Comments for Vatican official attacks U.S. Democrats as "party of death." »
Posted By Klarissa 1 year, 3 months ago in ReligionVatican officials seldom single out political leaders who differ with the Church on issues like abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research.
But now that the Vatican' s highest court is led by an American, the former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke , we can expect things to get more explicit in Vatican City — at least when when it comes to U.S. politics.
Read Full Story at blogs.reuters.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 159
-
33%
Klarissa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Burke, who was named prefect of the Vatican’s Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature in June, told the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire that the U.S. Democratic Party risked “transforming itself definitively into a party of death for its decisions on bioethical issues.” He then attacked two of the party’s most high profile Catholics — vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — for misrepresenting Church teaching on abortion.
Reply
He said Biden and Pelosi, “while presenting themselves as good Catholics, have presented Church doctrine on abortion in a false and tendentious way.”-
39%
buckncindykill1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those who accuse presidential aspirant Sen. Barack Obama of empty rhetoric must have missed his speech last July, recently made public, to the benefactors of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. At that festive event, he was as sharp and specific as a scalpel.
Reply
"The first thing I'd do as president," he told a cheering audience, "is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
The audience cheered enthusiastically. And well they might. As NARAL enthuses on its website, this act would "codify Roe v. Wade's protections and guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women."
In short, if we are to take Obama at his word, his first priority as president would be to serve an early death sentence on millions of unborn Americans.-
89%
NoWayMan1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
meanwhile...
Reply
Palin praises her daughter Bristol for CHOOSING to keep her baby. so Bristol's pro-choice and her mom doesn't even realize it. and Palin is praising her for a decision she is trying to take away from other women.
and then you have McCain, who received the lowest rating possible from the Children's Defense Fund. -
79%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, Bush and McCain prefer that the millions they kill are foreigners I suppose.
Reply
McCain: Make-Believe Maverick
A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty .
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/10/03/mccain-m...-
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
50%
david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not that I agree with buckncindy on this issue, but you do not need to use ad hominem and attack as methods for argument. Calling buckncindy a freak wins you no points. You can attack their message without attacking them personally.
Reply -
-
-
100%
jordan111 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Excuse me, but the President doesn't have any say over RoeVWade. It's a Constitutional issue. You do know that, don't you? And you do know that every time republicans bring up a bill on the issue, it's just for show to manipulate you for votes, right? Roe V Wade is a done deal. Congress can't change it. Presidents can't change it. And you're never going to get 3/4 of the states to amend the Constitution to change it. Now I suggest if you REALLY want to see abortion stopped, that you insist birth control is available, that girls receive the necessary education to protect themselves, & step up to plate offering women options when they find themselves against a wall and pregnant. Otherwise, I'll have to think you a rather arrogant person who fancies herself morally superior to others, & I certainly wouldn't want to think that.
Reply
-
-
76%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Klarissa, the Catholic church is full of all kinds of people and all kinds of policies.
Reply
For example, in Spain (a REALLY catholic country) almost 25% of priests are married - and it has been that way for centuries.
The catholic position on abortion changes regularly.
Early church permitted abortion in some cases
By Emily O'Reilly
Those of you under the age of four hundred and ten probably won't remember a time when the Roman Catholic church permitted abortion.
Just to clarify, given the semantic gyrations currently under way in the latest abortion debate, I mean abortion in the sense of the direct and intentional killing of the baby in the womb.
It's not something that's ever alluded to by anti-abortion activists, but any church historian will tell you that over the centuries Catholic popes and theologians have done more U-turns on this issue than you could shake a stick at.
The early Christian church eschewed abortion and turned its back on the old Aristotelian theory of `delayed ensoulment'. Aristotle had taught that a foetus has a vegetable soul that evolves into an animal soul later in pregnancy. Finally, the foetus is `animated' with a human soul.
In those pre-PC days, Aristotle also taught that `ensoulment' occurred at 40 days after conception for male foetuses, and 90 days after conception for female foetuses. Therefore, abortion was not condemned if performed early in pregnancy.
Aristotle came back into fashion in the 4th century when St Augustine wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body.
In a letter to Aglasia (I don't know, so don't ask) from St Jerome, Jerome wrote, "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs."
For the next few centuries, the Aristotelian ensoulment theory moved in and out of papal fashion. ...
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2001/10/07/sto... -
75%
Goppy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh Klarissa ... how sad.
Reply
Klarissa, I remember when you came on board Netscape/Propeller, you came across as having an even keel ... as having some dignity about your world view.
But it seems your desperate hatred for Barack Obama has pushed you into the Agent of Division style of luvmyprez - OmegaGnosis - and now - redtomato.
Look, I wish I could convince you that this style is counter productive for your cause. Of course, the cause you appear to have taken up is one of extreme Moral Vacancy.
Think about it ... Neo-Conservatives FIGHT AGAINST health care for CHILDREN!
While they fight against Health Care for Children ... they FIGHT FOR sending our children to an arbitrary war ... a strategic blunder that has not only killed over 4,000 of our children ... but hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's.
Do you REALLY want to join forces with redtomato and the other Agents of Division?
Do you remember how Johnny McCain once called Jerry Falwell an Agent of Division? NOW, he seeks these preaching power mongers out for endorsements!
That is how low Johnny has had to sink ... how deeply he has had to sublimate his Moral Compass ... just to appease and pander to the redtomatos of this world.
Please think about what you are doing.
Sure, you don't like Obama ... I get it ... but the Hatred you are trying to foment .... is it really worth losing your Moral Compass ... like Johnny?
Is it Klarissa?-
-
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
redtomatoComment removed: Spammer10 Replies
-
65%
djn3nunez31 year, 3 months ago
-
31%
buckncindykill1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your last sentence describes what liberalism has done to the church over the past 40 years or so. Now however, Benedict is throwing down the gauntlet. We live in a “support lifestyle” here in America instead of a “support life” America.
Reply
Even more than this Presidential election, Catholics need to come to grips with the theology of the church — not their cherry picking relativism. Once we do that, we'll be fine.
Humans can listen to the church again, once the church leaders embrace real catholicism instead of liberation theology.-
-
-
-
22%
buckncindykill1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Facts? You want facts from a church raped by the left for the last half century; read the tenets of church doctrine prior to Vatican II; the number of "gay" priests seeping into a church that is befelled by political correctness beginning just prior to WWII. Church history is beset with leftist loons trying to rewrite, rearrange and utterly destroy 2000 years of traditions and theology. Oh no, I'll give you a very scalpel like insight as to how the liberation theology has corrupted our bishops and priests to the point of dragging the church through the gutter; all because of leftist relativism. Not any more. Not in my church.
Reply-
73%
dissent1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
give it a rest. the rcc has raped the world for almost 2000 years. what you scathingly call "the left" is actually the 1st world. the rcc is most at home in the 3rd - keep 'em poor and over-populated. it makes sure it keeps pumping out those poor little ill-educated roman catholic babies and then calls it "moral" and "divine"
Reply -
86%
HannibalBarca1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You need to study more.
Reply
I suppose it was liberal thinking that elected a nazi sympathizer to the papacy ?
It must have been liberal thinking that got many nazi's an escape route out of Allied clutches, opps no that was the Church again .
And it seems to me that one of the Churches liberals had very little support from her Church; Mother Theresa.
No your Church has forgotten what Christianity is about, mind you it never really did get it right as it is more about Paul than Jesus since Paul was a Roman.
Sounds like the Rep. party.
-
-
-
-
-
78%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
-
36%
buckncindykill1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They speak out against war all the time. Read the Pope's encyclicals to see for yourself.
Reply
As for contraception, read "Married Love and the Gift of Life" from the USCCB to see why " Suppressing fertility by using contraception denies part of the inherent meaning of married sexuality and does harm to the couple’s unity. The total giving of oneself, body and soul, to one’s beloved is no time to say: “I give you everything I am—except. . . .”
This is the teachings of the Catholic Church.-
100%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
''Suppressing fertility by using contraception denies part of the inherent meaning of married sexuality and does harm to the couple’s unity.''
Reply
go ye forth and multiply
think ye not whether you are ready to raise children emotionally
ponder not whether ye have riches to provide for thy offspring-does not thy heavenly father provide for the birds of the air and the lilies of the field?
so go ye forth and multiply
-----
contraception = responsibility
fertility does not a parent make
'inherent' in that 'edict' is that marriage is for having children and nothing else, if all married persons should never suppress their fertility
so once the kid is grown, then is it sinful or 'wrong' for the couple to stay together?
what if the woman has a medical thing and is no longer fertile-should the marriage be annulled?
I supposed if that happened it would be God's choice and judgment
same old theme repeated: personal sovereignty against being told what to do-God decides what's best for is-but since he ain't handy and about at the moment, us guys will be his stand ins
we'll decide what's scripture, what's right and wrong, and what to do with your thingee
Religion is about power and control and really long books, with a few noble ideas sprinkled in here and there
PS: I'm a believer in a deity, and a lover of the bible and can and do quote it often and defend it on here frequently
the scripture used by the Catholic Church to legitimize itself is the one where Jesus says to Peter 'Upon this rock I shall build my church', claiming that Peter was the first pope
Meanwhile Peter was killed by the TRUE patrons of the Catholic Church, the Roman Empire, who's emperor Constantine legitimized' this new faith instead of hunting them like outlaws, and once christianity went from being an underground faith to having friends in high places...well, power corrupts
Constantine is the true first Pope
"His conversion helped Christianity in many ways. Followers were safe from persecution, and Christian leaders were given many gifts by the Emperor. Constantine's adherence to Christianity ensured exposure of all his subjects to the religion, and he had no small domain."
''Constantine believed that the Church and the State should be as close as possible. ''
http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/easteurope/Cons...-
100%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
also from the above link:
Reply
''He also made Sunday an official Roman holiday so that more people could attend church, and made churches tax-exempt. However, many of the same things that helped Christianity spread subtracted from its personal significance and promoted corruption and hypocrisy. Many people were attracted to the Church because of the money and favored positions available to them from Constantine rather than from piety. The growth of the Church and its new-found public aspect prompted the building of specialized places of worship where leaders were architecturally separated from the common attendees, which stood in sharp contrast to the earlier house churches which were small and informal.''
interesting to note that the 'clergy' was NOT separate from everybody else in the early underground Christian communities
and the idea of a separate, priestly caste is more akin to the Levites and the ancient Hebrew priesthood who were to perform primitive blood sacrifice rituals, all the while being supported by 'regular' folks financially
''the Levites were the only Israelite tribe who received cities but no tribal land "because the Lord the God of Israel himself is their possession". The Tribe of Levi served particular religious duties for the Israelites and had political responsibilities as well. In return, the landed tribes were expected to give tithe to the Levites, particularly the tithe known as the Maaser Rishon or Levite Tithe''
First time I've thought about this, but it seems the priesthood of the Church is more OT than NT, tho they toned it down a little by having fake blood instead of real blood rituals [tho they tried to cheat a little with transubstantiation, that wine into blood thing...'this my body, this is my blood' 'lamb of God sacrificed for the good of all 'etc etc, a result of Jesus trying to work within a specific framework of understanding most likely. ] -
100%
HannibalBarca1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good analogy which I agree some what with but can find holes in.
Reply
Your statement of Constantine and Peter has no merit as they lived 250 or so years apart from each other.
Constantine was converted on his deathbed.
Constantine was a general/politician and as a general, like many in the Roman army worshiped Mithas, patron God of the army whose birthday was Dec. 25 and his day of worship was Sunday.
Also until Christianity was legalized there were many Churches that fought amongst themselves as to which was THEE Church, Rome thought she was as Rome was the center and also due to Peter, but Constantine split the empire and made Constantinople the co-ruler along with Rome; and this is also the seat of the Orthodox religion; who still follow the Biblical ways of the Sabbath on Saturday, Easter is after passover, not after the 3rd full moon like Rome did and many other traditions.
The fight for who would be supreme was a bloody one, as many Gnostic's of Alexandria found out, only these Gnostic's followed the teaching of Jesus seen through the eyes of those who knew Jesus; Thomas, James, Mary etc. but these views clashed with Rome and Paul's teaching so they had to go.
Even the Gospels were chosen around 190 AD by Bishop Iranus of Lyons(though some thought he came from the ME) because there were four elements, 4 points to a compass so there should be 4 Gospels.
As for the Council of Nicea; Constantine was sick of the bickering that had been going on for over a decade since Christianity was legalized and told them to get it together.
And Peter was supposedly crucified upside down under the reign of Nero, and there was a very small movement then of Christianity, Nero just needed a scapegoat.-
100%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll take your word for it since I wasn't there.
Reply
except for this one, which I WAS there for:
''Your statement of Constantine and Peter has no merit as they lived 250 or so years apart from each other.''
I don't like to be tiresome, but:
''Meanwhile Peter was killed by the TRUE patrons of the Catholic Church, the Roman Empire, who's emperor Constantine legitimized' this new faith ''
the Romans supposedly killed Peter [I said Roman Empire]
Constantine was a Roman Emperor, hence 'who's Emperor'
your inference from the text appears to be that I said they were contemporaries-I did not
from a textual logic standpoint , as far as inference, it does not seem logical to think I was implying they were contemporaries when I said that Peter was offed by the Romans and said then that Constantine legitimized Christianity - if C was down with the Christians why was Peter dusted? know what I mean?
But I can only tell you what I meant, not what you understood-many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.
as for any history, it's all hearsay to me, so I never take it too seriously and never study it overmuch-which is probably just me being lazy, which is my nature
so I defer to you on the history stuff
I heard that no one cared much about the christians until the fire, and then Nero demonized them to distract all the burnded out romans
sorry the cat is laying on the keyboard and being the ass he is, so I have to go000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...
he just leaned on the zero key, and no this is not a gag and he really did, as any experience with needy cats may tell you
have a good one-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
oh I forgot to add that the link I read and posted seemed well-sourced but may be crap for all I know, and you may have the true skinny, as we older people say. With history, I'm told the conquerers write it to suit their needs-I conquered Google and found something that suited my needs. seemed to jive with what I've read before, but I may have read BS before and be getting echoes of BS
Reply-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Always loved history myself, and yes if you read both sides of an account you do get two different viewpoints so one is left to make of it as he will.
Reply
But your point, of Constantine and Peter has no merit as there was 250 years difference, hell my parents loved Perry Como while I listened to Gerry and the Pacemakers or the Stones and that is only 30 years diff.
In 1815 the Prussians and Brits were united to fight against the French but 100 years later the French and the Brits were fighting he Germans (Germany was united mainly due to Prussian militarism)so to have an act by Nero against Christianity and an act by Constantine for Christianity has nothing to do with both being Roman Emperors.
And your cat spells better than me.-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
couldn't quite follow that, but inference is inference.
Reply
I never said or implied Peter and the Big C were contemporaries
I can assure I knew they were not, and if you check the link I posted, it says in there that Constantine was 'converted' 300+AD, as you may guess, I realize Peter as a contemporary of Christ didn't see 300AD.
the point of 'to have an act by Nero against Christianity and an act by Constantine for Christianity has nothing to do with both being Roman Emperors.' is not clear to me, but I would say it has everything to do with them being emperors, as under Nero you got hung upsidedown and under Constantine you didn't, and--UHG, you know what? this is silly and giving me a headache-plus no one's gonna read it anyway to gain any amusement from it[if any can be gained from lawyerly ramblings] but a couple people anyway, as this less than populous thread is expiring.
I think you know I was aware that a) Peter hung with Jesus and b) Constantine appeared long after Jesus, as in the very link I posted it says so clearly with dates several times.
If you want me to say I wrote a bad sentence-'I wrote a bad sentence'
Bad or not, there is no explicit statement of Peter and C being contemporaries-indeed, no reference to any time or date at all, so any inference drawn concerning timelines is tenuous at best
*sigh*
let's examine it
''Meanwhile Peter was killed by the TRUE patrons of the Catholic Church, the Roman Empire, who's emperor Constantine legitimized' this new faith instead of hunting them like outlaws, and once christianity went from being an underground faith to having friends in high places...well, power corrupts''
'''Meanwhile Peter was killed by the TRUE patrons of the Catholic Church, the Roman Empire, who's emperor Constantine legitimized' this new faith'
the link between Peter's death and Constantine's embracing of Christianity, as far as my woeful sentence goes, is the word 'who's' and naught else
'who's' as in the Roman Empire's 'emperor' that's 'who's'
the Roman Empire lasted what? 400 years? I dunno, I don't do history, but it was a long while, so there's a little wiggle room in the time span of the Roman Empire, agreed? so good lord, lend me a little of that wiggle room
----
boy was that arduous and pointless. I don't like reading semantic games and textual dissections on here, but wow, engaging in them is even worse
I could have told you a good joke I heard instead, and it wouldnta took a half hour
hell I'm a generous guy-here ya go
Guy looks at a cat poster and it's a mardi gras cat wearing scores of those beaded necklaces
He says to someone in the store, 'That's an awful lot of beads'
the store patron says, 'What do you expect....she got 8 nipples...'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20%
Wolfie20071 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
Reply
Burke made headlines as archbishop of St. Louis for his public attacks on public figures who strayed from Catholic teaching. He suggested during the 2004 presidential campaign that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a Catholic, should be denied communion because of his views on abortion. Several bishops said at the time they would not give him communion and the media staked out churches where he attended Mass to see if he received it. -
-
82%
Goppy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As a Catholic, I can tell you that most of us read this fellow and yawn.
Reply
Here's something that maybe some of you don't understand about Catholics. We were given good education.
We were taught to think.
To think independently.
Our broad education means that we were given a gift ... a gift of independent thought.
While we were infused with morals ... we were given the freedom to celebrate the uniqueness that God had granted us.
That is why many Christians have come to accept and support this notion of abortion: 'Safe, Legal, and Rare'.
Because we know that outlawing abortion would be the same as Prohibition. It would simply push abortion underground.
Abortions would still be performed ... on rich white young girls whose parents have enough money to send them to 'Betty Ford' type clinics ... ... ... and on the poor and middle class - who would be forced to have abortions done in deplorable conditions, possibly without medical expertise ... just like they used to before abortion was legalized.
Look, one of the most respected Right Wing Justices, Sandra Day O'Connor agrees with this position.
I realize my fellow Christian Conservatives are now desperate to dredge up every wedge issue they can muster ... but it's getting really tiresome.
Your candidate, Johnny McCain ... he's just so out of touch ... and his choice for VP shows that he makes rash, unconventional decisions.
And quite frankly, we Catholics find his plan to fork over many more billions to the wealthy in this nation is Moral Vacancy of the highest order. This is a major reason Catholics have come around to Obama. With Obama, at least you get a sense of Social Justice ... something that Catholics feel VERY strongly about.
America is done with the Morally Vacant Neo-Conservative ideology. You CANNOT legislate behavior ... a concept that Republicans USED to believe passionately. To thinking Americans, this should be a major clue that the Republican party is far ... Far ... FAR removed from it's roots.
----
Klarissa, Karlyc, redtomato, Wolfie ... you can keep trying to throw up these wedge issues as diversion if you want to .... but I believe Americans are recognizing them for what they are ... profoundly pathetic.
..-
-
-
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
80%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
close enough to a sentence. luckily I had my own bible [or access to one, rather] something the Church was against way back in the day, even killed people over. and also lucky for me I went to school just long enough to learn how to read it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
icono1Comment removed: Spam
-
-
71%
david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, Pope Benedict the Nazi is surely one we should trust when it comes to life values. The Catholic Inquisition church is really pious. Would these be the same people who brought the world the crusades and an abhorrence to science? Benny and his church are far too hypocritical and patronizing to concern me.
Reply-
-
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
100%
david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Shall we begin with Galileo, Copernicus, and any of a number of scientists and astronomers? Shall we consider how for thousands of years, the Church taught that the Earth is the center of the Universe? Greek astronomers knew better than that. What about medicine in the middle ages? Can we discuss the topic of stem-cell research in the 20th century? Seems to be that the Church just cannot accept that science can now answer many questions which at one time were thought to be "mysteries of God."
Reply-
100%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
chill out man-I was just thrown by the sentence-am familiar with the word 'abhorrence' just not in that context and order and the syntax threw me
Reply
go thou forth in peace
don't be too hard on the Church-I hear they pardoned or forgave Galileo his heresy about 20 years ago or so. They'll get around to stem cells about the time they start railing against cybernetic sex androids
Mine will be named Clymestra -
-
-
-
-
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
100%
HannibalBarca1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
slate3 hours, 22 minutes ago
Reply
How many years ago was it that the inquisition and crusades happen David?
Many have stated, myself included that you need to learn the past so not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Also many have pointed out patterns in history; so after 1100-1200 years as a religion, Christianity went on the Crusades, add 1100-1200 years to Islam and that is where they are
-
-
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmmm, wrong, not until Vatican II did the Catholic Church officially shut down its Inquisition office. Why did it take all those centuries? Furthermore, why did they never apologize? I suppose that in the year 3,000, the Church will finally admit to the error of its ways.
Reply-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think the movie "Dogma" has something to say on why they never apologized. Since the Pope is supposed to be God's hand on Earth, and God is infallible, therefore the Pope must be infallible, and if the Church were to admit that what a Pope did was wrong, then the Pope CAN'T be infallible, and thus not be God's direct representative on Earth.
Reply
In short, to come out and say a certain Pope was in the wrong allows the possibility that the Pope can be wrong. Which would somewhat diminish his power and sway.
-
-
-
-
86%
david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Amazing to me how the Republicans are pro-life when the baby is in the womb, but as soon as the child is born, if born into poverty, the buck stops there. The Republicans are quick to stop welfare, not approve health care benefits for needy children, quick to stop needy mothers from getting the necessary nutrition for their children. The Republicans are quick to cut education and end of life benefits for veterans. They are hardly a "pro-life" party if they do not genuinely care about post-natal people.
Reply-
stalemateComment removed: Retracted by user
-
17%
slate1 year, 3 months ago
-
75%
Goppy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You mean like the innuendo ... no ... CHARGE ... that Democrats are the party of Death?
Reply
Come on slate.
The more you try to level the playing field ... the more you warp it.
BTW ... I read somewhere that you were hit by that wind storm in September. Did everything go okay with you?
Hope everything is okay.-
50%
slate1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Eddie, you have no problem with the left here trying to call the Republicans are the party of death, why is that? The charge is true, you can do the math on just Vietnam as proof, then if you like, you can tally WWII and Korea,
Reply
Yes everything is ok now, thanks.-
80%
crespi1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
America's participation in Viet Nam started under Republican Eisenhower!
Reply
WWII was DECLARED ON US by the sneak attack, and Korea was pushed hard by Republicans in the House and Senate.
Name some other wars that "Liberals" are supposedly responsible for please.
-
-
-
40%
wtagg1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Which provides evidence that Bush is a democrat. Almost all republicans until recent history have pretty much been in the isolationist camp, which ironically, is a rationale used by many for the wars we ended up in. So, either the isolationist foreign policy is a reason for the wars or it isn't. If it isn't, there goes one of the kook characteristics that admin supporters have labeled Paul with.
Reply -
-
50%
crespi1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Slate-
Reply
America's participation in Viet Nam started heavily under REPUBLICAN Eisenhower.
WWII was DECLARED ON US by the sneak attack.
Korea was pushed hard by Republican commie-baiters in the House and Senate.
Name some OTHER wars you think "liberals" started..."-
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You need to post facts many times in the hope it will sink in....sigh, just wishfull thinking but one does need to try an educate them, and no I am not meaning Dems or Rep, just those who can not even find Canada on a map of N America.
Reply-
-
HannibalBarcaComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
-
RIChrisComment removed: Retracted by user
-
20%
Wolfie20071 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nwpa
Reply
That tired all laundry list of why it's good to abort babies was worn out years ago. What does your alleged argument that conservatives don't care about "post-natal"people have to do with killing babies? Your argument is only based on supposition and opinion and not facts. So what does it have to do with killing babies?-
100%
david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nothing. I am not in favor of killing anyone. However, it is hypocritical of the Church to smugly call Dems the party of death, when history shows they have touched death more often than they can admit. Cons don't care about post-natal people. My point was simply that Republicans are pro-life until the baby is born. Then they forget about mother and child. It shows in the legislative stances they have taken for well over a century.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So you believe in preserving babies long enough for them to grow up and be killed as adults? You support a church that supported executions in the Inquisition which did not end until oh so recently? You support a church with Nazi sympathizers? You seem to be the twisted one here.
Reply
-
-
-
86%
wildman65571 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Republicans are not pro life. They just say they are. Who do you think provided 5 of the 7 votes FOR Roe v Wade? Who do you think did virtually nothing when they controlled the House, the Senate and the President? Sure they voted to ban late term abortion, but even Biden voted for that.
Reply
The Republicans need the Christian Right, but they give them almost nothing in return. What is worse, someone who says they are evil child killers and are evil child killers (Democrats) or those who say they are not evil child killer and are also evil child killers(Republicans). -
81%
tchef1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The last time we mixed church and state in this land that is now our country, several innocent people where hung and one crushed to death for being accused of being a witches. Study the history of the Catholic church itself and you will find numerous atrocities committed over the ages by them including torture, burning at the stake, rape, and pillage. All in the name of God. Who are they to be calling anyone the party of death. Didn't Jesus say "judge not lest ye also be judged"? It's in the Bible maybe they should read it.
Reply-
73%
Goppy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Locky ... I'd like to point out that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Reply
Also ... the majority of America disagrees with you.
Oh .. not that murder is wrong ... but that a sentient human being is being murdered.
Now you have an opinion based on a RELIGIOUS pov.
That's fine ... but when I look back on history (and present day) ... only TOTALITARIAN regimes - i.e. The Soviet Union, NAZI Germany, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Saudi Arabia ... only these countries legislated by the prevailing religious belief.
----
Of course, when I include the Soviet Union ... I'm referring to my view that atheism, as a State Religion, is their Religion. And In NAZI Germany ... the religion was Aryan Supremacy.
I prefer to not have our nation join this collective.
..
-
100%
Om1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First Amendment of the US Constitution:
Reply
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. -
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive6 Replies
-
albinogComment removed: Hard Banned
-
86%
nikkibabe1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is my take on state ban on abortions even in cases of rape, incest and the victim and rapist is of different races.
Reply
. State to pay all medical expenses of the victim during pregnancy up to and including delivery.
. State to pay all expenses of baby care during infant and toddler years which includes, baby supplies, milk, nutrition, medical care etc.,
. State to pay all expenses of day care.
. State to pay all expenses of school and college up to graduation.
. State to pay all expenses until the person is able to get a job and make his/her own living.
If they cannot, State has no right to ban abortions. -
-
albirotComment removed: Hard Banned
-
86%
lloydm651 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe it's me, but why belong to a Church,or an organisation if you don't agree with it's teaching.Pretty soon all you have a big building where you go to disagree with each other.Your love of Christ is nothing more than sounding symbols,and tinkling brass.Having a form of Godlyness,but denying the power there of.To expect a Pope,or a Priest to saction abortion is beyond reason.
Reply -
pidorgazmusComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned1 Reply
-
83%
Will13131 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with the Catholic Church expressing their opinion..
Reply
however.... to express POLITICAL OPINION.. should remove the TAX EXEMPT STATUS... on all property owned by and all income received by their representatives...
POLITICAL PREACHING TAX FREE FROM THE PULPIT IS AGAINST THE LAW...
That alone would finance a large chunck of the wall street bailout.. -
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
80%
ConsAreNonGrata1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If it's wrong to take innocent life, then why do we go to war?
Reply
Because, Cons, will tell you that sometimes it's right to take innocent life for the greater good.
But engaging in war is a judgment call.
Therefore, the principal is that it is alright to take innocent life when it is for the greater good and doing so is a judgment call.
If someone wants to abort a child because they feel it serves the greater good, then that's their choice, and the principal we have chosen to live by.
If you don't like it, become a pacifist and get back to us. -
71%
rightfromwrong1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Catholic church like most fanatical religions is one total hypocrite. Let's talk about all those murders and witch hunts they performed. If Jesus was here today he would be going after them all.
Reply
The USA is a scam if it thinks it is some sort of Christian nation. Stealing resources from poor countries,supporting petty dictators and overthrowing countries who don't want to co-operate with the exploitation which the USA wants to enforce on them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44hcHauOTe8 -
14%
Wolfie20071 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't have to got back to the middle ages to find an example of left wing perversion and madness, I actually only need to say one word, Stalin. He was alive and having people murdered and enslaved less than one hundred years ago. Stalin and his minions didn't believe in God. Did they?
Reply -
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo_percap-h...
Reply -
100%
Poulenc1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Christians are free to practice their religion, but not to impose their beliefs on others via law. Same as with any other religious group.
Reply
What coreligionists of whatever stripe must realize is that their religious truth is not necessarily that of others. They must also allow nonbelievers the freedom to express their own convictions.
That the Vatican should interfere in the American political process is deplorable--and yet one more example of the RC church's hegemonic intolerance.
In my opinion. -
100%
jordan111 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Party of death, eh? How many children could have a meal for what the pope spends for Prada shoes? How many children would have been spared death by AIDS if birth control were available in third world countries? How many children have died as I type this from disease or starvation...with no access to medicine or immunizations or milk or bread, while Vatican City sits there worth....how much? Oh puleeze. These people are ridiculous. Their moral relativism is disgusting.
Reply -
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
Poulenc1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK, Wolfie, above--you get to invoke Stalin if I get to invoke Hitler.
Reply
In the right-wing, left-wing dictator bake-off, I do believe the former group outnumbers the latter.
But trying to score a partisan point off of such distinctions is--how should I put it?
Ridiculously myopic.
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.