[Ninong]

Well, if it wasn't before, it's about to become very relevant.

Remember President Bush's visit to the Vatican on June 4, 2004, when he presented the Pope with the Medal of Freedom and the Pope presented him with a lecture on the war in Iraq? During that little visit, Bush visited with Cardinal Soldano, the Holy See's Secretary of State, and complained to Cardinal Soldano that not all of the American Catholic Bishops were outspoken in support of "culture of life" issues. He wondered if the Vatican could encourage the American prelates to be more outspoken in the areas of abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage. According to the American Catholic press, based in Rome, Cardinal Soldano did not respond to the president's request.

Later that day, the President met with other Vatican officials, including Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly called The Holy Inquisition). One week later, Cardinal Ratzinger (the new Pope Benedict XVI) sent a letter to the American Catholic Bishops that I'm sure had absolutely nothing to do with the President's visit: http://beta.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/200...peus&printer=1

[Ninong]

There aren't too many countries that are more Catholic than Spain. OK, there's Vatican City, it's 100% Catholic but it has a total population of only 850.

I wonder if Pope Benedict XVI will notice this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4469653.stm

[Ninong]

That didn't take long: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4473001.stm

I guess we will have to wait for the letter from the Vatican to the Spanish bishops to see what the proposed penalties will be for any Catholic who voted for this new law. Denial of communion is almost a given, excommunication is a distinct possibility. That may take awhile though. Fidel Castro wasn't excommunicated until 1963 and I don't believe Joseph Goebbels was ever excommunicated. I don't recall the Vatican having a policy of excommunication of Nazi leaders like they have for any Catholic who endorses communism. IIRC, quite a few German Catholic bishops defended the National Socialists, just as many Italian prelates were accomodating towards Mussolini.

Obviously there will be penalties for compliance with the new law, too. The Vatican has already stated that Catholic officials (which is virtually everybody in Spain) should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than comply. Those who choose not to resign will probably be denied communion or worse.

The classic definition of theocracy! God's law trumps civil law and we will decide what God's law is. This is exactly what the religious right in the United States wants for our country. Except that instead of asking the Pope, we will consult with the likes of James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Tom DeLay to determine what God wants for us. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...720500,00.html They have already told us that God doesn't want us to teach modern medicine, or plate tectonics, or astronomy, or biology, or geology, and absolutely none of this biotech stuff. And I'm pretty sure they think God wants us to ban 'the internets', too.

P.S. -- It sure didn't take long for all the details of this week's papal conclave to leak out, especially considering that all of the cardinals took a vow of absolute secrecy under pain of excommunication: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/...&oneclick=true

[Ninong]

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.





In case you don't remember that quotation, it was John F. Kennedy in September 1960 speaking before a group of Baptist leaders: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...emocrac/66.htm

[Poseidon]

That's a great quote George! I would like to believe in that America too, but we both know that ideal has not been reached!

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

That's a great quote George! I would like to believe in that America too, but we both know that ideal has not been reached!

If President Kennedy were to give that same speech today, I'm sure Tom DeLay would say he is anti-Christian, Bill Frist would say he is an enemy of "people of faith" and Ricky Santorum might even accuse him of being anti-Catholic.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

That's a great quote George! I would like to believe in that America too, but we both know that ideal has not been reached!

Actually we have been moving in the opposite direction for the past ten years. Conservative Republicans in the 1960's did not hold views all that different from Democrats when it came to matters of separation of church and state:


However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly.

The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate.

I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'

-- Sen. Barry Goldwater (R)

[Ninong]

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."

-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991



Hey, Dr. Frist, aren't you a Presbyterian? Oh, that's right, you're the Senate Majority Leader. Maybe they'll make an exception and be nice to you? Next time it might be a good idea to check to see if your religion is on the approved list before you appear on telecasts with some of these guys.

[Poseidon]

And to think my family published the "Official newspaper of the Diocese of Lansing" for about 25 years! I can't get far enough AWAY from the catholic church right now! I don't know if I will ever have a need for organized religion in my life again. Not saying that I don't hold some beliefs, but I keep them to myself, and don't try to force them on ANYONE else! I wish more people would try it this way... We might all get along!

[Ninong]

Some of the positions of the new pope may come as a surprise to many who are unfamiliar with his writings.

We now know, thanks to documents that were uncovered during the sex abuse trials of U.S. Catholic priests, that the official position of the Catholic Church is that Catholic Bishops are under no obligation to report allegations of sexual abuse to civil authorities in spite of applicable civil law. In fact, they have been ordered by the Church to keep all such matters secret. The investigations must be carried out in secrecy according to instructions from the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In effect, this makes the new pope guilty under U.S. law of conspiracy to obstruct justice. He is the one who wrote the letter in May 2001. It also means the previous pope was guilty of obstruction of justice since nothing goes out from the Congregation for the Faith without his consent and approval.

The Church still considers itself exempt from the requirements of local laws when those laws conflict with the perceived best interests of the Church.

[Ninong]

Under no circumstances should Jews be appointed as federal judges. They are obviously unqualified because they are not churchgoers and they don't even believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior.

So said the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville at that little church gathering of "people of faith" where a video address by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (sorry, I meant to say Dr. Frist -- he insists on being called "Doctor" rather than Senator) was the highlight of the event.

Putting more evangelicals on the court will mean rulings more in tune with the religious convictions of churchgoers, said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

"We are not asking for persons merely to be moral," Mohler said. "We want them to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ."

Congratulations to Dr. Frist for associating himself and the Senate of the United States with people who want to turn our democracy into a Christian theocracy that denies equal rights to those who do not share the same religious beliefs as the radicals in charge.

[Ninong]

Ever wonder who's really running the show? You know, the ones who are managing things for the radical wingnuts of the religious right.

Why would Bill Frist associate with the likes of Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council? They were the main sponsor of that little gathering this past weekend at that Baptist Church in Louisville. Tony Perkins is well known in Louisiana. Very well known. All the local wingnuts adore him. I'm amazed that he managed to dupe a black minister into appearing at a function put on by a white supremacist. It's not all that difficult to understand how he got a token Catholic onto the show. William Donohue of the Catholic League will appear on any forum no matter how racist or how anti-Catholic as long as he gets publicity.

It is sad to think that the Republican Party is now in the hands of people like this: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...1&s=blumenthal

[Poseidon]

Well it obvious that a PROBLEM has been identified, but how does it get fixed? I made sure to VOTE for who I believed to be the LESSER IDIOT, and I vote the same way in my local elections. I think politics has become so silly that the best and brightest won't run as they are afraid what the opponents and press will try to drag them through. If I ever get an interest in running I will get squashed right away, Have you ever smoked pot? My answer: Yes. = Dead politically even though I was 21 at the time, then made the decision it was not for me and have not smoked it since. I am sure the last part of my answer would get lost and I would be labeled a "POTHEAD" right off the bat! I don't think I will subject myself to that! I'll bet there are others with similar situations that could be an excellent senator, congressman, etc etc...

[Ninong]

The guys who held that little Justice Sunday gathering in a Baptist Church in Louisville to denounce filibusters as an evil that had to be eliminated didn't always think about them that way. On the contrary, the Family Research Council was a big supporter of the filibuster that denied James Hormel his ambassadorship.

"The Senate is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it's got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. That's why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly." -- official spokesperson for the Family Research Council appearing on the Keith Olbermann show July 2, 1998: http://mediamatters.org/items/200504260005

P.S. -- And as everybody who is old enough to remember, the Republicans were the first to filibuster court nominees: http://mediamatters.org/items/200504280003

Evidently they think that if they repeat the same lies over and over on Faux News, they will fool the majority of the people. Just as they are suddenly claiming that it's the Democrats that invented the term "nuclear option." Trent Lott invented that phrase two years ago and the Republicans have been using it ever since. It's only in the past couple of weeks that their media advisors have instructed them to start calling it the "constitutional option."

Privatizing the entire social security system is what George W. Bush ran on in 1978 (unsuccessfully, I might add) when he was running for a seat in the House. While he was governor of Texas, it was the official position of the Republican Party of Texas in their 2000 platform that they would work to eliminate social security. They also wanted to eliminate the Federal Reserve and have the U.S. withdraw from the U.N.

[Ninong]

Remember the letter I referenced in the opening post that Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, sent to all American Catholic Bishops shortly after George Bush's visit to the Vatican? I found the relevant part online:

WORTHINESS TO RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION

(1) Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one's worthiness to do so, according to the Church's objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," Nos. 81, 83).

(2) The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection…. In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law or vote for it.' " (No. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil…. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (No. 74).

(3) Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

(4) Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

(5) Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

(6) When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], Nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

(Emphasis added by me.)

Here's the Reader's Digest version:

#1 – Only “worthy” Catholics may receive Holy Communion.

#2 – Catholics may never support abortion or euthanasia.

#3 – Although the Church generally opposes war and capital punishment, worthy Catholics are allowed to disagree with those positions. Catholics may not disagree with the Church’s position on abortion and euthanasia.

#4 – Catholic politicians who support pro-choice or pro-euthanasia legislation are not worthy to receive Holy Communion.

#5 – If Catholic politicians who support pro-choice or pro-euthanasia legislation do not voluntarily refuse Holy Communion, then the priest is obligated to refuse to administer Holy Communion to said pro-choice/pro-euthanasia Catholic politician.

#6 – Catholic voters may vote for pro-choice candidates, but only for reasons OTHER than the candidate’s pro-choice position. Catholics who vote for pro-choice candidates BECAUSE they are pro-choice are not worthy to receive Holy Communion.


I think #3 means that if you are a "worthy" Catholic, it's OK to favor capital punishment as long as you are against abortion and euthanasia. You are also permitted to support the war in Iraq provided you are a "worthy" Catholic and against abortion and euthanasia.

Obviously both #4 and #5 state that under no circumstances should a pro-choice Catholic politician be administered Holy Communion. And #6 says that it's OK to vote for such a politician as long as you vote for him for other reasons. If you vote for him because he is pro-choice, no Holy Communion for you.

[Ninong]

This case should never have been closed in the first place. The evidence was overwhelming. It was closed because the accused was a close personal friend of John Paul II.

Then all of a sudden it's reopened in January 2005 by a cardinal that many say was already campaigning for the job of replacing the ailing pope. Why would he suddenly reopen this case? Does he intend to bring it to a conclusion or is he just going to let it stay in the limbo of official secrecy indefinitely? Now that the case has been reopened, no one can discuss it. All such investigations are conducted in total secrecy and everyone involved is forbidden from saying anything. http://abcnews.go.com/International/...=690512&page=1

[Ninong]

Another way to approach this question is to consider the relevance of religion in previous "modern" worlds. In other words, with the benefit of hindsight, which was more relevant, science or religion? With the benefit of hindsight, which was correct in answering some of the questions that seemed "unknowable" at the time.

This is also a good way to prove that most religions change over time. Not all, but most. It may take some, like the Catholic Church, a few hundred years to reverse previous dogma but at least they eventually come around. Some of the more fundamentalist Protestant denominations like the Baptists and the Pentacostals may never come around. People like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and James Dobson and anyone else who insists that the Bible (all of it) is divinely inspired and they believe every word of it will never come around.

What were religious leaders saying a few hundred years ago about astronomy, which was the evolution of its day? That was a time when anyone who dared to hold any opinions that conflicted with the Bible's version of the stationary Earth as the center of the universe ran the risk of incarceration or even death by burning at the stake. Burning at the stake was the usual punishment for heretics and Copernican astronomy was heresy. Galileo barely escaped death only by renouncing his heretical teachings that the Earth revolved around the Sun. He lived out the remainder of his years under house arrest.

Here are a few examples of what the famous religious leaders of that day had to say on the topic of astronomy:


"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin." -- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo.


"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'" -- John Calvin, sermon No. 8 on 1st. Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988).


"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." -- Martin Luther


Are there any religious leaders today that still hold such views? Sure, all of the ones who believe that every word of the Bible is true.

"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology." -- Henry Morris, president of the Institute of Creation Research.


"I would not be a geocentrist if it were not for the Scriptures." -- Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D. (1984 Bible Science Conference).

"God, in His Word, consistently teaches geocentricity." -- Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D.

"Historians readily acknowledge that the Copernican Revolution [i.e., the idea that 'the earth moves and turns'] spawned the bloody French and Bolshevic revolutions... set the stage for the ancient Greek dogma of evolution...led to Marxism and Communism...It is reported that Marx even acknowledged his indebtedness to Copernicus, without whom Marx believed that his ideas would not have gained much acceptance...It is thus a small step to total rejection of the Bible and the precepts of morality and law taught therein." -- Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., "Why Geocentricity?" (Baptist Bulletin, 1985).


Here is John Locke's take on religion and common sense:

"I find every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, it is a matter of faith, and above reason." -- John Locke


P.S. -- If you're one who doesn't believe in the "fallible theories of sinful people," this site will help you prove to others that every word of the Bible must be taken as literal truth and that God actually created everything in six ordinary days of 24 hours each. Anyone who believes otherwise is not a true Christian. Only by accepting every word of the Bible exactly as written can you hope to be saved: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home...k/sixdays2.asp

[Ninong]

It is interesting that the president didn't find time to discuss anything other than oil with Crown Prince Abdullah when they were tiptoeing through the bluebonnets in Texas.

The conservative journal, National Review, wonders why he didn't bring up the subject of persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia:

"Before boarding his flight to Crawford to meet with President Bush Monday, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah presided over the arrest of 40 Pakistani Christians on Friday. Their crime? The Pakistanis were caught praying in a private home in the capital Riyadh in violation of the state’s strictly enforced religious law that bans all non-Muslim worship."

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0504250752.asp

[Ninong]

They're still stoning women to death for the sin of being "found in the company of a man she was not married to" in Afghanistan, a country we claim to have liberated even though the new president of the country has no control over any territory outside the city limits of Kabul and the opium crop is now larger than it ever was in the past.

Even the young woman's parents agreed that it was God's will that she be stoned to death. It was God's will that the young man receive 40 lashes.

"She was stoned to death right here, we buried her up to the chest and then they stoned her, she died after two hours," Azim continued nonchalantly, as he drew a circle around a pile of small stones in a nearby field. "There were seventy people at the stoning, I watched for few minutes but then left."

The killing was even endorsed by Amena'a mother.

"When the verdict was announced they came to consult me and I said, 'kill her' she said, without emotion. "I am proud and happy that she [Amena] was killed, because she undermined the honour of the village."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/news...c9a8111fe2.htm

She died a horrible death for the "crime" of talking to a man who was not her father or brother. Her father and several other men have been arrested.

Isn't it sad that the truly immoral acts are committed by religious fanatics in the name of God? How many millions have been murdered because it was God's will? How many hundreds of thousands of women have been burned at the stake because they were witches?

History continues to repeat itself.

[Ninong]

John 8:7

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."


Obviously the Bushies are without sin because they're throwing stones:

The Bush administration has allocated $15 billion to the worldwide fight against AIDS. There are some strings attached. None of the money can be used to treat prostitutes with AIDS and prevention programs must advocate abstinence rather than condom use.

Brazil told them to keep their money: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4513805.stm

Theocracy in action! No wonder we are the laughing stock of the rest of the world.