Political & Elections

Haven't been following this thread. World is no madder/crazier than normal. Just let me know when we get close say a 7 on the maddness scale or if PBO does a GWB. 

I'm amazed a Guiliani supporter can say that with a straight face (Hint: material facilitation).

Didn't know this board was that exciting.

oh I understood what happened. I don't happen to respect the nuns on the bus, as the NYT naturally does.  Sorry.

The discussion stops at the statement that my religion can inform my politics, in my opinion.

"Powerful forces," and the tactics used, are self explanatory to anyone who's been paying attention.

Keep going-- I'm fascinated to see how low you will go.

I'll side with Benedict over the NYT. Hope that's okay.

Our religious beliefs are allowed to inform our political beliefs in this country.

This is a politics and elections forum, not a religious forum.

I'm not inclined to discuss my personal experience of religion in any case -- never have been.

You are misrepresenting the nuns. Not surpising of course, but sad.  Of course the Catholic Church isn't going to change its position on the religious SACRAMENT of marriage, hope. No one expects them to, anymore than people expect the Vatican to order priests to baptise Jewish infants. However, there is no religious reason to oppose people being able to enter into legal contracts that do not involve the Church. It's a political position, and something of an economic one. You don't seem to be able to distinguish the secular legal contract from the Catholic sacrament of marriage. It would literally be impossible for a priest to marry two people of the same sex--even if he performed the ceremony for some reason (say, one of the parties had managed to maintain a disguise all through pre-Cana etc), what religious Catholics believe happens during marriage -- that God inseparably joins a man and a woman-- would not happen. That's why the Church doesn't issue divorces, only annulments. They believe that if this divine event has occured, only death can end the connection. However, if for some reason the joining didn't occur (usually because the parties were not in the right frame of mind), the marriage never truly took place, and the parties are free to re-marry. This has absolutely nothing to do with legal marriage equality in a constitutional Republic. If you were able to appreciate the spiritual and religious side of being Catholic, you would understand the difference between that and the political issues. (Hint: There's a reason no Pope ever issued an infallible doctrine forbidding governments from allowing gay people to enter into the same legal contracts as straight people. Try googling the words "Holy Spirit" and maybe you'll figure it out).

Of course Catholic voices can be heard, just as Jewish voices, atheist voices, Episopalean voices, tall voices, short voices, and every other voice imaginable. But it's not a religious position, it's a political one. I get that you can't tell the difference because to you, politics IS your religion, but it is what it is. I hope in time you come to have some appreciation for the beauty and meaning of the sacraments, so you'll appreciate that there's more to Catholicism than a political identity.

In case anyone doesn't know you well enough to know that you were slandering the sisters, as you tend to do to the genuinely religous, here is some background on the nuns on the bus:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/us/us-nuns-bus-tour-to-spotlight-social-issues.html

Benedict was the boss, so he got to set the priorities. Fair enough. But for you to make the outrageous claims against these women that you have -- well, it only highlights how angry and bitter you are to those who have the connection to the sacred that you are missing.

-- Edited by conyat on Thursday 18th of April 2013 06:54:15 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Thursday 18th of April 2013 06:54:36 PM

 If the Church changed its position on the sanctity of life,  people would be amazed, rightly so, since it is a fundamental doctrine, based on natural law. This has been a fundamental teaching for a long long time, to put it mildly.  Also, As Steyn points out in the article I posted, it is absurd to think they are about to change their position on gay marriage. In other words, were that to happen, it might be something, but not the Church it has been for 2,000 years. It would be something else-- a different religion. There is no shame for anyone in hoping, and praying, that the Church remains the Church. . These beliefs are not political, they are fundamental doctrine, no matter what you say.

Despite all your twisting of my words, and personal atracks on my character, I  think most people realize this is not rocket science.

You are not Pope, Conyat, hallelujah.

Carry on with your fanatical attacks. They illuminate exactly what the Church is up against.

Funny thing about the Catholic Church: rules are made at the top (the Vatican), not by the "priests and the bishops," and certainly not by the nuns. I thought everybody knew that. Francis has agreed with Benedict's choice to chastise them. Opposite Day all you want. It's amusing.

The nuns weren't "making any rules". Nor were the priests and bishops.However, my point that if the nuns weren't Catholic, their bishop would have removed from the order (with Benedict's blessing) stands.

The only reason you think they aren't Catholic is because to you the sum total of Catholicism is agreeing with you on secular political issues. Concepts like original sin, the assumption of the Blessed Mother, the immaculate conception are meaningless to you. You can experience the Church only as a proxy for "anti-socialism" or whatever it is you consider your political views. That's what's behind your fear-mongering that the church will cease to exist if "powerful forces" have their way. You're really afraid it will stop siding with you on non-spiritual issues and will then be dead in your eyes.

Unless of course you can show me where Benedict said that the nuns weren't Catholic and had them drummed out of their order......Yeah, didn't figure you could. Is there any Catholic clergy member you respect?

-- Edited by conyat on Thursday 18th of April 2013 04:49:18 AM

OMG, I must be getting old; this latest post strikes me as high camp.

Or "opposite day," as an old CC poster used to phrase it.

Such fun, when you are the victim of one of those blinding rage attacks in cyberspace.  No amount of dessert will cure those bad feelings. 

cat, I realized the same thing and figure he deserves to be cut some slack, but taking people's heads off because they have a different opinion is for bullies, stress or no stress.

He's had testy episodes in the past, bd. I realize now he's got reasons for occasionally being stressed, though.

BD11. Are they leftbankers?  

That is very exciting! 

All my kddoes are currently unattached.  

I gave up trying to get more posters.  We just didn't generate enough controversy. 

except the dessert debates, oF course.  

if only we could have fifty more new voices.  Then we wiuld have even more fun. 

"So, rather than objecting to just portions of the sort of soaring, omnibus, rhetorical feel-good bs the UN is prone to produce when it's bureacrats teats are pulled, the Vatican is objecting to precisely the same points, for precisely the same reasons, as Iran is."

I'm sure...why would our unbiased, nuanced media (and Conyat) report so otherwise?

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 16th of April 2013 03:47:54 AM

That's bad, then.

So, rather than objecting to just portions of the sort of soaring, omnibus, rhetorical feel-good bs the UN is prone to produce when it's bureacrats teats are pulled, the Vatican is objecting to precisely the same points, for precisely the same reasons, as Iran is.

Don't get out enough, I guess, and am still hopelessly naive as a result.

I miss my old ones. They seem to have aged to the point they'd rather discuss the marital problems of others and obsess about their investments.

Currently, through the UN, the Vatican is working with Egypt and Iran to try to derail a declaration urging an end to violence against women and girls.

Is there any context that would make that a little less a crime against the female sex than it sounds?

It would be a lot easier just to admit that you made it up to make yourself sound important, wouldn't it?

But leave it to you to always to take the low road. I hope someday you come to appreciate the spiritual and religious side of the Church, I really do. It can be a tremendous comfort.