Jump to content

Recommended Posts

OGE: Seeing that you don't think it odd or wrong to hold your political rallies over the coffin of the deceased at his funeral and ignore giving the dead a proper Eulogy.. Maybe I shouldn't discount that as sarcasm.. So you really consider this operation as usual for the Catholic Church?.. Not a single one of you consider this priest out of line.. WOW !!!


Papadaddy - Just forcing companies to carry medical insurance for all their employees may cause those 3 things to happen.. Does not matter, what is defined by a governmental package.. Putting it on the shoulders of the Employeers in this economy is a risky thing to do. Also my question on the whole thing is who will support the unemployed? The unemployed can not afford their own insurance, so making it manditory for a person who can't keep a house over their head, or food on the table is unreasonable. Yet the uninsured is one of reasons why the costs are so high. This plan will not solve that problem.


But, having it totally handled by the government would just get bogged down in alot of political retoric, mismanagement and people finding ways to cheat the system.. We will see our $10 aspirin pill go up to being $100 per pill..


So not handeled by the employers, nor the government.. Manditory Insurance for each individual will not work for those who struggle to pay their bills for basic needs, which is currently a much larger percentage then 10 years back..


So what is the solution? Maybe we should just shut down the hospitals and all return back to a life expentancy of 18 to 25, if we live past childhood..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Eagle, who said churches are supposed to stay out of societal issues and politics? That's the entire point of the church in the first place...social stability. There's a reason why in many towns and cities, from rural America to medieval Scotland to Persia, the chuch was the largest, most imposing building. That's not a bad thing, either. We just need to stop pretending there's some invisible line the church can't cross.


If the people truly want the church out of politics and societal issues, they can amend the US Constitution accordingly to give government the power to prevent it.


Not even the founders saw a line for the church. They saw that the federal government didn't need to be in the business of establishing or restricting religion. What it can and can't do outside those lines is a matter of the courts, which are the ultimate result of elections, and thus the will of the electorate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assertion #1:

Something tells each of us - what is right and what is wrong. That something could come from your parents. It may be the education that you received. Some may argue, I have an innate moral conscience. Many others will declare, It comes from my faith. In short, while there is no common agreed upon singular source for ones morality, we are all entitled to have a moral compass. Albeit for some, that compass may appear to be missing.


Assertion #2:

Regardless of where that morality comes from - in this country, we not required to justify it to others. Our Constitution and rule of law allows all citizens to freely seek their own faith, to vote without accountability to anyone else, and if we feel inclined - to seek political office (assuming one meets the established qualifications such as age and citizenship).


Assertion #3:

All laws are derived from morality (a code or sense of what is right and what is wrong). At some point someone said it is wrong or it is right to allow or deny someone of something. Example: Jay Walking laws were created because it is wrong to endanger ones own being and/or to hinder drivers from navigating the road without fear of harming another.


Conclusion #1:

Based on Assertion #1 and #2 - Our government (courts included) has no right to examine the source of ones moral compass and to use that source as a justification to 1) dictate who can govern and who cannot, and 2) nullify laws created by the Legislative Branch or by state governments.


Conclusion #2:

Based on Assertions #2 and #3 - It matters not if a law makers convictions are driven by his faith or an innate moral conscience. If a politician was fairly elected by the people, then he/she should be allowed to govern and/or legislate freely so long as the Constitution is not violated. If the said politician does not govern and/or legislate according to the desires of the majority, then it is reasonable to conclude that the politician will not be re-elected. However, baring a Constitutional argument, the courts have no authority to reverse the course of that government official.


Conclusion #3:

Our Government primarily the courts, have gone off course from the decree of our Constitution and the intent our founding fathers. The courts are nullifying laws based on an examination of ones moral compass vice the Constitutionality of laws and ones right to govern. Example: Abortion laws have been ruled unconstitutional based on ones right to privacy, and a perverse interpretation of separation of Church and State which does not exist in our Constitution as written. When Jefferson responded to a letter from a Baptist minister afraid of government interference in the Church, he coined the phrase separation of Church and State. He assured the minister that there was a wall between the two which would prevent the government from interfering in the Church. He and others did not interpret it to mean that no one with a religious affiliation could legislate and/or govern according to his/her own moral conscience (or compass, if you will). Nevertheless, todays political left has used this phrase repeatedly to nullify laws which they do not support, and to draw into question the character and decision making capabilities of politicians on the right. The Constitutionality of law and government has become subordinate to the political expediency of the liberal agenda.


Link to post
Share on other sites



Not saying that at all. I'm responding to Moose's assertion on separation of church and state, which A) is not in the Constitution in those words at all and B) did not overrule individual states that DID have state religions; it only forbade the federal governement via Congress from establishing one. And you are correct, religious leaders DO have an obligation to be involved in the social issues of their congregants, and if need be the politics as well. Again responding to Moose.


Moose, i saw where you have question on the new healthcare law. To be honest NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT WILL AFFECT US, including the experts.


True story, when we had the annual CEO's talks about the state of the hospital when the law was just passed, the question of how it would affect us was asked. The CEO, whose job is to knwo these things, as well as the legal team, had no clue because it was so huge, and had so much of the technical details left up to the secretary of Health and Human Services to decide that NO ONE had any idea how the law would work.


It's a year or two later and the details are coming out. One of the bigwigs was a big supporter of health care reform as it was coming out. But now that they had a chance to get the details from HHS, they have done a 180 are completely opposed to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Acco40 - I'd rather have the "tyranny" of the majority than a judiciary of pseudo intellectuals who ignore their true role in government (one of three branches in a check and balance system), and pretentiously clings to judicial activism as a means to shove their ideology down the throats of law-abiding citizens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as churches are concerned in the USA, they enjoy a tax exempt status as well as a hands off status when it comes to many of them preaching their Anti American and anti government gibberish message to the masses. IMHO if the churches want to interfer with the way the country is run, if they want to own hospitals and insurance companies then they should lose their tax exempt status and be subject to all the same laws regulating hospitals, insurance companies, and corporations, they can not and should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it too.


Too many churches today are being run within an anarchy of their own creation. Whether it is the Catholic Church where a select group of cardinals are now positioning themselves to be in all the key power positions in the Vatican, against the wishes of the Pope, or the Anglican and Episcopal hierarchies at a breaking point with each other as well as with their own followers.


No, clergy are hardly in any position to dictate to their flocks how to vote or what our elected leaders should be doing in running the country. As Jesus himself said "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's and render unto God those things that are God's."

There is no mixing of the sacred and the profane according to Scripture, and it is time for some over zealous clergy members to realize what their vocation is truly about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Whether it is the Catholic Church where a select group of cardinals are now positioning themselves to be in all the key power positions in the Vatican, against the wishes of the Pope"


What is the source of this? I am not saying its wrong, I would just like to know where you picked this up from


I am still waiting for the Mass to revert back to Latin as you claimed it would awhile back. Its still in the vulgate where I go

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd support ending ALL deductions and government subsidies, welfare, and handouts, charitable or otherwise, regardless of whether to churches or industry or anything, ALL of them...and make them ALL pay taxes same as everyone else. Income, sales, property, whatever.

Then take the extra revenue and either balance the budget or lower MY taxes. Either way is good.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Link to post
Share on other sites



It was reported on the NBC and CBS Nightly News a few days back, it was also in most major city newspapers, and internet news services. You must be pretty isolated from the rest of the world OGE. Apparently many of the Italian cardinals and other conservative cardinals are not too happy with Pope Benedicts reign and are now positioning themselves to "take back the Church" when he passes on. As far the Latin Mass is concerned that was a major priority with Benedict when he became pope, but he received so little support from his bishops and cardinals, as well as the resurrgence of the priest pedophile issue, his failing health,and another Vatican Bank scandal, he now has more important priorities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoo-Hoo.. I knew there was a reason I liked you.. Even as rough around the edges as you are.. :)


BSA knows that we are to develop our scouts moral compass, and self-confidence so they can make their own decisions and stand up for their convictions..


GOOD churches also should be developing their parishioners personal moral compasses, to be able to make your own decisions.. Anyone who feels that it is the churches place to make their decisions for them, have a church with too much control over them.. Something is out of sync!!


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sometimes some overzealous, self absorbed, politico-religious fanatics in this forum take themselves way too seriously."


Perhaps - but the overzealousness and fanaticism runs both ways. Sometimes folks claim to represent a faith, but there is little evidence in their words to suggest that they actually believe their own church's doctrine - much less the words of the Bible or other historical documents from which their faith is supposedly based.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...