Religion and Individualism

[GrayMouser]

May the FSM bless this true believer with a touch of His Noodly Appendage

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

May the FSM bless this true believer with a touch of His Noodly Appendage

Ramen.

[Insidious Rex]

Dear Catholics,

Is Rick Santorum seen as anything other than a frightening joke as a presidential candidate within the Catholic community as he is by most people outside of it? Honestly... Enough with the Hitler and Nazi comparisons...

[inked]

Rick is free to run.

Just be glad that Nancy Pelosi and Kathy Sabelius aren't running. They have Obama to front for them. Then again, Sabelius is making her interpretation of what was written "law" and she's appointed not elected.

So, your point was........

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Dear Catholics,

Is Rick Santorum seen as anything other than a frightening joke as a presidential candidate within the Catholic community as he is by most people outside of it? Honestly... Enough with the Hitler and Nazi comparisons...

There really is no such thing as "the Catholic community" when it comes to politics. Catholic opinions on birth control, abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment, war etc. are basically identical to other Americans in their same ethnic/economic category.

"Stop Talking About the ‘Catholic Vote’! It Doesn’t Exist"
http://www.tnr.com/article/the-perma...c-constituency

[Willow Oran]

Is Rick Santorum seen as anything other than a frightening joke as a presidential candidate within the Catholic community as he is by most people outside of it?

Very likely to depend on which Catholic community you talk to.

I can tell you that among the practicing/lapsed Catholics in my immediate area: having grown up trying to feed families of 9+ people on a can of spam makes birth control pretty popular, one of the few good priests I know is gay, and the Church has yet to rebuild its credibility in wake of all the child molestation scandals.

American Catholics right now have some very good reasons to be skeptical of anything the Bishops are supporting, including Santorum's style of conservatism. That said, there are also suburban Catholic mega churches whose parishioners are likely to trend more conservative republican and more likely to see Santorum as a candidate they agree with on moral values.

[GrayMouser]

Yea, these are the people I'd rely on as moral authorities...

Feb 25, 2012:

Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua ordered aides to shred a 1994 memo that identified 35 Archdiocese of Philadelphia priests suspected of sexually abusing children, according to a new court filing.

The order, outlined in a handwritten note locked away for years at the archdiocese's Center City offices, was disclosed Friday by lawyers for Msgr. William J. Lynn, the former church administrator facing trial next month.

They say the shredding directive proves what Lynn has long claimed: that a church conspiracy to conceal clergy sex abuse was orchestrated at levels far above him
.......
Bevilacqua discussed the memo in a March 15, 1994, meeting with Molloy and Bishop Edward P. Cullen, then the cardinal's top aide, the filing says. After the meeting, Bevilacqua allegedly ordered Molloy to shred the memo.

One week later, Molloy allegedly destroyed four copies, with the Rev. Joseph Cistone as a witness. "This action was taken on the basis of a directive I received from Cardinal Bevilacqua," say Molloy's handwritten notes.


According to the motion, that safe remained untouched and unnoticed until 2006, when archdiocesan officials found it and hired a locksmith to open it. It's unclear why the records inside were only recently turned over to Lynn's lawyers and prosecutors, although church lawyers have said they have been reviewing thousands of files to comply with trial subpoenas.

Bevilacqua had cited the 35 priests before. In February 2002 - as the abuse scandal was roiling Catholics across the country - he said the archdiocese had turned over information on 35 suspected abusive priests to the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. He did not mention any memo from eight years earlier or his order to shred it.

During 10 appearances before a grand jury in 2003 and 2004, Bevilacqua denied knowing details or playing a significant role in the handling of sex-abuse complaints, saying he delegated those duties to Lynn.
"I saw no evidence at any time that we did any cover-up," he testified.


Prosecutors have not disputed that a conspiracy to protect abusive priests stretched beyond Lynn. Last month, one assistant district attorney called the archdiocese "an unindicted coconspirator" in the case.

Lynn's lawyers argue that Bevilacqua's testimony may have been perjury and that it colors the current case. "Had this recent grand jury been aware of the cardinal's successful efforts in 'deep-sixing' a significant document prepared by Msgr. Lynn, its view of him as a potential defendant may have been entirely different," they wrote. "It is clear . . . that Msgr. Lynn has been 'hung out to dry.' "

Lynn's lawyers also contend that Cistone, now the bishop of Saginaw, Mich., and Cullen, the retired bishop of Allentown, misled the grand jury by not acknowledging the memo or the cardinal's order to shred it. Neither responded Friday to messages left at their dioceses.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20...d_abusers.html

Apparently lying to a grand jury about covering up child rape qualifies you to lecture other people about their sex lives.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Willow has the right of it. I do know some extreme conservative Catholics who support Santorum. The slightly-less-extreme conservative ones tend to favour Newt. And, of course, you get the ones who support Paul, either because they agree with his basic libertarian bent (which is obviously out of keeping with most Catholic ways of thinking), or because he seems to them to be the only one running who may, in fact, be human. More credible, but the Canada Party still sums up my view of Ron Paul pretty well.

Wow, GM, I hadn't heard that. With Rigali, too, Philadelphia seems to be doing particularly poorly in this department.

[The Gaffer]

There must be Catholics who are Democrats too, no?

Over here, the "Catholic vote", if there is one (and I am not sure there is) would tend to be left-leaning rather than right.

[Valandil]

I'm not Catholic, but I live in Chicago - and trust me - there are many Catholics who are Democrats!

[Willow Oran]

There must be Catholics who are Democrats too, no?

Over here, the "Catholic vote", if there is one (and I am not sure there is) would tend to be left-leaning rather than right.

Yes, Catholics have historically and still do tend to vote Democrat, and that trend is a bit stronger among Catholic women. But in less urban areas we're starting to see more conservative, more white-collar Catholics leaning Republican.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yeah, Catholics have traditionally been very, very Democrat. Time was, you would get priests saying it was a mortal sin to vote Republican. Today, the Democrat party is itself a very different entity than it once was, and the Catholic Church in the US tends to be more allied with conservative figures, although this is of course a generalization. Roughly speaking, the ideology of the US bishops tends to be "socially conservative, liberal on fiscal and immigration issues," but the social conservatism is much more pronounced in the US Church than in much of the Catholic Church. And, yes, there are still plenty of Catholic Democrats. About a month ago, I finally got sick enough of both parties that I registered independent, but before that, I was a Democrat, and I still believe that there is deeper resonance between Democrat and Catholic thought than there is between Republican and Catholic thought.

[Insidious Rex]

Thanks for the clarification. I was basically aware that there were more than one type of catholic (and more than one type of catholic approach to politics) but I have been so floored by watching Santorum supporters on TV saying "well WE CATHOLICS agree with Santorum on everything because he stands for X and Y and Z" right after he talks about how all nurses are Hitler or some such nonsense. Guess I have yet to hear someone say "hey Im Catholic and this guy is nuts!"

As for it making more sense for Catholics to be Democrats, frankly it seems quite clear to me that traditional Christian philosophies are much more liberal (and radical) than they are conservative and Ive never really understood how true Christians can say without any hint of irony that the Republican party is the party for Christians.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

traditional Christian philosophies are much more liberal (and radical) than they are conservative and Ive never really understood how true Christians can say without any hint of irony that the Republican party is the party for Christians.

Well, maybe they are not true Christians...

* runs away *

[Valandil]

Well actually... it's tough. I don't know if this is so in European politics, but in America, so many are Christian - of one stripe or another - or at least we could say that the Christian heritage is so prevalent, that...

My theory is that the two major political parties in the US divide aspects of Christianity among themselves.

A few decades ago, many more Christians would have identified with the Democratic Party, I think. That began to change with Roe v Wade, the ensuing support of abortion rights by the Democratic Party, and the appearance on the scene of Ronald Reagan - a Republican who was so strongly pro-life.

I think it was that issue alone which pulled many Christians over to the Republican Party.

[The Gaffer]

I think you are dead right Valandil, and I appreciate you addressing the issue when I was clearly teasing. As I recall, it was Reagan that really tapped into the "moral majority", to the Republicans' lasting electoral benefit.

If this is predicated on some key issues, such as opposition to abortion and gay rights, what do you think the implications are for the future? Two terms of Reagan, plus three of various Bushes have brought several wars but not a ban on abortion. And now we've got states legalising gay marraige, in some form or another. It looks like the majority is turning away from the conservative moral agenda. Can the Republicans continue to face both ways at once?

I can't speak for "Europe", but in the UK religion is far less political. Issues such as abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty are usually categorised as issues of conscience, and therefore not party-political. Politicians who start banging on about them are usually mistrusted. In Scotland, there are close links between the Catholic Church and the Labour Party.

On a personal level, having been brought up in a strongly Protestant household it's my view that Christian moral views far more closely align with the Left (forgive thy tresspassers) than the Right (an eye for an eye).

It is relatively eash for the rich to talk about banning abortion. If Little Princess gets up the duff you can be sure Daddy will buy in the best illegal docs, or fly her first class to an offshore facility. So it's easy for them to promote abortion as a rallying flag because it doesn't have any consequences for them. Much harder to address the inequality, poverty and suffering throughout the world, which might require them to give up one of their yachts.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

\ Roughly speaking, the ideology of the US bishops tends to be "socially conservative, liberal on fiscal and immigration issues," but the social conservatism is much more pronounced in the US Church than in much of the Catholic Church. And, yes, there are still plenty of Catholic Democrats. About a month ago, I finally got sick enough of both parties that I registered independent, but before that, I was a Democrat, and I still believe that there is deeper resonance between Democrat and Catholic thought than there is between Republican and Catholic thought.

Yeah, aside from the sexual issues ("other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play ?") I'm probably closer to the USCCB than Rick Santorum is, and the bishops are more conservative than most other Catholic organisations- for instance, they supported Obama's new mercury pollution regulations, which Santorum opposed.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I think you are dead right Valandil, and I appreciate you addressing the issue when I was clearly teasing. As I recall, it was Reagan that really tapped into the "moral majority", to the Republicans' lasting electoral benefit.

If this is predicated on some key issues, such as opposition to abortion and gay rights, what do you think the implications are for the future? Two terms of Reagan, plus three of various Bushes have brought several wars but not a ban on abortion. And now we've got states legalising gay marraige, in some form or another. It looks like the majority is turning away from the conservative moral agenda. Can the Republicans continue to face both ways at once?

On homosexuality, yes- public opinion is swinging strongly in favor, and more so among younger voters.

On abortion, there's basically been no change in 40 years- a small majority accepts it, but also is favorable to limits on some issues- late-term abortions are much less acceptable, and there are objections to abortions seen as birth control. Young people have about the same opinions as their elders.
The Republicans have made this such an issue that they'll be bound to appoint anti-abortion Supreme Court justices; but if Roe v. Wade is overturned entirely I think they'll face a huge backlash.

On a personal level, having been brought up in a strongly Protestant household it's my view that Christian moral views far more closely align with the Left (forgive thy tresspassers) than the Right (an eye for an eye).

There are strong strands in American Protestantism that have historically been connected to Calvinism; wealth acquired through hard honest work- including business- is seen as a visible sign of grace, certainly nothing to be ashamed of.

Ironically, Santorum doesn't even draw the support of a majority of Republican Catholics, who support Romney by a small plurality. His base is with Protestant Fundamentalists- the very people who insisted Kennedy make his "seperation" speech.

At one point, Santorum cited a Texas case where it was ruled that prayers couldn't be delivered over the loudspeakers before a high-school football game. Ironically, the case against the school was brought by Catholic and Mormon parents who objected to their children being proselytised by the school administration, which was heavily Fundamentalist.

[GrayMouser]

Another case of oppressive secular governmant violating rights of religious employees!!!

Dozens of Israel Postal Company employees in Ramat Gan refused to distribute thousands of copies of the New Testament to city residents. They claimed such distribution is forbidden according to the halacha laws, and might even be illegal.

Both religious and secular postal workers were asked to hand out mail and advertisements on Monday, along with thousands of holy Christian booklets translated into Hebrew. The workers informed their supervisors that they refuse to distribute such materials.
...........................
However, one religious mailman explained that distributing the New Testament goes against his word view. "The halacha forbids me from handing out such idolatry material, and when there's a contradiction between my religious belief and what my job requires of me, it's clear to me what I chose," he said. "It's like if my manager were to come and tell me to work on Shabbat."

......................

Israel Postal Company officials responded: "The Israel Postal Company is a governmental company operating in accordance to the Postal Law, which obligates us to distribute any mail it receives. The Israel Postal Company has no right or ability to chose what it can or cannot distribute. Therefore, the mail will be distributed according to the law."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...198711,00.html

Along with the rights of employers to restrict employees from obtaining health care they don't like, town clerks refusing to do their jobs and perform marriages for gays, government-licensed pharmacists refusing to supply medicine they don't approve of, Muslim cab-drivers refusing to carry alcohol, I support the right of mail carriers to refuse to distribute mail that they don't like.

All for religious reasons, of course.

[inked]

Ah, yes, its all those evil religious types and the governments are pure as the driven globally warmed liquid water, eh?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...overnment.html

"Lawyers for the two women claim that the Government is setting the bar too high and that “manifesting” religion includes doing things that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are therefore protected by human rights.

They say that Christians are given less protection than members of other religions who have been granted special status for garments or symbols such as the Sikh turban and kara bracelet, or the Muslim hijab.

Last year it emerged that Mrs Eweida, a British Airways worker, and Mrs Chaplin, a nurse, had taken their fight to the European Court in Strasbourg after both faced disciplinary action for wearing a cross at work."

Oi, vey!