Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Pope Has Entered the Building
The Vicar of Christ on Earth, also known as Pope Benedict XVI, is in the U.S. and just had a big meeting with President Bush. Thus sayeth
"From the dawn of the republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the creator."
Is Benedict the anti-pope or an anti-climax?
Benedict condemns just about everything.
But especially "the dictatorship of relativism."
I think the former Hitler Youth member is wrong about U.S. history.
Do Hit & Runners care about the pope?
classwarrior|4.16.08 @ 12:02PM|#
Not really, but your reference to his Hitler Youth membership is a really cheap shot, as if someone of his age could really say no in the worst totalitarian state in history.
lunchstealer|4.16.08 @ 12:04PM|#
"From the dawn of the republic, America's quest for freedom
has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing
political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order
based on the dominion of God the creator."
The pope then continued, "It is with great reluctance that I have
agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. The
powers you give me I will lay down when this crisis has be abated!
My first act, with this new authority, is to create a Grand Army of
the Republic, to counter the increasing threat of the
Separatists."
Episiarch|4.16.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Not. At. All.
However, the Vatican is really pretty neat as a tourist attraction
and it is entertaining if the pope does one of his balcony
appearances while you are there.
|4.16.08 @ 12:07PM|#
The wikipedia entry regarding the Pope's youth,
Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled
in the Hitler Youth - membership being legally required after
December 1939[5] (though 10-20% did disobey the rule)[6] - but was
an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings.[7] His
father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with
the Catholic faith.[citation needed] In 1941, one of Ratzinger's
cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was killed by the
Nazi regime in its campaign of eugenics.[8] In 1943 while still in
seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft
corps. Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a
subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military
duty. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he
deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had
ceased to exist, just as American troops established their
headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he
was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the
end of the War in summer 1945. He reentered the seminary, along
with his brother Georg, in November of that year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI
It sounds to me like he was an innocent child caught up in Nazi
Germany and did at least a credible job of keeping his moral
bearing in a pretty insane situation. I guess he could have at 14
disobeyed the law and not joined the organization or refused entry
in the service and gotten himself shot. As Richard Pryor once said
about the Nazis, "those boys didn't play."
Nick, I think given the actual circumstances surrounding his
membership calling the Pope "former Hitler Youth Member" while
technically accurate, is a pretty cheap shot and one that ought to
be beneath you. That is all and all pretty disappointing on your
part.
BakedPenguin|4.16.08 @ 12:11PM|#
...as if someone of his age could really say no in the worst totalitarian state in history.
What do you mean? Membership in the Catholic church has been
voluntary for a while now.
Neil|4.16.08 @ 12:13PM|#
The Pope may be wrong about the Iraq War but hes right about
American history.
The Founding Fathers were all Christian men, who based this nation
on strict Judeo-Christian values and morality.
|4.16.08 @ 12:13PM|#
No Epi I am not. My wife is but I have too many problems with the pope and with women not being Priests to ever join the church. I am actually a pretty militant Protestant when it comes to the authority of the Bishop of Rome over Christendom. But I know a cheap shot when I see one.
lunchstealer|4.16.08 @ 12:13PM|#
More seriously, insofar as he has a great deal of influence over
a fairly large portion of the population, I'd certainly be happy if
he'd alter a few of his views to match up more with mine. I
wouldn't mind a few speeches on the right of an individual to make
choices about their own reproduction. I wouldn't mind a few
speeches on how imposing our will on others is not really what
Jesus was all about.
But ultimately, except insofar as his actions have effects on
others, I don't much care about him. I certainly don't revere him
specifically.
And damn if he doesn't look like Emperor Palpatine, although I see
he's taken to putting some makeup over those bags, which helps
considerably.
|4.16.08 @ 12:17PM|#
"I wouldn't mind a few speeches on how imposing our will on
others is not really what Jesus was all about."
I don't think he has ever said that. He was right not to endorse
the Iraq war. No pope should ever endorse a war no matter how
justified. That is not his job and the times Popes have gotten into
that arena it has only served to cheapen the office and the
religion in general. He calls for a set of universal human rights
and calls on people to convert to Christianity. He is the Pope. I
wouldn't expect him to call on people to do their own thing. As far
as Jesus goes, he called on people to follow him, not follow
whatever their local culture told them to.
|4.16.08 @ 12:18PM|#
I wouldn't mind a few speeches on how imposing our will on
others is not really what Jesus was all about.
He's actually said some pretty libertarian things about how the
state is not really the answer to most of our problems, and how
what we need is more civil society, people voluntarily looking
after each other, that kind of thing.
|4.16.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Do Hit & Runners care about the pope?
I'm a former alter boy, confimed Roman Catholic at ~age 12. In that
what he says affects many peoples thinking and behaviour, I care
about the pope. For MY moral and spirituasl guidance I
could not give a rat's ass about his "infallible" opinions.
Rebop|4.16.08 @ 12:30PM|#
What does "infallible" mean in the context of the Pope? Does anyone here know?
Drew|4.16.08 @ 12:31PM|#
The Founding Fathers were all Christian men, who based this
nation on strict Judeo-Christian values and morality.
Oh really?
Thomas Jefferson was an atheist
John Adams was a wishy-washy Unitarian
I could go on, but I'm at work.
Only 2 of the 10 Commandments are law in the United States.
A Judeo-Christian foundation indeed.
Neil|4.16.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Repop Im not a Catholic but I beleive it means that he can never be wrong about matters relating to religion.
Dr Strangelove|4.16.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Do Hit & Runners care about the pope?
Nein, mein Fuehrer.
I mean, no, no I don't.
Neil|4.16.08 @ 12:33PM|#
"Thomas Jefferson was an atheist"
Yeah but he converted on his deathbed.
"John Adams was a wishy-washy Unitarian"
He still belived in Christ and Judeo-Christian foundations, he was
an avid reader of the Bible.
Washington proclaimed national days of prayer.
Neil|4.16.08 @ 12:34PM|#
I dunno if Jefferson was ever actually an atheist, either, I think he always believed in the Judeo-Christian God if not in Jesus (his works are often replete with references to God).
|4.16.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Rebop,
The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that
"the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in
the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians
he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a
doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is,
by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed
Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine
Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of
faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the
Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and
not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old
no. 1680)."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
It is pretty much why I am not a Catholic. It is basiclly the idea
that God spoke to Peter, Peter was the Bishop of Rome and Peter was
since God was speaking through him infallable, therefore all future
Bishops of Rome are infalable as well. No one but the Catholic
Church buys it. The Orthadox and Syrians and Eastern Right and
Armenian Churches never bought it. Later of course the Protestants
didn't buy it.
|4.16.08 @ 12:37PM|#
I always read that Jefferson was a diest who beleived in a universal God somewhat similiar to Aristotle's "prime mover". I have never heard that he was an athiest.
Rebop|4.16.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Ok. I get it. But why should so many of these comments be so rude simply because this guy believes what his religion teaches. It would seem kind of silly to to choose a religion you didn't think was right? So if he believes it and proclaims it, let him.
Drew|4.16.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Neil,
Your personal religious beliefs aside, our country was founded on
principles of the Enlightenment, not the Bible. Those principles
are almost entirely contradictory to those espoused in the Bible.
We don't stone adulterers and gays, and neither did the
Founders.
D.A. Ridgely|4.16.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Benedict condemns just about everything.
I need new glasses. I first read that as "Benedict condoms
just about everything" and thought "Wow, that is
news!"
javier|4.16.08 @ 12:41PM|#
fuck the pope.
the pope, monarchs and emperors are all relics of a world gone by.
they should just not exist for the betterment of mankind.
|4.16.08 @ 12:43PM|#
"Ok. I get it. But why should so many of these comments be so
rude simply because this guy believes what his religion teaches. It
would seem kind of silly to to choose a religion you didn't think
was right? So if he believes it and proclaims it, let him."
Because Gillespie is kind of jerk that is why. I don't agree with
the Pope about a lot of things and do not think he is infallible
but referring to him as a "former Hitler Youth member" is just
juvenile and chickenshit.
|4.16.08 @ 12:47PM|#
"We don't stone adulterers and gays, and neither did the
Founders."
Neither does Christianity nor any Jew living more recently than the
1st Century AD.
D.A. Ridgely|4.16.08 @ 12:48PM|#
I don't agree with the Pope about a lot of things and do not
think he is infallible but referring to him as a "former Hitler
Youth member" is just juvenile and chickenshit.
True. In fairness, the man is really too old to still be a member
of the Hitler Youth, isn't he?
|4.16.08 @ 12:53PM|#
DA,
See the wikipedia entry I cited above. He was a member at 14 in
1940 because he was required by law to be a member but he refused
to go to any meetings. He later was drafted but was too physically
weak to do much and ended up deserting and being a allied POW at
the end of the war. To have not joined the organization would have
resulted in him being arrested. To have refused entry into the
military that late in the war would have resulted in his being
shot. The Nazis shot lots of young men for refusing entry into the
service. I guess you can fault the guy for not being a hero and
standing up to the Nazis at 14 and risking certain death, but I
certainly can't say I would have had those kind of stones and I
doubt Gillespie can either.
Franklin Harris|4.16.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Do Hit & Runners care about the pope?
I like to Photoshop him into Emperor Palpatine.
|4.16.08 @ 12:55PM|#
The only good thing that Pope Benedict has given me was a chuckle whilst wearing this getup. Like the Grinch who stole Christmas.
|4.16.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Only 2 of the 10 Commandments are law in the United
States.
3, actually - (thou shalt not) kill, steal, and bear false
witness
|4.16.08 @ 12:57PM|#
The Pope may be wrong about the Iraq War
Sounds like an Islamofascist appeaser to me.
ed|4.16.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Progress: hang last king with entrails of last priest (or vice versa), rinse, repeat.
|4.16.08 @ 1:07PM|#
A statement by the pope has to meet several criteria before the infallibility doctrine may be applicable. It has to be a statement solely regarding faith and/or morals, it has to be intended for dissemination to the whole Church, and it has to satisfy other criteria. The great majority of religious statements by the pope are NOT infallible according to the doctrine.
Elemenope|4.16.08 @ 1:07PM|#
What does "infallible" mean in the context of the Pope? Does
anyone here know?
Yes.
Oh! I though there was a point attached. I suppose not.
Elemenope|4.16.08 @ 1:08PM|#
hang last king with entrails of last priest (or vice versa),
rinse, repeat.
Given the beginning of the text, I'm a little fuzzy on the meaning
of the terms in bold.
|4.16.08 @ 1:11PM|#
"From the dawn of the republic, America's quest for freedom
has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing
political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order
based on the dominion of God the creator."
Heh, typical Roman statement...he says nothing really, but it
sounds like he's saying something he's not. He's not saying that
the political system is based on religion, but rather that it's
based on moral principles that were originally linked to religious
beliefs. I don't think one could seriously argue against that
idea.
|4.16.08 @ 1:14PM|#
So, when JP2 said that the death penalty is outdated and not really necessary for governments to use, he was NOT making a faith or morals statement, but an economic and sociological statement. Thus he was NOT infallible in his teaching on the death penalty, contrary to what many selectively-pious Catholic liberals argue.
lunchstealer|4.16.08 @ 1:16PM|#
John, I wasn't necessarily offering my interpretation of Jesus'
teachings, so much as 'hey, if I say anything as Pope, what would I
say to have a positive influence in the world?" And from my
perspective, telling people to lay off with the "You aren't living
your life well enough so you need to live the way I tell you to
live" would be a good thing.
My understanding of what's actually in the bible has been so
confunded by contradictory statements between my own Presbyterian
upbringing, the dominant Baptists around me as I grew up, the
crazed ramblings of Dr. Gene Scott at 3AM ("Urhmumblemumble - Look
at the horses!") and the 'Understanding Christian Faith" course I
took in college (which I was able to determine was an excuse for
the prof to say that everything but Christianity was a primitive
religion, but should otherwise have been called "Obfuscating
Christian Faith - (non-Perl curriculum"), so I've more-or-less
given up having a clear understanding of what actually is Jesus'
teachings, and what are insane ramblings. The original text is
awfully dense, and ends up sounding like it was written especially
for Jacques Derrida or Stanley Fish.
Regarding the commandments currently enacted in law, a couple
(respect your parents, bear false witness, and adultery) have some
standing in certain official circumstances, such as parental
custody, perjury, slander/libel, and obstruction of justice, and
divorce, but the only ones which are basically written into law,
wholesale, are kill and steal.
Unless you're under oath or talking to police/FBI, lying will only
get you a civil suit. Cheating on your spouse only gets you into
trouble if they file for divorce, and then only sometimes. Not
obeying your mother and father has no specific criminal or civil
penalties, but they have legal authority over you until you reach
the age of majority.
So yeah, 2 fully implemented, 3 more partly implemented, I'd say
this is about a 40% Judeo-Christian nation, tops.
|4.16.08 @ 1:20PM|#
By and large, the founding fathers were deists, accepting the
"philosophy" of Christ. When George Washington attended an
Episcopalian Church, he left before communion. When the minister
criticised him for doing so, he stopped coming to church. Jefferson
edited the Bible, taking out the parts that were "wrong."
At the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin suggested that
they start each session with a prayer. They decided they didn't
need divine guidance. The Constitution itself makes no mention of
God. When people asked Alexander Hamilton about it, he said "We
forgot Him."
The only mention of religion in Madison's "Notes on the
Constitution," the diary he kept during the sessions, refers to the
statement saying that no religious test for office could be
applied. Some people felt the prohibition was unnecessary, because
no one would ever propose such a thing.
One thing the Founding Fathers did agree on was the wickedness of
the Catholic Church. Calling someone a Jesuit was the biggest
insult John Adams could come up with. Jefferson said the Catholic
Church had made half the world knaves (the priests) and half the
world fools (the "flock").
As for the Pope, his warmed-over neo-Barthianism makes me gag.
|4.16.08 @ 1:21PM|#
"We don't stone adulterers and gays, and neither did the
Founders."
Neither does Christianity nor any Jew living more recently than the
1st Century AD.
Xians still doo the witch thingy in parts of the world. Some
traditions are just too good to let go.
|4.16.08 @ 1:25PM|#
"Xians still doo the witch thingy in parts of the world. Some
traditions are just too good to let go."
Where? The only place I can think of where witches are still
believed in is Haiti among practitioners of Voodoo and in Africa
among Animists and ding Western Pegans.
|4.16.08 @ 1:27PM|#
The pope will go to hell. I think.
That's low-class, Ali. Sure you have a right to say it, but some
freedoms are better honored by self-restraint than exercise.
|4.16.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Xians still doo the witch thingy in parts of the world. Some
traditions are just too good to let go.
So do some pagans, Moslems, Hindus, etc. Poorly educated people
living hard lives tend to do such things.
Plus, given our treatment of "sex offenders" despite much better
socioeconomic conditions here, I don't think we should be pointing
fingers at the rest of the world.
|4.16.08 @ 1:35PM|#
Neil,
If that is the case then why is there not a single mention of the
words God, Jesus, etc. in the American Constitution?
Got any actual evidence for this deathbed conversion?
To be rather blunt, there were a multiplicity or a diversity of
views on the nature of religion and its role in society exposed by
the Founders, and this is born out in the disagreements these folks
had with one another over this issue.
Ali|4.16.08 @ 1:35PM|#
Chris,
I was asked what I think, and I gave my answer. But I see what
you're getting at given previous discussions where I essentially
came out and said the same thing except not as eloquently. Sorry to
my Catholic friends if I have offended, but I really have to say
that I dislike popes (but do not hate them, though).
|4.16.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Chris Potter,
...but rather that it's based on moral principles that were
originally linked to religious beliefs.
That seems to even require qualification however.
|4.16.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Alan Vanneman,
It is fair to say that Jefferson's views on Catholicism were formed
and sculpted by his experience with the Church in France.
|4.16.08 @ 1:45PM|#
Ali,
There are plenty of things I dislike about Islam, but I would never
come right out and speculate about such eternal destinations for
specific people or groups thereof.
The Democratic Republican|4.16.08 @ 1:49PM|#
1) Infallibility has only been declared twice: about the
Immaculate Conception (which was about how Mary was ALSO conceived
in a virgin birth), and another one I can't remember. Everything
else from the popes is kind of like the Supreme Court: a general
respect for precedent but leeway to revise if necessary.
2) Adultery also used to be against the law, in the sense that it
was one of the few legitimate causes for divorce (per the New
Tesatment). So that makes 4 commandments.
3) Disparage religion if you want, but a free society needs a core
set of common moral values.
The Democratic Republican|4.16.08 @ 1:52PM|#
I agree with Calidore: the religious diversity in this country
was a GREAT thing. Even though they might seem like trivial
doctrinal disputes now, they were just as important then as are the
current tensions between Christianity/Islam/Atheism, for
example.
Jefferson might have been considered an "atheist," but historically
that term was thrown around even when people believed in God but
not in the right way. So, circa 1776, Congregationalists considered
Baptists "atheists."
|4.16.08 @ 1:54PM|#
The Democratic-Republican,
From what I have read there is some difference of view on the exact
instances of such.
Ali|4.16.08 @ 1:55PM|#
Chris,
Certainly not groups of people, but one can state specific reasons
as to why specific people are not good.
Regarding likes and dislikes about religions and philosophies, etc,
we spend most of the time discussing these on h+r. And I have
certainly engaged people regarding their dislikes about Islam and
have rarely used the "this is offensive" statement. The only time I
voiced concern about (some) people exercising their freedom of
speech was not because they exercise said right, but in regards to
smartness/stupidity of using said right in a given context. Using
the right to make a point sometimes just defeats the purpose or may
not be the past way to do so.
So I can give you reasons as to why I think the idea of the papacy
offensive and we could have an interesting discussion about it as
much as we do if we had been discussing why you find some aspects
of Islam offensive.
|4.16.08 @ 1:58PM|#
The Democratic-Republican,
Yes, it was used as a dirty word to label atheists and non-atheists
alike. d'Holbach was the first modern avowed atheists that I know
of. Anyway, many people labelled with the term were theists who
were interested in the use of reason to reform, etc. religious
belief; to make it more rational, etc. Indeed, that was in
significant part what the project of the Deists was about (though
some of them might have been actual atheists).
|4.16.08 @ 1:59PM|#
3) Disparage religion if you want, but a free society needs
a core set of common moral values.
Okay, so here's my beef. Ethics do not require morals. And ethics
can govern our behavior such that we create laws to protect the
rights of the people. Morals are absolutely not necessary, IMO.
C L|4.16.08 @ 2:15PM|#
I care only because Brookland, my neighborhood in DC, (where the archdioses is located) is a disaster. Police tape everywhere, security guards, big vatican flags, and traffic everywhere. I can't wait for him to go home.
LT Nixon|4.16.08 @ 2:47PM|#
The Sniper has got pics of Robo-Pope, pretty funny. I wish I could get a pope-mobile.
bob|4.16.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Do Hit & Runners care about the pope?
I do, but as a Catholic I care a lot more about the
Magisterium.
But was that really the question? Or does it mean that if I am
Catholic, I can't be a Hit & Runner? If the latter, fook off u
eejit.
Sam Grove|4.16.08 @ 2:58PM|#
"From the dawn of the republic, America's quest for freedom
has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing
political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order
based on the dominion of God the creator."
That's because the church inculcated the idea that moral order is a
product of theist fiat, that is, that what we consider as morality
is purely arbitrary and having no basis in reason or
philosophy.
Has the church ever produced a moral sentiment that was not thought
of by pre-Christ Greek philosphers?
Danny, moral are necessary, but are not the same thing as morés,
which while often useful, are not necessary. Religious orders
usually conflate morals and morés.
What I'm saying is that what are often thought of as morals are
actually morés.
|4.16.08 @ 3:05PM|#
"Infallibility has only been declared twice: about the
Immaculate Conception (which was about how Mary was ALSO conceived
in a virgin birth"
Uhm, wrong. Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived
without ORIGINAL sin - meaning, I supposed, even as a zygote, she
bore none of the consequences of Adam and Eve's "sin", so she
didn't have to die, age, or have "concupisence" - that is an
inclination towards sin.
Whew, and no I'm not a Catholic or even a Christian, just went to a
Catholic high school.
|4.16.08 @ 3:19PM|#
You are correct atrevete. The whole immaculate conception thing causes a lot of people to accuse the Catholics of being Mary worshipers. Why exactly does Mary have to be free of sin?
|4.16.08 @ 3:20PM|#
1) Infallibility has only been declared twice: about the
Immaculate Conception (which was about how Mary was ALSO conceived
in a virgin birth), and another one I can't remember.
According to Wikipedia, it has only been used once when it defined
the Assumption of Mary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
Only one time in 140 years is infallibility used? What's the point
in having it if you don't use it??
|4.16.08 @ 3:22PM|#
Why exactly does Mary have to be free of sin?
Would you want your savior to be born of a sinful woman?
|4.16.08 @ 3:36PM|#
"Would you want your savior to be born of a sinful woman?"
He is half human. Isn't the point that Jesus by being born of God
and thus free from sin, raises the state of man to its ideal and
thus heals the riff between man and God created by Adam's fall? Why
does the sin half to be eliminated in Mary and not just in Jesus?
Why not Mary's mother? Do you want the mother of God to be born
from a sinful women? The whole thing seems like an unneeded step
and the Catholics saying that we really like Mary so lets make her
sinless as well. Mary worship if you ask me.
|4.16.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Papal infallibility:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB
The Immaculate Conception (not to be confused with the Virgin
Birth):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
|4.16.08 @ 4:15PM|#
I do agree, John, although I have a beef with the idea of
original sin to begin with. It seems obvious that each human being
has the capacity for good or evil. Sometimes in the same day.
At any rate, over a billion Catholics, and not a few non-Catholics,
are influenced by what the pope thinks, although I doubt each of
them really accepts what he says as infallible.
You do the math|4.16.08 @ 4:31PM|#
A Clear Difference
• "Bush Embraces Pope Benedict XVI"--headline, ABCNews.com, April
15
• "Carter Embraces Hamas Official"--headline, Associated Press,
April 16
|4.16.08 @ 4:47PM|#
The Imm Con and Assumption were the two times when the Pope
explicitly said he was invoking the Infallibility doctrine. In
theory, there can be situations in which the Pope teaches
infallibly while not explicitly mentioning the infallibility
doctrine.
Yes, it almost seems like they're trying to make the waters as
murky as possible to give the theologians something to argue about,
doesn't it?
|4.16.08 @ 4:56PM|#
This article is awesome:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03162008/postopinion/postopbooks/faith_of_our_fathers_102127.htm?page=0
|4.16.08 @ 5:08PM|#
""""From the dawn of the republic, America's quest for freedom
has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing
political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order
based on the dominion of God the creator.""""
Now days our freedom is guided by the moral order of the Department
of Homeland Security.
Jefferson was not an athiest. He believed in God as the creator. He
did not belive in mystisim such as water to wine, parting the red
sea, immaculate conceptions, or coming back from the dead. He
carried a bible with those parts edited. Since he didn't believe in
some of the required believing for christianity, I say he wasn't a
christian.
|4.16.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Not really, but your reference to his Hitler Youth
membership is a really cheap shot, as if someone of his age could
really say no in the worst totalitarian state in
history.
Classwarrior,
The Soviet Union called and they want their place in history
back.
|4.16.08 @ 5:11PM|#
"""It seems obvious that each human being has the capacity for
good or evil."""
Replace or with and, I'm with ya.
|4.16.08 @ 5:11PM|#
Why exactly does Mary have to be free of sin?
Because god cannot touch sin. That's what I was taught. Just as
nobody (with sin) could touch the ark of the covenant, nobody (with
sin) could touch the (son of) god. Catholics like to draw a lot of
parallels between Mary as the ark of the covenant Jesus as the
priest, prophet, and king. Just do a simple google search of "mary
ark of the covenant", and you should be able to find some
information.
/*Used* to be catholic.
|4.16.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Oh, and Catholics really really don't worship Mary. They liken praying to Mary and the saints to asking a friend for help, since Mary and the saints are already supposedly in heaven, they can ask the big guy for you. It makes sense on a human level, but not if you don't believe in heaven. Besides, praying to somebody is making a request to them. When they say that they pray to them, they mean they pray. They only worship god, or at least their personification of "him".
|4.16.08 @ 5:23PM|#
I would guess that you don't believe me anyways about Mary,
since most Christians simply deny it and then say, "Oh no... I
know... You guys worship Mary."
I'm not catholic anymore, nor am I christian. Too many rules
against things that hurt nobody.
Marc|4.16.08 @ 5:46PM|#
I read at Hit and Run fairly regularly. Does that make me a "Hit
& Runner"? I suppose not--one has to profess the 'liberterian
project' in some form or another, I guess, however that may be
defined. But I do read here.
I don't care that commenters don't refer to Benedict XVI the way we
Catholics do but, really, gentlemen and ladies, when profanities
and other vulgarities are indulged in to refer to distinguished
persons, as if to be libertarian one needs to speak and write in
such a way, well, I doubt that is a very persuasive advertisement
for the cause, except amongst 16 year old skater punks who imagine
that they are recreating the world by wearing black and pronouncing
every other word 'fuck'. I find it offputting.
And yet I read here.
|4.16.08 @ 5:59PM|#
You are correct atrevete. The whole immaculate conception
thing causes a lot of people to accuse the Catholics of being Mary
worshipers. Why exactly does Mary have to be free of
sin?
I've nothing against papists, some of my best relatives are
Mackerel Snappers. :-) But if you pray to something it appears to
this apostate catholic that you are elevating said thing to god
status.
Forget it. It'll just piss people off. Other religions always look
weird to the uninitiated.
|4.16.08 @ 6:15PM|#
I read at Hit and Run fairly regularly. Does that make me a
"Hit & Runner"? I suppose not--one has to profess the
'liberterian project' in some form or another, I guess, however
that may be defined. But I do read here.
Nah, joe is a "Hit & Runner" and he is a full blown pinko commi
having the same relation with being libertarian as duck has with a
baby carriage.
But i guess a you could make the definition of a Hit & Runner
as someone who actually works for Reason and posts articles on its
blog as opposed to us who only read it and may or may not
comment.
|4.16.08 @ 6:21PM|#
I don't care that commenters don't refer to Benedict XVI the
way we Catholics do but, really, gentlemen and ladies, when
profanities and other vulgarities are indulged in to refer to
distinguished persons, as if to be libertarian one needs to speak
and write in such a way, well, I doubt that is a very persuasive
advertisement for the cause, except amongst 16 year old skater
punks who imagine that they are recreating the world by wearing
black and pronouncing every other word 'fuck'. I find it
offputting.
I don't think using vulgarities to disparage the Pope makes one a
libertarian and is in any way necessary to do so in order to be a
libertarian.
My profuse use of the word Fuck also in no way makes me a
libertarian or is necessary for me to be a libertarian. I just have
a foul mouth and happen to be a libertarian.
|4.16.08 @ 9:38PM|#
I'd like to be pope. Can I apply after this one dies? You don't have to be Catholic or anything, right?
|4.16.08 @ 9:48PM|#
Do I care? Not really. However, I'd start to care if he can put an end to his pedophile priests.
|4.17.08 @ 3:11AM|#
In my 54 years around, I suspect Nick Gillespie is one of the bigger punks. No matter how hard Nick tries, he ain't getting on Butt Boy Bill Maher's show.
|4.17.08 @ 11:21AM|#
You'd think Christ's representative on Earth would have avoided
joining the Hitler youth, or at least subverted it.
Are we supposed to believe that a modern day Christ would have
cooperated with the Nazis? Why didn't Jesus cooperate with the
Romans?
|4.17.08 @ 11:27AM|#
By the way, Christ's previous representative on Earth helped hide Jews from the Nazis and was in an underground seminary. Seems a bit risky to me, but you'd expect that type of behavior from Christ's representative on Earth.
|4.17.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Let me get this straight....Who is paying for all of this extra police protection security for the Pope? Having just taken a MARC train ride to Baltimore this morning, I witnessed a police person with what possibly looked to me to be an AK-47 on the Bowie State train platform. Upon returning to Union Station this afternoon, the food court convenience won me over and I found myself competing for counter space with too many police and their sniffing dogs to count, along with numerous nuns. Hmmmm. Could it be possible that the non-Catholic taxpayers are getting stuck with the cost of this extra Pope security bill?
|4.18.08 @ 8:03PM|#
Now that the Pope has expressed regret over the pedophile priest issue, how long is it before Bill Donahoe demands an apology from the pontiff...
|4.18.08 @ 8:05PM|#
...not for the pedophile priests, mind you; for daring to suggest that priests could be pedophiles...
Mad Max|4.19.08 @ 11:30AM|#
I imagine that the Pope will survive somehow despite the
eloquent and well-reasoned attacks of H&R posters.
Bill Donohue doesn't need any defense from me, either, but still
I'd like to reply to Jim Walsh's comments.
Donohue has endorsed strict laws against sex abuse, provided that
the laws aren't discriminatory. For example, he supports law which
apply the same standards of strict legal accountability to both the
Church and to the government schools. Where he draws the line is at
measures which single out the Church while having more lenient
standards for the government schools.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245