Catholic Church Gives Washington DC an Ultimatum

Politics • Views: 2,844

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington DC has threatened to stop providing all social services unless the DC City Council drops plans for a gay marriage bill.

Under the bill, headed for a council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Church officials say Catholic Charities would have to suspend its social services work for the city, rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.

Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), one of two openly gay members of the council, said Thursday morning that he hoped to reach a compromise with the Church. He noted that it is a major provider of services for immigrants in his ward.

Late Thursday, however, Graham said he had changed his mind after reviewing same-sex marriage laws in New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont. He asked why the Church has not abandoned services in those states.

“If the Catholic Church has been able to adjust in Connecticut, I think they can certainly adjust here,” Graham said.

Jump to bottom

427 comments
1 Racer X  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:53:47am

Think they are pissed now? Just wait til they lose their tax-exempt status.

2 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:53:56am

it’s the town!…stay away from the TOWN!

3 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:54:48am

Oh, well. That whole Separation of Church and State thing cuts both ways. We aren’t ruled by theocrats, and the government doesn’t get to tell the church how to conduct it’s business.

4 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:55:16am

re: #1 Racer X

Think they are pissed now? Just wait til they lose their tax-exempt status.

imagine paying property tax on the Vatican?…actually maybe they do

5 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:55:33am

“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

That damn pesky Constitution!

6 jaunte  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:56:07am

Is this the modern version of an interdiction?

7 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:56:27am

re: #4 albusteve

imagine paying property tax on the Vatican?…actually maybe they do

The Vatican has the advantage of being it’s own nation. It is surrounded by Italy, but is not a part of it.

8 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:56:30am

CC of North America, Inc.

9 Sol Berdinowitz  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:57:32am

And the city cannot afford to do without the social services the church offers. They do rather have them by the short hairs here.

10 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:57:37am

re: #7 SixDegrees

The Vatican has the advantage of being it’s own nation. It is surrounded by Italy, but is not a part of it.

I say it’s time to invade…nation building!

11 soxfan4life  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:57:48am

re: #1 Racer X

Think they are pissed now? Just wait til they lose their tax-exempt status.

See how many services they will not be able to provide then.

12 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:58:05am

re: #8 albusteve

CC of North America, Inc.

Would you prefer it be state sponsered and funded?

13 karmic_inquisitor  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:58:19am

Well gays should have a right to marry. And churches should have a right to take their toys and go home. I don’t see a controversy other than that the Catholic Church may be shooting itself in the foot. But that is their prerogative.

14 jaunte  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:58:27am
Church officials say Catholic Charities would have to suspend its social services work for the city, rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.


The officials say “stay institutionalized, kids.”

15 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:59:14am

re: #10 albusteve

I say it’s time to invade…nation building!

I’d side with the Vatican. Their military has those cool uniforms designed by Michelangelo.

Although they’re part of the Swiss Guard…

This is why politics and religion shouldn’t be mixed. It gets too damn confusing.

16 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:59:23am

You know, they could just close all the Catholic schools and charities one by one (due to “declining enrollment” and “lack of funding”) just like they did here in Manhattan…and then they could wonder why Catholics no longer attend services!

17 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:59:55am

re: #12 sattv4u2

Would you prefer it be state sponsered and funded?

what kind of profit are we talking here?…we get a cut of the door, right?

18 karmic_inquisitor  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:00:19am

re: #9 ralphieboy

And the city cannot afford to do without the social services the church offers. They do rather have them by the short hairs here.

Why “faith based initiatives” were a non starter for me.

19 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:01:05am

re: #15 SixDegrees

I’d side with the Vatican. Their military has those cool uniforms designed by Michelangelo.

Although they’re part of the Swiss Guard…

This is why politics and religion shouldn’t be mixed. It gets too damn confusing.

yeah, digging fox holes on that plaza is a loser…I didn’t think it through

20 wrenchwench  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:01:55am

re: #9 ralphieboy

And the city cannot afford to do without the social services the church offers. They do rather have them by the short hairs here.

Maybe not:

“To hold hostage the rights of human beings over this, I think, is just really despicable,” said the Rev. Dennis W. Wiley, co-chairman of D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality. “There are others who can step up to the plate who would love to have the contracts.”
21 The Sanity Inspector  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:01:59am

re: #3 SixDegrees

Oh, well. That whole Separation of Church and State thing cuts both ways. We aren’t ruled by theocrats, and the government doesn’t get to tell the church how to conduct it’s business.

Make of these what you will, then.

22 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:02:44am

those pesky gays are such trouble makers

23 webevintage  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:03:43am

re: #9 ralphieboy

And the city cannot afford to do without the social services the church offers. They do rather have them by the short hairs here.

I think the city feels that they can get other organizations to step up and take the money and provide the services. I think Catholic Charities is one of the best part of the Church as a whole and hate the idea that they would rather make a point then serve the people who need them.

This is about providing benefits, not preforming a marriage ceremony to same sex couples.

(and can we finally start taxing, at least, church assets like rental property and such.)

24 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:04:39am

re: #21 The Sanity Inspector

Make of these what you will, then.

I’d be interested to see how such legislation would stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny.

25 Dona Quixote  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:06:42am

Does the Catholic church provide services in Canada and Spain?

26 soxfan4life  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:06:49am

re: #23 webevintage

Those pesky values. Are you as willing to go after Academic Institutions for tax money on rental properties and such as you are the church?

27 samsgran1948  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:08:13am

If the Catholic Church was to suddenly close all of their schools here in Nebraska, the entire state would go bankrupt as thousands of kids who cost the state nothing to educate are suddenly thrown into the public school system. And the government-run social agencies would be equally as swamped if the Church closed all of its facilities and stopped all services. Here in Omaha, the city would lose one of its major hospitals.

28 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:09:14am

re: #22 albusteve

those pesky gays are such trouble makers

Yeah. Trying to get married and start families. Rabble-rousers.

29 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:09:23am

theocracy…it’s coming

30 Ojoe  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:09:31am

Right, let some midnight mission people go hungry?

Religion & politics do not mix well at all.

31 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:10:30am

re: #30 Ojoe

Right, let some midnight mission people go hungry?

Religion & politics do not mix well at all.

it worked out pretty good for the Aztecs

32 soxfan4life  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:10:38am

re: #27 samsgran1948

If the Catholic Church was to suddenly close all of their schools here in Nebraska, the entire state would go bankrupt as thousands of kids who cost the state nothing to educate are suddenly thrown into the public school system. And the government-run social agencies would be equally as swamped if the Church closed all of its facilities and stopped all services. Here in Omaha, the city would lose one of its major hospitals.

But you lose sight of the important issues. The Church must be forced to accept someone else’s value system. Everything good they do be damned

33 Bob Dillon  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:14:13am

Ah, organized religion and politicians in a pissing contest. I don’t know whether to go for popcorn or just pass.

34 borgcube  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:14:54am

I couldn’t care less about gay marriage one way or another. It is rather funny here to see the tables turned a bit on Washington however. Fitting too.

35 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:15:08am

re: #32 soxfan4life

But you lose sight of the important issues. The Church must be forced to accept someone else’s value system. Everything good they do be damned

The Church currently provides, as far as I know, employee benefits to Catholic employees who are divorced and remarried. That’s ‘accepting someone else’s value system’ with a vengeance.

I’m disappointed that the Church would rather let their good works be undone rather than provide employee benefits for the partners of people who work for them.

I wish they would not choose to do this.

36 Political Atheist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:17:04am

re: #32 soxfan4life

But you lose sight of the important issues. The Church must be forced to accept someone else’s value system. Everything good they do be damned

That certainly was the conclusion here…

37 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:17:59am

re: #35 SanFranciscoZionist

The Church currently provides, as far as I know, employee benefits to Catholic employees who are divorced and remarried. That’s ‘accepting someone else’s value system’ with a vengeance.

I’m disappointed that the Church would rather let their good works be undone rather than provide employee benefits for the partners of people who work for them.

I wish they would not choose to do this.

bribery seems a bit heavy handed for the CC

38 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:18:07am

I’m a Catholic, and I’m disgusted by this move. And I intend to let the Archdiocese know how I feel.

39 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:19:50am

I wonder what Pat Condrell would say about this development…probably would not be pretty

40 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:20:41am

re: #1 Racer X

Think they are pissed now? Just wait til they lose their tax-exempt status.

You might like to see that happen, but if the government did it to the CC, they’d have to do it to the $cientologists. And that thought, my friend, would scare the piss out of any sane politician.

41 webevintage  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:20:54am

re: #26 soxfan4life

Those pesky values. Are you as willing to go after Academic Institutions for tax money on rental properties and such as you are the church?

sure.

42 austin_blue  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:20:54am

re: #38 Cato the Elder

I’m a Catholic, and I’m disgusted by this move. And I intend to let the Archdiocese know how I feel.

I’m a retired Catholic, and this doesn’t surprise me in the least.

43 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:22:04am

re: #41 webevintage

sure.

See my #40. I bet even you, tough guy, would quail at taking on the $cientos.

44 borgcube  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:22:08am

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Catholic Church has issued similar under the radar ultimatums regarding the enforcement of our borders. Heaven forbid we keep out the 90% of the people who fill their church pews these days.

45 bosforus  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:22:42am

re: #40 Cato the Elder

You might like to see that happen, but if the government did it to the CC, they’d have to do it to the $cientologists. And that thought, my friend, would scare the piss out of any sane politician.

And if anyone thinks pandering to the religions isn’t scary enough as it is, I wouldn’t want to see the result after they lost their tax-exempt status.

46 webevintage  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:24:10am

re: #43 Cato the Elder

See my #40. I bet even you, tough guy, would quail at taking on the $cientos.

I wish I could make a bet, write a book and then create a batshit crazy religion out of it.

47 Dona Quixote  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:24:46am

A quick google search shows Catholic Charities operating everywhere that I know of that has legal gay marriage. Why is DC being singled out?

48 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:25:13am

re: #46 webevintage

I wish I could make a bet, write a book and then create a batshit crazy religion out of it.

Whatsamatta, you ain’t as smaht as L. Ron Hubbard?

Let’s collaborate and split the prophets profits.

49 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:25:18am

re: #46 webevintage

I wish I could make a bet, write a book and then create a batshit crazy religion out of it.

Hey, go for it. There’s nothing to stop you but your scruples.

50 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:26:15am

re: #47 Dona Quixote

A quick google search shows Catholic Charities operating everywhere that I know of that has legal gay marriage. Why is DC being singled out?

I don’t know. Maybe the Archbishop down there has delusions of grandeur from being so close to so much actual power for so long? ;^)

51 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:27:27am

re: #47 Dona Quixote

A quick google search shows Catholic Charities operating everywhere that I know of that has legal gay marriage. Why is DC being singled out?

In those other places , is the church being told to provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.
THATS the part of the DC bill they’re balking at I beleive

52 bosforus  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:27:39am

re: #44 borgcube

Dinged ya cause it’s kind of a silly thing to say. I don’t think I’ve known the CC in recent years to be outright xenophobic.

53 Gus  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:28:24am

I’m curious as to what the moral equivalency would be for the Archdiocese of DC threatening to leave DC if this law goes into effect. The law compromises a position leaving the Catholic Church in DC in that they “would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings.”

They would however be required to follow discrimination laws which would affect employee benefits and adoptions. I imagine there are some gay people that work for the DC church but doubt their numbers are of any significance to the church. Given the nature of the church, how would church management even know if their sexual orientation and even if they did are they comfortable with a policy of denying equal benefits to their employees regardless?

That would leave only the adoption issue open to debate. I for one believe that it is irrelevant and that a person cannot be judged solely on their sexual orientation. This is a primitive method of judging ones character. If they were to leave DC would they think the suffering of those they serve now would serve a greater cause? Are they comfortable with that possible impact for the sake of what amounts to a law that will have a small impact on their organization.

54 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:28:27am

re: #44 borgcube

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Catholic Church has issued similar under the radar ultimatums regarding the enforcement of our borders. Heaven forbid we keep out the 90% of the people who fill their church pews these days.

an interesting point to consider…I wonder what kind of leverage the CC would have over, say, the last 12 administrations

55 lostlakehiker  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:31:00am

Whether or not the law issues a marriage license to gay couples, such couples are not married in the eyes of the church. If the church has to acknowledge such couples as married or stop operating social services in D.C., then it has no choice but to close down in D.C.

Coming next to D.C.—-if the church backs down—-laws regulating the content of services, and requiring that the church not discriminate in favor of Catholics when choosing priests.

56 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:31:08am

re: #51 sattv4u2

In those other places , is the church being told to provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.
THATS the part of the DC bill they’re balking at I beleive

Can you create an exemption like that legally? I have to assume that if you’re married you get the married package.

The one we keep being told gay people don’t need because they have ‘civil unions’. (Not aimed at you sattv.)

57 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:31:21am

re: #52 bosforus

Dinged ya cause it’s kind of a silly thing to say. I don’t think I’ve known the CC in recent years to be outright xenophobic.

I think he is saying the opposite

58 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:33:42am

re: #53 Gus 802

Good questions, all. What I do know is there’s a great split between Catholics on the ground and those in the airy reaches of the hierarchy. My old parish in Baltimore has a prominent gay and lesbian group, and they’re not about shaming the members into ceasing to be gay. As far as I know there are plenty of gay people who work directly for the Catholic Church. There’s a kind of don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy in effect.

Yet this Archbishop thinks he must put his foot down and threaten to harm innumerable people if he doesn’t get his way.

The notion that the CC is a monolith is of course just another myth. I would not be surprised if this move has gone too far even for the Vatican and, within a week or two, the threat is quietly withdrawn.

We shall see.

59 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:33:49am

re: #55 lostlakehiker

Whether or not the law issues a marriage license to gay couples, such couples are not married in the eyes of the church. If the church has to acknowledge such couples as married or stop operating social services in D.C., then it has no choice but to close down in D.C.

Coming next to D.C.—-if the church backs down—-laws regulating the content of services, and requiring that the church not discriminate in favor of Catholics when choosing priests.

Bullshit. Please see my above about divorced and remarried Catholics. That’s never been an issue, AFAIK, and it never will be, even though those marriages are not sacramentally valid.

They don’t have to acknowledge same-sex marriages as sacramental, they just have to offer employee benefits to partners of their own employees.

60 bosforus  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:34:10am

re: #57 albusteve

I think he is saying the opposite

Perhaps I misunderstood the comment. Oh well. Moving on.

61 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:34:15am

re: #57 albusteve

I think he is saying the opposite

Yes, he is, and it’s equally stupid.

62 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:34:18am

re: #55 lostlakehiker

Whether or not the law issues a marriage license to gay couples, such couples are not married in the eyes of the church. If the church has to acknowledge such couples as married or stop operating social services in D.C., then it has no choice but to close down in D.C.

Coming next to D.C.—-if the church backs down—-laws regulating the content of services, and requiring that the church not discriminate in favor of Catholics when choosing priests.

the whole thing sucks…the govt should stay out of the churches business…tough shit

63 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:34:24am

re: #56 SanFranciscoZionist

Can you create an exemption like that legally? I have to assume that if you’re married you get the married package.

The one we keep being told gay people don’t need because they have ‘civil unions’. (Not aimed at you sattv.)

If the “benefits” are provided via the Catholic Church, I’m sure they can exempt anything they want too (as part of the compensation package)

64 borgcube  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:34:29am

re: #52 bosforus

I happen to have a few contract clients down here in San Diego that operate low-income housing and such owned by local Catholic churches. The managers told me flat out that almost everyone who comes to these services is not only from Mexico and/or Central America, but that almost all of them are here illegally. They would know, since they handle the paperwork for these people. At least here, that is who is filling the pews. Even the Catholic Church I attended as a child hasn’t conducted an English mass in 30 years I was told.

65 Racer X  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:34:33am

re: #40 Cato the Elder

You might like to see that happen, but if the government did it to the CC, they’d have to do it to the $cientologists. And that thought, my friend, would scare the piss out of any sane politician.

I’m not in favor of taxing religion. Lately the idea has been thrown about due to some religions dabbling a little too much in politics. This is one of those cases, but it is also driven by the state dabbling too much in religion. IMHO.

66 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:35:45am

re: #57 albusteve

I think he is saying the opposite

He’s saying the Church prevents border enforcement because Mexicans are a source of fertile culos in seats for the Church.

That would be awful quaint if it wasn’t so paranoid.

67 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:35:49am

re: #61 Cato the Elder

Yes, he is, and it’s equally stupid.

I smell a Dan Brown conspiricy…you don’t?

68 soxfan4life  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:36:14am

re: #58 Cato the Elder

Good questions, all. What I do know is there’s a great split between Catholics on the ground and those in the airy reaches of the hierarchy. My old parish in Baltimore has a prominent gay and lesbian group, and they’re not about shaming the members into ceasing to be gay. As far as I know there are plenty of gay people who work directly for the Catholic Church. There’s a kind of don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy in effect.

Yet this Archbishop thinks he must put his foot down and threaten to harm innumerable people if he doesn’t get his way.

The notion that the CC is a monolith is of course just another myth. I would not be surprised if this move has gone too far even for the Vatican and, within a week or two, the threat is quietly withdrawn.

We shall see.

I thought this Pope was much stricter on Doctrine than John Paul was.

69 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:37:21am

re: #55 lostlakehiker

Whether or not the law issues a marriage license to gay couples, such couples are not married in the eyes of the church. If the church has to acknowledge such couples as married or stop operating social services in D.C., then it has no choice but to close down in D.C.

They don’t have to acknowledge any marriage as valid. All they would need do is obey the law concerning benefits. To do so implies no sacramental endorsement, anymore than it does when they provide benefits to a Catholic church worker who is married to a Protestant. And that they do every day.

70 bosforus  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:37:36am

re: #64 borgcube

Gotcha.

71 Racer X  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:38:10am
72 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:38:26am

re: #68 soxfan4life

I thought this Pope was much stricter on Doctrine than John Paul was.

Well, of course, we know that. But I doubt he’s going to be pleased with the bad press over a threat to stop all Catholic Charities services in the capital of the US.

Popes have always been Realpolitiker.

73 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:38:42am

re: #63 sattv4u2

If the “benefits” are provided via the Catholic Church, I’m sure they can exempt anything they want too (as part of the compensation package)

Really? What if they want to exempt the remarried, as in the example I’ve ben running with? Can they do that?

My employer, as I mentioned a few threads back, doesn’t pay for my birth control through our benefits package, but they can’t provide it for one employee and not another, AFAIK.

74 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:39:10am

re: #66 SanFranciscoZionist

He’s saying the Church prevents border enforcement because Mexicans are a source of fertile culos in seats for the Church.

That would be awful quaint if it wasn’t so paranoid.

it’s just a novel idea tossed out…I don’t think there is any paranoia

75 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:39:39am

re: #58 Cato the Elder

Good questions, all. What I do know is there’s a great split between Catholics on the ground and those in the airy reaches of the hierarchy. My old parish in Baltimore has a prominent gay and lesbian group, and they’re not about shaming the members into ceasing to be gay. As far as I know there are plenty of gay people who work directly for the Catholic Church. There’s a kind of don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy in effect.

Yet this Archbishop thinks he must put his foot down and threaten to harm innumerable people if he doesn’t get his way.

The notion that the CC is a monolith is of course just another myth. I would not be surprised if this move has gone too far even for the Vatican and, within a week or two, the threat is quietly withdrawn.

We shall see.

Totally agree Cato; my local (and former) lower Manhattan parish was saved from closure in the 80’s due to the influx of gays moving in that desired to get back to their faith (or any christian denomination) in a community that didn’t judge them and desired their contributions. The CC is full of these kinds of places…sad that they aren’t proud of them.. :-(

76 webevintage  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:40:09am

re: #48 Cato the Elder

Whatsamatta, you ain’t as smaht as L. Ron Hubbard?

Let’s collaborate and split the prophets profits.

Will it involve minions with hats and t-shirts?
Maybe one based around LOLcats…oh, and pie, I like pie.

77 Dona Quixote  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:41:00am

The wiki article on same sex marriage in Canada is clear that the church fought the same battles there and lost. With 43% of Canadians identifying as Catholic it was apparently a shock. And yes they are providing services still and the anti-discriminatory language is the same.

78 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:41:35am

re: #75 Surabaya Stew

Totally agree Cato; my local (and former) lower Manhattan parish was saved from closure in the 80’s due to the influx of gays moving in that desired to get back to their faith (or any christian denomination) in a community that didn’t judge them and desired their contributions. The CC is full of these kinds of places…sad that they aren’t proud of them.. :-(

Most Holy Redeemer in the Castro is an amazing parish. Wonderful people, who do incredible fundraising work.

79 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:42:02am

re: #76 webevintage

Will it involve minions with hats and t-shirts?
Maybe one based around LOLcats…oh, and pie, I like pie.

Well, you already have a sacred text in LOLcat.

80 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:43:22am

Pat Condell nails this very topic...no insult intended

81 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:44:00am

re: #76 webevintage

Will it involve minions with hats and t-shirts?
Maybe one based around LOLcats…oh, and pie, I like pie.

Deal. Our official dog will be the Korean Jindo, to lure in some Moonies (and because that’s my dog’s breed).

And the upper-echelon minions shall have tailored suits and Breguet watches.

Pie shall be our main weapon; anyone who stands in our way will get pied in public by dozens of Jindo-walking, well-tailored minions, all acting in sync from their Breguets.

82 HoosierHoops  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:44:01am

re: #78 SanFranciscoZionist

Most Holy Redeemer in the Castro is an amazing parish. Wonderful people, who do incredible fundraising work.

St.John’s in Napa is a pretty good Parrish

83 borgcube  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:45:06am

re: #70 bosforus

Man, people are really sensitive in LGF lately. Saying that nothing would surprise me regarding the Catholic Church and illegal immigration isn’t some whacko conspiracy crap I maintain, I know nothing of the sort. Given the history of the Catholic Church however, and given my admittedly limited direct experience here in San Diego with the church and who attends the services, like I said, it wouldn’t surprise me, that’s all.

84 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:48:55am

re: #73 SanFranciscoZionist

Really? What if they want to exempt the remarried, as in the example I’ve ben running with? Can they do that?

My employer, as I mentioned a few threads back, doesn’t pay for my birth control through our benefits package, but they can’t provide it for one employee and not another, AFAIK.

As a private employer, why not? As you stated, there are some things your benefit package does NOt cover while mine does!

85 webevintage  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:49:08am

re: #81 Cato the Elder

Deal. Our official dog will be the Korean Jindo, to lure in some Moonies (and because that’s my dog’s breed).

And the upper-echelon minions shall have tailored suits and Breguet watches.

Pie shall be our main weapon; anyone who stands in our way will get pied in public by dozens of Jindo-walking, well-tailored minions, all acting in sync from their Breguets.

BRILLIANT!!
and as was mentioned above our sacred text has already been written:
[Link: www.lolcatbible.com…]

All hail Xenu Cthulhu…I mean Ceiling Cat…

86 bosforus  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:50:29am

re: #83 borgcube

Don’t worry about it. Sometimes the downdinging gets contagious.

87 Gus  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:51:03am

Found this at the Archdiocese of Washington website:

We are an equal opportunity employer.

Our benefits package includes health/dental, long-term disability, accidental death and dismemberment, life insurance, 403(B) tax deferred annuity, etc.

88 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:52:16am

re: #86 bosforus

Don’t worry about it. Sometimes the downdinging gets contagious.

well if downdings are so important count me in…ding away

89 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:53:27am

umm, is that actually supposed to be a threat? I feel like all the catholic leadership did was give DC added incentive to pass marriage equality. it’s like they said, ‘hey, if you give people equal rights, then were threatening to stop conning your citizens out of money and telling them they’re gonna go to he’ll if they don’t believe like we do!’ can you say: win win for DC?

90 Locker  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:55:39am

This is why I have a hard time with tax exempt status for religions and also their work being called “charity” when it’s really propaganda based on bribery.

91 soxfan4life  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:55:48am

re: #89 rollwave87

Sorry, marriage equality, same sex marriage, whatever you want to call it is too much of a political third rail. I wouldn’t expect much of any action by DC on that subject.

92 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:56:59am

re: #84 sattv4u2

As a private employer, why not? As you stated, there are some things your benefit package does NOt cover while mine does!

Not the point. I don’t think, legally, they can exempt some people and not others. They can NOT offer something, but they can’t offer something to some married couples and not other married couples.

93 soxfan4life  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:57:12am

re: #90 Locker

This is why I have a hard time with tax exempt status for religions and also their work being called “charity” when it’s really propaganda based on bribery.

What about academia’s tax exempt status?

94 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:57:13am

re: #90 Locker

This is why I have a hard time with tax exempt status for religions and also their work being called “charity” when it’s really propaganda based on bribery.

Nobody is talking about raising the minimum wage and extending welfare bennies!

95 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:57:55am

So remember, no matter how big, powerful, or revered you are, you can still always resort to using petty blackmail to get your way…

The Catholic church seems to be very good at teaching these sort of life lessons lately. The excommunication of everyone involved in that 9 year olds incest related abortion in Brazil was another one.

96 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:58:33am

I sense there’s a market for health insurance micro-policies, based on this discussion. For instance, a policy providing coverage for abortions would likely be extremely cheap - overall, few have them, but the possibility is a concern for many. I’m thinking a few bucks a month would cover the actual costs, plus allow for a generous profit.

In fact, I kinda wish I had such policies available through work, where my current plan provides ample coverage for myself and my family, but sucks when it comes to high prescription copays, while other plans offered through our cafeteria selection have outstanding copays, but crappy HMO-style coverage that doesn’t work well for me because I live far from my employer and all of my doctors are out-of-network. I’d be happier picking and choosing the individual bits and pieces of my overall coverage to tailor a plan that suited my needs and desires more closely.

97 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:58:41am

re: #9 ralphieboy

And the city cannot afford to do without the social services the church offers. They do rather have them by the short hairs here.

ha. please. isn’t that the same argument Hamas makes in gaza and Hezbollah makes in Beirut. not to get all bill maher-Ian, but I think it would be harder to do a third grade math problem than it would be to point out the similarities between the catholic church and radical Muslims.

98 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:59:09am

re: #95 ausador

So remember, no matter how big, powerful, or revered you are, you can still always resort to using petty blackmail to get your way…

The Catholic church seems to be very good at teaching these sort of life lessons lately. The excommunication of everyone involved in that 9 year olds incest related abortion in Brazil was another one.

Oh God. That just made me sick at heart. Everyone, if I understood correctly, except for the sick son-of-a-bitch who raped and impregnated his grade-school-aged daughter.

99 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:00:57pm

re: #95 ausador
So remember, no matter how big, powerful, or revered you are, you can still always resort to using petty blackmail to get your way…

Yup , because the founding fathers REALLY wanted the state to be able to tell religious orgs what to do

Oh ,, that damn pesky Constitution again!! !

“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

100 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:01:50pm

re: #6 jaunte

Is this the modern version of an interdiction?

No, not by a long shot. They’ll still give communion wafers. Other bread, though, is up for discussion.

101 Sol Berdinowitz  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:02:21pm

Host Toasties?

102 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:03:03pm

re: #95 ausador

So remember, no matter how big, powerful, or revered you are, you can still always resort to using petty blackmail to get your way…

There’s some legal requirement for their charities to provide their services in this area?

Not saying it’s the decision I’d take, but it’s one that is well within their rights.

103 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:03:15pm

re: #83 borgcube

Man, people are really sensitive in LGF lately. Saying that nothing would surprise me regarding the Catholic Church and illegal immigration isn’t some whacko conspiracy crap I maintain, I know nothing of the sort. Given the history of the Catholic Church however, and given my admittedly limited direct experience here in San Diego with the church and who attends the services, like I said, it wouldn’t surprise me, that’s all.

What you seemed to imply was that the CC has issued some kind of sub rosa threat pertaining to efforts by the government to quell illegal immigration, so as better to fill the pews. Since there is a long history of anti-Catholic paranoia in this country, it touched a nerve.

Of course the Church serves anyone, regardless of status. Surely you’re not suggesting that parishes should start checking IDs at the door?

104 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:03:59pm

re: #101 ralphieboy

Host Toasties?

BBQ flavored host. So tasty, so holy, betcha can’t eat just one!

And check our our new line of sacred holy land dairy products - Cheeses of Nazareth.

105 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:06:23pm

re: #97 rollwave87

ha. please. isn’t that the same argument Hamas makes in gaza and Hezbollah makes in Beirut. not to get all bill maher-Ian, but I think it would be harder to do a third grade math problem than it would be to point out the similarities between the catholic church and radical Muslims.

Except for the head-chopping, suicide bombings, and express intent to serve as an international and universal state governing the affairs of a world wholly converted to their faith by force of arms if need be, they’re virtually identical.

106 wrenchwench  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:07:12pm

re: #104 Guanxi88

BBQ flavored host. So tasty, so holy, betcha can’t eat just one!

And check our our new line of sacred holy land dairy products - Cheeses of Nazareth.

And for dessert: a Pentecostal Sundae (brandy-soaked sugarcube lit on top for that “tongue of flame”).

107 funky chicken  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:07:35pm

re: #16 Surabaya Stew

You know, they could just close all the Catholic schools and charities one by one (due to “declining enrollment” and “lack of funding”) just like they did here in Manhattan…and then they could wonder why Catholics no longer attend services!

Yep. The RC schools are an amazing ministry and have lifted many kids from rough homes to academic and life success. It’s ridiculous for them to cry poverty and close their best ministry, when it’s perhaps the one with the best track record for actually achieving amazing results.

108 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:07:38pm

Of course the CC can do whatever it likes. It can shut down operations in the whole country and take all the altar gear to Africa, if it wants.

I just doubt they will let this stand because it’s bad publicity and it won’t change a thing as far as making the state conform to Church doctrine.

109 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:07:41pm

re: #90 Locker

This is why I have a hard time with tax exempt status for religions and also their work being called “charity” when it’s really propaganda based on bribery.

And what would you describe the same services when provided by the State or those advocating for expansion of the charitable services purchased with the dollars of the taxpayer?

110 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:08:35pm

re: #97 rollwave87

re: #105 Guanxi88

Except for the head-chopping, suicide bombings, and express intent to serve as an international and universal state governing the affairs of a world wholly converted to their faith by force of arms if need be, they’re virtually identical.

And not allowing women to be priests is the EXACT same as not allowing them out in public uncovered and having to walk 4 steps behind men and not being able to hold jobs and ,,,

111 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:08:40pm

re: #106 wrenchwench

And for dessert: a Pentecostal Sundae (brandy-soaked sugarcube lit on top for that “tongue of flame”).

A taste so good, you’ll fall out for ever time.

112 webevintage  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:09:04pm

re: #99 sattv4u2

So remember, no matter how big, powerful, or revered you are, you can still always resort to using petty blackmail to get your way…

Yup , because the founding fathers REALLY wanted the state to be able to tell religious orgs what to do

Oh ,, that damn pesky Constitution again!! !

“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

That’s the problem when religious organizations start taking money from the gov’t, the next thing you know they expect you to follow the rules they set down for all groups that get paid for providing a service.

(and really I don’t have problem with the Chruch, I’m Catholic, think it is The One True Church and all that (well except for my new gig with Cato) and they have a right to take their balls and go home if they want too, just think it looks bad, does not help continue the work of helping the needy and hungry…and is a BS fight to get into. The one thing I have always admired about Catholic Cahrities is the fact that they help anyone, no matter what, no proselytizing involved, just doing good work in hard places.)

113 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:09:15pm

re: #90 Locker

This is why I have a hard time with tax exempt status for religions and also their work being called “charity” when it’s really propaganda based on bribery.

Right.

Every soup kitchen I know is propaganda-free. But don’t let your prejudices get in the way of facts.

114 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:10:25pm

re: #113 Cato the Elder

Right.

Every soup kitchen I know is propaganda-free. But don’t let your prejudices get in the way of facts.

Hell, I used to eat lentils and channa from the Hare Krishnas when I lived in Beantown. The only “propaganda” they did was propaganda of the deed, as it were - showing by their example of service what their beliefs had done for them. I learned nothing about Hinduism or Krishna from those meals.

115 funky chicken  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:10:44pm

re: #64 borgcube

I happen to have a few contract clients down here in San Diego that operate low-income housing and such owned by local Catholic churches. The managers told me flat out that almost everyone who comes to these services is not only from Mexico and/or Central America, but that almost all of them are here illegally. They would know, since they handle the paperwork for these people. At least here, that is who is filling the pews. Even the Catholic Church I attended as a child hasn’t conducted an English mass in 30 years I was told.

There was an article in the last couple of weeks on MSNBC or CNN talking about exactly your points.

The RC church in the USA is becoming increasingly hispanic.

I’ll go try to google it up.

116 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:11:52pm

re: #115 funky chicken

There was an article in the last couple of weeks on MSNBC or CNN talking about exactly your points.

The RC church in the USA is becoming increasingly hispanic.

I’ll go try to google it up.

Well, yeah, of course they are. So’s the whole country, in case you hadn’t noticed. The RC is increasingly taking a Southern Strategy of its own, recognizing that the vast majority of RC’s will, in very short order, live in Africa and South & Central America.

117 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:13:51pm

re: #107 funky chicken

Yep. The RC schools are an amazing ministry and have lifted many kids from rough homes to academic and life success. It’s ridiculous for them to cry poverty and close their best ministry, when it’s perhaps the one with the best track record for actually achieving amazing results.

Exactly! These schools also promote the faith amongst students from Catholic backgrounds, which is traditionally how the Church retained its members throughout the generations. And even if the students aren’t Catholic, they will (for the most part) go on with their lives thinking good things about the Church that helped educate them even though they didn’t belong to it. For the long-term success of any organization isn’t achieved just through turning out obedient members, but by gaining the acceptance and tolerance of non-members. What they are doing here will turn off many more non-faithful than actual members…

118 funky chicken  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:13:55pm

re: #64 borgcube

[Link: www.cnn.com…]

Latinos may be ‘future’ of U.S. Catholic Church

119 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:16:03pm

re: #118 funky chicken

[Link: www.cnn.com…]

Latinos may be ‘future’ of U.S. Catholic Church

Latinos will be the ‘future’ of America

120 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:16:51pm

re: #118 funky chicken

[Link: www.cnn.com…]

Latinos may be ‘future’ of U.S. Catholic Church

latinos will be the future of the united states. It’s inevitable, and demography is destiny. I live in Texas, a majority latino state with a long enough history and experience that the local culture is just fine as it is - mixture of german cowboy, czech farmer, Mexican settlers, and everybody else who decided to move down and get in on this good thing we got here.

121 ryannon  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:18:21pm

re: #52 bosforus

Dinged ya cause it’s kind of a silly thing to say. I don’t think I’ve known the CC in recent years to be outright xenophobic.

As in favoring non-nationals?

I don’t get your use of the word.

122 McSpiff  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:19:25pm

re: #114 Guanxi88

Hell, I used to eat lentils and channa from the Hare Krishnas when I lived in Beantown. The only “propaganda” they did was propaganda of the deed, as it were - showing by their example of service what their beliefs had done for them. I learned nothing about Hinduism or Krishna from those meals.

They hand out books on the main street here. Nice guys, but they have a real reputation for being pushy.

123 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:19:27pm

re: #120 Guanxi88

latinos will be the future of the united states. It’s inevitable, and demography is destiny. I live in Texas, a majority latino state with a long enough history and experience that the local culture is just fine as it is - mixture of german cowboy, czech farmer, Mexican settlers, and everybody else who decided to move down and get in on this good thing we got here.

;)

124 soxfan4life  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:19:33pm

re: #120 Guanxi88

latinos will be the future of the united states. It’s inevitable, and demography is destiny. I live in Texas, a majority latino state with a long enough history and experience that the local culture is just fine as it is - mixture of german cowboy, czech farmer, Mexican settlers, and everybody else who decided to move down and get in on this good thing we got here.


That’s supposed to be a secret.

125 William of Orange  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:19:34pm

Religion and politics, it’s an ugly combination…

126 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:19:39pm

Saw “2012” last night.

Great CGI…

Awful movie…

127 recusancy  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:20:47pm

re: #126 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Saw “2012” last night.

Great CGI…

Awful movie…

I could have told you that from the commercials.

128 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:20:54pm

re: #124 soxfan4life

That’s supposed to be a secret.

pffft…Texas pales to New Mexico with regard to a “good thing”

129 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:20:57pm

re: #124 soxfan4life

That’s supposed to be a secret.

Oh, right!

All you outta-staters, stay outta texas. As you were.

130 lastlaugh  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:21:07pm

re: #126 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Saw “2012” last night.

Great CGI…

Awful movie…

Same guy who made day after tomorrow, godzilla, and 10,000 BC. What’d you expect?

131 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:21:28pm

Matthew 25:40 comes to mind.

They are in their right… but…

132 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:22:36pm

re: #128 albusteve

pffft…Texas pales to New Mexico with regard to a “good thing”

Well, in fairness, NM has a lot more and better history. You guys didn’t go to war with the home nation of a good percentage of your indigenous population.

it is a sight to see, by the way, Tex-Mex parents, wearing their Lone Star shirts and vaquero boots, taking pictures of their kids’ first visit to the Alamo.

133 lastlaugh  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:23:12pm

re: #131 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Matthew 25:40 comes to mind.

They are in their right… but…

Yeah but we’re perfectly in our right to call them out for a very bush-league action.

134 lawhawk  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:23:24pm

Oh, and if you think things are done once the DC Council approves whatever they decide in this matter, you’d be wrong. Congress has to sign off on whatever laws are enacted by the DC Council.

Still More to Come: The Final Steps to Effectiveness as Law.
Although at this point the Bill has effectively become an Act, its journey to becoming a law that must be obeyed by the populace is not yet complete. Unique to the District of Columbia, an approved Act of the Council must be sent to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for a period of 30 days before becoming effective as law (or 60 days for certain criminal legislation). During this 30-day period of congressional review, the Congress may enact into law a joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act. If, during the 30-day period, the President of the United States approves the joint resolution, the Council’s Act is prevented from becoming law. If, however, upon the expiration of the 30-day congressional review period, no joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act has been approved by the President, the Bill finally becomes a Law and is assigned a law number.

The City Council can put together temporary and emergency legislation, but they’d have to readdress matters on a periodic basis.

So, no matter where you stand on this issue, your Reps will have a say in what happens in DC.

135 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:23:58pm

re: #114 Guanxi88

I used to eat lentils and channa from the Hare Krishnas when I lived in Beantown

The “temple” on Commonweath Ave about 3 blocks from the Public Gardens? I used to work on Newberry street and shared the ally between Newberry and Comm Ave with them

136 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:23:59pm

re: #133 lastlaugh
Zackery.

137 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:24:02pm

re: #110 sattv4u2

re: #105 Guanxi88

And not allowing women to be priests is the EXACT same as not allowing them out in public uncovered and having to walk 4 steps behind men and not being able to hold jobs and ,,,

actually, it is the same philosophy, which states that women are inherently inferior to men. the Muslims apply it in a 7th century sense, and the Catholics apply it in an 18th century sense. congrats! you’re a few centuries ahead of the Taliban! how remarkable!

138 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:24:23pm

re: #132 Guanxi88

Well, in fairness, NM has a lot more and better history. You guys didn’t go to war with the home nation of a good percentage of your indigenous population.

it is a sight to see, by the way, Tex-Mex parents, wearing their Lone Star shirts and vaquero boots, taking pictures of their kids’ first visit to the Alamo.

not only that but we kicked your asses when you invaded us in 1841…

139 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:24:49pm

re: #128 albusteve

pffft…Texas pales to New Mexico with regard to a “good thing”

Maybe, but there’s one thing Texas has I know NM don’t have yet, except by import, and that’s massive quantities of cheap-ass locally brewed pilsner, crafted by the great-great grandchildren of the original braumeisters who first set them up. Some advantages to having a mess of Germans in a place, and that’s one of them.

Oh, and the flour tortilla. next time you enjoy one of those, remember it was a German Texan who gave that to the world.

140 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:25:09pm

Funny, I don’t recall the Church trying this crap in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is as legal as stock-car racing and probably more popular. Why do you suppose they picked this stupid fight in DC?

141 funky chicken  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:25:16pm

You know, it just occurred to me that Washington, DC has to have some publicly subsidized abortion providers. The RC church didn’t stop providing social services because of that, but gay marriage is … the thing they fall on their grenade for?

I don’t really get it, but I’m not a religious person.

142 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:25:34pm

re: #135 sattv4u2

I used to eat lentils and channa from the Hare Krishnas when I lived in Beantown

The “temple” on Commonweath Ave about 3 blocks from the Public Gardens? I used to work on Newberry street and shared the ally between Newberry and Comm Ave with them

That’s the very one! Nice buncha folk, if a little heterodox. hell, i was beyond broke in those days, and a meal was a meal.

143 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:26:14pm

re: #139 Guanxi88

Thank goodness for them. Can’t stand corn tortillas, ceptin hard shell…

144 William of Orange  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:26:20pm

re: #127 recusancy

I could have told you that from the commercials.

There that saying of “William of Orange”: The more commercials needed to generate interest in a movie, the greater the chance it will suck.

Never been wrong in that department…

145 solomonpanting  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:26:30pm

re: #137 rollwave87

actually, it is the same philosophy, which states that women are inherently inferior to men. the Muslims apply it in a 7th century sense, and the Catholics apply it in an 18th century sense. congrats! you’re a few centuries ahead of the Taliban! how remarkable!

Except for those honor murders, acid in the face, and gang rapings for dating they are the same.

146 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:26:44pm

re: #139 Guanxi88

Maybe, but there’s one thing Texas has I know NM don’t have yet, except by import, and that’s massive quantities of cheap-ass locally brewed pilsner, crafted by the great-great grandchildren of the original braumeisters who first set them up. Some advantages to having a mess of Germans in a place, and that’s one of them.

Oh, and the flour tortilla. next time you enjoy one of those, remember it was a German Texan who gave that to the world.

dream on…
[Link: answers.yahoo.com…]

147 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:26:47pm

re: #140 Cato the Elder

Funny, I don’t recall the Church trying this crap in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is as legal as stock-car racing and probably more popular. Why do you suppose they picked this stupid fight in DC?

Has Mass law required the Church to provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt?

148 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:26:49pm

re: #138 albusteve

not only that but we kicked your asses when you invaded us in 1841…

yeah, but ya had to use FOREIGN troops to do it.

Lucky SOB - and you know it, too - living in NM.

149 lawhawk  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:27:14pm

re: #130 lastlaugh

Same guy who made day after tomorrow, godzilla, and 10,000 BC. What’d you expect?

And he isn’t Irwin Allen, who remains the Master of Disaster - and didn’t have or need CGI to do… Posiedon Adventure, Earthquake, Towering Inferno, Fire!, and Flood!

150 lostlakehiker  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:27:15pm

re: #59 SanFranciscoZionist

Bullshit. Please see my above about divorced and remarried Catholics. That’s never been an issue, AFAIK, and it never will be, even though those marriages are not sacramentally valid.

They don’t have to acknowledge same-sex marriages as sacramental, they just have to offer employee benefits to partners of their own employees.

To do so is to implicitly acknowledge that these partners are part of a family, not just friends or paramours. The church has a long standing position on such matters. It won’t offer employee benefits to all the wives of their employees either. Just one.

In any case, why can’t the church resist a wrong-headed and destructive legal gaming of “marriage”? Even in liberal California, the voters rejected the deal.

The whole point of these arrangements is that the person primarily responsible for the care of the joint offspring is unable to earn their own living because the time needed to watch the children preempts work time. Thus, social security benefits for spouses, insurance for the non-working partner, and on and on, have a legitimate purpose that helps society carry on. Extending such benefits to persons who ought, on the merits, just earn their own way like any other unencumbered adult, eats into society’s budget and serves no legitimate purpose.

151 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:27:36pm

re: #142 Guanxi88

That’s the very one! Nice buncha folk, if a little heterodox. hell, i was beyond broke in those days, and a meal was a meal.

I worked for a furrier on Newberry street

152 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:28:35pm

re: #139 Guanxi88

Maybe, but there’s one thing Texas has I know NM don’t have yet, except by import, and that’s massive quantities of cheap-ass locally brewed pilsner, crafted by the great-great grandchildren of the original braumeisters who first set them up. Some advantages to having a mess of Germans in a place, and that’s one of them.

Oh, and the flour tortilla. next time you enjoy one of those, remember it was a German Texan who gave that to the world.

My husband thanks her. I like the corn ones, made like Cinteotl intended.

153 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:28:35pm

re: #149 lawhawk

And he isn’t Irwin Allen, who remains the Master of Disaster - and didn’t have or need CGI to do… Posiedon Adventure, Earthquake, Towering Inferno, Fire!, and Flood!

Because he decided to add a fucking storyline.

GOSH IT SUCKED!

154 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:28:40pm

re: #146 albusteve

dream on…
[Link: answers.yahoo.com…]

Not my fault a buncha yahoos don’t know their texas history.

155 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:29:07pm

re: #137 rollwave87

actually, it is the same philosophy, which states that women are inherently inferior to men. the Muslims apply it in a 7th century sense, and the Catholics apply it in an 18th century sense. congrats! you’re a few centuries ahead of the Taliban! how remarkable!

I’m not aware of any Catholic Church doctrine stating that women are inferior to men. Can you provide a reference to the church’s official position condoning such a position?

156 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:29:15pm

re: #140 Cato the Elder

Funny, I don’t recall the Church trying this crap in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is as legal as stock-car racing and probably more popular. Why do you suppose they picked this stupid fight in DC?

Or New York or SanFran for that matter. Me thinks this is more about trying to effect politics on a national level than standing up for faith in the DC community. For the sake of the Church, I hope I’m totally wrong!

157 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:29:24pm

the wheat tortilla…got itre: #148 Guanxi88

yeah, but ya had to use FOREIGN troops to do it.

Lucky SOB - and you know it, too - living in NM.

all New Mexicans are foreign…except the Pueblo

158 Killgore Trout  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:29:31pm

The Church will have to modernize or perish. They’re the last of the old European castle dwellers (aside from a few holdouts here and there). They are fading pretty fast and need to adjust to the modern world and democracy.

159 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:29:48pm

re: #151 sattv4u2

I worked for a furrier on Newberry street

Nice work if you can get it. Nice “scenery” on that street, too. used to go over to Peretti’s and buy a tin of balkan sobranie back when i was flush with cash, and always drank the afternoon cocktail on Saturdays at the 4 seasons.

Great memories.

160 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:30:03pm

re: #137 rollwave87

actually, it is the same philosophy, which states that women are inherently inferior to men. the Muslims apply it in a 7th century sense, and the Catholics apply it in an 18th century sense. congrats! you’re a few centuries ahead of the Taliban! how remarkable!

Talk about a STRETCH ,, Maybe you’re screen name should be Gumby

161 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:30:21pm

re: #141 funky chicken

You know, it just occurred to me that Washington, DC has to have some publicly subsidized abortion providers. The RC church didn’t stop providing social services because of that, but gay marriage is … the thing they fall on their grenade for?

I don’t really get it, but I’m not a religious person.

The issue, I believe, isn’t what the city does, but that gay marriage would put the Church in a position where they would have to extend benefits to the same-sex spouses of their employees, and allow gay couples to adopt.

Abortion isn’t an issue, because the Church isn’t required to provide any.

162 ryannon  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:30:36pm

re: #114 Guanxi88

Hell, I used to eat lentils and channa from the Hare Krishnas when I lived in Beantown. The only “propaganda” they did was propaganda of the deed, as it were - showing by their example of service what their beliefs had done for them. I learned nothing about Hinduism or Krishna from those meals.

Oldies but goldies from back in the days…

163 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:30:46pm

re: #157 albusteve

the wheat tortilla…got it

all New Mexicans are foreign…except the Pueblo

See, and, in applying my Texan-to-English dictionary,. everybody not a Texas is a foreigner.

164 solomonpanting  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:30:49pm

re: #157 albusteve

all New Mexicans are foreign

Old Mexicans, too.

165 webevintage  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:31:04pm

re: #126 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Saw “2012” last night.

Great CGI…

Awful movie…

I could have told you that without even seeing the movie and you could have saved the $8.50 (?):

[Link: www.pajiba.com…]

They can be bastards over there, but 9 times out of 10 when they say a movie sucks…it sucks.

166 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:31:39pm

re: #158 Killgore Trout

The Church will have to modernize or perish. They’re the last of the old European castle dwellers (aside from a few holdouts here and there). They are fading pretty fast and need to adjust to the modern world and democracy.

Pat Condells clergy rant is posted up thread…no comments…heh

167 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:32:16pm

re: #147 sattv4u2

Has Mass law required the Church to provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt?

I’m curious about another, related point. There are many states now which permit same-sex marriages. It was my understanding that the Commerce Clause requires all other states to honor those contracts, although they may not permit such marriages to take place within their own boundaries.

Or did Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act punch a hole in the Constitution?

168 SpaceJesus  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:32:43pm

preventing a loving same-sex couple to adopt a child is more important than feeding thousands of needy I guess.

169 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:33:03pm

re: #163 Guanxi88

See, and, in applying my Texan-to-English dictionary,. everybody not a Texas is a foreigner.

I hope it stays that way…you wanna ski?, go to Colorado please

170 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:33:13pm

re: #165 webevintage

I could have told you that without even seeing the movie and you could have saved the $8.50

$8.50 for a new release!?! Just where in the USA do you live? Or is this Matinée pricing?

171 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:33:16pm

re: #147 sattv4u2

Has Mass law required the Church to provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt?

I’m not positive about that, but apparently that’s the case in New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont. I’d be surprised if it were any different in Massachusetts.

At any rate I’m inclining more and more to my theory that the Archbishop of DC has gotten a swollen head from being around too much actual temporal power in the form of the Federal Government and all those embassies from countries with armies. A case of clerical megalomania, in my estimation.

172 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:33:49pm

re: #150 lostlakehiker

To do so is to implicitly acknowledge that these partners are part of a family, not just friends or paramours. The church has a long standing position on such matters. It won’t offer employee benefits to all the wives of their employees either. Just one.

In any case, why can’t the church resist a wrong-headed and destructive legal gaming of “marriage”? Even in liberal California, the voters rejected the deal.

The whole point of these arrangements is that the person primarily responsible for the care of the joint offspring is unable to earn their own living because the time needed to watch the children preempts work time. Thus, social security benefits for spouses, insurance for the non-working partner, and on and on, have a legitimate purpose that helps society carry on. Extending such benefits to persons who ought, on the merits, just earn their own way like any other unencumbered adult, eats into society’s budget and serves no legitimate purpose.

1. Please respond to my comment about how the Church currently ‘acknowledges’ non-sacramental marriages, and explain why this is different.

2. YOu clearly don’t know much about Prop 8 or California voters. WHen you have more insight than just how ‘liberal’ this big, complicated state is supposed to be, check back.

3. Are you saying that partner benefits have a totally different role for a same-sex couple than a mixed-gender couple, and if so, how?

173 solomonpanting  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:34:13pm

re: #158 Killgore Trout

The Church will have to modernize or perish. They’re the last of the old European castle dwellers (aside from a few holdouts here and there). They are fading pretty fast and need to adjust to the modern world and democracy.

At over 1.3 billion they’re just about gone.

174 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:35:24pm

re: #168 SpaceJesus

preventing a loving same-sex couple to adopt a child is more important than feeding thousands of needy I guess.

OR ,,, following the constitution may trump BOTH!

175 SpaceJesus  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:35:26pm

re: #173 solomonpanting

At over 1.3 billion they’re just about gone.

I like how people like me are included in that figure

176 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:35:28pm

re: #160 sattv4u2

Talk about a STRETCH ,, Maybe you’re screen name should be Gumby

female rabbis: check.
female protestant clergy: check
female catholic clergy: nope
female muslim clergy: nope

wow! how could I even dare to say the two are similar in their essential views about the capability of women? what was I thinking?
multiple choice quiz. who said the following: you have to put up with our bigotry and religious extremism, or all of the wonderful community work we do will go away! was it a) hamas in gaza b) hezbolah in beirut or c) the catholic church in DC or d)all of the above?

D

177 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:35:35pm

re: #158 Killgore Trout

The Church will have to modernize or perish. They’re the last of the old European castle dwellers (aside from a few holdouts here and there). They are fading pretty fast and need to adjust to the modern world and democracy.


Cast your eyes at Africa and South America. They’re not old castle-dwellers there. And they’re growing. Next time you see a buncha Cardinals, take a good look at the faces and names. Fewer and fewer Europeans among more and more Hispanics and Africans.

178 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:35:56pm

re: #173 solomonpanting

At over 1.3 billion they’re just about gone.

and worth 95 trillion dollars…they will go wherever they want

179 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:36:06pm

re: #167 SixDegrees

I’m curious about another, related point. There are many states now which permit same-sex marriages. It was my understanding that the Commerce Clause requires all other states to honor those contracts, although they may not permit such marriages to take place within their own boundaries.

Or did Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act punch a hole in the Constitution?


Full Faith and Credit! Full Faith and Credit!

(I don’t know how DOMA reconciles that.)

180 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:36:17pm

re: #158 Killgore Trout

The Church will have to modernize or perish. They’re the last of the old European castle dwellers (aside from a few holdouts here and there). They are fading pretty fast and need to adjust to the modern world and democracy.

No, it doesn’t, and no, it won’t, and no, they aren’t.

All the Church has to do is recognize the difference between its purview and that of the secular world. And it’s pretty much done that already.

This is an anomaly. But if you think the CC is going to go Episcopalian in our lifetime, I’ve got news for you: the trend is all the other way.

181 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:36:52pm

re: #165 webevintage

Actually, the CGI was worth it.

Why do they bother with a plot?

182 webevintage  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:37:00pm

re: #170 Surabaya Stew

$8.50 for a new release!?! Just where in the USA do you live? Or is this Matinée pricing?

Little Rock, AR BUT I go to the movies so seldom that it might be the “rush hour” price for all I know.

actually I went and looked, before 6pm is $7.25 after it is $9.25, no wonder we never see a movie later in the evening except for Harry Potter midnight shows.

183 Ojoe  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:37:27pm

10% + unemployment.

Down with the financial and political elite of this country.

184 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:38:12pm

re: #176 rollwave87

female rabbis: check.
female protestant clergy: check
female catholic clergy: nope
female muslim clergy: nope

wow! how could I even dare to say the two are similar in their essential views about the capability of women? what was I thinking?
multiple choice quiz. who said the following: you have to put up with our bigotry and religious extremism, or all of the wonderful community work we do will go away! was it a) hamas in gaza b) hezbolah in beirut or c) the catholic church in DC or d)all of the above?

D

Not all Jewish or Protestant denominations include female clergy, and I’ve met at least one woman who was called an imam by her community. It’s complicated. The Catholic Church is centralized, which means that things don’t happen incrementally so much.

185 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:38:13pm

re: #183 Ojoe

10% + unemployment.

Down with the financial and political elite of this country.

Just give them a chance, I’m sure they’ll get the hang of it in short order, and we’ll remember 10% unemployment as the Golden Age.

186 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:38:46pm

re: #176 rollwave87

female catholic clergy: nope
female muslim clergy: nope

I have two big toes

Osama Bin Laden has (GASP) TWO BIG TOES!!

I must be Osama Bin Laden!!!

187 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:39:04pm

re: #176 rollwave87

female rabbis: check.
female protestant clergy: check
female catholic clergy: nope
female muslim clergy: nope

wow! how could I even dare to say the two are similar in their essential views about the capability of women? what was I thinking?
multiple choice quiz. who said the following: you have to put up with our bigotry and religious extremism, or all of the wonderful community work we do will go away! was it a) hamas in gaza b) hezbolah in beirut or c) the catholic church in DC or d)all of the above?

D

Ah, but the Catholic Church is HIGHLY unlikely to blow anything up in DC.

188 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:39:23pm

re: #177 Guanxi88

Cast your eyes at Africa and South America. They’re not old castle-dwellers there. And they’re growing. Next time you see a buncha Cardinals, take a good look at the faces and names. Fewer and fewer Europeans among more and more Hispanics and Africans.

And in terms of social conservatism - you AIN’T seen a socon till you’ve met a Ugandan catholic.

189 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:39:36pm

re: #183 Ojoe

10% + unemployment.

Down with the financial and political elite of this country.

we are recovering now, thanks to the political elites…pay attention…I love the feds

190 ryannon  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:40:03pm

The girls were prettier back then. The guys weren’t bad either. It was the day before the day the music died…

191 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:40:23pm

Hey Lizards!

Archdiocese,huh?

I don’t recall the Vatican ever denying Christian Charity to any person or group.
Aren’t such works the first step towards evangelizing?

Has this already been discussed?

How are you all?

enough questions.

192 Killgore Trout  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:40:34pm

re: #165 webevintage

John Cusack had so much potential. Looks like he’s going to waste his career.

193 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:40:44pm

re: #177 Guanxi88

Cast your eyes at Africa and South America. They’re not old castle-dwellers there. And they’re growing. Next time you see a buncha Cardinals, take a good look at the faces and names. Fewer and fewer Europeans among more and more Hispanics and Africans.

My poor Gran was torn at the last Papal election. She thought it might be nice to have a black Pope, but the Africans tend to be hardliners. I suggested that an African-American might work out well, but I don’t think there were any AA cardinals at the time.
(Catholics talk about papabili as though THEY got to vote.)

194 Ojoe  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:41:03pm

re: #189 albusteve

No recovery in my neck of the woods. (No. Cal).

I’ll get back to you when I’m working in my field.

Don’t hold your breath

195 SpaceJesus  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:41:18pm

re: #174 sattv4u2

OR ,,, following the constitution may trump BOTH!


ok, I just founded a new church 5 seconds ago where i’m required by god to fire my bazooka out my apartment window every 18 minutes. fuck you city ordinance, it’s my free exercise.

196 solomonpanting  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:41:23pm

re: #176 rollwave87

female rabbis: check.
female protestant clergy: check
female catholic clergy: nope
female muslim clergy: nope

wow! how could I even dare to say the two are similar in their essential views about the capability of women? what was I thinking?
multiple choice quiz. who said the following: you have to put up with our bigotry and religious extremism, or all of the wonderful community work we do will go away! was it a) hamas in gaza b) hezbolah in beirut or c) the catholic church in DC or d)all of the above?

D

Yeah, The Inquisition and Crusades, correct?

197 Gus  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:41:52pm

re: #177 Guanxi88

Cast your eyes at Africa and South America. They’re not old castle-dwellers there. And they’re growing. Next time you see a buncha Cardinals, take a good look at the faces and names. Fewer and fewer Europeans among more and more Hispanics and Africans.

Nothing new in South America of course. They’ve had a strong presence for centuries now. Being from the region, my dad was going to be a priest and was enrolled in a seminary. My mother was deeply involved in the Catholic Church and volunteered for them working with the nuns. It’s almost by habit because even though he was in a seminary for a time I never considered my father deeply religious.

198 Ojoe  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:42:07pm

I first read it as

female rabbits

199 webevintage  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:42:08pm

buh bye y’all, it has been fun but I have GOT to get back to work.
one of the drawbacks of working from home, dithering instead of doing…
;-)

200 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:42:09pm

re: #158 Killgore Trout

The Church will have to modernize or perish. They’re the last of the old European castle dwellers (aside from a few holdouts here and there). They are fading pretty fast and need to adjust to the modern world and democracy.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but regarding gay marriage and abortion, most of the Christian world is pretty much on the same page as the Catholics. There are some exceptions, but not many.

And I’m pretty certain Islam shares similar views.

I’m not entirely sure about the Jews or the Buddhists (I’m pretty sure the Buddhists are not exactly fond of abortion), but I hardly think the Catholic Church represents a last remnant of such a position relative to the world’s other major religions.

And the Church doesn’t exactly seem to be in steep decline, according to Wikipedia, anyway:

Church membership in 2007 was 1.147 billion people, increasing from the 1950 figure of 437 million and the 1970 figure of 654 million. The Catholic population increase of 139% outpaced the world population increase of 117% between 1950 and 2000.

Although there has been a decline in the number of priest, particularly relative to the number of laity, in the Americas and parts of Europe.

201 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:42:11pm

re: #195 SpaceJesus

ok, I just founded a new church 5 seconds ago where i’m required by god to fire my bazooka out my apartment window every 18 minutes. fuck you city ordinance, it’s my free exercise.

Do I have to tithe and get baptised, or can i just join up right now by profession of faith?

202 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:43:00pm

re: #186 sattv4u2

female catholic clergy: nope
female muslim clergy: nope

I have two big toes

Osama Bin Laden has (GASP) TWO BIG TOES!!

I must be Osama Bin Laden!!!

yup. im just like glenn beck because im pointing out that both religions discriminate against women and gays. exactly.

203 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:43:02pm

re: #186 sattv4u2

female catholic clergy: nope
female muslim clergy: nope

I have two big toes

Osama Bin Laden has (GASP) TWO BIG TOES!!

I must be Osama Bin Laden!!!

No, my uncle is Osama. He also has two big toes.

//Seriously, my uncle looks a LOT like bin Laden. He’s much shorter, though.

204 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:43:17pm

re: #192 Killgore Trout

John Cusack had so much potential. Looks like he’s going to waste his career.

Hollywood is falling apart…actors have to make money somehow or else…

[Link: www.people.com…]

205 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:43:23pm

re: #176 rollwave87

female rabbis: check.
female protestant clergy: check
female catholic clergy: nope
female muslim clergy: nope

wow! how could I even dare to say the two are similar in their essential views about the capability of women? what was I thinking?
multiple choice quiz. who said the following: you have to put up with our bigotry and religious extremism, or all of the wonderful community work we do will go away! was it a) hamas in gaza b) hezbolah in beirut or c) the catholic church in DC or d)all of the above?

D

When even muslim women are starting to lead prayers, you know the Church’s hold on men-only leaders is doomed for extinction.

206 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:43:38pm

re: #155 SixDegrees

I’m not aware of any Catholic Church doctrine stating that women are inferior to men. Can you provide a reference to the church’s official position condoning such a position?

If anything the Church puts women on a pedestal. Gilded cage as I see it.

207 ryannon  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:43:44pm

re: #198 Ojoe

I first read it as

female rabbits

Hare Krishna!

208 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:43:56pm

re: #196 solomonpanting

Yeah, The Inquisition and Crusades, correct?

Tell you what, you might want to stop worrying about stuff that happened more than, say 300 years ago. makes you look petty and paranoid.

Might as well rant on about Portuguese hegemony and the troubling movement of mongols toward baghdad.

209 albusteve  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:44:06pm

re: #194 Ojoe

No recovery in my neck of the woods. (No. Cal).

I’ll get back to you when I’m working in my field.

Don’t hold your breath

you’ll be working in a field alright…picking lettuce

210 SpaceJesus  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:44:45pm

re: #201 Guanxi88

Do I have to tithe and get baptised, or can i just join up right now by profession of faith?


well you can either sign up and be baptized, or you can be brought in by your parents and never practice but still be considered one of the flock for statistical bragging purposes.

211 Achilles Tang  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:45:03pm

re: #3 SixDegrees

Oh, well. That whole Separation of Church and State thing cuts both ways. We aren’t ruled by theocrats, and the government doesn’t get to tell the church how to conduct it’s business.

Sorry to disagree. You take the meaning of the phrase to areas it doesn’t belong.

The meaning is that government does not favor one religion over another. It does not mean that religion, any religion, can act like a state within the state.

In our society government trumps religion when there is a conflict; the two are not equal.

212 Ojoe  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:45:05pm

re: #209 albusteve

I restate 183.

BBL

213 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:45:16pm

re: #158 Killgore Trout

The Church will have to modernize or perish. They’re the last of the old European castle dwellers (aside from a few holdouts here and there). They are fading pretty fast and need to adjust to the modern world and democracy.

IIRC, the Pope said something to the affect that the Church will become smaller and smaller —and be a solid refuge in future turbulent times for the remaining faithful. It will remain as it is and be around.

They aren’t looking to expand and conquer anymore.

214 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:45:17pm

re: #182 webevintage

Little Rock, AR BUT I go to the movies so seldom that it might be the “rush hour” price for all I know.

actually I went and looked, before 6pm is $7.25 after it is $9.25, no wonder we never see a movie later in the evening except for Harry Potter midnight shows.

As a resident of the land of the twelve dollar movie house with no discounts for early birds (re: Manhattan), I stand in awe and jealousy.
:-D

215 webevintage  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:45:33pm

re: #195 SpaceJesus

ok, I just founded a new church 5 seconds ago where i’m required by god to fire my bazooka out my apartment window every 18 minutes. fuck you city ordinance, it’s my free exercise.

See #85 Cato and I just founded a new religion…
all are welcome, pie and suits and fancy watches for the minions.

OK, now I’m really going…

216 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:45:43pm

re: #210 SpaceJesus

well you can either sign up and be baptized, or you can be brought in by your parents and never practice but still be considered one of the flock for statistical bragging purposes.

When do I get the bazooka?

217 solomonpanting  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:45:48pm

re: #203 SanFranciscoZionist

Seriously, my uncle looks a LOT like bin Laden. He’s much shorter, though.

Makes it easier to live in a cave, just like bin Laden.

218 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:46:21pm

re: #205 Surabaya Stew

When even muslim women are starting to lead prayers, you know the Church’s hold on men-only leaders is doomed for extinction.

yeah, as I was typing that, i was thinking, there’s actually a chance there may be some female Islamic clergy. but I know that there aren’t any female priests. I guess we see why that’s the case right here on LGF though. apparently barring women from leadership roles is some sort of badge of honor for people on here. sick.

219 Achilles Tang  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:46:56pm

re: #213 ggt

They aren’t looking to expand and conquer anymore.

Does that mean condoms will become kosher, so to speak?

220 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:47:15pm

re: #198 Ojoe

I first read it as

female rabbits

Well, the feminine form of the word in Hebrew could be rabit. English speakers ignore this, because it sounds too much like ‘rabbit’.

Rabbanit works as well, except that that has long been used in the Sephardi and Mizrachi communities to describe the rabbi’s wife.

A group of young Israelis were once being given a tour of Sherith Israel in San Francisco by the then rabbi, Alice Goldfinger. One of them asked her what she called herself (as a rabbi) in Hebrew.

One of the other tourists says “Rabbanit, stupid!”

Alice says “No, my husband is the rabbanit.”

I think ravti would work, but no one ever listens to me.

221 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:47:15pm

re: #186 sattv4u2

female catholic clergy: nope
female muslim clergy: nope

I have two big toes

Osama Bin Laden has (GASP) TWO BIG TOES!!

I must be Osama Bin Laden!!!

LOL. I think chances are good that with him being on dialysis and all, he may have lost one or two toes by now.

That’s if he’s not mouldering in the grave, as I believe him to be lo these many years.

222 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:47:22pm

What would DC look like without Catholic charities? Mark Twain has the answer:

If men neglected “God’s poor” and “God’s stricken and helpless ones” as He does, what would become of them? The answer is to be found in those dark lands where man follows His example and turns his indifferent back upon them: they get no help at all… If you will look at the matter rationally and without prejudice, the proper place to hunt for the facts of His mercy, is not where man does the mercies and He collects the praise, but in those regions where He has the field to Himself.

On a more serious note, is it likely that the Church will close Catholic University for this reason too?

223 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:47:26pm

re: #176 rollwave87

female rabbis: check.
female protestant clergy: check
female catholic clergy: nope
female muslim clergy: nope

wow! how could I even dare to say the two are similar in their essential views about the capability of women? what was I thinking?

Did you ever provide a reference to those church doctrines I asked for above, outlining the Catholic Church’s official views about women? Because I looked, but I’m not seeing it. Maybe I missed it; if so, please post it again.

224 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:47:39pm

re: #219 Naso Tang

Does that mean condoms will become kosher, so to speak?

I doubt it.

225 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:47:56pm

re: #208 Guanxi88

Tell you what, you might want to stop worrying about stuff that happened more than, say 300 years ago. makes you look petty and paranoid.

Might as well rant on about Portuguese hegemony and the troubling movement of mongols toward baghdad.

ok. Ill ignore that. do I also have to ignore the bigotry the catholic church is advocating that is the topic of this post, from today’s Washington Post? or is that ancient history too?

226 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:48:18pm

re: #199 webevintage
“There is no dither, there is just do…”
-Yoda

227 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:48:18pm

re: #223 SixDegrees

Did you ever provide a reference to those church doctrines I asked for above, outlining the Catholic Church’s official views about women? Because I looked, but I’m not seeing it. Maybe I missed it; if so, please post it again.

It;s stuck in the intertoobies !

228 solomonpanting  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:48:36pm

re: #208 Guanxi88

Tell you what, you might want to stop worrying about stuff that happened more than, say 300 years ago. makes you look petty and paranoid.

Might as well rant on about Portuguese hegemony and the troubling movement of mongols toward baghdad.

I stated those events not for me, but for rollwave87’s moral equivalence comparisons.


Maybe I needed a sarc tag.

229 Ojoe  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:48:39pm

re: #220 SanFranciscoZionist

Thank you for the info.

230 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:49:07pm

re: #217 solomonpanting

Makes it easier to live in a cave, just like bin Laden.

I think he actually lives in an apartment in Los Angeles. My uncle, not bin Laden.

231 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:49:14pm

One thing I’m certain of: If Catholic Charities pulls out of DC, Atheist Charities Inc. will not leap in to stop the gap.

232 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:49:57pm

re: #227 sattv4u2

It;s stuck in the intertoobies !

ok. you caught me. im just pretending that the catholic church bars women from leading it. you’re right. you caught me. i just made it up. im exposed. its not like its a universally known fact or anything.

233 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:50:01pm

re: #231 Cato the Elder

One thing I’m certain of: If Catholic Charities pulls out of DC, Atheist Charities Inc. will not leap in to stop the gap.

All the more reason to expand social services (i.e. the role of gubernet).

234 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:52:02pm

re: #225 rollwave87

ok. Ill ignore that. do I also have to ignore the bigotry the catholic church is advocating that is the topic of this post, from today’s Washington Post? or is that ancient history too?

If you’re seeking evidence of violence on a par with that committed in the name of Islam within the Catholic Church, then the WaPo article is not grist for your mill.

The WaPo article details a decision taken by the diocese. It is NOT violent, and to attempt to portray the decision (foolish, as I said earlier) to deny social services VOLUNTARILY provided to an area as evidence of anything other than bad management and poor decision making is foolish. And in terms of alleged “bigotry” - remember this, their organizing principles sorta kinda resist revision to accord with the mood or preferences of the time. See, if they did that, they’d be a political party. They’re a local branch of a major world religion with strong central authority - they can’t just go along with what the locals are doing.

235 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:52:52pm

whenever it comes to threads about gay marriage on LGF, sometimes I feel like Ive fallen down the rabbit hole. how can people be so intelligent (not being sarcastic, I really do think most of you are) but accept this kind of backwards cro-magnon thinking. what is wrong with you people?

236 solomonpanting  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:54:54pm

re: #235 rollwave87


I guess LGF’ers aren’t as intelligent as you.

237 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:55:36pm

re: #218 rollwave87

yeah, as I was typing that, i was thinking, there’s actually a chance there may be some female Islamic clergy. but I know that there aren’t any female priests. I guess we see why that’s the case right here on LGF though. apparently barring women from leadership roles is some sort of badge of honor for people on here. sick.

Note however, that it is only in the Western world and the handful of muslim-majority democracies that such a concept can ever grow a toehold. For which I am thankful for, because in the long run; women Islamic leaders will be an important force and inspiration for moderation for their backward co-religionists in other lands.

As for the Church, they can hold out for a while, (one of the benefits of strong centralization, as evidenced by their nutso positions re: married clergy) but they will change in the end. What would be helpful is for us lay people not support such backward thinking just out of “respect” to the organization!

238 lawhawk  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:55:40pm

re: #220 SanFranciscoZionist

Or Rebbitzin.

239 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:55:42pm

if you are Catholic, and really care about your religion, I respect that a great deal. but shouldn’t your concern be aimed at seeing the religion you love reform itself, and accept the basic humanity of all people, instead of making excuses?

240 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:55:42pm

re: #235 rollwave87

whenever it comes to threads about gay marriage on LGF, sometimes I feel like Ive fallen down the rabbit hole. how can people be so intelligent (not being sarcastic, I really do think most of you are) but accept this kind of backwards cro-magnon thinking. what is wrong with you people?

Fine, then let’s use the coercive power of the State to compel a religious organization to provide services to people not currently being helped by the state. hell, let’s re-zone their churches multi-family and pack them full of the homeless and sell off the altar instruments and church bells to help meet the needs of the poor. But never, never, let us acknowledge that any organization has the right to decide to withhold that which it had given freely in the past.

The lesson will not be lost on others, who will most assuredly NOT help anyone anywhere ever again.

241 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:55:45pm

Vatican and homosexuality —scroll down.

I don’t see (and have never seen) any reference to homosexuals not being eligible for Christian Charity. IMHO, homosexual sex is seen as any other non-chaste sex act. In other words, the Church does not demonize homosexuals as a separate group.

242 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:55:48pm

Oh, other thing about 2012… They destroyed a Buddhist Monastary and the Vatican…

Left the Muslims alone.

243 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:56:12pm

re: #213 ggt

IIRC, the Pope said something to the affect that the Church will become smaller and smaller —and be a solid refuge in future turbulent times for the remaining faithful. It will remain as it is and be around.

They aren’t looking to expand and conquer anymore.

With the minor exceptions of Africa, South America and Asia.

When I attended the great confirmation mass at the Cathedral of Mary our Queen in Baltimore last Holy Thursday, the Asian confirmands numbered in the hundreds. Overall there were nearly a thousand new Catholics in that ceremony.

244 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:56:27pm

re: #235 rollwave87

whenever it comes to threads about gay marriage on LGF, sometimes I feel like Ive fallen down the rabbit hole. how can people be so intelligent (not being sarcastic, I really do think most of you are) but accept this kind of backwards cro-magnon thinking. what is wrong with you people?

It’s called “religion.”

245 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:57:13pm

I see this as part of a larger cultural battle between those who advocate real charity and those who advocate a nanny state. In my opinion, “real charity” is an unmandated good deed. But the nanny state mentality calls for “mandated” good deeds. If the state acts too heavy handed towards those that do unmandated good deeds, those good deeds could be withdrawn. And our society will surely suffer.

246 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:57:16pm

re: #235 rollwave87

whenever it comes to threads about gay marriage on LGF, sometimes I feel like Ive fallen down the rabbit hole. how can people be so intelligent (not being sarcastic, I really do think most of you are) but accept this kind of backwards cro-magnon thinking. what is wrong with you people?

I sort of want to give you a half an upding. I know how you feel, but ‘what is wrong with you people’ is not exactly going to work as an outreach tactic.

247 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:57:20pm

re: #239 rollwave87

if you are Catholic, and really care about your religion, I respect that a great deal. but shouldn’t your concern be aimed at seeing the religion you love reform itself, and accept the basic humanity of all people, instead of making excuses?

I’m not catholic, but your argument amounts to a mandate for all faiths to reform themselves and their teaching so as to be in accord with the views and beliefs of the people or the state or both. That is politics, not religion.

248 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:58:14pm

re: #239 rollwave87

if you are Catholic, and really care about your religion, I respect that a great deal. but shouldn’t your concern be aimed at seeing the religion you love reform itself, and accept the basic humanity of all people, instead of making excuses?

If you are Catholic you accept the Church’s teachings or you leave it.

The Church is NOT going to change.

249 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:58:17pm

re: #232 rollwave87

ok. you caught me. im just pretending that the catholic church bars women from leading it. you’re right. you caught me. i just made it up. im exposed. its not like its a universally known fact or anything.

No, What we “caught” you doing was making ridiculous comparisons between a religion that uses it’s women as chattel and one that does not allow women to be ONE thing (priesthood) but otherwise puts them on a pedastal in EVERY sense

250 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:58:37pm

re: #247 Guanxi88

I’m not catholic, but your argument amounts to a mandate for all faiths to reform themselves and their teaching so as to be in accord with the views and beliefs of the people or the state or both. That is politics, not religion.

Oh, and it’s tyrannical, even if the views to which the religions should be bent are humanitarian.

251 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:59:07pm

re: #244 hicsuget

It’s called “religion.”

if you feel like you’re religion compels you to discriminate against women and gays, then that puts you much closer to the religious beliefs of jerry falwell or khalid sheik mohammed… than it does to Jesus.

252 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:59:09pm

re: #242 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Oh, other thing about 2012… They destroyed a Buddhist Monastary and the Vatican…

Left the Muslims alone.

The director explains that this oversight was deliberate.

253 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:59:21pm

re: #248 ggt

If you are Catholic you accept the Church’s teachings or you leave it.

The Church is NOT going to change.

Except for all the times it changed in the past. Remember when the Dominicans and the Franciscans reconciled their differences?

254 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:59:22pm

re: #240 Guanxi88

Fine, then let’s use the coercive power of the State to compel a religious organization to provide services to people not currently being helped by the state. hell, let’s re-zone their churches multi-family and pack them full of the homeless and sell off the altar instruments and church bells to help meet the needs of the poor. But never, never, let us acknowledge that any organization has the right to decide to withhold that which it had given freely in the past.

The lesson will not be lost on others, who will most assuredly NOT help anyone anywhere ever again.

The Church has a legal right to withhold services, for this reason, or any other. I question whether they have a moral right, or a rational one in this case.

No one is suggesting the state coerce them, in fact, the Church appears to be the only group here engaging in coercive behavior.

255 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:59:36pm

re: #243 Cato the Elder

With the minor exceptions of Africa, South America and Asia.

When I attended the great confirmation mass at the Cathedral of Mary our Queen in Baltimore last Holy Thursday, the Asian confirmands numbered in the hundreds. Overall there were nearly a thousand new Catholics in that ceremony.

I know there is a lot going on in Korea too!

256 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:00:03pm

re: #253 hicsuget

Except for all the times it changed in the past. Remember when the Dominicans and the Franciscans reconciled their differences?

Ok, once every 500 years or so . .

:)

257 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:00:46pm

re: #254 SanFranciscoZionist

The Church has a legal right to withhold services, for this reason, or any other. I question whether they have a moral right, or a rational one in this case.

No one is suggesting the state coerce them, in fact, the Church appears to be the only group here engaging in coercive behavior.

My point precisely. It’s a boneheaded move, but well within their right to make, and they ought not be held to account for it by the state, nor, indeed, by any temporal body or person.

258 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:00:55pm

re: #242 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Oh, other thing about 2012… They destroyed a Buddhist Monastary and the Vatican…

Left the Muslims alone.

Per Debbie Schlussel—so God alone knows what the real story is—the filmmakers wanted to show the Kaaba falling into a chasm, but decided they were too scared to. No idea if that’s true. It’s Debbie.

259 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:01:34pm

re: #242 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Oh, other thing about 2012… They destroyed a Buddhist Monastary and the Vatican…

Left the Muslims alone.

I listened to an interview with the director about this. They said they really, really wanted to show the K’abba getting creamed, but left it out because they didn’t want to get their asses blown up and their families turned into targets.

Seriously. It was on NPR, Thursday morning I think.

260 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:01:49pm

re: #246 SanFranciscoZionist

I sort of want to give you a half an upding. I know how you feel, but ‘what is wrong with you people’ is not exactly going to work as an outreach tactic.

I know. but Ive yet to figure out how to totally take away any sort of personal investment in this debate, especially when I have a boyfriend that I love, and the outcome of this issue will have a direct, immense impact upon the entire trajectory of my life.

261 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:01:55pm

re: #244 hicsuget

It’s called “religion.”

Some people’s, yes. Mine teaches me differently.

And some people have no religious reason for opposing gay marriage, but do it anyway.

262 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:02:17pm

re: #258 SanFranciscoZionist

Per Debbie Schlussel—so God alone knows what the real story is—the filmmakers wanted to show the Kaaba falling into a chasm, but decided they were too scared to. No idea if that’s true. It’s Debbie.

I don’t trust her all that much. If it’s me making the flick, I’d omit the scenes of the destruction of religious sites altogether, precisely because I know I would not show anything happening to the Kaaba, the Temple Mount, or any other hair-trigger site.

263 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:02:43pm

re: #245 _RememberTonyC

I see this as part of a larger cultural battle between those who advocate real charity and those who advocate a nanny state. In my opinion, “real charity” is an unmandated good deed. But the nanny state mentality calls for “mandated” good deeds. If the state acts too heavy handed towards those that do unmandated good deeds, those good deeds could be withdrawn. And our society will surely suffer.

How is DC being heavy handed?

264 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:02:50pm

re: #251 rollwave87

if you feel like you’re religion compels you to discriminate against women and gays, then that puts you much closer to the religious beliefs of jerry falwell or khalid sheik mohammed… than it does to Jesus.

The Church does not compel anyone to discriminate. There may be INDIVIDUALS in the Church heirarchy who use their power for political influence. They are acting against the CHURCH and will be ultimately judged for that.

Please remember that the Church (in these contexts) is the Vatican.

265 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:03:10pm

re: #258 SanFranciscoZionist

Per Debbie Schlussel—so God alone knows what the real story is—the filmmakers wanted to show the Kaaba falling into a chasm, but decided they were too scared to. No idea if that’s true. It’s Debbie.

Well, even a broken clock is right occasionally!

266 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:04:47pm

re: #258 SanFranciscoZionist

Per Debbie Schlussel—so God alone knows what the real story is—the filmmakers wanted to show the Kaaba falling into a chasm, but decided they were too scared to. No idea if that’s true. It’s Debbie.

It’s true, sadly.

For his latest disaster movie, 2012, the 53-year-old director had wanted to demolish the Kaaba, the iconic cube-shaped structure in the Grand Mosque in Mecca that Muslims the world over turn towards every day when they pray and which they circle seven times during the hajj pilgrimage.

But after some consideration, he decided it might not be such a smart idea, after all.

“I wanted to do that, I have to admit,” Emmerich told scifiwire.com. “But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right.

“We have to all, in the western world, think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have … a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is.

“So it’s just something which I kind of didn’t [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out.”

267 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:04:55pm

re: #262 Guanxi88

I don’t trust her all that much. If it’s me making the flick, I’d omit the scenes of the destruction of religious sites altogether, precisely because I know I would not show anything happening to the Kaaba, the Temple Mount, or any other hair-trigger site.

Yeah, but he did show the Vatican being destroyed because he hates the Church! So he’s guilty of not being even-handed when it comes to the derision of all religions.

268 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:05:12pm

re: #232 rollwave87

ok. you caught me. im just pretending that the catholic church bars women from leading it. you’re right. you caught me. i just made it up. im exposed. its not like its a universally known fact or anything.

I’m asking for a reference to what the official church doctrine concerning women is. You stated earlier that the church explicitly holds the position that women are inferior to men. I’m not aware of any such doctrinal position, but I’d certainly like to see it if it exists.

269 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:05:23pm

re: #261 SanFranciscoZionist

Some people’s, yes. Mine teaches me differently.

And some people have no religious reason for opposing gay marriage, but do it anyway.

I have never heard of a single person who opposes gay marriage for non-religious reasons (aside, of course, from politicians who are merely pandering to their religious constituency). Perhaps an example or two would be in order.

270 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:05:46pm

re: #257 Guanxi88

My point precisely. It’s a boneheaded move, but well within their right to make, and they ought not be held to account for it by the state, nor, indeed, by any temporal body or person.

It’s more than boneheaded, it’s an attempt to influence the laws of DC by threatening to take away food for the poor and a roof for the widow and orphan. As someone raised in part by Catholic family, I will gladly say this sucks.

And I reiterate, the state isn’t doing anything to the Church, but the Church is threatening to take away from the poor if they don’t get their way. That’s a lousy way to play politics.

271 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:05:46pm

re: #267 Surabaya Stew

Yeah, but he did show the Vatican being destroyed because he hates the Church! So he’s guilty of not being even-handed when it comes to the derision of all religions.

All the more reason to not show any of ‘em, cause no matter what, I AIN’T showing the Kaaba going bye-bye, and leaving it alone would stand out.

272 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:06:28pm

re: #267 Surabaya Stew

Yeah, but he did show the Vatican being destroyed because he hates the Church! So he’s guilty of not being even-handed when it comes to the derision of all religions.

No, he’s guilty of being realistic. Remember Rushdie and the Danish Cartoons. No mere filmmaker is required to commit suicide and homicide by proxy by riling up the Religion of Peace!

273 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:07:01pm

re: #260 rollwave87

I know. but Ive yet to figure out how to totally take away any sort of personal investment in this debate, especially when I have a boyfriend that I love, and the outcome of this issue will have a direct, immense impact upon the entire trajectory of my life.

I know. Hang in there, OK? And walk away from the computer and do something nice if you think you’re going to melt down totally.

274 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:07:15pm

re: #270 SanFranciscoZionist

‘And I reiterate, the state isn’t doing anything to the Archbishop Church, but the Archbishop Church is threatening to take away from the poor if they don’t get their way. That’s a lousy way to play politics.”

FTFY

275 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:08:23pm

re: #271 Guanxi88

All the more reason to not show any of ‘em, cause no matter what, I AIN’T showing the Kaaba going bye-bye, and leaving it alone would stand out.

Agreed! If someone hates religion, they should hate them all equally. Otherwise, they’re putting some of them over others, and thats just nonsense.

276 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:08:24pm

re: #262 Guanxi88

I don’t trust her all that much. If it’s me making the flick, I’d omit the scenes of the destruction of religious sites altogether, precisely because I know I would not show anything happening to the Kaaba, the Temple Mount, or any other hair-trigger site.

You know, I just can’t bring myself to be too offended with the filmmakers on this one. Do I really think showing the Kaaba being destroyed in a dumb Hollywood thriller is a moral imperative that you should risk your life over? Not really.

277 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:08:28pm

re: #263 SanFranciscoZionist

How is DC being heavy handed?

I’m not saying my post only applies to this situation. I’m thinking more about how a nanny state that mandates caring (through excessive taxes, etc) will cause organizations that do “unmandated” caring to cut back because their resources may be drained by the state’s hunger for money. And that larger issue may be reflected somewhat in this case because a private organization is considering pulling back some charitable work because it feels it is being pressured by the state in another area. I hope this makes sense.

278 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:08:31pm

re: #269 hicsuget

I have never heard of a single person who opposes gay marriage for non-religious reasons (aside, of course, from politicians who are merely pandering to their religious constituency). Perhaps an example or two would be in order.

while I’m definitely pro marriage equality, I will sort of stick up for some of the people on here against it. I don’t remember who it was, but someone made a pretty good secular case for it a few week’s back. basically saying that the word marriage was the problem, because two same sex people in a relationship is just inherently different than two opposite sex people. but that gay couples should get all the same rights. it just should be called something else. didn’t agree with them, but it was a fair argument. certainly better than “because the Bible (or Koran) says so.”

279 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:08:50pm

re: #270 SanFranciscoZionist

It’s more than boneheaded, it’s an attempt to influence the laws of DC by threatening to take away food for the poor and a roof for the widow and orphan. As someone raised in part by Catholic family, I will gladly say this sucks.

And I reiterate, the state isn’t doing anything to the Church, but the Church is threatening to take away from the poor if they don’t get their way. That’s a lousy way to play politics.

The state is attempting to mandate performance by their charities of actions contrary to the intent and teachings of their law as they understand it. Rather than submit to temporal authority and comply, they have chose to suspend services.

If it were me, I’d continue the services and slug it out with DC in court. No reason why DC should hold the poor hostage, either.

280 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:09:36pm

re: #267 Surabaya Stew

Yeah, but he did show the Vatican being destroyed because he hates the Church! So he’s guilty of not being even-handed when it comes to the derision of all religions.

He hates the Church? And also Buddhists? Where did this come from?

281 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:09:43pm

re: #272 Cato the Elder

No, he’s guilty of being realistic. Remember Rushdie and the Danish Cartoons. No mere filmmaker is required to commit suicide and homicide by proxy by riling up the Religion of Peace!

Have to respectfully disagree with you, Cato. No faith is off limits to mockery or derision.

282 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:10:26pm

re: #279 Guanxi88

The state is attempting to mandate performance by their charities of actions contrary to the intent and teachings of their law as they understand it. Rather than submit to temporal authority and comply, they have chose to suspend services.

If it were me, I’d continue the services and slug it out with DC in court. No reason why DC should hold the poor hostage, either.

A lot of priests are under a delusion of power that leads them away from their vocation. Sad really.

They only realize the truth when the donations stop.

283 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:10:59pm

re: #278 rollwave87

… the word marriage was the problem, because two same sex people in a relationship is just inherently different than two opposite sex people…

Do you recall the way in which it was claimed they were different, or how this difference makes the word “marriage” impermissible for describing same-sex relationships?

284 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:11:19pm

re: #269 hicsuget

I have never heard of a single person who opposes gay marriage for non-religious reasons (aside, of course, from politicians who are merely pandering to their religious constituency). Perhaps an example or two would be in order.

I have certainly met people who oppose gay marriage simply because it violates some non-faith-based idea of ‘normal society’ that they have. I don’t know if I can come up with any public examples. You think opposition is entirely a religious thing?

285 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:11:21pm

re: #278 rollwave87

while I’m definitely pro marriage equality, I will sort of stick up for some of the people on here against it. I don’t remember who it was, but someone made a pretty good secular case for it a few week’s back. basically saying that the word marriage was the problem, because two same sex people in a relationship is just inherently different than two opposite sex people. but that gay couples should get all the same rights. it just should be called something else. didn’t agree with them, but it was a fair argument. certainly better than “because the Bible (or Koran) says so.”

My stance is that the license is issued by the state and witnessed by whomever the state says is qualified. The issuing of licenses doesn’t obligate any person or person to solemnize or witness it.

I say, hand them out to any two unmarried people of age, who are not consanguinous. What the RC’s lose in business, the UU’s will make up for, and everyone’s proper role (state and church) is respected, and we can all get back to the important work of despising each other over petty crap.

286 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:11:52pm

re: #280 SanFranciscoZionist

He hates the Church? And also Buddhists? Where did this come from?

From the Guardian article. It doesn’t specify faiths, just says “…his opposition to organised religion…”, so perhaps I’m blowing shit slightly out of proportion here.

287 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:12:19pm

re: #284 SanFranciscoZionist

I have certainly met people who oppose gay marriage simply because it violates some non-faith-based idea of ‘normal society’ that they have. I don’t know if I can come up with any public examples. You think opposition is entirely a religious thing?

I’m ALL for monogamy. (well not with children or animals)

288 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:12:28pm

re: #274 ggt

‘And I reiterate, the state isn’t doing anything to the Archbishop Church, but the Archbishop Church is threatening to take away from the poor if they don’t get their way. That’s a lousy way to play politics.”

FTFY

Thank you, that’s an improvement on my original.

289 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:12:49pm

re: #271 Guanxi88

All the more reason to not show any of ‘em, cause no matter what, I AIN’T showing the Kaaba going bye-bye, and leaving it alone would stand out.

if iran ever attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, I’m sure there’s an nuclear missile from Israel that will make the kaaba go bye bye. Hopefully the Israelis have made that clear to those who need to know it.

290 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:13:15pm

re: #278 rollwave87

while I’m definitely pro marriage equality, I will sort of stick up for some of the people on here against it.

Way to miss the point

NOBODY here was railing against Gay Marriage

What the objection is about is the state (i.e Washington D.C.) mandating that the Catholic Church MUST provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.

291 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:13:36pm

re: #281 Surabaya Stew

Have to respectfully disagree with you, Cato. No faith is off limits to mockery or derision.

I didn’t say it was off limits. I simply stated the truth, that you take your life and the lives of others in your hands when you mock and deride Islam. And I blame no one for deciding not to take that risk.

292 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:13:57pm

re: #277 _RememberTonyC

I’m not saying my post only applies to this situation. I’m thinking more about how a nanny state that mandates caring (through excessive taxes, etc) will cause organizations that do “unmandated” caring to cut back because their resources may be drained by the state’s hunger for money. And that larger issue may be reflected somewhat in this case because a private organization is considering pulling back some charitable work because it feels it is being pressured by the state in another area. I hope this makes sense.

I see your point, although by your definition I’m probably a nanny stater. I just don’t see that the Archdiocese has a leg to stand on with this one.

293 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:14:09pm

re: #289 _RememberTonyC

if iran ever attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, I’m sure there’s an nuclear missile from Israel that will make the kaaba go bye bye. Hopefully the Israelis have made that clear to those who need to know it.

Same goes for a dirty bomb attack on Moscow by the Chechens. Anybody else, not so sure…

294 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:14:33pm

re: #289 _RememberTonyC

if iran ever attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, I’m sure there’s an nuclear missile from Israel that will make the kaaba go bye bye. Hopefully the Israelis have made that clear to those who need to know it.

Probably not. Israel’s funny like that. Recall the capture of the Temple Mount and the great care they took not to run through the mosque or cause even the slightest impression of anything other than respect for the place and the religion it served? Purity of arms.

295 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:16:16pm

re: #292 SanFranciscoZionist

I see your point, although by your definition I’m probably a nanny stater. I just don’t see that the Archdiocese has a leg to stand on with this one.

Perhaps the Archbishop is drawing a “line in the sand”. It seems a lot of religious people (Catholic and otherwise) feel the secular world is attacking them on all sides.

I don’t think this is the right fight on his part.

296 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:17:03pm

re: #279 Guanxi88

The state is attempting to mandate performance by their charities of actions contrary to the intent and teachings of their law as they understand it. Rather than submit to temporal authority and comply, they have chose to suspend services.

If it were me, I’d continue the services and slug it out with DC in court. No reason why DC should hold the poor hostage, either.

Explain to me how the state is demanding anything the Church is not already doing, at least in regards to the benefits. The adoption thing is a finer point.

297 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:17:47pm

re: #291 Cato the Elder

I didn’t say it was off limits. I simply stated the truth, that you take your life and the lives of others in your hands when you mock and deride Islam. And I blame no one for deciding not to take that risk.

I am forced to agree that taking the life of others (and there are MANY others on a firm production) in your hands is a legitimate reason not to engage in cinematic destruction of holy sites.

That being said, perhaps its time for other religions to step up to the plate here and threaten violence if their sacred places are destroyed in a fictional manner.
/

298 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:18:26pm

re: #292 SanFranciscoZionist

I see your point, although by your definition I’m probably a nanny stater. I just don’t see that the Archdiocese has a leg to stand on with this one.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of helping those in need and I believe the state has a role to play. But I also feel there are limits to how much the state SHOULD do. But in this country, we are charitable people and we do help those in need because we WANT to, not because someone is legally mugging us in order to get the funds. For instance, I would be willing to see the state play a role in helping the legitimately uninsured get coverage, but I’d stop short of favoring the draconian measures the current administration really wants to enact.

299 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:18:29pm

re: #281 Surabaya Stew

Have to respectfully disagree with you, Cato. No faith is off limits to mockery or derision.

True, but no one should be required to bring a fatwa down on their own head by making a Hollywood blow-em-up.

300 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:18:45pm

re: #290 sattv4u2

What the objection is about is the state (i.e Washington D.C.) mandating that the Catholic Church MUST provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.

Why should a church be granted an exemption from the laws everyone else is expected to follow?

Or are you arguing against government enforcement of civil rights generally?

301 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:18:57pm

re: #283 hicsuget

Do you recall the way in which it was claimed they were different, or how this difference makes the word “marriage” impermissible for describing same-sex relationships?

The problem I see is that the word “marriage” is used to refer to two entirely different things, and the sloppy usage aids in conflating them. On the one hand, a marriage is something performed and sanctioned by a church. On the other, a marriage is a civil contract entered into by two adults (usually) and sanctioned by the state. The latter is what’s causing all the problems, not the former, and the simplest solution is to just stop calling what the state issues a “marriage license” and call it a “civil contract.” For everyone. If you want a marriage, go talk to your church and see if they’ll grant you one - some will, some won’t, based on who it is you’re trying to marry, according to their own particular religious doctrines. But this is a completely separate and distinct thing from the license granted by the state, and the example already given above concerning divorcees being perfectly legal from the state’s standpoint but not recognized at all under most circumstances by a variety of churches clearly points out that this is already the case.

Just call it something different, and most of the consternation goes away.

I’ll just add that it’s important that whatever the state calls it’s license needs to be the same for all, and not some fucked up two-tiered system like the marriage license/civil union non-solution proposed in some places. Just call the damn thing a civil contract - for everyone - and be done with it.

302 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:19:32pm

re: #286 Surabaya Stew

From the Guardian article. It doesn’t specify faiths, just says “…his opposition to organised religion…”, so perhaps I’m blowing shit slightly out of proportion here.

Maybe a tad.

303 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:19:33pm

re: #296 SanFranciscoZionist

Explain to me how the state is demanding anything the Church is not already doing, at least in regards to the benefits. The adoption thing is a finer point.

“Church officials say Catholic Charities would have to suspend its social services work for the city, rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.”

I see no reason why, if the bill goes through, the diocesan authorities would have to comply with the provisions that violate their own understanding of Church teaching. It’s not an all-or-nothing thing - they could continue to provide services to the community while fighting the City in court over it.

304 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:20:09pm

re: #294 Guanxi88

Probably not. Israel’s funny like that. Recall the capture of the Temple Mount and the great care they took not to run through the mosque or cause even the slightest impression of anything other than respect for the place and the religion it served? Purity of arms.

You may be right, but IMHO, a nuclear attack on Israel is a whole different story regarding their retaliation prerogatives.

305 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:20:10pm

re: #301 SixDegrees

Just call the damn thing a civil contract - for everyone - and be done with it.

That’s a solution I can agree with.

306 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:20:25pm

re: #301 SixDegrees

The problem I see is that the word “marriage” is used to refer to two entirely different things, and the sloppy usage aids in conflating them. On the one hand, a marriage is something performed and sanctioned by a church. On the other, a marriage is a civil contract entered into by two adults (usually) and sanctioned by the state. The latter is what’s causing all the problems, not the former, and the simplest solution is to just stop calling what the state issues a “marriage license” and call it a “civil contract.” For everyone. If you want a marriage, go talk to your church and see if they’ll grant you one - some will, some won’t, based on who it is you’re trying to marry, according to their own particular religious doctrines. But this is a completely separate and distinct thing from the license granted by the state, and the example already given above concerning divorcees being perfectly legal from the state’s standpoint but not recognized at all under most circumstances by a variety of churches clearly points out that this is already the case.

Just call it something different, and most of the consternation goes away.

I’ll just add that it’s important that whatever the state calls it’s license needs to be the same for all, and not some fucked up two-tiered system like the marriage license/civil union non-solution proposed in some places. Just call the damn thing a civil contract - for everyone - and be done with it.

In some places (in Europe anyway) it is still two separate things. There are two “ceremonies”.

307 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:20:44pm

re: #290 sattv4u2

while I’m definitely pro marriage equality, I will sort of stick up for some of the people on here against it.

Way to miss the point

NOBODY here was railing against Gay Marriage

What the objection is about is the state (i.e Washington D.C.) mandating that the Catholic Church MUST provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.

How can DC not mandate that?

308 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:20:51pm

re: #299 SanFranciscoZionist

True, but no one should be required to bring a fatwa down on their own head by making a Hollywood blow-em-up.

What’s the word closest to fatwa in latin? Didn’t the Church get really, really upset over the Last Temptation of Christ?

309 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:21:44pm

re: #304 _RememberTonyC

You may be right, but IMHO, a nuclear attack on Israel is a whole different story regarding their retaliation prerogatives.

I’d imagine their targets would be Cairo and environs, and other concentrations of population and equipment and personnel. More shock for your shekel.

310 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:21:50pm

re: #300 hicsuget

Why should a church be granted an exemption from the laws everyone else is expected to follow?

Or are you arguing against government enforcement of civil rights generally?

No. I’m arguing the constitution. Both the Establishment Clause AND the Free Excersice Clause


(But I would never argue agaisnt the Santa Claus)

311 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:22:24pm

re: #302 SanFranciscoZionist

Maybe a tad.

Yeah, gotta stop myself from doing that! Thanks for keeping me honest.

312 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:22:27pm

re: #308 Surabaya Stew

What’s the word closest to fatwa in latin?

Encyclica

313 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:23:01pm

re: #303 Guanxi88

“Church officials say Catholic Charities would have to suspend its social services work for the city, rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.”

I see no reason why, if the bill goes through, the diocesan authorities would have to comply with the provisions that violate their own understanding of Church teaching. It’s not an all-or-nothing thing - they could continue to provide services to the community while fighting the City in court over it.

OK, what about those remarried Catholics? Address that point, because I think it’s key here to what we’re talking about.

314 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:23:21pm

re: #307 SanFranciscoZionist

How can DC not mandate that?

They can mandate it, and the diocese can fight it, in court, Who prevails is anyone’s guess, but the folk the RC’s charities and such are serving are getting screwed by both sides here. The City expected that pressure on the diocese would force compliance, and the diocese expects that pressure on the poor would force the City’s hand.

315 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:23:21pm

re: #307 SanFranciscoZionist

How can DC not mandate that?

Then under equal opportunity and civil rights why don;’t they mandate that women HAVE to be in the priesthood?

316 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:23:51pm

re: #312 hicsuget

Encyclica

Thanks! But is that more of a secular meaning or is it primarily a religious term?

317 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:23:52pm

re: #308 Surabaya Stew

What’s the word closest to fatwa in latin? Didn’t the Church get really, really upset over the Last Temptation of Christ?

Interdict, I suppose.

318 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:24:00pm

Speaking of Latin.

My kid (high school) has the worst latin teacher in the history of latin teachers. I am so frustrated because I LOVED latin. He is not learning anything and is so confused he can’t figure out how to teach himself.

Being MOM, I am no help.

I need to find a tutor.

rant off

319 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:24:06pm

re: #306 ggt

In some places (in Europe anyway) it is still two separate things. There are two “ceremonies”.

It really is two separate things here, too. But they get blurred together because of the common name, and because in nearly all cases, if a marriage is performed in a church the pastor, priest or other officiant generally takes care of the state end of all the paperwork as a courtesy, making it appear as though it’s one transaction.

Might as well just call it something different to make the difference clear. One’s a religious ceremony. The other is a state sanctioned civil contract.

320 _RememberTonyC  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:24:17pm

re: #309 Guanxi88

I’d imagine their targets would be Cairo and environs, and other concentrations of population and equipment and personnel. More shock for your shekel.

true. and there will be more than one target if (G-d forbid) this nightmare scenario ever took place. but if you want “shock for your shekel,” the opening of the “kabaa parking lot” would be right up there!

321 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:24:30pm

re: #313 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, what about those remarried Catholics? Address that point, because I think it’s key here to what we’re talking about.

anullments all have a price tag.

322 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:24:48pm

re: #309 Guanxi88

I’d imagine their targets would be Cairo and environs, and other concentrations of population and equipment and personnel. More shock for your shekel.

Why Cairo? The shit won’t be flying in from Egypt.

323 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:25:53pm

re: #314 Guanxi88

They can mandate it, and the diocese can fight it, in court, Who prevails is anyone’s guess, but the folk the RC’s charities and such are serving are getting screwed by both sides here. The City expected that pressure on the diocese would force compliance, and the diocese expects that pressure on the poor would force the City’s hand.

I think they have to mandate it. If same-sex marriages are legalized by the district, they can’t make them not legal for the convenience of religious groups.

324 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:26:35pm

re: #318 ggt

Speaking of Latin.

My kid (high school) has the worst latin teacher in the history of latin teachers. I am so frustrated because I LOVED latin. He is not learning anything and is so confused he can’t figure out how to teach himself.

Being MOM, I am no help.

I need to find a tutor.

rant off

What grade is he in? Are there older kids (higher grade level) that have a different Latin teacher and would like to pick up a few bucks?

My son (15) tutors a 10 year old in math. Works great for all

325 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:27:09pm

re: #313 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, what about those remarried Catholics? Address that point, because I think it’s key here to what we’re talking about.

I think the remarried thing relates to the Church’s non-recognition of any union other than a heterosexual one, solmenized under law. They probably view secular or other religious unions of this type as imperfect versions of Catholic unions, which agree in generalities but not in the particulars with their own.

When they run up against same-sex unions, which are either not solemnized under law as marriages, and which bear no resemblance, theologically or philosophically, to marriage understood teleologically as the means by which the first commandment, incumbent upon all mankind (“Be fruitful and multiply”) is ordered, they recoil. It’s wholly Other.

326 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:27:13pm

re: #310 sattv4u2

No. I’m arguing the constitution. Both the Establishment Clause AND the Free Excersice Clause

So if one’s religious teaching mandates as much, one is permitted to violate the rights of others, or to otherwise engage in conduct forbidden to everyone else? Sadly, case law is not conclusive either way here. Native American shamans, for instance, get exemptions from drug laws for the use of peyote for religious ceremonies, but if one’s religion forbids one from taking one’s sick child to the doctor, one goes to jail.

I think it is fundamentally un-american to give different rights to different groups—“equality under the law” should be, but is not, the watchword.

327 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:27:41pm

re: #315 sattv4u2

Then under equal opportunity and civil rights why don;’t they mandate that women HAVE to be in the priesthood?

Because the law permits for such things as gendered priesthoods.

It does not permit for an employer to provide benefits to some spouses of employees and not others.

328 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:28:09pm

re: #323 SanFranciscoZionist

I think they have to mandate it. If same-sex marriages are legalized by the district, they can’t make them not legal for the convenience of religious groups.

technically speaking, if the Archbishop wants to withhold benefits from same-sex couples, he would have to withhold it from heterosexual couples who aren’t married. Under church teaching all are not observing the chastity rules. One is no worse than the other.

329 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:28:48pm

re: #327 SanFranciscoZionist

Because the law permits for such things as gendered priesthoods.

It does not permit for an employer to provide benefits to some spouses of employees and not others.

In that same sex marriages are not recognized by the church, they ARE providing the same bennies to all “married” couples

330 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:28:53pm

re: #322 SanFranciscoZionist

Why Cairo? The shit won’t be flying in from Egypt.

Samson Option, writ large. We go down, we take the lot of you with us. Iran may not give two shits about its own people, but the prospect of thermonuclear retalitation falling onto cairo might be enough to get egypt to pressure the mullahs to keep their hands to themselves.

331 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:28:56pm

re: #321 ggt

anullments all have a price tag.

True, but if you don’t get one, and go to work for Catholic Charities, they’ll still give you benefits for your spouse, no?

332 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:29:12pm

re: #324 sattv4u2

What grade is he in? Are there older kids (higher grade level) that have a different Latin teacher and would like to pick up a few bucks?

My son (15) tutors a 10 year old in math. Works great for all

We are looking into it. So frustrating. Latin has so much to offer and he is at a point in which he just trying to pass the class —not learn anything.

333 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:29:49pm

re: #331 SanFranciscoZionist

True, but if you don’t get one, and go to work for Catholic Charities, they’ll still give you benefits for your spouse, no?


most likely —back to my point
#328.

334 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:30:39pm

re: #326 hicsuget

So if one’s religious teaching mandates as much, one is permitted to violate the rights of others,

And as I stated in #315

under equal opportunity and civil rights why don;’t they (D.C.) mandate that women HAVE to be in the priesthood?

335 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:30:53pm

re: #316 Surabaya Stew

Thanks! But is that more of a secular meaning or is it primarily a religious term?

Every year the Pope publishes an encyclical, which is basically a collection of fatwas. The actual Latin word I was looking for had slipped my mind previously—it is edict, from ex + dicere: to declare from or out of

336 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:31:06pm

re: #326 hicsuget

So if one’s religious teaching mandates as much, one is permitted to violate the rights of others, or to otherwise engage in conduct forbidden to everyone else? Sadly, case law is not conclusive either way here. Native American shamans, for instance, get exemptions from drug laws for the use of peyote for religious ceremonies, but if one’s religion forbids one from taking one’s sick child to the doctor, one goes to jail.

I think it is fundamentally un-american to give different rights to different groups—“equality under the law” should be, but is not, the watchword.

equality under the law is the goal. We don’t always reach it, as there are humans involved.

337 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:31:57pm

re: #334 sattv4u2

So if one’s religious teaching mandates as much, one is permitted to violate the rights of others,

And as I stated in #315

under equal opportunity and civil rights why don;’t they (D.C.) mandate that women HAVE to be in the priesthood?

Because no women, to my knowledge, have yet sued the church to be permitted to enter. I am, of course, thinking of the man who sued Hooters for the right to be a Hooters girl, and won.

338 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:32:29pm

re: #335 hicsuget

Every year the Pope publishes an encyclical, which is basically a collection of fatwas. The actual Latin word I was looking for had slipped my mind previously—it is edict, from ex + dicere: to declare from or out of

Yeah, everybody thinks “fatwa” means head-chopping order. It’s just a pronouncement on one point or another of the Sharia. There are fatwa released on certain types of food, certain finer points of practice.

339 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:33:35pm

i gotta go

Have a great afternoonn all!

340 solomonpanting  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:34:02pm

re: #301 SixDegrees

Just call the damn thing a civil contract - for everyone - and be done with it.

I was civil contracted in a judge’s chamber.

341 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:34:10pm

re: #329 sattv4u2

In that same sex marriages are not recognized by the church, they ARE providing the same bennies to all “married” couples

No, they are not. The Archdiocese currently provides benefits for all state-sanctioned marriages. This includes marriages that are not approved, or explicitly considered void by the Church.

There is no clause in the law to suddenly decide that Paddy and Sean’s marriage doesn’t get benefits, but Fiona’s marriage to Moshe, after she got a civil divorce from Declan is OK. The Archdiocese already accepted the idea that they would give out benefits to civil marriages, not sacramental ones.

342 goddamnedfrank  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:34:16pm

re: #308 Surabaya Stew

What’s the word closest to fatwa in latin? Didn’t the Church get really, really upset over the Last Temptation of Christ?

Take your pick between Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum, with the difference depending more on how subordinate one views himself to the issuing Imam.

343 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:34:16pm

re: #335 hicsuget

Every year the Pope publishes an encyclical, which is basically a collection of fatwas. The actual Latin word I was looking for had slipped my mind previously—it is edict, from ex + dicere: to declare from or out of

Thanks for the knowledge; wish I had been able to take Latin in HS…

344 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:34:39pm

re: #337 hicsuget

Because no women, to my knowledge, have yet sued the church to be permitted to enter. I am, of course, thinking of the man who sued Hooters for the right to be a Hooters girl, and won.

The current bill under consideration in DC is the result of a lawsuit?

345 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:36:20pm

re: #342 goddamnedfrank

Take your pick between Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum, with the difference depending more on how subordinate one views himself to the issuing Imam.

Err…which one would make more sense to choose in this situation? (Of being very angry with filmmakers “insulting” the Church?)

346 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:36:28pm

re: #336 ggt

equality under the law is the goal. We don’t always reach it, as there are humans involved.

Last week I ran across an article in which it was stated that an Indian girl in Utah got her nose pierced, and was suspended from school for doing so. The question of law that arose was whether she got the piercing because of Sikh teaching, or because of her Indian heritage.

The disturbing thing was that, had it been decided as a matter of fact that it was a Sikh teaching that a nose piercing is a mitzvah, then she, but no other girls in school, would have been permitted to wear the piercing. On the contrary, if it was decided that the Sikh religion did not teach that a nose piercing is a mitzvah, then the piercing would be forbidden.

Equality under the law would either forbid or permit all nose piercings without respect to what Sikhism teaches, or whether any of the students in that school happened to be Sikhs.

347 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:38:59pm

re: #343 Surabaya Stew

Thanks for the knowledge; wish I had been able to take Latin in HS…

Not enough coffee today; I’m sorry. Edict is not a Latin word; it is an English word that comes from the Latin noun edictum (second declension neuter).

348 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:39:52pm

re: #346 hicsuget

Last week I ran across an article in which it was stated that an Indian girl in Utah got her nose pierced, and was suspended from school for doing so. The question of law that arose was whether she got the piercing because of Sikh teaching, or because of her Indian heritage.

The disturbing thing was that, had it been decided as a matter of fact that it was a Sikh teaching that a nose piercing is a mitzvah, then she, but no other girls in school, would have been permitted to wear the piercing. On the contrary, if it was decided that the Sikh religion did not teach that a nose piercing is a mitzvah, then the piercing would be forbidden.

Equality under the law would either forbid or permit all nose piercings without respect to what Sikhism teaches, or whether any of the students in that school happened to be Sikhs.

That is a very subtle understanding of the case. Equality under the law is not the same thing as equality of results under the law. Many people cannot make the distinction necessary in these cases.

349 goddamnedfrank  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:40:58pm

re: #345 Surabaya Stew

Err…which one would make more sense to choose in this situation? (Of being very angry with filmmakers “insulting” the Church?)

Obiter dictum, “something said in passing.” I very much doubt that a judgment against any one specific film is in any way binding on other films.

350 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:41:01pm

re: #346 hicsuget

Last week I ran across an article in which it was stated that an Indian girl in Utah got her nose pierced, and was suspended from school for doing so. The question of law that arose was whether she got the piercing because of Sikh teaching, or because of her Indian heritage.

The disturbing thing was that, had it been decided as a matter of fact that it was a Sikh teaching that a nose piercing is a mitzvah, then she, but no other girls in school, would have been permitted to wear the piercing. On the contrary, if it was decided that the Sikh religion did not teach that a nose piercing is a mitzvah, then the piercing would be forbidden.

Equality under the law would either forbid or permit all nose piercings without respect to what Sikhism teaches, or whether any of the students in that school happened to be Sikhs.

I don’t know. Talk to me about this one. You don’t feel it makes sense for a school to make small adjustments in rules to allow students to practice religious or cultural traditions? The rule at my school is no hats indoors, but if we had a kid who had to cover for religious reasons, we’d have no problems. At the school I used to teach at, the boys had to have hair under a certain length, but one family wanted their son to have dreadlocks for cultural reasons, and we accomodated them. Why not?

351 Surabaya Stew  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:42:58pm

re: #347 hicsuget

Not enough coffee today; I’m sorry. Edict is not a Latin word; it is an English word that comes from the Latin noun edictum (second declension neuter).

That’s quite alright, its good to know the derivatives of Latin terms as well as the terms themselves.
8-)

352 dugmartsch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:43:28pm

re: #95 ausador

So remember, no matter how big, powerful, or revered you are, you can still always resort to using petty blackmail to get your way…

The Catholic church seems to be very good at teaching these sort of life lessons lately. The excommunication of everyone involved in that 9 year olds incest related abortion in Brazil was another one.

It’s just such an odd application of morality.

Gay Priest - excommunicated in disgrace
[Link: www.azcentral.com…]

Abortion supporting priest - excommunicated in disgrace

Child Molesting Priest - Well, we all know that story.

It makes reasonable people wonder why these two activities are singled out for such violent censure, while other misdeeds, generally seen as more morally grievous by non-believing reasonable people are excused and even abetted.

Even as a non-believer applying their supposed understanding of morality it’s impossible to find consistency.

I’ve come to understand that living by the words of Jesus Christ, however you interpret them, is very difficult, perhaps impossible. His was a perfect life, it’s an impossible feat to replicate en masse. Even the easy stuff is really hard to do consistently. So the church has invented some behavioral codes that are really easy for the vast majority of their congregation to live by, and made litmus tests of those issues. It mocks the rest of us who grapple with difficult moral decisions on a daily basis, and I hope it stops.

353 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:43:49pm

re: #350 SanFranciscoZionist

As you know, more and more folk take the easy way out and don’t do the kind of thinking necessary to resolve these things justly. They think that simple, inflexible adherence to a given rule (which is itself but an imperfect means of obtaining a result approximating justice) is fairness, whereas it is nothing more than treating everybody with equal contempt. Treat people like we’re ball bearings or something.

354 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:44:19pm

re: #290 sattv4u2

while I’m definitely pro marriage equality, I will sort of stick up for some of the people on here against it.

Way to miss the point

NOBODY here was railing against Gay Marriage

What the objection is about is the state (i.e Washington D.C.) mandating that the Catholic Church MUST provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.

what? im not for mandating any religion to do anything. ive yet to see a gay marriage bill which does so. my interpretation of the Post article is that the catholic leadership is saying, if you (the state) legalize it, not only will we not recognize it (their prereogative), but we’re bailing on the whole place.

355 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:46:58pm

re: #350 SanFranciscoZionist

I don’t know. Talk to me about this one. You don’t feel it makes sense for a school to make small adjustments in rules to allow students to practice religious or cultural traditions? The rule at my school is no hats indoors, but if we had a kid who had to cover for religious reasons, we’d have no problems. At the school I used to teach at, the boys had to have hair under a certain length, but one family wanted their son to have dreadlocks for cultural reasons, and we accomodated them. Why not?

My little brother went to an elementary school that had a no hats indoors policy, but then he got cancer and all his hair fell out. The school amended the policy to permit all 4th graders to wear hats indoors. (Had only he been permitted, it would have singled him out just as surely as baldness.)

Equality under the law means, not that all Catholics are permitted to wear cricifices and all Muslim women are permitted to wear hijabs and all Jews are permitted to wear judensterne; rather, equality under the law means that everyone is permitted to wear crucifices, hijabs, Stars of David, etc. without regard to the religion of the wearer.

Recall, if you will, Dr. Seuss’ fable of the sneeches on beaches.

356 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:49:02pm

re: #355 hicsuget


Recall, if you will, Dr. Seuss’ fable of the sneeches on beaches.

If only all those who read that great book when they were kids actually took its lessons into adulthood…

357 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:50:36pm

re: #348 Guanxi88

That is a very subtle understanding of the case. Equality under the law is not the same thing as equality of results under the law. Many people cannot make the distinction necessary in these cases.

Your understanding, then, is that equality of the law means that people are permitted equally to do whatever dumb stuff their religion demands, and that, in order for the law to find whether a behavior is verboten or permitted, the law must first decide as a matter of fact that a specific religion does indeed teach the behaviour as a matter of faith, and second that the person in question does indeed hold that religion.

Your interpretation of equality would make both the content of religion and the content of one’s on conscience a subject for the investigation of the courts. I reject that formulation categorically.

358 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:50:49pm

re: #354 rollwave87

what? im not for mandating any religion to do anything. ive yet to see a gay marriage bill which does so. my interpretation of the Post article is that the catholic leadership is saying, if you (the state) legalize it, not only will we not recognize it (their prereogative), but we’re bailing on the whole place.

The bill, if enacted, would have consequences, among which would be a de facto recognition of unions that are theologically excluded from recognition by current Catholoc teaching.

359 dugmartsch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:51:07pm

re: #355 hicsuget

My little brother went to an elementary school that had a no hats indoors policy, but then he got cancer and all his hair fell out. The school amended the policy to permit all 4th graders to wear hats indoors. (Had only he been permitted, it would have singled him out just as surely as baldness.)

Equality under the law means, not that all Catholics are permitted to wear cricifices and all Muslim women are permitted to wear hijabs and all Jews are permitted to wear judensterne; rather, equality under the law means that everyone is permitted to wear crucifices, hijabs, Stars of David, etc. without regard to the religion of the wearer.

Recall, if you will, Dr. Seuss’ fable of the sneeches on beaches.

So it should be unconstitutional to make a law that says that you can’t wear a nose ring in school, because then Sikh would be discriminated against, correct?

360 funky chicken  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:51:34pm

re: #161 SanFranciscoZionist

The issue, I believe, isn’t what the city does, but that gay marriage would put the Church in a position where they would have to extend benefits to the same-sex spouses of their employees, and allow gay couples to adopt.

Abortion isn’t an issue, because the Church isn’t required to provide any.

that makes sense, I suppose.

361 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:52:06pm

re: #354 rollwave87

what? im not for mandating any religion to do anything. ive yet to see a gay marriage bill which does so. my interpretation of the Post article is that the catholic leadership is saying, if you (the state) legalize it, not only will we not recognize it (their prereogative), but we’re bailing on the whole place.

So you DID miss what this is all about!


Under the bill, headed for a council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings

It’s not about forcing Churches to perform same sex marriages

It’s about the city telling them that they have to provide BENEFITS for employees (provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.)

362 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:52:22pm

re: #357 hicsuget

Your understanding, then, is that equality of the law means that people are permitted equally to do whatever dumb stuff their religion demands, and that, in order for the law to find whether a behavior is verboten or permitted, the law must first decide as a matter of fact that a specific religion does indeed teach the behaviour as a matter of faith, and second that the person in question does indeed hold that religion.

Your interpretation of equality would make both the content of religion and the content of one’s on conscience a subject for the investigation of the courts. I reject that formulation categorically.

I interpreted their deliberations as indicative of nothing less than an investigation to determine which rule or law is applicable in this individual case. Treating human beings as identical in all respects does violence to the facts of human personality and to the purpose of law.

363 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:52:39pm

re: #359 dugmartsch

So it should be unconstitutional to make a law that says that you can’t wear a nose ring in school, because then Sikh would be discriminated against, correct?

I’m arguing, not exactly the opposite, but a different point entirely—I’m arguing that it is unconstitutional to pass a law that says only Sikhs are permitted to wear nose rings.

364 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:53:18pm

re: #361 sattv4u2

It’s about the city telling them that they have to provide BENEFITS for employees (provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.)

Oh, the horror!

365 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:53:28pm

re: #362 Guanxi88

I interpreted their deliberations as indicative of nothing less than an investigation to determine which rule or law is applicable in this individual case. Treating human beings as identical in all respects does violence to the facts of human personality and to the purpose of law.

If an evenhanded application of the law is unjust, then the law itself is unjust and should be changed.

366 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:54:05pm

re: #363 hicsuget

I’m arguing, not exactly the opposite, but a different point entirely—I’m arguing that it is unconstitutional to pass a law that says only Sikhs are permitted to wear nose rings.

Nor would that be what the law would say. you’re over-simplifying the case to a remarkable degree. There are prohibitions against the taking of life, and yet the law recognizes occasions where it is excusable, permissible, and even mandatory to do so. This does not mean that the law is self-contradictory, or that the law demands the taking of life.

367 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:55:55pm

re: #364 rollwave87

Oh, the horror!

Yup ,,, that darn pesky constituiton thingy again

The horror!

368 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:56:03pm

re: #365 hicsuget

If an evenhanded application of the law is unjust, then the law itself is unjust and should be changed.

We come back to even-handed as the point at issue. Evenhandedness is not mindless application of a rule (else, why have judges? if the facts are known, there is no controversy for them to resolve) according to a formula. This isn’t engineering, it (law) is an attempt at a proscriptive body of science for human conduct; different standards of precision apply because we’re dealing in very different things.

369 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:56:41pm

re: #366 Guanxi88

Nor would that be what the law would say. you’re over-simplifying the case to a remarkable degree. There are prohibitions against the taking of life, and yet the law recognizes occasions where it is excusable, permissible, and even mandatory to do so. This does not mean that the law is self-contradictory, or that the law demands the taking of life.

I’m not oversimplifying; I”m merely discussing this in the narrow context that is the Free Exercise Clause. I am not arguing that the law cannot be nuanced; I am arguing that the law cannot be nuanced for or against a particular religious group.

370 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:59:30pm

re: #367 sattv4u2

Yup ,,, that darn pesky constituiton thingy again

The horror!

the Constitution guaranteeing equal protection under the law? sounds to me like that’s all this bill is doing. you take the side of those that winked at child molestation for centuries and continue to deny leadership roles to women, instead of the elected representatives of the people in Washington, and then act as if you are the guardian of the Constitution. please.

371 Achilles Tang  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:59:54pm

Changing the subject, moronic MSM article of the day. CNN this time.

I presume that at CNN it is not politically correct to call an idiot an idiot. Perhaps because the program editors are also idiots?
Reduce radiation exposure and breast cancer at the same time.

372 tradewind  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:00:00pm

This might be taken seriously if Ms Pelosi, Chris Dodd, and other assorted Roman Catholic legislators who support abortion on more -or -less demand were refused the sacrament of Communion on Sunday. Since I doubt this is the case, the Church doesn’t really have one.

373 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:00:02pm

re: #368 Guanxi88

We come back to even-handed as the point at issue. Evenhandedness is not mindless application of a rule (else, why have judges? if the facts are known, there is no controversy for them to resolve) according to a formula. This isn’t engineering, it (law) is an attempt at a proscriptive body of science for human conduct; different standards of precision apply because we’re dealing in very different things.

I don’t disagree, but you’re still not addressing the meat of the matter. To wit: why should it be acceptable for a Sikh to wear a nose ring when it is forbidden from everyone else? You would make it a matter for the courts to decide who is and who is not a Sikh, and moreover for the courts to decide what Sikhs actually believe, i.e. you burn the Free Exercise Clause in order to save it.

374 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:00:46pm

re: #369 hicsuget

I’m not oversimplifying; I”m merely discussing this in the narrow context that is the Free Exercise Clause. I am not arguing that the law cannot be nuanced; I am arguing that the law cannot be nuanced for or against a particular religious group.

Then the role of the judge is to determine which law is supreme in this case - a fundamental setting forth of basic rights of humans as we understand them (free exercise) or an administrative law governing the performance of certain modifications to the body of a person. It shouldn’t be that hard to see that whereas Free Exercise is enshrined at the head of the rights of the people, the regulation of piercing is left to administrative bodies and agencies that govern such matters. As a later addition to the body of law, and as one governing the practice of one form of physical manipulation or modification undertaken volitionally and voluntarily (again, a purely administrative or regulatory law), the blanket prohibition on piercing would be found not applicable in the case of one whose cultural practices required it.

375 tradewind  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:01:42pm

re: #1 Racer X
That’s patently ridiculous.

376 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:02:15pm

re: #373 hicsuget

377 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:03:06pm

re: #370 rollwave87

the Constitution guaranteeing equal protection under the law? sounds to me like that’s all this bill is doing. you take the side of those that winked at child molestation for centuries and continue to deny leadership roles to women, instead of the elected representatives of the people in Washington, and then act as if you are the guardian of the Constitution. please.

Nice try, but the constitution re: the Establishment AND Free Exercise Clauses

And if you want to try to trot our “equal protection”, then as I asked before, why doesn’t DC mandate that women HAVE to be in the priesthood?

378 zelnaga  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:03:12pm

re: #3 SixDegrees

Oh, well. That whole Separation of Church and State thing cuts both ways. We aren’t ruled by theocrats, and the government doesn’t get to tell the church how to conduct it’s business.

It’s funny how one-sided opponents of same-sex marriage think separation of church and state is. The government can’t tell churches what to do but woe unto government if they dare to take away a churches tax exempt status or stop funneling money to them! And it’s not as if taxing churches is going to turn this country atheistic, either - churches seem to survive even though they don’t get free passes by utility companies and for some reason I don’t think adding one additional recurring expense is going to make them, all of a sudden, tuck tail and run and abandon this country.

379 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:03:45pm

re: #373 hicsuget

You would make it a matter for the courts to decide who is and who is not a Sikh, and moreover for the courts to decide what Sikhs actually believe, i.e. you burn the Free Exercise Clause in order to save it.

The finding of facts in a case does not proscribe those facts in future cases, anymore than the finding by a judge that a given chicken laid a particular egg is a mandate that all eggs be laid by a given chicken.

380 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:04:12pm

re: #374 Guanxi88

… the blanket prohibition on piercing would be found not applicable in the case of one whose cultural practices required it.

And thus, I argue, to preserve equality under the law, the blanket prohibition against piercing must be rescinded forthwith.

381 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:05:23pm

re: #370 rollwave87

you take the side of those that winked at child molestation

Show me where I have EVER condoned that!
I have 24,488 posts

I’ll wait

382 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:05:35pm

re: #380 hicsuget

And thus, I argue, to preserve equality under the law, the blanket prohibition against piercing must be rescinded forthwith.

I could agree with that wholeheartedly. No problem at all with that.

I was just engaging in a method of argumentation to show that it was possible, without changing the law (which wuld be beyond the authority of most judges, anyway) to permit exceptions without violating the integrity of the law.

383 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:06:29pm

re: #379 Guanxi88

The finding of facts in a case does not proscribe those facts in future cases, anymore than the finding by a judge that a given chicken laid a particular egg is a mandate that all eggs be laid by a given chicken.

You’re still not getting it. Imagine, if you will, a law that permits women to own property or to divorce their husbands only if the religion to which they belong permits women to own property or to divorce their husbands. Tell me that would not be an abrogation of equal protection.

384 hicsuget  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:07:05pm

re: #382 Guanxi88

I could agree with that wholeheartedly. No problem at all with that.

I was just engaging in a method of argumentation to show that it was possible, without changing the law (which wuld be beyond the authority of most judges, anyway) to permit exceptions without violating the integrity of the law.

Okay, maybe you do get it. Forget I said 383. ;-)

385 tradewind  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:07:19pm

re: #371 Naso Tang
While they’re at it , why not lead -lined jock straps?///
Prostate cancer’s a problem too…( I know, I know… don’t start with the anatomy lessons).///

386 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:08:19pm

re: #383 hicsuget

You’re still not getting it. Imagine, if you will, a law that permits women to own property or to divorce their husbands only if the religion to which they belong permits women to own property or to divorce their husbands. Tell me that would not be an abrogation of equal protection.

Ahh, but the ownership of property is a right the existence of which presupposes all law under our system.

As for divorce, ugh! What a legal nightmare, but I’m unaware of how a separation could not secure most of the same effects of a divorce under the common law, recognizing as I do the thorny matter of common property of the spouses.

387 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:08:52pm

re: #377 sattv4u2

why doesn’t DC mandate that women HAVE to be in the priesthood?

look. if this bill is saying that the church has to recognize same sex marriages, that probably wouldn’t be legal. if the catholic church wants to deny these rights (until a few years from now when the younger generation with greater respect for all of God’s creation takes over and changes the policy), they can. as long as my boyfriend and I can have the option of marriage, they can have the option to not recognize that. as sad a decision as it may be. just like if they were to come out with some edict stating that red headed people were products of satan and not allowed in any Catholic buildings, I suppose they would be entitled to do so.

388 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:09:13pm

re: #384 hicsuget

Okay, maybe you do get it. Forget I said 383. ;-)

It;s the talmud, man - we have a body of law that cannot be altered, and which must be made to work together, and so we get some pretty funky methods of legal reasoning.

389 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:10:51pm

Sneetches?
on beaches?

[Link: childrensyoutube.blogspot.com…]

(I actually had to watch the videos, I couldn’t remember the story.) hey it has been at least 40 years.

390 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:11:09pm

re: #381 sattv4u2

you take the side of those that winked at child molestation

Show me where I have EVER condoned that!
I have 24,488 posts

I’ll wait

certainly not suggesting you condone that. im suggesting that these Catholic leaders referenced in the WaPo article did not nothing to stop it, yet you seem to trust their judgment when it comes to marriage equality.

391 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:12:45pm

re: #387 rollwave87

if this bill is saying that the church has to recognize same sex marriages, that probably wouldn’t be legal

IT
DOES
NOT!!

How much clearer can I be?

You STILL totally miss what this is about!

Please go to the top to the article, read AND understand what is written
Under the bill, headed for a council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings

The bill is NOT about making Churches perform same sex marriages !

392 tradewind  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:13:53pm

re: #378 zelnaga
If churches, legiimate ones, were taxed in this country, our social system would implode. The services that faith-based organizations provide to the community at large are so much more valuable, in general, than those mandated by the federal government and their programs are operated so much more efficiently that you would see a massive collapse among structures such as food banks, WIC, shelters, etc. What is given by churches ( provided by parishioners, tax deductible to them) to serve the community at large would be irreplaceable.

393 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:14:16pm

re: #390 rollwave87

certainly not suggesting you condone that. im suggesting that these Catholic leaders referenced in the WaPo article did not nothing to stop it, yet you seem to trust their judgment when it comes to marriage equality.

you take the side of those that winked at child molestation

So taking their side is NOT “condoning it”

Geeezzz Louise !!

394 zelnaga  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:15:25pm

re: #387 rollwave87

look. if this bill is saying that the church has to recognize same sex marriages, that probably wouldn’t be legal. if the catholic church wants to deny these rights (until a few years from now when the younger generation with greater respect for all of God’s creation takes over and changes the policy), they can. as long as my boyfriend and I can have the option of marriage, they can have the option to not recognize that. as sad a decision as it may be. just like if they were to come out with some edict stating that red headed people were products of satan and not allowed in any Catholic buildings, I suppose they would be entitled to do so.

Certainly I don’t think the government ought to tell the Catholic Church, in particular, how to conduct their affairs, but if the government wants to adjust the requirements for tax exempt charity status, I don’t see a problem with that. I mean, maybe from an administrative perspective, it’s not a good idea, as charities might, in theory, just up and leave, just as businesses might leave the state if you raise taxes, but that has nothing to do with separation of church and state.

395 dugmartsch  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:15:30pm

re: #359 dugmartsch

So it should be unconstitutional to make a law that says that you can’t wear a nose ring in school, because then Sikh would be discriminated against, correct?

re: #363 hicsuget

I’m arguing, not exactly the opposite, but a different point entirely—I’m arguing that it is unconstitutional to pass a law that says only Sikhs are permitted to wear nose rings.

re: #380 hicsuget

And thus, I argue, to preserve equality under the law, the blanket prohibition against piercing must be rescinded forthwith.

I guess I caught you in the wrong moment. I agree with you on the last part, kind of. Though with that logic if my religion permitted honor killings would it be unconstitutional to make a law against murder?

396 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:15:41pm

re: #391 sattv4u2

I didn’t say perform. I said recognize.

397 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:23:04pm

re: #396 rollwave87

I didn’t say perform. I said recognize.

The BILL says perform

THATS what we;re talking about

AND ,,, if any church doesn’t “recognize” your marriage,,, so what? Does that make you any LESS married?

Lets say there are (just for round numbers) 100 differnt typed of churches. If 49 or less “recognized” your marriage, it doesn’t count but if 51 or more do it does count?

398 zelnaga  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:23:44pm

re: #392 tradewind

If churches, legiimate ones, were taxed in this country, our social system would implode. The services that faith-based organizations provide to the community at large are so much more valuable, in general, than those mandated by the federal government and their programs are operated so much more efficiently that you would see a massive collapse among structures such as food banks, WIC, shelters, etc. What is given by churches ( provided by parishioners, tax deductible to them) to serve the community at large would be irreplaceable.

I can’t really comment on that. If true, certainly it makes sense to cater to church’s whims, but I don’t see that as really having much to do with separation of church and state so much as just general practicality.

Kinda like with raising taxes. Raise taxes too much and businesses will leave, but, be that as it may, having a constitutional amendment barring taxes above a certain point seems kinda silly. I mean, if California wants to tax companies heavily and all those companies move to Texas, that’s California’s problem - not the federal governments. Likewise, if you add absurd requirements for tax exempt status, that may not be a wise move, but I don’t see it as being a violation of separation of church and state any more than the granting of the tax exempt status was, in the first place.

399 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:30:18pm

re: #397 sattv4u2

The BILL says perform

THATS what we;re talking about

AND ,,, if any church doesn’t “recognize” your marriage,,, so what? Does that make you any LESS married?

Lets say there are (just for round numbers) 100 differnt typed of churches. If 49 or less “recognized” your marriage, it doesn’t count but if 51 or more do it does count?

I think we’re talking past each other here. No church should have to recognize or perform a certain kind of marriage, or do anything else for that matter. but I also don’t think they should be able to tell the state what to do. it’s a pretty literal, basic interpretation of the 1st amendment.

400 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:32:11pm

re: #399 rollwave87

I think we’re talking past each other here. No church should have to recognize or perform a certain kind of marriage, or do anything else for that matter. but I also don’t think they should be able to tell the state what to do. it’s a pretty literal, basic interpretation of the 1st amendment.

The Church isn;t “telling the state what to do’

The state is (trying) to tell the church what to do

There are two parts to the establishment clause. It works well both ways

401 tradewind  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:32:30pm

re: #398 zelnaga
I really don’t want to get into the arguments about the rights of churches, etc… but if you take an unbiased look at the sheer numbers, it’s not difficult to see that our society as it is today would not be able to tolerate the withdrawal of the Church( not any particular one, writ large here) and its services to the general public, and most especially the poor and disabled… major chaos would ensue. Think we’re broke now?? Try to imagine the care and welfare of beneficiaries of faith-based programs suddenly dumped en masse onto Uncle Sam’s books.

402 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:35:57pm

re: #400 sattv4u2

I don’t disagree with any of that. Honestly, as long as I have the right to civil marriage, I couldn’t care less what the Catholic church does with that. I think it’s pretty sad that an organization based on compassion would deny an employee’s spouse or adopted child health care, but it is, again, their prerogative.

403 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:38:42pm

re: #402 rollwave87

I don’t disagree with any of that. Honestly, as long as I have the right to civil marriage, I couldn’t care less what the Catholic church does with that. I think it’s pretty sad that an organization based on compassion would deny an employee’s spouse or adopted child health care, but it is, again, their prerogative.

I think it’s pretty sad that we now think ANY company has to provide ANY an employee, their spouse, natural OR adopted child health care

404 rollwave87  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:44:39pm

re: #403 sattv4u2

I think it’s pretty sad that we now think ANY company has to provide ANY an employee, their spouse, natural OR adopted child health care

I think that if male employee “a” sees his wife and biological child covered, male employee “b” should see his husband and adopted/surrogate child covered. but again, im not advocating it be made into law. the reason nearly all major corporations in America today offer benefits to same sex partners is not because they have to, but because most of their customers feel it is the right thing to do. a company’s choice not to offer them has been proven to result in a majority of consumers choosing not to patronize them. if people in DC want to support their local Catholic leaderships decisions here, its their right.

405 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:48:32pm

re: #318 ggt

Speaking of Latin.

My kid (high school) has the worst latin teacher in the history of latin teachers. I am so frustrated because I LOVED latin. He is not learning anything and is so confused he can’t figure out how to teach himself.

Being MOM, I am no help.

I need to find a tutor.

rant off

If you think we could make distance-learning work, I humbly offer my services.

406 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:48:47pm

re: #404 rollwave87

if people in DC want to support their local Catholic leaderships decisions here, its their right.

They already seem to support it as it is the status quo. This bill would CHANGE that

407 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:49:58pm

re: #405 Cato the Elder

If you think we could make distance-learning work, I humbly offer my services.

Oooo ,, good idea

Perhaps a web cam two way! How cool would the kid think he is THEN!

408 Guanxi88  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:54:15pm

re: #402 rollwave87

I think it’s pretty sad that an organization based on compassion would deny an employee’s spouse or adopted child health care, but it is, again, their prerogative.

Catholic Church is no more based on compassion than the Democratic or Republican Party is based on graft. In both cases, the compassion and graft are consequences of their founding, and not the reasons for it.

409 SixDegrees  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 2:59:01pm

re: #378 zelnaga

It’s funny how one-sided opponents of same-sex marriage think separation of church and state is. The government can’t tell churches what to do but woe unto government if they dare to take away a churches tax exempt status or stop funneling money to them! And it’s not as if taxing churches is going to turn this country atheistic, either - churches seem to survive even though they don’t get free passes by utility companies and for some reason I don’t think adding one additional recurring expense is going to make them, all of a sudden, tuck tail and run and abandon this country.

I don’t know what prompted your rant, but personally I have no problem with removing tax exempt status from all churches. And as far as the funneling of government money to churches, last I heard there was widespread opposition to Faith Based Initiatives; I’m not aware of any whining over the curtailment of any other funding, either.

410 sattv4u2  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 3:05:06pm

re: #409 SixDegrees

I don’t know what prompted your rant,

Thread
About
Church

Must
Post
Rant

411 borgcube  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 3:35:14pm

re: #103 Cato the Elder

What you seemed to imply was that the CC has issued some kind of sub rosa threat pertaining to efforts by the government to quell illegal immigration, so as better to fill the pews. Since there is a long history of anti-Catholic paranoia in this country, it touched a nerve.

Of course the Church serves anyone, regardless of status. Surely you’re not suggesting that parishes should start checking IDs at the door?

Didn’t mean to touch a nerve. I’m not a religious guy and don’t really follow or care about such issues for the most part. And no, I’m not saying anything of the sort about carding for church and I can’t believe that’s how it read, but apparently it did.

With that said, I think it’s pretty obvious that the Catholic Church has a keen interest in keeping the churches as packed as best it can, and that’s being made possible at least in these parts by people from south of the border, and oodles of them are not here legally. I don’t think that’s even debatable. Catholic churches here would be vacant without them. There is no reason for the Catholic Church to support tough immigration enforcement. In fact, there are news stories here all the time where local priests and other spokespeople for the Catholic Church speak out against even basic enforcement of our immigration laws and other border-strengthening issues on humanitarian grounds. I’m simply saying that their stance on this issue is a bit more self serving than it might appear at first glance. An no, that’s not conspiracy nonsense or anti-Catholic on my part.

412 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 3:54:52pm

re: #44 borgcube

You were dinged down for this comment but you are right. I’ve silently attended a couple pro-illegal alien rallies here in the SF Bay Area. Each rally had visual support from local Catholic parishes. I saw nuns and priests walking side by side with the whole anti-border crowd. Incidentally, I’ve also seen nuns at pro-Palestinian rallies too.

413 Decatur Deb  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 3:59:59pm

re: #408 Guanxi88

Catholic Church is no more based on compassion than the Democratic or Republican Party is based on graft. In both cases, the compassion and graft are consequences of their founding, and not the reasons for it.

Updung.
And that’s not a slam at the RCC. It’s real mission isn’t about this planet.

414 Decatur Deb  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 4:00:45pm

re: #413 Decatur Deb

Its.

PIMF I hat that.

415 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 4:02:43pm

re: #3 SixDegrees

Oh, well. That whole Separation of Church and State thing cuts both ways. We aren’t ruled by theocrats, and the government doesn’t get to tell the church how to conduct it’s business.

Every group that operates within the DC limits has to abide by the law. This includes religious organizations. If the RCC doesn’t want to do that, it can leave. I feel no sympathy for the Roman Church.

416 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 4:22:13pm

re: #411 borgcube

There is no reason for the Catholic Church to support tough immigration enforcement.

There is no reason for any church to support tough immigration enforcement. Borders and passports are not part of God’s plan.

417 idioma  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 5:22:41pm

This is why we can’t have nice things.

418 Mark Pennington  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 5:31:38pm

re: #416 Cato the Elder

There is no reason for any church to support tough immigration enforcement. Borders and passports are not part of God’s plan.

Get out of my head, Cato! You keep posting my thoughts before I have a chance.

419 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 6:07:02pm

“Tax the churches; tax the businesses owned by the churches.” — St. Zappa

420 Achilles Tang  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 6:35:55pm

re: #392 tradewind

If churches, legiimate ones, were taxed in this country, our social system would implode. The services that faith-based organizations provide to the community at large are so much more valuable, in general, than those mandated by the federal government and their programs are operated so much more efficiently that you would see a massive collapse among structures such as food banks, WIC, shelters, etc. What is given by churches ( provided by parishioners, tax deductible to them) to serve the community at large would be irreplaceable.

What taxes are you talking about? They are non profit and receive much money from the state.

The primary tax that they don’t pay is property tax, even while they receive and use all the benefits that others pay for through property taxes.

I don’t see how that would cause their services to implode, nor for that matter do I think it is a tax worth pursuing for the the benefit of the rest of “us” given the historical entitlement it has and the friction it would cause, at least in the short term.

421 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 6:40:09pm

re: #420 Naso Tang

I’ve always thought that religious organizations should be forced, by law, to pay taxes for the use of the police and fire departments, as well as services offered by utilities (repair, maintenance - as it benefits everyone in a particular city/municipality).

422 Achilles Tang  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 7:03:51pm

re: #421 eclectic infidel

In simple principle yes, but in reality the principle has become so established that there would seem to be no way it can be changed without becoming seen as an attack on religion by the evil atheists, not to mention the “secularists”.

Practically speaking I don’t think it is worth the conflict it would create, which is not to say that it is not an entitlement that can be pointed out from time to time.

However it would be interesting to know just how the principle became established. I’m not an expert on this but I believe it was a principle that derived from a time when taxation was new and different from today. Initially there was no “income” tax as such, but mainly a wealth (aka property) tax, which could easily then have been used in a discriminatory manner against this church or that. The principle then was probably sensible regarding “separation of church and state”.

We still have the principle, just like we have the principle of native American “states” within the state; another outdated entitlement anachronism which would be considered racist if one attempted to eliminate it.

423 3kids3dogs  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 7:28:34pm

re: #411 borgcube

With that said, I think it’s pretty obvious that the Catholic Church has a keen interest in keeping the churches as packed as best it can, and that’s being made possible at least in these parts by people from south of the border, and oodles of them are not here legally. I don’t think that’s even debatable. Catholic churches here would be vacant without them. There is no reason for the Catholic Church to support tough immigration enforcement. In fact, there are news stories here all the time where local priests and other spokespeople for the Catholic Church speak out against even basic enforcement of our immigration laws and other border-strengthening issues on humanitarian grounds. I’m simply saying that their stance on this issue is a bit more self serving than it might appear at first glance. An no, that’s not conspiracy nonsense or anti-Catholic on my part.

The Catholic church need only build more churches south of the border if these immigrants were all deported and border crossings were made tougher to cross. In this case I believe that the RCC does in fact oppose border strengthening measures for what they believe are humanitarian reasons.

424 3kids3dogs  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 7:39:07pm

re: #303 Guanxi88


I see no reason why, if the bill goes through, the diocesan authorities would have to comply with the provisions that violate their own understanding of Church teaching. It’s not an all-or-nothing thing - they could continue to provide services to the community while fighting the City in court over it.

If they do in fact provide benefits for other marriages that the Church doesn’t recognize, would they have a leg to stand on? Have they threatened to sue the city? It just seems so odd and out of character to use the community as a bargaining chip. I’m thinking that they might believe that they would lose a court case and feel this is their only option.

Full disclosure - I am an atheist but my wife and children are Catholic. My wife and I were married at City Hall 22+ short years ago.

425 borgcube  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:35:09pm

re: #416 Cato the Elder

Religious mumbo jumbo.

426 borgcube  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:44:14pm

re: #412 eclectic infidel

You’re so hate filled and bigoted. God knows no borders. We are all one in the Lord’s eyes. It was only a complete coincidence that a bunch of people clamoring for open borders were accompanied by the Catholic Church. All of the other religious persuasions I’m sure were also marching side by side. Then again, I doubt you saw any others, correct?

427 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Nov 15, 2009 9:18:14am

re: #426 borgcube

You’re an idiot.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 46 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 99 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1