I haven’t spent much time dwelling on papal politics, but the choice of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany wasn’t much of a surprise to anybody.
Of course, if the Irish Catholic family I married into had any say in the matter, it would have been somebody else. Judging from the dinner table conversation the other night, the only choice less acceptable to the extended family (only slightly smaller than the College of Cardinals) would have been Cardinal Law.
Personally, I could care less. Though I am a bit disappointed he adopted the name Benedict XVI instead of sticking with Ratzinger. It would have been amusing to have a Pope Ratzinger.
His CORRECT previous title was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, NOT Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
Yea, yea, I know it was in your beloved PI but it’s wrong.
Examples:
http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/n.....george.htm
http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/holocaust_israel.asp
http://www.latin-mass.org/addr.....Sodano.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb.....11-14.html
The interesting thing is that they picked a Pope that was elderly. The guy is 78 years old. Thus, they are going to have to go through this whole thing again in a few years.
The new pope was apparently very well connected. Kinda reminds me of Bob Dole winning the republican primary.
The new pope was apparently very well connected. Kinda reminds me of Bob Dole winning the republican primary. -Comment by Erik— 4/19/05 @ 12:06 pm
That is unbelievably offensive.
Pope benedict is a very healthy, vital man at 78.
People are living longer than ever.
There is no reason not to expect he will be our spiritual leader for a good long time.
And if he isn’t, how does it affect YOU what kind of “thing” we have to “go through” again?
It would have been amusing to have a Pope Ratzinger. -by Goldy, 04/19/2005, 11:34 AM
Go ahead, get it out of your system: let it roll around and off your tongue:
PappaRaatzy
;-)
Gee. . . I was hoping he would choose the name Richard. That would make blogging a little more interesting :-)
LMAO
ProudAss @3,
That’s offensive? Take a chill pill.
Relativism at work – yea!
I agree Goldy…the only offense taken would be from very defensive quarters.
Considering the shoes he has to fill, this fella sees a likely, safe choice…close associate of JP…would serve as a transitional figure for the next real guy without too much change in the direction the church has taken of late…certainly won’t upset too any of the faithful constituency.
Interesting pomp and cirumstance, but that’s as far as my interest in this goes…
It Does Make A Difference who the Pope is and progressives of all faiths have to be disappointed. Not only is he well known for his ultraconservative theology and women, gays, AIDS releif workers, etc have every right to mourn this selection. Clearly, the world wide shift to fundamentalism continues unabated. My only hope is that he might be like Earl Warren and his Supreme Court tenure or Richard Nixon’s starting a dialog with China and pleasantly surprise us. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for that.
Interesting pomp and cirumstance, but that’s as far as my interest in this goes… Comment by G Davis— 4/19/05 @ 1:12 pm
And yet, here is a blog entry devoted to it and people with no interest in the Church, except perhaps to criticize it, commenting on it.
At least he xpresses humility, which is more than you can say for any Republican. It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall. As JP’s chief enforcer, you can bet Papa Ratzy had the dirt on everybody else.
Is there anything you people respect?
Any person you are unwilling to tear down to your own level?
Anyone that’s off limits to your ugliness?
Your children?
Your Mother?
Are THEY fair game?
That is unbelievably offensive.
Pope benedict is a very healthy, vital man at 78.
People are living longer than ever.
Good. Then he should live a long life for someone of his age. But his chances statistically of being pope for 27 years as Pope John Paul II did and living to 105 is small.
That’s offensive? Take a chill pill.
Yeah. I don’t think there any offense.
Touchy @ 3 Not only is it not offensive, he is correct as well. By any factual or historical standard 78 is old for a new pope. In some ways Ratzinger’s election was predictable, but we will just have to wait and see what kind of a pope he is.
As for the political aspects, progressives have already felt the brunt of negativity from the direction of the Vatican and it is hard to see how they could ramp it up much more without causing a schism.
But if I was a conservative I might be worried that the Vatican will get serious about its opposition to unfettered capitalism, the death pentalty, and military adventures.
He’s the second oldest papal selection in history, but ya know, I don’t think there’s any substance to this media speculation about him being chosen as a “transitional” pope. He may turn out to be such de facto, but I don’t think that’s the Cardinals’ intent. Ratzinger is a Vatican insider and consummate politician who very likely has been running for pope (in whatever fashion one does that) for years, and had all his ducks lined up like a congressman running for speaker with enough votes in his pocket. It’s probably not much deeper than that.
I’m not sure that theology or politics really come into the cardinals’ decision… I think, in the end, papal selection all comes down to who gives the best blow job, doesn’t it?
(There ya go ProudAss… now that’s offensive. You happy now?)
I didn’t think you could actually degrade yourself and those you represent more than you had in the past.
Clearly I was wrong.
I’m wondering though, how proud your daughter, your ex-wife and the Irish Catholic family I married into are at this moment, at your debasement of a holy man and the largest congregation of faithful in the world.
Touchy @ 18 – Did you even bother to stop and notice you were WRONG before throwing out more bile?
No, not for one single moment did I consider it.
The new pope was apparently very well connected. Kinda reminds me of Bob Dole winning the republican primary. -Comment by Erik— 4/19/05 @ 12:06 pm
That is offensive and ignorant.
“Connections” have nothing to do with selection of Pope.
As has been pointed out plenty of times, Catholics believe the Pope is chosen by the Holy Spirit, not by cheap politicing.
And bile? Look at your liberal pals for bile kiddo.
There is not one single institution that your pals won’t mock, insult or demean. Nothing has value to you except your own amusement. ‘Respect’ is a hollow word.
I have never been more ashamed to call you people my fellow citizens or neighbors.
And yes, I’m well aware you don’t give a rats ass – but it says far more about you.
I’m a good catholic but ohmygod goldy that was so funny I fell off my chair! The guy in the next cubicle thinks I’m nuts.
lighten up “liberal pets blah, blah”, it was a joke. people are still allowed to tell jokes in this country.
Head on over to St James with your pals burien – maybe you can find a few Nuns to spit on.
Oh hell, you’re in Burien – go on over to Kennedy or st Philomena’s and desecrate a chapel or two – that would be far more convenient.
So, what have we learned today?
Catholics are pussies. Sanctimonious pussies.
Another TJ…
I’m one of those pussies.
care to say that to my face?
liberal pets, god gave us the ability to laugh. don’t waste god’s gift
and who are you to judge me? i’ve read your comments and they are filled with hate. i take communion with a clear conscience. do you?
Grow up, prr. Yes, I’d be happy to tell that joke to your face.
I’m a good catholic but ohmygod goldy that was so funny I fell off my chair! The guy in the next cubicle thinks I’m nuts.
The funny thing is seeing “Pets” trying to act offended but still not sure how other than being indignant that someone should reveal the pope’s age. Oh well. The pope’s human and 78 years old. There it is again.
Someone should tell him that a great number of catholics are democrats like JFK. If there have been any attacks on the catholics it has been from right wingers:
Not long after Pope Paul VI died in 1978, Bob Jones, chancellor of Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina, wrote an ill-tempered article in his school’s magazine, Faith for the Family (not to be confused with Dr. James Dobson’s magazine, Focus on the Family). The article was republished by the Fundamentalist organization Mission to Catholics, International (run by an ex-Carmelite priest-turned-Fundamentalist minister) as a tract entitled The Church of Rome in Perspective.
No effort is made to be conciliatory, as the first line demonstrates: “Pope Paul VI, archpriest of Satan, a deceiver and an anti-Christ, has, like Judas, gone to his own place.” It goes downhill from there.
http://www.catholic.com/librar.....oppers.asp
Wow, you are funny another TJ…
Have you heard the one about your mother blowing truckers for a quarter?
Okay guys… it was a joke — an offensive joke — but a joke nonetheless, and it was only meant as an exercise in teaching ProudAss the difference between offensive and inoffensive. As such, I think it was quite effective.
But I don’t want this thread to devolve into a religious flame war, so I’m just going to apologize to all offended and ask you to move on. (You can decide for yourself whether I intend my apology to be sincere or not.)
And ProudAss… my in-laws know exactly who I am, and how twisted my sense of humor is… and they still invite me to family dinners.
Have you heard the one about your mother blowing truckers for a quarter?
No. How does it go?
So, what have we learned today?
Catholics are pussies. Sanctimonious pussies. -Comment by Another TJ— 4/19/05 @ 3:38 pm
Right.
Only in the brain of an irreverant ass could standing up for ones faith, the holy men and the traditions that represent it be called sanctimonious.
I am thrilled Joseph Ratzinger has become our Pope.
I am thrilled that his selection is such a clear rebuke of American liberalism and lazy Christmas Catholics like burienbabe.
I am thrilled we have a vital Holy man who by contrast to his strong faith will reflect to the hateful secularists their own disgusting behavior.
I am thrilled to be ME as a faithful, practicing member of my Church than you who bow at the altar of smearing the faithful.
About a year ago another TJ’s Mom wanted to go to south California, and because of lack of means she decided to hitch hike. So, another TJ’s Mom is walking along side the road for about three hours and the sun is blazing down on him and he starts to think “why did I choose to do this, this sucks ass”.
Just after that thought, a truck pulled up in front of her.
another TJ’s Mom ran up to the cab, popped open the door and said. “Hey, how far south you headed?”
The trucker answered, “Just about another five hundred miles, do you want to ride with me?”
Of course another TJ’s Mom was like hell yeah, so he hopped up in the cab. The trucker starts pulling back onto the road and another TJ’s Mom puts her seat belt on.
Then another TJ’s Mom notices this strange little monkey sitting on the seat between her and the driver. She thought it was a little strange for a trucker to have a pet monkey, but didn’t question the trucker. About twenty miles down the road from where she was picked up the trucker finally started a conversation with her.
Trucker says, “Hey, you wanna see something cool?”
Another TJ’s Mom replies, “yeah, sure”.
SMACK!, the trucker wacked the monkey upside the head. The monkey jumped up, crawled on the truckers lap, unzipped his pants and starting sucking him off. The trucker got off and was done so the monkey sat back down between him and another TJ’s Mom.
The trucker turns to her, “Hey ya wanna give that a try?” It’ll only cost a quarter!
Another TJ’s Mom replies, “Yeah, but you won’t have to hit me as hard!”
Oh, the pain! I don’t think I’ll ever recover from the lack of respect shown to my mother. I am emasculated.
Damn the internets!!!
(By the way, aside from the typos, that was modestly funny. I would have been more impressed if a) there had been a better set-up to payoff ratio, and b) if you hadn’t just cut and pasted from a blond joke. YMMV.)
Touchy @ 20 – I am somehow not believing you are actually a Catholic… most Catholics have much more of a sense of humor about the Church. And yes, I am one as well. Oh, well, if you say you are then I suppose you are.
In any case, I hope you are having fun ranting because you are just spouting off ridiculous claims.
‘Connections have nothing to do with being pope?’ Now, think for just a second and use that God given brain of yours. The Church is a human institution and the pope is chosen by a vote of very human cardinals who are just as open to influence and ‘connections’ as the next guy.
Now you can believe that the HS guides the votes of the cardinals, fine. But if it was so cut and dry, why do they vote? Is the HS just playing tricks on those cardinals who vote the ‘wrong’ way? Maybe they should no longer be cardinals then?
It is funny watching you trip all over yourself trying to be offended, but in the spirit of the good Jesuits, I will still approach you with humility and good sense, trusting that you will see the light eventually.
Goldy;
That is it!!! you are no longer invited to dinner, first your attempted murder of me, now this. Mr Goldstein have you no shame? We need to have a Time Magazine Burning? That out get them Repugs out there. They love a good book burning.
You know the only thing funnier than this is the Aristocrats.
The Pope, Cardninal Law, 2 swiss guards and a South American Nun go into a talent agency….
It is mildly amusing that some conservative voices above are so directly supportive of this new pope while others in this country are seeing it as yet another sign of the End Times:
The following elements of prophecy have been fulfilled by the following history. Note the accuracy of each element;
Seven heads
1) The Beast of Revelation 13 and 17 has seven heads.
These seven heads are met in the papal history;
Pius, Leo, Gregory, Benedict, John, Paul, John Paul. No more, no less, exactly seven.
This measures from the time in which the abomination that maketh desolate is set up as stated in Daniel 12: 11, which occurred in 1798, to the present. This matches the defined parameters expected of the prophecy.
9) The seven heads all have the name of blasphemy written upon them. The popes all claim the power to forgive sins, and indeed, require their constituents to confess before their priests in order to absolve their sins. Other interpretations list the ancient kingdoms, though they have each a king or kings, do not contain any such name of blasphemy, nor do the remaining concocted kingdoms such as “apostate protestantism” possess any king or central power, and are completely diverse from the ancient kingdoms, and also do not contain any name or act of blasphemy. Only when these false interpretations identify one head as the papal period(s) is there any evidence of having a name of blasphemy. The diverseness of these concocted interpretations ought to be sufficient to know they are false. This also leaves a 1900 year gap between the last emperor and the antichrist. No such hint is made in the Scripture that there would be a long unidentified period between the seventh and the eighth heads. Indeed it states that the eighth is “of the seven,” and the seventh continues a short space, implying that the eighth will immediately follow.
aaahh that short lifespan thing as part and parcel of zealous right wing christian exegises.
Question of the Day? If you burn a Time Magazine with The White racist(the name that can not be spoken out loud, for fear of the apocolypse on the Front), do you get white smoke?
Goldy@17,
Is that all you liberals ever think about?
WOW…looks like we found something that gets under Libpets skin!
and @ 18…”the largest congregation of faithful in the world.” I would wonder if the Muslims dont have the Catholics beat in numbers.
DanW@38,
Anne Coulter? Are you liberals afraid of her? Or are you all just a bunch of mysogynists?
ProudAss… don’t listen to NPR… you would be SO offended. They keep talking about Ratzinger as a “transitional” pope.
VRWC @39,
Ever since Rush Limbaugh popularized the word, I just can’t stop saying “blow job.”
DamnageD@40 WHATEVER you do… do NOT mention the pope is 78 years old! It is clearly blasphemy in the arcane commandments of the High and Holy Church of Libpets!
VRWC @41 I can’t speak for anyone but myself… but anyone who could be so divorced from reality and just spout off the most outrageous things just to make a buck scares me a little. Really, I think she is the Republican version of Howard Stern.
A person with the blog name of “LIBERAL Pets have been spayed, neutered, defanged & caged – ask defeated Daschle” is pretending to be shacked and appalled by comments on the Pope’s age?
Have you no shame LibPets? IS there no person, or institution you will not degrade and spit upon? At long last have you no decency?
WOW…looks like we found something that gets under Libpets skin!
and @ 18…”the largest congregation of faithful in the world.” I would wonder if the Muslims dont have the Catholics beat in numbers. -Comment by DamnageD— 4/19/05 @ 5:09 pm
Very similar behavior to immature punks rioting and destroying a city after a sporting event – even one they win.
1.7 BILLION baptized Catholics worldwide – do you ever watch the news? How could you have possibly missed that fact anytime in the last 3 weeks? Under Pope John Paul II, Catholic population worldwide increased about 40%.
1 billion Muslims
VCR said the name….ahhhhgh, the seventh seal has been broken. No we don’t hate her…we just wish cancer on lieing hate mongers whose hero is Joseph McCarthy. nothing personal.
I have no issue with the age comments you dimwit – read the posts.
VRWC@41 Regarding the racist, lying, foul mouthed Ann Coulter, it is wise to be a little afraid of the undead.
Ah, LibPets, I read your comments and besides the profound lack of civility for anyone with a different veiw than yours in your posts (i.e. dimwit)I found this (your first comment)
“That is unbelievably offensive.
Pope benedict is a very healthy, vital man at 78.
People are living longer than ever.
There is no reason not to expect he will be our spiritual leader for a good long time.”
Please, LibPets, quit fighting a game of wits, you are clearly unarmed.
“
Back around 1000 AD, the powerful Roman families passed the papcy around like a party favor. One pope, I think he was Benedict also, was less than 20 years old when he was selected. Maybe the Holy Spirit was missing for a few hundred years.
Obviously the papal philosophy is primarily of interest to Catholics, but it affects everyone to a certain extent. I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church’s positions on social justice, and I have no problem with the church’s members maintaining an ass-backward, medieval view of human sexuality, if that’s what they choose. I do have problem with the church (any church) trying to impose its view of purely private behavior on non-members.
Not so fast Pet Shit…again with the skewing of numbers…
Lots of Christians, not as many Catholics.
Man when do you guys ever learn, that making shit up and repeating it, doesn’t make it true.
http://www.answers.com/topic/major-world-religions
Goldy, they only HOPE he will be transitional.
You know Goldy, the words “blow job” don’t offend me – but to use them to mock men of faith is really just beyond the pale. I simply do not understand anyone NOT having a line they will not cross. I don’t.
I believe there are some subjects, some people, some traditions that are so sacrosanct they are never insulted, no matter what personal feelings are about them. I believe that about peoples parents, their spouses, their children and yes, their faith.
You may or may not have a grasp about Catholicism, I really don’t know and frankly it doesn’t matter.
I can tell you the Church here in Seattle is absolutely nothing like the Church back East, where the traditions of the Church are followed much more closely, where there are more Catholics and more of ANY church going denominations. It is well known that Washington has the lowest church going poulation in the country. It is well known as the most secular state in the country. But ignorance or non-belief is such a sad reason to be so ugly. I know very little about Judaism. I know that I admire their faithfulness even when I understand little of their traditions. I would no more insult their faith than I would my own.
I’m not stupid. I’m well aware that this has escalated simply because of my outrage. It is one thing to trade barbs over political differences. But the glee at the resulting hatefulness about faith and people of faith is what is so incredibly revealing.
Pet Shit;
Hey if you guys get Religion out of Politics, then we’ll remove the standard barbs. We are the ones trying to seperate it.
PS
The Catholic Church and this last pope may not be as deserving of the accolades and pussyfooting around religion that you feel they deserve.
I am suprised Goldy being born a Jew and now a pagan, didn’t bring up a little History lesson on Catholisim, I think that shows enormous respect and restraint. Can you say Crusades? Can you say no to Birth control in Aids ridden Africa?
Pet Poop @ 20
“As has been pointed out plenty of times, Catholics believe the Pope is chosen by the Holy Spirit, not by cheap politicing.”
Don’t Republicans believe Bush was chosen by God? Believing something doesn’t make it true. I don’t doubt for an instant that there is such a thing as Vatican politics.
Goldy @ 29
This use to be a fun little blog when all we did was pilfer screen names, use swear words, and hurl sexual insults at each other. I hope religion doesn’t ruin it.
Pet Poop @ 53
Why don’t you call yourself “Caesar” as everybody has their knives out for you?
DanW @ 54
Pope John Paul II apologize for most of the major historical errors of the Catholic Church. Especially for the Inquisition, the Crusades, and other acts of persecution and violence against Jews, Muslims, Protestants and others.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was one of Pope John Paul II’s closest advisors — as well as a gifted academic with a doctoral degree and many years as a professor. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote or co-authored most of these apologies for Pope John Paul II.
So I think Pope Benedict XVI will continue to be tolerant towards other religions and cultures and make up for the historic injustices committed by his church. This tolerance is perfectly consistent with being a vigorous proponent of the religious doctrines and philosophies of his church.
TWO FUN LITTLE NEWS ITEMS
#1 – The newest fad at the Air Force Academy, already famous for sexual harassment and gang rape, is harassment of religious minorities (especially Jews) by evangelical Christian cadets.
#2 – The U.S. government turned over 17 Afghani detainees at Gitmo to the U.S.-installed Afghan government today. Both the U.S. government and the U.S.-installed Afghan government warmed the former detainess not to talk about being mistreated at Gitmo or this might jeopardize release of their buddies still in detention. In other words, we’ve got hostages, and if you tell anybody we beat the shit out of you, we’ll beat the shit out of the hostages. It would make a banana dictator proud!
Danw
So what is your point? In an ideal world of yours, where all evil Republicans agreed with your criticism of the Catholic Church, would that make you a better man? Do you really feel up to the task of determining whether a RELIGION is DESERVING OF ACCOLADES?
Alan @ 55
Pardon me for being dense (long day) but are you Don?
prr @ 32 and Another TJ @ 33
Whouldn’t that have to be Another TJ’s FATHER for that joke to work? I mean, what did the trucker think the monkey would do when Another TJ’s mother smacked it?
The Crusades. 700-900 years ago.
Whatever justification to make you feel better for your abysmal behavior kiddo, go for it.
Africa?
The Catholic Church was preaching that each person should have a maximum of one sexual partner per lifetime. Follow that advice, and your chances of getting any STD are virtually nil. The African AIDS epidemic has not, therefore, been caused or exacerbated by Catholics doing what the Pope tells them to. In fact, if everyone in the world had followed the Pope’s advice, AIDS would be an unknown disease.
Furthermore, let’s let them speak for themselves rather than a secularist such as you propagating more reasons to hate the Church.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti.....b=Specials
CTV: But what about his opposition to condoms? Africa is hard hit by AIDS and condoms are key to preventing the spread of the disease. Don’t Africans resent his being against condom use?
Kanyike: I don’t think I have heard anyone in Africa strongly criticizing his position on the use of condoms, or for that matter on family planning. Africans believe in big families, and I think his stand — though conservative in the West — is for us perceived as being in accordance to our cultural values.
zip @ 58
No, I’m Alan, but you can call me Don if it makes you happy, although your happiness is really mrs. zip’s responsibility.
I heard this week that one of my siblings is a convicted felon. Unfortunately, all of my siblings vote Republican, but fortunately for Gregoire, this one voted in Ohio.
Alan @ 62
“Unfortunately, all of my siblings vote Republican . . . “
Even the convicted felon? This is GREAT! Just the kind of ammunition we have been looking for in Ohio! Re-vote! Re-vote! Re-vote!
This is a great blog if you want to laugh your ass off. Today we have all the lefties vneting their frustration over the new Pope. Sorry losers but he will not condone gay marriage or abortion or euthanasia. I am cracking up watching you queens piss your pants.
Goldy bunghole bandit
Danw cult abused family
Alan, Cybil psycho
DmaagedD, domestic violence
danny cornhole crminal
all these vermin think their 2 cents worth will ever matter.
Hey, Chardonnay, what did I ever to to not get your disrespect?
The Whine is here, what would a debate about religion be without the 12 stepper who won’t even stand behind her religion, don’t forget what JC said to peter about denial. you have denied him more the 3 times here. Go back to step 2.
RP @ 56
appologies need to be sincere.
“The document acknowledges sins only by those acting in the name of the church. It does not acknowledge any sins by the church itself or those who have served as its popes…” CNN.com, 2000-MAR-7 10
“John Paul II wanted to give a complete, global vision, making reference to circumstances of the past, but without focusing on details out of respect for history.” Archbishop Rino Fisichella of Rome
“It is quite a remarkable and admirable thing that a church that considers itself holy, that believes its popes are guided by the hand of God, would acknowledge and ask forgiveness for mistakes of the past. But what about the mistakes of the present? Let’s hope acknowledgment of today’s exclusion and rejection of women won’t have to wait for whoever is pope during the next Jubilee.” Joan Ryan, San Francisco Chronicle. 15
Let’s hope the next appology from this Pope is throwing Cardinal Law out.
Wait this Pope was instrumental in the coverup.
Like small children, saying sorry to get out of trouble is not sincere.
Was this before or after the appology?
In January, 2002, the Vatican published rules for dealing with pedophile cases. These rules were approved by Pope John Paul II, and published by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, through the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. According to the Vatican:
Pedophile cases are subject to “pontifical secrecy.”
Only Catholic priests should handle these cases.
Judges and lawyers should be Catholic priests.
Cases should only be handled in Church tribunals.
Victims must file complaints before age 29. 15
And from the Papal Mouth Itself.
2002-DEC-14: Vatican: Cardinal Ratzinger accuses U.S. media of distortion: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith told journalists: “I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign, as the percentage of these offences among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower… In the United States, there is constant news on this topic, but less than 1% of priests are guilty of acts of this type…The constant presence of these news items does not correspond to the objectivity of the information nor to the statistical objectivity of the facts. Therefore, one comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the Church. It is a logical and well-founded conclusion.”
You can see why some US catholics are concerned.
We need to be more concerned about people after they are born and before they die. Now that is a religion I can live with.
any recomendations?
“Some US Catholics”
Not one thing he said there was false.
as the percentage of these offenses among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower…
but less than 1% of priests are guilty of acts of this type…
Studies HAVE shown that abuse in the Catholic church is prevelant at the same rate as abuse in OTHER faiths. – So that’s true.
The constant presence of these news items does not correspond to the objectivity of the information nor to the statistical objectivity of the facts. Therefore, one comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the Church. It is a logical and well-founded conclusion.”
For a long while there, every time a news source opened their mouth it was about the Church. So that’s true.
The whole abuse scandal is a horrible horrible thing and I will NOT make excuses for it. However it needs to be looked at in perspective and I believe that’s exactly what then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was doing.
Goldy bunghole bandit
Danw cult abused family
Alan, Cybil psycho
DmaagedD, domestic violence
danny cornhole crminal
all these vermin think their 2 cents worth will ever matter.
Comment by chardonnay
Another productive contribution from the wackjobs.
Pet Poop
No Excuses? that is exactly what you were doing making excuses. What other faith has similar pedophile numbers? remember I am still looking for the right faith and I don’t want to fall in with that group…so quote your sources please.
Thank you “fourth estate” for actually doing some good, in reporting this. As you can see above from there plans how to deal with this, it wasn’t coming from them. if they hadn’t, I am sure the Swift Boat Liars could have tied Kerry to it.
More on Ratzinger and his intimidation of American Catholics later….
@46
1.7 BILLION baptized Catholics worldwide (so a baptized Catholic is all that counts? How about the # of active members? I know many baptized Cats who dont follow that church for one reason or another)
– do you ever watch the news? (Whos news? FAUX, CNN? maybe i choose not to watch regurgated grabage on my free time)
How could you have possibly missed that fact anytime in the last 3 weeks?(Simple, I couldn’t really care much about the filler that the above programs dump.)
Under Pope John Paul II, Catholic population worldwide increased about 40% ( interesting…I wonder what the % was for muslim under the current anti american/christian climate).
1 billion Muslims (just a flat billion…are you sure about that? Sure seems rather rounded.)
I do not mean to be dissing the Catholics, I look at them like the US now. divided and wondering if this guy was the best choice.
I am sure George W. is jumping up and down in his SS boots.
This is the guy that helped him get into office, other than Diebold.
http://www.catholic.org/featur.....hp?ID=1123
@ 65
“all these vermin think their 2 cents worth will ever matter.
Comment by chardonnay”
Nice to see you got yours in as well!! The party wouldn’t be the same with out our ever-so-creative input. But I sure wouldn’t want you to get your facts mixed up…so let me hold you hand for a minute, that is if you can put the drinkies down.
“Today we have all the lefties vneting (SIC) their frustration over the new Pope”…I don’t recall venting anything, just a observation and a question
“Sorry losers but he will not condone gay marriage or abortion or euthanasia”…explains why your here in the first place!
“I am cracking up watching you queens piss your pants”…see, I must not drink nearly enough to have the same problem that afflicts you. Just cuse cant hold your water dosent mean the rest of us can’t.
chardonnay–
As always, you are the voice of reason.
LEFTISTS love to get caught up in the “civility ruse”.
They are good at pretending they value your opinion.
Remember, they are committed to the rainbow of diversity and a more tolerant world (meaning YOU need to be tolerant of them..not vice-versa).
Thank God some of us don’t get sucked in to the LEFTIST political correctness…which is a mind-numbing waste of time.
Montgomery-Gentry sang–
You are who you are, that’s all right by me.
But I am who I am..THAT’S ALL I CAN BE.
Frankly, I prefer the DonSux approach to LEFTISTISM as opposed to the panty-wearing girly-man approach. Full contact.
The LEFTIST scam of civility won’t work…period.
Hmm, well I posted an answer to good ol dan about an hour ago answering his question:
What other faith has similar pedophile numbers?
I hope it shows up
Goldy@42,
I will let you in on my secret…..I don’t listen to Rush.
Shhhhhhhhhh.
Donnageddon@49,
How long have you had this woman hating problem? Were you rebuffed at the grade school dance and never got over it?
Wayne@51,
OK hell HAS frozen over. You actually said something I agree with. But I will deny it in public.
VCRW@80–
Don was actually bitch-slapped for his lunch money when he was in 7th grade by a very mean gang of 2nd grade girls (the gang was actually fairly small…well barely a gang…are 2 second-graders considered a gang??)
I do have problem with the church (any church) trying to impose its view of purely private behavior on non-members.
-Comment by Wayne— 4/19/05 @ 5:26 pm
Joining the Church, remaining a member of the Church is VOLUNTARY and following the precepts of the Church is a matter of HONOR.
If you are not a member, if you choose not to join, so be it – no one is forcing you to do or not do a damned thing.
What I think you are really objecting to is the fact that the Church with its rigid definition of right and wrong makes you squirm in discomfort. Oh well. You aren’t required to listen, we aren’t required to worry about your discomfort.
The only thing that makes me squrm in church is those damn wooden pews!
Amen Lib!!
Too many of these Left WingNuts believe in nothing and thus fall for EVERYTHING this world tries to convince them is ok.
Wayne has no moral compass.
He will argue that he does…but what is his centerpoint?
His feelings???
Wayne–feelings change like the wind.
Condemning the church for views on appropriate private conduct is ludicrous.
I don’t care about your stinking feelings.
With your attitude, join the Unitarian Universalists.
They start their prayers with
“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN”
Believe in EVERYTHING=believe in nothing.
Good luck in your futile journey for the truth Wayne.
Trying this AGAIN – if it shows up more than once, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
What other faith has similar pedophile numbers? -Comment by Danw— 4/19/05 @ 9:08 pm
Sex abuse spans spectrum of churches:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/.....-ussc.html
Welcome to a collection of news reports of ministers sexually abusing children:
http://www.reformation.com/
We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and abusive behavior know no ecclesial or other boundaries.” Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, Good Friday Sermon, 2002.
Where does the Baptist buck stop?
Southern Baptists acknowledge abuse among churches:
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/southernbapt.html
70 Child Abuse Accusations Against Churches Each Week—and Most Are Protestants:
http://www.christianitytoday.c...../51.0.html
Protestant clergy sex abuse issue murky:
http://www.boston.com/news/nat.....ky?mode=PF
A clergyman is accused of molesting a local churchgoer, those who learn of it express disbelief, and matters are eventually resolved in private.
The pattern sounds familiar, given more than two years of revelations about scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. Yet even as a panel of Catholic lay leaders prepares to reveal how many priests have been accused of molestation, experts say Protestant denominations also have their share of problem clergy.
“The Myth of the Pedophile Priest”
A Researcher Puts Scandals in Context:
http://zenit.org/english/visua.....?sid=17865
My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination — or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported.
Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals aplenty, as have Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah´s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas — and the list goes on. One Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) diocese is currently on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of massive lawsuits caused by decades of systematic abuse, yet the Anglican church does not demand celibacy of its clergy.
I am constantly amazed at the depth and persitance of the conservative sense of being victimized and their need to obsess and define what ‘liberals’ are… if it was not so destructive it might be funny.
Mr. Cynical @ 85
‘join the Unitarian Universalists.
They start their prayers with
“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN”’
That’s pretty damn funny! It sounds like a joke that Garrison Keillor would make.
Mr. Cynical, could it be? Are you a closet “Prairie Home Companion” fan? Out with the truth, Mr. C.
Pets
Well your first Post, looks like Protestant might be okay for me.(this study actually included Catholics in it’s count) It looks like most of the incidents are not the clergy themselves, but….
Since 1993, on average about 1 percent of the surveyed churches reported abuse allegations annually. That means on average, about 3,500 allegations annually, or nearly 70 per among the predominantly Protestant group, Cobble says.
The CMR findings also reveal:
• Most church child-sexual-abuse cases involve a single victim.
• Law suits or out-of-court settlements were a result in 21 percent of the allegations reported in the 2000 survey.
• Volunteers are more likely than clergy or paid staff to be abusers. Perhaps more startling, children at churches are accused of sexual abuse as often as are clergy and staff. In 1999, for example, 42 percent of alleged child abusers were volunteers – about 25 percent were paid staff members (including clergy) and 25 percent were other children.
Do I need to go look at your other links as well?
Just tell me which one says the Actual Priest, Pastor, Rabbi, etc. The man who is teaching us the goodnees and the Lords ways, are doing this on an equal basis. Not some Janitor, Child, or Pervert volunteering just to be able to do this.
Yup Goldy
I thought of you today, when they said that the new pope carried the same conservative principles as Pope Paul. I knew the libs would be full of steam over this one. But you know he is a gracious man, who listens exceptionally well and then responds in a summed up few sentences! From my perspective and all the cardinals as well! The Right man for the Job right now!
A Great Pick!
I went down to your last link as well….Again, Not the spirtual leader.
One Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) diocese is currently on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of massive lawsuits caused by decades of systematic abuse, yet the Anglican church does not demand celibacy of its clergy.
More than 30 years ago at Cariboo’s St. George Indian Residential School in Lytton, British Columbia, a staff member sexually assaulted four male students. In 1999, a judge approved a settlement of $126,000 to each of the four victims (all dollar figures in this article are U.S. equivalent). The judge ruled that the liability should be shared, with the government taking 40 percent and the church taking 60 percent. The diocese will remain a legal entity while the case is appealed.
All the lawsuits against the Cariboo diocese relate to abuse inflicted by St. George’s dormitory supervisor Derek Clarke, who was convicted six years ago for his sexual abuse in the early 1970s of many boys at the defunct federally funded, church-run school. The British Columbia judge decided that the Anglican Church was 60 percent and the federal government 40 percent responsible for the abuse.
GS @90,
As I wrote, I could really care less who is elected Pope, and there was nothing particularly disrespectful about my original quote. It was ProudAss’s outrage at nothing inparticular that prompted my irreverent comment. It had nothing to do with Ratzinger, and everything to do with ProudAss.
So I’m not really sure why electing a Pope would make you think of me.
Look again dannyboy. Click all the cute little blue links, read all the news blurbs, pay close attention to the dates.
Welcome to a collection of news reports of ministers sexually abusing children:
http://www.reformation.com/
ALL Protestant denominations – 838 Ministers
147 Baptist Ministers
251 “Bible” Church Ministers
140 Anglican/Episcopalian Ministers
38 Lutheran Ministers
46 Methodist Ministers
19 Presbyterian Ministers
197 various Church Ministers
Do you even bother to read the links you post? when you type into google and hunt for stuff you have to make sure it supports your point.
Your Post
Protestant clergy sex abuse issue murky:,/b>
A little further down
A Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) survey found 17 clergy sexual misconduct cases in eight states from 1992 through 1997. Only one received media notice.
The 17 cases involved complaints from 31 victims, all female and only one under 18. That fits the anecdotal pattern from observers like Donna Scott, Protestant specialist with http://www.advocateweb.org, which aids clients of all ages who are sexually exploited by professionals.
By contrast, most reports say Catholics’ underage victims were predominantly male.
Please move on and defend this new Pope, who was in charge of hiding all these events. Why would a spiritual man do this?
Cyn @ 82
Yeah that’s true, I was a little runt in grade school and couldn’t defend myself against those bitches (Condi Rice and Ann Coulter) who stole my lunch money; but I drank buckets of beer and ate lots of steak, and now I’m a mean bastard weighing over 200 lbs, and I don’t have Cynical’s psychological problems because I was never buttfucked by a priest like he was. You should have hung around with those bitches, Cyn. You would’ve learned how to fight instead of growing up to become the whimpering bowl of jello you are.
Pets, thank you for tthe link….But you still haven’t shown me a religion where the abuses are anywhere near to what the percentages are in the Catholic Church. (and most the time little boys)
There have been few such efforts by Protestants. One is http://www.reformation.com, a Web listing of 838 allegations of clergy abuse, the oldest from 1933, in media in English-speaking countries (with 100 more waiting to be posted).
The categories: 251 in evangelical or fundamentalist “Bible churches,” 147 Baptist, 140 Episcopal and Anglican, 46 Methodist, 38 Lutheran, 19 Presbyterian, and 197 others.
Since there are roughly 500,000 U.S. Protestant clergy — 11 times the Catholic total — that international total might indicate Catholicism has the bigger problem.
838 is a weekend in Boston.
Next?
Now defend the Pope who tried to deny it’s existence, minimize, and promote the people in charge to Rome…..Why does failure in your job means a promotion ring a bell?
Alan good to have you on (whatever your name is)
You nailed it on the head how a crooked Business Is As Wiping accountant (living off Guvment rebates) can write off his Church Tithings. Cynical has been giving the money directly to the Priests. So Cynical how do you write off a sexual encouter?
I hope you at least get a reach around.
Pet pile
Your links get better and better.
Cobble’s 2002 survey showed fewer complaints against Protestant clergy than for either unpaid volunteers (who are screened loosely if at all) or for children abusing other children in ministry settings. Church Mutual also sees a disturbing increase in child-on-child abuse.
Unlike Cobble, Jeff Hanna, risk management director at GuideOne Insurance, another major company covering Protestants, says the 100 or so annual molesting claims (from roughly .2 percent of its clients) involve mostly clergy or paid staffers. Experts also disagree on whether larger or independent congregations have more problems.
Whatever the actual numbers, Gary Schoener of the Walk-In Counseling Center in Minneapolis, a consultant on hundreds of clergy misconduct cases, thinks Catholic predators have found it easier than Protestants to prey upon youngsters.
Catholic priests have a more elevated status, he says. “The power differential, the absolute connection between priests and God, is like nothing you see among Protestants.”
Pet Poop @ 94
OK, so you’ve proved Catholics and Protestants molest parishioners. Is this an argument for being an atheist? What are your numbers on atheists getting molested by priests and ministers? I’ll bet it’s pretty low.
Frankly I think God has rigged the game so nobody can win. If you’re an atheist, you don’t get buttfucked but you go to Hell for being an atheist. If you’re a Catholic, you get buttfucked and go to Hell anyway for voting for Kerry. If you’re a Protestant, you go to Hell for being a mean drunk and even though you voted for Kerry you get buttfucked by Bush anyway.
A Republican knows he’s in Hell when Tom DeLay greets him at the door. A Democrat knows he’s in Hell when the sign above the door says “Ohio.”
Danw @ 97
No, you misunderstand, he’s paying the priests for sex.
Donsux
and he gets to write it off as church tithings. I guess Mrs Cynical just ain’t doing it for him anymore. The Money machine
1 for Rossi, 1 for Vance, 1 for Cynical, and 97 for the priests, and none for the employee safety training.
CPA = Creapy Partisan Asshole.
My impression* was that the real problem that exacerbated the clergy abuse scandal was the fact that Cardinal Law and other Catholic church officials shuffled known pedophile priests around without notifying their parishes, and protected them from criminal charges. I think the Catholic Church in this country has been trying to address that issue; it’s too bad if the Vatican has mostly grumbled about the amount of U.S. media coverage.
I read Time’s story about the Coulter-beast. It says she’s terrified of being assassinated. I can’t think of anyone who deserves it more. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting anyone off her, although I’d have no sympathy for her if someone did. Ann is nothing but a political smut peddler. She thinks it’s funny — yeah, in the same way that walking up to some burly guy and joking that you’re fucking his wife is funny. It’s a good thing for Coulter that she’s making enough money to live in security buildings and gated communities for the rest of her life, because she’ll have to. And she needs to make it while she can because eventually she’ll fade like an old xerox copy in the sun. Like Chardonnay, she’s without. She’s in her forties now and can’t even get a date. Who the hell wants to go out with a chick you can’t walk on the same side of the street with without risking getting shot. Her idea of sex is writing in her underwear. I’ll bet she has her fingers in her undies playing with herself when she writes her books and columns. Every time she goes to a campus there’s a guy selling Vaseline from the back of a semi in the parking lot. Like I said, she’s over 40, and a cardboard box has more natural lubrication than she does. Any Young Republicans who salivate over a prune like her must be nuts or not getting any on campus. I think it’s really funny that she never reads her official web site, because all the idiots sending adoring e-mails are wasting their time. If this is where we get our rocket scientists no wonder our space shuttles blow up. Those pics of her in a miniskirt are a real gas. She has the legs of a horse. If somebody didn’t tell you those doorknobs are her knees you’d try to turn them. I’d like to see her give a speech in a union hall sometime. Now THAT would be really, really funny!
Danw @ 101
He still hasn’t explained how his washing machine works. It looks simple but isn’t. It has two rollers and a crank. He feeds $100 bills into the rollers and turns the crank. When the $100 bills come out the other side, they may look the same, but they’re not the same. They went in as L & I taxes for injured workers but came out as Rossi slush funds. Like Snohomish County’s touch-screen voting machines, something’s going on inside the machine. When you vote in Snohomish County, your vote is a Gregoire vote when it goes in, but it comes out as a Rossi vote. I want to see what’s inside the machine. I just like to know how things work. I’m real curious about spring, gears, levers, and shit like that.
Yo, Donsux, Ann Coulter is loony, granted, but the gratutitous ad hominem insults about her looks and nonchalant hope for her assassination are not helping anything. Not only is it in very bad taste (and I’m sure the conservatives here will grill you for it), but why do you want to divert our attention from her lunacy? Also, could you please stop with the washing machine bit? It’s getting tired. Be funnier.
LIBERAL Pets have been spayed, neutered, defanged & caged @ 46, you could probably take that a few steps farther. 1.7 billion baptized catholics (28% attend church ‘frequently’), 1 billion muslims (85% go to their mosques religiously)
be careful rancidvinegar @ 65, our resident theocon troll, the new pope might go back to the scriptures and take away your saturdays…. as that is the real 7th day…..lmao@U
I consider myself to be agnostic. That being said, I have the utmost respect for people who choose to live their life serving or praising the Lord. I see nothing wrong with it. Humans need a moral compass, without it they will get lost.
Now for the arguments of keeping God out of politics, that is offensive.
What you on the far left wing don’t seem to understand is that the biggest fear of people in the middle, like myself, is the absolute terror of living in a society without faith as an anchor. I often hear the complaint from the left, “Don’t force your morality on the rest of us.”
What you need to understand is that we don’t want your morality forced on our families.
In other words, I don’t want my child to be able to get an abortion without my being notified. I don’t want my children to be forced to learn about sex in the fourth grade, I don’t want school handing out birth control etc etc. When I was growing up, abortion was essentially used as a method of Birth Control; in fact, several girls had anywhere from 1-5 abortions before graduating high school. If my child wants to pray in school, I want her to be able to pray. Why are Christian children not allowed to pray for school, yet when a Muslim child is not allowed to pray in school the ACLU is all over it “protecting” her civil liberties? I want to say One Nation Under God, in the pledge of allegiance, if you don’t want to, by all means don’t’ say it, but why take it away from the rest of us?
The latest outrage is over pharmacists who choose not to dispense birth control as it is against their personal beliefs. Why shouldn’t the business owners have the right to sell or not to sell products? There are other ways to fill prescriptions of birth control pills and there are other places to fill them. If you force someone to sell an item that is against his or her deep beliefs, then aren’t you forcing your morality on that person?
If you’ve ever been to DC and had the opportunity to read some of the founding fathers speeches and writings you would realize that God was deeply considered and looked to for guidance during this nations birth.
Oh and by the way, not once has GW or Tom Delay demanded or passed a law forcing one of you to go to church, or to believe in God.
I don’t want my child to be able to get an abortion without my being notified. I don’t want my children to be forced to learn about sex in the fourth grade, I don’t want school handing out birth control etc etc. When I was growing up, abortion was essentially used as a method of Birth Control; in fact, several girls had anywhere from 1-5 abortions before graduating high school.
Do you think your are being a little Naive here?
Do you not think that kids are going to wonder about and possibly experiment with Sex. you speak of back in your day of girls with multiple abortions and I am sure there were less severe cases of expermitation with more kids). I am pretty sure that dates back before what would be called the Sexification of America, through Advertising and TV and Movies. These things happened before loose policies in the media, and they will continue to happen long after. So what’s your choice? would you rather your child not be aware of the dangers and have the abilty to reduce the risks? Or would you rather be the one to take her down for an abortion, that will effect her the rest of her life.(with or without your knowledge)
We Libs despise abortion as well, but feel education and prosperity does a lot more to reduce the occurence than putting blinders on and praying that it doesn’t happen.
BF @ 108, if you do your job as a parent and monitor your children none of what you fear will likely happen.
No school in the world can force your kid to do anything you don’t want them to do…there is always an avenue for a parent to appeal to the school for a waiver…if there isn’t in your school change schools.
Teach your children to honor your religion with silent prayer so Johnny in the seat next to them is able to do the same in his family’s way.
Teach your children your sexual morals well and they will follow them…abortion won’t enter into the picture.
Take your TV out of the house or monitor what they watch.
What you’re demanding is that everyone cede to what you think is right and moral…control is in your hands and, if you put the time in to use it, the government won’t have any effect on your children’s sex/moral life.
In short, quit passing the buck to the establishment and do your job as their parent.
I should be able to decide when and how my children are introduced to sex. Why should you be able to decide when my children are given sex ed? I absolutely want my child to be aware of the dangers, I just want to be the one to discuss it with them. Not some person who does not give a dam about them.
I have 1 boy and two girls, respectively eight, six and just turned five years old. Why should you decide that I should not be notified if my child wants an abortion? A child under eighteen cannot get a tattoo without permission and the school nurse cannot hand out an aspirin without permission, yet a doctor could perform a potentially life threatening procedure on my child without my permission.
How dare you take me out of that equation! I think if my child ever had to have an abortion, she would want to have someone beside her who loves and cares for her.
Maybe you are being naive, in believing that you have the right to impose your morality on me and my family. I am my childrens mother, my husband and I are responsible for their upbringing not you, not the school, not the government.
Coulter and Malkin are media whores who would say whatever is necessary to get them in the limelight…not worthy of conversation really.
If it was popular, both would extoll the liberal’s virtues…
All this yammering about which religion is bigger is nonsense…religions gain numbers by ministring/providing to/for the poor and needy thereby gaining those poor folks support.
Ask the Mormans about Hawaii… ;0
And if the only justifiation of sexual abuse is that everybody’s doing it, good grief… ;(
G Davis,
Excuse me, I am not passing the buck, if you read what I said you would know that I do not want the establishment deciding morality for my child.
I also do not “fear” any of the items mentioned, I am doing my job. It’s the other parents that are not doing their jobs, that ruin it for the rest of us. It’s the parents that are not doing their jobs that have resulted in legislation teaching children sex ed in the 4th grade and it’s because of those parents that children can get abortions on demand without parental consent.
BF @ 108
Before we get into your arguments, I think a fact-check is in order.
First, let’s consider your comment about “far left wing.” Most of us here are mainstream Democrats who don’t consider ourselves “far” anything. We see ourselves as the center. After reading your entire post, you on the other hand, appear to me to be a cookie-cutter right-winger, and as such you do not reprsent what we consider to be this country’s political middle. If anyone is off-center, you are.
Court decisions striking down parental notification laws are a fact. Courts say minors have a privacy right protected by the constitution that entitles them to keep their abortions secret from their parents. I appreciate the disagreement with this. It’s a complicated issue. Children aren’t the chattel property of their parents. If you’re under 18, you don’t have the full rights of adults, but you have some legal rights. The question is where to draw the line, and the answer isn’t a simple one. On any given specific issue, there are arguments both ways. Legislative enactments impose a one-size-fits-all rule on everyone, but not all parents react to their child’s abortion responsibly, and some of these kids need protection from their parents. Generally speaking, kids who get abortions are troubled, vulnerable, at risk kids. The practical question is how to help these kids. Society’s response should be based on what works best for the kids, not what satisfies the political ideology of some adults who wish to impose their religious or personal values on everyone else.
Fourth-grade sex education? I’m skeptical. Can you provide evidence of a school that puts 9-year-olds in sex ed classes? This doesn’t ring true.
Birth control: I don’t have kids in school anymore, but it wouldn’t surprise me if high schoolers can get condoms or whatever by asking the school nurse for it. The issue here is whether schools should stand aside while kids get STPs and get pregnant, or try to prevent the consequences of unprotected sex. Teaching them abstinence is fine, but unrealistic; telling teens to ignore their sexual urges is like trying to repeal the law of gravity or paddle a canoe up a waterfall. The people who object to schools promoting safe sex strike me as putting their political agenda ahead of the health and well-being of the kids, which I don’t agree with.
You seem to know a lot about the private medical information of the girls in your high school. How did you get into their files? Frankly I think you’re making up your statistics. Five abortions in four years would put a lot of wear and tear on the strongest of women. Why don’t you set aside the myth-making and just come right out and say you’re opposed to abortion as a birth control method, regardless of whether it’s one or five. The same argument above applies here. To you ideology is most important; to us the welfare of the kids is foremost. Forcing a minor to have her child has all sorts of negative consequences for the minor, the child, and society. Most of these girls will be forced to drop out of school, limiting her participating in the economy later on. Many of these young mothers will be inadequate parents, and nearly all will be single parents, putting the children at risk of neglect or abuse. Many of these children will grow up in poverty, and later on, their needs and behaviors will impose a significant drain on public resources. Out-of-wedlock births among teens not ready for parenthood is already a significant problem, why would anyone want to add to it?
You assert the ACLU opposes Christian prayer in schools but supports Muslim prayer in schools. This is false. The ACLU’s position is the Constitution forbids public schools from promoting religion — any religion — and they would find public schools favoring one religion over another even more objectionable.
The pharmacist issue is more philosophically difficult, because we all recognize that people are entitled to their personal religious and moral beliefs. The question is where to draw the line. When you run a business open to the general public, you can’t do anything you want. Society has a right to regulate your business practices for the public good. You can’t, for example, refuse service because of their race. A pharmacist refusing to fill birth control prescriptions because of his personal beliefs is fuzzier, and I probably would side with the pharmacist on that one if there’s another pharmacy down the street that will provide the prescription, but if he’s the only pharmacist for miles around or if all pharmacists did the same thing then I think there’s an issue of the pharmacists not serving the general community in the way that should be expected of professional license holders. So, it depends on the circumstances.
Phrases like “under God” and “in God we trust” have been part of our culture for a long time, and their use in the Pledge of Allegiance, on our money, in benedictions at the opening of legislative sesssions, and so on, do not promote a particular religion. Viewed as cultural icons, they are not a threat to anyone’s religious freedom, in my view. What we need to guard against is establishment of a state religion, and to a lesser degree state promotion of religion in general without favoring a particular religion. I think there has been to some degree an overreaction to these culturally iconic practices among some (certainly not all) liberals, and a bit more tolerance won’t harm anyone. But I also think there is a good deal of trepidation among those of us who place high value on our freedoms about the highly vocal religious fundamentalists on the far right who clearly want to use government to promote THEIR religion and whose bigotry and outright hatred of other religions (in some individual cases) provokes our deep concern. We want to worship God in OUR way (or choose not to believe God) and we do feel very strongly that the Constitution gives us that right, and that those with a religious agenda do not have the right to take over public schools, courthouses, or use laws to promote their religion to the exclusion of others.
David @ 105
Sorry, David, but Coulter is a hater and deserves whatever anyone says about her. You can’t go around in society fomenting hate, whether for money or some other reason, and expect to be accorded personal respect. She is in the same category of haters as KKK racists, neo-Nazis, and anti-Semites; and deserves no more respect than they do.
Alan,
Gee, I guess we can now consider Bush Haters in the same light as Ann Coulter, Neo-Natzis, Anti-Semites and by all means let’s give the Bush Haters the same respect as the afore mentioned groups.
David, 105
You misquoted me. I specifically disavowed any “hope” for Coulter’s assassination. I don’t wish that on anyone — well, I would have wished it on Hitler, but I wasn’t alive then. It was Coulter herself who raised the issue in her Time interview:
“Coulter is terrified her address will become public, and she sometimes hides behind a surgical mask when she flies. Coulter told me her most persistent stalker ‘is the one who will kill me someday.'”
Sure my ad hominem attacks on Coulter are crude and in bad taste, but Coulter herself is a crude person who has used frank sexual language in her writings, and has used sexual innuendo to attack people whose politics she dislikes. Again from the Time article:
“Coulter said [Ambassador Pamela] Harriman was one of those women who ‘used men to work their way up.'”
And “bad taste” is too mild a term to describe her bigotry against Muslims and others, and the hatred she spews against those she disagrees with politically. In her writings and public speeches, she takes care to rant in generalities and avoid mentioned names; as a lawyer, she knows very well that he words would be legally actionable if she directed them against a a specific person. I do not think my choice of language was too severe considering she’s a person whose utterances frequently are libelous. Yes, my parody of her is raw. But she is raw. I have said before on this blog that I believe liberals have been doormats for too long; that what they dish out, we should dish back; that we should assume no obligation to be more polite or genteel than they are. I have considered the argument that we should not debase ourselves to their level; and I have concluded that the best way to deal with sewer rats is to go into the sewer and fight like a rat.
If they use the same language against Bush that Coulter uses against liberals, I would say yes.
BTW I would like to add that I don’t “hate” Bush, I just disagree with his policies, and find his bellicose attitude toward critics and political opponents quite disturbing.
Hey ProudAss…
You were so quick to take offense at comments that Ratzinger would be a transitional pope… well you better forward your complaints to the AP, a couple of cardinals, Ratzinger’s brother… and the Pope himself: Pope predicted a short reign to cardinals
How offensive!
Do you actually even READ your own blog?
I was offended by the nonsense of “connections” and “politics” and your charming he earned it with a blow job comment.
YOU SAID…..
First, let’s consider your comment about “far left wing.” Most of us here are mainstream Democrats who don’t consider ourselves “far” anything. ….. you on the other hand, appear to me to be a cookie-cutter right-winger, and as such you do not reprsent what we consider to be this country’s political middle. If anyone is off-center, you are.
MY REPLY: I am pro-choice, I enjoy Howard Stern and South Park, I’ve been to strip clubs with my husband and had a good time. I do not go to church, however, I am not offended by people who do go to church. I don’t mind paying taxes, as long as they are used responsibly. I believe I am pretty middle of the road.
Regarding your comments in regard to children being allowed to get abortions without parental awareness. Abortion is a surgical procedure, my children cannot get a tattoo without my permission, why should they be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my approval. Granted, there should be some avenues for children of abusive parents, but as a mom, I would want my child to have someone who loves her, by her side.
YOU SAID: Fourth-grade sex education? I’m skeptical. Can you provide evidence of a school that puts 9-year-olds in sex ed classes? This doesn’t ring true.
Sure, I’ll try and locate the school newsletter my son brought home. I may be off by a year and it may be 5th grade. Still, why can’t I as a parent, be responsible for sharing this information with my children?
Re: Birth control
MY RESPONSE: Again, parents should be held responsible for issues such as birth control, abstinance, sex, etc. That is our responsibility.
YOU SAID: “You seem to know a lot about the private medical information of the girls in your high school. How did you get into their files? Frankly I think you’re making up your statistics. Five abortions in four years would put a lot of wear and tear on the strongest of women.”
MY REPLY: I do know a lot about it. I gave rides to the abortion clinics for a number of my friends and girls at our highschool. Because they were able to get abortions so easily, they were not concerned about birth control. By the way, these are girls from all walks of life, all socio-economic levels, stoners, jocks, all of them. I myself had two abortions one during high school and one after high school. It was easy, I didn’t have to tell my mom, I just went to the clinic and got it taken care of. In fact, I was in California for both of them and the state paid for them.
I wish it wouldn’t have been so easy, because then I could have had my mom by my side, I could have really used her there. Just as I would want to be there for my daughters.
Sorry post 123 was a response to Alan @ 115.
BF 111
Well I am glad that you have that comfortable ability to deal with your children and explaining the hazards of sex, but many people can barely discuss it with their spouses. So if you don’t want basic Biology, abstinence and birth control taught to your children, pull them out of the class, I have heard of that happening before.
For some people this is an actual benefit, that may open up a dialogue at home. that many would feel uncomfortable to broach. I would like to believe that every parent is as good as you, but sorry their is no License required.
It is generally not your child who is going to get in trouble, but the latch key kid, or single parent child, why not educate versus hide information. This reminds me of denial of science.
PS there is always religous schools that will really give them a skewed view if you like.
Danw –
If a parent does not want their children to take the class, they are first required to take the class. Then and only then are they able to have their child excused from the class.
Why should only the parents who do not want their child to be taught sex ed be required to sit through the class, when it seems to me that the parents of the latch key kid, or the single mom/or/dad or the parent that is not willing to take on sex ed with their kids should also be required to sit through the class.
BF, thanks for adding your perspective.
To clarify and dispel this old myth: Schools can’t hold organized prayer time, but as long as they’re not disrupting class, children of all faiths can pray—on their own or with their friends—to their hearts’ content.
Absolutely. If your child’s school has a fourth-grade(!) sex education class, and you don’t approve, I’m sure you can request that your child be excused from that class.
I would hope that your child would want someone who loves her by her side as well. But the courts have said that she has some choice in the matter. You can’t withhold permission and force her to have a baby.
BF et al:
If you keep all this civil discourse up, I might get the idea that people who disagree on this board can engage in decent conversation!
Thanks for the comments, it is good reading.
David at 127
David,
I would never force my child to have a baby, nor would I ever force my child to have an abortion. It would be her choice. Once again, my only problem with this is that a child under 18 years of age should not be allowed to have a surgical procedure without parental permission. They can’t get a tattoo, they can’t get aspirin from the school nurse, why can they get a potentially life threatening surgery?
Re sex ed 4th grade….see post 126. :)
Donsux @ 118:
I stand by what I wrote. Your words were:
To me that sounds like “nonchalant hope for her assassination,” as I put it. Certainly you aren’t soliciting or encouraging murder, but your attitude that she’s brought it on herself and she might as well get killed seems clear. If I’ve gotten the wrong impression, please correct me.
Well, I don’t think you should stoop to the level of hurling unrelated personal insults. Dish it out as good as you get it, but stay on point (her brain is the problem, not her looks.)
BF @ 123
From how you describe yourself in this post, I would put you in the middle and give you credit for thinking for yourself, but that’s not how you came across in your original post, which resembles a catalog of right-wing talking points.
Regarding minors getting abortions without parental knowledge, I did note the issue is debatable, and I do think a judicial procedure or some other way to deal with cases where kids have valid reasons for keeping their parents out of the loop changes the debate, in the same way that responding to any objection or problem with a solution moves the issue to a different plane. It’s called negotiation and compromise, something the right wing doesn’t do very much of these days.
I was exposed to sex education in ninth grade (or thereabouts) and 5th grade does seem a bit young to be teaching the mechanical details of birds and bees, if that’s what they’re doing. As a parent, you have the right to call the school and ask questions. That’s what I would do if my child brought home age-inappropriate material. Maybe there’s a good reason for it, or maybe the school’s policies should be re-examined, but you should ask questions before making up your mind about it.
I do realize that Medicaid funding for abortions is available. You mentioned personally getting two abortions, and didn’t say that you knew of any specific individual who got five. I don’t think the issue is two versus five; I think the first abortion is enough to raise the issue.
BF;
I am not sure that I have heard that the Parent must take the class first, before they can excuse their child. Can you quote me a source on that? If it is true, then I would have some questions about the public school districts policies.
I think you can get your child excused from anything you feel offensive other than requirements to graduate.
BF
I found something similar, not quite what you said me thinks.
Except for the state requirement to teach HIV/AIDS prevention once a year to grades five through 12, Washington schools aren’t required to teach sex education. If they do, the information doesn’t have to be medically accurate. Parents can opt their children out of the AIDS curriculum if they review the materials and then object in writing.
I have to write a note to get my kid excused from any class.
Danw –
It was in the newsletter my son brought home from school. It is a requirement. We would have to attend the class, before we could have our children excused from the class.
Alan –
I knew of at least one person in high school that had 5 abortions.
By the way, I went back and re-read my first post and I stand by it. I do fear the radical left wing, much more than I fear the far right wing. Whether I believe in God or not, I want my children to live in a world where it is OK if they choose to believe in God and that if they make that choice they will not be ridiculed. I can’t see anything wrong with people living their lives according to some moral guidelines. The people I know who attend church regularly are some of the most giving, caring people I know. They are always there for any of their neighbors, some of them volunteer to work at the prisons, other’s work in soup lines once a week. They seem really happy and at peace with themselves. This earth would seem a sad and lonely place if not for people that believed in a greater power, and that eacho of our lives is valuable.
BF:
I have never seen anyone around here ridicule someone else for believing in God. The idea that liberals hate God and want to eliminate religion is a right wing fairy tale meant to scare little kids. Why would you believe it? Liberals and moderates are religious, God-fearing individuals who want to ensure private religious freedom for everyone.
Private religious freedom, not public religious entanglements.
David
It is not a right wing fairy tale, listen to AM 1090 in the AM, they constantly “bash” religious people as being idiots.
In addition to radio, there is a person (on the left) that I work with who calls Christians lots of things, none of which are pleasant, and many of which I would not feel comfortable repeating. In all other ways I think he is a highly intelligent and thoughtful person.
I don’t believe that anyone could talk about Black or Jewish people the way he speaks about Christians and get
away with it.
So call it a fairy tale, if that makes you feel better, but there are people on the left that talk about Christians with complete disdain and hate. I’ve heard them.
bf, I understand what you are saying. I have had workmates in the past that sound the same as yours. But if you stop and question the guy, I believe you will find out that he is talking about the extremests in religion. The everyday ‘christian’ does not cause the incredible amount of problems that the extremest theocons do. They just get on with their lives and keep their beliefs close. They way all religious people should live. I can appreciate anyone’s beliefs. My grandmother was a devout Christian Scientist…and because of her beliefs, I got to watch her fade away at a fairly young age because she would not seek a doctors help or medications. We watched her whither away over 6 months and then one day she told me, ‘get your daddy, I will go to the hospital now’, she never made it, passed on 20 minutes later. What a waste of a beautiful life, all in the name of religion.
BF: I don’t listen to 1090, or any AM radio for that matter (unless I’m driving and the Mariners are on…). And I’ve never met anyone like the anti-Christian person you work with, although I have met people who are disillusioned about the Church or organized religion in general.
On the other hand, I have met several otherwise nice conservative people who talk about non-Christians with the sort of disdain you mention (they mostly reserve the hate for atheists).
I admit there are antireligious people on the far left, just like there are theocratic believers on the far right. Those people’s ideas aren’t mainstream and don’t hold sway in either party (although I have my worries about theocrats gaining power on the right).
The “fairy tale” is the notion that the left generally hates God and religious people or wants to abolish religion. Most liberals, progressives and moderates are religious (and mostly Christian, too), just like the rest of the country.
I can understand why you would fear the radical left wing more than the radical right wing on the subject of religion. Fine. I have a slightly different perspective—I’m Jewish, and when people talk about putting the Christian God into government and schools, it isn’t doing me any favors. I’d rather have my religious freedom, and let some bozo make fun of my faith if they want to.
jpgee and David,
Thank you.
Your Welcome, bf. One of the first real ‘conversations’ I have seen on this blog for a long long time. Thank You!
BF and others in several posts above
Radio 1090 isn’t criticizing their religion, it only takes issue with their politics and using religion to advance a political agenda. That’s a big difference.
If you run into a liberal who is not a fan of Christianity, chances are pretty good that what he’s really against is the misuse of Christianity through the ages to justify or excuse wars, atrocities, and evil deeds, not the religion itself or its ideals of love, peace, tolerance, and forgiveness.
Some people choose not to believe in God, and that’s their privilege (and, in my opinion, their loss). I don’t know what the distribution of nonbelievers is across the political spectrum, but I assume they come in all political persuasions. Even if the Democrats attract more nonbelievers than other parties (I don’t know if this is true), so what? Religion doesn’t define the Democratic Party. We have Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and many others. What draws us together is not a religious belief but similar political views, one of which is tolerance for people of different religions, ethnic groups, cultural backgrounds, and so on.
The Democratic Party does not away atheists, but atheism doesn’t define the party. The Democratic Party doesn’t turn away evangelicals, either, and contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, not all of the evangelicals are in the Republican Party. We have some in our party, too. We also have some pro-lifers, whose views on that issue do not represent the majority opinion in our party, but whose right to their opinion we respect. We welcome gays, people with disabilities, and people who don’t speak English. We do turn away communists, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other haters because their ideas and goals are in profound opposition to our values, principles, and ideals.
bf @ 37
Yes, but they’re bashing them for being idiots, not for being religious.
Golly Darn. A Catholic Pope who advocates Catholic values as espoused and expressed for 2,100 years. What a surprise!!
If King County had run the election, Would the reults be any different?
Opinion Journal, Best of the Web Today
BY JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/
“ Yesterday’s* item about liberals’ unhappiness with Benedict XVI brought an interesting observation from reader Roger Gore: “
“ Regarding Andrew Sullivan,* et al., I find all this politicking and commentary that surrounds the new pope (and the process of election, which itself seems far too founded in the ways of the world) a bit curious. “
“ I am not Catholic, but it seems to me that if the pope is really God’s mouthpiece on the earth–as the Catholic Church claims he is–then why the dissent? Either the man speaks for God, or he does not. If he does, the dissent is at best foolish, for who in his right mind would think to argue with Almighty God over his own doctrine? Can God really be lobbied, swayed, and convinced over same-sex marriage, condoms, celibacy, etc.? If the pope does not speak for God, then the Catholic Church is void of its stated “divine authority,” and so why have a pope to begin with? “
“ Indeed. If you’re not Catholic, and especially if you’re an atheist or agnostic, then it makes sense to regard the church as just another worldly institution. After all, you don’t believe in papal infallibility or the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. But if you do believe in these ideas, what could it mean that you oppose the new pope and his adherence to tradition, other than that you’re disappointed in or angry at God for not changing his mind? “
*See the article for relevant links.
This is an interesting thread indeed.
I could have sworn it was populated by religious indignation and off color humor! ;0
BF, as you worked your way through this thread’s conversation, did you not find that most of us here are far closer to the middle than what you originally thought? I’m more conservative than most here but even I’m not that far off straddling the center line.
I think you’ll find the vast majority of Americans are just folks like you and I and should not be judged by what a few boneheads that you’ve run into do…we have disagreements about detail, to be sure, but overall most of us believe if you let me live my life as I see fit then I will do the same for you.
That notion is the fiber of this nation and what so any of us see slipping away.
When I posted above to quit passing the buck, your post had triggered the libertarian reaction I get when I hear parents complaining about television/movie content, sexual promiscuity in their children.
You responded you did not want the establishment deciding morality for your child…in my ever so humble opinion, children behave as they are allowed to and it is the parents job to teach/go to the mat for their morality in spite of whatever society is dishing out. There are children that steal, kill, etc. which some say society taught them through video games, violent movies, etc. Do you think that’s valid?
I’m glad y’all came around to good conversation here and I don’t mean to upset that apple cart but I simply don’t buy that society is in charge of our hildren…unless, of course, we allow society to be in charge of them.
And to your sex education class, there is no way your school can force any one of your family members to attend any class. It will take some of your time but go to the school tell them your objections and get a waiver…if that doesn’t work go to the district office…if that doesn’t work go to the school board.
Parenting is a big job and takes a ton of time and energy…the good product on the other end is well worth it though, don’t you think?
“ I am not Catholic, but it seems to me that if the pope is really God’s mouthpiece on the earth–as the Catholic Church claims he is–then why the dissent? Either the man speaks for God, or he does not. If he does, the dissent is at best foolish, for who in his right mind would think to argue with Almighty God over his own doctrine? Can God really be lobbied, swayed, and convinced over same-sex marriage, condoms, celibacy, etc.? If the pope does not speak for God, then the Catholic Church is void of its stated “divine authority,” and so why have a pope to begin with? “
This is pretty good you with the very long liberal name.
G Davis @ 148
“dissent is at best foolish, for who in his right mind would think to argue with Almighty God over his own doctrine? Can God really be lobbied, swayed, and convinced over same-sex marriage, condoms, celibacy, etc.?”
It took him/her awhile, but God finally saw the light about evolution.
Hey, if the Pope is selected by the Holy Spirit acting throught humans, why does it take three revotes to get his/her message through? This kind of behavior sets a bad example for Republicans.
I know, I know . . . I’m going to hell for asking.
http://www.catholic.net/cultur.....annel_id=7
It updates daily – so, for those too lazy to go back to the 21st:
http://www.catholic.net/cultur.....le_id=2935
Cardinal Ratzinger reminded the clergy in 2001 that catholics who reported child-raping priests to the civil authorities could be excommunticated. Do only liberals find this depraved.