Republicans once again stood strong against onerous, job-killing government regulation which crush small businesses in passing the bill, which added new regulations that would force the clinic to close. Lt. Governor, a small-government conservative, said; The bill "should effectively close the only abortion clinic in Mississippi," said Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves in a statement. "This is a strong bill that will effectively end abortion in Mississippi."
It now will be advanced to Gov. Phil Bryant, who was strongly supported by the Tea Party (slogan: "Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom").
Meanwhile they have no infrastructure, real police department, firefighters or fully operational hospitals. I say let them wallow in their own depravity.
It's almost as if all that nonsensical rhetoric about freedom and low taxes and pretending that those are the same thing has left the Republican party completely incapable of governance. Faced with actually having to do something that looks like governance after winning some elections, they've figured making abortions harder to come by is enough, and everywhere else they're just going to let things drift along.
To be fair, it is state government (Mississippi state government no less), and state government is notoriously dominated by idiots or, rather, people with very small, gerrymandered, constituencies.
"This is a strong bill that will effectively end abortion in Mississippi."
Truth:
"This is a strong bill that will effectively end legal, regulated, and supervised abortion in Mississippi."
The best case scenario for women under this bill is that they will have the means and ability to travel to one of the states that still offer abortion.
The worst case scenario is the return to hotel room abortions, where the "doctor" has no training, no license, and there will be no medical supervision or follow up and women are going to suffer.
Clearly abortion is the most dire and pressing issue facing America in our economic gak hole...
On a different note, OP is full of loaded words that present a clear bias. Not saying that I support or don't support the OP's position (as if I want to get into that flame war), just saying it comes off the wrong way. Though I like that you actually managed to use "avowed" and "onerous" in a sentence.
xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:Clearly abortion is the most dire and pressing issue facing America in our economic gak hole...
On a different note, OP is full of loaded words that present a clear bias. Not saying that I support or don't support the OP's position (as if I want to get into that flame war), just saying it comes off the wrong way. Though I like that you actually managed to use "avowed" and "onerous" in a sentence.
I'm guessing you're not a pregnant woman who needs an abortion.
xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:Clearly abortion is the most dire and pressing issue facing America in our economic gak hole...
There are a LOT of people who believe it IS the most important issue. I wish I had exact statistics.
They truly believe that all our nation's problems flow from the divine hatred of abortion. Therefore, work to end abortion puts us ont he road to recovery faster than any othe rpolicy. In their eyes.
No, Frazzled, I would go so far as to say that the Democratic party does care, even if only because these are loyal voting blocks who help them win elections, whereas the Republicans antagonize minority groups so that they can rouse everyone else to vote.
The church has declared war on abortion it seems, its been the year against womens rights/health, every state has had bills passed to make abortions harder to come by. If women want to protest, I'd suggest stop going to church. Then during the next census, claim atheist.
It will diminish the power these churches have to start these bills and they'll have less funding from peoples donations.
sirlynchmob wrote:If women want to protest, I'd suggest stop going to church.
Of course, there is the possibility that not all women think abortion should be legal ...
The beliefs about abortion is roughly equal between men and women last I checked-- most think that it should be legal in some cases but not others, and very few believe it should be illegal or legal in all cases.
Manchu wrote:My comment actually points out that minorities are disproportionately affected by both abortion and disenfranchisement laws.
What? There's not even a single hint of that sentiment in your post lol...
You've gotta keep on top of the issues. Last November, people who do vote in Mississippi (i.e., the same ones who elected the clinic-closing administration) decided to amend their constitution to include voter ID requirements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:The beliefs about abortion is roughly equal between men and women last I checked
sirlynchmob wrote:If women want to protest, I'd suggest stop going to church.
Of course, there is the possibility that not all women think abortion should be legal ...
My comment wasn't directed at those women.
But in these situations, it seems people will only protest the governments actions. They never seem to want to go to the source of these bills, or those funding most of the anti abortion laws.
For most people, their religion isn't actually as simple as a single issue. Many people would not consider abandoning their communities over a disagreement about abortion.
Melissia wrote:No, Frazzled, I would go so far as to say that the Democratic party does care, even if only because these are loyal voting blocks who help them win elections, whereas the Republicans antagonize minority groups so that they can rouse everyone else to vote.
You would be wrong. education vouchers are an example.
Manchu wrote:That's not the case, at least not as I've seen it.
It's been the case as I've seen it. I've known many stories of people getting rejected from religious communities because of, say, homosexuality, abortion issues, even drug use.
Uniting one's flock by calling for a witch hunt, as it were, is a time honored tactic.
Manchu wrote:That's not the case, at least not as I've seen it.
It's been the case as I've seen it. I've known many stories of people getting rejected from religious communities because of, say, homosexuality, abortion issues, even drug use.
Uniting one's flock by calling for a witch hunt, as it were, is a time honored tactic.
xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:On a different note, OP is full of loaded words that present a clear bias. Not saying that I support or don't support the OP's position (as if I want to get into that flame war), just saying it comes off the wrong way. Though I like that you actually managed to use "avowed" and "onerous" in a sentence.
I think you may have fallen into the sarchasm. I intentionally used verbiage to reflect the fact that in 2010, a great deal of Republicans actively campaigned on a platform job creation and fiscal issues as their chief priority, and then once in office immediately started working to restrict abortion. I also wanted to illustrate that I suspect that a good deal of the people that voted for them likely do not feel any cognitive dissonance between hating Obamacare for small government, government out of healthcare type reasons while wildly cheering for government expansion via new regulations to put government into your healthcare.
Ouze, what you have basically outlined is why Rick Santorum has lasted this long in the primaries -- and why the Republican party has no chance of winning the general election.
Manchu wrote:That's not the case, at least not as I've seen it.
It's been the case as I've seen it. I've known many stories of people getting rejected from religious communities because of, say, homosexuality, abortion issues, even drug use.
Uniting one's flock by calling for a witch hunt, as it were, is a time honored tactic.
So you go to church pretty often then?
You don't see it, so it must not be true right?
its hard to see injustice with your head in the sand isn't it?
sirlynchmob wrote:and its easy to not see things when you don't want to see them.
Every potential assumption behind that remark is really quite insulting but on the other hand you're doing a great job of reminding us that you don't know what you're talking about.
Melissia wrote:I went to church regularly for a few years. I see the rejection of members by the community far more often now than I did back then.
So you were part of a community but left it -- but you still keep up with it and who they force out?
sirlynchmob wrote:and its easy to not see things when you don't want to see them.
Every potential assumption behind that remark is really quite insulting but on the other hand you're doing a great job of reminding us that you don't know what you're talking about.
Funny, thats the same thing I thought of for your post of "That's not the case, at least not as I've seen it.."
Yeah, as an active member of a religious community I do have the opportunity to see how people who have abortions are treated by that community. Go figure.
Manchu wrote:Yeah, as an active member of a religious community I do have the opportunity to see how people who have abortions are treated by that community. Go figure.
ya from the one church you go it, I'm sure you get broad and comprehensive knowledge on the subject.
Great point! Except that I have a ton of freinds and family who are active members of parishes all over the United States plus I keep abreast of national (and international) periodicals written by and about people of my faith. No you're probably right: people who don't do all of this clearly know more about what happens in religious communities than folks who are part of them.
Manchu wrote:So you were part of a community but left it -- but you still keep up with it and who they force out?
Or more accurately, I've lived in this neighborhood for more than twenty years, and people talk.
Gossip isn't a great news source. So here's some first-hand experience:
There's a lot of what you might call self-de-selection. A friend of mine from MI didn't go to mass for twenty years and felt very bitter about the Church and its teachings on homosexuality. She and her wife moved to CA where she now works for a church-run college and attends mass regularly. I was discussing this with one of our mutual friends and we agreed that had she gone to the local parish in MI, she would have seen that she was as welcome there as she is at her new parish in CA. The attitudes that she left twenty years before, which were more general to society than to that parish or the Church, are quite different today and for the past few years -- again, not coincidentally as attitudes have changed more generally. As to abortion, I've known a fair few women who have had abortions and seen even the staunchest pro-life advocates extend to them genuine friendship and support in the wake of that trauma.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Not all churches have a culture of inclusion.
That's very true. What I object to is that sentiment being employed to suggest that churches have cultures of exclusion generally speaking.
Manchu wrote:Yeah, as an active member of a religious community I do have the opportunity to see how people who have abortions are treated by that community. Go figure.
ya from the one church you go it, I'm sure you get broad and comprehensive knowledge on the subject.
NonMod hat on as there is a Mod involved too.
Childrins lets try to remain ing polite shall we? no need to get uppity, when common courtesy works AS NONE OF US HAS A PERSONAL STAKE IN THE TOPIC.
I don't accuse all churches of having a culture of exclusion, but I have noticed that there's a rising increase in instances of it locally with the politicization of religion.
There's an apartment complex nearby which has a church on either side. Membership between the two is basiclaly split along party lines.
At the beginning of the calendar year, one of the priests at my parish gave a homily starting with: "This will be a divisive year and it'll be a sore temptation for us. You should know that when you look around here, you're looking at Democrats and you're looking at Republicans. And everyone you see is a Catholic."
If he said it every week it still wouldn't be enough! At another parish, years ago, there was a pro-life referendum on the ballot. In the homily the week before the polls opened, the priest at the parish I attended said: "Catholics are not a one issue people -- but, after all, there is no other issue that is more important." It's one of the most repulsive things I've ever heard in a homily. He had said gak like this before but that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me and I never went back. I should note that I didn't actually make a conscious decision not to go there anymore. It just kind of naturally happened. Funny enough, I started to see more and more faces familiar to me from that parish appearing at the new one.
At the beginning of the calendar year, one of the priests at my parish gave a homily starting with: "This will be a divisive year and it'll be a sore temptation for us. You should know that when you look around here, you're looking at Democrats and you're looking at Republicans. And everyone you see is a Catholic."
If he said it every week it still wouldn't be enough! At another parish, years ago, there was a pro-life referendum on the ballot. In the homily the week before the polls opened, the priest at the parish I attended said: "Catholics are not a one issue people -- but, after all, there is no other issue that is more important." It's one of the most repulsive things I've ever heard in a homily. He had said gak like this before but that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me and I never went back. I should note that I didn't actually make a conscious decision not to go there anymore. It just kind of naturally happened. Funny enough, I started to see more and more faces familiar to me from that parish appearing at the new one.
so you have seen it, interesting. so you can see how you can make people feel unwelcome without actually chasing them out of church.
You also helped make my case that if you don't agree with what your church is doing, don't go.
Manchu wrote:Yeah, as an active member of a religious community I do have the opportunity to see how people who have abortions are treated by that community. Go figure.
Why does this matter. We all should know by now. Anecdotal evidence means nothing on the internet.
What is this myth about small government and republicans?
I've been reading books about the Reagan years, and it seems that the government expanded at the speed of light under his watch, but Reagan is see as a model president.
sirlynchmob wrote:so you can see how you can make people feel unwelcome without actually chasing them out of church.
I don't think that point was ever at stake. Melissia clarified that not every church has a culture of inclusion and I clarified that not every church has a culture of exclusion.
You also helped make my case that if you don't agree with what your church is doing, don't go.
I'm sorry that my anecdote gave you that impression. What I was trying to say is that people stay or leave based on these things in fact not that they should do. I'm never going to hear a pro-choice homily in any parish I go to but being a pro-choice Democrat myself doesn't mean I should stop going to mass.
Churches that are against this crap need to stand up and speak out, or they might as well just be preaching the same. Letting it happen is just as bad as working with it.
Also, we DO have a stake in this, unless you're only ever going to have sons, and you have no women in your families.
SaintTom wrote:Churches that are against this crap need to stand up and speak out
I agree. I just respect "standing up and speaking out" as something that you actually do non-confrontationally as a matter of your ordinary worldview and lifestyle more than being angry on the internet or getting together for a protest. The "standing up and speaking out" that makes a real difference, as far as I can tell, is the lived experience of shaking hands with someone who is different from you or has done things that you don't necessarily approve of at the sign of peace.
SaintTom wrote:Churches that are against this crap need to stand up and speak out, or they might as well just be preaching the same. Letting it happen is just as bad as working with it.
Also, we DO have a stake in this, unless you're only ever going to have sons, and you have no women in your families.
Joey wrote:The problem with democracy is that people get the governance they vote for.
Very Churchillian. Compound the problem, in this case, with voting for a government that (at least hypothetically) restricts your access to participation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
SaintTom wrote:Churches that are against this crap need to stand up and speak out, or they might as well just be preaching the same.
That's a big leap...
That's a very good point, Amaya. The trouble is the attitude of "if you're not with us then you're against us." When folks fight fire with fire, the result is that everyone gets burned.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:What is this myth about small government and republicans?
I think when Republicans said "small government" in the past, they meant "less people get a say and less people get any benefit." But now some Republicans mean it more literally, like they actually want to dismantle the government. This is a big part of the current Republican identity crisis.
sirlynchmob wrote:so you can see how you can make people feel unwelcome without actually chasing them out of church.
I don't think that point was ever at stake. Melissia clarified that not every church has a culture of inclusion and I clarified that not every church has a culture of exclusion.
You also helped make my case that if you don't agree with what your church is doing, don't go.
I'm sorry that my anecdote gave you that impression. What I was trying to say is that people stay or leave based on these things in fact not that they should do. I'm never going to hear a pro-choice homily in any parish I go to but being a pro-choice Democrat myself doesn't mean I should stop going to mass.
I'm glad you agree with pro choice, but your church is a big player in blocking contraceptives from being covered by insurance policies, and by making all abortions illegal. Even going so far as to say its OK for doctors to LIE to women about abortions.
lets have some context,
According to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, between 5000 and 10,000 women in the U.S. died annually from illegal abortions prior to 1973 . After abortion became legal and safe, that death rate fell to dozens a year.
that's the argument from the pro lifers, they'd rather have 5000 to 10000 women die, instead of providing safe abortions by qualified people. As you are attending, possibly donating to, and claiming to be a member of that church, you are enabling them to use your voice in their political activism.
sirlynchmob wrote:that's the argument from the pro lifers, they'd rather have 5000 to 10000 women die, instead of 1.3mm dead babies a year. As you are attending, possibly donating to, and claiming to be a member of that church, you are enabling them to use your voice in their political activism.
Corrected your typo if you're going to go there be accurate.
sirlynchmob wrote:that's the argument from the pro lifers, they'd rather have 5000 to 10000 women die, instead of 1.3mm disposed of zygotes/foetuses a year. As you are attending, possibly donating to, and claiming to be a member of that church, you are enabling them to use your voice in their political activism.
Corrected your typo if you're going to go there be accurate.
Fixed your typo.
Also?
Those zygotes/foetuses would still be dying.
Gay sex was illegal in most states for a long time but that didnt' stop dudes from shagging eachother.
Manchu wrote:Ouze, what you have basically outlined is why Rick Santorum has lasted this long in the primaries -- and why the Republican party has no chance of winning the general election.
If I happened to be Axelrod, and Santorum happened to win the GOP nomination, I would play this song every day until the general.
sirlynchmob wrote:As you are attending, possibly donating to, and claiming to be a member of that church, you are enabling them to use your voice in their political activism.
This is a great example of how people who don't actually have experience with the Catholic Church are poor critics of the Catholic Church. It's understandable -- the models you're used to are retail stores or political parties. But the parish is not like your local WalMart or your area's chapter of the Republican National Committee fundraising machine. People overwhelmingly give at the parish level and those funds are overwhelmingly used at the parish level. As an active member of my parish, what I'm actually doing is providing food to the hungry, shelter to the homeless, and medicine for the sick. The idea that the bishops can say "defend marriage" and leverage in the minds of politicians 77.7 million votes is a nice little piece of bigotry. We don't actually "vote the party line" because the Church isn't a political party. This is abundantly clear to anyone paying attention. Politicians know this, for example.
SaintTom wrote:Churches that are against this crap need to stand up and speak out, or they might as well just be preaching the same. Letting it happen is just as bad as working with it.
Also, we DO have a stake in this, unless you're only ever going to have sons, and you have no women in your families.
That's a big leap...
The problem is that there IS no one going around shaking hands and trying to put out the flames. The people spreading them just get to spread it more and more, and the fact that they have their religion and the support of the Pope in it just makes it worse.
Besides you know that saying for the holocaust (a jump but stick with me here)
" First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
SaintTom, I'm not totally sure if I understand what you are saying but if I do (Catholics make no effort to demonstrate that they are not hateful bigots) then I think you are seriously out of touch.
Manchu wrote:SaintTom, I'm not totally sure if I understand what you are saying but if I do (Catholics make no effort to demonstrate that they are not hateful bigots) then I think you are seriously out of touch.
Arguing against the fact that people don't need to do something about this when we know it is wrong, only because we are not directly effected, doesn't really seem to me like I'm out of touch.
(A better way to express it in speech is probably what you mean though. But this is the opinionated section of the forum after all. )
It's only that I find more extreme examples actually get through to people. And as I said, it was a stretch, but seriously, everyone coming together over this is the only way to get rid of it, because its a hydra that comes back over and over.
sirlynchmob wrote:As you are attending, possibly donating to, and claiming to be a member of that church, you are enabling them to use your voice in their political activism.
This is a great example of how people who don't actually have experience with the Catholic Church are poor critics of the Catholic Church. It's understandable -- the models you're used to are retail stores or political parties. But the parish is not like your local WalMart or your area's chapter of the Republican National Committee fundraising machine. People overwhelmingly give at the parish level and those funds are overwhelmingly used at the parish level. As an active member of my parish, what I'm actually doing is providing food to the hungry, shelter to the homeless, and medicine for the sick. The idea that the bishops can say "defend marriage" and leverage in the minds of politicians 77.7 million votes is a nice little piece of bigotry. We don't actually "vote the party line" because the Church isn't a political party. This is abundantly clear to anyone paying attention. Politicians know this, for example.
Yet on the other shoe, you get:
I'm sure you've seen many variations of this picture. I think the catholic priest was the one on the left, speaking for all 77.7 million of you.
I'll admit I have no idea what a catholic church does with its donations. They could keep it all in house for local projects. Due to its hierarchical nature though, are you 100% sure (seen the books) that no money is getting filtered up or for other causes?
and I think this is the quote sainttom was alluding to:
All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing.
The "Party of small government" is always too busy regulating peoples private lives and bodies, yet they claim to hate it when government tells people what to do.
Since the 2010 elections I used to tell people that in this years election is the GOP has a pretty easy shot at the White House, and the election would be theirs to loose.
sirlynchmob wrote:
and I think this is the quote sainttom was alluding to:
All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing.
Yes, that's more in line what what I was trying to get at. Thank you.
The one you posted in his thread was of catholics born on 1980 or later.
Also:
More than twice as many Catholics under 35 as those over 65 support same-sex marriage.
Brings me back to one of my old complaints-- the main problem with our country today is the selfish elderly who form such a regular voting block and powerful interest group
The one you posted in his thread was of catholics born on 1980 or later.
Also:
More than twice as many Catholics under 35 as those over 65 support same-sex marriage.
Brings me back to one of my old complaints-- the main problem with our country today is the selfish elderly who form such a regular voting block and powerful interest group
I think old people realise that it doesnt affect them. They lived long enough to realize how fruitful it is.
sirlynchmob wrote:I think the catholic priest was the one on the left, speaking for all 77.7 million of you.
You're not paying attention to what I'm posting. That's okay.
I do get what you're saying. from the bottom up, you get 77.7 million Catholics that are all individuals, they are not a unified force, nor could you ever convince them all to vote one way.
From the top down though, the activists do speak for all of you. that one priest did just that at the hearing. He wasn't there to represent his personal beliefs, he was speaking for the entire church.
sirlynchmob wrote:From the top down though, the activists do speak for all of you.
No they don't -- especially for the purposes of speaking to politicians -- when most of us are voting in direct contradiction to what the guy in the collar or mitre is saying.
sirlynchmob wrote:I think the catholic priest was the one on the left, speaking for all 77.7 million of you.
You're not paying attention to what I'm posting. That's okay.
I do get what you're saying. from the bottom up, you get 77.7 million Catholics that are all individuals, they are not a unified force, nor could you ever convince them all to vote one way.
From the top down though, the activists do speak for all of you. that one priest did just that at the hearing. He wasn't there to represent his personal beliefs, he was speaking for the entire church.
nonsense. Only the Pope can begin to make that claim.
sirlynchmob wrote:From the top down though, the activists do speak for all of you.
No they don't -- especially for the purposes of speaking to politicians -- when most of us are voting in direct contradiction to what the guy in the collar or mitre is saying.
They'll be seen by many as speaking for all of you. They don't, you're right, but that's how it is viewed.
Sort of like how some people will hold up Rick Warren or Jerry Falwell as speaking for all Christians, positively and negatively.
nonsense. Only the Pope can begin to make that claim.
This kinda sucks for your argument then doesn't it Manchu? I mean since the Pope is already known to encourage such things and working so hard to keep women "in their place".
Yes you have your own beliefs, we all do, but its this kinda thing where they get the go ahead from literally the head of their religion that really messes with your defense.
And until we see those Catholics who are against this actually doing something, then.. *shrugs* idk what to tell you. They certainly aren't making their presence known.
SaintTom wrote:I mean since the Pope is already known to encourage such things and working so hard to keep women "in their place".
Whut?
Since when?
Since forever? You know, wiping out old findings about female saints and keeping women out of the religion to where any bishop who does ordain a women automatically excommunicates themselves.
Pink Smoke over the Vatican. Seriously, go check it out.
At the beginning of the calendar year, one of the priests at my parish gave a homily starting with: "This will be a divisive year and it'll be a sore temptation for us. You should know that when you look around here, you're looking at Democrats and you're looking at Republicans. And everyone you see is a Catholic."
If he said it every week it still wouldn't be enough! At another parish, years ago, there was a pro-life referendum on the ballot. In the homily the week before the polls opened, the priest at the parish I attended said: "Catholics are not a one issue people -- but, after all, there is no other issue that is more important." It's one of the most repulsive things I've ever heard in a homily. He had said gak like this before but that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me and I never went back. I should note that I didn't actually make a conscious decision not to go there anymore. It just kind of naturally happened. Funny enough, I started to see more and more faces familiar to me from that parish appearing at the new one.
My church often hold proo-life ballots(or petitions to get one) And my mom and friends are the only one who know im pro-choice. I remember a few weeks ago there where two petitions.
One for a pro-life initiative, another for an issue i support(something about helping the poor) and i wanted to sign it. But i was afraid to because i didn't want sign the pro-life and i didnt want to explain why.
Churches often are very decisive. Mine(even in the middle of Cali) will still say things like "May Lawmakers Continue to respect the sanctity of life" TBH i wouldn't go t church except my mom forces me. I prefer to believe in my one version of god and follow my own beliefs then squander gods gift of choice he gave me.
SaintTom wrote:
Since forever? You know, wiping out old findings about female saints and keeping women out of the religion to where any bishop who does ordain a women automatically excommunicates themselves.
Pink Smoke over the Vatican. Seriously, go check it out.
Ah, a documentary. No thanks, they're not only generally boring, they're almost always dramatized. You may as well tell me to watch Bowling for Columbine.
Manchu wrote:Which is exactly why I am posting here ...
Of course, just adding context.
Honestly the Catholic situation, to be obtuse, reminds me a bit of the "Jews versus Judaism" argument.
My guess is that some people consider themselves Jews even if they have no faith and don't attend services. Part of the lineage of thinking that Jews are a separate ethnicity or race, as opposed to just being a religion. I've known Catholics like this as well. They didn't go to service, broke every commandment gleefully, and had no faith, but considered themselves Catholic becuase their parents were.
Don't you know one guy saying good things about Catholicism is just one guy, but a guy doing something stupid or saying something bad represents all Catholics?
SaintTom wrote:
Since forever? You know, wiping out old findings about female saints and keeping women out of the religion to where any bishop who does ordain a women automatically excommunicates themselves.
Pink Smoke over the Vatican. Seriously, go check it out.
Ah, a documentary. No thanks, they're not only generally boring, they're almost always dramatized. You may as well tell me to watch Bowling for Columbine.
To each his own, but it's pretty sad when it's actually true.
SaintTom wrote:Churches that are against this crap need to stand up and speak out
I agree. I just respect "standing up and speaking out" as something that you actually do non-confrontationally as a matter of your ordinary worldview and lifestyle more than being angry on the internet or getting together for a protest. The "standing up and speaking out" that makes a real difference, as far as I can tell, is the lived experience of shaking hands with someone who is different from you or has done things that you don't necessarily approve of at the sign of peace.
I've got to agree with that.
Being a confirmed C of E member who is pretty much lapsed, I have taken part also in Roman Catholic, Shinto, Buddhist and non-denominational services including weddings, funerals, and general worship.
The thing I've learned is that good people are good people whatever religion they follow, or none. It doesn't matter if you accept the individual creed. The services are basically about positivity, kindness, and connections with other humans. Supportive community, in other words.
SaintTom wrote:
Since forever? You know, wiping out old findings about female saints and keeping women out of the religion to where any bishop who does ordain a women automatically excommunicates themselves.
Pink Smoke over the Vatican. Seriously, go check it out.
Ah, a documentary. No thanks, they're not only generally boring, they're almost always dramatized. You may as well tell me to watch Bowling for Columbine.
Indeed. My conspiracy theory mate made me watch a Moon Landings one.. feth me..
I watched an Anti-Abortion one as well, on the ultra sound a 6 week old fetus was wearing a fez and reading a copy of Sports Illustrated.
Ahtman wrote:They didn't go to service, broke every commandment gleefully, and had no faith, but considered themselves Catholic becuase their parents were.
I also consider them Catholics because I don't think Catholicism is simply a label that you get to pin on your shirt for subscribing to a certain ideology. And somehow that's even the case with atheists who claim to be Catholics. It's a complicated thing and I don't have a good way to summarize it. On the other hand, it's just as silly to think of Catholic identity as transmitted genetically (you know what I mean, this kind of implicit ethnic pride deal) as it is to think you're Catholic because you're pro-life and homophobic.
dogma wrote:Honestly the Catholic situation, to be obtuse, reminds me a bit of the "Jews versus Judaism" argument.
Can you extrapolate?
Sure.
There has long been a struggle in Judaism between protecting Jews, and maintaining the tenets of Judaism. This can be seen most explicitly in times of extreme persecution (Jews giving up Kosher habits under threat of Nazi persecution.) but can also be seen in the everyday behavior of Jews who identify with their faith (and quasi-ethnicity) but do not practice its tenets. This is, of course, true of all religious beliefs, but Judaism, like Catholicism (though for different reasons) has a much greater impact on its adherents and "hangers on" (can't think of a better term right now) due to the structural rigidity of both. However, as you know, religion isn't the only thing the influences people, so you get Jews and Catholics that aren't just Jews, or Catholics. This creates a struggle in the minds of individuals, which further causes problems in terms of the collective, especially highly structural collectives. As with any struggle we see people taking conservative and liberal (not political, most of the time) stances, with some emphasizing the person (the Jew or Catholic) and others emphasizing the tradition (Judaism or Catholicism).
Kilkrazy wrote:The thing I've learned is that good people are good people whatever religion they follow, or none. It doesn't matter if you accept the individual creed. The services are basically about positivity, kindness, and connections with other humans. Supportive community, in other words.
That's exactly it. This is why we talk so much about "communion."
Ahtman wrote:
My guess is that some people consider themselves Jews even if they have no faith and don't attend services. Part of the lineage of thinking that Jews are a separate ethnicity or race, as opposed to just being a religion. I've known Catholics like this as well. They didn't go to service, broke every commandment gleefully, and had no faith, but considered themselves Catholic becuase their parents were.
Don't you know one guy saying good things about Catholicism is just one guy, but a guy doing something stupid or saying something bad represents all Catholics?
This is a far less circuitous way of making the point I tried to make.
@dogma: Thanks for spinning it out. People's way of being these days doesn't coincide with the hierarchical rigidity that the bishops, or at least some of them, like to project. And there are a lot of Catholics who like that image in the abstract -- like "spiritual but not religious" people who want to get married in a church because they liked stained glass windows.
I still say watching "If These Walls COuld Talk"
Should be mandatory in HS, But its to bloody that even College students couldnt handle it.
But if you guys have the stomach for it you should watch it. Its stories about women and their experiances with abortion.
@dogma: I also think your dichotomy of "individual" against "tradition" is very helpful. My understanding is that tradition contextualizes the individual and individuals shape the tradition. I have trouble conceptualizing my religious beliefs in terms of policy because I don't think that they translate into policy themselves. I can't speak to a preference for either the tradition preserved by individuals or the individual expressing tradition.
I think Boogie Nights should be required viewing in HS, but it's to awesome to the point that even some college students can't handle it. If you have the awesomeness for it you should watch it. It is about Phillp Seymour Hoffman giving an amazing performance. Oh, and late 70's porn and women's experiences with it. What I am saying is that it is educational.
Here's my attempt to answer the who's Catholic question: There are these hymns that most parishes around the US have sung since Vatican II. Now imagine that you're getting trashed at a bar and its the end of the night. Someone starts humming one of those songs. You recognize it and start singing and then the other guys starts singing it as well. Then a few others chime in. None of us know all the words but everybody knows enough to help the others through the parts they're missing. Some of the people singing believe in God and some don't or do right at that moment for the first time in years or can't ever believe again. Some can't stand the thought of two guys kissing, some of them kiss other guys regularly. Some have had abortions, some think its murder, the categories overlap. But all the ones that are singing and trying to sing, those are the Catholics. The ones that don't join in out of spite -- maybe they're even Catholics, too. How's that?
Ahtman wrote:They didn't go to service, broke every commandment gleefully, and had no faith, but considered themselves Catholic becuase their parents were.
I also consider them Catholics because I don't think Catholicism is simply a label that you get to pin on your shirt for subscribing to a certain ideology. And somehow that's even the case with atheists who claim to be Catholics. It's a complicated thing and I don't have a good way to summarize it. On the other hand, it's just as silly to think of Catholic identity as transmitted genetically (you know what I mean, this kind of implicit ethnic pride deal) as it is to think you're Catholic because you're pro-life and homophobic.
You know its funny you should mention atheists who claim to be Catholics. I am a atheist-catholic.
Here's a funny story, I am Catholic, I had all my communions, I get to eat the bread and drink the wine when that one person in the world gets me into the church. I have never been ex communicated, ergo I'm still catholic. That said, I don't believe a word that's in the bible, I don't see any reason to think some god is out there, ergo I get labeled an atheist. But on certain years when the moon is right, you can catch me doing exercises in the church
which makes bible arguments fun because I've actually read that book, both of em, and its funny how all of the pro life arguments from the bible come from the old testament, except 1 from the new. The whole pro life movement is taking the bible out of context. If i didn't have better things to do I'd make a sign with "Numbers 5:11-31" just to mock them without them realizing it pro life has about 10 out of context lines from the old testament, I have a whole page of god saying "Abortions are cool man"
Manchu wrote:@dogma: I also think your dichotomy of "individual" against "tradition" is very helpful. My understanding is that tradition contextualizes the individual and individuals shape the tradition. I have trouble conceptualizing my religious beliefs in terms of policy because I don't think that they translate into policy themselves. I can't speak to a preference for either the tradition preserved by individuals or the individual expressing tradition.
In my experience actual believers, or adherents, generally take the stance you're taking. Its more difficult for them, because they have an emotional investment, whereas I'm just an outsider looking in*. Its the sort of thing that just kind of develops on its own (as regards individuals vs. collective), and that isn't a bad thing by any means.
*Who sees cathedrals and thinks "This would be a bomb ass place for a rave!"
Ahtman wrote:I think Boogie Nights should be required viewing in HS, but it's to awesome to the point that even some college students can't handle it. If you have the awesomeness for it you should watch it. It is about Phillp Seymour Hoffman giving an amazing performance. Oh, and late 70's porn and women's experiences with it. What I am saying is that it is educational.
It would certainly lead to fewer former virgins regretting their first time.
Manchu wrote: But all the ones that are singing and trying to sing, those are the Catholics. The ones that don't join in out of spite -- maybe they're even Catholics, too. How's that?
I like it, it also sounds like a Church I would join, were I a theist.
ing polite shall we? no need to get uppity, when common courtesy works 
)
