|Maybe you shouldn't vote for practicing Catholics||Continental|
Dec 4, 2003 10:17 AM
|Sounds like an attempt at Theocracy to me:
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- La Crosse Bishop Raymond L. Burke sent letters to three state lawmakers urging them to change their pattern of voting on issues that contradict the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion and other issues, a newspaper reports.
Burke said in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he sent the letters to two state legislators and a congressman to tell the lawmakers that as practicing Catholics they cannot support legislation that is "anti-life," which he said includes abortion and assisted suicide.
"If they were to continue to do that, I would simply have to ask them not to present themselves to receive the sacraments because they would not be Catholics in good standing," said Burke, who was appointed Tuesday to serve as the archbishop of St. Louis.
|Maybe you need to understand something about ...||Live Steam|
Dec 4, 2003 11:02 AM
|equal representation. They are entitled to voice their opinions and concerns/beliefs just as any citizen is. Groups of every religion have their own opinions, desires, needs and concerns and express them to public officials every day. American Indians are not treated as a religious group, but the concessions given to them regarding certain use of land and other status bestowed to them, is given in deference for their religious beliefs and culture as much as anything else. Why is it that people choose to only pick on Catholics?|
|You're comparing Native Americans to Catholics now!?||czardonic|
Dec 4, 2003 11:08 AM
American Indians are not treated as a religious group, but the concessions given to them regarding certain use of land and other status bestowed to them, is given in deference for their religious beliefs and culture as much as anything else.
How embarassing for you.
Why is it that people choose to only pick on Catholics?
How embarassing indeed.
|Hey chuckles what is it that you don't understand||Live Steam|
Dec 4, 2003 3:28 PM
|American Indians are a special interest group as are Catholics as are Jews, etc. They all have their own priorities and demands on our legislators. Indians claim sacred status to certain lands. To me this is equivalent to requesting religious deference. Laws are effected by this deference. Where is the difference?
Secular and religious groups place certain demands upon our legal system. They all try to use influence to help determine the outcome. Catholics seem to be the popular whipping boy for liberal's revilement and vituperation.
I guess you have a problem with the lighting of the National Christmas Tree.
|I'm wise to you. You are trying to bleed my heart dry. . .||czardonic|
Dec 4, 2003 3:57 PM
|. . .with your deeply embarassing misconceptions about Native Americans and the "deference" they are afforded by our laws.
And again with your deeply embarassing arguments about Catholics as liberal whipping boys. Liberals don't care about the Catholic doctrine on issues such as sex education and gay rights. Not at all. They are simply in the grips of irrational "revilement and vituperation". They are so crazy with hatred for Catholics, Democrats elected the only Catholic president!
|You can't be serious||53T|
Dec 4, 2003 12:21 PM
|Catholics may be an oppressed minority, but Native Americans are actual victims. Not so much victims of having their land taken (all's fair in love and war) but of the endless illegal treatment they received from the US government and the several states after the formation of the BIA.
Concessions given to Native American tribes are in deference to their status as soverign nations, not their religious beliefs and culture.
That said, the original poster is just being a silly buggar, as the Bishop is just doiung his Bishoply thing. Governor Mario Cuomo (D-NY) got in huge trouble with the Bishop in Albany for his stance on abortion legislation. This is not a new phenomenon.
|of course I'm being a silly bugger--this is an internet forum nm||Continental|
Dec 4, 2003 12:56 PM
|Religious coercion is not equal representation||Continental|
Dec 4, 2003 12:45 PM
|This is a feeble attempt by a Bishop to leverage his religious office to exercise political power by coercing Catholic lawmakers. The Bishop has issued an ultimatum--obey my interpretation of morality or be excommunicated. I would not vote for anyone who would not immediately respond to the Bishop in the strongest terms that they will not be influenced by such heavy-handed coercion. At least one lawmaker reportedly has done so. More power to her.
I'm picking on Catholics because a representative of the Catholic Church is pissing me off, and the knucklehead is moving to my city, St. Louis, where the Bishop has a lot of power. He has also been given poor marks by organizations representing those sexually abused by priests. By the way, my wife and inlaws are Catholic. They think the Church is screwed up though, and only the grandmother still attends services.
|Is this another opposite day?||bboc|
Dec 5, 2003 8:20 AM
|Steam is actually making sense. My world is spinning!
|Apparently someone else doesn't agree with your assessment:O) nm||Live Steam|
Dec 5, 2003 8:37 AM
|Steam, you're always Right, even if you're not correct! nm||OldEdScott|
Dec 5, 2003 9:28 AM
|I'm making tee shirts and bumper stickers. Thanks! :O) nm||Live Steam|
Dec 5, 2003 9:35 AM
|Can any of you old timers remember if Kennedy||chopper|
Dec 4, 2003 11:43 AM
|tried to get government funding for Catholic schools? I seem to remember something in college to this effect and that it was an important part of his agenda.
JFK by the way.
|Kennedy in 1960 . . .||ms|
Dec 4, 2003 12:19 PM
|Kennedy's address to a group of Protestant ministers in Houston during the 1960 campaign took the opposite position.
I have seen videos of the address and questions and answer session. Although I am not a JFK groupie, I think that the speech and answers he gave may be one of the most enduring and relevant things he ever did.
|Nobody is forcing anybody to vote a certain way||Spoiler|
Dec 4, 2003 12:04 PM
|The Bishop is just letting the lawmakers know the consequences of their actions. The lawmakers are free quitt their job and remain a Catholic in good standing or they can become an excommunicated lawmaker.
Educated lawmakers know all about the possible contradictions between their duty as an elected official and their duty as a Catholic well before they run for office.
Now wouldn't you feel bad if the Bishop remained silent and allowed those nice politicians to go to hell?
|One might ask, though: Tax-free status?||Cory|
Dec 4, 2003 12:27 PM
|I have no problem with the church (or Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club or any other group) promoting its views. When they get heavily involved in politics, though, should they be tax-exempt? At what point does a church that doesn't pay taxes and rejects government influence undermine its own argument by its attempts to influence government?|
|Attempt to influence government||moneyman|
Dec 4, 2003 12:42 PM
|They are saying that if you continue to do this, you cannot be Catholic. I'd say that is an attempt to maintain the integrity of the Church, and not to influence government. Although I'd be naive to say that the Church would not want to influence legislation regarding abortion and euthanasia, it would be equally naive to say that the Sierra club doesn't try to influence legislation regarding the envirmonment.
|re: Maybe you shouldn't vote for practicing Catholics||moneyman|
Dec 4, 2003 12:34 PM
|The American Bishops recently came out with a policy that they would do just what the good Bishop from LaCrosse did - Hold people accountable for what they say. There are many examples of legislators who make the statement that "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I can't let my personal beliefs get in the way of my job." That is a cop out of incredible proportions. No one is forced to practice any religion. Catholic legslators are Catholic by choice. They can choose not to be, and if they insist on supporting abortion, they are in direct conflict with the teachings of the Church, and should lose their status as a "Catholic in good standing." Being Catholic is not like eating at a Chinese restaurant - one from column A, two from column B. You get the whole thing, not just whatever looks good at the moment.
It has burned me for years that politicians do that. Ted Kennedy is perhaps the most (in)famous of the copper-outers, and I would give anything to hear the Bishop of the Boston Archdiocese tell TK that he can no longer take part in the Sacraments.
Losing your "good status" standing is a huge deal for practicing Catholics. It is not a demand that legislators toe the Church line, but rather that they support what they profess to be a part of. If I were to run for office, I would tell people that I am opposed to abortion and I will not support any legislation that favors it. In addition to that, I would work towards changing the law to be more restrictive regarding abortion than it currently is. It is not because I would be taking marching orders from Rome, but rather that my own set of beliefs, certainly shaped by the Church, would be a major factor in my consideration of legislation. Now, vote for me or not, because you know what you will get.
If ALL legislators, or even a majority of them were Catholic, I'd say it was a threat to the system. The reality, however, is far different from that.
|In a way, I agree. Here's the problem, though:||OldEdScott|
Dec 4, 2003 12:46 PM
|If voters perceive that Cathlolic candidates are going to hew the Vatican line on matters of public policy, they'll be less likley to vote for Catholics. That was the basis of the old anti-Catholic bias in politics. Kennedy had to break that perception, succeeded, and in doing so opened the door.
Anti-Catholic bias is a very, very small problem in AMerican politics these days. It could be a problem again, though, if the church starts ostracizing public officials who go against the papal 'line.'
May be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
|So, practicing Catholic lawmakers are hypocrites or puppets||Continental|
Dec 4, 2003 1:07 PM
|If practicing Catholic lawmakers don't vote the way the Church wants them to vote, then they are hipocrites. Who wants to vote for a hippocrite? If they vote the way the church wants them to, then they are not independant representatives of the electorate. Other than devout Catholics, who wants to vote for a puppet of the Church? So, maybe you shouldn't vote for practicing Catholics.|
|That makes the assumption that..||moneyman|
Dec 4, 2003 1:33 PM
|I only believe what I do because the Church tells me what to believe. I'm a cradle Catholic and I'd be a liar if I said the my upbringing in the Church did not influence my thinking.
Lets say that your Dad was a union leader and had been a union man all his working life. Conversation at your dinner table was about collective bargaining and the injustices of the corporate bosses against the working man. You think your Dad walks on water and that all he said was right. You grow up, move out on your own, join a union, and run for office. You toe the union line and vote the union line. An issue comes up that the union takes a stand on and it differs from your stand. If you vote the union line, you are not an independent representative. If you vote your own conscience, you are a hippocrite (sic). Other than committed union members, who would want to vote for a puppet of the union? Maybe we shouldn't vote for union members.
Do you believe in what you believe because that's what the union told you to believe? Or do you beleive what you believe because you have thought the matter through, and using what you learned from your Dad as background for your decisions, believe that what the union says is right?
|Not an assumption, your own words||Continental|
Dec 4, 2003 2:05 PM
|"Being Catholic is not like eating at a Chinese restaurant - one from column A, two from column B. You get the whole thing, not just whatever looks good at the moment."
So, to be a good practicing Catholic you have to believe what the Church tells you to believe, and do what the church tells you to do. No picking and choosing based on Human intellect, secular thought, and analysis.
|Or, God forbid, deference to those you represent. (nm)||czardonic|
Dec 4, 2003 2:14 PM
|That's convenient to say when it fits your argument. (nm)||Live Steam|
Dec 4, 2003 3:45 PM
|No kidding! (nm)||czardonic|
Dec 4, 2003 4:00 PM
|To say one votes the way "the church wants them to is idiotic"||Live Steam|
Dec 4, 2003 3:43 PM
|Every vote is influenced by that person's reality. Jews vote based on their own particular ideal as do Muslims and Agnostics. Each has their own particular sets of beliefs. Each votes according to their conscience. If you choose not to vote for a Catholic because of their stance on abortion, that is fine and your prerogative. What else would you like to hear? There are many who oppose abortion and would have no problem voting for a Catholic. That is the beauty of our system.
I guess we Catholics should remove ourselves from office and relinquish our rights of enfranchisement. That would probably make you and the many flaming liberal nihilists very happy and feel secure in your own little World.
|It is idiotic, but clearly what the Bishop wants, nm||Continental|
Dec 4, 2003 6:34 PM
|There is less here than meets the eye.||53T|
Dec 6, 2003 5:23 PM
|Let's get one thing straight, most govenmental agencies in the US are democratic in nature, the Catholic church is not. There is no part of the Catholic doctrine that encourages participation by the congregation in the rule making of the church. The rules come directly from God, full stop.
There are many religions, some big and important, that have elements of democracy built into the rulebook, the Catholis church is not one of them.
Let's get another thing straight, the church (or any church) does not give up it's right to lobby and stand on it's soapbox in return for tax-free status. That notion (mentioned in an ealier post) is just misinformed.
The Pope himself was here in the early 90's and got the locals in a lather when he urged US catholics to resist the immoral laws in the US respescting abortion rights. Ignorants of all political stripes yelled "how dare he come here and tell us what to do."
My father was union (608) and catholic, I am neither, but I agree with the Bishop: when the church says jump you jump or leave the church, it is that simple. I made my choice years ago.