Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

(NSFW)

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.

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. 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.

I would say no VISIBLE effort anyway. Same with protestant evangelism though. I've only really seen American Muslims try to do such.

Melissia, you need look no further than my posts.

Manchu wrote:Melissia, you need look no further than my posts.

Dude give it up. Let them rant to each other. It keeps them warm.

Manchu wrote:Melissia, you need look no further than my posts.

I do look at your posts, but they're just the words of one person, giving the impression that your views are an underwhelming minority.

I just posted a link that indicates otherwise.

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.

Frazzled wrote:Dude give it up.

I do once in a while but always come back eventually.

Manchu wrote:I just posted a link that indicates otherwise.

I know, but read closer: it was talking about the relatively young population (IE those under thirty), not the total population.

Amongst that specific age-group population as a whole (not just catholics), this is true.

But that age group has no real authority, and is outnumbered by the rest, so...

Manchu wrote:

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.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'll admit I have no idea what a catholic church does with its donations.

Upkeep and social projects, whatever they may be.

Also, moon bases.

Well yeah, the secret Catholic moon base is a marvel of science, but it is also very expensive.

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.

Somehow, they are managing to loose it...

well I remember the 700 club raising money for a tractor beam and force fields

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:I just posted a link that indicates otherwise.

I know, but read closer: it was talking about the relatively young population (IE those under thirty), not the total population.

Amongst that specific age-group population as a whole (not just catholics), this is true.

But that age group has no real authority, and is outnumbered by the rest, so...

The poll was of Catholic voters.

Also, I pointed this out to you last Monday:

http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2011/03/catholics-say-i-do-gay-marriage

Melissia wrote:Well yeah, the secret Catholic moon base is a marvel of science, but it is also very expensive.

Actually its not. They write everything off as a loss to keep taxes down. They use the same accounting methods as movie studios.

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.

Melissia wrote:Well yeah, the secret Catholic moon base is a marvel of science, but it is also very expensive.

They've got JP2 up there and, unexpectedly, Tupac.

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.

d-usa wrote:

Thank you. You made me produce my evil laugh.

Manchu wrote:The poll was of Catholic voters.

Also, I pointed this out to you last Monday:

http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2011/03/catholics-say-i-do-gay-marriage

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

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:The poll was of Catholic voters.

Also, I pointed this out to you last Monday:

http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2011/03/catholics-say-i-do-gay-marriage

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.

Manchu wrote:

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.

@Melissia:

Point is, here I am, showing you how millions of Catholics (old and young) are not bigoted in the way is often assumed.

dogma wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Thank you. You made me produce my evil laugh.