Catholic bishops enter dueling initiatives fray

[Dave Workman]

Bishops take sides in gun rights debate
 
 

According to yesterday’s on-line Seattle P-I.com column by Joel Connelly, Washington State’s four Catholic bishops have taken sides in the gun rights battle and it’s not to the benefit of legally-armed members of their congregations.
 
http://www.examiner.com/article/bishops-take-sides-gun-rights-debate

[Knocker of rocks]

Why would a system that has protected child molesters be against an armed citizenry?

[Elkaholic daWg]

Why would a system that has protected child molesters be against an armed citizenry?

 

[snowpack]

Of course they would be pro gun control....crime would surge and they get to perform more funerals.
What I don't think they realize is that their ally libs are marching for socialism, under the socialist systems eventually religion gets outlawed.

[pianoman9701]

Why would a system that has protected child molesters be against an armed citizenry?

This comment was reported by a member yet there was no reason stated for reporting it. Knocker makes a statement that doesn't use foul language or  personally attack anyone in this forum, and has been backed up by reported events. I can see no reason to censor this comment. Please continue the discussion. If the person who reported the comment would like to PM me, I will consider their reasoning. Let's not divert the discussion to focusing on this report.
PMan

[Jack Roscoe]

Elkaholic dawg's comment is uniformed at best.  No "system" in the Catholic church protected child molesters.  There were individual clergy in a position to do so that did try to protect suspected molesters.  That was absolutely wrong and a crime, in itself, in some states.  But there is NO evidence to indicate any systemic intent to do so.  I worked in the child protection business for years.  The largest number of molesters of children, by a huge margin, are male family members often found to being "protected" by other family members.  Next, in terms of numbers, are teachers, followed by coaches, both often protected by their peers or by their supervisors.

[pianoman9701]

Elkaholic dawg's comment is uniformed at best.  No "system" in the Catholic church protected child molesters.  There were individual clergy in a position to do so that did try to protect suspected molesters.  That was absolutely wrong and a crime, in itself, in some states.  But there is NO evidence to indicate any systemic intent to do so.  I worked in the child protection business for years.  The largest number of molesters of children, by a huge margin, are male family members often found to being "protected" by other family members.  Next, in terms of numbers, are teachers, followed by coaches, both often protected by their peers or by their supervisors.

Again, the topic at hand is the stand that Catholic officials are taking on gun control initiatives. Please keep the topic on point.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Why would a system that has protected child molesters be against an armed citizenry?

 

 When did this become my comment? My comment was

[Special T]

Gun controll worked out so well for catholics in Germany in WW2 appently they must be that inteested in history, just politics. The artilce does show however that it is "Sourced" as catholic religious leaders however is lead by Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. So while there are some Jack wagons that have a collar this is mostly a bunch of anti gunners trying to build some support in an area that is mostly hostile... The religious conservative. 

[pianoman9701]

There may very soon be a point when churches lose their tax exempt status because they can't help but get political in the pulpit. Proposition 8 in CA was defeated by what is now known as $23m in contributions from the LDS Church. Interestingly, the LDS population in CA is roughly 2%, yet their contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign comprises 80% of the total. There is now little question that it was the LDS church which defeated that bill in a mind-numbingly liberal state where it would normally have easily been defeated.

The separation of church and state (yes, I know that phrase is not part of the Bill of Rights) means that the government needs to stop letting these churches get by without contributing to our tax structure if they're going to continue to have influence on our governance.

[Special T]

That is a *censored*ization of what Separation of what church and state really is... Churches preach on morality, and there is a razors edge  of how to keep it "non political" The truth of the matter is that  the Separation clause had more to do with the STATE not endorsing or condemning a specific religion. Many left leaning churches have been allowed to preach from the pulpit on specific political issues/ campaigns and have NO fear of enforcement. IMO a church giving money in politics should not be any different than a union, or any PAC since it is just an organization of citizens.

Many churches are having a harder time filling the pews an I would assume that a lot of it has to do with the way a church operates.
this article http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2013/February26/262.html Talks about the fall of older established churches (in this case Catholicism in general) and younger churches that are either really small or really large are growing... I think in part its because they are actively trying to be relevent to the community they are in. The older churches are In Search Of  a mission to be relevent. I can only assume that relevent churches are doing a good job of helping people look inward to make their lives better and act better in an active outward way to help others.  I look at the catholic church as deadwood on the fruit tree that needs to be pruned. NOT because i think religion should embrace gun control, Homosexuality, or other socialist ideals, but because it is a complacent organization that is too large and slow to change. Not really all that different from many corporations that rise and fall in the USA.

[pianoman9701]

That is a *censored*ization of what Separation of what church and state really is... Churches preach on morality, and there is a razors edge  of how to keep it "non political" The truth of the matter is that  the Separation clause had more to do with the STATE not endorsing or condemning a specific religion. Many left leaning churches have been allowed to preach from the pulpit on specific political issues/ campaigns and have NO fear of enforcement. IMO a church giving money in politics should not be any different than a union, or any PAC since it is just an organization of citizens.

Many churches are having a harder time filling the pews an I would assume that a lot of it has to do with the way a church operates.
this article http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2013/February26/262.html Talks about the fall of older established churches (in this case Catholicism in general) and younger churches that are either really small or really large are growing... I think in part its because they are actively trying to be relevent to the community they are in. The older churches are In Search Of  a mission to be relevent. I can only assume that relevent churches are doing a good job of helping people look inward to make their lives better and act better in an active outward way to help others.  I look at the catholic church as deadwood on the fruit tree that needs to be pruned. NOT because i think religion should embrace gun control, Homosexuality, or other socialist ideals, but because it is a complacent organization that is too large and slow to change. Not really all that different from many corporations that rise and fall in the USA.

They're supposed to teach religion to their followers, not influence the outcome of initiatives and elections. The whole reason that the church laws were written into the 1st Amendment were because the Church of England comprised (comprises) 1/3 of Parliament and has a big hand in their elections and government processes. We didn't want that. When a church like the Catholic church and the LDS church want to sway an election, all they have to do is throw millions of that tax exempt money at it. It's not right. If they want to take part in elections, they can pay taxes like any corporation and be an individual like any corporation.

As far as the decline of organized religion is concerned, I could care less. They'll be as vital to the community as they make themselves. This however, has nothing to do with them getting involved in our politics. This discussion is about gun control and the Catholic Church's part in it. Debates over other social issues like abortion and homosexuality hold no interest with me in this thread.

[Special T]

They're supposed to teach religion to their followers, not influence the outcome of initiatives and elections. The whole reason that the church laws were written into the 1st Amendment were because the Church of England comprised (comprises) 1/3 of Parliament and has a big hand in their elections and government processes. We didn't want that. When a church like the Catholic church and the LDS church want to sway an election, all they have to do is throw millions of that tax exempt money at it. It's not right. If they want to take part in elections, they can pay taxes like any corporation and be an individual like any corporation.

I think the argument that you make for/against Church involvement in politics is the same as unions or PAC's and many other Not for profits. In this case i Do Not think that it is good for the church to take this side of the argument.  At best you have a couple of leaders that only represent a small portion of the church  making the church less attractive to other members/potential members.

[blackdog]

To be clear these four Bishops are representing all roman Catholics in the State.

[Elkaholic daWg]

 They THINK they are.....

[pianoman9701]

They're supposed to teach religion to their followers, not influence the outcome of initiatives and elections. The whole reason that the church laws were written into the 1st Amendment were because the Church of England comprised (comprises) 1/3 of Parliament and has a big hand in their elections and government processes. We didn't want that. When a church like the Catholic church and the LDS church want to sway an election, all they have to do is throw millions of that tax exempt money at it. It's not right. If they want to take part in elections, they can pay taxes like any corporation and be an individual like any corporation.

I think the argument that you make for/against Church involvement in politics is the same as unions or PAC's and many other Not for profits. In this case i Do Not think that it is good for the church to take this side of the argument.  At best you have a couple of leaders that only represent a small portion of the church  making the church less attractive to other members/potential members.

And by the way ST, churches are a different status of tax exempt organization (501C3) which prohibits much political involvement and donations, unlike PACS (501C) and unions (501C). They are specifically classified that way to keep them from throwing elections, such as the one for Prop 8 in CA. The LDS church is being investigated for violating its 501C3 status for their donations to pass that legislation.