This is why I'm not religious

[bookworm51485]

Catholic bishops will fight Obama on abortion

Idiots

[shinigamiinochi]

Have these people ever heard of seperation of church and state? Sometimes, what you believe and what is best for a society are not the same things. If you're a catholic politician, you should listen to the people and act accordingly, not your religious leaders. If you can't make that distinction, you shouldn't be in politics. It may be harsh for religious people, but you have to make that choice. I hope Obama has the spine not to change his views just because of some religious rabble.

[foeofthelance]

Have these people ever heard of seperation of church and state? Sometimes, what you believe and what is best for a society are not the same things. If you're a catholic politician, you should listen to the people and act accordingly, not your religious leaders. If you can't make that distinction, you shouldn't be in politics. It may be harsh for religious people, but you have to make that choice. I hope Obama has the spine not to change his views just because of some religious rabble.

What does seperation of church and state necessarily have to do with this? Just because you become a priest doesn't mean you automatically lose the right to be politically active. These guys have a series of social beliefs that stems from their faith. They have just as much right to campaign for it as someone else. And the comment attacking Biden is probably spot on.

And several prelates promised to call out Catholic policy makers on their failures to follow church teaching. Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., singled out Vice President-elect Biden, a Catholic, Scranton native who supports abortion rights.

"I cannot have a vice president-elect coming to Scranton to say he's learned his values there when those values are utterly against the teachings of the Catholic Church," Martino said. The Obama-Biden press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

"They cannot call themselves Catholic when they violate such a core belief as the dignity of the unborn," Naumann said Tuesday.

ITs simple in my opinion. If you claim to be something and to practice something, you don't get to pick and choose which rules you follow and which you can just violate. If you run around trumpeting your religion, or use it in any way during a campaign, then yes, I would expect you to follow the tenet of said religion, whether you be Democrat or Republican or Independent, or Christian or Bhuddist or am African Bush Shaman. To do otherwise is being dishonest in my opinion. To do otherwise would be like me running on the Communist Manifesto, while trumpeting the glory of the free enterprise system. And even then its not a universal thing:

But some bishops said church leaders should take care with the tone of the statement.

Bishops differ on whether Catholic lawmakers should refrain from receiving Communion if they diverge from central church beliefs. Each bishop sets policy in his own diocese.

So, yeah. They're merely using their right to act according to their faith. Doubt much will come of it, too many people disagree with them as the poll numbers showed, and even some of their own followers were wondering whether they shouldn't tone it down a bit. Not entirely sure hwo I feel on the risk of Chrisitian hospitals losing federal funding over abortion, but eh. One part says the law is the law, the other says the law isnt allowed to interfere with faith so long as no one is getting harmed by it. So that's kinda up in the air.

[bookworm51485]

For me, my first problem with this is why now, why Obama? They had 30+ years to start really laying it on and declaring pro-abortion rights legislation and attack on the church. So why now? My next problem is the issue of Separation of Church and State.

What does seperation of church and state necessarily have to do with this? Just because you become a priest doesn't mean you automatically lose the right to be politically active. These guys have a series of social beliefs that stems from their faith. They have just as much right to campaign for it as someone else. And the comment attacking Biden is probably spot on.

Separation of church and State means that religious doctrine has no place is gov't and lawmaking. Why? Because we are a country of MANY religions, including the many atheists and agnostics. Catholic beliefs are Catholic beliefs and should have no place in deciding how to govern over all, including the non-Catholics. The Catholic church, they're not campaigning, they're going on the attack. 'Do what we say or else?' It's ridiculous.

ITs simple in my opinion. If you claim to be something and to practice something, you don't get to pick and choose which rules you follow and which you can just violate.

I don't think it's at all that simple. I think those Catholics in gov't who don't push their Catholics beliefs in everything recognize the Separation of Church and State. They recognize that not all of their constituents are Catholic and that they were elected to represent ALL and not just the ones of the same faith.

[Keith Inc.]

For me, my first problem with this is why now, why Obama? They had 30+ years to start really laying it on and declaring pro-abortion rights legislation and attack on the church. So why now? My next problem is the issue of Separation of Church and State.

Did you miss it? The RCC has threatened for some time to excommunicate catholic politicians that do not toe the Church's line for policy and legislation.

I'm all for it. Reclassify the Catholics as a political action committee and tax them like any other.

[foeofthelance]

Separation of church and State means that religious doctrine has no place is gov't and lawmaking. Why? Because we are a country of MANY religions, including the many atheists and agnostics. Catholic beliefs are Catholic beliefs and should have no place in deciding how to govern over all, including the non-Catholics. The Catholic church, they're not campaigning, they're going on the attack. 'Do what we say or else?' It's ridiculous.

No, seperation of church and state does not mean that there is no place in government for religion. What it means is that the Church has no power to automatically dictate to the government what action the goverment must take and be obeyed, and that the government has no power to dictate to the people what faith they must follow and how to practice it. It does <i>not</i> mean that belonging to a church or being a leader in a church automatically precludes you from basing your political choices on your faith. You can't tell people what they can and cannot base their political decisions on. I choose history. Others choose whatever campaign promises the canidates make. Others vote a straight party ticket. And yes, some base it on their faith, and not just Catholics at that.

I'm all for it. Reclassify the Catholics as a political action committee and tax them like any other.

Narrow it down a bit. You can't target every church because of a few activist bishops. Instead go after the groups like Catholics United, and any churches that directly support them, or clergy employed by it. You need a bit of a fine brush on this one, but if you stick to those who are publically active, then you should be fine. There will be some complainers, but if they do it, theyve earned it.

[bookworm51485]

No, seperation of church and state does not mean that there is no place in government for religion.

Religious doctrine

It does <i>not</i> mean that belonging to a church or being a leader in a church automatically precludes you from basing your political choices on your faith.

If it's an issue in which a certain decision interferes with another's beliefs, then yes it does. You should not be basing any decisions made for the general public on your religious beliefs, if that decision could encroach on the belief's of others. On the issue of abortion a person can not let their religious beliefs determine how they act on behalf of the general public, because there are those of the general public, who they were elected to represent, that don't share those same religious beliefs (there are even those within the same faith who don't hold the same religious beliefs).

[foeofthelance]

Religious doctrine

Can you explain to me how you have a religion without some form of religious doctrine? A doctrine is just a codified system of rules/beliefs, really. The Catholic doctrine happens to be really down on abortion. They're acting on it.

If it's an issue in which a certain decision interferes with another's beliefs, then yes it does. You should not be basing any decisions made for the general public on your religious beliefs, if that decision could encroach on the belief's of others. On the issue of abortion a person can not let their religious beliefs determine how they act on behalf of the general public, because there are those of the general public, who they were elected to represent, that don't share those same religious beliefs (there are even those within the same faith who don't hold the same religious beliefs).

The problem is, that's your opinion. One I share, admittedly, but its just an opinion. Which is probably why when you vote, you vote for people who share your opinions and ideals. Its a politician's job to act on behalf of the people that elected him. People vote for him based on his campaign platform. Therefore, if you get a person whose campaign platform is anti-abortion, expect them to try to do something against abortion. If you get someone elected who is prochoice, then expect them to protect the ability to make a decision as an individual.

This is actually something I got into with Agaib a while ago, and you can check the legal discussions thread for the main view of opinions, but what it sounds like to me isn't that you're upset that they're anti-abortion, but that they're anti-abortion because of their faith. I don't like what they have to say either, but that doesn't mea that I'm going say that they have no right to act on their faith. They are just as much a part of the political process as anyone else, and have just as much right to have themselves be heard by anyone who is interested in listening.

[bookworm51485]

Can you explain to me how you have a religion without some form of religious doctrine? A doctrine is just a codified system of rules/beliefs, really. The Catholic doctrine happens to be really down on abortion. They're acting on it.

Who said anything about them not having a doctrine. It has no place in government.

The problem is, that's your opinion. One I share, admittedly, but its just an opinion. Which is probably why when you vote, you vote for people who share your opinions and ideals. Its a politician's job to act on behalf of the people that elected him. People vote for him based on his campaign platform. Therefore, if you get a person whose campaign platform is anti-abortion, expect them to try to do something against abortion. If you get someone elected who is prochoice, then expect them to protect the ability to make a decision as an individual.

They don't have the right to force THEIR religious beliefs on the entire population. Honestly, I'm beginning to think you just like to be argumentative. The politicians they mentioned are pro-choice, they just happen to be Catholic. They have a problem with them being pro-choice politicians, they feel that they should push a shove the pro-life agenda down our throats. And as I said, they're being proper politicians by putting what might be their personal religious beliefs aside to represent the whole.

This is actually something I got into with Agaib a while ago, and you can check the legal discussions thread for the main view of opinions, but what it sounds like to me isn't that you're upset that they're anti-abortion, but that they're anti-abortion because of their faith. I don't like what they have to say either, but that doesn't mean that I'm going say that they have no right to act on their faith. They are just as much a part of the political process as anyone else, and have just as much right to have themselves be heard by anyone who is interested in listening.

They don't have the right to force the ideals of their faith on those who don't share it. Acting on your faith is making sure that you PERSONALLY do what you have to do, not trying to force others to believe what you do. Personally, I think if the Catholic Church really gave a crap about life, they'd speak out just as strongly about capital punishment and spend the massive amounts of money they have on the support of the children who are already here that nobody wants. Or maybe try to clean up their own house a bit so we don't have anymore cases of priests coming out admitting they'd molested a hundred boys and/or girls while in that position.

As a person in the country, of course they have the basic right to vote, but putting the weight and resources of the Catholic Church behind this 'mission', no. They're attempting to push their Catholics beliefs into gov't to reign over all.

they're anti-abortion because of their faith.

Honestly, I think the label of anti-abortion is a bit of a fallacy, as if being pro-choice makes you pro-abortion. I wonder how many 'anti-abortion' people are not so because of their faith.

[Keith Inc.]

Narrow it down a bit. You can't target every church because of a few activist bishops.

Sure we can. If they're put in position by the Church, and abusing that position, then by tolerating it the Church is effectively endorsing it. A credible threat of taxing Catholic holdings in the US will almost certainly cause them to police their own. Either they kick them out from under the umbrella protection of the church or they shut them up.

US Military members are restricted from doing endorsements in uniform or under circumstances that could be interpreted as not being an individual opinion but representing the service branch. We can't march for politicians or for gay rights or to restrict gay rights in uniform. If a religious authority can make it clear that he is speaking as an individual, then it should be allowed. If he uses terms of religious authority, such as threats of excommunication, then he's representing the church. They should shut him up or lose their 501.c(3) status.

It's a bigger and longer-lasting fix than targeting each individual. It might also get them to stop attempting to dictate religious doctrine to the government.

[shinigamiinochi]

I have to agree with bookworm on this. I have a cousin who's a priest and I showed that article to him and he got really upset. He told me that the church's stance was no abortion and he was pro-life, but he would never use a position of power over this country to force others to follow Catholic principles, whether or not he believed those principles to be right. He mentioned that you don't have to follow every single rule to be a Catholic and I suppose that's true. Catholic rule says that sex without marriage is a sin and homosexuality is a sin, but we have gay Catholics and Catholics praticing recreational sex. Some wouldn't consider them to be real Catholics, but they consider themselves to be. These people go to church and follow Catholic teachings. Isn't having other Catholics yell at these people and say that they have no right to practice the religion just another form of prejudice? Can't some Catholic politicians promote things that the Catholic church doesn't necessarily believe in because the people want it? I think so. Saying that, just because you're a Catholic, you have to become the Church's right hand and force their views onto the people through you're position of power doesn't sit too well for me. Yes, the Church has the right to opinionate and say what it will, but when it starts forcing its followers, who have an equal responsibility to their people, not all of whom are Catholic, it stops looking like a religious debate and starts shifting to methods of control. Politicians are supposed to be tools of the people, not the Church. Yes, I realize how idealistic that sounds, but even if that isn't true in real life, it is supposed to be true in theory and I don't think the church has the right to tell those people they can either chose their religion or their job, because I think that they can have both. It's the difference between what you believe YOU should do and what you believe is best for a community. You want an example of that? I don't think that greyhound racing was a good idea, I myself, find it unethical, but it is a source of jobs and revenues, it was what was good for the community, so I was able to put my own morals aside. We, as human beings, have this ability, it's just too bad that we don't use it very often.

[foeofthelance]

It's a bigger and longer-lasting fix than targeting each individual. It might also get them to stop attempting to dictate religious doctrine to the government.

Ah, my bad. I should have made it more clear. I didn't mean to go after the individuals as peoples, but to go after the specific churches these bishops work for. Partly because as Shin has pointed out not every member of the clergy approves of their actions, and partly because I'm not entirely sure the Catholic faith has as much of a coherent control over the churches that spring up in its name as people think. As far as I know, most churches operate rather independently, or as small groups, not one unified force.

They don't have the right to force THEIR religious beliefs on the entire population. Honestly, I'm beginning to think you just like to be argumentative. The politicians they mentioned are pro-choice, they just happen to be Catholic. They have a problem with them being pro-choice politicians, they feel that they should push a shove the pro-life agenda down our throats. And as I said, they're being proper politicians by putting what might be their personal religious beliefs aside to represent the whole.

They're using the tools at their disposal to achieve a political goal through political means. They disagree with the current policies, admittedly as a result of their faith. I don't see how what they are doing is any different from any other political activist group out there. I've also agreed that they should pay the price of that right, which is as Keith pointed would be the forfeiting of their tax exemptions. What I want to know is why basing their political actions on their faith should preclude them from being politically active at all.

They don't have the right to force the ideals of their faith on those who don't share it. Acting on your faith is making sure that you PERSONALLY do what you have to do, not trying to force others to believe what you do.

Actually...they're not. They believe that abortion is wrong, and are acting on that belief to try and do away with it. There's a difference between feeling it is part of your faith to protest something, and try to having it changed, and going out and saying that everyone has to become Catholic just because you say so. Would you have the same problem if they were a bunch of soccer moms instead of bishops?

Honestly, I think the label of anti-abortion is a bit of a fallacy, as if being pro-choice makes you pro-abortion. I wonder how many 'anti-abortion' people are not so because of their faith.

Probably a regional difference. I've been taught that referring to one side as "Prolife" means that the other side is out to kill as many babies as they can, whereas Anti-abortion means they just don't like abortions, and Prochoice just means having a choice of your own.

[bookworm51485]

Okay, sure whatever Foe. I'm not wasting my time.

[greenwizard]

I agree that political decisions should not be based on religious beliefs. Publicly elected officials are supposed to serve the people and speak for them. I'm not naive enough to believe this happens all the time, but still...

I believe everyone has the right to believe what they choose, but I don't want their religious morals forced on me; and making a religious belief into a law is doing exactly that. I'd be forced to follow the rules of a belief system that isn't mine. When a politician wants to make something illegal because it is against God, the argument remains... who's God. My God doesn't care what you eat, drink, or screw.

[Psychostorm]

I'm not religious because there is no evidence to support the factuality of any religion. Oh and also because I was raised by religious Nazis and have seen the ignorance and hatred first hand and I'm intelligent enough to reject it because it is illogical.

[Animedevildog]

It's good to see a heated discussion that is still kept in check. (no flaming) A topic such as this generally has the ability to bring out the worst in people when they enter the debate. Everyone here has made good points, but people need to remember that the Catholic Church (like any other church for the most part) is based upon certain tenants. One tenant is that the word of their God is ABSOLUTE. One of their core beliefs is that they are supposed to enforce the Lord's law, and history has shown, time and time again, that they will make every attempt to do so. Sometimes violently even. To them, they are doing as their God commands and therefor are holy and just in their actions. The Catholic Church's interpretation of God's Word is that abortion is illegal. Therefor, by their own beliefs, they MUST take action. Had this been a thousand years or so, the Catholic Church would have sent a huge army to destroy us. One of the beliefs at the time was that if your doing the work of the Lord, (i.e. killing unholy infidels) then nothing you did was a sin. This even went as far as the rape, torture, and brutal murder of everyone opposed, INCLUDING little children. As a matter of fact. it was encouraged. Compared to how the Catholic Church has been in the past, what we are dealing with today is minor. I myself am not Christian. I DO believe in God, just not in the same sense as most others.

[Psychostorm]

And that is exactly why the Catholic Church and its members should be eliminated for the greater good of humanity.

[foeofthelance]

It's good to see a heated discussion that is still kept in check. (no flaming) A topic such as this generally has the ability to bring out the worst in people when they enter the debate. Everyone here has made good points, but people need to remember that the Catholic Church (like any other church for the most part) is based upon certain tenants. One tenant is that the word of their God is ABSOLUTE. One of their core beliefs is that they are supposed to enforce the Lord's law, and history has shown, time and time again, that they will make every attempt to do so. Sometimes violently even. To them, they are doing as their God commands and therefor are holy and just in their actions. The Catholic Church's interpretation of God's Word is that abortion is illegal. Therefor, by their own beliefs, they MUST take action. Had this been a thousand years or so, the Catholic Church would have sent a huge army to destroy us. One of the beliefs at the time was that if your doing the work of the Lord, (i.e. killing unholy infidels) then nothing you did was a sin. This even went as far as the rape, torture, and brutal murder of everyone opposed, INCLUDING little children. As a matter of fact. it was encouraged. Compared to how the Catholic Church has been in the past, what we are dealing with today is minor. I myself am not Christian. I DO believe in God, just not in the same sense as most others.

Point is though, this isn't a thousand years ago. This isn't even a century ago. This is today, so why worry? The Catholic church has a rather bloody history, just like most major religions throughout history. Still has a bunch of knuckleheads who missed the bus to school that day. But now it operates under the dictates of the rules of society, instead of trying to dictate the rules to society. Yes, religious folks have a view on how society should be run; I don't see how this differs from Greenpeace associates, Black activists, Latino activists, Asian activists, moderates, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, Independents, Democrats, or Republicans. All have an idea of how society should be run, the only major difference seems to be their motivation. But rather than running around raping, killing, looting and blowing shit up, they all agree to do it through political action, by trying to convince the majority to agree with their views, or to at least accept them.

[Streti]

And that is exactly why the Catholic Church and its members should be eliminated for the greater good of humanity.

I hope you realize the irony here.

Anyways, I trust that most reasonable people won't go along with the catholics, not in America. They're not influential enough and thank god for that, excuse the vulgarity.

[Animedevildog]

And that is exactly why the Catholic Church and its members should be eliminated for the greater good of humanity.

I seem to remember from my History lessons about someone who had similar thoughts... Ah, yes. The quote was "We need breathing room" Germany, Hitler, 1939. He was referring to the Jewish people in Europe. Considering that there are way more Catholics, that would be genocyde on a scale up there with China's Cultural Revolution or the purges in the Soviet Union by Stalin.

[Psychostorm]

I seem to remember from my History lessons about someone who had similar thoughts... Ah, yes. The quote was "We need breathing room" Germany, Hitler, 1939. He was referring to the Jewish people in Europe. Considering that there are way more Catholics, that would be genocyde on a scale up there with China's Cultural Revolution or the purges in the Soviet Union by Stalin.

Hitler was a short sighted moron. He did not have the greater good of humanity in mind, simply his own power.

Fact: religion is detrimental to society and holds it back from reaching its full potential by undermining science, causing conflict, and spreading ignorance and hate.

Fact: The world would be better off with religion.

Fact: We might as well start off exterminating the Catholics first. All dogmatic thinking should be elminated.

[sierraviridian]

Fact: We might as well start off exterminating the Catholics first. All dogmatic thinking should be elminated.

I'm not Catholic, or even religious, but isn't that the kind of thinking that causes problems in the first place? Someone thinks a certain way of thinking or doing something is wrong and should be eliminated and then wars start...

[foeofthelance]

Fact: We might as well start off exterminating the Catholics first. All dogmatic thinking should be elminated.

Congratulations PS, you just killed me and probably a rather good portion of the forum. Not to mention all those Catholic doctors. And all those Catholic teachers. And all those Catholic engineers. And...

Maybe I'm crazy, but it's just quite possible that not everyone who is Catholic is some God-blinded bible thumper who runs around condemning everyone they come across to a fiery eternity in Hell. Or were you planning on making special exceptions for those of us you like or find useful?

[shinigamiinochi]

So basically you think that killing off a religious group will make the world better? Isn't that, word for word, what Hitler preached? I am one of those people that thinks poorly of religious institutions, but they're not all bad. Yes, I'm an atheist, but what about all those Christian groups that go out and help the poor? Just because you have religion, does not make you an asshole. True, there are some bad eggs like Chick and Phelps out there that I would just love to see burned alive, but there are people like that everywhere. Newsflash: prejudice has nothing to do with religion. It just uses religion as a shield, but even people without religion can be judgmental assholes. It's pretty much human nature and getting rid of religion will only make us find another outlit for our hatred.

[greenwizard]

So basically you think that killing off a religious group will make the world better? Isn't that, word for word, what Hitler preached? I am one of those people that thinks poorly of religious institutions, but they're not all bad. Yes, I'm an atheist, but what about all those Christian groups that go out and help the poor? Just because you have religion, does not make you an asshole. True, there are some bad eggs like Chick and Phelps out there that I would just love to see burned alive, but there are people like that everywhere. Newsflash: prejudice has nothing to do with religion. It just uses religion as a shield, but even people without religion can be judgmental assholes. It's pretty much human nature and getting rid of religion will only make us find another outlit for our hatred.

Very true. Most of the horrible things done in the name of religion were done by evil people using God as an excuse. People figure that as long as it's done in the name of God it's ok. Those people aren't truly religious. Those people are delusional self centered assholes.

And you speak of all religion it seems PS. You name Christianity by name, and yes, that religion is pretty messed up, but there are others. I'm religious, and I'm Pagan. There are a few bad apples in every barrel of course, but most Pagans aren't bad. I guess it depends on what path you follow, but most teach tolerance.

Religion itself isn't a bad thing; but it's bad when people misuse it. For some people it gives meaning to their lives.