New Pope Thread

quote:

---

At most the POA is a mild endorsement of monotheism. I can see how a strong atheist might object to it, but what's wrong with sitting quietly or not saying the two offending words ? Must it be a media event ?

---

It's wrong because it is recited in public schools that are funded and run by our government.Last I checked, our government wasn't supposed to be endorsing or promoting or indoctrinating anyone in any religious idea, including monotheism.

As a US citizen, he's certainly entitled to be taken seriously by the government that represents him. Which is the government unconstitutionally taking the opinion that those who believe in more or less than one God are wrong. In other words "nobody gives a frog but the atheists, and who cares what they think?" Yes, I did know that. So what? When we're being forced or coerced into joining in? You bet your froggin lilypad we are. Just like you would be in our position.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-24-2005 02:17 AM

You might want to tone down the language. It does not reflect well on your maturity or encorage those of opposing viewpoints to take you seriously.Now if you'd like to explain why quietly sitting when the POA is being recited, is some horrible state sanctioned infringement on your human rights, it might prove interesting.There are certain groups that refuse to recite the POA for religious reasons (Jehovas Witnesses, for exampe). They seem to do OK with simply opting out. What makes your belief system special ?

quote:

---

Now if you'd like to explain why quietly sitting when the POA is being recited, is some horrible state sanctioned infringement on your human rights, it might prove interesting.

---

It's wrong (and illegal) because it is recited in public schools that are funded and run by our government.Last I checked, our government wasn't supposed to be endorsing or promoting or indoctrinating anyone in any religious idea, including monotheism.Let's say we changed the pledge to say, "One nation, under no God because god doesn't exist, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."Would you think that was OK? I mean, it's not like you or your children would be literally forced to say it. You don't have to agree with it, but every publically-funded school in America would recite it every morning.What would be the big deal?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-23-2005 07:56 PM

You pick your words and I'll pick mine. Why don't you just look up the court briefs? It was established to the satisfaction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and whatever proof there was sufficient to meet the Supreme Court's standard of coercive infringment that, in order to appease the Justice Department, they had to change their standard. In other words "everybody else shuts up and deals with the infringment of their constitutional rights; what the hell is the atheists' problem?" If the Jehovah's Witnesses aren't interested in speaking up for their rights, what does that have to do with the rest of us? I'm sure some black people opted not to speak out against slavery; did that mean that no black person had a right not to be a slave?

I'd think it was an unproven assertion, but pretty much ignore it otherwise. I wouldn't feel the need to loudly proclaim "oh, the injustice of it all" in front of 14 video cameras. That's for the Roy Moores of the world.

Which is exactly who I was talking about in the first place - the very vocal minority, currently running the Republican party, who reacts instantly and with the greatest degree of righteous indignation any time someone has the audacity to suggest that maybe, just maybe our government shouldn't be in the God business.

quote:

---

I'd think it was an unproven assertion, but pretty much ignore it otherwise.

---

So, it would be perfectly OK with you that, as a Catholic, your government was actively promoting Atheism to all of the nation's children? With your tax money?I find it rather unlikely that you would just ignore it.What would the Pope think about a governement that did this? He would likely criticize it, right, and call upon the citizens of the US to put pressure on Lawmakers to change it?

quote:

---

I wouldn't feel the need to loudly proclaim "oh, the injustice of it all" in front of 14 video cameras. That's for the Roy Moores of the world.

---

Well, then you are not that into demanding your constitutional rights in public, and no one is saying that everybody has to be.However, the question wasn't "would you be a poster boy".

Paisano, do you agree or disagree with the following:It's (the POA) wrong (and illegal) because it is recited in public schools that are funded and run by our government.Last I checked, our government wasn't supposed to be endorsing or promoting or indoctrinating anyone in any religious idea, including monotheism.

As long as students who do not wish to participate (for whatever reason) may opt out, no, I do not see the fact of the POA being recited as unconstitutional or illegal.IMO of course. I'm sure your opinion varies. But the determination of what is and is not unconstitutional is a matter for the courts and experts in constitutional law. Which neither one of us is, AFAIK.

I thought I'd post an interesting paragraph.

quote:

---

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ... I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.

---

Who was the raging secularist who spoke these words? Who was the godless pagan so offended by the mere thought of politicians governing from their faith? Who had the audacity to spit on America's glorious Christian tradition and lead us into a morass of atheism from which we will surely never recover absent the redeeming grace of Jesus?None other than John F Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, and our only Catholic president.Were these words spoken today, the speaker would be roundly condemned across the three branches of government and every hour on Fox News. If that doesn't inform you as to the degree to which theocracy has made significant inroads to our government, media, and culture, then you're simply not interested in paying attention.

in today's edition of the Observer newspaper (UK) they describe a letter on child abuse which they have obtained, which was sent to every catholic bishop in 2001 by Ratzinger.

quote:

---

It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week...

​

It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.

​

The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.

​

It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

​

'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

---

I think this makes clear what sort of man the new pope is.link: Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry | World news | The Guardian[edited to correct ubb code]This message has been edited by mick, 04-24-2005 11:00 AM

Only on the internet can two people who agree argue so much.

http://www.francesco.biz/papa.jpg{dBCode image tags removed from the above link. Go there if you wish to see the graphic. Lam, I really think we can do well without such interjections. I see it as noise detrimental to the topic's signal to noise ratio. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-25-2005 05:56 PM

Ha ha! Fair enough.