Post by: Dave Workman on December 09, 2013, 09:11:57 AM
:bdid:
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 (http://www.examiner.com/article/bishops-take-sides-gun-rights-debate)
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 09, 2013, 09:23:06 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 09, 2013, 09:40:51 AM
Why would a system that has protected child molesters be against an armed citizenry?
:chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: snowpack on December 09, 2013, 11:13:19 AM
What I don't think they realize is that their ally libs are marching for socialism, under the socialist systems eventually religion gets outlawed.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 09, 2013, 11:14:54 AM
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
Post by: Jack Roscoe on December 09, 2013, 12:46:17 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 09, 2013, 12:58:08 PM
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.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 09, 2013, 01:07:22 PM
Why would a system that has protected child molesters be against an armed citizenry?
:chuckle: :chuckle:
When did this become my comment? My comment was :chuckle: :chuckle: :dunno:
Post by: Special T on December 09, 2013, 01:14:58 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 09, 2013, 01:26:59 PM
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.
Post by: Special T on December 09, 2013, 02:13:01 PM
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 (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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 09, 2013, 02:28:39 PM
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 (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.
Post by: Special T on December 09, 2013, 03:06:48 PM
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.
Post by: blackdog on December 09, 2013, 06:23:09 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 09, 2013, 07:36:21 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 10, 2013, 07:14:20 AM
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.