Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Pope Thread
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 46 of 106 (200956)
04-21-2005 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
04-21-2005 3:22 PM


A vote for a pro-abortion candidate DUE to his/her support of abortion would be material cooperation in evil. A vote for such a candidate IN SPITE of his/her position on this issue would not necessarily be so, as then- Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out.
Never mind that there's an enormous, and currently quite influential, movement in the US to make sure that you, no matter what you believe, live according to the Bible and recognize the Christian God as sovereign every single morning in school.
I'd certainly like you to support this assertion with additional evidence. I'm really not quite sure what you are alluding to here.
whose views on religion are very much a hated minority.
Hated ? not by me at least. I'm sorry if anyone hates you, that's a terrible thing. A minority ? True enough- but then, advocates of a theocracy are also a minority.
Maybe you could write the new Pope and tell him so.
Probably I'd be wasting his time. I'm sure he is familiar with the Catechism and has studied Aquinas.
How's your German?
Vielleicht ein bisschen besser als Ihre verstaendnis der katholische Theologie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2005 3:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2005 5:54 PM paisano has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 47 of 106 (200961)
04-21-2005 3:59 PM


I'll throw my 2 centavos out: (Cardinal)now Pope: Ratzinger has been probably pulling the strings in the Vatican for quite sometime. He was the logical choice, and many knew he would get the nod as Pontiff. He certainly is qualified for the job. Regardless of what the world thinks he will now shape the Churches policies, my point is he has already been doing that.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 106 (200983)
04-21-2005 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by paisano
04-21-2005 3:47 PM


A vote for such a candidate IN SPITE of his/her position on this issue would not necessarily be so, as then- Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out.
Then why the suggestion to deny confession to Kerry voters? What do you suppose happens when you die with unconfessed sins? As an ex-Catholic, let me tell you where you go, according to the nuns that taught me from kindergarten to 4th grade: H-E-double-hockey-sticks.
I'd certainly like you to support this assertion with additional evidence. I'm really not quite sure what you are alluding to here.
You don't read the papers? The Pledge of Allegiance, specifically the phrase "under God", was a significant source of controversy last year. What do you think "under God" means? That's not talking about the physical location of the United States.
What do you think all this flap about gay marriage is about? Hell, there were even people who stood up to oppose Lawrence v. Texas. James Dobson, the radical cleric who runs Focus on the Family, actually advocated for anti-sodomy laws. (Not "against basing court opinions on international law", like most of his peers. He was actually pissed off that a court said that people could have gay sex if they wanted.)
Tom Delay, House GOP majority leader, says that the separation of church and state, one of the most famous and tested constitutional doctrines of all time, is a "myth", and that there's no reason that Christian morals can't be made into laws for no better reason than that they appear in the Bible.
I don't see how you could have missed these things. If you can't be bothered to open a newspaper I'm not sure how I'll be able to substantiate the presence of this theocratic movement.
Hated ? not by me at least.
Well, I never said you did. Flip on Fox News once in a while and you might get an idea of what they think about atheists who dare to suggest that maybe, just maybe, our public officials and government shouldn't go around talking about God like everybody in the country believes in him.
True enough- but then, advocates of a theocracy are also a minority.
That's certainly true, but currently, they run the GOP, and therefore all three branches of government.
Vielleicht ein bisschen besser als Ihre verstaendnis der katholische Theologie
Better than mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by paisano, posted 04-21-2005 3:47 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by paisano, posted 04-21-2005 8:01 PM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 106 (200990)
04-21-2005 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
04-19-2005 10:06 PM


quote:
During WWII he was an 18 year old pulled into service during the waning days.
He was a deserter from the German Army, IIRC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 04-19-2005 10:06 PM jar has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 50 of 106 (200992)
04-21-2005 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by paisano
04-21-2005 1:41 PM


quote:
2) that the Church is not even going to consider modifying its stance on issues it considers matters of infallible dogma,
The reason many non-Catholics wish the Church to change is because many of it's policies, such as it's policy against the use of effective birth control, threatens everyone's future in many ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by paisano, posted 04-21-2005 1:41 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by paisano, posted 04-21-2005 7:53 PM nator has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 51 of 106 (201001)
04-21-2005 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by nator
04-21-2005 7:13 PM


I think the point that a lack of birth control "threatens our future" is certainly debatable (subreplacement fertility seems rather the larger threat, IMO of course).
However, putting that aside for the moment, I think for non-Catholics to think that the selection of a new Pope would lead to such a change was always rather a forlorn hope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by nator, posted 04-21-2005 7:13 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by kjsimons, posted 04-22-2005 9:14 AM paisano has replied
 Message 59 by nator, posted 04-22-2005 9:17 AM paisano has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 52 of 106 (201005)
04-21-2005 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by crashfrog
04-21-2005 5:54 PM


You don't read the papers? The Pledge of Allegiance, specifically the phrase "under God", was a significant source of controversy last year. What do you think "under God" means? That's not talking about the physical location of the United States.
I am unaware of any jurisdiction that does not permit someone to quietly decline to participate in the POA if they so wish. If you can produce evidence to the contrary, I shall stand corrected.
Mr. DeLay is no more (or no less) a poster child for his party than Al Sharpton is for his. I do not share Mr. DeLays sense of priorities or views on the proper relation of civil and ecclesial authority. I would suffer as much under a Fundamentalist Protestant theocracy as you would.
Like it or not, a majority of US citizens are at least nominally monotheistic. Under the constitution, those individuals who are not, must certainly have their rights protected. However, I fail to see a right, express or implied, to never have to encounter theistic discourse in the course of one's life. Tolerance of other cultures should not entail annihilation of one's own - and this goes both ways. Not all of us theists bite, y'know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2005 5:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2005 9:07 PM paisano has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 106 (201020)
04-21-2005 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by paisano
04-21-2005 8:01 PM


If you can produce evidence to the contrary, I shall stand corrected.
Why don't you ask Michael Newdow and the ACLU? Apparently there was sufficient evidence that the pledge constituted a coercive establishment of religion to convince the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, although that decision was overturned by Bush's conservative Supreme Court. (Justice Thomas, contrary to judicial precident, argued that it wasn't coercion if it was just your peers making you do it, not the government.)
Mr. DeLay is no more (or no less) a poster child for his party than Al Sharpton is for his.
Al Sharpton wasn't chosen to be his party's face in the House of Representatives. Tom Delay was. He is, in fact, the very definition of a poster child for his party. That's what "GOP House majority leader" means. He's the public face of the GOP in the House of Representatives. He's perhaps the third most influential Republican in the nation. (He's considerably more influential than the Senate majority leader; Frist is simply too inexperienced to have a comparable amount of weight to throw around.)
Like it or not, a majority of US citizens are at least nominally monotheistic.
That's fine. I have no problem with that. They can even talk about God anywhere they like, provided I'm not their captive audience. I'll politely decline to listen. But I do have an absolute right not to be goverened, or expected to live by, the precepts of their holy text.
However, I fail to see a right, express or implied, to never have to encounter theistic discourse in the course of one's life.
I've never proposed such a right. But I certainly do have a right not to be subject to laws justified by nothing more than religious tradition. I have a right not to be expected to pledge fealty to another person's God, either by my peers or by the government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by paisano, posted 04-21-2005 8:01 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by paisano, posted 04-21-2005 11:21 PM crashfrog has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 54 of 106 (201064)
04-21-2005 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
04-21-2005 9:07 PM


Why don't you ask Michael Newdow and the ACLU...
I'm not familiar enough with the legalities of the case to know for sure, but I do not recall Mr. Newdow being legally forced to recite the POA (much less adopt a monotheistic religion), simply that he found two words of it offensive.
As to that, it has always stricken me as somewhat akin to a vegan who cannot abide meat being cooked in other apartments of the building she lives in.
The Constitution does not entail catering to every individual's hypersensitivities. Even on utilitarian grounds, this should seem unworkable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2005 9:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2005 1:20 AM paisano has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 106 (201079)
04-22-2005 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by paisano
04-21-2005 11:21 PM


I'm not familiar enough with the legalities of the case to know for sure, but I do not recall Mr. Newdow being legally forced to recite the POA (much less adopt a monotheistic religion), simply that he found two words of it offensive.
Not quite right - he found that the social coercion for his daughter to say the Pledge was an unconstitutional violation of his right to raise his daughter in whatever spiritual way he felt best; it was an unconstitutional message from the government that the views of those who don't believe in God were not legitimate. And the Ninth Circuit Court agreed. However, the Supreme Court, at the suggestion of the President, determined that Newdow at the time of his suit did not have the legal standing to bring cases on behalf of his daughter, and overturned that decision.
At any rate, prior to Justice Thomas's concurring opinion, the Supreme Court's standard for coercion was not limited to legal or government means, a precident that Thomas himself recognized even as he repudiated it in his opinion. Furthermore he holds the bizarre opinion that the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to individuals.
In other words, while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals felt Newdow's legal reasoning was valid, our theocratic Supreme Court scrambled for any means they could to overturn that decision, no matter what long-standing precident they had to ignore.
As to that, it has always stricken me as somewhat akin to a vegan who cannot abide meat being cooked in other apartments of the building she lives in.
It's more akin to a vegan's daughter being forced to eat meat against the wishes of her parent, while her school tells her that vegans are idiots. And, yes, coercion doesn't have to be by legal means. Social coercion has always been recognized by the courts.
The Constitution does not entail catering to every individual's hypersensitivities.
If your child was coerced into pledging fealty to the God of somebody else's religion, and the government was busy telling her that your religious views and instruction were illegitimate, is it really "hypersensitive" to object?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by paisano, posted 04-21-2005 11:21 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by paisano, posted 04-22-2005 9:59 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 56 of 106 (201096)
04-22-2005 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
04-21-2005 10:56 AM


Hi Crash,
Ask the Catholics. According to them you can be held responsible, and bear the consequences, of your nature, not just your actions.
Once again, what difference does that make to me? I'm not going to base my moral opinions on what the Catholics think.
I don't think it's irrelevant. Time doesn't erase transgressions. An old moral evil is still evil. Great. He was too young to know better. According to him, not knowing any better is no excuse.
Time renders transgressions irrelevant, beating up on someone for something they did sixty years ago and haven't done since is irrelevant, unjust and unreasonable.
I don't think it's just, and that's what allows me to judge him. For being unjust.
I agree with you on that. But to then judging him on the same basis that you think is unjust is hypocrisy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2005 10:56 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2005 10:36 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 106 (201121)
04-22-2005 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by paisano
04-21-2005 12:05 PM


quote:
I don't expect non-Catholics to be in agreement with, or pleased with, all or even any aspects of Catholic moral teaching. This would be naively unrealistic. It would, however, be helpful if they were fully informed as to whether what it is they are criticizing is in fact the case.
Gee, I seem to remember making a similar point to you Paisano, but IIRC you called me a fanatical dogmatist for doing so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by paisano, posted 04-21-2005 12:05 PM paisano has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 58 of 106 (201123)
04-22-2005 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by paisano
04-21-2005 7:53 PM


I think the point that a lack of birth control "threatens our future" is certainly debatable (subreplacement fertility seems rather the larger threat, IMO of course).
What planet are you on? On planet Earth, the human population is rapidly approaching 7 billion and the time it takes to double the population is decreasing. Your uninformed opinion means nothing and just shows your ignorance of reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by paisano, posted 04-21-2005 7:53 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by paisano, posted 04-22-2005 9:48 AM kjsimons has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 59 of 106 (201125)
04-22-2005 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by paisano
04-21-2005 7:53 PM


quote:
I think the point that a lack of birth control "threatens our future" is certainly debatable (subreplacement fertility seems rather the larger threat, IMO of course).
There is little doubt that the planet is overpopulated with humans. Human population growth is causing the rapid degradation of the global environment. The Church could go a long way towards helping this problem by endorsing responsible family planning with the use of birth control.
If birth control was endorsed and encouraged among the Catholic and other religious charities working in poverty-striken areas, for example hunger and strife could be greatly reduced, because there would be far less competition for resources. If there were more respources to go around, there would likely be less violence and war, especially in the third world.
quote:
However, putting that aside for the moment, I think for non-Catholics to think that the selection of a new Pope would lead to such a change was always rather a forlorn hope.
Perhaps, but people used to think that about the Catholic Church WRT accepting the scientific reality of the Theory of Evolution, too.
I also find it interesting that, among industrialized European countries, Italy has among the lowest birth rates, even though it is the home of the Vatican and almost all of it's citizens are Catholic.
Indeed, abortion is legal in Italy with restrictions similar to those in the US, and in a brief Google I learned that around 32% of fertile, sexually active Italian women use modern contraception methods, with this number on the rise.
It would seem that the reality and practicality of people's (women's and families') lives continues to erode the influence of the unrealistic and out-of-touch edicts of the celibate, all-male led Catholic Church.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-22-2005 08:18 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by paisano, posted 04-21-2005 7:53 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by paisano, posted 04-22-2005 9:46 AM nator has not replied
 Message 62 by mike the wiz, posted 04-22-2005 9:50 AM nator has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 60 of 106 (201133)
04-22-2005 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
04-22-2005 9:17 AM


It would seem that the reality and practicality of people's (women's and families') lives continues to erode the influence of the unrealistic and out-of-touch edicts of the celibate, all-male led Catholic Church.
You are correct that this teaching is mostly honored in the breach, however, it remains equally unrealistic to expect that the election of a new Pope would lead to it being changed. After all, the eschatological teachings of the Church are equally "unrealistic" to those that are skeptical of them - yet these are not subject to change. Birth control may or may not be - theologians debate this- however, if it is to change it will mbe done on the Church's timetable, which is historically slow and conservative.
In the meantime, for those who cannot abide the teachings of the RCC, there remains the option to become non-Catholic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 04-22-2005 9:17 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024