Thread: Barack and his Wife

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

The church covered up the crimes for years. Years and years and years. They're still doing it. Why are they in court, parsing lawyerly phrases, rather than doing public penance? Based on the analysis you mention, every Catholic should quit.

Churches have engaged in political rhetoric forever. The Catholic Church now denies the sacraments to politicians who espouse non-church points of view. Pastoral letters get into politics routinely. Remember Father Coughlin? I saw the guy preach. Ever heard of Pat Robertson? James Dobson? Jimmy Swaggert? Jerry Falwell? Need I go on?

Don't talk to me about Al Sharpton. I grew up outside Wappingers Falls, New York, where that whole Tawana Brawley fiasco went down. I knew some of those people. There's no level of hell low enough for that guy. And Jesse Jackson -- who, to be fair, has done some good things in his life -- only opens his mouth these days to change feet.

j

Do you think that I support Robertson, Dobson, Swaggert, Falwell for using their pulpit for political purposes? your assumptions are astounding! While I agree with Dobson, I applaud his opening of a separate institution for political issues (i.e. Focus on the Family), if any pastor stood at a pulpit on any day that I was there to attend service, and started spouting forth political rhetoric, no matter if it was conservative or liberal, i would stand up, leave, and probably never return. Pastors have a right to verbalize their political ideologies on their own time, and under their own name. But no pastor has the right to utilize his pulpit for political purposes when he is supposed to be preaching the Word. As stated by he who is infinitely better than me "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's" The pulpit belongs to God, and not Caesar.

further, whether the church covered them up or not, the teachings of molestation against little boys was never openly sanctioned, and I would hope that if such a policy was openly sanctioned, and taught, any sane person would leave and never return to such a depraved institution. The catholic institutions covered up the molestation, and the catholic institutions and leaders should be laying prostrate begging for forgiveness, but this does not mean that the molestation of boys was a part of the catholic doctrine.

Matt

Originally Posted by mhailey

this does not mean that the molestation of boys was a part of the catholic doctrine.

Matt

I am a little slow sometimes, but I can't figure out how anyone can compare Wright to perverted Catholic priests. Wright is completely and publicly open in his hatred and bigotry, and receives a wide audience of supporters which used to include Barack Obama. Could you imagine anyone staying in the pews if a priest got up and started preaching the virtues of sexual perversions against children in the name of God?

They're apples and oranges

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I am a little slow sometimes, but I can't figure out how anyone can compare Wright to perverted Catholic priests. Wright is completely and publicly open in his hatred and bigotry, and receives a wide audience of supporters which used to include Barack Obama. Could you imagine anyone staying in the pews if a priest got up and started preaching the virtues of sexual perversions against children in the name of God?

They're apples and oranges

Hear, Hear!! My point exactly.

Matt

Originally Posted by mhailey

Do you think that I support Robertson, Dobson, Swaggert, Falwell for using their pulpit for political purposes? your assumptions are astounding! While I agree with Dobson, I applaud his opening of a separate institution for political issues (i.e. Focus on the Family), if any pastor stood at a pulpit on any day that I was there to attend service, and started spouting forth political rhetoric, no matter if it was conservative or liberal, i would stand up, leave, and probably never return. Pastors have a right to verbalize their political ideologies on their own time, and under their own name. But no pastor has the right to utilize his pulpit for political purposes when he is supposed to be preaching the Word. As stated by he who is infinitely better than me "Render unto Cesar that which is Cesar's, and render unto God that which is God's" The pulpit belongs to God, and not Cesar.

further, whether the church covered them up or not, the teachings of molestation against little boys was never openly sanctioned, and I would hope that if such a policy was openly sanctioned, and taught, any sane person would leave and never return to such a depraved institution. The catholic institutions covered up the molestation, and the catholic institutions and leaders should be laying prostrate begging for forgiveness, but this does not mean that the molestation of boys was a part of the catholic doctrine.

Matt

We are agreed on the prostration for forgiveness. I've suggested it. I believe that such an act would bring the Church back into public repute as nothing else could. I can only believe that the lawyers are preventing it.

But the Church itself is prone to political statement from the pulpit. They do it all the time. You didn't respond to that.

And I don't know what's worse -- publicly espousing an outrage, or silently allowing it to happen, even abetting it. You tell me. One is outrageous. The other is cowardly and outrageous.

On the rest, though, you need to lighten up. I was merely pointing out, in the interest of open and frank discussion, the numerous instances of politicization of religion, not suggesting that you support it.

Father Coughlin, however, was Catholic and preached in Detroit until the end of his life.

j

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I am a little slow sometimes, but I can't figure out how anyone can compare Wright to perverted Catholic priests. Wright is completely and publicly open in his hatred and bigotry, and receives a wide audience of supporters which used to include Barack Obama. Could you imagine anyone staying in the pews if a priest got up and started preaching the virtues of sexual perversions against children in the name of God?

They're apples and oranges

I've stayed in the pews while priests preached that women are inferior and depraved. We all have, in my generation.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

I've stayed in the pews while priests preached that women are inferior and depraved. We all have, in my generation.

j

We have? I've never heard that from any pulpit I've chosen to sit under, nothing like "God damn women that's in the Bible for killing innocent babies" or "The US of let's lynch women A" - Wright crosses obvious lines. Maybe those lines are fuzzy for many people

I assume though that you don't continue to foster close relationships with someone and for decades choose to be part of his audience who publicly screams obscenities about the USA in the name of God, even if you aren't running for President

When I was a kid, I sat under things I don't agree with now as an adult, but I'm glad my parents had enough sense not to take me to Trinity united c of c. *shudder* There are lots of Trinity churches out there, but that doesn't excuse a Presidential candidate from his choice to attend one.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

The artist himself has said it's satire and meant to point out the absurdity of attacks in the media .

"I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is."

Regardless of how you feel let's judge the candidates on policy rather than smears.

Ok,
Let's look at policy. Obama as president will continue to fight the phony wars on terror and drugs. He will continue to tax the American people on their personal income. He will work with the UN on a global carbon tax. He will continue to bankrupt the country through the federal reserve. He may pull some troops out of Iraq but they will go to Pakistan or Iran or Afghanistan, sorry for all of the anti war people me included. He will continue to increase the size and reach of the nanny welfare federal government. Take a look at Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obma's foreign policy adviser. Obama is an establishment candidate and will not really change anything under the surface.

With McCain at the helm we will have another blithering idiot to listen to for another four or eight years. McCain will continue to fight whatever war he can get us into. He will continue to tax the American people on their income (not very conservative). He will continue to bankrupt the country through the federal reserve and we will probably end up with a fence around the whole country. McCain is an establishment candidate who will change nothing.


Now take Ron Paul, the only true constitutional conservative in the race, well officially withdrawn but would still accept the nomination. Ron Paul would bring the federal government back to the limited size and power originally set forth by the founding fathers in the constitution, you all remember that pesky little document right? He would get rid of the federal income tax and the IRS(unconstitutional) and replace it with nothing. To off set the income tax he would cease wasteful spending overseas, foreign aid, war, and hundreds of military bases in countries all over the world. He would have a humble foreign policy that would not preemptively attack to benefit the military industrial complex but one that would promote good will around the world. Ron Paul would abolish the federal reserve, a private central bank that has control of the monetary supply and value in this country. He would give that responsibility back to congress as it was given to them by the constitution (article 1, section 8). He would return many of the unconstitutional federal services the government has taken on over the years to a fair and free market and to the state and local government and law enforcement agencies. Ron Paul has not once run a smear ad or campaign against any candidate. He has never proposed or voted for a bill or legislation that was not expressly authorized by the constitution. Ron Paul is not an establishment candidate, that is why the establishment media censored him at every turn. The revolution he started spread by word of mouth and the internet and has called hundreds of thousands to action from a grass roots level. The presidential campaign has morphed into the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty which will give all of the people he awoke into activism for liberty a chance to support other candidates who stand for the same values. Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty | The Revolution Continues

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

But the Church itself is prone to political statement from the pulpit. They do it all the time. You didn't respond to that.

And I don't know what's worse -- publicly espousing an outrage, or silently allowing it(what is the "it" to which you are reffering?) to happen, even abetting it. You tell me. One is outrageous. The other is cowardly and outrageous.

j

You are going to have to define your terms here. What is meant by "the Church?" Your definition of this term and mine are probably quite different.


Matt

What I get tired of are all of the apologists for crappy candidates, people who try to scrape the mud and dung from the face of their man to make them more palatable to everyone else. I am not trying to offend any one here, I consider each of you gentleman and pray I meet the same standard. OTOH IMHO I would not want either of the top 2 contenders to run my home, both of them pretend to cater to one crowd or the other, while having alterior motives and puppetmasters. The big media and big political machine divides one against the other and then while we are bickering, politics as usual goes on right in front of us but we are too busy poking one anothers eyes out to see what we need to see. The only winners are the politicians themselves and whoever pulls their strings, it aint me and I doubt if its any of you.
Please excuse the spleen venting hope no one got hit.

Originally Posted by mhailey

You are going to have to define your terms here. What is meant by "the Church?" Your definition of this term and mine are probably quite different.


Matt

"It" refers to child molestation. "The Church" refers to the Holy Mother Church, from parish to diocese to Holy See.

j