For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: The Pope visits Ground Zero (paragraph break removed):
On Sunday, the final day of his trip, Pope Benedict XVI will visit Ground Zero to honor those who died on 9/11. Family members of several victims will join the pope for the private service at 9:30 a.m. Praying at and blessing the sacred ground at the World Trade Center site is being called the 'emotional high point' of the pontiff's visit to the United Sates [sic].
What does this visit to the former location of the Twin Towers mean to you? Might this act as a final closure for those who lost family and friends on 9/11?
In general, what does the Pope's visit to America mean to you?












Comments Policy
What science doesn't know and can't predict
April 20, 2008 - 10:29 ET by ThisnThatI like the story today about the Bikini Atoll. In 1954 the U.S. detonated a 15 megaton nuclear bomb (1,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II) with the following effect: The massive explosion vaporized everything on three islands in the atoll, raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees and left a crater that was 1.2 miles wide and 240 feet deep.
The article points out the robust coral reef of today. A team of scientists recently led a diving expedition into Bravo Crater and found an unexpectedly thriving coral community. "I didn't know what to expect — some kind of moonscape perhaps. But it was incredible, huge matrices of branching Porites coral (up to 8 meters [25 feet] high) had established, creating a thriving coral reef ".
Bottom line -- mankind has very little ability to affect mother nature in the long run. Al Gore -- paying attention?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
ThisnThat
April 20, 2008 - 11:39 ET by shawn228Then I guess you won't mind eating some delicious seafood from Lake Cherynobyl :-)
MMMmmmmm
April 20, 2008 - 11:52 ET by ThisnThatLove those fish that Glow-in-the-dark. Deep Sea Anglerfish; the Deep-sea Dragon; and the Gulper Eel are the best.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
TNT
April 20, 2008 - 11:57 ET by shawn228Lol :-) Sometimes putting radioactive things in the ocean have unintended circumstances.
papal visit
April 20, 2008 - 10:58 ET by northernskepticThe Pope`s visit is nice, but totally irrelevant to me.I guess you could best describe me as a "Collapsed Catholic".
The Church, perhaps in an effort to increase popularity has played too fast and too loose with fundamental teachings for far too long to keep up my interest. In fact, when they stopped saying Mass in Latin (I was a teenager)I began to doubt their sincerity!
The Pope`s telling us to welcome illegal aliens(felons, actually ), apologizing for the Crusades, condeming our war against terrorism and worst of all saying the death penalty is wrong( Show me where Jesus condemed the authorities for executing convicted felons!) are all reasons that I feel the
Catholic Church, along with the Democratic party are at best,irrelevant to me.
To me the Pope`s just a nice old German guy who is hopelessly out of touch with what`s going on in the world today.
I ' vertroue in Gott und die Mauser ` as the Boers used to say. In other words I place my trust solely in God and my guns!
I too, northernskeptic.....
April 21, 2008 - 06:15 ET by old crowas put out by the church stopping the Latin Mass and..... okaying the eating of meat on Friday. I was an alter boy and took great pride in speaking prayers in Latin, even though I did not fully comprehend what I was saying. It must have been my rebellious yout cause I remember saying that "they can't do that."
CNN's Kurtz just made a good bias point...
April 20, 2008 - 11:00 ET by sarcasmoIf someone is identified as "retired general," any current contractual relationships with the military aside from the pension we know they all get should be (and should have been) disclosed. Today's NYT has more.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
NYTimes Exclusive: Generals Know People at Pentagon
April 20, 2008 - 11:40 ET by TinianI like Michael Goldfarb's take on your NY Times manufactured "scandal":
The NY Times feels retired military officers are insufficiently objective. Heh.
It's not mine, it's the media's
April 20, 2008 - 11:47 ET by sarcasmoObjectivity is an individual issue, but this bias is all about appearances. Money makes for bad appearances, which is why there should have been more disclosure. The NYT is right on this one, like it or not. I call 'em like I see 'em.
Besides, I'm not the one who said things like, “It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’” that was Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret & obviously-former Fox News analyst. The NYT isn't always objective any more than Fox News is always "fair and balanced." That's duh-file obvious, but in this case they do make a good point, and it's about far more than apologists would like to admit. That's why it took them almost a dozen pages to cover the story.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Another NY Times Nothingburger
April 20, 2008 - 17:42 ET by TinianHmm...why did FOX fire Bevelacqua? Was it for embellishing his credentials?
Or maybe it was it for comparing Israelis to Nazis?
Whatever the case, Bevelacqua is obviously bitter about his loss of the media spotlight. This drastically reduces his credebility when he comments on the media.
Oh, and he's also an anti-semite crank, but since you're a Ron Paul fan I figure that only makes him more credible to you.
Not relevant.
April 21, 2008 - 06:20 ET by sarcasmoPick another general if you don't like that one. And clearly I'm the hate problem on NB.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
More Pretzel Logic
April 20, 2008 - 18:41 ET by TinianYou say:
Wrong.
Big .Time.Wrong
Couldn't be more wrong.
See: peer reviewed science journals.
~~~~
Next:
Interesting to see you admit that you care about more about appearances than substance.
Here, objectivity's an individual issue, like it or not
April 21, 2008 - 06:28 ET by sarcasmoMilitary commentary on a network is about the exact opposite of science (obviously, see article...) so you're grasping at straws again to avoid the subject of the article. Not working, though, for anyone who actually reads. And my saying that appearances are important in no way "admits" to anything regarding substance. Read my words, not your hallucinations. Perhaps these networks should hire "retired" military people who are actually retired, or else say-so if they're not.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Latest Barack Obama "new
April 20, 2008 - 14:15 ET by motherbeltLatest Barack Obama "new kind of politics" update.
I thought he was going to talk about hope, and his plans for change; not about his opponent?
Update: Gateway Pundit has another example of Obama's hypocrisy: a week later, just as the story has died down, he dredges up the Tuzla thing again...but he's keeping his word about not getting down and dirty; he has some Bosnia vets to to the knife work for him.
Hyposcrisy, they name is Barack Obama.
What is that massive
April 20, 2008 - 11:29 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhat is that massive choking sound I heard in Boston last night?
Meanwhile, even WaPo knows Pelosi and co. are full of donkey sh*t.
Some historical notes of interest:
1789: George Washington is sworn in as the first President.
1889: Adolph Hiter was born. It is also the day he last appeared outside of his bunker, in 1945.
90 years ago today the Red Baron shot down his last airplane (he was killed the following day by a bullet while in a dogfight, but managed to safely land his plane before dying.)
1925: Steeler Hall of Famer Ernie Stautner is born.
1968: Deep Purple play their first gig, in Denmark. No Ian Gillan, though.
1999: the massacre at Columbine High School occured.
Roger,
April 20, 2008 - 14:13 ET by ThisnThatthis Pelosi donkey sh*t (as you put it) is really bothersome. It goes to the core differences between the power-hungry but dumb-a$$ stupid dims, and the rest of America. We elect our representatives to take care of business, and all that Pelosi and Co. do is play politics. They simply don't give a damn about the United States just as long as they can throw their temper tantrums and poke their fingers in our eyes.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Pope's visit
April 20, 2008 - 11:44 ET by jefflebowskiWell said, Skeptic. Anything the Pope has to say is totally irrelevant to me. IMHO the Catholic church seems to be more of a political and business organization than a religion. And the molestation travesties that were knowingly hidden away for years still gives me the creeps. By their fruits ye shall know them!
Check yourself...
April 20, 2008 - 13:32 ET by maryerinWhat a crock! The Dalai Lama is active in 'government affairs' but does that make him any less of a religious leader? Evangelical Leaders openly speak out to sway American politics, are they not religious leaders?
As far a molestation, that awful truth is that 2% of religious figures in ALL religions have commited acts of pedophilia. The only reasons that the 2% of Catholic priests is so widely covered is because the church is so organized and victims have been able to successfully sue for damages. Ofcourse you won't hear about settlements in religions that act as independent organizations as opposed to the way that all Roman Catholic Churches ultimately answer to the Vatican.
You should be more disturbed that the people who were molested by the 2% of other religious leaders have no voice in the media or that their molesters haven't been put to public shame.
Stating that the Roman Catholic Church is not a religion is ignorance. So is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is not sincere. As beautiful as the Latin Rite is, aren't more people able to comprehend the meaning of the Mass if it is in their own language? Where you fault is the same as where the media faults. You aren't interested in the way that the Catholic Church follows and teaches the Word of God, you are only interested in the scandals and Public Affairs. As much as you want to see the Pope as a CEO of a Corporation, he is not. He is pious and humble and completely grasps the fundamentals of Christianity. If you want to truly know, try reading one of his many books. You will find that business and politics as they relate to the secular world are definitely not his calling.
The big print giveth, and the fine print taketh away.
Fulton J. Sheen
Well
April 20, 2008 - 13:44 ET by LonevoiceWell Said!!!
If it ain't a baby, you ain't pregnant...
Please Fulton!
April 20, 2008 - 13:48 ET by jefflebowskiYou're intitled to your opinions as am I. And, for the record, I am concerned with any child molestation. But, oddly, I don't seem to hear about the 2% of other denominations that you reference several times committing these atrocities. And, for sure, if they do happen, they don't seem to have cover from the very top of the organization. By the way, is Cardinal Law still in Italy?? The last Pope sure had odd timing of pulling him out of the US.
I don't believe that any church should talk politics from the pulpit. IMHO they should encourage their congregations to be more like Christ. And, also, I consider most of the evangelical leaders in the same boat as the Catholic churches. For their leaders, it is a job. For many of the evangelicals, it is a well paying job. Would they do it for free out of love for their saviour??
I have a real problem with organized religion meddling into political arenas. The Pope's words to Americans about illegal immigration and the death penalty, basically telling the UN he misses the Soviet Union smells of typical Euroweenie philosophy and not a man of God.
I'm sure you are a good person and obviously have strong beliefs in your church. I'm glad for you. But to hide behind the "all of the other churches do it, so don't jump on Catholics" is pretty lame.
God bless!
that's maryerin not
April 20, 2008 - 13:53 ET by botgthat's maryerin not fulton.
also i have a problem with people who attempt to censor individuals from speaking to the social-political issues of the the day simply because they have a christian worldview.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Like I said, your opinion
April 20, 2008 - 14:18 ET by jefflebowskiWell maybe he should go into politics full time if he wants to give his world views on immigration, death penalty, etc. Like I said in my first post, his opinions are totally irrelevant to me. My opinion.
jeff
April 20, 2008 - 14:24 ET by botgyou mean like:
Isaiah?
Jeremiah?
Daniel?
Paul?
their writing are full of politics (to wit: "To the king of .....")
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
the Pope = biblical prophets?
April 20, 2008 - 14:42 ET by jefflebowskiSince the Pope claims no direct revelation from God like the prophets of old that you listed, I will take his words as they are...the liberal opinions of a European. Quite different from the biblical prophets who received direct revelation from above.
BOTG, we'll just have to disagree on this one. You keep on trying to live your life better and I'll try to do the same. Thanks
Jeff
Jeff
April 20, 2008 - 14:49 ET by botgHebrews 11-- these prophets are given as examples to all of us including the Pope.
If they address God's Word to politics so should we. We receive the Word differently (ie: by reading or hearing the Scripture) than they, what of it? (Actually Daniel writes that through study --reading Scripture-- he determined the lenght of the captivity)
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
† Come on botg
April 20, 2008 - 16:17 ET by Cool Arrow"including the pope" wasn't explicitly stipulated in Hebrews was it?
♣ a seal
√ that → it was not --
April 20, 2008 - 16:27 ET by botg√ that → it was not -- i don't believe God thought it needed for the lot of us who are able extrapolate such things. i thought to tell Jeff
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Actually, the Pope has
April 20, 2008 - 15:06 ET by maryerinActually, the Pope has direction from God.
The Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles at Pentecost. Catholics receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit at Confirmation. None of the Pope's stances are out of line with the teachings of Christ or the Ten Commandments. Although, they may be out of touch with you. God's word does not make concessions to our will.
The big print giveth, and the fine print taketh away.
Fulton J. Sheen
† maryerin
April 20, 2008 - 16:14 ET by Cool ArrowActually, the Pope has direction from God.
Actually, anyone who reads and believes the Bible has direction from God.
The Pope has more direction from God only to the extent he understands the Bible better than I. No more, no less.
♣ a seal
Maryerin, one last question
April 21, 2008 - 00:44 ET by jefflebowskiMary, do you agree with the Pope's comments on illegal immigration, the death penalty, on missing the Soviet Union? Do you feel that these are the words and messages that God wanted for us to hear??
Well
April 20, 2008 - 14:46 ET by maryerinWhat I stated were facts meant to enlighten you to the cold reality of abuse, not to excuse the sins commited by preists. Sorry that wasn't obvious enough. You had stated that you were creeped out by the scandal, I am surprised that you are so fast to cover up the truth when it refers possibly to your own faith. In truth the Pope has apologized for the mishandling of the manner time and time again, if you feel he lacks sincerity, that's your opinion.
Calling Pope Benedict a communist is more a reflection of your own willingness to misinterpret statements than his true belief in Communism. To think that the Pope would miss a form of government that tried to steal the faith of so many is absurd. Or did you know that Atheism and Communism go hand in hand? And as I said if you want to know the man and his faith, read his books.
I am sorry that you believe that Religion has no place in the public forum. I feel that when organized Relgion can help to spread morality and human rights, and infuse people with a real knowledge of human dignity, it definitley has a place in politics.
As an aside, I think you should read The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton. It's an autobiography, but you may find it useful.
The big print giveth, and the fine print taketh away.
Fulton J. Sheen
Never called the Pope a Communist
April 20, 2008 - 15:48 ET by jefflebowskiYou guys are great at twisting words. I called the Pope a liberal European. Listen guys, you're not going to win me over. My opinions on the Catholic church and other religions has been formed over years of experience. I have seen way to much with my own eyes. For you devout Catholics, I would recommend living in South America to see what goes on down there in the name of your religion. I did.
I'm not trying to change your beliefs, I only wished to express my opinion as is my right. But please quit twisting my words to strengthen your rather weak defenses of the Pope. Like the Bible says, by their fruits ye shall know them. Nobody has yet told me where Cardinal Law is? Still in Italy? Plans to visit Boston anytime?? Have a great day! I am!
† He's not a Communist
April 20, 2008 - 16:20 ET by Cool ArrowBut you, maryerin, present no "facts". You present your "beliefs"
♣ a seal
I agree with you northern...
April 20, 2008 - 11:47 ET by ncstevemto a certain extent. The Church has been in free fall since Vatican II and the new Mass promulgated in 1969.
However there are hopeful signs with the pope's permission for any priest to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass w/o needing the permission of the bishop. The Vatican II crowd is dying out and the traditional Catholics are a growing force in the Church. The happy-clappy Novus Ordo Mass will be religated to the dustbin of history in the next 25 - 50 years--right where it belongs.
I was born well after
April 20, 2008 - 13:58 ET by maryerinI was born well after Vatican II and I don't feel cheated that I was not raised in the Latin Rite nor am I any less Catholic because of it.
Personally, I feel that if you don't know how to practice your faith because of a change in the Mass, it's not the Church's fault. This is the failing of American Society. If we don't like the details we dismiss the entire thing.
Another thought is the change in American Society since 1969. I feel that the 'free love' generation has had more of a crippling affect on Religion than Vatican II. It has created a festering wasteland of personal inaccountability and egocentricism. Hedons have no time for understanding the full principles of their faith and instead want to change God's word to fit their agenda.
The big print giveth, and the fine print taketh away.
Fulton J. Sheen
Personally, I feel that if
April 20, 2008 - 14:07 ET by botgPersonally, I feel that if you don't know how to practice your faith because of a change in the Mass, it's not the Church's fault. This is the failing of American Society.
??? how is American society given the task of teaching individuals how to practice their faith???
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Personally, I feel that if
April 20, 2008 - 14:53 ET by maryerinPersonally, I feel that if you don't know how to practice your faith because of a change in the Mass, it's not the Church's fault. This is the failing of American Society: If we don't like the details we dismiss the entire thing.
I put a colon in it. Does that make it more clear? Sorry botg.
The big print giveth, and the fine print taketh away.
Fulton J. Sheen
so you are saying that the
April 20, 2008 - 15:05 ET by botgso you are saying that the individuals have allowed themselves an excuse? Is it not up to church via their apologetic to teach the individuals? I still say the mission is the church to go and make disciples by a continuance in His doctrine ("If you continue in my doctrine then are you my disciples indeed, and you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free") The society provides obstacles, but that has been true from the beginning.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
"The society provides
April 20, 2008 - 17:07 ET by Indiana Joe"The society provides obstacles, but that has been true from the beginning."
And churches are still teaching. I think maryerin's point is that the societal changes since the '60s have just made the mission more difficult. And yes, by "individuals... allow[ing] themselves an excuse."
I liked the Latin Mass as a kid. I was a little disappointed when they switched to English. But it's still the Mass and it's still the Eucharist. I must agree with what I think maryerin was saying: to denigrate or even boycott the Mass because of some changes in language or detail is a symptom of modern society's "my way or the highway" attitude.
I like tradition. The Latin Mass, traditional-style churches, statues and communion rails and pipe-organs, I love all that. But really, these aren't what the Mass is about, are they?
Indiana
April 20, 2008 - 17:51 ET by botgi am not big on liturgy and ritual. Some people are brought closer to God through such. Who am i to say their preference is wrong? I thought that maryerin's point was not that society had the burden to teach but was worded that way so was asking to be clear.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Actually, my points about
April 20, 2008 - 19:44 ET by Indiana JoeActually, my points about the tradition and ritual were more addressed to another post above. Someone mentioned (I believe) having dropped their RCC faith when the Latin Mass switched to English. I just kind of conjoined the two thoughts into one post.
Don't want to waste bandwidth, y'know. ;^)
† Maybe, botg
April 20, 2008 - 17:16 ET by Cool ArrowThe society provides obstacles
But the Church provides obstacles as well.
I don't see how birth control is evil. And it isn't the society that madates against it.
♣ a seal
re: birth control
April 20, 2008 - 17:45 ET by botganything not of faith 'misses the mark' (is sin)
the thought is to trust God.
the counter thought is God gives wisdom for a reason.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
† disagree botg
April 20, 2008 - 17:50 ET by Cool Arrowthat belief would contradict gun ownership rights.
Must one trust that God will not allow your home to be invaded?
I don't see birth control as a sin. But it is one of those issues Lay Catholics will seldom argue with any vigor.
I don't wonder why.
♣ a seal
→ i just give the rough
April 20, 2008 - 17:54 ET by botg→ i just give the rough logic. Try the KoC, i'm an evangelican, old creation, Augustinian, born-againer.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Cool: This is why the RCC
April 20, 2008 - 17:57 ET by QueenMumCool: This is why the RCC considers the use of birth control a sin:
Church teaching about birth control
I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.
Yes, QM
April 20, 2008 - 18:01 ET by Cool ArrowI remember the encyclical well, as well as the uproar that ensued.
I was a teen Catholic at the time.
♣ a seal
I am not steeped in the
April 20, 2008 - 14:48 ET by ricklailI am not steeped in the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church but I understand by kissing the pope's ring you are submitting yourself to his authority. I don't believe that he has anymore authority than I do but that is not the point. Pelsoi kissed the ring. Does that mean that she is going to now decry abortion, homosexuality, communism etc?
"A pharisee is hard on others and easy on himself, but a spiritual man is easy on others and hard on himself." A.W. Tozer (Pharisee=modern day liberal)
ricklail: I found myself
April 20, 2008 - 17:03 ET by QueenMumricklail: I found myself wondering if the Pope's ring burned Pelosi's lips. ;)
I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.
Man........it's a dreary
April 20, 2008 - 15:34 ET by BlazerMan........it's a dreary day with traning thunderstorm's and it's supposed to rain the next several day's. No racing today and I just realized NCAA and NFL football doesn't come on for several more month's and had to start breathing into a brown paper bag.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
I know what you mean. It
April 20, 2008 - 16:36 ET by ricklailI know what you mean. It will cloud up, thunder and lightning, rain and then clear up. Just north of here there are tornado warnings out. I watched a bit of the Nationwide Series race from Mexico City. Kinda of boring. Watched a little of the Braves-Dodgers. Love the Dodgers-can't stand the Braves. A lest next weekend there will be a race and the NFL draft. The draft is more exciting to me than the NBA playoffs.
"A pharisee is hard on others and easy on himself, but a spiritual man is easy on others and hard on himself." A.W. Tozer (Pharisee=modern day liberal)
yep, we just recieved a
April 20, 2008 - 16:43 ET by Blazeryep, we just recieved a Tornado Warning just north of here, we must live close. At any rate racing and f-ball are my sport's. I love to play baseball and basketball but dont' care to watch them.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
I'm in Vanceboro, NC. The
April 20, 2008 - 16:50 ET by ricklailI'm in Vanceboro, NC. The tornado warning is for Beaufort County around Washington and Chowinity. I thought you lived in Gator country north of Miami.
"A pharisee is hard on others and easy on himself, but a spiritual man is easy on others and hard on himself." A.W. Tozer (Pharisee=modern day liberal)
That would be me, Rick
April 20, 2008 - 17:03 ET by BlondeWarm, sunny, partly cloudy & about 85 today.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Nope rick, I'm in Henrico
April 20, 2008 - 18:02 ET by BlazerNope rick, I'm in Henrico County outside of RIC, Va. We have had two T-warnings so far, to the east and north, but very close.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
The Pope's visit is an
April 20, 2008 - 17:00 ET by QueenMumThe Pope's visit is an opportunity for Catholics and all Christians to join in prayer for our country. I'm a firm believer in the power of prayer. I believe that the heartfelt prayers of so many, led by the Holy Father, will bring many blessings. Not everyone may recognize the work of the Holy Spirit. But those who do, will be encouraged.
And at this moment in time, what a contrast between Pope Benedict and the likes of Jeremiah Wright. The Vatican is not in full agreement with American foreign policy. But Benedict still calls for God to bless America.
I'm saddened by the comments of those who are disenchanted or disgruntled former Catholics. The Catholic faith is one of great beauty and spiritual power. As one who's been on both sides of the aisle (so to speak), I don't understand this angst. Most often those who harbor these ongoing negative feelings are those who have found themselves outside the will of God and blame the Church for upholding God's will. Someone who may have suffered abuse by the clergy has every right to harbor this angst. But those who hold the Church responsible for their own disobedience get no sympathy from me. The Catholic faith is one which upholds and honors the Word of God and remains steadfast in its devotion to its history and traditions. Those who would turn their backs on the faith due to disagreement with Vatican II choose to disavow the authority of the Church. And those who would disavow this authority cannot honestly call themselves Catholics. JMO
I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.
† Good point mum
April 20, 2008 - 17:10 ET by Cool ArrowBut aren't there those things that are hard to accept?
As an older person, it's easy for me to say the younger generation is going to Hell if they use birth control.
But do I, or the pope for that matter, have explicit word from God that this condemnation is so?
♣ a seal
Cool One: Let's see if I
April 20, 2008 - 17:37 ET by QueenMumCool One: Let's see if I understand what you're asking. The Catholic Church upholds that life begins at conception. The CC also believes in forgiveness of sin. Thus, one cannot say that the Church teaches that the younger generation are all going to hell. But that does seem to be the point of view of those Christians who condemn the CC for relying on both the Bible and tradition.
I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.
† QM
April 20, 2008 - 17:44 ET by Cool ArrowLet's take a married Catholic couple who engage in protected sex fall to sleep without making a perfect act of contrition. A fire envelopes their home and they die of smoke inhalation, never regaining consciousness.
The Church teaching is unmistakeable here. They died in Mortal Sin and cannot en ter Heaven.
If there is new revelation on this scenario, somebody is bending the definition of sin to fit the times.
But I submit the definition of "dying in a state of Mortal Sin" still applies.
♣ a seal
Cool One: Your scenario is
April 20, 2008 - 17:51 ET by QueenMumCool One: Your scenario is accurate, according to the teaching of the CC. "They died in Mortal Sin and cannot enter Heaven."
I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.
† Thanks QM
April 20, 2008 - 17:57 ET by Cool ArrowI know the teaching, but I disagree with it.
Also disagree with Onanism and oral sex as Mortal sins within marriage.
♣ a seal
Cool
April 20, 2008 - 19:26 ET by Free StinkerCool, per your second point, Song of Solomon 2:3 seems to agree
free
April 21, 2008 - 00:27 ET by botgthe poetic nature of the verse makes a strict literal interpretation differcult to defend. You might try here
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
→ Right botg
April 21, 2008 - 00:42 ET by Cool ArrowBut since there's so much tradition to override anything like Scripture . .
No apologies for that. It's exactly how I interpret the inconsistency.
♣ a seal
QueenMum: Sorry to jump
April 23, 2008 - 19:04 ET by JerQueenMum: Sorry to jump in here, but I am curious about this. [Even though my wife is Catholic, my familiarity with the various tenets of Catholicism is superficial at best.]
I find the scenario set forth by Cool and its consequences to be, simply stated, "just not right". Do you agree with it? Do most Catholics? Does the nonacceptance of the belief make one a "cafeteria Catholic" and insufficiently devout?
I respect your opinion. Will you share it regarding this issue?
Jer
60 MINUTES ???
April 20, 2008 - 19:21 ET by Cool ArrowWhat's up with this?
60 MINUTES is doing a respectful story on fighting in Afghanistan.
♣ a seal
→ Is he gone yet
April 21, 2008 - 00:18 ET by Cool ArrowI thought I'd travel in cognito while the pope was in town.
♣ a seal
All clear, Cool.
April 23, 2008 - 19:11 ET by JerAll clear, Cool. You can ditch the yamakah and fake beard.
Jer
The irony of leftist Hillary haters.
April 21, 2008 - 03:38 ET by Parker1227They now say they believe almost all of the republican criticisms of the Clintons from the impeachment days.
But they circled wagons against the hated republicans - even though they knew how corrupt a White house it really was.
The irony being that if they had helped the republicans dump Bill and Hill, then Gore would have had real presidential experience and would have very likely beaten Bush.
Driven by hate instead of reason, the left always knows what it doesn't like, but spends precious little time reasoning out what really makes sense (if anything) as the "instead of"...
Thus, they nuke Hillary and get a McGovernite in Obama instead.
Pass the popcorn.
Curing a Headache with a Hammer (Amok Government)
April 21, 2008 - 09:16 ET by BritcomSource: WorldNetDaily/Vox Day
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
Britcom: In light of the
April 21, 2008 - 14:25 ET by QueenMumBritcom: In light of the facts behind what goes on in this sect, your tirade agains the American government is a bit premature and certainly naive. I will admit that at first I felt much the same as you. However, once I listened to the stories of women who have lived within these polygamist communities and heard about the "doctrine" of their various "religious" leaders, I quickly changed my mind. There is really no central authority overall. The majority of these sects are splinter groups and the self-proclaimed "prophet" of each group makes their own rules. These sects routinely violate a number of U.S. laws, polygamy being just the beginning. There is much more going on in this sect than is currently being covered by the media, likely due to legal restrictions. The children are not the sole victims. In fact, I'd say it's the women who are the primary victims. Young boys are run out of the sect in order that the elders are the ones who impregnate most of the women. Lost Boys (If you are skeptical of a Wikipedia article, you'll find many other references online re: this aspect.) Women are nothing more than sex slaves - being expected to produce a baby a year. Furthermore, the groups routinely provide false information on birth certificates so that the women can collect welfare and food stamps, since there are really too many women and children for the few men to support. There is a high rate of suicide among the women because of the high expectations put on them by their prophets and the complications of living in a polygamous relationship where a woman has much in the way of duties and responsibilities, but very little in the way of love and support from her husband.
This isn't just about religious freedom. It's about our society caring for and about women and children who are being abused. America cannot allow any and all religious practices if those practices violate our laws and endanger the well-being of those who are trapped in such circumstances. Should we also honor the religious practices of someone who might decide that human sacrifice is a legitimate religious rite.? I believe we find ourselves in a difficult position with this sect. But I think that time will prove that the authorities did the right thing.
Finally, in response to: "The concept appears nowhere in any
constitution, and the very idea that the most lethal institution in
human history, an institution that has killed more children than any other, can even be used to protect children is inherently oxymoronic."
The Constitution gives States the right to make laws to govern the people. The idea that if a particular statute isn't specifically outlined in the Constitution it shouldn't exist is a canard that demonstrates ignorance of the Constitution, IMO. For that matter, I believe the Preamble covers this "concept" to which you refer:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And your statement re: "an institution that has killed more children ... etc.", doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.
I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.
QueenMum
April 22, 2008 - 00:22 ET by BritcomThe article was written by Vox Day (as sourced below it and linked to) it is not my work.
However, I do agree with its general thrust which is that it is a mistake for government to interfere in family matters unless and until an indictment has been handed down based on lawfully gathered evidence. What has happened in this case , regardless of what the outcome is, is that a government has (once again) seized an entire town and declared them guilty until proven innocent. While this action so far pales in comparison to the atrocity of the Waco massacre, Waco is not the standard, the Constitution is, and here we have an example of collective punishment and kidnapping under color of protecting the children from something that no jury has looked at.
Children belong to their parents, not to the government and if government wants to seize children from parents, there is a grand jury system for that purpose and that appears to have been either ignored or perverted. Where is the evidence? Where are the witnesses? Third-party hearsay, as many have used to suppose guilt on these people, is not admissible and for good reason. In this country we prosecute individuals for their individual crimes. We don't prosecute groups and assign collective blame and collective punishment.
I don't see and difference between this ill conceived raid than if the government were to surround Fargo ND or Dover DE, and seize everyone's children because one or two of the teens might have been having sex with an older man. The right way to operate is to identify the victim, the suspect, the witnesses, and the evidence without infringing the constitutional rights of the citizens who live there.
What appears to have happened is that an anonymous caller from out of state posing as a child in the town made a crank call to 911. This precipitated an unlawful raid and fishing expedition of the entire town's homes looking for evidence to support the allegation, which they still have not found.
But now they claim that there were "other crimes" that they now plan to prosecute which were not known until after the fishing began which will likely all be thrown out of court because the raids were illegal and any evidence found would be inadmissible. So even if there were crimes committed, the police likely blew there chance at prosecuting anyone for them. Now comes word that the fishing expedition continues to collecting the DNA of the entire town's people. What happened to the Constitution's protection against unreasonable search and siezure? I would not be surprised if every girl in the town from 4-18 has been forced to undergo a gynecological examination with a rape kit. For a child, that in itself is practically molestation. These children are probably all in shock from the trauma. To them it must be like being invaded and raped by enemy soldiers. How horrific it must be for the small children to look and look and not see their mother or father coming to protect them from the probing strangers from the government who each are operating under the unlawful assumption that their parents are guilty of a crime without a trial. Are we not treating these odd but still American people like the Nazis treated their Jews?
I think this town and its people were hated for rejecting modern culture and dress. What's next, are we going to round up all the Amish children and claim that because they don't have TV and IPods that they are all victims of abuse? Preposterous.
People who claim that polygamy is wrong or abusive should look at the polygamous society we live in today, were unmarried women have multiple children from different fathers and others marry three, four, or five times. The fact that technically they weren't "officially" married to more than one person at a time, is just that, a technicality. Society has been teaching young people that as long as you don't get married, you can sleep with hundreds of people, even some of them in the same bed, have multiple illegitimate babies, and live off welfare or prostitution. Is that not polygamy? Tell me again what we are prosecuting these Mormons for? Oh, supposedly there are children who are underage having sex. So this doesn't happen outside the sect? Oh, I see, it is somehow different if the girl has sex with another teen, instead of someone over 21. If you want to say sex is bad until a person is of major age, then you have to prosecute teens too, but no, we are teaching our teens and even pre-teens everything there is to know about sex, and sodomy, and homosexuality in the public schools.
Okay, now tell me again how teens getting married is abuse? Oh, they might get pregnant? Please, unwed teen motherhood is an epidemic outside the sect. We tell them they should get married right? What if the father is much older? Still want those unwed teens to get married? No? Oh it's different if there is an age difference, right? So that kind of bigotry is okay then? Right? So why don't we have a law against 18 year olds marrying 60 year olds? And why is it that most states age of concent for sex is 16 for girls? The more you look at these sex laws, the stupider they get, it's like they were written by the Keystone Cops. People go to jail and have their lives ruined because of these sex laws. The precedent is now set. Your children can be taken at the drop of a hat if the government doesn't like you. Does the government like you? I am a Christian white male, I know the government doesn't like me. I don't plan on having any more kids because there is no where safe left to raise them.
Polygamy may be bad for those who live with it, but this witchhunt that has insued is far worse. We are all it's victims.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
Britcom: You seem to have
April 22, 2008 - 12:39 ET by QueenMumBritcom: You seem to have ignored reports that there has been an informer in the sect for 4 years. Not certain if said informer was state or federal.
I suspect that the enormity of the case is what makes it seem so unpalatable. In cases where you are dealing with a single family, it's much easier to determine the truth. In this case you have a well-established pattern within the community of shifting mothers and children from father to father as well as instructions from the "prophet" to lie to authorities in order to avoid the charge of polygamy. This is not a matter of simply targeting a group of people because they dress or behave differently or have unusual religious beliefs. And to call them Mormons is to misrepresent who they really are. They are people who have determined that they wish to continue in the practice of polygamy despite the fact that the LDS Church has banned the practice and that it is illegal. The ways of this FLDS sect have very little in common with the LDS Church. Would you also have defended the likes of Jim Jones - who claimed to be a Christian leader, and decided that it was God's will that his flock be forced to commit mass suicide? If you were given information that convinced you that this was going to take place, would you have tried to remove the children? Or would you have left them alone in the name of freedom of religion or for fear that you might be interfering with their "normal" family life?
As far as your comparison to illegitimate births in the mainstream of our society, the difference relates to whether or not a teen is pregnant due to poor judgment or whether a teen is pregnant because an adult male has determined that it is her duty. There is really no comparison with the trend of young women to have multiple children by multiple fathers; although, the burden on society is similar. Often, having multiple children with multiple fathers is a means of earning income by way of collecting child support or welfare. However, most often this a matter of choice in the case of these young women. This case has nothing to do with attitudes toward sexual behavior in general. In the mainstream, an adult male who impregnates a young girl who is considered below the age of consent or who does so by force, is guilty of rape. Would you have such laws taken off the books? Do you think it lawful that if the mother of such a young girl agrees to the act, it is no longer a crime? This is what goes on in these FLDS sects. Girls as young as 13 are compelled to "marry" whomever wishes to have them. Most often the male partner is an adult male who has authority in the sect by virtue of his position as a "prophet". Seems to me that women have been sent to prison for aiding and abetting the rape of their minor daughters. This is the law in the U.S.A. And the law is established to protect minor children. I find it difficult to understand how you can "fear for your children" in this regard in a country that cares enough about them to establish such laws.
Unless you give others reason to be concerned that your children are being abused, you have nothing to fear. I will concede that mistakes do happen within the CPS system. And that sometimes false charges are brought forward. However, I think it better to err on the side of the welfare of the children. I don't believe that the officials in the State of Texas would have taken on such a massive case - knowing full well that it would be carefully scrutinized by the media, the American people, and the ACLU - unless they had concrete evidence. Again, I urge you to do some research regarding what's going on in these sects. It's not simply a matter of one man having several wives and all else is equal. The leaders of such sects are fully aware of the laws. They establish "doctrines" which are specifically designed to protect them from legal scrutiny - mainly by means of subjugating the women to the degree that they fear protecting their own children.
You sound much like the leaders of this sect, Britcom. They also teach their flocks that the government is evil. They teach that disobeying the U.S. government is ordered by God and therefore it is acceptable to lie about your marital status or how your children are being treated. And since the government is evil, it's also acceptable to take food stamps and welfare payments. They call it "bleeding the beast". How conveeeeee...nient!
I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.
"Family Law" is a ravenous beast that seeks to devour.
April 23, 2008 - 02:45 ET by BritcomEven though your reply is replete with sexist views, I will attempt to answer your comments.
I don't defend any sect of Mormonism or their teachings, I am well acquainted with them and I am one of very few non-Mormons who have been invited to see the inside of one of their temples and what goes on there.
My overriding concern is the law and its unbiased application. It is clear that these people have been victims of prejudice and religious bias, and even though I believe their religion to be apostate, the constitution protects them from religious discrimination the same as it protects me from the same kind of discrimination. That protection is paramount and must be defended. If it were not, these sort of pogroms would have been commonplace in our history.
Now that we see the constitution being ignored in favor of "family law", it is clear what must happen. The constitution must prevail and the laws brought in line with it's requirements. Religious discrimination in the law and in the justice system is unacceptable bigotry whether the target be Christians, Mormons or Jews. Think of the outrage if the Texas Rangers had raided an Ultra-orthodox Jewish settlement accusing Jewish parents of child abuse for circumcising their own children. Would you say that Texas authorities should be allowed to "protect" (seize) Jewish children and prosecute Jewish parents for circumcising their own children? Do you fault the mothers of these children for standing by and allowing it to happen? This sort of thing is exactly why our founding fathers were wise to bar government from making any laws that infringe on the free exercise of religion. They knew the consequences of opening such a Pandora's box; they knew that many settlers here had fled state sponsored religious persecution in Europe and had come here for the promise that such a thing would never happen in America; and they knew that if it ever did happen here, the ensuing chaos would fragment and divide the nation.
Now it falls to us to protect our constitution, or let the state place its authority above our constitution and begin to explore the unbounded province of a tyranny over us.
If I some how knew that a mass suicide were going to take place, I don't know how I could know such a thing, but if I did, I would expect that my evidence for such a thing would be brought before a grand jury and let them decide if an indictment should be brought against any individuals. Jones and his cult fled to Guiana to avoid US government interference in his religion but the experience left him paranoid that the US Government was still after him and that was a factor in the mass suicide. Even if we had known that he planned to commit mass suicide there is little that could have been done since they were in another country with different laws at the time.
The criminalization of sex has been a disaster. The laws need to be scrapped and start over.
Government is a beast that is only benevolent while it is securely chained and guarded.
I believe this beast has slipped free of its shackles, that is why I fear for the safety of my children's future.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
Just to be fair lets bust these folk too..
April 23, 2008 - 03:12 ET by upcountrywatercottage industry
Bigger government or smaller?
<gaia/love>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Britcom re: FLDS
April 23, 2008 - 17:31 ET by QueenMum"My overriding concern is the law and its unbiased application. It is clear that these people have been victims of prejudice and religious bias, and even though I believe their religion to be apostate, the constitution protects them from religious discrimination the same as it protects me from the same kind of discrimination. That protection is paramount and must be defended. If it were not, these sort of pogroms would have been commonplace in our history."
Get a clue, Britcom. This case is NOT about religious persecution or discrimination. It's about alleged criminal behavior, including polygamy, unlawful transport of minors across state lines and child abuse, not to mention certain misdealings involving the sect's financing. You've demonstrated that you are basically ignorant of the facts of this case and are relying on broad generalizations. You seem to be basing your opinion on your own personal bias against the U.S. and State governments rather than on the merits of this particular case. There is currently no information available to the public re: items seized from the ranch, the formal charges, or possible indictments. The primary focus at this point in time is on the identification and safe placement of the children.
The local newspapers in the States of Texas and Utah provide a good deal more information than what you seem to have gleaned from the MsM and likely your favorite libertarian websites - much of which is based on rumors, speculation, and misinformation. For the most part, the good citizens of the States of Texas, Colorado, and Utah seem to agree that this action was long overdue. Not all cases fit into your government conspiracy box.
But of course, one can never pin down a conspiracist because they always claim conspiracy in lieu of accepting the facts.
Re: Jim Jones - "I don't know how I could know such a thing, but if I did, I would expect that my evidence for such a thing would be brought before a grand jury and let them decide if an indictment should be brought against any individuals. Jones and his cult fled to Guiana to avoid US government interference in his religion but the experience left him paranoid that the US Government was still after him and that was a factor in the mass suicide. Even if we had known that he planned to commit mass suicide there is little that could have been done since they were in another country with different laws at the time."
You've avoided the question. The question was would you intervene on behalf of the children. Would you accept the State removing the children if the State had clear evidence that the children were in imminent danger? It has nothing to do with where Jim Jones was at the time. Of course I know that the U.S. authorities had no jurisdiction. But let's say the Jones cult was living in Texas at the time. A cult member who decides that mass suicide is not quite his/her idea of a way to get to Heaven, is able to leave and notifies authorities. I suspect that even in such a case, you would leave the children where they were in hopes that nothing happened before the State was able to hand down indictments. And of course, in the meantime should the cult leader go forward with his plans, you would blame the State for not preventing the deaths. Or would you? Perhaps you would be perfectly willing to state that you were satisfied that the State did not violate the cult's religious rights, despite the fact that many of the cult members were forced to participate and that the children had no choice at all. Does freedom of religion in such a case effectively override the personal right to life and liberty? Does the leader of any so-called "religious group" have the right or authority to demand the life of its members?
Finally, your comment suggesting that the U.S. government somehow bears some responsibility for Jonestown because Jones was paranoid pretty much sums up where your head is located.
I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.
American Justice - Updated!
April 23, 2008 - 21:59 ET by BritcomPerhaps the local papers are providing more facts than the MSM. So far I have seen no evidence that a crime was committed by any of the sect members and I have seen no statements by witnesses that any crimes have been committed. All I see is that the State raided a town and kidnapped nearly all of its children and won't let the mothers have their children back. The reasons given for this are all based on supposition (rather than fact), and testimony of "witnesses" who never saw anything illegal take place. On the strength of this, a raid was conducted ostensibly in the hopes of finding some scrap of evidence the support the States decision to raid.
As of yet no child abuse has been shown, no witnesses to child abuse have come forward, no prior victims of child abuse have come forward. Were is the crime? Where is the victim. Even if there were a crime and a victim, surely not every child is a victim, and not every parent a perpetrator. This town's people have been ruled guilty until proven innocent and they have all lost their kids before the government has gotten a conviction of even one crime. If tha