Posted on 07/11/2010 12:05:34 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
"On behalf of the Catholic Church in El Salvador and society in general, we ask Mr. President to use his executive power to veto the decree referred to upholding the rule of law and democracy of our Salvadoran society"
The Episcopal Conference of El Salvador (CEDES) demanded on Sunday the president Mauricio Funes veto a legislative decree that compels us to read the Bible in schools, believing that "violates" the "religious freedom" enshrined in the Constitution.
The CEDES Funes makes the call under in the coming days must be punished, veto or observe the legislative decree 411 which provides read the Bible in classrooms to combat violence.
The education of children in the faith, according to the bishops, "is a right and duty" of parents, aided by ministers of religion.
"We are interested in reading the Bible, but not as imposing liability in the schools, hopefully becoming more read the Bible is more understood, more practiced," says the shepherd.
(Excerpt) Read more at translate.google.com ...
Some of us get notes and smiles from those who are leaving....guess it works both ways.
RE: Differences Between Denominations
Well that basically says this source has no credibility. The Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is a church. Protestants have denominations, upon denominations, upon denominations,upon denominations, upon denominations, upon denominations, upon denominations....
**there own thing** Where is there own thing?
**Their sins they keep hidden.**
Huh? That’s what Confession is for — so they don’t remain hidden.
LOL!
And lastly, the Catholic Church IS inclusive! One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
You know better than to say “it works both ways.”
Catholics who are baptized Catholics will Alwyas be Catholics, even if they choose to be inactive. They are always welcome back.
Many share their stories about coming back at this site: http://www.chnetwork.org/
Most have — unless you are more specific — I judge that most have.
Quoting from a non-Catholic, anti-Catholic site, I see.
The last people I would want teaching my children about the bible is any public education system.
The fact that state imposition of religious practice is common does not make it acceptable. Education should be private.
Sorry—used an html symbol...
From the book “Ellery’s Protest”, the kid who protested Bible-reading in American public schools-—Abington vs. Schempp (1963):
“The Catholic position in 1958 was rather strange. Many people are surprised to learn that Bible-reading in the schools was controversial 160 years ago. In 1844 there were riots in Philadelphia over the practice; men were killed, churches were burned——over Bible-reading. This was much mixed up with anti-immigrant feelings, the newer immigrants being mostly Irish and Italian Catholics, and they objected to the Protestant practice of individual Bible-reading in the schools. In fact this issue became the primary motivation for the Catholic church to start the institution of Parochial schools. By 1956, however, the Church’s position had shifted——their objection was to secularism, to secular humanism, and their goal was to make secularism the enemy.”
Many people believe that, if *something* is a good thing - Bible-reading, for example, or libraries - then it is appropriate for government to mandate the activity or compel its funding by the citizens. I do not agree. Even if I agree about the positive value of the *something*, I generally believe it should be conducted and funded voluntarily.
It is on this principle, I believe, that the line is drawn between “social conservatives” and “economic conservatives,” so called. A type of “social conservative,” just as a type of “social liberal,” believes that government should compel and/or fund what he believes is beneficial. The ... “other conservative,” perhaps, such as myself, believes that free citizens should pursue their own goods, in most cases, with their own resources.
An attempt is made to draw the line so that legal abortion is “economically conservative.” However, prohibiting abortion does not cost money, particularly, and it can easily (if not inarguably) be shown to benefit the economy. In addition, it is much more a function of government to prevent harm to individuals and to society than it is to compel “good.”
# 70 % of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Roman Catholic Eucharist is a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus [it is, of His death], indicating they do not believe it is Jesus actual body and blood [as Rome erroneously teaches]. New York Times/CBS News poll, Apr. 21-23, 1994, subsample of 446 Catholics, MOE ± 5%
That's enough to put into doubt the objectiveness of any information to be found on that page.
Those riots "over Bible-reading" were instigated by the anti-Catholic nativists who were afraid that Irish immigrants were going to help the Pope take over the country:
On Friday, May 3, 1844, the American Nativist Party, (aka American Republican Party), set up a platform in the almost one hundred percent Irish Third Ward of Kensington, a Philadelphia suburb. Speakers delivered tirades against the Irish, the Pope, the Catholic Church, and the immigrants. The theme was that "a set of citizens, German and Irish, wanted to get the Constitution of the U. S. into their own hands and sell it to a foreign power. " The crowd jeered and began to tear down the platform. The Nativists retreated temporarily.Philadelphia was a hotbed of nativism for years. The American Nativist Party allied itself with the American Protestant Association in propagating a conspiracy theory: the Pope was planning to take over America. The Irish were considered the most dangerous immigrants since they had demonstrated loyalty to the Pope through centuries of persecution and might rise on a signal from Rome for either a bloody conquest or a political takeover at the ballot box.
the Nativist press called on all good Americans to defend themselves against the "the bloody hand of the Pope."
Yes, that’s kind of what I was aiming to convey. I did get a little turned around in my categorizing, between media descriptions - or self-descriptions of people I don’t think are truly conservative (Mike Huckabee) - and what I really think is Conservatism.
I would add, and I expect you agree, that free citizens should also personally, or with voluntary contributions, bear the consequences of decisions that turn out poorly.
Please. “No credibility” is what pertains to your attempted dismissal. Change the word if you will to “faith groups,” yet the sources are many and the stats are overall consistent and credible, even if you do not like them.
How ironic to think that there are probably many non-Catholics cheering this development who wouldn't allow their children in American government schools.
And if they're going to start reading the Bible, I think they ought to start with something like, say... Wisdom, or Maccabbees.
Governments don’t like the Maccabbees ;-).
OK, Maccabbees first, then Wisdom.
This is a poor but typical attempt to blithely dismiss evidence you do not like. As said above, the sources are many and the stats are overall consistent, and are sometimes quoted by Catholic outlets, and or come from some. If you dispute it, go find comparable stats that show the opposite.
This is part of a larger work . See the whole of it here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.