Catholic Taliban?

[DHK]

Again you have your historical facts wrong. Note the dates that the tribunal was actually set up 1560. Xavier left India in 1552 and died latter that same year. So you have portugese soldiers acting out and you actually have the inquisition tribunal held 8 years after his death. So there are some serious falacies with your view of history here.

I don't have this part of history wrong. It was Xavier that ordered the Crusade. Any history book will tell you that. The blood of all the massacres that followed will be upon his hands. He ordered it. Where he was at the time of the Crusade is of no real relevance. He was the one that put it in action. He caused it. All the atrocities were of his doing. And for that he was made a saint?? Unreal!

 

[targus]

In this article the content of the RH bill is given:

The RCC have their "facts" wrong. It is only opinion. Contraceptives and protection has a proven record in controlling the spread of STD's and in particular AIDS, not the avoidance of them, as the RCC claim. On this issue they are dead wrong.

Look up the history of JFK, the only Catholic President the U.S, has ever had. He is reported to have affairs with Marilyn Monroe, and three other women. (The Catholic Bishops of America said nothing). He was heavily involved in the family liquor business which devastates the lives of families all across America. The Catholic Bishops of America said nothing.

Prohibition ended in 1933. His father amassed a great fortune when he consolidated two liquor companies, traveled to Scotland to buy the distribution rights of another liquor company, and continued to amass great wealth through liquor importation and the sale thereof. Still no opposition from the RCC.

Banking, real estate, movie production, were other enterprises that Kennedy was involved in instead of concentrating his energy on running the affairs of the nation.
Not once, in all the immoral activities of JFK did the RCC raise the threat of excommunication.
It is to the great dignity, honor, and common sense of the American people that they saw fit, that in all of their history, only once did they stoop to elect a Catholic to be president of their nation.

Now back to the Philippines.
We have a President who, for the good of the nation is trying to enact a law. The RH law will provide a certain degree of health care for the good of the people. It will cut down on the spread of AIDS rampant in that nation. The Catholic Bishops are against this bill. If Aquino, the President, continues to press this issue, and pass this bill he will be excommunicated from the RCC. They are threatening him with excommunication from the church because he is passing a bill which he believes is good for the health of the nation. Is that the moral and political right of the RCC? Does the RCC have the legitimate right to control the President in that way? No. It is evil and it is wrong. If you can’t see that there is something wrong.
The Catholic Church never said one thing about the terrible indiscretions of JFK. They never interfered. And they should not. There is a separation of church and state.
Why isn’t there a separation of church and state in the Philippines? Why do the Catholic Bishops threaten to run the country by their Taliban ways—Do what I say or face the consequences???

So DHK is "be sure to use a condom" the advice that you gave to your children when they came to be of dating age?

Or did you teach them that sex outside of marriage is a sin and to be avoided?

Guess what works better than anything else at preventing AIDS ?

Abstinence.

 

[DHK]

Targus said: "You are the one who seems to not understand the law - but then you don't seem to understand much of anything that you read as evidenced by your posts in this thread".

Boy, ain't that the truth. DHK would NEVER have provided the link he provided for his 'proof' of 'murders of St. Francis Xavier' had he realized it provided evidence of beatings and murders going on right now in India by fundamentalist like himself. What hypocricsy!

If you have reliable documented proof of this please post it.

 

[DHK]

So DHK is "be sure to use a condom" the advice that you gave to your children when they came to be of dating age?

The Philippines cannot be compared to a Christian family can it?
What you just did is akin to slander.
The nation has a national problem. Your nation has the same one. It is called immorality. Check your statistics. What would happen in this nation if none of the prostitutes, and all of those who have pre-marital sex never used protection. I don't advocate fornication. I don't advocate adultery. But I do advocate the limiting of the spread of AIDS, and all of the accompanying problems. I do advocate a family, even a Christian family having the right to limit the size of their family according to their financial status or ability. Apparently the RCC doesn't believe in that either.
I know of a pastor that has 12 children and is supported on a meager salary. He also doesn't believe in contraceptives. But that is his right. It is called soul liberty. We agree to disagree. But it is wrong to impose that belief on another. And it is wrong to impose that belief on a President and on a nation.

 

[targus]

DHK - if the mayor of your town were to be a member of your church and he started to publicly campaign for a city ordinance allowing bars to stay open 24 hours per day and for alcohol to be sold all day on Sunday...

Would your church remain silent?

 

[DHK]

So DHK is "be sure to use a condom" the advice that you gave to your children when they came to be of dating age?

Or did you teach them that sex outside of marriage is a sin and to be avoided?

Guess what works better than anything else at preventing AIDS ?

Abstinence.

Not in this nation. The unsaved do not abstain from sex. They are not Christians. They do not keep the same standards you do. We do not live in a Christian nation; it is a wicked nation; a sinful one.

 

[DHK]

DHK - if the mayor of your town were to be a member of your church and he started to publicly campaign for a city ordinance allowing bars to stay open 24 hours per day and for alcohol to be sold all day on Sunday...

Would your church remain silent?

No, but that wouldn't stop people from drinking 24 hours a day. We live in a wicked city. You can't stop sin.

 

[targus]

No, but that wouldn't stop people from drinking 24 hours a day. We live in a wicked city. You can't stop sin.

No?

Your church would not remain silent?

Isn't that a contradiction?

What about the separation of church and state?

And what about the church member that was pushing to have alcohol sales 24/7?

What would your church say to him?

 

[targus]

You can't stop sin."

So this means that churches should ignore it when the goverment goes into the business of promoting and financially supporting sin?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In this article the content of the RH bill is given:

The RCC have their "facts" wrong. It is only opinion. Contraceptives and protection has a proven record in controlling the spread of STD's and in particular AIDS, not the avoidance of them, as the RCC claim. On this issue they are dead wrong.

Certainly, however, its still their position. My position is not to have sex until your married and contraceptives loosen the responsibilty inherent with risk taking. However, thats my position and I can speak out about it. How is this a problem?

Look up the history of JFK, the only Catholic President the U.S, has ever had. He is reported to have affairs with Marilyn Monroe, and three other women. (The Catholic Bishops of America said nothing). He was heavily involved in the family liquor business which devastates the lives of families all across America. The Catholic Bishops of America said nothing.

First I don't think you know whether the Catholic Bishops of America said anything or not. I think you're are making a presumption with this statement. Anyway, He could have slept with George Carlin and the point is irrelevant to the discussion. The question is whether the Catholic Church forced its will and imprisoned anybody. Clearly, it wasn't the Church but the government.

Prohibition ended in 1933.

Thank God. I enjoy a lager now and then!

His father amassed a great fortune when he consolidated two liquor companies, traveled to Scotland to buy the distribution rights of another liquor company, and continued to amass great wealth through liquor importation and the sale thereof. Still no opposition from the RCC.

Again you are making an assuption as to what the Catholic Church said or didn't say. But its clear that the Kennedies particpated in illegal trade of liquor during the prohibition and made their wealth that way.

Banking, real estate, movie production, were other enterprises that Kennedy was involved in instead of concentrating his energy on running the affairs of the nation.

So you're telling me that during the bay of Pigs JFK was shooting a movie? Or that the cuban missle crisis Kennedy was consentrating on liquor sales? I think you need to work on your history a bit better.

Not once, in all the immoral activities of JFK did the RCC raise the threat of excommunication.

of that you have no idea. Do you think they said anything to him? I don't know. Do you?

It is to the great dignity, honor, and common sense of the American people that they saw fit, that in all of their history, only once did they stoop to elect a Catholic to be president of their nation.

Many Americans like JFK. And certainly he had better taste in women than Bill Clinton.

Now back to the Philippines.

That would be nice.

We have a President who, for the good of the nation is trying to enact a law. The RH law will provide a certain degree of health care for the good of the people. It will cut down on the spread of AIDS rampant in that nation. The Catholic Bishops are against this bill. If Aquino, the President, continues to press this issue, and pass this bill he will be excommunicated from the RCC. They are threatening him with excommunication from the church because he is passing a bill which he believes is good for the health of the nation. Is that the moral and political right of the RCC? Does the RCC have the legitimate right to control the President in that way? No. It is evil and it is wrong. If you can’t see that there is something wrong.

They did it to John Kerry. The fact is if a church wanted to excommunicate any member for any reason its their right. However, if the president is a man of principle he won't care what the Catholic Church wants him to do. Ultimately thats between God and him. Also the Catholic Church hasn't arrested the president. Hasn't re-written a bill and the government is doing all the things that it should be doing.

The Catholic Church never said one thing about the terrible indiscretions of JFK

Again you really don't know that.

They never interfered.

And they can't interfere in the Philipenes either. They can't pass and veto laws in that country they can only say what their position is and how a member stands in their community. I didn't hear the Methodist say anything about Bill Clintons immoral stances either.

And they should not. There is a separation of church and state.

Quoting Jefferson? You're missapply his quote about the wall of seperation. that prohibits government from interfering with church business.

Why isn’t there a separation of church and state in the Philippines?

Because they are not the united States. Is there such a seperation in Canada? I wonder. The US created that consept.

Why do the Catholic Bishops threaten to run the country by their Taliban ways—Do what I say or face the consequences???

Uh. they haven't they said believe like we do or you can't be with us. Big difference. I, for instance, can't be a member of your church and sleep with as many women as I want and act in a manner contrary to your belief. Same thing.

 

[DHK]

No?

Your church would not remain silent?

Isn't that a contradiction?

What about the separation of church and state?

Stop your word games. You sound ridiculous and make as much sense as a monkey at a type-writer.
Any Christian has the right to vote.
But a religious group does not have the right to threaten a leader with murder, harm, excommunication, or any other such club to get what they want.
Voting, and even vocalizing one's opinion is one thing, but threatening a political stick to get one's way is another.

Is it right for radicals here to say: Stop the abortion clinics or we will bomb them and kill the doctors who do such things. BTW, that is the work of some radical Catholics as well. Evil threats are not right. Carrying them out is even worse.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't have this part of history wrong. It was Xavier that ordered the Crusade. Any history book will tell you that. The blood of all the massacres that followed will be upon his hands. He ordered it. Where he was at the time of the Crusade is of no real relevance. He was the one that put it in action. He caused it. All the atrocities were of his doing. And for that he was made a saint?? Unreal!

Xavier did not and could not order a crusade. He just didn't have that much juice. :laugh: I think only the Pope could do that. He did request an inquisition to stem the growth of Judaism into his Christian communities but then again that didn't even happen until after his death. He's not responsible for how secular soldiers acted after his death. That's just unreasonable.

 

[targus]

Stop your word games. You sound ridiculous and make as much sense as a monkey at a type-writer.
Any Christian has the right to vote.
But a religious group does not have the right to threaten a leader with murder, harm, excommunication, or any other such club to get what they want.
Voting, and even vocalizing one's opinion is one thing, but threatening a political stick to get one's way is another.

Is it right for radicals here to say: Stop the abortion clinics or we will bomb them and kill the doctors who do such things. BTW, that is the work of some radical Catholics as well. Evil threats are not right. Carrying them out is even worse.

Would your church allow such a person to continue to be a part of your church?

If a church member campaigned for 24/7 alcohol sales - would your church excommunicate him if he persisted?

If a church member campaigned for legalized gambling - would your church excommunicate him if he persisted?

I a church member campaigned for legalized prostitution - would your church excommunicate him if he persisted?

A simple yes or no will do.

 

[DHK]

Would your church allow such a person to continue to be a part of your church?

If a church member campaigned for 24/7 alcohol sales - would your church excommunicate him if he persisted?

If a church member campaigned for legalized gambling - would your church excommunicate him if he persisted?

I a church member campaigned for legalized prostitution - would your church excommunicate him if he persisted?

A simple yes or no will do.

Your questions are totally irrelevant.
There is no campaign in the Philippines--only the threat of excommunication if the President passes a bill. A threat is not a campaign.

The bill is for the health of the nation. It has to do with contraceptives, something that most of the members of the RCC are in favor of if you were to do a general nation-wide survey. I have seen statistics. It has nothing to do with the moral issues that you raise. You do not seem to understand this issue.

To threaten the life of a person, or the standing of a person in the society, is an ultimatum not a campaign. Democracies are not run by ultimatums given by religious bodies. Who runs the nation. The Catholic thugs? The Catholic Taliban who give ultimatums and threats? Or is it the President and the democracy that elected it? You haven't seemed to grasp that yet? Please answer.

 

[targus]

Your questions are totally irrelevant.
There is no campaign in the Philippines--only the threat of excommunication if the President passes a bill. A threat is not a campaign.

It is quite difficult to have a discussion with someone who does not appear to have the ability to read with comprehension.

The "campaign" is the one in favor of the proposed bill concerning the government promoting contraceptives.

The bill is for the health of the nation. It has to do with contraceptives, something that most of the members of the RCC are in favor of if you were to do a general nation-wide survey. I have seen statistics. It has nothing to do with the moral issues that you raise. You do not seem to understand this issue.

You reject the Catholic Church's position against contraception - because you have no problem with contraception.

I used the other issues - alcohol, prostitution and gambling because I believe that you would have a problem with those issues.

The analogy is :

The Catholic Church excommunicating a member of their church that promotes something that the Catholic Church considers to be sin - namely contraception.

So the question remains (which I fully expect for you to continue to dodge) - would your church excommunicate a member who is a politician that is publicly supporting something that your chuch considers to be sin - such as drinking, prostitution and gambling?

A simple yes or no will do - but is still more than I could possibly expect from you.

To threaten the life of a person, or the standing of a person in the society, is an ultimatum not a campaign. Democracies are not run by ultimatums given by religious bodies. Who runs the nation. The Catholic thugs? The Catholic Taliban who give ultimatums and threats? Or is it the President and the democracy that elected it? You haven't seemed to grasp that yet? Please answer.

How do you get from excommunication to "threaten the life"?

The president is free to do as he wishes in governing - and the Catholic Church is free to accept or reject him as a member according to how he accepts the beliefs and teachings of their church.

DHK aren't you being a Taliban that wants to control other churches by dictating membership to them?

 

[DHK]

How do you get from excommunication to "threaten the life"?

The president is free to do as he wishes in governing - and the Catholic Church is free to accept or reject him as a member according to how he accepts the beliefs and teachings of their church.

DHK aren't you being a Taliban that wants to control other churches by dictating membership to them?

If the RCC were to be consistent it would have to excommunicate half of its membership, but they won't. This is plainly a political club used to threaten, intimidate, and give a political ultimatum to the President of the nation, as well as smear his name if he doesn't bow down and kiss the feat of a wicked and corrupt religious organization. Any reasonable thinking person can plainly see that.

 

[targus]

If the RCC were to be consistent it would have to excommunicate half of its membership, but they won't. This is plainly a political club used to threaten, intimidate, and give a political ultimatum to the President of the nation, as well as smear his name if he doesn't bow down and kiss the feat of a wicked and corrupt religious organization. Any reasonable thinking person can plainly see that.

So you don't want to answer the basic questions huh?

No surprise there.

So I will assume then that your church would not excommunicate a member that was publicly promoting alcohol consumption, prostitution and gambling.

I don't blame you for not admitting it.

 

[DHK]

So you don't want to answer the basic questions huh?

No surprise there.

So I will assume then that your church would not excommunicate a member that was publicly promoting alcohol consumption, prostitution and gambling.

I don't blame you for not admitting it.

Targus you have avoided post after post, question after question, and there is no surprise. The situation is clear, and there is no admission on your part.

 

[targus]

Targus you have avoided post after post, question after question, and there is no surprise. The situation is clear, and there is no admission on your part.

What have I avoided?

What questions?

I have adressed your silly bigoted accusations - and have asked you to clarify your position by telling me how your church would handle a similar situation - but you duck and dodge.

Ok - so your church would have physically man handle someone who disrupted a service.

And your church would be fine with a member that publicly promotes prostitution, alcohol consumption and gambling.

And that gives you the moral authority to criticize a church that would use the Scriptural authority to excommunicate a church member that defies the beliefs of their church?

 

[lori4dogs]

It is quite difficult to have a discussion with someone who does not appear to have the ability to read with comprehension.

The "campaign" is the one in favor of the proposed bill concerning the government promoting contraceptives.



You reject the Catholic Church's position against contraception - because you have no problem with contraception.

I used the other issues - alcohol, prostitution and gambling because I believe that you would have a problem with those issues.

The analogy is :

The Catholic Church excommunicating a member of their church that promotes something that the Catholic Church considers to be sin - namely contraception.

So the question remains (which I fully expect for you to continue to dodge) - would your church excommunicate a member who is a politician that is publicly supporting something that your chuch considers to be sin - such as drinking, prostitution and gambling?

A simple yes or no will do - but is still more than I could possibly expect from you.



How do you get from excommunication to "threaten the life"?

The president is free to do as he wishes in governing - and the Catholic Church is free to accept or reject him as a member according to how he accepts the beliefs and teachings of their church.

DHK aren't you being a Taliban that wants to control other churches by dictating membership to them?

You won't get a straight answer from DHK. He will continue to dodge your questions and say they are not relevant. Of course they are relevant and you are absolutely right. DHK is out of gas on this.