The Pope's New Years homily and prayer.

[countryboy]

The writers of the Constitution did not envision freedom from religion in that way.

Can you cite some examples?

 

[ttwtt78640]

How does it "usurp" the power of government? and what precise powers of the government is usurped?

It doesn’t, since states (like Oregon) are free to pass laws allowing abortion (by choice) until birth.

 

[weaver2]

Can you cite some examples?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." But they go on to say Congress can't make any laws prohibiting how people want to practice religion. In other words the state is to keep out of religion. Religion is a personal matter for each person to decide.

 

[Lursa]

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.

Where is the lack of freedom? What beliefs are imposed on you? Are you claiming "line of sight" is an imposition on your freedom from religion?

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.

Who says it has to be "undetectable?" Where did that "idea" come from? Just like other aspects of the 1A, you are not protected from hearing or seeing unwanted information.

 

[countryboy]

Where is the lack of freedom? What beliefs are imposed on you? Are you claiming "line of sight" is an imposition on your freedom from religion?

I was not arguing in favor of freedom from religion. I was actually having a discussion with another poster who was interested in civil debate. Unlike you.

 

[Lursa]

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.

The 1A also ensures people may practice their religion so...your personal interpretation is unconstitutional.

 

[Lursa]

I was not arguing in favor of freedom from religion. I was actually having a discussion with another poster who was interested in civil debate. Unlike you.

What is uncivil about my post? Do you find that your hyperbolic statements invite more extreme questioning and find that objectionable?

 

[Atreus21]

Who says?

The Catholic church. I was offering clarification on the claim that the church objects to all sex not undertaken to produce children. It is not so.

"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?

They can. What's your point?

 

[Lursa]

The Catholic church. I was offering clarification on the claim that the church objects to all sex not undertaken to produce children. It is not so.

They can. What's your point?

I stand corrected, IMO you correctly state the position of the RCC.

 

[tshade]

The message sounds beautiful. But the actual actions of the Church are not.

the actions of some in the church

Where is the respect for the lives of the molested children. Where was the respect for life in the killings of children in Indian schools.

99.999% of the church leaders & laymen have huge respect for them,

Where is the respect for families when they are denied contraceptives and than prohibited from getting an abortion of the fetus they carry and know they cannot care for.

???? my family has used contr..............................my family is pro-life. I'm catholic

Where is the respect for the already born human lives that will be harmed by the addition of an unwanted child.

I will disagree that that is a reason for an abortion. You do not end life for that reason

That is not being open to the all lives that will be needed to care for a child or another child.

inconvenience is no reason to kill a fetus

All that respect and cherishing blather is reserved for the fetus only.

tell that to the GOP who believes that......The dems do not.....

I am not mixed up. I know exactly what the Pope believes and stands for.

You have no clue. The Catholic Catecism is clear

 

[Lursa]

the actions of some in the church

99.999% of the church leaders & laymen have huge respect for them,

???? my family has used contr..............................my family is pro-life. I'm catholic

I will disagree that that is a reason for an abortion. You do not end life for that reason

inconvenience is no reason to kill a fetus

tell that to the GOP who believes that......The dems do not.....

You have no clue. The Catholic Catecism is clear

Inconvenience? Are a woman's life, health, ability to earn an income and feed a family, keep a roof over their head...inconveniences? Is someone risking their ability for all those months to fulfill their responsibilities and obligations to others "inconveniences?" Is being subjected to the abusive violence of a partner who does not want a child "inconvenience?" Do you know that a pregnant woman's chances of murder are 20% higher than non-pregnant? Does this matter to you?

And is dumping an unwanted baby into an already huge pool of ~100,000 unwanted kids waiting to be adopted moral? Humane? Those kids are already here, waiting, hoping for families...every new baby added reduces their chances of finding a home.

 

[weaver2]

How does it "usurp" the power of government? and what precise powers of the government is usurped?

Churches are prevented, by the Constitution, from getting into politics and making laws that require all people to follow their denomination's religious beliefs. If they do they are taking away (usurping) from government the exclusive power and right to make laws.

 

[tshade]

Inconvenience? Are a woman's life, health, ability to earn an income and feed a family, keep a roof over their head...inconveniences? Is someone risking their ability for all those months to fulfill their responsibilities and obligations to others "inconveniences?"

By your logic about 3/4 of al middle class citizens would find reasons to kill a fetus.............they are wimps

Is being subjected to the abusive violence of a partner who does not want a child "inconvenience?"

That is apples and oranges-------the solution there should not be to kill a fetus............................

Do you know that a pregnant woman's chances of murder are 20% higher than non-pregnant? Does this matter to you?

sounds like a lot of dumb women out there making dumb choices......

And is dumping an unwanted baby into an already huge pool of ~100,000 unwanted kids waiting to be adopted moral? Humane? Those kids are already here, waiting, hoping for families...every new baby added reduces their chances of finding a home.

Yeah----so lets just kill a bunch of humans to make things more comfortable, right.........................get real.

 

[Gordy327]

By your logic about 3/4 of al middle class citizens would find reasons to kill a fetus.............they are wimps

Why should they be forced to endure sometig they do not want?

That is apples and oranges-------the solution there should not be to kill a fetus............................

And sometimes, that is the solution.

sounds like a lot of dumb women out there making dumb choices......

Fortunately, abortion can fix that.

Yeah----so lets just kill a bunch of humans to make things more comfortable, right.........................get real.

Sure, quality over quantity.

 

[Gordy327]

That's fine, I disagree.

So you think people should be required to follow a religion or religious doctrine, even if through government policy or law?

 

[Luce]

In his New Year's Day homily, Pope Francis prayed that “the precious gift of life: life in the womb, the lives of children, the lives of the suffering, the poor, the elderly, the lonely and the dying.” would be cherished and protected.

He asked for "a firm commitment to respect the dignity of human life from conception to natural death, so that each person may cherish his or her own life and all may look with hope to the future,”

An organization that officially bans abortion and all forms of contraception and then demands that it's members respect the dignity of life, cherish and protect it, has a serious problem with, biology, reality, hypocrisy, dignity, concern for the welfare of families and unplanned and unwanted children.

A greater example of indifference I cannot think of than Francis's glib, throw-away "thoughts and prayers" line of hope for the future offering nothing real, no programs, no help, nothing concrete to relieve the hardships of unplanned and unwanted children while surrounded by the unlimited luxury and comfort of the vast wealth of the Church.

What we need protection for is from religion.

It is in the Catholic church's interest for people to have large families living below the poverty line.

 

[weaver2]

Oregon has very few ‘blue laws’ remaining in place (mainly concerning alcohol sales), but very few (if any) restrictions on abortion.

State government is still government. And almost all states have a freedom of religion clause.

 

[tshade]

Why should they be forced to endure sometig they do not want?

that's life--------I don't want to see my boss next week, so do i have the right to get rid of him????

And sometimes, that is the solution.

in a sick world

Fortunately, abortion can fix that.

yeah---immoral choice can fix dumb, right...??

Sure, quality over quantity.

 

[weaver2]

By your logic about 3/4 of al middle class citizens would find reasons to kill a fetus.............they are wimps

That is apples and oranges-------the solution there should not be to kill a fetus............................

sounds like a lot of dumb women out there making dumb choices......

Yeah----so lets just kill a bunch of humans to make things more comfortable, right.........................get real.

that's life--------I don't want to see my boss next week, so do i have the right to get rid of him????

in a sick world

yeah---immoral choice can fix dumb, right...??

Lots of snappy answers ...........all of which are avoiding the question by denigration.

 

[Lursa]

By your logic about 3/4 of al middle class citizens would find reasons to kill a fetus.............they are wimps

And yet they dont...and they can. And could have easily for the last 40+ yrs. So it seems people choose to have children when they can, for their reasons. How are they wimps?

That is apples and oranges-------the solution there should not be to kill a fetus............................

And yet, it is. It's not apples oranges...please explain that? I note you offer no solution to her life, everyday, and those in it.

The true base goal of many anti-choice people is "both survive the birth with a heartbeat." Nothing more, nothing less, doesnt matter the harm, the defects, the strokes, the lifelong ventilators, etc.

Is "both survive the birth with a heartbeat" your goal as well? Quantity of life over quality of life? Reducing both to a mere physiological function, a heartbeat...dehumanizes both. As does reducing them to numbers...just get 'em born!

But that is the primary goal of the RCC...the more born, the more hands to put $$$ in the collection plates.

sounds like a lot of dumb women out there making dumb choices......

So you believe in punishing them with a kid? Using a child as punishment, as consequences? For women you already consider dumb...I bet they'll make great mothers, right? How do you justify this desire to punish women...and children?

Yeah----so lets just kill a bunch of humans to make things more comfortable, right.........................get real.

This entire spiel, you didnt directly address a single one of my questions or points...because you couldnt. You made flip comments about human lives. I hope you dont think you hold some moral High Ground here...you couldnt defend a thing.

 

[tshade]

Lots of snappy answers ...........all of which are avoiding the question by denigration.

your questions were answered precisely. What you feel is "denigration" is just the truth smacking you in the face, and you cannot handle it. You gave terrible excuses to kill a fetus.

 

[countryboy]

So you think people should be required to follow a religion or religious doctrine, even if through government policy or law?

No, of course not. We just disagree about what constitutes freedom from religion, that's all.

 

[Lursa]

your questions were answered precisely. What you feel is "denigration" is just the truth smacking you in the face, and you cannot handle it. You gave terrible excuses to kill a fetus.

That's a lot of "na huh", not debate. Your answers werent counter arguments, they were your beliefs or feelings...where were the arguments supporting them? Pretty sure I can expect the same then.

 

[Lursa]

No, of course not. We just disagree about what constitutes freedom from religion, that's all.

Are there federal laws that agree with yours? I can think of 1. What about you?

 

[Luce]

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.

You can probably enforce your religion on others.

But I promise you that I will be the ONLY person who enjoys church on Sunday.