Pulpit politics never stops.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15738
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Pulpit politics never stops.
Like it ever stops........

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/13/bishop-kennedy-spar-over-abortion/

The same church who condemns condoms and hides child molesters thinks it can force a politician to do it's bidding. This is the United States of America, not the United Catholic Theocracy.

Here is what I would tell the Church if I were a member. FUCK YOU, you do not own me. If there is a church that will have me despite our differences, I'll go there.

That is what I would say. We do not elect popes or clerics or priests to office anymore than we elect Thor or Vishnu to office. I am glad our government and our Constitution is not owned by Catholics.

The Church has told Kennedy that he cannot receive communion because he is pro choice. SO THE FUCK WHAT! You don't own him and no politician should be bullied by any religion.

Hey Catholic Church, if you want to go live in a country run on religion, go live in Iran as a Christian. Their Muslim clerics use politicians as puppets. Is that what you want to be?
 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Mjolnin
Theist
Posts: 143
Joined: 2007-04-20
User is offlineOffline
This isn't about a church

This isn't about a church demanding to be followed or trying to control personal beliefs. This is about polititians who want to be included in a group but don't want to follow the rules. Calling yourself a Catholic who supports abortion is no different than declaring youself a vegitarian while having meat at every meal or an atheist that believes in bedtime prayers to God.

 I don't understand is he want's to be called catholic?

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15738
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mjolnin wrote:This isn't

Mjolnin wrote:

This isn't about a church demanding to be followed or trying to control personal beliefs. This is about polititians who want to be included in a group but don't want to follow the rules. Calling yourself a Catholic who supports abortion is no different than declaring youself a vegitarian while having meat at every meal or an atheist that believes in bedtime prayers to God.

 I don't understand is he want's to be called catholic?

 

 

Bullcrap!

If it were not for the Constitution and the First Amendment and "no-religious test" the Church would go beyond "this is what we want you to do if you want to be part of this club". YOUR angle is what they are limited to unless they want to lose their tax exempt status. But make no mistake about it, it is a loophole by proxy. It is backdoor politics trying to shame him into bowing to their "authority".

I don't understand why he wants to be called a Catholic either, but HE CAN and there is no wrong way to be a Catholic. You fall for the same thing all sects of all religions fall for in the "true Scotsman" fallacy. He is a Catholic just as Muslim Sunnis and Muslim Shiites are both Muslim.

I don't understand why gay people are religious but they are. They belong to all sorts of sects of all the world's major religions that condemn them for not following "Gods" rules. Should they be banned from churches? As private institutions they CAN do what they want. BUT what IS unethical and immoral is to dictate or imply that a politician has to bow to a god or even a political party.

If I were him I would tell them to fuck off and attend a church that minds it's own business and doesn't play politics.

No different than the Catholic priest in FLA caught dating. He simply, and rightfully said FUCK YOU, and went and joined a church that allowed dating and marriage. He wasn't even an elected official.

Religion in democracies has no government authority. Popes and clerics and organizations that fund such private institutions are subject to the same rules of appeal and consent of human pluralistic governments that protect their freedoms. Religious leaders in theocracies have power, but in free societies they are not special and have no government power over individual minds, ESPECIALLY POLITICIANS.

I agree that any club, much less a religious club, and private businesses should be free to set their own rules. HOWEVER, no one should be fooled by any attempt to SHAME a politician, much less a citizen, into "obey me or else".

Religious threats on politics in free societies should be treated with contempt and scorn. It is only that rigor that keeps us from backsliding into the Dark Ages and the theocracies of the Middle East today.

We do not elect gods, we elect humans. Governments are not holy buildings or holy books. The authority WE derive in the west is not a dictatorship, but one of the consent of the people which in, our laws are subject to change, without any official state religion telling them what to do. Since the Catholic Church IS NOT our state itself and IS NOT our government itself, they can whine all they want about what he does, but he doesn't owe them shit. And I'll be the first to e-mail ANY individual Catholic Church that gives him communion and thank them for not making their religion political.

FUCK THIS BISHOP. He is no more anyone's boss than a Muslim Imam is.

 


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Mjolnin
Theist
Posts: 143
Joined: 2007-04-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Bullcrap!If it

Brian37 wrote:

Bullcrap!

If it were not for the Constitution and the First Amendment and "no-religious test" the Church would go beyond "this is what we want you to do if you want to be part of this club". YOUR angle is what they are limited to unless they want to lose their tax exempt status. But make no mistake about it, it is a loophole by proxy. It is backdoor politics trying to shame him into bowing to their "authority".

I don't understand why he wants to be called a Catholic either, but HE CAN and there is no wrong way to be a Catholic. You fall for the same thing all sects of all religions fall for in the "true Scotsman" fallacy. He is a Catholic just as Muslim Sunnis and Muslim Shiites are both Muslim. 
 

 

This site has rules. If you do not follow the rules you can be blocked and not allowed back in.

Our society has rules. If you break them you can be ticketed, fined,jailed, imprisoned and taken completely out of society.

The "true scotsman" fallicy is a bogus stance and  only good for those people who think that they are not judged or held responcible for their actions - which is the only "Bullcrap " I see here. If you want to wear the tag than you have to follow the rules of the tag.       "We do not elect gods, we elect humans."      And we elect people and hold them responcible for their actions or we toss them out for those actions and not on who they say thet are.

There is no wrong way to be a Catholic?? They have a rule book, In case you didn't know.

If backdoor politics is nothing more than a way to  shame someone into bowing to their "authority". Than you have to throw out every rule that has ever been written and live with the actions that are taken against you.

 Do not look at this as a theist or atheist, but a a person who intends to be held responcible for their actions. If the rules are not followed than we are not allowed to play. That simple.

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian, I'm not sure you're

Brian, I'm not sure you're quite right with this.  I admit, of course, that it's a silly attempt by the Church to coerce one of its professed followers into following its own laws and thus affecting the laws of the State.  Naturally, Kennedy is free to vote or choose his sides of issues as his conscious dictates. 

This is not necessarily separate from his beliefs in transubstantiation and other Catholic woo-woo, since those beliefs may guide his conscious, as he suggests they do.  If he believes that abortion is a right that women should have due to some belief about the law and because it is what his conscious dictates, then the Church can go ahead and deny him the sacrament -it's their Church and he is, willingly, a member of it. 

Trying to use it as a way to coerce him is pathetic, but they're free to do what they have and he's free to write, as he did, '...the fact that I disagree with the hierarchy of the church on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.' 

Not incidentally, he has voted for a bill that tightened abortion restrictions.  What seems to be an issue is actually not one at all, unless you're going to make an issue of a politician who speaks to appease a number of people with mutually exclusive beliefs or call out a church for trying to extort a member.  If Kennedy doesn't want to play with their rules, he shouldn't be a part of their club -he'd be better for it anyhow.  There wouldn't be even a perceived issue, it would just be the RCC complaining because someone doesn't agree with their backward beliefs.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."