To Restore Religious Freedoms.

Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet ^ | 8/21/03 | Wayne Allard(R-CO)

[ForGod'sSake]

Formatting is our friend.

FGS

[Gargantua]

I have already posted here that i know that many Catholics are good Christians. I was raised Catholic for the first quarter-century I spent on this Earth, First Communion, Confirmation, the whole bit.

When I write of my personal knowledge of the cultic rituals of Catholicism, and how they directly contradict the most fundamental truths of Jesus' Biblical teaching, I know whereof I speak. Do you?

If your comments to me about my "head up my a**" are intended to prove what good Christians Catholics are, you may want to come up with a more convincing way to say it.

[ppaul]

I'm not one to sit idly by while my faith of choice gets trashed by a moron.

And so you dishonor your faith of choice by trashing another's?
No thanks.
The Lord, the Saints, Mother Teresa and the Pope condemn doing so.
Peace.

[Gargantua]

I am answering pointed questions directed to me by people who read my list which included "Mormons, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Christians..."

That some among them may actually be seekers of God's Truth is no excuse for me to hide it under a bushel. I am replying to them sincerely, factually, and in good conscience, despite their assaults and insults.

[Noachian]

Any law can be gotten around by a Court determined to do so since all law is open to "interpretation".


We're passed the time when "enough is enough". The High Court abridging its constitutional authority has seen to that.


What's needed now is face-to-face confrontation with individual congressmen. Remember that it's Congress that has allowed this Judicial farce to play itself out to the detriment of our religious freedoms, and it is up to Congress to repair the damage.


Confrontation with elected officials in Congress is the only peaceful avenue open to the people who are concerned with the usupation of power by the High Court, and that confrontation should be use extensively by religious groups who are most effected by High Court prejudice.

[Havoc]

He's right. :) There's nothing anti Catholic about stating the truth. Catholicism and Christianity are as different as Christianity and some forms of Protestantism, Mormnonism, etc. If Budhism bathed itself in images of Christ and the Apostles it wouldn't make their philosophies Christian. Bathing yours in such images grants you no special rights nor does it grant such to anyone else. He's merely stating a fact. Catholicism may have started out as Christian, but with each philosophy it adopted that was not Christian, it became a religion of it's own.

Leave a guy on a deserted island with a Bible and he can become a Christian. But he'll never be a Catholic, Mormon, etc... Without the extraneous philosophy, the guy on the island has a better chance of getting to heaven lol.

[Buggman]

Glad to see your anti-Catholic bias is consistent. Not only are Catholics Christians, they are the first unified Christian church.

How about we not drag this thread off course here, eh?

Having said that, the distinction is one that many Catholics on this forum (inadvertantly) make as well, every time they cite persecution of Christians in general as persecution of Catholics in particular, conveniently forgetting the rest of us.

[Snidely Whiplash]

You are being disrespectful of someone's sincere expression.

Been on FR long? Civility in political discourse is dead, Chief.

Snidely

[Buggman]

See what I mean? Even within your religion you believe the others are not following God's wishes and likely you think other differently-believing Christians will not be saved.

What of it? The last time I checked, the First Amendment protected his right to think just that.

Now think of when this goes public, directly showing the government prefers one form of Christianity over another.

Huh? How would posting the Ten Commandments, endorsed by Jews, Christians of all denominations, and many quasi-Christian groups constitute the government preferring one form of Christianity over the other? Your illogic is glaring here.

[talleyman]

Bump

[Snidely Whiplash]

What's needed now is face-to-face confrontation with individual congressmen.

Surely you're not suggesting we attempt to intimidate our elected officials? What makes you think they'd allow these face-to-face confrontations anyway? If they react to protest anything like the Secret Service have when President Bush visits cities around the country, the Congresscritters will never hear your cry.

Snidely

[gcruse]

Not now, not ever, never.

[Campion]

There are many Catholics who are Christians, but the Roman Catholic Church is nontheless a cult.

Do you always insult people like this, and then wonder why they aren't your allies? Hint: if you want to achieve political change, you can't afford to alienate those who might be on your side.

[Dave S]

Where in the world did that come from? You're a mind reader, right?

Did you bother to read any of the trash out of his mouth?

[Blzbba]

"But you did say "some a$$hole like this". Given that qualification, the statement I quoted of yours appears to be way over the top."


Maybe that was a bit over the top. Unlike Gargantua, I can at least admit I am wrong, and here, I was wrong.


"First, are you referring to teaching within religious schools?"

No - am referring to the hotbutton topic of forced religion in public schools, something that Gargantua and others with similar opinions are in favor of. It's opinions like his why I'm against it.


"Second, I hope it is generally accepted that religiousity does not hamper the ability of a person to do any job, including that of judge"

In other religion vs govt vs American History threads, some of Gargantua's supporters have said that 'only Christians are fit to lead due to their moral fiber' (paraphrasing). I consider these types of people to be extremely close-minded, personally.

[Blzbba]

"Formatting is our friend."


Indeed. My bad.

[Dave S]

How would posting the Ten Commandments, endorsed by Jews, Christians of all denominations, and many quasi-Christian groups constitute the government preferring one form of Christianity over the other? Your illogic is glaring here

Freudian slip? Preferring one form of Christianity over another? First ammendment is about religion, not one form of Christianity over another. Im sure the Jews to whom these laws were given would not be happy about being excluded.

[Blzbba]

"If your comments to me about my "head up my a**" are intended to prove what good Christians Catholics are, you may want to come up with a more convincing way to say it. "


Anger isn't always a bad thing, but in this case I was wrong to hurl insults at you. I just think you're wrong about the non-Christianity of Catholocism. I do not care about your Catholic background. Your 25 years as a Catholic don't mean that you fully comprehend 1700+ years of the faith. But I will apologize to you for my childish name-calling, as it was uncalled for in a civilized debate.

[Blzbba]

"How about we not drag this thread off course here, eh? "


Actually, it does fit in with the rest of the thread. In that, which "version of Christianity" gets the bill as the headline faith of the United States? My argument is that no religion gets top billing, for the exact responses this thread has caused. Can you imagine Congress being more theological than political?! Or a judicial system that was 100% Biblical? Would it be more Old or New Testament? Scary.

[concerned about politics]

Congress is stepping on the judiciary's toes

The liberal activists on the bench, you mean? They've been dictating their own socialist agenda, and this bill is to bring the Constitutional rights back to the people.
I'll be more than happy to support it. The Constitution should come before liberals activist. Sheesh!