ban green shirts without proving to the court that the ban on green shirts was necessary for public order because green shirts were 'gang colors'.

The reason we have all of these levels of courts is so that community standards can be judged by the larger community. This is why all of these stories about school districts incredibly dumb policies usually end with "and they got sued and settled out of court".

James Carter was one of the most morally correct and decent presidents that was ever in the White House, and he did not feel the need to lead domestic or international 'crusades' to convert the heathen to righteousness. Seeing as how the question of who is right and which customs are actually required for God will not be settled until we die, this makes a great deal of sense.

After all, it would be a shame to have to go through life wearing a burka, get to heaven, and find out that since God created man and women naked, he had no problems with nudity.

In the end, I'll leave it to Mr. Jefferson to close.

It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors;

that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them;

that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove.

Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses.

Thomas Jefferson

So, if a (place religion here) politician is elected to serve a largely (place religion here) electorate, and decides that things would function more smoothly if everyone would just act more (place religion here), then f**k him. And I'm not talking bible thumper-approved missionary style f**king. I mean banned in all 50 states, shock a Supreme Court Justice (except Clarence Thomas), make Hugh Hefner blush, style f**king.