Free Republic

You say "I have no problem with detaining American citizens caught in a foreign country fighting American forces. In my view they forfeited their citizenship."

Article III Section 3 of the Constitution reads:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The problem with your comment is that the government only has to accuse a citizen of fighting American forces. They don't have to prove it to anyone in any court or even in any document. The accused person has no rights at all under this law. In fact, they only have to say you were fighting American forces if they get caught holding you in detention.

It makes no difference if you're on American soil or not. You don't give up your rights as an American just by leaving American territory. Fighting American forces is treason, and the requirements for proving treason are clearly spelled out in the Constitution: testimony in OPEN COURT by two witnesses to the same overt act. Period.

It's actually in the sixth paragraph of an AP story: http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/national/12008211426841/wis-temple-shooter-s-motives-might-never-be-known/

You write “Palin is getting (lots) of opposition from some.”

As much as I would like to see her as president, running as someone’s VP twice seems kind of weak to me and would diminish her street cred, IMO. We need her to keep as much credibility as possible. Whatever possible role she can play, I think her time for VP is over.

Thanks, Safrguns. Another Freeper already sent it to me.

Does anyone have a copy of the original PDF posted on the White House web site? The one they have up there now doesn’t have the layers. I’m looking for the one that has the layers. I don’t know what happened to the copy I had saved. I want to show some people what was wrong with it, and why it is such a forgery.

Yes, I am aware priestly celibacy in the Latin rite is not a dogma or doctrine in any way. It is, however, more than a discipline. It is also a long-standing tradition (with a lower case “t”), and is a matter of canon law. As such, it can be changed according to the prudential judgment of the Holy Father, who may, at any particular point in history, decide that mandatory priestly celibacy should or should not continue.

Perhaps my use of the term “theological perspective” was less than ideal. There is a different way of looking at things, theologically, in the various rites of the Roman Catholic Church. There are different emphases, too. This is one of the reasons there are different codes of canon law, traditions, ways of celebrating the liturgy, and disciplines. They did not arise from nowhere. Nor did they arise only from historical circumstances. History develops partly from circumstances, but also from the perspectives, values, emphases, and personalities of those who make it. The eastern rite liturgies, laws, disciplines, and traditions are equally valid to those of the Latin rite. Yet they reveal (or emphasize) in many cases different aspects of the one infinite God.

By using the term “theological perspective” I did not mean to imply that the eastern rites have different beliefs. There is one faith, and the members of all the various rites of the Roman Catholic Church share that faith.

Celibacy for priests in the Latin rite is, in fact, a law. It is promulgated in the Code of Canon Law. See Canon 277 § 1: Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.

So it is both a law and a discipline.

And Barry Soetoro is, in fact a Kenyan communist! ;-)

From Dictionary.com: chaste

chaste   /tʃeɪst/ Show Spelled[cheyst]adjective, chast·er, chast·est.  
1. refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion; virtuous. 

From Dictionary.com: cel·i·ba·cy   /ˈsɛləbəsi/ [sel-uh-buh-see] noun

1. abstention from sexual relations. 

All people, especially Christians, are called to chastity. Within the married state, sexual intercourse is chaste. Outside marriage, all people are called to celibacy.

You ask “Regarding the “hierarchical Church,” why is it that Eastern RCC allows for married Priests? I’m not being snarky... I’m really just curious :)”

Frankly, I don’t know. I certainly have no issue with it. I suspect it has a lot to do with their culture and different theological perspective, but I couldnt say with any degree of certainty.

The RCC should accept change.

That's a pretty broad statement. What kind of change? Why? Change for change's sake? It's just a silly statement.

There's nothing wrong with a man taking a wife and serving God at the same time.

No one ever said there was. The Church's law regarding priestly celibacy is just that... a changeable law. Even the most right-wing Catholic recognizes that. However, it is a law that has proven to bear much fruit, and it would be unwise to change it based on the experiences of a few years, as compared to the many centuries of experience of fruitfulness. There are many sound and profound theological and practical reasons for it. Read the post just before yours.

If anything it removes a sexual stumbling block from his life.

One fact that people usually ignore when they talk about priestly celibacy is that everyone who is not married is required by Jesus Christ to be celibate. So it is not only priests, but also single people, widows, and widowers, too, who must be celibate. So if you're going to do away with priestly celibacy simply as a way to remove a "sexual stumbling block", then you're on very shaky ground, from a moral theology point of view.

Whether priestly celibacy should continue is a prudential decision of the Church, in the person of the Pope, whoever he may be at any given time in history. We, as Catholics, are part of a hierarchical Church, which means that some people get to make decisions and others must follow them. This is one of those decisions, and I'm comfortable with the fact that I have neither the right nor the responsibility to make that decision. I'll just follow it.

"NOTHING MORE THAN A FACT CHECKING ERROR THAT OBAMA LEFT UNCORRECTED FOR 16 YEARS" - Fixed

"NOTHING MORE THAN A FACT CHECKING ERROR THAT OBAMA KNOWINGLY LEFT UNCORRECTED FOR 16 YEARS" - Fixed again

"NOTHING MORE THAN A FACT CHECKING ERROR LIE THAT OBAMA LEFT UNCORRECTED TOLD FOR 16 YEARS" - Fixed yet again.

"NOTHING MORE THAN A LIE THE TRUTH THAT OBAMA TOLD FOR 16 YEARS" - Finally nailed it!

From what I can gather from the article, if you use the phrase “if you know what I mean” about a gay person, then that’s bad. It doesn’t matter if “if you know what I mean” means “because you know that all left handers stick together” or some other characteristic that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Simply using the phrase “if you know what I mean” must, simply must, mean “because they’re all gay, you know.” Because, you know, everyone will use whatever excuse they can to persecute gays, if you know what I mean.

Whew! I’m so relieved!

Leaving the current resident of the White House out of the equation, I wouldn’t trust any man who would betray his vows to his wife. Certainly not to lay down his life to protect the president. He simply is not a man of his word. One can try to justify it all he wants, but the fact remains that a man who would step out on his wife is a man who cannot be trusted with anything of value.

The whole issue is being mis-framed as a violation only of the freedom of religion of religious employers. The fact of the matter is that it is a violation of the freedom of religion of anyone who opposes abortion and contraception and is an employer. My brother is a partner in a law firm he co-founded. He has an agreement with his partners not to include abortion, abortion-inducing drugs, or contraceptives in their employee Heath plan. He did this over 20 years ago because he accepts the Catholic Church’s teachings on these issues. If this mandate stands, then his freedom of religion not to cooperate in abortion and contraception are also being violated. In fact, the FREEDOM of EVERYONE not to do so is being violated, whether or not they choose to use that freedom.

Anyone who has not read Lord of the World by Robert Hugh Benson, should absolutely read it to understand what's going on in the world. It is a novel written at the end of 19th century or the beginning of the 20th, that is uncanny in its predictions of where we are as a society. Technically, socially, politically, spiritually, and philosophically. It does have a distinctly Catholic perspective, but I believe evangelicals would connect with it, too.

There are only two candidates left I would vote for in the general election: Santorum and Gingrich, in that order. If Romney or Paul get the nomination, then I will write in Sarah Palin.

Romney strongly supports the unlimited detention provision in the NDAA. He is effectively indistinguishable from Obama. Paul is nuts. He thinks it’s OK if Iran gets nukes. There are plenty of other reasons to oppose Romney and Paul, but those two alone disqualify them from the presidency, IMHO.

The fact that the layers in the PDF disappeared after several days proves that they tampered with it. That’s really a very important point supporting the fact that they knew the PDF was a forgery.

I also downloaded the original PDF from the White House and verified the layers. There were all sorts of anomalies. It was really a very poorly done forgery. And then several weeks later I downloaded the PDF again, and all the layers were gone!

Taking a short break.

They’re establishing that the certification the DNC sent to the Georgia Secretary of State, officially notifying them of Obama’s nomination to the presidency, does NOT claim that he is eligible for the office as it is supposed to do.