It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Priest Warns Obama: Better Knock the Catholic Church Out NOW

page: 15
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Eidolon23
 


Ok, so let's talk about why the Catholic Church does not cover contraceptives. Contraceptives including just the old fashioned Pill sometimes cause abortions without the woman ever knowing she was even pregnant. The Church views that as supporting abortion. There are a number of ways The Pill or IUD may cause abortions, but the fact remains that a great many people are not aware that they can still become pregnant and that the action of the hormones can cause the abortion without ever knowing about it. The Church apparently is not concerned with Viagra because it does not cause abortions, but in fact could save a failing marriage under some circumstances.
The entire argument is about freedom of choice for the Church to follow it's spiritual and moral values vs the Totalitarian nature of the Nanny State govt.
People are griping that the Church should not dominate the govt, but the reverse is also true, where does the Govt get off telling the Church what to do?
For a certain segment of people it seems that separation of Church and State is wonderful until they want something, then they feel they have a right to dictate to the Church their terms. Need we say what the Church deems abortion to be? If I delineate further I may get my post removed.




posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by seabag
 


Culture of death, huh? Where've they been on all these wars? Oh, that's right, it's cool because that works out for the church in the long run...less oppositional belief systems if there are less Muslims...


Wars are something the Church has no control over. They cannot tell Congress not to go to war, although they can preach the Ten Commandments which includes not killing.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mactheaxe
well, here's my say. cuz, we all have a say right? I was unsure of the catholic church, now im convinced. The message of, gloves are off, we dont get along so now were gonna do battle told me i am happy to not be catholic. i do not believe in being high and mighty and being so confrontational. i respect everyone and he is just another ideological figure banking on the belief of heaven reigning down at his blessed word. the fact is this. abortion is not mandatory. if a woman wants to, then that is her choice, not the church or our govt. period. he made some pretty big accusations and whats with calling her the same as the nazis? last i checked she didnt have 6 million starving pregnant women thrown in a camp waiting for their forced abortions. And does this mean he spoke for the church? did they endorse this video? cuz he talked like his gang is snappin in action.


mactheaxe,

Don't care about the culture of death even if you despise the Church. It's your choice, you have a soul. You will face God about your choices.
To vote for a legislator no matter his level in government who has voted pro-abortion is a grave sin on your soul because you cooperated with his or her evil vote. Repent and confess this mortal sin to God if you have committed it in the past.

God's Commandment is do not kill. The rejection and this Commandment
worldwide is diabolical in nature. Sister Lucia, one the Fatima seers
called it "diabolical disorientation."

Don't you seee.....



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


War is political. It is about power and control.

As is religion.

Doh! I saw the next sentence after this idea popped into my mind......and I'm posting it anyway....



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mactheaxe
 


Margaret Sanger is who did the involuntary sterilizations. Ever hear of "The Negro Project"? That was a project she was involved in to sterilize black women ostensibly to reduce poverty among blacks. At that time, many women kept having a lot of babies. Her view, like other Progressives of that era, was that women were beng too saddled with child bearing and were unable to enjoy life to it's fullest extent.

Well here's some commentary on her project.

The Negro Project
Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Plan for Black Americans
By Tanya L. Green



“'Civil rights' doesn't mean anything without a right to life!” declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans—black and white—are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).1


The aim of the program was to restrict—many believe exterminate—the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What's more shocking is Sanger's beguilement of black America's crème de la crème—those prominent, well educated and well-to-do—into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.
The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: “We have become victims of genocide by our own hands,” cried Hunter at the “Say So” march.



Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th-century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race.2 He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people.3 His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy

www.citizenreviewonline.org...



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 



So..... if a group represents the homeless, that group should not have a voice? Take religion out of this, would that group have a right to representation, yes or no?


Why would we take religion out of it...it is the main topic???

Our Constitution has specific language in it regarding religion...it doesn't for the homeless.

Like I said, I have no problem with a group having a voice...but religion should be left out of government.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
There is a lot of incorrect or misleading info on Margaret Sanger. It is very easy to twist her efforts as Sinister.

The Negro Project was in 1939. Remember - the Civil Rights Act wasn't signed until 1964. Society as a whole had a lot of evolving to do in relation to race.


Little direct evidence has been uncovered to date that she herself specifically drew the distinction between the "fit" and the "unfit" along racial lines.

The Negro Project is the most questionable activity of Sanger regarding race. In 1939, the Birth Control Federation of America initiated the project, which was to promote family planning among the black population of the South, using black ministers. A letter to Clarence Gamble says: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." www.angelafranks.com...



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


This is an important issue, but the OP does not make clear what is at stake here.
The core issue is Church vs. State: the violation of an individual's right to follow his religious beliefs.
The VIOLATION of an individual's RIGHT to follow his RELIGIOUS beliefs.

Let me make it clear that I am not Catholic and I am staunchly Pro-Choice, but I defend the right of the Catholics and Catholic-backed institutions to follow their religious conscience.

Obamacare will force all healthcare providers, including Catholic employers & Catholic hospitals, to cover without co-pay all FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling, which include sterilization, ABORTIONS, and ABORTION-INDUCING contraceptives (abortifacients).

I may not agree with the Catholic stance on these issues, but Catholics have the right to believe as they do and the Federal government has NO RIGHT to force Catholics to do things against their religious principles.

Because this real issue was not made clear in the OP, this thread has devolved into another annoying Abortion thread.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by something wicked
 



So..... if a group represents the homeless, that group should not have a voice? Take religion out of this, would that group have a right to representation, yes or no?


Why would we take religion out of it...it is the main topic???

Our Constitution has specific language in it regarding religion...it doesn't for the homeless.

Like I said, I have no problem with a group having a voice...but religion should be left out of government.


Sorry, I don't understand the basis for that. You are saying a religious group doesn't have the right to lobby for its convictions. You do not say any other group should also not have the right to voice their opnion. Where do you propose the line is drawn? So if a group expresses its voice behind a religious group you believe it should be ignored - correct? If another group expresses the same voice under the collective group of a non religious group it should be listened to, even though the actual content is the same, is that what you believe?



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 



Sorry, I don't understand the basis for that. You are saying a religious group doesn't have the right to lobby for its convictions. You do not say any other group should also not have the right to voice their opnion. Where do you propose the line is drawn? So if a group expresses its voice behind a religious group you believe it should be ignored - correct? If another group expresses the same voice under the collective group of a non religious group it should be listened to, even though the actual content is the same, is that what you believe?


As long as the actual orginzation of the Church isn't lobbying...it's fine.

This shouldn't be hard to understand...it is one of the basic tenants the country was founded on. They did not want the Church to be involved with the government just as much as they didn't want the government involved with the Church....maybe even more so.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
It is time to unleash the Jesuits.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
My problem with this is, what about rape victims? Okay yea sure they can give up the kid to adoption if they were raped but they will get kicked out of school just for being pregnant. They will be criticized called a "whore" "slut" all those words that can really make someone go insane and kill themselves. Even with all that though out of the way if none of that ever happens and everyone is understanding. What about when the child gets older and whats to see its birth mother? How do you think that would make the mother feel? Year and years of therapy just to repress that she was raped and the child comes out of the blue. So many issues with making abortion illegal. I for one am for abortion because of rapists. Its not like you can get rid of rapists or tell a girl to dress a certain way and they won't get raped. Rapists are for power and they do it just for that. It doesn't matter how old you are, or how you dress. I really wish that people would think about all this. I guess that is too much for there brains though.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by something wicked
 



Sorry, I don't understand the basis for that. You are saying a religious group doesn't have the right to lobby for its convictions. You do not say any other group should also not have the right to voice their opnion. Where do you propose the line is drawn? So if a group expresses its voice behind a religious group you believe it should be ignored - correct? If another group expresses the same voice under the collective group of a non religious group it should be listened to, even though the actual content is the same, is that what you believe?


As long as the actual orginzation of the Church isn't lobbying...it's fine.

This shouldn't be hard to understand...it is one of the basic tenants the country was founded on. They did not want the Church to be involved with the government just as much as they didn't want the government involved with the Church....maybe even more so.



I'm sorry, on this one we have to disagree, regardless of the creed, if 'the church' be it christian, jewish, muslim etc, are seen as a focal point which many individuals stand by, then that is an opinion group. What is lobbying for? Opinion groups to air their voice. I'm really struggling as to why you can't understand that.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AuranVector
Catholics have the right to believe as they do and the Federal government has NO RIGHT to force Catholics to do things against their religious principles.


Who is forcing Catholics to do things against their religious principles?

Seems to me Catholics are trying to force their religion on everyone - - even those who don't support Catholic principles.

Hospitals are a business. They hire for professional qualifications - - - not religious belief.

Whatever gives them the right to do this - - needs to be changed or nullified completely.

Obama came up with a solution - - - they should just shut up.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by something wicked
 



Sorry, I don't understand the basis for that. You are saying a religious group doesn't have the right to lobby for its convictions. You do not say any other group should also not have the right to voice their opnion. Where do you propose the line is drawn? So if a group expresses its voice behind a religious group you believe it should be ignored - correct? If another group expresses the same voice under the collective group of a non religious group it should be listened to, even though the actual content is the same, is that what you believe?


As long as the actual orginzation of the Church isn't lobbying...it's fine.

This shouldn't be hard to understand...it is one of the basic tenants the country was founded on. They did not want the Church to be involved with the government just as much as they didn't want the government involved with the Church....maybe even more so.



Not true, our ancestors came to America to get away from religious
persecution. BHO is persecuting people of faith. If you take God out of your life that includes our laws, what do you end up with?

The acceptance of grave sin, taken further, grave mortal sin actually put into law.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



Not true, our ancestors came to America to get away from religious
persecution.


You seriously need a history lesson.

Go research and find the answer to WHO was persecuting them? Why couldn't they practice their religion like they wanted to?

It couldn't be that a certain church controlled the government...was it?



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by colbe
 



I have posted twice in another thread the page in Obama Care that speaks of the implantation of the micro-chip. Leftists do not reply.


People don't respond because it is crazy talk with no factual basis to it.



HR 3200 Section 2521 Page 1001, paragraph 1
of Obamas health care.

Vote BHO out!

And in the Republican race for the nomination, if your state hasn't had their caucus yet, go vote for the candidate who is most for life, not the establishment's man, he is only for life now to win. He doesn't believe Jesus is God, he is not Christian. He is "Obama light."



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
if i want to have sexual relations with a woman , I will buy the condom .

how much is a condom nowadays ? I've been fixed for a while .

if you can't afford to buy a few rubbers here and there , you're a broke bitch and you don't deserve to have sex.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by colbe
 



Not true, our ancestors came to America to get away from religious
persecution.


You seriously need a history lesson.

Go research and find the answer to WHO was persecuting them? Why couldn't they practice their religion like they wanted to?

It couldn't be that a certain church controlled the government...was it?


I recall there was a temporal king forcing everyone to follow his man
made religion, he had rejected the true faith because the Church wouldn't
go along with his scandal, his grave mortal sin.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Go research and find the answer to WHO was persecuting them? Why couldn't they practice their religion like they wanted to?

It couldn't be that a certain church controlled the government...was it?


Ahhhh - - my ancestors came to America in the 1700s. They were Protestants from the Palatines. Guess why they had to leave? Catholics.


edit on 12-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join