8th September 2010

“To a non-Catholic like me, the Roman Catholic Church's insistence that its faithful vote a certain way, based on a list of specific issues that it determines is most important, is intrusive. From my non-Catholic viewpoint, the Vatican's statement constitutes an unwarranted interference by a foreign country in our domestic affairs.”

Laurie Fendrich

21 Responses to “8th September 2010”

  1. Mike G. Says:

    I think even more can be said about evangelicals in America, at the moment. Especially around election time it seems that there is too many xians, and not enough lions…

  2. Margaret Says:

    Once the churches start trying to influence elections /take over government, they should lose their tax-exempt status. They should be reclassified as a Political Action Committee and have to adhere to the same legal rules as any other politically active special interest group. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires candidate committees, party committees and PACs to file periodic reports disclosing the money they raise and spend. Matthew 22:21, the special hiding place for churches, the basis for their tax exemption, does not apply anymore if the church oversteps its own biblical injunction. Let us gleefully reduce our federal and state deficits by taxing church property and removing the tax deduction individuals get for putting their checks into the collection plate. After all, PACs are classified as 501(c)(4) organizations, and gifts to them are not tax-deductible.

  3. Godkilla Says:

    I think in comparison to the Islamic leaders the catholics are babes in the wood. Muslims are intent not just on interfering in the pollitical affairs of foreign nations but in taking them over completely and imposing their archaic and barbaric sharia law on all.

    I’m serious when I say that if we are complacent in this area this is what you can expect in your nation;

    Please note that this clip is graphic and disturbing but it shows the reality of the Muslim faith and what it deems acceptable;


    We need to mobilise ourselves and be more vocal and organised in our opposition to ANY interference by ANY religion in our domestic political and public affairs.

  4. Simon Says:

    Ant-abortion, opposition to contraception, homophobia, opposition to stem cell research, etcetera are things that cannot be argued for rationally therefore those who, for whatever reason, want to promote such stupidity have to resort to a superstitious appeal.

    With regard to tax, the Vatican is notorious for ludicrous exploitation of tax exemptions, basically stick an alter at the back of a casino, call it a church and claim tax back (bit of an exaggeration but you get the picture).

  5. MyOwnNoggin Says:

    According to the Bible, entangling oneself in the affairs of this life is not right. Those who do are fighting the wrong fight. If people can’t see what you believe in your life it’s hypocrisy– no matter what you believe or don’t believe.

    What do you really think of when you think of most organized religion?

    I don’t wonder, when I consider this, why there are so many who would rather be atheist. Many times I wonder if atheism is simply the best answer for those who are tired of getting hypocritical, fanatical and unreasonable responses from people who believe in a God who in turn they refuse to obey according to the book they believe came from him.

    Catholics have an agenda for sure– but God has nothing to do with it.

    I agree with Laurie– it is an unwarranted interference– even according to the “good book”.

  6. The Heretic Says:

    Godkilla, I agree with you. In the US we atheists have our eye off the ball. Granted, there is a big percentage of the population that is theists. I contend that most aren’t rabid theists, if anything, they are complacent theists, or theists in name only. Where our eyes should be is on Islam. Predominantly, they are savage 1000 year throwbacks and misogynists. They have an endemic hatred of the Western culture – and want to destroy it by any means possible. I know that some will say – ‘you are over exaggerating – they are not all like that’. I would answer – ‘They aren’t all strapping bombs to their chest – but they also aren’t speaking against those who are either – at least not vehemently’. There should be a civil war going on in Islam – crazies v. moderates. There isn’t. If you would stand by and watch a horror happen, you are complicit. Back to my point. Let’s not take our eye off the ball here. Christians, albeit annoying sometimes, aren’t the real problem. Islam is. Let’s not get led down the path of relativism and give them a bigger foothold for their insanity than they already have.

  7. tech Says:

    Well said My Own Noggin.If you believe something ,you life should be a testimony to what you believe.There are a lot of religious people who have their own agenda and not Always in line with their church teachings.Good stuff M.O. N.

  8. Ernie Says:

    Religions seem to cycle from being more outspoken and influential to less and right now they are kicking and screaming. I think it is because the playing field has been leveled between religions, all are speaking up for equal privileges, and secularism. There was a time when Christianity was every bit as oppressive and violent as Islam and it very well could become so again. Of course gods do not have anything to do with it but beliefs in gods certainly do.

  9. Margaret Says:

    Churches are also taking money from the government, the so-called faith-based initiatives, to run some of their charities. This subsidizes the churches. The money they would have used to pay for their humanitarian mission is picked up by the tax-payer, freeing up church general funds for political action.

  10. Simon Says:

    In the UK one third of state schools are faith based and will not accept children unless they and their parents have clocked up enough church miles. Upshot of this is one third of my tax contributions to education goes to schools that my children are not allowed to attend, furthermore this money is used to fund something I find offensive, that is the indoctrination of children.

  11. MyOwnNoggin Says:

    Simon, you mean “religious” indoctrination I presume. I don’t think you’ll find any child that is left to grow wild in nature. Even Romulus and Remus were raised by wolves.

    Christians are taught by Christ to pay taxes– let Caesar do what he wants with them (taxes).

    My children are also being “indoctrinated” by what is deemed to be acceptable to society, contrary to my personal beliefs– many times whether I want it so or not (they give me a chance to object and find a way around my objection.)

    Raise your own kids or someone else will.

  12. Simon Says:

    A child’s religious identity being nurtured by the church (or mosque, or temple) in accordance with their parent’s beliefs is a lot different than segregating them into little pockets of faith at the age of 5 and incorporating a specific religion into their education.

  13. teddy Says:

    well put TECH ! life SHOULD be a testimony to ones beliefs…..or as close as you can get to the ideal.

    thanks for the reminder.

  14. MyOwnNoggin Says:

    In other words– keep religion at home or mosque or temple etc. I can buy that, but there is moral indoctrination at secular schools that doesn’t jibe with the morals I teach my children.

    The specific agenda of public schools in these matters is far from passive. Starting at age 4 or 5 my children have to be taught the current politically (socially)correct morality– it’s quite insidious when it isn’t just blatant and highly disturbing if you strongly disagree with that type of thing.

    For example Tolerance is live and let live, not I’m OK you’re OK. Yet if one voices disagreement with what we’re being taught to tolerate one is labled “intolerant” that’s “bad”.

    I don’t agree with homosexuality but I let you do what the law allows you to do. Why doesn’t tolerance extend to my opinion or understanding?– it isn’t disrespectful to have a differing view it’s disrespectful to view a human as less than human.

    I am not homophobic because I look at something as being abnormal or immoral nor does that understanding or opinion make me intolerant yet this is what the public schools, secular and increasingly non-secular schools are teaching from the delicate age of 5.

  15. Mike G Says:

    MON, may I ask what morals conflict?… Besides acceptance of gays.

    I think you have, in a way, addressed your own dilemma: Public schools do not exalt homosexual students above others, gay students are as equal as everyone else.

    “Why doesn’t tolerance extend to my opinion?”

    Well, you say you disagree with homosexuality. (Correct me if I am wrong,) It seems that you view homosexual behavior as “immoral” and “abnormal.” Now, what if a parent has an opinion that your child is abnormal and immoral because they have an absence of melanin in their skin (an uncontrolable biological factor)? Would you consider them tolerant? Why or why not?

    We have secularization of public education systems so that every one is equal. It keeps unsubstantiated opinions out of the class room so a proper learning environment is facilitated. Like I said, correct me if I didn’t understand your argument…

  16. Mike G Says:

    The point being is that when you vocalize your opinion, it is in an effort to say that one way of life is “immoral”, and that sir, is saying that someone is less than acceptable.

    I am really interested as to why you categorize it as abnormal, thought.


  17. teddy Says:

    mike G……….sort of sad how many ( and how often ) things get
    classified as immoral or abnormal………….

    i enjoy reading your thoughts

  18. Simon Says:

    Mike G

    You may have secularisation of all public schools we don’t.

    MON I think you are a very intelligent person and thanks for coming in here and arguing your points sensibly.

    Not sure how you conclude that homosexuality can be either moral or immoral. What people do between the sheets is their affair.

    With regard to education, the job of a teacher is to engender curiosity in a young person. Curiosity may allow that person to choose for themselves what makes most sense, a religious or an atheistic view of the world.

  19. Mike G Says:


    Here in the States we have (supoosedly) secular schools. I was under the presumption MON is from here as well, from some of the things they have stated previously. But you are correct, I was wrong to assume that everyone does.

    Also, I agree with your post. Isn’t it nice to have an engaging discussion from a theist who isn’t obsessed with damning our like to !!!hell!!! ?

  20. MyOwnNoggin Says:

    Hello Mike G. Yes I’m from the states. I’m not obsessed with damning anyone to hell. In fact quite the opposite. I have a lot of beliefs that conflict with modern thought.

    “Now, what if a parent has an opinion that your child is abnormal and immoral because they have an absence of melanin in their skin (an uncontrollable biological factor)?”

    The fact that I am born male or female is an uncontrollable biological factor. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that is not intolerant, but not being reasonable. How I choose to indulge or express my sexuality is a matter of choice. We have to eat and drink but too much salt or fat or cholesterol is not good for the body, but I can still choose to induge in these “delectables”. If I choose the biological– male with female is pretty obvious as well as practical in procreation. Choosing to exercise homosexuality is just doing what “feels” good.

    I told you I’m from the old school. Many behaviors nowadays are considered genetic or diseases which before were not, ADHD, alcoholism or drug addiction being some prime examples.

    Just having spent time on this forum has made me check into and reconfirm what I already believe. I’ve been truly wowed by some of the newer arguments from the standpoint of science– with which I still must respectfully disagree i.e. “Order can come from chaos”. I feel like the guy that fell asleep in 1945 and woke up in present day. ( No I’m not that old).

    “The point being is that when you vocalize your opinion, it is in an effort to say that one way of life is “immoral”, and that sir, is saying that someone is less than acceptable.”

    I believe the behavior to be unacceptable. The person is another matter. The person — any person is always to be given the same respect due to myself.

    Simon, I think you already know that “morality” in a theists view is dictated by God. My point in this forum was not so much to argue the rightness or wrongness of my beliefs but to point out some flaws in our system.

    “With regard to education, the job of a teacher is to engender curiosity in a young person. Curiosity may allow that person to choose for themselves what makes most sense, a religious or an atheistic view of the world.”

    I agree with you on this point– but I may not always agree with that child’s choices. Fair?

  21. Space heater Says:

    xlutbjgeixqpjyoryrra, space heater, obIXLQm.