| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:58 am |
|
While I wouldn't outlaw sex before marriage (and I don't think that that's what he's saying), I do agree with his lack of support for birth control. I do not support it, personally, and the Catholic church does not either. Not that I would outlaw it or anything, but I oppose it and oppose more than minimal educational instruction on it in our schools.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:03 am |
|
That's really interesting. I had no idea the Catholic church was against birth control. Interesting, and a tad disturbing. I'm just glad that, for now, teens have places to go that will help them when they make the decision to have sex. I hope that doesn't go to changing. I'd be happy to protest such a change.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:05 am |
|
Oh, indeed it's adamently against birth control, just as it is abortion, homosexual marriage, and numerous other issues. You'll find that on social issues the Catholic church pretty much takes the more "conservative" viewpoint whereas on other issues (illegal immigration, War on Terror, etc) they take more liberal positions.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:39 am |
|
UGH...supporting immigrants is NOT a Liberal position. I know that isn't the topic, but I'm getting sick of that. It's making Conservatives look bad. MY party supports immigrants. (My party is not Liberal  ) I applaud my Church for looking out for the immigrants.
| Jeff Miller wrote: | | It's about time. Religon can't keep bullying their way without expecting some kind of backlash. Glad to see people aren't taking anymore. |
Wow....don't watch the news or talk to people much?
Athiests have been fighting against religion for years...
Ever heard of the "No more Under God in the pledge"?
"No allowing Religion in Public schools"?
There are tons of other issues....
With that being said, on to this topic, I understand Puck's argument and I understand Valathous' argument as well.
I think what a lot of people don't understand, is that Christians don't try to convert others because they're mean spirited and annoying. You might feel that way, but that isn't necessarily the case. They do it because they believe they arer saving you from a terrible fate. Granted, as much as I love my religious brothers and sisters, I do not agree with them. God, the merciful, would not inflict eternal suffering on good people simply because they were not Christians. Not my God. Anyways, we must consider their motives before jumping to conclusions.
On the other hand...
The athiests/secularists/etc are right in the sense that my fellow Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc need to stop with trying to get others to convert. We believed that we had to get the "word of God" to the corners of the Earth. Well guess what? They're out there. We no longer live in a world where people don't know who Jesus or a Christian was/is. The only people who don't know are people who live in caves with Bin Laden...hell...even Bin Laden knows who Jesus was. Now, we should let people come to religion, not shove it down their throats. We're making more enemies, then allies. We're angering people and fueling their hatred to our respected various religions. I'm fine with a Christian preaching, it is his/her right. BUT, if the person says no? Stop it. Everytime you try to convert them, you're pushing them away. You know, in Islam, they teach that "If you take one step towards Allah, He will take two steps towards you." We need to have that attitude. It must be a conscious, personal decision to convert. Without true belief and faith, converting means NOTHING.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:48 am |
|
I, for one, don't give a dang about conversion. I haven't tried to convert any single human being, and I don't see the most prominent names on the right trying to do it as well. I don't see religion being stuffed down the throats of athiests and secularists--I see athiesm and secularism being thrust down the throats of Christians and other religious groups, as is evident with the Holiday season, our education system, so on and so forth.
And you need to do a little research on the Catholic church on illegal immigration, then. I wasn't talking about immigration. I'm pro-immigration. I was talking about illegal immigration. As any conservative (other than yourself, clearly) whether the Catholic Church's position on illegal immigration--that of harboring illegal immigrants, essentially opening our borders, giving them citizenship, etc--is, in fact, a liberal position. There is no rational doubt about it. And the Catholic church has adopted that liberal stance on this issue, as well as the War in Iraq, the War on Terror, and numerous other non-social issues. It's the ideal religion for social conservatives that are otherwise liberal, hence why I think my liberal grandfather is a devout Catholic and liberal.
Anyways, as you said, this isn't the place to debate this. I was only clarifying for Arellia how the Catholic church is conservative on social issues and liberal on other issues, issues which I personally disagree with them on 90% of the time, but have decided that that realm of issues isn't really up to the Pope (in terms of what his responsibilities are and all that), so I pretty much ignore the Vatican and other leaders on them.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:00 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | I, for one, don't give a dang about conversion. I haven't tried to convert any single human being, and I don't see the most prominent names on the right trying to do it as well. I don't see religion being stuffed down the throats of athiests and secularists--I see athiesm and secularism being thrust down the throats of Christians and other religious groups, as is evident with the Holiday season, our education system, so on and so forth.
I agree with this portion...a little bit. I don't think Athiests and secularists are as innocent as they paint themselves to be. Trust me, I'll call them on what they do, when they do it. I don't like their ridiculous outrage towards saying Merry Christmas or forcing religion out of society as a whole. But my fellow religious brothers and sisters are not so innocent either. Which was my point to Exalya. It isn't a religious or Athiest thing, but a HUMAN thing. To blame intolerance on one ideology is dumb quite frankly. Now, I understand saying Nazis and communists are intolerant, but those two political factions were built to be intolerant. Religion and athiesm were not built to be that way.
And you need to do a little research on the Catholic church on illegal immigration, then. I wasn't talking about immigration. I'm pro-immigration. I was talking about illegal immigration. As any conservative (other than yourself, clearly) whether the Catholic Church's position on illegal immigration--that of harboring illegal immigrants, essentially opening our borders, giving them citizenship, etc--is, in fact, a liberal position. There is no rational doubt about it. And the Catholic church has adopted that liberal stance on this issue, as well as the War in Iraq, the War on Terror, and numerous other non-social issues. It's the ideal religion for social conservatives that are otherwise liberal, hence why I think my liberal grandfather is a devout Catholic and liberal.
I'm not doing any research on MY Church. Any conservative? Thats lie. I know many conservatives, real ones, that would are not anti-immigration and spinning it to say illegal and just immigration is bull. This matter is not that simplistic. Harboring illegal immigrants? Is that evil or something? Giving immigrants citizenship! Horrible! We wouldn't want them to be...you know...legal, because then we'd have no excuse to deport them. 
The war on terror? They aren't against that. They're against Islamic terrorists. They're against the War in Iraq. Two seperate things as Bush and Cheney recently admitted.
This is not a conservative issue. Liberals were complaining and moaning to Bush long before conservatives about the border. The conversatives ran with it when it became a hott issue. They didn't want to be on the side that "supported illegal immigration", that's political suicide. I've met more Liberals on the side of border control, then I have against it.
As for the Dem. that play to the "illegals", those are sick individuals who are riling "illegals" and making a big issue out of it to use for their campaign. They can actually say to the voters "HEY, I supported you remember? Now you support me." It's pure politics.
Anyways, as you said, this isn't the place to debate this. I was only clarifying for Arellia how the Catholic church is conservative on social issues and liberal on other issues, issues which I personally disagree with them on 90% of the time, but have decided that that realm of issues isn't really up to the Pope (in terms of what his responsibilities are and all that), so I pretty much ignore the Vatican and other leaders on them. |
I know what you are "clarifying" but it's best to be 100% right about it if you're going to educate someone about it.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:09 am |
|
Once more you're entirely off-base on that and distorting my opinions so utterly and completely (making it not worth debating at all), so I won't respond to it, as I agree with what you said before--that this isn't the place to debate illegal immigration. (Btw, I don't recall anything about Bush and Cheney saying that Iraq and the War on Terror were separate things. Otherwise WH Press Secretary Tony Snow wouldn't have said the other day that you can't talk about the WoT without talking about Iraq and Bush wouldn't have included Iraq in his speech Monday night.)
At any rate, I'll slide back over to the topic at hand, getting off the discussion on illegal immigration. Clearly there is an attack on Christianity and faith in this country. If you look at the War on Christmas, the silencing of Christian viewpoints, the distortion and removal of history, it clearly adds up to one thing: a war being waged by secularists on American culture, traditions, and history, not the other way around.
I will concede that there are some Christians and people of other religious faiths that are out there campaigning on the idea of conversion and shoving religion down the throats of those that don't want it, particularly in a manner that violates the Establishment Clause (not the myth of Separation of Church and State, but the actual Constitution), but it is far and away minor compared to the assault of secularists/secularist-progressives, no doubt about it.
If anyone's been too submissive for too long it's the Christians and traditionalists, not the athiests and secularists, and I, for one, am sick and tired of it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:18 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Once more you're entirely off-base on that and distorting my opinions so utterly and completely (making it not worth debating at all), so I won't respond to it, as I agree with what you said before--that this isn't the place to debate illegal immigration. (Btw, I don't recall anything about Bush and Cheney saying that Iraq and the War on Terror were separate things. Otherwise WH Press Secretary Tony Snow wouldn't have said the other day that you can't talk about the WoT without talking about Iraq and Bush wouldn't have included Iraq in his speech Monday night.)
At any rate, I'll slide back over to the topic at hand, getting off the discussion on illegal immigration. Clearly there is an attack on Christianity and faith in this country. If you look at the War on Christmas, the silencing of Christian viewpoints, the distortion and removal of history, it clearly adds up to one thing: a war being waged by secularists on American culture, traditions, and history, not the other way around.
I will concede that there are some Christians and people of other religious faiths that are out there campaigning on the idea of conversion and shoving religion down the throats of those that don't want it, particularly in a manner that violates the Establishment Clause (not the myth of Separation of Church and State, but the actual Constitution), but it is far and away minor compared to the assault of secularists/secularist-progressives, no doubt about it.
If anyone's been too submissive for too long it's the Christians and traditionalists, not the athiests and secularists, and I, for one, don't want to take it anymore. |
I pretty much agree with all of that. As I said, I'm tired of the religious being blamed for all the evils in the world.
But the answer isn't...fighting back. We must find a common ground in all of this. If the athiests/secularists aren't willing to, then surely the Christians, the religion of peace, would want to find a solution. The problem with all of this is that we don't want to find common ground. So that is why all sides are saying "wipe out the other guy" and that is actually starting to gain a following. We can't let this come to pass. Surely, we all agree on some minor things. It's enough for a beginning.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:22 am |
|
I'm not saying that this should escalate into a violent conflict, but we have to stand up for traditions and history. You cannot compromise the history of your nation simply to quell intense disagreements. I mean, you can, but that's not even close to the wisest thing you can do.
That's why we need to fight back with lawsuits and with educational lessons and events to make young people and others aware of our true history, our true heritage, and our true culture.
There can be no common ground when you have one end that wants to preserve history and tradition and the other which wants to retract it and surmount it. If there's anything that can't be compromised, it's history.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:26 am |
|
I, for one, still refer to it as the Christmas season, Christmas tree, say Merry Christmas to people, and call it the Easter Bunny, not the Spring Bunny.
Even Toronto's (former) mayor who happened to be Jewish was annoyed at people who wanted to call Toronto's big tree a "Holiday Tree" rather than a "Christmas Tree".
Not all atheists want to topple religion. I just don't believe in it. Too inconsistent and improbable for me. That and I don't like the Church. But I still refer to the religious holidays by what they are and don't try to change them.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:29 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | I'm not saying that this should escalate into a violent conflict, but we have to stand up for traditions and history. You cannot compromise the history of your nation simply to quell intense disagreements. I mean, you can, but that's not even close to the wisest thing you can do.
That's why we need to fight back with lawsuits and with educational lessons and events to make young people and others aware of our true history, our true heritage, and our true culture.
There can be no common ground when you have one end that wants to preserve history and tradition and the other which wants to retract it and surmount it. If there's anything that can't be compromised, it's history. |
You can stand up for history and traditions without hating the other side. I also said nothing about compromising our history to quell this rift between both sides.
I'm not sure about lawsuits, but I do think we need more education. We need to learn from each other as well. We need to understand why we believe what it is we believe. Ignorance is the greatest enemy.
There can be common ground. Just writing it off like that won't help anything. I do agree that we have a long way to go and a lot of discussion, but lets have that discussion BEFORE taking action. I say that to both sides.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:42 am |
|
| Valathous wrote: | I, for one, still refer to it as the Christmas season, Christmas tree, say Merry Christmas to people, and call it the Easter Bunny, not the Spring Bunny.
Even Toronto's (former) mayor who happened to be Jewish was annoyed at people who wanted to call Toronto's big tree a "Holiday Tree" rather than a "Christmas Tree".
Not all atheists want to topple religion. I just don't believe in it. Too inconsistent and improbable for me. That and I don't like the Church. But I still refer to the religious holidays by what they are and don't try to change them. |
Oh, I don't mean to lump all athiests in there. I have a few athiest friends that celebrate the holidays and stuff, and aren't followers of political correctness, which is why I put more focus on secularists/secular-progressives in these debates than I do athiests, because there is a difference. There are Christian secularists, for instance, and there are athiest traditionalists. This I acknoweldge, which is why my focus is more on that one group than athiests. It's the secularists that want to surmount religion, it seems, not athiests (though athiests do predominantly fall into that category).
| Founder wrote: | You can stand up for history and traditions without hating the other side. I also said nothing about compromising our history to quell this rift between both sides.
I'm not sure about lawsuits, but I do think we need more education. We need to learn from each other as well. We need to understand why we believe what it is we believe. Ignorance is the greatest enemy.
There can be common ground. Just writing it off like that won't help anything. I do agree that we have a long way to go and a lot of discussion, but lets have that discussion BEFORE taking action. I say that to both sides. |
I don't hate the other side. I could name at least three people I know personally and like who are secularists and athiests. I'm just tired of this urge to surmount history and heritage and tradition all in an attempt to wipe religion out of government and society.
The only way that you can compromise with these people is to forget history, essentially, or forget an acknowledgement of aspects of our history. There really is no way to compromise here. There is no common ground. At least, none that I can see. Secularists want government (and, oftentimes, society) to be devoid of religion. Traditionalists do not.
The only common ground I could find is my ideology--not forcing religion upon the people or establishing a state church, but at the same time not separating religion from government, or at least trying to do so.
The problem is, we can't stand by and wait for discussions which would most likely turn out unsuccessful when the war is already heated up, when the attack on religion and traditionalism and history and culture and society has already begun and been raging for some time now--especially with the Christmas season about to start up. By the time "discussions" are over it will be too late, and I honestly do not believe in the least that a common ground can be reached, not unless one group gives into the other. The only common ground I could see is the more balanced perspective that I and most other traditionalists have, and the secularists don't want that.
They want a society devoid of morals and a government devoid of religion. There is little you can do to reach a common ground with such a radical ideology. I just debated a secularist at Speech and Debate yesterday and there was not even a bit of common ground that we could find on this issue. One believes that government needs to be devoid of religion and that moral judgement could pretty much be damned (he even suggested distributing condoms to every teen in school, for instance), and the other believes that it is important to have morality and moral judgement not only in society, but in government also, just as it is important to allow our history, culture, and traditions to remain intact, for religious symbols that represent our history to remain in place, and for government to retain that religious heritage that it has had since the presidency of George Washington, and even before that--since the very founding of the United States and the migration to New England in particular--the birthplace of modern democracy.
One group believes in forgetting the true terms "Christmas break" and "Easter Bunny" and the other believes the opposite. One group believes in freely exercizing your religious beliefs in school, one group doesn't. One group believes in holiday displays, one group doesn't. One group wants cities like Los Angeles (I'm sure you know the translation) to remove their signs and symbols, the other group doesn't, preferring to preserve history.
The differences between traditionalists and secularists are so profound that there is nothing we can do to compromise--there can be no common ground. That is why education of our actual history--not a jaded, false history--is critical to the mental and moral secuirty of our nation.
Anyways, I need to go to bed. Good night.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
teya
Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 423
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:47 pm |
|
General question to throw out: do those who describe themselves as "traditionalist" make a distinction between "religious" and "Christian"? In other words, do you think it possible someone could be religious but not Christian? Do you think those people might have a valid issue with, say, prayer in school, particularly if their children might be forced to recite a prayer not their own?
Do you think that there might be gray areas, rather than the black-and-white many of you are promoting?
For example, where would you put me in this debate? I am a Jew and a Witch. I do not believe in organized, mandatory prayer in the public schools, but have no issue with Christmas pageants in the same schools. I think that the LA County seal should include the cross, because--like it or not--the missions were a huge part of this state's history. I don't want any religion silenced, but I want no religion favored. I want the same religious rights as the rest of you.
Am I religious in your view? Am I traditionalist or secularist?
I think you're all throwing around a lot of buzz-words that haven't been defined within the context of the debate, and that makes it really difficult to debate...
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
|
|
teya
Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 423
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:43 pm |
|
^ Sorry, that "quiz" is incomplete. And that's the problem--oversimplification of the issue, putting things in black and white, rather than recognizing the many shades of gray in the matter.
And it assumes that anyone "religious" will be Christian...
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:55 pm |
|
^ I like what Teya's pointing out. You can believe in God and not be Christian. You can be religious and not be Christian. A lot of people lose that. An "attack on religion" usually translates to, "attack on Christianity."
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:58 pm |
|
| teya wrote: | General question to throw out: do those who describe themselves as "traditionalist" make a distinction between "religious" and "Christian"? In other words, do you think it possible someone could be religious but not Christian? Do you think those people might have a valid issue with, say, prayer in school, particularly if their children might be forced to recite a prayer not their own?
Do you think that there might be gray areas, rather than the black-and-white many of you are promoting?
For example, where would you put me in this debate? I am a Jew and a Witch. I do not believe in organized, mandatory prayer in the public schools, but have no issue with Christmas pageants in the same schools. I think that the LA County seal should include the cross, because--like it or not--the missions were a huge part of this state's history. I don't want any religion silenced, but I want no religion favored. I want the same religious rights as the rest of you.
Am I religious in your view? Am I traditionalist or secularist?
I think you're all throwing around a lot of buzz-words that haven't been defined within the context of the debate, and that makes it really difficult to debate... |
First of all, I'm not promoting black and white. Obviously you haven't read any of my posts...
Second of all, excellant question. I guess the initial answer depends on who you ask. I believe anyone who follows a Religion or at least, believes that there is more than the physical is spiritual. Even agnostics can be considered there. I would say you're religious if you believe in more than just what science can show.
I too want no religion favored over any other, but I certainly don't want religion to back down at all. I don't want the Ten Commandments taken down from that court building. I don't want "Unde God" taken out. I don't want Merry Christmas, the phrase that is, to be banned. Not because I'm hardcore religious, but because those are non-issues and is ridiculous for secularists to complain about. I can understand REAL arguments like not favoring one religion over another. Things like that, but the other stuff? That is just excuses for them to force religion out of society, and like RM, I won't accept that.
As for your question, I do consider you a sister of faith.
As for traditionalist or secularist, I'd say you're kind of inbetween.
|
|
|
teya
Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 423
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:20 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | First of all, I'm not promoting black and white. Obviously you haven't read any of my posts... |
Actually, I have, and I usually agree with some portion of your posts, even if we have come to completely opposite opinions on an issue. I said "many of you," not "all of you." 
| Quote: | | I too want no religion favored over any other, but I certainly don't want religion to back down at all. I don't want the Ten Commandments taken down from that court building. |
The Ten Commandments in a courthouse promotes Judaism and Christianity over other religions.
| Quote: | | I don't want "Unde God" taken out. I don't want Merry Christmas, the phrase that is, to be banned. Not because I'm hardcore religious, but because those are non-issues and is ridiculous for secularists to complain about. |
Well, "under God" was added during the Cold War--to distinguish us from the "Godless Commies." When my parents were in school, it wasn't a part of the pledge.
But, I tend to agree. Frankly, they are non-issues (don't believe in God? then leave it out--no one's forcing you to say the words) and a waste of time and energy that could be spent on more serious matters. And I see nothing wrong with wishing someone a Merry Christmas or accepting the greeting as what it is--a holiday greeting and a gesture of good will.
I mean, really, when you think about it--why on earth would someone complain about that? It does boggle the mind...
What truly gets me even more, though, are some issues in California. Should repair and restoration of the missions be in part funded by the state? You better believe it! They are a big part of California's history--one shared by all Californians, no matter what their faith, and deserve to be recognized as such.
| Quote: | | As for your question, I do consider you a sister of faith. |
Well, thank you. 
One of the things that disturbs me about the "war on religion" in this country is that it's been framed in such terms that many of us who belong to other traditions feel left out of the debate. Our issues are ignored by the "secularists" and by the "traditionalists."
I mean, who comes down on the side of the widow of a Wiccan soldier killed in Iraq who simply wants a pentacle on his memorial plaque, as a Christian soldier would have a cross or a Jewish soldier would have a Star of David? The secularists who'd be happy if there were no religious symbols at all? The Christians who protested the rights of Wiccan soldiers to practice their faith?
The vast majority of Americans describe themselves as religious. But the vast majority of *them*--of all faiths--are turned off by the inflexibility of the extreme rhetoric on both sides.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:58 pm |
|
| Arellia wrote: | | That's really interesting. I had no idea the Catholic church was against birth control. Interesting, and a tad disturbing. I'm just glad that, for now, teens have places to go that will help them when they make the decision to have sex. I hope that doesn't go to changing. I'd be happy to protest such a change. |
The Church is against contraceptives. The only form of birth control it find morally acceptable is NFP. Also, the Church doesn't have an official stance on immigration. Bishops and preists have made statements, but Rome hasn't taken an official stance, nor is it considered "non-Catholic" to be against illegal-immigration. Just wanted to clarify those two things.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:04 am |
|
What's NFP? And sorry, I realized that it isn't the Vatican, but Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests being out there on the left's side in the illegal immigration war is tantamount to an official stance on the issue, and it's far from against it. I have yet to see a priest even close to being on the right side of that issue. But anyways, yeah. What's NFP?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:14 am |
|
It means "Natural Family Planning." Basically, women are only fertile for a little over 100 hours per month, so if you avoid sexual intercourse during that time the chance for pregnancy decreases - without the use of contraceptives.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:15 am |
|
Ah, okay. Thank you. I can see why the Church would permit that. Then, Puck, is a vasectomy not permissible?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:09 am |
|
| teya wrote: | | Actually, I have, and I usually agree with some portion of your posts, even if we have come to completely opposite opinions on an issue. I said "many of you," not "all of you." |
My apologies.
| teya wrote: | | The Ten Commandments in a courthouse promotes Judaism and Christianity over other religions. |
It's not...promoting anything at all. It's meant there to be a symbol of laws, because the Ten Commandments is a very famous symbol of laws. Whether you are religious or not. I would agree with you if they actually made the Ten Commandment laws actual laws in America, but they don't. It just sits there as a symbol of what it stands for...law. What better place for it to be then in front of a court house...
| teya wrote: | | Well, "under God" was added during the Cold War--to distinguish us from the "Godless Commies." When my parents were in school, it wasn't a part of the pledge. |
I know why it was placed there, but that doesn't mean it needs to be taken out. Especially since in most public schools, you are not obligated to say the pledge. Just because you recite that part of the pledge doesn't mean anyone turns into a Christian.
| teya wrote: | But, I tend to agree. Frankly, they are non-issues (don't believe in God? then leave it out--no one's forcing you to say the words) and a waste of time and energy that could be spent on more serious matters. And I see nothing wrong with wishing someone a Merry Christmas or accepting the greeting as what it is--a holiday greeting and a gesture of good will.
I mean, really, when you think about it--why on earth would someone complain about that? It does boggle the mind... |
EXACTLY! Do some of these secularists/Non-Christian people realize what Merry Christmas means? It's simply wishing someone a happy Christmas, nothing more. There is no ill will in their words. Just because one doesn't celebrate it, does not mean they are trying to hurt you. For example, if you teya, came up to me and said "Happy Hannuka", I would not break down, cry, and then sue you. It's ridiculous. Even if I don't celebrate that holiday, I would know you're simply wishing me a happy day. Why would I want to sue you over that? I would simply say "Thanks, same to you." Is it really that painful for some people?
| teya wrote: | | What truly gets me even more, though, are some issues in California. Should repair and restoration of the missions be in part funded by the state? You better believe it! They are a big part of California's history--one shared by all Californians, no matter what their faith, and deserve to be recognized as such. |
Agreed. Some of these things are simply about tradition.
| teya wrote: | | One of the things that disturbs me about the "war on religion" in this country is that it's been framed in such terms that many of us who belong to other traditions feel left out of the debate. Our issues are ignored by the "secularists" and by the "traditionalists." |
I can understand that. I do agree that we need more interreligious unity.
| teya wrote: | I mean, who comes down on the side of the widow of a Wiccan soldier killed in Iraq who simply wants a pentacle on his memorial plaque, as a Christian soldier would have a cross or a Jewish soldier would have a Star of David? The secularists who'd be happy if there were no religious symbols at all? The Christians who protested the rights of Wiccan soldiers to practice their faith?
The vast majority of Americans describe themselves as religious. But the vast majority of *them*--of all faiths--are turned off by the inflexibility of the extreme rhetoric on both sides. |
I agree and sympathise that it isn't fair. A lot of people in the middle are kind of...tossed aside.
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:15 am |
|
People can be religious or not, but the main difference is that we live in a world where our country has laws to live by, and law is not connected to religion, only society as a whole. Christians can argue all they want about same sex marrages, or whatever they want, but their religious beliefs are not law. A law will never make special allowances for religion. Everyone is bound by the same law.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:18 am |
|
| PrankishSmart wrote: | | A law will never make special allowances for religion. Everyone is bound by the same law. |
Well, that's not entirely true. What I mean is, I'm 16 and I have younger siblings and all three of us are able to go to church every Sunday and drink wine. There is an exception made in the law for Catholicism and other faiths that might use that.
While it's the case for the most part, there are exceptions due to the doctrines of certain (valid) religions and whatnot. (I say valid because I'm not talking about some wacko cult with 20 members who wants to call themselves a religion and have group sex or something for "onenes," something I read somewhere, lol.)
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
