Biden 1st term

[AshburnerX]

To be frank, the Catholic Church has needed another Reformation for a long time, but I doubt it survives the next one. Part of the reason why American Bishops kind of just do whatever they want is because they know there isn't a single one of them that would ever be considered for the Papacy (simply because the rest of the Catholic church HATES the American hardliners). If the Pope tells them to back down, they'll just walk and reform as the American Catholic Church.

As for Biden... I wouldn't be surprised if the Catholic Church suddenly has to start paying taxes on it's properties if they actually deny him communion. He's a member in good standing and it really can't be argued (legally) that his beliefs aren't in line with the Church's when the Church isn't even willing to pick a position and stick to it.

 

[Celt Z]

I'm not catholic or anything, but isn't the pope supposed to be the direct line to God? So, if you're catholic, and disagree with the pope, shouldn't that trigger some kind of soul-searching to understand why you disagree with God?

Well, if my American-Catholic relatives are a typical example, than the rules of Catholicism need to be followed to the letter... except when it might interfere with something they want or someone they don't like. That includes the Pope.

 

[Tinwhistler]

Well, if my American-Catholic relatives are a typical example, than the rules of Catholicism need to be followed to the letter... except when it might interfere with something they want or someone they don't like. That includes the Pope.

I just don't get it..or rather, I don't get folks who treat religion more like a social club. I mean, if the religion you're following says shit you don't believe in, I'll bet a dollar you can easily find one that lines up perfectly with your beliefs. Go join that one and quit calling yourself a member of the one you don't agree with.

 

[blotsfan]

I gotta say, I always knew american Catholics caused trouble for the pope but I thought it was because they were less strict, not more.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

To be frank

Hey wait a second. @Frank, did you sign off on this?

 

[Tinwhistler]

I just don't get it..or rather, I don't get folks who treat religion more like a social club. I mean, if the religion you're following says shit you don't believe in, I'll bet a dollar you can easily find one that lines up perfectly with your beliefs. Go join that one and quit calling yourself a member of the one you don't agree with.

I just found the most appropriate quote for this

Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.

 

[jwhouk]

That was a quote by the great Billy Sunday, by the way.

 

[Frank]

Hey wait a second. @Frank, did you sign off on this?

Don't take the lord's name in vain.

 

[PatrThom]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Catholic Church suddenly has to start paying taxes on it's properties if they actually deny him communion.

From your lips to God's ears.




--Patrick

 

[DarkAudit]

If I had the means, I'd leave this job and this state so goddamned fast. If I *really* had the means, I'd just retire to San Diego.

 

[PatrThom]

That's IT! If the current administration doesn't do something about this RIGHT FUCKING NOW, it's all over.

"Republicans" vote to suppress federal bill that would have preempted state laws designed to suppress voters.

The Senate needed to reach 60 votes to break the filibuster, rather than a simple majority or party-line vote to proceed. A vote on whether to begin debate before a vote on the bill failed along party lines, with all 50 Democrats and Democrat-leaning senators supporting it, and all Republicans against it. [...] Democrats have failed to secure support to overturn filibuster rules, effectively ceding control of a marginally Democratically controlled Congress and the fate of the president’s agenda to the “bipartisan” ambitions of centrist Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema along with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans.

I am not kidding. If something similar doesn't get passed and the GQP gets to keep their dual-class voting stock intact for the next 18 months, it will be the literal end of this republic.

--Patrick

 

[Bubble181]

Manchin: "Only a Democrat like me could possibly get elected here"
Everybody else: "With friends like this, who needs enemies?"

I understand a moderate wanting to not be the Deciding Vote on some far-left agenda policy. Feel free to have a personal opinion, in fact, I applaud it. Daring to stand up to the party is important to keep a democracy healthy, here in Belgium our senate and parliament seats could be replaced with just X buttons on the desk of the party chair and nobody would notice.
What I don't understand is apparently not realizing or caring that you're effectively handing the entire next election cycle to the other party, and as PatrThom says, you may well be the undertaker of democracy in doing so.

 

[PatrThom]

What I don't understand is apparently not realizing or caring that you're effectively handing the entire next election cycle to the other party, and as PatrThom says, you may well be the undertaker of democracy in doing so.

Too many of our current public servants are focused on squabbling with their peers and not bothering to consider what effect their actions will have on their constituencies.

--Patrick

 

[Tress]

Too many of our current public servants are focused on squabbling with their peers and not bothering to consider what effect their actions will have on their constituencies.

--Patrick

Not to mention all they ever care about is getting re-elected in the next cycle. That’s all they actually think about.

 

[Celt Z]

 

[Krisken]

Uh... what was different? Hm.... I wonder if Hillary knows....

 

[Chad Sexington]

I gotta say, I always knew american Catholics caused trouble for the pope but I thought it was because they were less strict, not more.

The Church is a lot more complex than people think. It also goes through 'liberal' and 'conservative' phases, Francis is considered more liberal, while the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is currently more conservative.

I just don't get it..or rather, I don't get folks who treat religion more like a social club. I mean, if the religion you're following says shit you don't believe in, I'll bet a dollar you can easily find one that lines up perfectly with your beliefs. Go join that one and quit calling yourself a member of the one you don't agree with.

I guess the idea is that you don't go to a church because you agree, but because you think it's true. It's a lifetime of working on things, everyone is working on different things.

I wrestle with a lot of Catholicism right now, but overall I think I believe in its teachings. I am willing to observe what they teach where I don't agree, and they are willing to wait and answer questions, and reason with me.

But if you truly believe that something (say, abortion) the church teaches is UNTRUE, then yes, I am confused as to why you continue to assert you're part of that group in a serious way.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I just want to point out that what the Catholic Church considers "liberal," including Francis, is still very very conservative.

 

[Tress]

I just want to point out that what the Catholic Church considers "liberal," including Francis, is still very very conservative.

To be fair, Francis doesn’t claim to be liberal or progressive. The asshole Catholics in the US are the ones calling him that.

 

[Ravenpoe]

To be fair, Francis doesn’t claim to be liberal or progressive. The asshole Catholics in the US are the ones calling him that.

It's also the US Media, who want to pass the feel good story of there finally being a 'good' pope. So when Francis says that gay people should be treated with respect, they pounce on that and totally ignore the fact he still doesn't think they should have basic rights like marriage or adoption.

 

[Bubble181]

It's also the US Media, who want to pass the feel good story of there finally being a 'good' pope. So when Francis says that gay people should be treated with respect, they pounce on that and totally ignore the fact he still doesn't think they should have basic rights like marriage or adoption.

Eh. He thinks straight people shouldn't marry unless it's to have sex and reproduce. Accepting the premise that marriage is only the confirmation of a commitment for procreation, it logically follows that gay marriage doesn't make sense. People like me, straight and married but with no intent to procreate, are just as bad. It may not be modern thinking, but it's fair and consistent. 90% of "proper" marriages don't count either, of course, and that's a part many American catholics won't accept. But at least it's clear and fair, if not very open or accepting of love in all its forms.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Eh. He thinks straight people shouldn't marry unless it's to have sex and reproduce. Accepting the premise that marriage is only the confirmation of a commitment for procreation, it logically follows that gay marriage doesn't make sense. People like me, straight and married but with no intent to procreate, are just as bad. It may not be modern thinking, but it's fair and consistent. 90% of "proper" marriages don't count either, of course, and that's a part many American catholics won't accept. But at least it's clear and fair, if not very open or accepting of love in all its forms.

Yeah, no, I don't find any need to excuse anyone in positions of power trying to limit the freedoms of others.

 

[blotsfan]

Eh. He thinks straight people shouldn't marry unless it's to have sex and reproduce. Accepting the premise that marriage is only the confirmation of a commitment for procreation, it logically follows that gay marriage doesn't make sense. People like me, straight and married but with no intent to procreate, are just as bad. It may not be modern thinking, but it's fair and consistent. 90% of "proper" marriages don't count either, of course, and that's a part many American catholics won't accept. But at least it's clear and fair, if not very open or accepting of love in all its forms.

Why do you do this?

 

[Bubble181]

Why do you do this?

Paint a different opinion than mine as "not evil"? Try to be understanding and open to the idea other people can have bad opinions that don't mean they're bad through and through? Gosh, I dunno. Maybe because I prefer not constantly being in a echo chamber where only one mindset is allowed?

 

[ScytheRexx]

Feels like Bubble is just bringing to light how many different definitions of marriage we actually have. Some consider it a holy union, some consider it a contract of procreation, others consider it a joint declaration of love, and others use it as a way for one to gain ownership of the other. It really has no set meaning from nation to nation, religion to religion, and is one reason why I wish it was abolished from any type of government declaration. There should be no reason a gay man can't visit his dying husband in the hospital just because the state does not recognize them as "spouses". Sick of it.

 

[blotsfan]

Paint a different opinion than mine as "not evil"? Try to be understanding and open to the idea other people can have bad opinions that don't mean they're bad through and through? Gosh, I dunno. Maybe because I prefer not constantly being in a echo chamber where only one mindset is allowed?

But it is evil and you know that. So all you’re doing is saying stupid things that you know are stupid just so you can try to make yourself feel superior to people who don’t feel the need to defend the indefensible.

 

[figmentPez]

It may not be modern thinking, but it's fair and consistent.

No, it's NOT fair and consistent. Precisely because:

90% of "proper" marriages don't count either,

If the Roman Catholic Church were actively working against those "proper" marriages as hard as they were against gay marriage, then maybe it would be fair and consistent. But they're not. So it's a problem.

This isn't just a theoretical point. What the pope says on this matter isn't just some theological thought experiment. His stance on this issue influences a tremendous amount of wealth and power, and has ramifications that must be taken into account. If the Pope were actually being "fair" about this, then he would be advocating for fair treatment of everyone, but he's not. He can't say we're supposed to "love gay people", but then wash his hands of the problems that denying them marriage causes. One of the big problems in the United States, and presumably other countries, is that marriage is the only way for two adults to become family. (That, historically, is an aberration.) Our legal, medical, financial, etc systems are built up on the idea that family has special privileges, and marriage is unfairly enshrined as the ultimate form of family. So when the Pope says we should treat gay people well, but doesn't at the same time advocate for a way for them to become a part of a family, then he is not actually following his own teaching.

 

[Cog]

For catholics, marriage is a sacrament. It's an union blessed by god. I think they can put all the rules they want about it if you want to be married by a priest. It should only be a legal contract for protection in case of death or divorse. I think that people are more offended about the use of the word than the gender of the ones getting married. I think that is ridiculous because over here, if you marry by a priest, you are not legally married.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Paint a different opinion than mine as "not evil"? Try to be understanding and open to the idea other people can have bad opinions that don't mean they're bad through and through? Gosh, I dunno. Maybe because I prefer not constantly being in a echo chamber where only one mindset is allowed?

At no point did I say Pope Francis or the catholic church are evil. I said they are in no way progressive or liberal and are very much conservative. If you conflate conservative with evil, well you're right, but that's beside the point.

 

[Krisken]

For catholics, marriage is a sacrament. It's an union blessed by god. I think they can put all the rules they want about it if you want to be married by a priest. It should only be a legal contract for protection in case of death or divorse. I think that people are more offended about the use of the word than the gender of the ones getting married. I think that is ridiculous because over here, if you marry by a priest, you are not legally married.

That is patently untrue. They definitely use that as an excuse for bigotry though.

While it would be great to divorce (no pun intended) the use of "marriage" from the legal definition, it's unfortunately already embedded deep in US law. Without using the word marriage, what we would consider spouses would be and historically were denied making medical decisions for their loved ones, inheriting their property after they pass, and even tax benefits.

 

[PatrThom]

Paint a different opinion than mine as "not evil"? Try to be understanding and open to the idea other people can have bad opinions

Yes exactly how dare you.

—Patrick

 

[jwhouk]

But it is evil and you know that. So all you’re doing is saying stupid things that you know are stupid just so you can try to make yourself feel superior to people who don’t feel the need to defend the indefensible.

You know, a notable Roman leader once asked, “What is truth?”

Evil and stupid and indefensible all erode truth.

 

[blotsfan]

You know, a notable Roman leader once asked, “What is truth?”

Evil and stupid and indefensible all erode truth.

So you agree with their stance? Or are you just trying to muddy the waters to defend something that you know is wrong?

 

[Ravenpoe]

So you agree with their stance? Or are you just trying to muddy the waters to defend something that you know is wrong?

Listen, if someone doesn't stand up for one of the most powerful organizations on the planet then who will?

 

[jwhouk]

Blots: right now the only difference between you and Tucker Carlson is the names and the faces.