• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Pope's New Years homily and prayer.

weaver2 said:
Gracious and heartwarming words "be open to life" but the underlying text is controlling women's reproductive lives by usurping the power of the government and making Church dogma into civil law all women Catholic or not must follow.
Click to expand...

Yes it's so deliciously eeeeeevil hahahaHAHAHA!
 
Noodlegawd said:
What hypocrisy? If you don't have sex when you're not planning to have children, you won't have any unplanned or unwanted children.
Click to expand...

What is hypocritical about having safe sex and then "cancelling" the unwanted pregnancy? Sex is a perfectly legal and acceptable behavior...why would we deny participants the safest medical procedures if there's an accidental pregnancy? Do we deny drivers or skiiers the safest medical procedures if they have accidents? What is the difference?

Please explain your statement that implies people should deny themselves the enjoyment of sex just because it may incur a pregnancy?
 
Lursa said:
your statement that implies people should deny themselves the enjoyment of sex just because it may incur a pregnancy?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.
 
dmpi said:
Life is an incredible gift. Protect, honor and cherish it.
Click to expand...

Women's lives also, of course. Denying women safer medical procedures does not protect or honor or cherish their lives, health, their bodily autonomy, their moral agency as individuals.

Do the unborn deserve that more than women? Please explain? And demanding women go thru a pregnancy without their consent destroys ALL those things. Do you realize that that is exactly what slave owners took from their slaves? Why is it ok to do so to women? Please explain how it's different?
 
Last edited:
BirdinHand said:
Not a practicing Catholic so didn’t tune in for the Pope’s message.

Catholics are free to practice their faith as they see fit.
Click to expand...

This . And not try to force it on others, per the 1st Amendment, by law.
 
Atreus21 said:
Not quite that blunt. You're supposed to be open to life when it comes. Have sex with your husband or wife all you like.
Click to expand...

Who says? "Life" is more than just a heartbeat...people look forward to life with their families, their work, education, community service, creating, building, loving, achieving, etc.

So why cant people be open to "the life" they choose?
 
countryboy said:
Sorry bud, this is America, there is no freedom from religion. Thankfully.
Click to expand...
That is false. Freedom of religion is also Freedom from religion.
 
Gordy327 said:
That is false. Freedom of religion is also Freedom from religion.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. You cannot have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. You're bound to see a church, or a religious gathering, at some point in your life. Unless you hide under a rock, which is always your choice to do so.
 
weaver2 said:
What makes you think there is no freedom from religion in the US? We are not a religion based nation.
Click to expand...
You're free not to participate in religion to be sure, but you're not free from being exposed to it at some point. The only way there could be freedom from religion, is if religious people were forced to practice their religion in private away from the public eye. And that certainly would not be freedom of religion.
 
weaver2 said:
What makes you think there is no freedom from religion in the US? We are not a religion based nation.
Click to expand...

That’s debatable, since we have Christmas (Christ’s mass?) as a national holiday (holy day?) and “In God We Trust” appearing on our currency and coins.
 
countryboy said:
Nonsense. You cannot have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. You're bound to see a church, or a religious gathering, at some point in your life. Unless you hide under a rock, which is always your choice to do so.
Click to expand...
One can choose to have a religion or not. But freedom from religion means not having religion pushed or forced on you, either from other religions or especially by the government.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That’s debatable, since we have Christmas (Christ’s mass?) as a national holiday (holy day?) and “In God We Trust” appearing on our currency and coins.
Click to expand...
There is no debate. We are a secular nation with a Religiously neutral government. The Constitution itself establishes that and prohibits any official declaration of a religion. Xmas has secular purposes too and IGWT was not mandated until the 1950s. The Founding Fathers themselves never uttered the phrase IGWT.
 
Gordy327 said:
One can choose to have a religion or not. But freedom from religion means not having religion pushed or forced on you, either from other religions or especially by the government.
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. To me, freedom from religion would mean religion is utterly banned from society. And no one would ever be exposed to any aspects of it. That's certainly not the case in this country.
 
countryboy said:
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. To me, freedom from religion would mean religion is utterly banned from society. And no one would ever be exposed to any aspects of it. That's certainly not the case in this country.
Click to expand...
No, that is not what freedom from religion means. Banning religion outright would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. It's not about not being exposed to religion. It's about to being compelled to follow or adhere to any religion or religious doctrine.
 
countryboy said:
Nonsense. You cannot have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. You're bound to see a church, or a religious gathering, at some point in your life. Unless you hide under a rock, which is always your choice to do so.
Click to expand...
Religious freedom is not avoiding a view of a church or not witnessing a religious gathering. Freedom from religion is being free from laws that are actually the religious dogma of some denomination. Examples: requiring everybody to close stores on Sunday because Christianity and Judaism require believers to keep Sunday for a day of rest. Requiring all women to carry all pregnancies to term and give birth because Catholics and Protestant evangelicals believe in the sanctity of all life and abortion is not God's plan for the life that begins at conception.
 
countryboy said:
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. To me, freedom from religion would mean religion is utterly banned from society. And no one would ever be exposed to any aspects of it. That's certainly not the case in this country.
Click to expand...
The writers of the Constitution did not envision freedom from religion in that way.
 

Oregon has very few ‘blue laws’ remaining in place (mainly concerning alcohol sales), but very few (if any) restrictions on abortion.
 
weaver2 said:
Gracious and heartwarming words "be open to life" but the underlying text is controlling women's reproductive lives by usurping the power of the government and making Church dogma into civil law all women Catholic or not must follow.
Click to expand...
How does it "usurp" the power of government? and what precise powers of the government is usurped?
 
That's fine, I disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.