Priest Warns Obama: Better Knock the Catholic Church Out NOW

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...

Originally posted by colbe
God has revealed His reason for sex and don't you think it's true?

God hasn't revealed anything. Because no one has ever actually met God.

Man - - interprets what he doesn't understand - - - then gives credit to an unknown - never seen being.

There is a reason it is called Faith.

My 2 cents....

Sex is primarily for human conception.

Easiest way to get AIDS?
Hepatitis?
STIs/STDs?

The answer is sex. If the gov't provides free fetus murder and condoms...what do you think will also rise?

All the bad things as well.

No, the Gov't shouldn't provide for contraceptives and abortion, thats like me demanding that they give me a free trip to Disneyland every 2 years. It would cost the same, and it would be for my personal pleasure no?

What a pathetic, self-indulgent, mindless generation I have the displeasure of being a part of.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by something wicked

 

Sorry, that doesn't work. In an ideal situation, yeah I know, but bear with me, the individual alone has little voice, hence becoming part of a collective, in this case a religious organisation. Would you also say unions should have no voice? How about charities?

I didn't make the laws. Unions are not 501c3 organizations, they are 501c5 organizations and they can lobby all they want. They can also campaign and support candidates.

www.irs.gov...=96169,00.html

Thus, a section 501(c)(5) organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status. However, a section 501(c)(5) organization that engages in lobbying may be required to either provide notice to its members regarding the percentage of dues paid that are applicable to lobbying activities or pay a proxy tax.
...
A section 501(c)(5) labor or agricultural organization may engage in some political activities, however, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditures it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).

But a church is a 501c3 organization...so it has different rules to play by.

Just like a corporation has differnet rules than a non-profit charity.


This is the current law...I'm just informing...not opinionating.

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

Pro-aborts and pro-abortifacients led by BHO try to say the faith is a business, it's not. He can't force businesses for that matter...either.

You can't mandate someone to go against their conscience. You all and your #1 freedom, a person is free to do whatever they want...

How does that work if you are denying a group of people their freedom
not to participate in funding your choice, the freedom (Roe vs Wade) to kill your newly conceived child?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by something wicked

 

Sorry, that doesn't work. In an ideal situation, yeah I know, but bear with me, the individual alone has little voice, hence becoming part of a collective, in this case a religious organisation. Would you also say unions should have no voice? How about charities?

I didn't make the laws. Unions are not 501c3 organizations, they are 501c5 organizations and they can lobby all they want. They can also campaign and support candidates.

www.irs.gov...=96169,00.html

Thus, a section 501(c)(5) organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status. However, a section 501(c)(5) organization that engages in lobbying may be required to either provide notice to its members regarding the percentage of dues paid that are applicable to lobbying activities or pay a proxy tax.
...
A section 501(c)(5) labor or agricultural organization may engage in some political activities, however, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditures it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).

But a church is a 501c3 organization...so it has different rules to play by.

Just like a corporation has differnet rules than a non-profit charity.


This is the current law...I'm just informing...not opinionating.

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

No worries, was asking for your opinion, if you have one. Like it or not, religious groups, regardless of their faith do try and put forward the concerns of their following, do you think that is a bad thing?

reply to post by colbe

Pro-aborts and pro-abortifacients led by BHO try to say the faith is a business, it's not. He can't force businesses for that matter...either.

You can't mandate someone to go against their conscience. You all and your #1 freedom, a person is free to do whatever they want...

How does that work if you are denying a group of people their freedom
not to participate in funding your choice, the freedom (Roe vs Wade) to kill your newly conceived child?

I'm not pro-abortion, I am actually pro-life and I don't agree with the Roe vs Wade ruling.

But I don't let one issue cloud my judgement on other issues. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with abortion...it has to do with health care covereage provided by insurance.

No one is mandating any individual to go against their conscience. They are madating that all Americans get equal coverage regardless of where or who they work for.

Can you please explain what freedom a group of people is being denied here? It's basically a rhetorical question because I'm familiar with your postings and for the most part have tried to stay away from engaging in conversation with you because your are coming from a complete illogical and fanatic stance that usually doesn't lead to constructive discussions.

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...

Defending Islam, not smart. If you do not believe as they do, their doctrine is kill you. All through history, we see the evidence. Islam is satanic. They once tried to destroy the very holy place of Our Lord's
crucifixtion. In our time, 3000 people were slaughtered in NY City.

Talk of wars, what is the number killed in the Civil War and by evil
slavery vs the number killed by direct abortion and contraception, an
abortifacient (can't tally those numbers).

reply to post by something wicked

No worries, was asking for your opinion, if you have one. Like it or not, religious groups, regardless of their faith do try and put forward the concerns of their following, do you think that is a bad thing?

I think I don't want to live in a country where any religious group (Christian, Muslim, Scientology, etc.) is influencing the laws I have to live my everyday life by.

I would like to keep my government secular...and my Church non-politicized.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I'm not pro-abortion, . .

Is anyone really pro-abortion? No one I know.

Its pro-Right of Choice. The Right to make a choice - if you find yourself in that position.

Does anyone ever plan on getting pregnant - - just so they can have an abortion. Not unless they really do have a mental problem.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


I challenge you to find the "Seperation of church, and state" clause within the constitution. It isn't there. While a seperation of religious power, and governmental power should indeed exist to the extent that there is no "Church of America" like there was a "Church of England." The term is abused by modern politics. Jefferson commented in the federalist papers about the 1st amendment essentially providing a wall of seperation between church, and state by allowing all religions equal right to exist, and express themselves. Equal expression, NOT SUPPRESSION.

Seperation of church, and state has been abused to essentially outlaw the use of traditional ethics, and social control that traditional religions impose. Especially the christian religion. I do not agree with, nor wish all social views of christianity to be imposed upon all people. By no means. The answers lie within the common denominator. Equal rights of ALL religions, even the right to have none at all. What is the best thing about all the different religions? What common good can we learn from that source? and if it makes for good law use it. To discard it out of hand as unuseable simply because it has a religious source, flavor, or background, and therefore cannot become law just by erroneously chanting a constitutional clause that doesn't exist is stupidity in it's highest form. Yet millions are naive to this very stupidity, and there seem to be no cure in sight.

Seperation of church, and state means everyone, no matter there religion or lack thereof, has a right to be protected by law. It is inherent in the 1st amendment. It is not a stand alone clause nor a law. It is an inalienable right. Not given to you by the government. It cannot be taken away because it is endowed as the founding Fathers would say "By your creator." Isn't it curios that the religiousity of our founding Fathers is the exact thing that gives people the freedom to disagree about religion? Ponder that.

PS: Before anyone goes off that I'm a bible thumper, and pushing my view. I would like to announce that I am not even a Christian. I am Taoist in my view, but any honest objective person can see the slant against Christianity, which is an admirable way of life when properly practised.

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.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by something wicked

 

No worries, was asking for your opinion, if you have one. Like it or not, religious groups, regardless of their faith do try and put forward the concerns of their following, do you think that is a bad thing?

I think I don't want to live in a country where any religious group (Christian, Muslim, Scientology, etc.) is influencing the laws I have to live my everyday life by.

I would like to keep my government secular...and my Church non-politicized.

You are so missing the point, sorry but you are. Why can Santorum, Gingrich, Paul or Romney say why they believe abortion should be banned and interest groups that actually have an ear to their community not have a say? If you were talking about bankers bonuses I would almost agree with you, but you aren't. If a ruling affects society the groups that people believe reflect their views should have a voice. Hmmmm, not sure what to make of your comments.

ETA: I know on this point that some denominations may agree with the current Republican candidates, but that is a moot point, you appear to be saying that one cornerstone of society should not have a voice because they are part of a religion. Well. say the same for any charity or big business and while I would maybe not agree with you then at least it is a consistent message.

reply to post by something wicked

You are so missing the point, sorry but you are. Why can Santorum, Gingrich, Paul or Romney say why they believe abortion should be banned and interest groups that actually have an ear to their community not have a say? If you were talking about bankers bonuses I would almost agree with you, but you aren't. If a ruling affects society the groups that people believe reflect their views should have a voice. Hmmmm, not sure what to make of your comments.

ETA: I know on this point that some denominations may agree with the current Republican candidates, but that is a moot point, you appear to be saying that one cornerstone of society should not have a voice because they are part of a religion. Well. say the same for any charity or big business and while I would maybe not agree with you then at least it is a consistent message.

With all due respect...it is you that is missing the point.

All individuals can and should voice their opinion...but the larger religious organization should not. I don't believe corporations should have a "voice" either.

Ask yourself this...if they are so passionate about this cause...why not voluntarily throw out their tax exempt status and start openly lobbying and campaigning for it??? It's because these institutions care little about the morality of it and care more about the money aspect of it.

If a group of Catholic parishoners want to get together and start a movement seperate from the church that isn't lead by any of the church leaders...more power to them. But that isn't what is happening.

Besides...most of these morality decisions are coming from the Vatican...and why should we allow a foreign entity like that influence our policies???

reply to post by Sphota

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...

If you don't see the difference between killing our enemies on the battlefield and killing an innocent child the you're not playing with a full deck. Not to mention the fact that wars are conducted by the USA not the Catholic church. I served with people of many different denominations.

Speaking of wars, you pro-choice folks are the first ones to cry about the deaths of innocent Iraqi women and children. That's ironic because you couldn't give a damn about innocent American babies. 

Originally posted by seabag
Not to mention the fact that wars are conducted by the USA not the Catholic church. I served with people of many different denominations.

Oh - I'd argue that. Wars are political.

The Catholic Church is about as political as you can get.

reply to post by Annee

Oh - I'd argue that. Wars are political. 

The Catholic Church is about as political as you can get.

Wait a minute...let's back up! I thought all of the wars in the middle east were for oil??? I thought greedy US corporations were behind this?? Now you want to change the blame to Christians (Catholics in particular)??

Amazing!

I guess the left will blame anyone except radical Muslims.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by something wicked

 

You are so missing the point, sorry but you are. Why can Santorum, Gingrich, Paul or Romney say why they believe abortion should be banned and interest groups that actually have an ear to their community not have a say? If you were talking about bankers bonuses I would almost agree with you, but you aren't. If a ruling affects society the groups that people believe reflect their views should have a voice. Hmmmm, not sure what to make of your comments.

ETA: I know on this point that some denominations may agree with the current Republican candidates, but that is a moot point, you appear to be saying that one cornerstone of society should not have a voice because they are part of a religion. Well. say the same for any charity or big business and while I would maybe not agree with you then at least it is a consistent message.

With all due respect...it is you that is missing the point.

All individuals can and should voice their opinion...but the larger religious organization should not. I don't believe corporations should have a "voice" either.

Ask yourself this...if they are so passionate about this cause...why not voluntarily throw out their tax exempt status and start openly lobbying and campaigning for it??? It's because these institutions care little about the morality of it and care more about the money aspect of it.

If a group of Catholic parishoners want to get together and start a movement seperate from the church that isn't lead by any of the church leaders...more power to them. But that isn't what is happening.

Besides...most of these morality decisions are coming from the Vatican...and why should we allow a foreign entity like that influence our policies???

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?

Originally posted by Under Water
I really have to question the logic behind some of you.

Problem: People are poor so they can't afford certain health related things.

Cause: They don't have jobs or, enough hours/pay.

Solution: Take from the rest of the population that does have, and use them to pay for the poor. Since they are poor, they should be given free money.

Accepted Risk: Much of the middle class may be taxed into poverty, with the possibility of the middle class becoming extinct all together. As tax funds dwindle, the country will borrow more and more, and only pay out less and less to the poor. This solution will not help move people out of poverty, but will only prove to keep them in it and it will become a way of life for them.


Seems to me it should go more like this:

Problem: People are poor so they can't afford certain health related things.

Cause: They don't have jobs or, enough hours/pay.

Solution: Put them to work by creating more jobs. Decrease taxes to boost the economy. Businesses will need to hire more people to keep up with the booming economy, and supply vs demand dictate that a wages will go up to keep up with the competition due to so many job openings that businesses need to fill.

Accepted Risk: More people with jobs. The poor can be removed from poverty and become part of the middle class. Those who pay taxes will pay less. The government will no longer need to borrow and will once again have a surplus, and be the economic leader of the world.

The logic that it is ok to kill unborn members of the human race because it's cheaper to kill them now than support them later is an example of a less evolved mind. Your thinking is flawed. There are better ways than murder to solve our money issues. Murder should never be accepted. It should never be an option. We as a society should be above that kind of thinking. The human race still has so very far to go on the evolutionary scale. I am ashamed to be living among humans who think it's all perfectly ok. And who hide behind a veil of "women's rights" to justify their claims.

Under Water, God bless you,

Thank you, very well said, especially your last words. You are helping here. Why can't everyone see if you kill most of the next generation
who is going to pay for all BHO's entitlement programs?

We are already seeing the demographics. I notice mostly middle aged
and old people walking around.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Annee

 

Oh - I'd argue that. Wars are political. 

The Catholic Church is about as political as you can get.

Wait a minute...let's back up! I thought all of the wars in the middle east were for oil??? I thought greedy US corporations were behind this?? Now you want to change the blame to Christians (Catholics in particular)??

Amazing!

I guess the left will blame anyone except radical Muslims.

I never said that.

War is political. It is about power and control.

If its about Oil - - - that's only because Oil is a controlling commodity.

The Catholic Church is very political - - and very much about power and control.

reply to post by seabag


The Catholic Church held sway over every aspect of Western society for a good many years. It was called the Dark Ages.

Personally I don't care how many self righteous priests come oozing out of the woodwork to tell me how I should live MY life and see my country run. They scream religious persecution while on the government teat. The Catholic Church could not survive in its current incarnation, at least not in the US without all that nice free money. So, in my opinion they do not have any rights to dictate to anyone about anything that is not a church matter. And since most of us do not belong to that church, (although they try hard enough with that birth control bullsh*t) and they take public funds, and don't pay taxes, they can STFU!