Catholic Priest: 'No Communion for Obama Supporters'

[quote]pat wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The problem is not the religion itself by any means. But I would never listen to these sanctimonious priests who act like they have a window into God and morality when many of them are themselves some of the most corrupt and debased people on the planet.

I can read and understand the Bible as well as they can. And adhere to its fundamental precepts with much less hypocrisy.

That’s as ignorant a statement as I have ever heard. So do you think if the chick’s on top she can’t get pregnant either?[/quote]

I have no idea what your talking about. But the 5000 priests who sexually abused many thousands more children and the Bisops who knew and stayed silent should not get to be the aribiters of morality for anyone. The way the church dealt dealt with this was beyond immoral. THEY sould’ve been excommunicated. That’s real sin.

Putting aside abortion being right or wrong, the treatment of this matter by this guy Newman was beyond ludicrous. Newman is denying communion not to those who have conducted or received an abortion, and not to those who enact laws that allow for abortion, but to those who cast a vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights.

In effect, he’s saying that thinking is now mortal sin. There may be plenty of other reasons people voted for Obama. It does not translate to support of abortion.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me…"

I don’t think this one. Ties in with not introducing any religion until a person is old enough to understand what they’re being told.

“Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above…”

Also don’t think this one should be taught. If some has no religion, then making idol probably won’t be religious either.

“Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD…”

Same as above.

“Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy”

Again, this is purely religious and irrelevant for someone who isn’t part of a religion.

“Honor your father and your mother…”

Definitely a good one. There is no reason for this NOT to be taught to children.

[b]“Do not murder”

“Do not commit adultery.”

“Do not steal.”[/b]

Again, all good ones. No reason to NOT teach kids these.

“Do not bear false witness against your neighbor”

Take out “against your neighbor” and again, this is a good one to keep.

“Do not covet your neighbor’s wife”

Another one to keep.

So as you can see, it’s only four of the ten that I don’t see as being necessary UNTIL being introduced (at an appropriate age) to people. I have no problems with teaching kids the MORALS of the New Testament - heck, Jesus sounds like a swell guy (I don’t know why, maybe it’s all that love and compassion and not the miracles?).

Now, I’ve used Christianity as an example here, but I also think this should extend to ALL religions. Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.

Now, if you don’t agree with this… is it because you’re threatened by the fact that your children might in fact reject these teachings? I wouldn’t be so sure - I’d be more interested provided I was told it was a book that contained allegory and metaphor use. Children don’t know the difference between metaphors and an exclamation mark when they are 3.

I’d go as far as saying if someone studies the Bible/Qu’ran/Rig Veda/whatever for the first time at an older age, and learn it while understanding the metaphors and subtext, they’d gain a far better understanding of the text.[/quote]

What age are we talking about because we have kids that are 10/12 years old being charged with murder? Should we wait until they are old enough to move out to then try and teach them morals? If you not religious I agree with what you said about the commandments I just don’t see the harm in teaching a child your religion at a young age. I grew up in a Presbyterian church once I was old enough I made up my own mind. I do not think organized religion is the way to go, but I do think the bible is a great tool for teaching morality to our children.

You might wait until a child is old enough to understand morality to teach it to them, but by then how much crap have they already learned via TV, radio, movies, video games and you yourself?

One last thing do you think the country is has more morals now or 100 years ago?

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
pat wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The problem is not the religion itself by any means. But I would never listen to these sanctimonious priests who act like they have a window into God and morality when many of them are themselves some of the most corrupt and debased people on the planet.

I can read and understand the Bible as well as they can. And adhere to its fundamental precepts with much less hypocrisy.

That’s as ignorant a statement as I have ever heard. So do you think if the chick’s on top she can’t get pregnant either?

I have no idea what your talking about. But the 5000 priests who sexually abused many thousands more children and the Bisops who knew and stayed silent should not get to be the aribiters of morality for anyone. The way the church dealt dealt with this was beyond immoral. THEY sould’ve been excommunicated. That’s real sin.

Putting aside abortion being right or wrong, the treatment of this matter by this guy Newman was beyond ludicrous. Newman is denying communion not to those who have conducted or received an abortion, and not to those who enact laws that allow for abortion, but to those who cast a vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights.

In effect, he’s saying that thinking is now mortal sin. There may be plenty of other reasons people voted for Obama. It does not translate to support of abortion.

[/quote]

5000 priests? Really? Damn I miss being an alter boy, I should have gotten more action. Ignorant, bigoted ass. What does that scandal, though terrible, have to do with anything? Are you accusing this priest of molesting children? If you have evidence bring it forth…I don’t thick it would sink into your rather dense skull, but most priests do not molest children or hurt people in any way; astounding I know.

What he is saying is that you are responsible for you actions. If your vote bring about evil, you are culpable in the evil as an enabler. You can think what you what, but your actions are what count.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me…"

I don’t think this one. Ties in with not introducing any religion until a person is old enough to understand what they’re being told.

“Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above…”

Also don’t think this one should be taught. If some has no religion, then making idol probably won’t be religious either.

“Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD…”

Same as above.

“Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy”

Again, this is purely religious and irrelevant for someone who isn’t part of a religion.

“Honor your father and your mother…”

Definitely a good one. There is no reason for this NOT to be taught to children.

[b]“Do not murder”

“Do not commit adultery.”

“Do not steal.”[/b]

Again, all good ones. No reason to NOT teach kids these.

“Do not bear false witness against your neighbor”

Take out “against your neighbor” and again, this is a good one to keep.

“Do not covet your neighbor’s wife”

Another one to keep.

So as you can see, it’s only four of the ten that I don’t see as being necessary UNTIL being introduced (at an appropriate age) to people. I have no problems with teaching kids the MORALS of the New Testament - heck, Jesus sounds like a swell guy (I don’t know why, maybe it’s all that love and compassion and not the miracles?).

Now, I’ve used Christianity as an example here, but I also think this should extend to ALL religions. Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.

Now, if you don’t agree with this… is it because you’re threatened by the fact that your children might in fact reject these teachings? I wouldn’t be so sure - I’d be more interested provided I was told it was a book that contained allegory and metaphor use. Children don’t know the difference between metaphors and an exclamation mark when they are 3.

I’d go as far as saying if someone studies the Bible/Qu’ran/Rig Veda/whatever for the first time at an older age, and learn it while understanding the metaphors and subtext, they’d gain a far better understanding of the text.

What age are we talking about because we have kids that are 10/12 years old being charged with murder? Should we wait until they are old enough to move out to then try and teach them morals? If you not religious I agree with what you said about the commandments I just don’t see the harm in teaching a child your religion at a young age. I grew up in a Presbyterian church once I was old enough I made up my own mind. I do not think organized religion is the way to go, but I do think the bible is a great tool for teaching morality to our children.

You might wait until a child is old enough to understand morality to teach it to them, but by then how much crap have they already learned via TV, radio, movies, video games and you yourself?

One last thing do you think the country is has more morals now or 100 years ago? [/quote]

So Makavali are you trying to say a parent cannot teach their children religion because it isn’t right?

But you are going to tell me my children will be taught whatever some school deems appropriate including homosexuality is a good thing. From the age of 5.

Yeah good luck with that argument, That is the point of being a parent to pass on your wisdom insight and beliefs to your children. And to protect to what you see as harmful to them including things that other people may teach them that you don’t think are good for them.

organized religion is thankfully becoming less relevant every day especially in america and the UK

as for those upset about his comment i recommend “ignorance is bliss”

organized religion labelling someone as “instrinsic evil”, mmm taste that hypocrisy

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

So Makavali are you trying to say a parent cannot teach their children religion because it isn’t right?

But you are going to tell me my children will be taught whatever some school deems appropriate including homosexuality is a good thing. From the age of 5.

Yeah good luck with that argument, That is the point of being a parent to pass on your wisdom insight and beliefs to your children. And to protect to what you see as harmful to them including things that other people may teach them that you don’t think are good for them.

[/quote]

the sooner that parents drop the mentality of “i know the best and the most about everything as it relates to my child’s upbringing” the better off society will be

not “good” for them ? increased tolerance is not a “good”
thing ?

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
So Makavali are you trying to say a parent cannot teach their children religion because it isn’t right?[/quote]

I’m saying teaching a very young child about religion isn’t right. Give them a few more years, and then it’s actually faith instead of indoctrination.

I’ve never seen a school that discusses homosexuality at all with 5 year olds. The USA must have some real issues with it’s education system.

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
…That is the point of being a parent to pass on your wisdom insight and beliefs to your children. And to protect to what you see as harmful to them including things that other people may teach them that you don’t think are good for them.[/quote]

A KKK member could probably use that reasoning too.

Just saying.

Mak -

Nothing personal, but your posts in this thread offering advice on how to raise children is as saddening as reading 130 lb skinny ripped dudes offering bodybuilding advice.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
So Makavali are you trying to say a parent cannot teach their children religion because it isn’t right?

I’m saying teaching a very young child about religion isn’t right. Give them a few more years, and then it’s actually faith instead of indoctrination.

But you are going to tell me my children will be taught whatever some school deems appropriate including homosexuality is a good thing. From the age of 5.

I’ve never seen a school that discusses homosexuality at all with 5 year olds. The USA must have some real issues with it’s education system.[/quote]

It’s obvious you do not have children because you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

All I know is that the majority of problems in the world come from religion.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
All I know is that the majority of problems in the world come from religion.[/quote]

Again this is a ridiculous and none-sense statements. You are blaming religion for people’s failings.

Clearly you are not a fan of organised religion, ok. But it’s apparent you don’t actually know much if anything about it which is strange considering you hold such strong and hostile opinions on it - brainwashed?

Edit: This post was made in the context of Christianity. As I do agree there are other ‘religious’ which are militaristic in nature.

[quote]JamFly wrote:
Makavali wrote:
All I know is that the majority of problems in the world come from religion.

Again this is a ridiculous and none-sense statements. You are blaming religion for people’s failings.

Clearly you are not a fan of organised religion, ok. But it’s apparent you don’t actually know much if anything about it which is strange considering you hold such strong and hostile opinions on it - brainwashed?

Edit: This post was made in the context of Christianity. As I do agree there are other ‘religious’ which are militaristic in nature.
[/quote]

“Religions”

Why the quotation marks? And don’t feed me this bullshit about Christianity not being militaristic.

And yes, I do blame organized religion. People conveniently forget that organized religion held the world back hundreds of years. Dark Ages anyone? What about burning witches at the stake? Muhammad and his countless atrocities? The Crusades?

During the siege of Beziers a Crusader asked the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric how to tell Catholics from Catharism, and was given the response:

“Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens”
(Kill them all; for the Lord knoweth them that are His)

Woah. What. The. Fuck. Kill them all?

How about Galileo?

Thirty Years War, Wars of Religion (France), the Crusades… all in the name of “religion”.

Also, I have to ask how a young child can possibly be considered intellectually mature enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity’s place within it? You all want to label children as “Catholic” or “Protestant” or “Muslim” and yet you’d never label a child with your political affiliations or similar. Yes, I stand by my claim of indoctrination.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

All I know is that the majority of problems in the world come from religion.[/quote]

I’m late to this thread, but this statement is completely incorrect.

Review the history of the 20th century, as an example.

“Organized religion” is not the problem - “human nature” is the problem, and those problems get writ large by human institutions like religion, political ideologies, and even science.

The idea that but for organized religion, we’d be a happier, more peaceful world is a myth.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:

All I know is that the majority of problems in the world come from religion.

I’m late to this thread, but this statement is completely incorrect.

Review the history of the 20th century, as an example.

“Organized religion” is not the problem - “human nature” is the problem, and those problems get writ large by human institutions like religion, political ideologies, and even science.

The idea that but for organized religion, we’d be a happier, more peaceful world is a myth.
[/quote]

I would even go so far as to support the relatively tame churches we have today, new ideologies tend to be so unpleasantly violent.

You simplify it to a degree it is absurd.

Human nature obviously needs mythology, it’s part of our thinking, of our needs.
The monotheistic result however, leads to unpleasant religious superstitions that are unique and unparalleled in their inhuman quality. You cannot deny that as a mere symptom. Other religious forms like Polytheism is much more docile, for instance.

“Review the history of the 20th century, as an example.”
This is laughable on so many levels, it’s like the recuring “missing link” argument from ID supporters. Stalin was an atheist as was the Chairman and the Fuehrer, yeah, whatever you say.

Of course you cannot simply make big scale organized religion vanish with a snap of your finger.
Humanity shook other barbarian customs off in our short history. So I hope that humanity can defeat that terrible scourge, too.

Until that day, I’m gonna stick similarly to a pragmatic view like Orion and go with a gelded religion like we luckily have in Europe.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:

All I know is that the majority of problems in the world come from religion.

I’m late to this thread, but this statement is completely incorrect.

Review the history of the 20th century, as an example.

“Organized religion” is not the problem - “human nature” is the problem, and those problems get writ large by human institutions like religion, political ideologies, and even science.

The idea that but for organized religion, we’d be a happier, more peaceful world is a myth.
[/quote]

This is true. Power-hungry men have subverted and used religion as an excuse for their power grabs. It would’ve happened no matter what. Of course, it’s also true that some supposedly holy men in the church and otherwise have actually been the most immoral.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You simplify it to a degree it is absurd.

Human nature obviously needs mythology, it’s part of our thinking, of our needs.
The monotheistic result however, leads to unpleasant religious superstitions that are unique and unparalleled in their inhuman quality. You cannot deny that as a mere symptom. Other religious forms like Polytheism is much more docile, for instance.
[/quote]

Yeah, those Aztecs were really, uhh, docile. And the Romans. And the Egyptians. And the Vikings…

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You simplify it to a degree it is absurd.

Human nature obviously needs mythology, it’s part of our thinking, of our needs.
The monotheistic result however, leads to unpleasant religious superstitions that are unique and unparalleled in their inhuman quality. You cannot deny that as a mere symptom. Other religious forms like Polytheism is much more docile, for instance.

Yeah, those Aztecs were really, uhh, docile. And the Romans. And the Egyptians. And the Vikings…

[/quote]

Say about the Romans and the Vikings what you want, but they hardly gave BS reasons for why the slaughtered you.

They just did.

In this day and age I find that degree of honesty refreshing.

[quote]orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You simplify it to a degree it is absurd.

Human nature obviously needs mythology, it’s part of our thinking, of our needs.
The monotheistic result however, leads to unpleasant religious superstitions that are unique and unparalleled in their inhuman quality. You cannot deny that as a mere symptom. Other religious forms like Polytheism is much more docile, for instance.

Yeah, those Aztecs were really, uhh, docile. And the Romans. And the Egyptians. And the Vikings…

Say about the Romans and the Vikings what you want, but they hardly gave BS reasons for why the slaughtered you.

They just did.

In this day and age I find that degree of honesty refreshing.

[/quote]

“Give me your land or I’ll kill you.”

I like it.