[notloc_D]

Remember the last elections, the last debates. Democrats tried to jump on the Christianity bandwagon, and they failed miserably. Remember Kerry standing in front of millionso f people talking abouthis faith?

How is it now, that Christianity is all of a sudden a forbidden fruit? Could it be because they changed to Plan B..attack Christianity when all else fails?

What is even more laughable is the pure ignorance of the left wing puppets, the ones who have fallen for the democrats talking points hook, line and sinker. You know, the ones who tell Christians that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are our leaders. Or the ones who claim that the Pope is the head of all Christianity (despite the fact that catholics practice catholicism_.

Then you get those who claim they grew up in church...but the truth is, and we all know it, that they were forced to go to church with their parents. And when they got their, all they did was sleep or look at the pretty girls, or daydream about nonsense.

Maybe some of you should pay attention, actually go to church and maybe you will learn something. At least have an idea of what you are talking about!

Instead, this irrational hate has manifested inside of you.

[goMac]

A lot of Democrats are Christian. I was raised Cathloic and currently go to a Jesuit school, where a lot of the priests are liberal.

Nice try. Please try again later.

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by goMac

A lot of Democrats are Christian. I was raised Cathloic and currently go to a Jesuit school, where a lot of the priests are liberal.

Nice try. Please try again later.

Did I say all? Nonehthesless, it is shameful that a self confesssed Christian would allow their political party to attack their religion. Besides, for a religion that prays to mary...I don't know if that is truly Christian. Hell, there are so many laws in catholicism...it is an animal in itself. Thus, that is why when referring to your religion...we say it is catholicism...not chritisianity.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Did I say all? Nonehthesless, it is shameful that a self confesssed Christian would allow their political party to attack their religion. Besides, for a religion that prays to mary...I don't know if that is truly Christian. Hell, there are so many laws in catholicism...it is an animal in itself. Thus, that is why when referring to your religion...we say it is catholicism...not chritisianity.

The left isn't attacking Christianity. You're just paranoid.

The left is simply saying religion does not have a place in government. That is not attacking Christianity.

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by goMac

The left isn't attacking Christianity. You're just paranoid.

The left is simply saying religion does not have a place in government. That is not attacking Christianity.

Sure they are...to dismiss someone just because they believe she is an evangelical? What is that?

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by goMac

A lot of Democrats are Christian. I was raised Cathloic and currently go to a Jesuit school, where a lot of the priests are liberal.

How do they reconcile with the abortion issue?

[notloc_D]

it is called a lack of faith...
faith by invention...
faith for social reasons...
creating your own god...
on and on and on

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

it is called a lack of faith...
faith by invention...
faith for social reasons...
creating your own god...
on and on and on

That pretty much sums up religions in general…

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Remember the last elections, the last debates. Democrats tried to jump on the Christianity bandwagon, and they failed miserably. Remember Kerry standing in front of millionso f people talking abouthis faith?

How is it now, that Christianity is all of a sudden a forbidden fruit? Could it be because they changed to Plan B..attack Christianity when all else fails?

What is even more laughable is the pure ignorance of the left wing puppets, the ones who have fallen for the democrats talking points hook, line and sinker. You know, the ones who tell Christians that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are our leaders. Or the ones who claim that the Pope is the head of all Christianity (despite the fact that catholics practice catholicism_.

Then you get those who claim they grew up in church...but the truth is, and we all know it, that they were forced to go to church with their parents. And when they got their, all they did was sleep or look at the pretty girls, or daydream about nonsense.

Maybe some of you should pay attention, actually go to church and maybe you will learn something. At least have an idea of what you are talking about!

Instead, this irrational hate has manifested inside of you.

A couple of questions for you:

How is religion "forbidden fruit?"
Is Christianity "right wing?"
Who is more religious, Kerry or Bush? Hillary or Bush?
How many viewers/donators does someone like Robertson have? How did he do in the Republican primaries in 1988?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

How do they reconcile with the abortion issue?

Because it's not the churches right to dictate to people who are not in the religion?

If you want to make abortion a no-no to your followers because according to your religion it's murder, that's fine. Tell your followers no one can get abortions because it's murder according to God. However, it's not the churches role to tell everyone else who does not believe a fetus is living to do the same. Legally, abortion is legal. If the church has a moral rule against it, that's still fine.

So yeah, I'm sure Christian Priests are morally against abortion. Even the liberal ones. What conservatives seem to forget is even if you have personal feelings on the matter, that doesn't mean you should make everyone else a slave of your opinion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac

So yeah, I'm sure Christian Priests are morally against abortion. Even the liberal ones. What conservatives seem to forget is even if you have personal feelings on the matter, that doesn't mean you should make everyone else a slave of your opinion.

You are either a slave to one or a slave to another. I will concede however when looking at abortion statistics, it is apparent that we are serving no god nor religion, but ourselves. 'Tis most unfortunate.

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by BRussell

A couple of questions for you:

How is religion "forbidden fruit?"
Is Christianity "right wing?"
Who is more religious, Kerry or Bush? Hillary or Bush?
How many viewers/donators does someone like Robertson have? How did he do in the Republican primaries in 1988?

1. I don't know. Ask the left wing wackos that want to remove God from the pledge, god from , money, the ten commandments from buildings. Ask the looney left that dismisses meiers solely because she is a CHristian. Ask the dems who attack bush for his faith.

2. Nope

3. Bush...Kerry is the devil. Hillary is too

4. Don't know, don't know

your point?

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by goMac

Because it's not the churches right to dictate to people who are not in the religion?

If you want to make abortion a no-no to your followers because according to your religion it's murder, that's fine. Tell your followers no one can get abortions because it's murder according to God. However, it's not the churches role to tell everyone else who does not believe a fetus is living to do the same. Legally, abortion is legal. If the church has a moral rule against it, that's still fine.

So yeah, I'm sure Christian Priests are morally against abortion. Even the liberal ones. What conservatives seem to forget is even if you have personal feelings on the matter, that doesn't mean you should make everyone else a slave of your opinion.

That's not the Church's official stance, and they won't back a candidate who is Pro-choice. If liberal priests want to defy that, then that's fine. However, they shouldn't be deluding themselves into thinking "it's not the churches right", blah, blah... it's never stopped the RCC before.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

1. I don't know. Ask the left wing wackos that want to remove God from the pledge, god from , money, the ten commandments from buildings. Ask the looney left that dismisses meiers solely because she is a CHristian. Ask the dems who attack bush for his faith.

Those things were added by right-wingers during the anti-communist McCarthy hysteria period. Or, in the case of the 10 commandments, most of them were added to promote a movie.

The "looney left" hasn't said much of anything about Miers - you must be mistaking them for the "looney right," who have been almost unanimous in their rejection of her. I do know that the president of the US has stated that he chose her because of her religion. So if she can be chosen because of her religion, would it not be appropriate to oppose her because of her religion, even if that was happening anywhere outside of your imagination?

2. Nope

No christianity is not right wing. So why do right-wingers use it as a political tool?

3. Bush...Kerry is the devil. Hillary is too

Uh-huh. And Bush rarely goes to church while both Kerry and Hillary regularly have for their entire lives. You can't see into a person's heart, but, just like Reagan, who was irreligious but beloved by the Christian right-wingers, I think many religious people like Bush because of his politics, not his alleged religious commitment.

4. Don't know, don't know

You ought to find out. Because then you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his power.

your point?

That your premise is faulty.

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Those things were added by right-wingers during the anti-communist McCarthy hysteria period. Or, in the case of the 10 commandments, most of them were added to promote a movie.

Okay, then lets get rid of it immediately. Who cares how, why, and when it was added. It is there. Left wing cristian hating, god hating wackos want it removed...that is the only issue here.

The "looney left" hasn't said much of anything about Miers - you must be mistaking them for the "looney right," who have been almost unanimous in their rejection of her. I do know that the president of the US has stated that he chose her because of her religion. So if she can be chosen because of her religion, would it not be appropriate to oppose her because of her religion, even if that was happening anywhere outside of your imagination?

The left has said nothing about meirs?
Prove to me Bush chose her because of her religion. Did he say that? Did she say that? Or did you learn that from the left wing talking points manifesto

No christianity is not right wing. So why do right-wingers use it as a political tool?

A political tool? How so? Example please

Uh-huh. And Bush rarely goes to church while both Kerry and Hillary regularly have for their entire lives. You can't see into a person's heart, but, just like Reagan, who was irreligious but beloved by the Christian right-wingers, I think many religious people like Bush because of his politics, not his alleged religious commitment.

Hillary and Kerry just look better on camera as they leave church. Incidently, why aren;t they attacked for being Christians...oh....because it is just a photo-op. As for religious people liking Bush because of his politics...exactly. That is versus hating the man because of his religion.

You ought to find out. Because then you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his power.

Maybe Christians liked Robertson because of his politics...as you said above. He is not the leader of Christians. He is Pat Robertson.
Your premise is faulty.

[notloc_D]

I do know that the president of the US has stated that he chose her because of her religion

I have to backtrack...Bush did say he chose Meirs because of her religion:

"Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion," Bush said during Oval Office comments with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski. "Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas."

I was wrong about that one...but he didn't choose her solely for that reason as you imply

[Monique]

We do not attack Meirs because she is a Christian like some of you say; but because she has very little brain and she will confuse the Bible with the Constitution and the books of law.

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by Monique

We do not attack Meirs because she is a Christian like some of you say; but because she has very little brain and she will confuse the Bible with the Constitution and the books of law.

A very little brain????
Sounds to me as if you are jealous. Is it because she is an American or is it just a women thing?

Once again, as a Canadian...what is it to you? Don't you have bigger issues to tackle, like softwood lumber and improving your health care system?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Okay, then lets get rid of it immediately. Who cares how, why, and when it was added. It is there. Left wing cristian hating, god hating wackos want it removed...that is the only issue here.

It matters because the issue is framed as some new movement to take religion away from America, when in reality, it's exactly the opposite.

The left has said nothing about meirs?

No, not much. Those are mostly conservatives you're hearing criticize her. The Democratic majority leader in the Senate recommended her.

Prove to me Bush chose her because of her religion. Did he say that? Did she say that? Or did you learn that from the left wing talking points manifesto

I'm going to let you hang on this one. Do you think it would be wrong if Bush said he picked her because of her religion? Are you willing to criticize it if he did say it? Are you thinking now "hmm, maybe I better not criticize it in case Bush really did say it?"

Hillary and Kerry just look better on camera as they leave church. Incidently, why aren;t they attacked for being Christians...oh....because it is just a photo-op. As for religious people liking Bush because of his politics...exactly. That is versus hating the man because of his religion.

They aren't attacked for being Christians because... here it comes... there's nothing wrong with being a Christian! I know that's a shock to your "persecuted Christian" world view. It also may be a shock that for many of us, abortion, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, stem cell research, and all of those other issues that seem to be the focus of conservative Christians, have absolutely nothing to do with our religion, and everything to do with contemporary American politics.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Remember the last elections, the last debates. Democrats tried to jump on the Christianity bandwagon, and they failed miserably. Remember Kerry standing in front of millionso f people talking abouthis faith?

How is it now, that Christianity is all of a sudden a forbidden fruit? Could it be because they changed to Plan B..attack Christianity when all else fails?

What is even more laughable is the pure ignorance of the left wing puppets, the ones who have fallen for the democrats talking points hook, line and sinker. You know, the ones who tell Christians that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are our leaders. Or the ones who claim that the Pope is the head of all Christianity (despite the fact that catholics practice catholicism_.

Then you get those who claim they grew up in church...but the truth is, and we all know it, that they were forced to go to church with their parents. And when they got their, all they did was sleep or look at the pretty girls, or daydream about nonsense.

Maybe some of you should pay attention, actually go to church and maybe you will learn something. At least have an idea of what you are talking about!

Instead, this irrational hate has manifested inside of you.

lol. You're funny. "Maybe some of you should pay attention, actually go to church and maybe you will learn something."

Haha. I can't stop laughing. That's gold.

Really, you're right though. The problem is that liberals are trying to appeal to the religious. I say, take a ****ing stand like a man. **** the religious. Openly denounce it. It's ****ing stupid.

Anyways, I can't waste anymore time in your thread, I have to go back to worshiping my spaghetti-monster.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by goMac

The left is simply saying religion does not have a place in government.

The left often also says that religious persons have no place in government, solely on account of the fact that they are religious, because they fear that religious people will invariably break the separation between Church and State. It's a sort of stereotyping that they do not accept from anyone else, but have no qualms about using themselves when it is politically convenient. It is exactly as valid to say that all evangelical Christians are theocrats as it is to say that all Muslims are terrorists, but many if not most people who've committed themselves to either side of American politics don't seem to get this.

You may remember the debates when John Ashcroft was first nominated for Attorney General. No one here who knows my posting history could possibly mistake me for a fan of Ashcroft's. I have called him a traitor to his country many times for the things he did and tried to do while in office, and I would wholeheartedly do so again if the opportunity were to arise. But at the time of his nomination, every last argument against him centered entirely and solely on his faith. I defended him against those slings and arrows, and I would also do that again. There are plenty of valid reasons to hate Ashcroft, and I hate him for most of them myself, but his faith isn't one of them.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Did I say all?

When you say "The Left", you are pretty much saying "all". "Some of the Left" might be better.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

1. I don't know. Ask the left wing wackos that want to remove God from the pledge, god from , money, the ten commandments from [government] buildings.

Those aren't attacking Christianity. That's just ensuring the separation of church and state is maintained.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The left often also says that religious persons have no place in government, solely on account of the fact that they are religious, because they fear that religious people will invariably break the separation between Church and State.

A religious person has no place in government if they are going to use the government as their own private religious organization, correct. Most Democrats are Christian, so I wouldn't say that the left says religious persons have no place in government.

[Monique]

I would much prefer to see the Star of David in government buildings; no that is right there is a little thing in the Constitution about seperation of state and church meaning all religions not just the one you do not belong to or agree with.

You can go to church, you can recite Bible verses on your way to work, you can go to friends and have religious meetings, you can go on the ocean and scream about your devotion to Christ, you can have tatoos telling everyone you love Christ.

So, why do you need to have symbols of your religion in government buildings, or when you say you love your country...

Why can't it be seperate.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Those aren't attacking Christianity. That's just ensuring the separation of church and state is maintained.

Thank you. Apparently some of these folks believe that, unless the government is sponsoring and promoting their religion, they aren't able to freely exercise it. It's pretty odd how they think.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The left often also says that religious persons have no place in government, solely on account of the fact that they are religious, because they fear that religious people will invariably break the separation between Church and State.

I'd like you to find an example of someone seriously saying that. I won't even hold you to the left "often" saying it - just once is enough. Maybe you can find someone on an anonymous message board saying something like that - I'm looking forward to the example. But then I want you to think about the fact that the President of the US yesterday stated in the White House to the press that he chose his current nominee for the Supreme Court because of her religious beliefs. Compare and contrast. Five hundred words or less.

[dcmacdaddy]

<I've been avoiding this thread for a while but I need an excuse to procrastinate, so here goes.>


Ahh, the monolithic "Left" and the monolithic "Christianity". A reasoned debate, predicated on gross generalizations, is sure to be found here.


<Ahh, much better. I still need to procrastinate, though. Time to check the Marketplace. Ta Ta.>

[lurkalot]

"All public officials are servants of the whole community and not of any group thereof."

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Really, you're right though. The problem is that liberals are trying to appeal to the religious. I say, take a ****ing stand like a man. **** the religious. Openly denounce it. It's ****ing stupid.

If you're serious, and you are an example of the core of Party of the Left, then the democrat party is dead. /TAPS]

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Railroader

If you're serious, and you are an example of the core of Party of the Left, then the democrat party is dead. /TAPS]

He's not, but a lot of the right would like to think so.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by goMac

A lot of Democrats are Christian. I was raised Cathloic and currently go to a Jesuit school, where a lot of the priests are liberal.

Nice try. Please try again later.

These days, being a Jesuit doesn't mean your Christian - let alone Catholic. However, it is true to say that Catholic and Christian teaching isn't right or left wing. Christianity teaches that we must be compassionate, charitable, sacrificial, fair and respectful to each other. This is not something that can be classified on a political/economic spectrum because these are general principles which can be interpreted in different ways. However, particular ideologies which fit on the spectrum can be opposed to Christian teaching, especially extremist ideologies such as Communion and Nazism. That is not to say that one can't be left or right wing and still be Christian.

On another note, the Catholic Church doesn't prohibit its members to vote for pro-choice candidates, however, it prohibits members to vote for pro-choice candidates if the reason one is voting for the candidate is because of his stance on abortion.

[spauldingg]

We on the left do not hate religion. We want to take it away from the government and give it back to you, me and our churches.

[spauldingg]

PS: Read the constitution:
ARTICLE VI
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; .but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[lurkalot]

Food for thought.

"Those who claim religion is a way out of our social troubles should heed the one firm conclusion of this report: that societies which have largely discarded religion are not hotbeds of sin and iniquity, but are often highly functional, safe and prosperous. Consequently, relying on religion to fix social problems is irrational."
Link

Link for the referenced report, published in the "Journal of Religion & Society", "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies."

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by lurkalot

Food for thought.

"Those who claim religion is a way out of our social troubles should heed the one firm conclusion of this report: that societies which have largely discarded religion are not hotbeds of sin and iniquity, but are often highly functional, safe and prosperous. Consequently, relying on religion to fix social problems is irrational."
Link

Link for the referenced report, published in the "Journal of Religion & Society", "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies."

OMAHA, Nebraska, OCT. 15, 2005 (Zenit.org).- A recent journal article questions the social benefits of religion in the United States. Author Gregory Paul argues that the regions with higher rates of religious practice -- the South and Midwest -- have "markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms."

Paul's article, "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look," was published in Volume 7 of the Journal of Religion and Society, an academic journal associated with Creighton University, located in Omaha, Nebraska.

Theists, Paul starts off by observing, "often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society."

The article refers to a variety of data concerning religious beliefs and social indicators. Paul comments that the "United States is the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity otherwise limited to the second and third worlds."

The article also dedicates ample space to the matter of evolution, and the groups that criticize evolutionary theory in the United States. "The least religious nation, Japan, exhibits the highest agreement with the scientific theory," Paul notes, while "the lowest level of acceptance is found in the most religious developed democracy, the U.S."

The article claims that countries with low levels of religious beliefs have managed to deal more successfully with social problems such as homicide, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases. Paul even argues that his data contradict the "culture of life" thesis advanced by Pope John Paul II, that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates.

Critics chime in

Paul's article won wide public attention after it was mentioned Sept. 27 in the London-based Times newspaper. A Times articles, headlined "Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side,'" was picked up by other media sources and agencies.

Almost immediately, some commentators seized the opportunity to launch attacks on religion, basing themselves on the study. Rosa Brooks, writing in the Los Angeles Times of Oct. 1, argued: "When it comes to 'values,' if you look at facts rather than mere rhetoric, the substantially more secular blue states routinely leave the Bible Belt red states in the dust."

According to Brooks, the study strengthens the position of those who maintain religion should be purely private, and who are opposed to "faith-based" social welfare programs. Moreover, she contends: "We shouldn't shy away from the possibility that too much religiosity may be socially dangerous."

Emily Maguire, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald of Oct. 4, argued that the study shows that "relying on religion to fix social problems is irrational." If we want a better society, she insisted, religious believers "need to stop sermonising, get up off their knees, unclasp those praying hands and work for measurable change in the here and now."

George Monbiot, commentator for the British Guardian newspaper, in an article published Tuesday, took advantage of Paul's study to accuse the Catholic Church of being run by a "14th-century pope with a 21st-century communications network (that) sustains his church's mission of persecuting gays and denying women ownership of their bodies."

"If you want people to behave as Christians advocate," Monbiot concluded, "you should tell them that God does not exist."

Statistically valid?

By Paul's own admission, his study is only "a first, brief look" at the subject. He also admits that it is not "a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health."

These caveats, however, appear briefly at the start of the study and in the article itself Paul frequently draws rather sweeping conclusions and generalizations based on the data.

Despite his hostility toward religion, Monbiot's commentary provides a hint that he is not completely satisfied with the data. On the matter of religion and wealth, he notes that the United States is less keen on redistributing wealth through government taxation and welfare, compared to the more secular nations. But, he observes, the United Kingdom, one of the most secular nations in the study, is similar to the United States on the issue of wealth distribution. So there does not seem to be a link between inequality and religion.

More-detailed criticisms were raised by David Quinn, a journalist with the Irish Independent. In an article published Oct. 6, Quinn concedes that the higher incidence of social problems in the United States is certainly true, as is the greater level of religious belief.

But he asks if the two facts are necessarily connected. Other differences between Europe and the United States, such as the fact that one is a society composed of immigrants, may well be more relevant in explaining social trends. Or perhaps it is due to the higher levels of economic inequality, or the relative newness of American society compared to Europe.

"The point is that any two differences between America and Europe could be highlighted and the different rates of murder, abortion, teen pregnancy, etc., could be attributed to this difference," Quinn argues.

Moreover, even if the United States is more religious than Europe, it is also less religious than it was a few decades ago. And it is precisely in this period that many social problems referred to in Paul's study, such as abortion and sexually transmitted diseases, have increased sharply.

Contradictory data

And what about Ireland? Quinn asks. If religion is linked to social problems, then Ireland should be improving socially, since it is now growing more secular.

Yet the opposite has happened. "As religion in Ireland has declined, the murder rate and the crime rate [have] soared," Quinn noted. "The marital breakdown rate has also soared, as has the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, out-of-wedlock births, suicide, drug abuse, etc."

Paul's conclusions also run counter to the situation in highly secularized Britain. There, the press publishes a constant stream of articles lamenting the ever-higher rates of infections from sexually transmitted diseases.

"Syphilis is back as sex diseases rise," announced the Sunday Times on March 20. "Sex infections continue to rise," was the headline of a BBC report published June 30. And, on the other side of the world, the Japan Times last Dec. 3 lamented the high rate of another venereal disease, chlamydia, noting that the rate of infections in Japan are among the worst among advanced countries.

More importantly, Paul's study, and even more so the commentaries that use it to attack religion, overlook the difference between correlation and causality.

This is a common problem when statistics are used to "prove" social arguments, notes Joel Best in his 2004 book, "More Damned Lies and Statistics" (University of California Press). "Just because two things seem related does not mean that one causes the other," Best explains. It is possible that another, completely different, factor is responsible for the effect.

To ascertain the existence of a causal effect, Best observes, we need to verify the relationship between the two sets of data. And we need to identify and eliminate other variables before jumping to conclusions. Furthermore, he insists, we need to be particularly careful when dealing with causality over time. It's a fallacy to think that a causal relationship exists, just because one variable precedes the other. Useful advice to keep in mind.
ZE05101502

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Thus, that is why when referring to your religion...we say it is catholicism...not chritisianity.

Emphasis mine.

As one of the many vocal Christians on this board, I'd be remiss to make sure and NOT have this idiot lump me into the group he refers to as "we". Only a complete and total moron would have the audacity to deny the Faith of our Catholic friends and make such an errant, broad judgement.

A "Catholic" is just like any other person: humans need salvation — all of us. God doesn't give a rat's arse what "religion" we ascribe to, He's only concerned about what's in our hearts from the perspective of accept His salvation through Jesus. If a Catholic does that, that catholic is "saved" just like the rest of "Christianity."

Get off your high-horse quickly, mein kapitan.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Emphasis mine.

As one of the many vocal Christians on this board, I'd be remiss to make sure and NOT have this idiot lump me into the group he refers to as "we". Only a complete and total moron would have the audacity to deny the Faith of our Catholic friends and make such an errant, broad judgement.

A "Catholic" is just like any other person: humans need salvation — all of us. God doesn't give a rat's arse what "religion" we ascribe to, He's only concerned about what's in our hearts from the perspective of accept His salvation through Jesus. If a Catholic does that, that catholic is "saved" just like the rest of "Christianity."

Get off your high-horse quickly, mein kapitan.

As a Catholic, I can understand why it is so hard for some evangelical protestants to comprehend the Catholic faith and class it as Christian, especially those who have been raised in a very exclusive evangelical mindset. Catholics have a completely different understanding of the Bible to evangelicals, and to those who are of less scholarly background and with little knowledge of Church history, the Catholic view of the Bible can seem heretical. I think these certain evangelicals who claim Catholicism isn't Christianity should broaden their minds. The Catholic way of viewing theology, tradition, our Lady, and the sacraments is the most ancient form of Christianity and is reflected in hundreds of different orthodox traditions of the East. It is a fact that sola scriptura was not believed or preached by our Apostolic fathers, but rather it is an invention of the reformation. This is not to discount the importance of scripture as inspired, infallible works of the Holy Spirit. I think it will help the oecumenical process if we try to understand each other's view points on the faith and from where they are coming from. To me, it is understandable why the reformation developed in consideration of the gross corruption evident in the Roman church. But to label Catholicism as non-Christian is a great distortion of history. To such a subscription, Christianity may as well have started in the 16th century.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by undotwa

As a Catholic, I can understand why it is so hard for some evangelical protestants to comprehend the Catholic faith and class it as Christian, especially those who have been raised in a very exclusive evangelical mindset. Catholics have a completely different understanding of the Bible to evangelicals, and to those who are of less scholarly background and with little knowledge of Church history, the Catholic view of the Bible can seem heretical. I think these certain evangelicals who claim Catholicism isn't Christianity should broaden their minds. The Catholic way of viewing theology, tradition, our Lady, and the sacraments is the most ancient form of Christianity and is reflected in hundreds of different orthodox traditions of the East. It is a fact that sola scriptura was not believed or preached by our Apostolic fathers, but rather it is an invention of the reformation. This is not to discount the importance of scripture as inspired, infallible works of the Holy Spirit. I think it will help the oecumenical process if we try to understand each other's view points on the faith and from where they are coming from. To me, it is understandable why the reformation developed in consideration of the gross corruption evident in the Roman church. But to label Catholicism as non-Christian is a great distortion of history. To such a subscription, Christianity may as well have started in the 16th century.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by BRussell

They aren't attacked for being Christians because... here it comes... there's nothing wrong with being a Christian! I know that's a shock to your "persecuted Christian" world view. It also may be a shock that for many of us, abortion, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, stem cell research, and all of those other issues that seem to be the focus of conservative Christians, have absolutely nothing to do with our religion, and everything to do with contemporary American politics.

I think I love you.

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by BRussell

They aren't attacked for being Christians because... here it comes... there's nothing wrong with being a Christian! I know that's a shock to your "persecuted Christian" world view. It also may be a shock that for many of us, abortion, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, stem cell research, and all of those other issues that seem to be the focus of conservative Christians, have absolutely nothing to do with our religion, and everything to do with contemporary American politics.

Actually, gay marriage (or more directly, gay sex) is forbidden under the Council of Nicea in 325C.E.. It's very much a cornerstone of Christian ethics. Some may disagree with it's placement in the modern Church, but there's no doubt that it has a very long history within Canon law.

The other issues, as you've pointed out, are much more modern additions, though arguably no less valid. Because, as you well know, even the Left-leaning RCC (especially under John Paul) has been battling abortion, capital punishment, and been on the side of keeping lifesupport patients alive. It's very clear that on this issue they're only concerned about preserving life, no matter how much we trivialize the social cost of certain procedures or scientific research.

Thus, not everything fits into your little anti-conservative Christian agenda, no matter how hard you push or grouse. It doesn't fit the facts.

[Monique]

But the Council of Nicea is man's law not God's and there is nowhere in the Bible that says God forbids gays from existing. And if your argument is that gays cannot have sex because they are not married you should be for gay marriage which would take care of the problem.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

as you well know, even the Left-leaning RCC (especially under John Paul) has been battling abortion, capital punishment, and been on the side of keeping lifesupport patients alive.

The RCC under John Paul was only leaning Left from well within the Right side of the spectrum. It might be more appropriate to say that he was "heading" Left with a long term plan to eventually get there.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Monique

But the Council of Nicea is man's law not God's and there is nowhere in the Bible that says God forbids gays from existing.

LEVITICUS 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[Monique]

Life is hard you will not get what you want, sorry we cannot be all ignorant.

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by Monique

But the Council of Nicea is man's law not God's and there is nowhere in the Bible that says God forbids gays from existing. And if your argument is that gays cannot have sex because they are not married you should be for gay marriage which would take care of the problem.

I never said that they can't, don't put words in my mouth. Personally, I don't give two figs what the Church thinks, as I am not a part of it. I'm simply stating what has historically been it's position and why it feels it has authority on the matter.

As for you statement regarding "God's Law", perhaps Jesus had something to say about that:

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

So in their interpretation, Jesus said that whatever they agree to in his name shall be made LAW, as if it were said by "God". This has been the Church's position for almost 2K years. In Christianity the Church councils hold just as much weight as anything said in the Bible, for that very reason.

Now, do I agree with this? No. However, that's the egregor they've created and it's their right to do so. *shrug*

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by Monique

Life is hard you will not get what you want, sorry we cannot be all ignorant.

He was just proving that you are wrong within the context of what the Bible says. Whether you agree or not, it's in there.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Monique

Life is hard you will not get what you want, sorry we cannot be all ignorant.

Yeah, what he ^ said.

I am not a Christian and I do not care to either support or deny gays anything.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique

Life is hard you will not get what you want, sorry we cannot be all ignorant.

Life is easy and you will get what you want, sorry we cannot all be pessimists.

[jhogarty]

The Minbari had it right - a Grey Council (9 members). Now would Bush be a member of the religious cast or the warrior cast? He can't participate on both. :-)

J.