One reason I'll remain a lapsed Catholic

It's spot on true. But not for the reasons you think. The real reason is that a majority of Christianity follows beliefs and lives their lives in manners that more closely resemble the right side of the political spectrum. And because you folks on the left are people who place government and politics above all else, that makes Christianity evil to you. You try to couch your anti-religious BS in all kinds of spins, but the bottom line is the left hates most religious people first because they're most likely to be conservatives and then second because they're religious.

 

I'm not sure what you were going for here, but I'll leave you with this.

As a person who is certainly to the left of you, I am tolerant of anyone practicing any religion, as long as they do so without breaking any laws or harming anyone else.

All I ask is that we separate the laws of our country and the public policies we pursue from religious dogma, since we obviously aren't all going to agree on the former.

 

Unless, and until, the Catholic Church starts a full-throttle campaign to weed out the pedophile child abusers (and their enablers and protectors) in its ranks, excommunicate them, and feed them to civil authorities for full prosecution under the law, it has no moral authority whatsoever on anything.

Shut The Fuck Up and clean up our house.

 

That's not the only reason I left, but certainly part of it.

 

If anyone's at work (in a newsroom), check out a story slugged NoComplaining on the Nation wire. Interesting read. I was gonna copy and paste it, but I didn't think I could do that. Can I?

 

A well-reasoned and expressed post, Zeke, but you completely ignore the fact that most on the left would like to pretty much exclude religious folks from participating in the political process because they know which way the religious will lean. And they then couch this tactic with "separate church and government" rhetoric when they know full well that there is no chance of a national religion being dictated. In the end, the further their political goals, the left is doing its damned-well best to prevent the free exercise of religion.

 

FACT.

This is the most dead-on accurate statement in this thread.

If I ran a private school (not only would it be the greatest school in the history of mankind), I would certainly want to be able to pick and choose who I would like speaking. I would like the option to turn someone down, like Fred Phelps, based on a disagreement.

Well, Cranberry held strong until this.

 

There are liberal churches, conservative churches, liberal protestants, conservative protestants, liberal muslims, conservative muslims.

Liberal vs. Conservative is as big an issue in the church as it is in politics, T.

 

Tony --

It's not lazy. You're either incredibly stupid or deliberately obtuse.

When the Vatican issues a Papal edict, that means that they expect people who are Catholic to behave accordingly. That's religion. for better or worse.

When they want to apply that edict to all people, regardless of religion, that's politics.

Senator McCaskill might very well fully agree with the Papal position on abortion but concurrently realize that she was elected to represent ALL of her constituents, not just the Catholic ones. She might ultimately come to the decision that while her personal opposition to abortion stands, she does not think outlawing the procedure is in the best interests of the people she represents.

Likewise, she might disagree with the church on the issue politically or morally. You don't know, and neither do I.

The fact remains that political opposition to political stances a political organization takes does not change ones religion of birth or choice.

 

There's a major flaw in that logic. Someone who fully agrees with the Papal position on abortion should state that ahead of time during the campaign, and then if the electorate doesn't agree, you don't get elected. Tough luck.

If you do get elected, then your constituency knows what to expect, and you should follow through on initiatives supporting that position.

But saying you agree with the Papal position and then acting in an opposite manner is the M.O. of a hypocrite.

 

For that argument to hold water, you would have to show that she said she fully agreed with the Papal position AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY.

Since we both know she didn't -- in fact, she campaigned as a pro-choice, pro-stem cell research candidate -- your argument is completely off point.