Catholic Church Threatens To End Social Service Programs In Washington DC If It's Not Allowed To Discriminate Against Gay People

A sound and decent moral decision.

Right, because the poor, sick, needy, hungry, indigent, and orphans are really the ones at fault here and deserve to be punished. Since when is it "moral" to hurt people completely unrelated to an issue? If you cut me off in traffic and I go home and kick my dog to punish you, is that also moral?

Let them!

The only workable policy to deal with a bully is to stand up to them.

What the Catholic church is saying is that sinners were good enough for Jesus, but they aren't good enough for the catholic church (they are superior to Jesus, you see).

Jesus ministered to the downtrodden AND the sinners, but the church is much too good to do so.

Let me see...seperation of church and state or no?

Under Law the Church cannot lobby the government. So my response would be...fine...let's see what your taxes will look like.

KillFOOL...Perfect name!!!!!!

Yes, and being bigoted has ITS consequences. The church is free to snuggle up to child molesters while discriminating against law abiding taxpaying citizens, but they'll have to live with the consequences, which will probably include yet another large drop in membership.

1.5 The church volunteers it's services.

Ha. Right. No, actually, they get PAID to do it.

If the left-wing DC government wants to impose the acceptance of homosexuality by granting special legal protections for those who practice homosexuality, the Catholic Church is well within it's prerogatives to protect itself from legal conflict.

Oh my. You've just got it all kinds of twisted up there, don't you? Same-sex marriage isn't "special legal protections" and if you can find a reliable definition for "practice homosexuality" I'd like to hear it.

Left-wing intolerance of traditional values has it's consequences. I wish more organizations would stand up to left-wing social engineers.

I don't even know what a left-wing social engineer is, but if the Catholic church is for "traditional values" then I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like them.

Kfool - the English lesson is free:

the word will almost always be ITS not IT'S

the only time to use IT'S is when IT IS could be used intead.

These left-wing statists are already calling for the state to impose itself on the church with financial bullying using their tax status.

Right, if you're a tax exempt entity and you insert yourself into politics and lawmaking, then you get threatened with losing your tax exempt status. Who is bullying who?

Left-wing governments have to accept the consequences of their politically correct policies.

Correct, but not from a religious, tax exempt organization.

The church volunteers it's services

Oh please do you for one minute think the Catholic Church isn't making money off these services?

Left-wing intolerance of traditional values has it's consequences

So does political extortion, which is exactly what this move by the Catholic Church amounts to.........................

DEAL-----WITH-----IT

How christian of them!

When the heads of any religious organization start to interfer in politics they should loose their tax exempt status. Their parishoners should be left to make up their own minds. They could tax the church for more than enough to pay for aid to the poor. The catholic church and many others should loose their tax exempt status any time they use the pulpit to infuence politics. Lately they have been acting like they already own the government anyway.

Besides Jesus spent most of his time on earth among the prostitutes, the poor, the gays, the unwanted., what was good enough for him, should be good enough for the Catholic church.

the Catholic church should protect God's Law

Ha ha. Since they are so good at it....

the catholic church has spent over 2.5 billion in order to protect homosexual child molestors & to allow them to continue abusing children, but help a homeless homo is immoral. WTF

Sorry, but the Catholic church should protect God's Law, not validate the sexual immorality of the left.

The catholic Church should stick to spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ and keep their corrupt, hypocritical nose out of politics.

By the way, I'm neither right nor left, just a realist and the reality is is that the Catholic Church is trying to EXTORT the D.C. government into conforming to the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

http://www.taxthechurches.org/

All churches should be taxed.

"A sound and decent moral decision."

You have GOT TO Be KIDDING Me ??

Killfool apparently sides with the child-molester-protectors.

That's his right, I guess.

If the so called catholic church follows up with the threat, all property it holds in DC should be immediately taxed. If it doesn't pay up everything should be sold at auction, just like what happens to the rest of us.

KillFOOL...the left DOES NOT hate or loathe "traditional values" you act as if the Dems. and Liberals have no "traditional values" and of course you are dead WRONG!!! What the "left" does not like is "traditional values" of Hypocritical right wing zealots pushing and DEMANDING their overblown values on Americans of any stripe while DEMANDING the right to ignore those "traditional values" where it concerns them. Current and past events in this area prove me and others with common sense...right...

If the Church is so hellbent on morality and 'God's Law', why don't they excommunicate people who get divorces, commit adultery or sleep out of wedlock?

Because if the church only accepts sinless people, there would be no people in the church. So, tell me, why does the Church tolerate and condone the sins of some people, while ostracizing others? Does the Church even have that right? Jesus said, 'He who is without sin cast the first stone,' so what right does the Church have to pass judgement when they themselves would likely be found just as guilty in the eyes of God?

KillFOOL..the only one preaching hate here is YOU!!!...and why shoot fish in a bucket when you can buy them in a store?...

Killfool, here is only the latest incident

http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/local/article/366501--nova-scotia-diocese-sex-abuse-settlement-gets-court-approval

In the meantime they give out annulments to Mel Gibson, seems his 27 year marriage and 7 kids and 2 grand kids were not real so as a good Catholic he can hook up with the Russian pop star he knocked up. Glad to see they hold up God's laws.

KillFile I implore you not to delete KillFOOL's postings if at all possible and to other viners here not to mark them as inflammatory even as they are just that. Because if you collapse KillFOOLS rantings then the cogent ,fair responses go the way of the Dodo and there will be no way to compare those who have their poop in a group and those who have lost control of said "poop"....by the way KillFile...I think he is bastardizing your screen name and doing a piss poor job of parody of your name...

Arad,

While they do not formally excommunicate a follower for divorce, adultery or sex outside of marriage, the person is indeed excommunicated, in that they are denied the Sacraments of the Church. If the offense is grave enough there would be a formal excommunication.

To regain communion with the Church, the person must confess their sin and and be received back into the Church.

So, there you have it...

KillFOOL...left-wing hysteria??...Now THATS Hysterical!!!...

The left-wing echo chambers of anti-christian hate are loud, but impotent.

Really? Funny you should make such a statement, as I've been alot more vocal in my criticism of the Catholic Church than most on here and will continue to be vocal in my criticism of the Catholic Church. Except I'm neither a right winger nor a leftie. I AM however, a Christian, a mere sinner saved by grace through faith and washed in the blood, empowered by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and heaven bound. And I'm telling you the Catholic Church is W-R-O-N-G on this and many other issues. While I am not a proponent of same sex marriage, extremely pro-life and believe homosexuality is wrong, so is attempted extortion to the extent that it's happening in this case. The Catholic Church has no right to attempt to pressure the D.C. government into succombing to their ideologies of how things should be.

You call this sticking up for and defending God's word, I call it attempted extortion. Seperation of Church and State is in place for a reason and this is the most perfect example of WHY we have seperation of Church and State that I've seen in quite some time. If the Vatican had it's way, Catholocism would be the religion of the world. As I stated elsewhere on this very thread earlier, the Catholic Church is the most hypocritical and corrupt religious organization on the planet.

If you think this thread is like shooting fish in a bucket, then you better go get a gun and bring it back because so far all I've seen from your posts is a tiny little paring knife, which won't go very far in a gunfight.

The Catholic Church is WRONG on this one................and so are you by the way...............deal with it.

Or not, that's your issue.................

Linda, the church is not a Democracy. God's Law's are not determined by popularity among the sinners. Seems like this should be obvious.

True. The Church is a papal autocracy. God's Laws are, in the Catholic context, determined by optimization of PR.

You want the DC government to intimidate the Catholic church using tax policy - because you don't agree with them standing true to Biblical morality.

The Bill of Rights (including he First Amendment) are ALL intended to protect private rights against government tyrrany - not the other way around. Your perverse notion of the first Amendment is simply demonstrably wrong.

Yes, intimidating them by (horror of horrors!) treating them like any other private organization.

"In God we Trust" "One Nation under God"

Both of which were standardized during the Red Scare, neither being even hinted at during our nations' founding.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are Created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...."

Funny how it uses "Creator," not the far more popular "God."

Churches have been tax-exempt for a good reason. They are the most effective charities - far more effective than govt bureaucrats.

-------------------------------

why on earth would YOU, a right-winger, act as though charity is something government should provide or subsidize? Isn't that anathema to the conservative ideology? By giving churches tax exemptions, you are forcing other citizens to pay more in taxes, thereby subsidizing those "lazy, welfare" cases you all hate so much.

The hypocrisy is laughable.

lindaladywolf; your 75% correct. Jesus did walk among the thieves, the prostitutes, but not among the gays. It isn't even mentioned in association with Jesus. You can't find that in the bible anywhere. But in fact, you can find where God destroyed an entire city called Gamora for the gay lifestyle. But personally, I believe that God loves us all the same. It doesn't bother me if someone is gay, but why do they feel they have to force their lifestyle on the rest of the people. The church isn't Jesus, the church isn't God....it's a gathering place for people of that faith. If their faith teaches against Gay marriage or the gay lifestyle....then why force them to except it and open their gathering place for anyone who wants it. Stop all the bullying on both sides. Everyone needs to live life the way they choose, and leave the rest of the world on the outside.

Statist Atheism provides no basis for moral imperatives or reliable moral truth. It always boils down to whatever the ruling thug in power dictates.

The idea that the morality of the Catholic church was derived from some sort of consistent divine mandate is myopic at best.

If you ask me it is more silly (or ignorant) to pretend that the morality of religious leaders is any closer to "truth" than that which is derived through cultural norms. All of it is relative, unless you are a big fat baby that pisses himself at the idea of taking responsibility for his own ethics.

A real "counter-argument" requires a real argument to be put forth first. An incoherent rant doesn't equal a valid point.

But in fact, you can find where God destroyed an entire city called Gamora for the gay lifestyle.

Rita: It has been a few years since I've studied the bible, so perhaps I've forgotten some of the story. Please refresh my memory on this city "Gamora" with its "gay lifestyle."

Keep it tight Jack. Try to say something that is not just a deflection or obfuscation. I know it's hard, but you can do it.

Noting how I responded point-by-point to your comment, you realize you just rhetorically punched yourself in the face, right?

I respectfully suggest that all posters cease to respond to Killfool's comments until such time as he decides to address the points raised to him.

@ Kate In Greensboro

Here is the location in Genesis for the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Gen. ch18-ch19:v29. Though homosexuality was not the only reason for its destruction.

Here is a verse from that passage.

Gen ch19:v4-v5

⁴ Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. ⁵ They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Right, if you're a tax exempt entity and you insert yourself into politics and lawmaking, then you get threatened with losing your tax exempt status. Who is bullying who?

That law sounds like a breach of the left's beloved but bogus separation of church and state doctrine. Churches are organizations of people. they have a right to petition the government. What fools made this law that churches can't participate in political activities and what foolish Supreme Court allowed this violation of the US Constitution? One has to pay tax to participate in government? Then shut down the voting rights of the poor who are exempt from taxes.

Ah, yes, that Gomorrah story. You really want to use that to prove some kind of moral? Because Lot offered his daughter up to be raped. So what are we supposed to learn from that despicable story? That homosexuality is bad, but rape is preferable...rape is nice? It's cute? It's adorable? It's godlike?

Sick, sick, sick.

Under Law the Church cannot lobby the government. So my response would be...fine...let's see what your taxes will look like.

Exactly. Why are they exempt from paying income and property taxes if they do not use their windfall to provide ministerial services? Call their bluff.

I get it: "Gamora" = "Gommorah" and some interpretations imply the townspeople in Sodom wanted an orgy (to which Lot offered up his virgin daughters) but others take it much differently. I won't argue theology, it's just good to know what Rita was referring to. I honestly wouldn't have gotten the story of Lot from Rita's use of "Gamora" (it made me think of "Creamora". Enough said.

Good and the Catholic Church ought to lose tax exemption for its discriminatory activities.

Posted by boons: Ah, yes, that Gomorrah story. You really want to use that to prove some kind of moral?

boons, if you cared to even read Kate's post above mine you would have known I was just answering her request for information. Not posting it to make any type of point. Lighten up.

Nobody wants to get along. Everyone looks for moral highground to feel superior. "Oh, I am so hurt and injured by your actions, I am a victim". Real christians when "attacked" should turn their cheek (meaning, here slap this cheek to because I'm not going to fight you). Traditionalists culture should be respected just as many other native and alternative cultures should be respected.

All this hate will just breed more hate and only serves evil.

Sounds like the playground bully who says, "I'm gonna take my ball and go home if you don't play the game by my rules". I hope we just say, "See 'ya"!

So much for turning the other cheek and very un-christian of them to punish the innocent. If Christ forgave "sinners", shouldn't they do the same? I'm sure the family without enough food to eat appreciates the shotgun effect the church is taking.

That law sounds like a breach of the left's beloved but bogus separation of church and state doctrine. Churches are organizations of people. they have a right to petition the government. What fools made this law that churches can't participate in political activities

Nice try. The idea of separation of church and state came about in the US to keep the government out of the business of the church. Not the other way around. So if churches want to participate in government, it should be ok to let the government participate in running churches.

Nice try. The idea of separation of church and state came about in the US to keep the government out of the business of the church.

Is that why we left England? Because the government was dictating to the church?

NAH!

We left because the church was dictating to the Government!

Let them close down for what their priest was allow to do to children for years tell me they are not a church of God anyway. It is time to start making churches pay taxes for all they are is a business.

How people believe what the churches are preaching is way be on what I can understand.

The idea of separation of church and state came about in the US to keep the government out of the business of the church. Not the other way around. So if churches want to participate in government, it should be ok to let the government participate in running churches.

Your first assertion, the first sentence, is correct. But then you try to use it to make an argument about hte converse. Totally illogical and contradictory thinking. I grade your work F- .

Is that why we left England? Because the government was dictating to the church?

Yep. Now try to put 2 and 2 together to see why the government has no jurisdiction over church activities.

Exactly. Why are they exempt from paying income and property taxes if they do not use their windfall to provide ministerial services? Call their bluff.

Taxation of churches would be limiting the free exercise of religion if one uses our Constitution as law and as a guide for future laws. Of course, we know the Marxist Democrat party, led by its deity Barack Hussein Obama, UMMM, UMMM, UMMM, is eager to eradicate any religion except itself.

They agreed not to lobby when they took the tax exemption based on 503c.

Bottom line.

Of course, we know the Marxist Democrat party, led by its deity Barack Hussein Obama, UMMM, UMMM, UMMM, is eager to eradicate any religion except itself.

That crap again? Don't you ever get tired of it? You do realize it is only you and a few whack-jobs like you who spew that sh*t don't you?

Kate...Donkey can't help himself! I thinks it's tourettes syndrome!...or just being Bat Guano Ga-Ga.....or that he is just so chock full of Hatred for the Democratic system that it spills itself in fearing to be spilt...

Ida_slapter...I get a chuckle every time I read your screen name! Not because I have ever slapped a girl but it's the way you spelled it...and because I've heard that before in a very comical way...

I COMPLETELY AGREE that the Catholic Church discontinue their social service programs if they are forced to comply with a concept with which it AND 31 STATES do not agree.

For all of you who hate my views on NO TO GAY MARRIAGE, this is another reason I disagree with gay marriage - churches would ultimately be required to marry gay couples.

GOOD JOB CATHOLICS. You have a RIGHT to deny this.

For all of you who hate my views on NO TO GAY MARRIAGE, this is another reason I disagree with gay marriage - churches would ultimately be required to marry gay couples.

How do you figure that one? What else does the government force churches to do in your worldview? You do realize that marriage is a civil contract that legally has NOTHING to do with a church don't you?

Jesus did walk among the thieves, the prostitutes, but not among the gays. It isn't even mentioned in association with Jesus. You can't find that in the bible anywhere

You also can not find Jesus saying being gay was wrong.

After 8 years of surreality from the Evangelical GOP, nothing in the world surprises me anymore, let alone 2000 years of Catholic antics.

My Mind (1.47) NOTE: "Gamora is indeed Gomorrah (in english translaitions, in Hebrew "amorah" which means "a ruined heap") it is NOT the name of a city, but the description of that city applied after the fact.

Also note: according to Deuteronomy it was Sodom (in Hebrew "s'dom" meaning "burnt" - not the name of a city but a later description of it, much as if we called Chicago circa 1871 Sodom meaning burnt), Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim)

I have absolutely NO idea where you got that translation; in actuality that is NOT what the Bible says (in Hebrew or any of the commonly accepted translations). In the NASB for instance, "ya'da" is translated as "meet them"; I found the NLT which uses this bizarre translation (have sex with them) but it is not commonly accepted by anyone. This is a good source for translations NOTE: the exact same thing happens in Judges 19 to a Levite man, his sex slave (concubine), her husband, several apparent servants and donkeys with the same word "ya'da'" yet not as many want to mistranslate that one

1) It was not just the men of the city but all the people, men and women alike (the hebrew language rarely uses gender, it was awkward to say the men, women who belonged to men - both betrothed and slaves - and virgins and children .... etc. - so they used a word that meant "people" in english. Note: women are rarely mentioned in the Bible and mostly not named but referred to as "the betrothed of ...")

2. The word is "ya'da" which does not mean "have sex with" but is commonly translated as "know". It is used 944 times in the Bible, most commonly as "To know something as a fact". In a few rare instances a man "knows" a woman and a child results. (this may be the origination for the Yiddish "yada, yada, yada" Meaning "I know, I know, I know" as clearly the person is more in love with their own voice rather than having any new information)

A more common interpretation notes that the City of Sodom had just finished a war (Genesis 14) and was regularly visited by spies from other tribes as it was a hub of several trade routes. The People wanted to know if these "men" (the "angels") were spies. Other versions note that Lot "knew" these to be angels, and the others figured it out and wanted to also enjoy any favors of the angels.

This is one of the particularly sick mistranslations; always go for the original (Ancient Hebrew - as opposed to modern hebrew - Aramaic, Koine Greek direct translations (or as near as you can get) rather than an english mistranslation. NONE of the Latin or latin based translations uses any word but the Latin - "cognoscamus" - which has nothing whatsoever to do with sex

Most Jewish views still regard the sins of Sodom to be "failing to practice hospitality", and even though same-sex activities are condemned most harshly in Leviticus, the opinion that Genesis 19 might refer to any other sexual act other than with Lot's daughters is alien to most ancient Jewish tradition, the culture that brought forth or was inspired by the Old Testament.

Wiki

I feel your pain Kate in Greensboro. Some people just don't know when to quit.

I feel your pain, too. Sweet!!!

Look man, closet child molesters have been running the Catholic Church for centuries, and the Holy See has been covering for them the whole time. I should think a little bit of non-discrimination against homosexuals might be in order. No one said they have to promote the lifestyle, just don't hold it against them when doling out social services in the name of the city. Frankly, it serves them right for getting in bed with bureaucrats (devils) in the first place.

Too bad none of you idiots who slander the Catholic church can make a legitimate argument. Instead you just shut down the guy whose laying the wood on your lies.

I'm your Huckleberry sonny Boy...................

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

You're funny, Killfool. You think it's okay to allow the suffering of innocent children for fear of helping a few buggerers. That is sick. How about the Catholic Church not get in bed with the government in the first place, eh? Statist bigot. Align yourself with the devil and you get what you get.

This article, and title, is a bit slanted.

That said, the Vatican has so much money that I bet if they gave each gay person in DC, say, $5,000,000 to move to a nice beach resort, then problem solved. They could continue their "charities" and none of it would go to gays.

DonkeyRidder Ignoring author

KillFool_Lives

\|||/
(o o)
|~~~~ooO~~(_)~~~~~~~|
| Please |
| don't feed the |
| BIRTHERS/TROLLS ! |
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ooo~~'
|__|__|
|| ||
ooO Ooo

The Homosexual Agenda

Since when is it "moral" to hurt people completely unrelated to an issue?

Exactly. Why would gays and government want to hurt Catholics and poor people just to address an unrelated issue. Yes, gays and the government are immoral, and unethical, and selfish.

Catholics are not being hurt in any way by gays being given the right to civilly marry, or by laws banning discrimination in public services. Claiming that they are is like claiming that Mormons were discriminated against by the Loving vs Virginia decision, since they were a religious group which opposed mixed race marriage.

Poor people are not being hurt by gays or by the government, they are being hurt by the Catholic Church's decision that they value the right to discriminate more than they value the charitable work they are able to do. As such, the Catholic Church is immoral, unethical, and selfish.

PUT UP or SHUT UP!

Ha, Ha. Your feeble commands have no effect on me. You and Dylan together don't even make one whole girlyman. I'm not shutting up and I'll put up what I want when I want.

Yes, our current radical Marxist government headed by Obama, Reid, and Pelsosi is immoral. And dumb. And with Pelosi, ugly.

It's a really tough call, but this could easily be the most stupid thing I've read on Newsvine this week:

For all of you who hate my views on NO TO GAY MARRIAGE, this is another reason I disagree with gay marriage - churches would ultimately be required to marry gay couples.

Churches never have and never will be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for any couple they do not wish to marry. Churches MAY NOT marry a couple that cannot be married legally within the state in which the church is located, but no church is required to perform a marriage ceremony for any couple, ever.

Kate, don't respond to Tyler, he's an obnoxious troll!

the catholic church has spent over 2.5 billion in order to protect homosexual child molestors & to allow them to continue abusing children, but help a homeless homo is immoral. WTF

Dr Fell. Uh. Dude. They aren't "homosexual child molesters". They are pedophiles. Look those words up and note the differences between the two. Mkay? Thanks.

Kate, don't respond to Tyler, he's an obnoxious troll!

Uhhhh, what?

Hugh Gottslaptagin, I'm just playing along with your imagined superpowers. You aren't making anybody do squat.

Who sends "feeble commands" over the Internet? Moreover, who would obey them?

That would be you, and that would be no one.

The leadership has some evil members. The followership is just Obamazombies, devoid of independent thought.

I've never harmed a single hair of a donkey's head and don't intend to. I just want them to leave me and my country alone.

Yep, I used to sing it in school, "This is my country, land that I love". Still true today. I'm open to joint ownership with others that respect the Constitution and respect its co-owners.

No, not everyone is a problem. Just those who want to subvert the government to enrich themselves and assert authority over others, in defiance of the Constitution, the Democrat Marxist party for sure.

Way to go Archdiocese!

You and Dylan together don't even make one whole girlyman

Ummmmmmmmmm DONKEYRIDDER, my comment to put up or shut up was directed to Killfool not you, see my post at #1.77 and who I was replying to...............I was replying to a comment made by KillFool, so kindly leave me out of this okay?

However if you in fact think I'm some kind of girlyman you're welcome to prove WHY you think this, other than that, I'd appreciate you being a little more astute in your reading, as I don't believe I've even responded to any of your posts.

Thanks and have a good day............

I was responding to 1.90.

You were dragged in by a third party.

You, too, issued a feeble command that has no effect. I'll leave the choice to use powerless words in display of ineffective pitiful aggression as the proof of the validity of my remarks.

I was dragged in by a third party so you feel justified in attacking me in such a manner. I was telling a troll who has subsequently been banned multiple times to put up or shut up about his arguments concerning the Catholic Church. The words put up or shut up are hardly powerless, there a challenge to validate one's statements.

Your remark about me being some type of girlyman has NO validity, however, as you neither know me nor have had any prior dealings with me.

Furthermore, whether or whether not anyone is a girlyman has absolutely nothing to do with intellect and/or any discussion taking place on this thread, it's merely an unwarranted attack on your part, plain and simple, and it's not only offensive but unappreciated, not to mention a COH violation.

Perhaps you'd like to justify calling me such a name?

All right. My mistake. My apologies and a request for forgiveness.

Accepted and have a great weekend. Thank you................

A sound and decent moral decision.

Sarcasm simply doesn't work on these forums. Too bad. They'd be funnier if it did.

ida_slapter...My sister was once bitten by a Moose!

And the Cat once passed through the jaws of a beaver. Well maybe not, he could have been a C-section.

DR..could you please refrain from bringing my 94 year old mother into this? Have a shred of decency if you can...although she was42 at the time.

No realli! She was Karving her initials on the moose with the sharpened end of an interspace toothbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law.

Mynd you, moose bites Kan be pretti nasti.

DR..could you please refrain from bringing my 94 year old mother into this? Have a shred of decency if you can...although she was42 at the time.

Well God bless your Mom! I guess you weren't too hard on her if she's made it to that age. I hope she is well. I will also pray Obama's $500,000,000,000 in Medicare cuts don't affect her longevity.

My mother always said that I was a blessing to her because she could always count on me. And the Cuts that you are trying to equate with bad policy are the cutting of WASTE and FRAUD! not because Obama wants to kill Granny as you cretins on the right keep regurgitating!

Schroedingers Cat I feel for your sister.

I could say something about this, but I won't.

not because Obama wants to kill Granny as you cretins on the right keep regurgitating!

I'm from America, not Crete. Obama wants to kill everyone who doesn't support him. Remember, he is a typical punk Marxist thug dictator in evolution.

DonkeyRidder

At least you believe in evolution. That's the only sensible thing you've said so far.

At least you believe in evolution.

God can do anything, so if that's the way he wanted to make man, who am I to argue? I sure wish, though, that Adam hadn't let Eve talk him into eating that apple from the tree of liberalism.

Velocislapater, you've already gotten me into trouble once. Can I use the "I just snapped" excuse?

They're trying to offer that as the excuse for Hasan, so I thought I'd try it. You know I'm under stress and I'm constantly harrassed by liberals.

There is no "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution; that's a misnomer.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This goes for State and Local Governments as well. Just because a Church is tax exempt, it does not mean that the Gov. Federal, State, or Local can dictate what a church may or may not do. The Very first line in the Bill of rights is in regards to religion, and the prohibition of gov. to dictate religion. That is the crux of the matter. And just because the Catholic Church might be hypocritical, it does not mean that the Local Gov. can dictate what beliefs the Church holds on to or doesn't hold on to. I understand that there are a lot of gray areas.

I find this a bit of an oxymoron,

"Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians."

I'm sorry, but wouldn't refusing to marry a same sex couple or provide space for a reception, be considered, by the injured party(those refused), discrimination? Exactly how is that going to work out? It's not just Christians who won't want to marry same sex couples. You have Muslims, Jews(mostly Conservative and Orthodox), Buddhism(Tibetan anyways) and others I'm sure.

"...the Dalai Lama explicitly condemns homosexuality, as well as all oral and anal sex. His stand is close to that of Pope John Paul II, something his Western followers find embarrassing and prefer to ignore. ..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/opinion/19FREN.html

Boons,

"What the Catholic church is saying is that sinners were good enough for Jesus, but they aren't good enough for the catholic church (they are superior to Jesus, you see).

Jesus ministered to the downtrodden AND the sinners, but the church is much too good to do so."

AND

Linda,

"Besides Jesus spent most of his time on earth among the prostitutes, the poor, the gays, the unwanted., what was good enough for him, should be good enough for the Catholic church."

Yes Jesus did spend his time around people like that, except gays, I don't recall gay people around Jesus. Doesn't mean there weren't, just that no one wrote about it. However, Jesus did NOT hang around them, and say ok keep living the way you live. He befriended them in order to show them love, and the proper way to live a wholesome Jewish life. He might have condemned the people who were about to stone the prostitute, but he told the prostitute to change her life. Why don't you guys read the bible sometime, and if Old English is too hard for you to comprehend, there's many New English bibles out there.

FYI, I'm a Pagan Witch, who doesn't care if two people of the same sex want to live together and be recognized for their commitment to each other. On the other hand though, I'm open minded enough to understand that marriage was always a religious institution before Governments got involved by issuing marriage licenses in order to prevent inter-racial marriages. You can't discriminate, or be hateful of one's opinion in order to give another their rights. It doesn't work that way. There has to be a middle ground, and both sides need to understand this.

"In the early part of the twentieth century, the requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos.^[1] By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism. These laws have since been declared invalid by the Courts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence

I'm open minded enough to understand that marriage was always a religious institution before Governments got involved by issuing marriage licenses in order to prevent inter-racial marriages.

Actually KatBel, the first mention of marriage in Christianity as a sacrament was made by St. Paul. circa 64 a.d.

Before that, depending on the culture, marriages were either private family matters with no government or religion involvement, or governmental sanction had to be granted beforehand. Marriage being seen as a religious right and/or commitment is a fairly new concept in the history of marriage.

As Just an Observation pointed out, historically marriage was not a religious matter but a civil one. Marriage in ancient Rome stands as a strong example of his point. As do the dual historic practices of dowry and bride-price. For most of human history, marriage was a financial and political transaction, not a religious one, though religious rites often developed around it to bless the union.

Plus, marriage was secularized in America long before marriage licenses were being used to enforce anti-miscegenation laws. From New Plymoth Colony's Compact, Charter, and Laws: "That no person in this Jurisdiction, shall joyne any persons together in Marriage but the Magistrate, or such other as the Court shall authorize in such place where no Magistrate is near, nor shall any joyn themselves in Marriage, but before some Magistrate, or person authorized as aforesaid; nor shall any Magistrate, or other person to be authorized, joyn or suffer any to joyne together in Marriage in their presence, before such persons Publication according to Law." This law specifically made government, in the person of the Magistrate, responsible for marriage rather than the clergy. And it dates from 1671.

I was talking about the United States of America, in relevance to the thread. I guess I stand corrected since Mass. had laws about getting married by magistrates. I'll have to look more into the how the people of that time viewed religion against civil. Do you know how other colonies handled the matter?

All of them? No. But Virginia, as another example, passed a law in 1632 that "noe mynister shall celebrate matrymony betweene any persons without a facultie or lycense graunted by the Governor except the banes of matrymony have beene first pub-lished three severall Sondayes or holidayes".

That fairly firmly places control of marriage in the hands of the government, even if the clergy officiate.

KatBel,

If you are truly interested in the subject and history of marriage there are numerous books available on the subject.

This one is quite interesting.

Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage by Stephanie Coontz.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Marriage-a-History/Stephanie-Coontz/e/9780143036678/?itm=1&USRI=Marriage%2c+A+History%2c+How+love+conquered+marriage#EXC

This is more of an examination on how marriage evolved to be primarily about love.

Here is a small but telling passage from the book.

But only rarely in history has love been seen as the main reason for getting married. When someone did advocate such a strange belief, it was no laughing matter. Instead, it was considered a serious threat to social order.

Others delve more into the broader subject on the types of marriages through history and civilization.

So lets see, we have a Religious Orginazation that does not believe in homo-sexuality.

They set up Social Services to assist the poor.

They don't assist those who are homo sexual.

Some people @!$%# about how they don't even though we as a general community know they don't believe in homo-sexuality and is looked upon as a 'sin'.

Church threatens to close down its social services.

Some people @!$%# some more, about how Catholics are supposed to do things they don't really want to because they are supposed to turn another cheek or some crap like that.

End Result.

Church runs social programs. Chruch can decide how program is run (and with separation of church and state, govt. can't do anything about it, just as the church is supposed to stay out of politics, its supposed to work both ways people)

People tell them they should do what they say even though they are not a govt. run entity.

Church threatens to close them down.

people @!$%#.

What exactly is giving them any reason to keep it open with such a life as this? This really is a crappy business enviroment no matter how you look at it.

Sincerely,

An Agnostic

Catholicism still exists?

I thought that the civilized world gave it up for Lent 100's of years ago.

Since the two groups overlap, the church did tolerate quite a few in its ranks for many years at a cost of billions.

Yeah, the Catholic church only likes pedophiles (most of which are gay), it doesn't like gay people. I am a Christian, but the Catholic church is a joke. It is a completely immoral institution that has nothing to do with God's law.

I think a religious organization should have the right to discriminated against people it finds objectionable to their moral standards.

They are actually saying they wouldn't follow the law. And they are threatening the government so they don't have to.

My response would be. That's fine. Then you can start paying taxes since you're breaking the law by trying to Lobby the government.

Yeah, the Catholic church only likes pedophiles (most of which are gay), it doesn't like gay people.

Watch Al Pacino in "Angels in America" as Roy Cohn.

It explains exactly the mentality of gay conservatives, gay politicians, or gay priests.

AIDS. Homosexual. Gay. Lesbian. You think these are names that tell you who a person sleeps with, but they don't tell you that.

No. Like all labels they tell you one thing, and one thing only: Where does an individual so identified fit into the food chain, the pecking order? Not ideology or sexual taste, but something much simpler: clout. Not who I @!$%# or who @!$%#s me, but who will come to the phone when I call, who owes me favors. This is what a label refers to. Now to someone who does not understand this, a homosexual is what I am because I have sex with men, but really this is wrong. A homosexual is somebody who, in 15 years of trying cannot get a pissant anti-discrimination bill through the city council. A homosexual is somebody who knows nobody and who nobody knows. Who has zero clout. Does this sound like me Henry?

They're not gay. They are straight guys who just happen to have sex with men.

They're not gay. They are straight guys who just happen to have sex with men.

Heh. "Bob, it's Stan. I wanna shag you all night long. No homo."

That's fine. Then you can start paying taxes since you're breaking the law by trying to Lobby the government.

I am saying it's fine as well. But I am also saying that they should loose any protection from discrimination if they choose to discriminate. In other words, If they can discriminate against same-sex marriage, then a business man in a same-sex marriage has the right to not hire anyone that is Catholic, not sell his products to Catholics, or fire existing employees who are Catholic. If it is fair for one, it should be fair for the other.

If they can discriminate against same-sex marriage, then a business man in a same-sex marriage has the right to not hire anyone that is Catholic, not sell his products to Catholics, or fire existing employees who are Catholic.

Ooohhh, I like that! That would hit them right in the pocketbook!

I guess the RC Church thinks that they are already supporting too many gay couples in their organization. A perfect example of "do as I say, not as I do."

Jesus would smack the miters right off their hypocritical heads.

The problem is that if you tax the Catholic church and other religious sects that you give them even MORE power than they already have regardless of the separation of church and state. You legitimize their rantings and demands on the freedoms of people to make decisions for themselves and give them free reign to lobby for more political power, and as some of us know would be the end of our Republic and the death of Democracy and the rise of a theocratic nation that would have the power to do as they wish no matter how horrible the outcome.

I like it too! The catholic church should not be the only business (yes, it's a business) that is allowed to discriminate.

Schroedingers Cat -

I'm not advocating changing their tax exempt status. I'm advocating legalizing discrimination against Catholics (at least in DC). If they are allowed to discriminate against folks whose life-style they disapprove of, then why should others then not be allowed to discriminate against them? Seems only fair.

heraclitus

So you want to discriminate against Gay Catholic Clergy? Yeah, I guess that's fair. But the Catch 22 is that I don't want to discriminate against any Gay People.

Yeah it is a catch 22. I am trying to make a point about discrimination in general.

That is if you want to be free to discriminate against people you hate, then you should also ready to accept others discrimination against you. If the church is free to discriminate against gays, then gays should be free to discriminate against the church, even if that means gay church members. It's not the gayness of the clergyman that would be discriminated against but the church membership of the clergyman.

But if everyone sins, and the church refuses to serve people who sin, who exactly would they be serving, and when the plate is passed during services, who, exactly, will be donating $$$?

It isn't censorship when members of the Newsvine community report a comment as inflammatory or being of no value. Here, maybe this will help:

Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.

source: www.wikipedia.com

Killfool

There ain't anything leftist about separation of church and state. It's supposed to protect religion from the state. And it's designed to prevent the abuse of power by religions that the founders abhorred in European countries. Of course maybe those founders were lefties.

All you leftist bigots could do was censor me ..again

It's not censorship. You are the weakest link. The tribe has spoken.

I put up plenty...kicked all your asses soundly with common sense and truth.

Okay, thanks for telling all of Newsvine you're AFRAID to go head to hear with me on the Catholic Church, I'm glad we got that out of the way. There's nothin othing quite as satisfying as a troll who admits they're scared by not accepting a challenge.

Troll On Kid......................

Yeah, the Catholic church only likes pedophiles (most of which are gay),

Wrong-and please don't perpetuate such nonsense

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

http://gayteens.about.com/b/2009/07/21/the-myth-of-the-gay-pedophile.htm

KFPH - Point taken.

"Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city."

His headline seems accurate to ME.

John, I did read the article first and the headline is spot on. The RC Church thinks it can push folk around and back into the 17th century, where the church fathers live. Read the article.

This is another example of a church going too far into politics and, yet, not quite far enough to have crossed the separation of church and state line.

I've read it (as is my custom if I plan to comment - it seems like the only way to make an informed comment) and the headline is accurate.

Just another stellar example of Christian behavior form a Christian organization.

Before anyone jumps on me I know not all Christians organizations act this way and not all Catholic dioceses would act this way and that many faithful Catholics are appalled at this diocese's childish threat.

None of you agree with the position of the Cathoilc Church , do you?

The Cathoilc Church does not recognize same sex marriage, so why would it agree to provide services for it?

The Catholic Church doesn't condone drug use and alcoholism, but it provides services regardless (not that I am comparing gay marriage to substance abuse).

They don't HAVE to provide services for it. But if they do NOT, then they lose their contract. End of story. This is the USA, where we don't allow discrimination. They are free to do business in another country if they hate this one for its' freedoms.

chum, good point. The Catholic church also doesn't agree that Judaism is the correct religion, but they help poor Jewish people, correct? Or Buddhists, or any other religion...

It seems to me the church are hypocritical.

LMAO - You know it's going to be a valuable comment when someone starts with:

"I didn't read the article but...."

It's the Christian thing to do Kill.

And by the way, I was thinking of seeding this myself. It appears that the Catholic Church has once again turned to attempted extortion to get its way. That sordid tactic is nearly as old as the Holy See, I'm afraid.

The Cathoilc Church does not recognize same sex marriage, so why would it agree to provide services for it?

I don't recognize Catholic Dogma, so why do I have to hire Catholics or sell them my services? Why can't I fire an employee when I find out they are Catholic?

What happened to loving the sinner? I grew up Catholic and this is not Christian behavior. Of course this kind of thing is why I left the Church as soon as I left the Church.

It's time for the State to reconsider tax exempt status for "religious" organizations.

This is another example of how W's "faith based initiatives" were designed to interfere with public policy.

You know, just because it has been 'defeated by the voters' does not mean that that defeat was correct. For example, imagine putting slavery and racial discrimination to a popular vote in the '60s and before. On a state-by-state basis, the outcome would be not be good. These sorts of issues should not be put to a popular vote for that very reason.

When you lose 31 elections in a row, you are on the wrong side of public opinion. To act like that means nothing is ridiculous.

There is nothing wrong with being against gay marriage. It doesn't mean you hate gays or want to act against them or even that you are prejudiced against them. Are you prejudiced FOR gays? Why do you want them to be married when our society DEFINES marriage as between men and women? We can have another designation for gays, not 'marriage' in the eyes of the law.

JohnRussell wrote:

I haven't read the seeded article yet

Ah, it's the old "I haven't seen the movie, but here's what I thought of it."

Maybe you should refrain from commenting.

To stay on topic, judging from the quotes in the article, it looks from the article as if the city council members are (correctly) telling Catholic Charities not to let the door hit 'em in the ass.

Where's Martin Luther when you need him. :)

When you lose 31 elections in a row, you are on the wrong side of public opinion. To act like that means nothing is ridiculous.

Right and wrong are not matters for popularity contests.

church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city

So what. Isn't this the separation of church and state everybody here is always crying about? If the Catholic church has a problem with homosexuals it has every right to cancel contracts that would force them to accept same sex marriage. Why doesn't DC run their own social services program? Probably because the political machine there is one of the few entities more corrupt than the Catholic church.

Here's the choice, let the church run these programs on there own terms or have the government run them. You can't expect a religious organization to act against their beliefs. Would you expect the local temple or mosque to serve pork out of their food shelters because that's what the local population like to eat? No. They would stop offering the service, the same as the Catholic church is going to do.

How do you reckon that issue would have done in an election?

Since you know everything maybe you know this - the city of Washington D.C. has an overwhelmingly black population, correct? What do they thinnk about their city legalizing gay marriage. I think a lot of African Americans may have a problem with gay marriage. Did any of these city council leaders bother to ask the people? I doubt it.

If gay marriage was federal, constitutionally affirmed law, the Cathoilc Church would have quite a dilemma. As it is, they are not going to alter church policy for a district here and a state there, nor should they. The spokeswoman for the archdiocese said it plainly - the city is saying that in order to do social work in D.C. you have to be secularized. The RCC says no, we are not going to do that for you. Stop bashing the church for their choice.

Take a pill, John.

We're talking about a government-issued contract. That means the government sets the terms.

If Catholic Charities doesn't like the terms, they're welcome to not enter into the contract.

By the way, my point about commenting without having read the article stands.

I fail to see where race has anything to do with this.

How are they 'welcome' to not enter into the contract, when we have a thread here almost entirely dedicated to bashing them?

How many of you do a fragment of what the RCC has done in charitable causes? Almost every week at Mass Catholics are giving money to charities through individual donations. People on this thread are acting as if the Church uses social work to make money. I guarantee you they lose money on whatever contracts they have with the city, and the Cathloics in the pews are making up the difference.

Baloney - Every week Catholics are giving money to the church and let me assure you, the church keeps most of it.

JohnRussell wrote:

How are they 'welcome' to not enter into the contract, when we have a thread here almost entirely dedicated to bashing them?

Catholic Charities has to enter into a contract with the city because people here are bashing them?

I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense.

How many of you do a fragment of what the RCC has done in charitable causes? Almost every week at Mass Catholics are giving money to charities through individual donations.

Are you positing that the "Catholics in the pews" would stop contributing if Catholic Charities did not have a contract with the city?

By the way, if you'd read the article, you'd know that "Catholic Charities . . . is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District [and] don't represent an indispensable component of [the city's] social services infrastructure."

The Catholic church also does not condone the use of condoms and masturbation after all ... Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted , God gets quite irate.

Wow, they really need to create a questionnaire for people to fill out. Don't want to go helping out those vile masturbaters and condom users.

Sorry about that. I felt that a little levity was needed.

Apparently trool killfool got banned so he opened a new account to troll from

John - you have become a troll as ell by your actions. We understand, you do not like gays; beyond that you add nothing to the conversation - at which point you become a childish temper tantrum foot stomping troll. We all see it, this is a "publicly viewable discussion"; there's no hiding it. If you have something to add to the conversation, something you haven't already said then say it; otherwise your continued comments demonstrate H A T E, that is the only motivation you could have to continue them

Eriq Samson-

I haven't read enough of Killfool's posts to know how much I agree with him, but I suspect it is not a whole lot. Nonetheless, the name is catchy and meaningful, and his general thesis that the left is intolerant is pretty accurate.

I don't know why many of the lefties on NV insist on calling people they disagree with 'trolls' . It's comical, I know that.

I do not hate gays, I have no extra opinion one way or the other about gays than I would any other group of people. It is not necessarily gay hating to reject gay marriage, although I would admit that it could be. I reject gay marriage because our society has deemed, and I agree with it, that the institution of marriage should only apply to one man and one woman. I also reject bigamy, am I prejudiced against bigamists?

The Catholic church is supposedly angry that they might have to provide benefits for gay people, thereby, in their minds, sanctioning gay marriage. Well too damned bad. They already provide benefits for divorced people, which is supposedly against their beleifs, too.

But then again, it will one day, like eating meat on Friday, be allowed. The church likes to change things around once in a while - like making up purgatory, then taking it away, and so on.

Again, just like any business, the church is welcome to back out of any financial arrangement. And what's the big deal about losing this contract? They can just double their missionary efforts in poor countries and squeeze a few more bucks out of the populace to make up the difference.

Who is the genius that created the 'collapsed by community' option? IMO it is by far the worst aspect of Newsvine.

It allows the mob mentality to dominate a conversation by simply removing posts they don't like, regardless of whether they truly deserve such removal or not. This sort of thing turns up most often, as far as I see almost exclusively, on seeds or articles of the 'LIBERAL' bent, where comments that oppose or criticize the liberal pov disappear willy nilly. Which side is more intolerant again?

But John, it's all based on popular opinion. Isn't that a good thing? That if you are collapsed by popular opinion then doesn't that mean you are on the wrong side of popular opinion? ::said with my patented ingenue smile TM

Who is the genius that created the 'collapsed by community' option? IMO it is by far the worst aspect of Newsvine.

Yeah. And who was the @!$%# who decided that the community should vote on the articles, seeds, and comments that they like and that the results should determine the content of the front page?

Damn liberals and their populist "voting."

Prostitution, a grave sin back in Jesus' day, didn't even stop Jesus from befriending and caring for prostitutes.

Again, though, the Catholic church feels it is superior to even Jesus.

Jesus only really had dealings with 3 women who could be considered prostitutes, the woman at the well, who wasn't really a prostitute, just promiscuous; the woman who came in and washed his feet while annointing his head with oil at Simon's house, and the woman who was about to be stoned when he made the statement:

"Let he who is among you without sin cast the first stone"

Thanks Reason.

Understood, Dylan. My personal feeling is that Mary Magdalene wasn't even a prostitute, but the church turned her into out of misogyny. Either way, their own story is that he accepted, loved and ministered to her...yet they think they are above that kind of thing.

All of the above are good points. Jesus lost his temper at the Temple money-changers and I'm pretty sure that he would kick these stone-casting hypocrites to the curb.

I don't think Jesus would fit in the RC Church. I don't think he would want to.

While I do remember the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, I don't remember Jesus ever asking about a person's sexual orientation before healing them, or helping them, or teaching them. Strange that they would have omitted something that the church now feels is so important...

Just a thought. Have a nice day.

While I do remember the story of Sodom and Gomorrah

Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about homosexuality. It was about hospitality.

While I do remember the story of Sodom and Gomorrah

If you think it was about Jehovah smiting the homos, you don't remember it correctly.

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in other places, in association with sins of omission and commission, and of the heart as well as the flesh, and is often used as an example of judgment of the wicked.

Gwenny has it right - at least right as I understood it from my studies.

Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about homosexuality. It was about hospitality.

Since the bible only talks about a very few events in Jesus life and then from the pen of a person or persons who wrote about him long after he died, I doubt very much if they told about everything he did or said. In fact there is no way they could have told it all, they like everyone living today told it from their point of view and probably colored it to say what they wanted. Jesus had many female disciples and even a wife and they don't tell you that either. Try reading the Nag hamadi texts, some of that is said to be written by Jesus, himself and Mary, his mother and Mary Magdalene, his wife. No way does anyone today know the whole story.

Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about homosexuality. It was about hospitality.

Actuality it was about BOTH:

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0119.htm

Genesis 19:4-5 describes what followed, which confirms the verdict as to the sin of Sodom and its end (RSV): But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them (NIV: can have sex with them , NJB: can have intercourse with them)."

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 1:7

What is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

What is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

dylan, your comment #6.3. My thought would be that we have no idea how many women Jesus had dealings with in his 30+ years of life. The bible only speaks of 3. The bible is not an historical account.

The bible is not an historical account

I'm not going to get into this debate here, it's off topic.

While we don't have any idea how many people Jesus dealt with, there are only 3 who could even remotely be connected to prostitution was my point and Mary Magdalene was NOT one of them. That's all I'm saying.

I have a basket full of stones at a discount price ! All shiny and polished just for stoning ! medium stones, for bad sins. Large stones for large grave sins and little stones for white lies sins. All at a discount price. But you must show proof and ID card that your a long time practicing catholic. And your without sin, from the day you were born. And if your looking for stones just because you don't like the person...we have a lay-away plan at our New Shop Stonewall market. In aisle 7.. under pebbles.

Are you going to make any kind of point or are you just out for a Saturday morning troll?

Ever heard of the first amendment Gary?

Dylan - do you even know what the first amendment does?

Okay Kate, why don't you enlighten all of us, or maybe simply ask me what I was talking about before you go making blanket assumptions?

No, you don't. I'd suggest reading it again, carefully. Hint: what entity is limited by the First Amendment? Second hint: it isn't the people.

Gary has every right to tell you to shut up, I'm afraid. You merely don't have to listen to him. Don't go making a Constitutional issue out of it when it isn't.

Lord, please protect me from people acting in your name...

Lord, please protect me from people acting in your name...

I'll second that. Those who act like Jesus are fine with me, but those who want to act in his name should really get to know his history.

I'll third that. Is that possible?! Joke, people, joke!

Lord, please protect me from people acting in your name...

Dear Lord,

We both know I've got no issues with You... but You have REALLY got to work on Your salespeople. Seriously.

Thanks,

Rain.

Priests doing little boys is not gay sex it is pedophilia and that is a whole other ballgame usually indulged in by folk of heterosexual bent.

The Church has nothing against gays, just look at the actions of some of it's priesthood. It's the fact that "the gays" want to be married that rubs them wrong.

I totally agree with you, Andrew. The Church should be able to provide their brand of services WITHOUT one dime of my tax dollars. And if they cannot abide by equal employment opportunity while providing those services, then they should do them with volunteers only. The very idea of the Church presuming to issue an ultimatum to the secular government makes my blood boil. The only ones the Church MAY have authority over are their members and then only if those members chose to participate with their faith and their money. It's high time the Church be brought to its senses.

It's not... look at Catholic Charities in Boston. They went out of the adoption business rather than treat gay couples equally as potential adoptive parents.

Who cares if kids have homes as long as the Catholics aren't offended in any way? I'm just disgusted.

Hey Sarah Silverman has a great way to stop world hunger, along with the Vatican. This could really work y'all.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?comments&v=100990509921185

Jarandhel's probably right, they'll do it.

Let 'em. That'll be contracts freed up for the city to give to groups who don't discriminate.

You should be questioning why the catholic church would turn its back on poor people, then.

It seems petty. Would Jesus do that?

Of course he wouldn't. And it's not petty, it's despicable that the Catholic Church would act in such a fashion.

What would happen is that TV cameras would show the Catholic Church engaging in the un-Christlike behavior of turning away the poor and the helpless. The depths of their hypocrisy would be so great that they could not be hidden. In other words, a public relations disaster of the first order.

The Church knows this deep down. They make periodic noises in France about withdrawing services over the fact that abortion's legal, but they never act on them because it would mean the eventual death of the Church in that nation. French Catholics simply don't agree with the hierarchy on that matter. I would hope the same feeling would exist amongst US Catholics when it comes to condemning the innocent to starvation over a political matter.

Not at all BelindaK, they don't get tax exempt status in return for providing charity, they get a wad of money from the city... who I devoutly hope calls for an audit before they close out the contracts.

Thanks. Friend request accepted.

No one entity has even come close to a level of discrimination and persecution of its competition as the Catholic Church.

While I'm not trying to defend the CC here (just look at my other comments in this thread for proof). I can think of one.

The British empires level of discrimination and persecution of Irish Catholics over many centuries can arguably be rank #1 in that category.

s.heraclitus

You make a good point. However, Catholicism throughout history has decimated entire civilizations and ravaged many continents.

These are acts that would be tagged as absolute genocide were they not committed under the cloak of the Church.

Invisible City

Agreed. Looks like all the powerful religions in the world have a history with the same issue (discrimination and persecution). They all preach hate. It should be legal to discriminate against those that believe in Hate.

s. heratclitus, don't you think there is a difference between perscuting individual Catholics as happened in Ireland and persecution of the Church itself? The way I understand it, the Church was allowed to exist but its members were pretty much consigned to low-paying jobs or unemployment.

The Catholic Church doesn't seem to think there is a difference in discriminating against members of the Gay community and the The Gay community itself. My point is simple. If you want to discriminate, be prepared to be discriminated against. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. What goes around, comes around. yada yada yada.

As far as I'm concerned the church can still exist and with tax exempt status. They can discriminate against others and even refuse those they don't like membership. I'm OK with that. However, if so, then I am also OK with others discriminating against the Church and it's members.

I am also OK with others discriminating against the Church and it's members.

You should one one happy camper at Newsvine then.

So discrimination is okay as long as its not against the business known as the Catholic Church, is that it?

Why should the church be exempt from receiving back their own treatment?

s heraclitus, I think we're pretty much agreed that we don't care what the Church thinks!

sms29s66

Yes we are.

JohnRussell

"You should one one happy camper at Newsvine then."

Well, I'd call it an entertained camper. As for the topic at hand, I am just trying to point out that if it is OK for the church to discriminate (which I believe it is) then it is also OK to discriminate against them. Your point looks to be that it is OK for the church to discriminate but not OK to discriminate against the church. Common Sense would dictate that I am right and you are only half right.

Like I have said before...Tyler has the patience of Methuselah and I think he may not be getting payed enough for baby sitting this Blog site. For those who keep complaining that this site does not end up being what THEY want I say Grow up! Real adults take things as they come and deal with them as Adults. If you do not like the direction of a thread you are more than welcome to leave,there are so many categories on NewsVine that even the most recalcitrant of trolls can find a comfy place to nest without unrest. I have tried several other blog sites and I will tell you honestly, this is the BEST of all! If you think this site gets out of hand in regards to protecting your views then quite frankly your crazy! I have seen sites that are nothing more than a frenetic feeding frenzy of ego and unabashed foul language that would make a hardcore biker blush. All of you who keep complaining about which direction you want or think News Vine should go or be should set back and think about just how lucky we ALL are to have this public forum to speak out to more people in mere seconds than our parents did in their entire lives!...And be thankful that the Admins. who work so hard to moderate this do not have "Smite" keys on their keyboards....or there would be little puffs of smoke emenating from buildings all over the planet...

Schroedingers Cat

Nicely put. I love Newsvine. I have learned so much and there are so many interesting topics to peruse. Pretty much anything going on in the world, you can find a seed here if you wish to discuss it. It's wonderful to see conversations meandering around to different things. That's when you learn the most.

BelindaK ...and the fact that they lets us go off on Monty Python tangents to get a respite from the thread or to add to it is a plus! I think that they enjoy the Monty Python quotes as much as we do...If they don't they can just bloody well SOD OFF!!!<kiddin

Hey KillFOOL,Truth matters,the (F)law...I've got a little ditty from my childhood that I think not only applies to YOU but should be your theme song...HRMMHRM!..LALALA....NNoobody likes me, everybody hates me think I'll eat a worrmm! Nice and greasy goes down easy! I'm gonna' eat a worr-err-err-errm!

ROTFLMAO! Cracking up!

They dropped adoption services here in Mass. in a similar tiff over gay marriage and non-discrimination laws and the state managed to pick up the slack just fine.

The real gist of this article is "will be unable to continue the social service programs it (the Church) runs for the District..."

Nowhere, is it mentioned that the Church will stop all social service programs, only those that involve the District. The article notes that the Church has contributed ten million dollars of its own funds to these programs. Sure, some may be eliminated and some may be scaled back. But doesn't the Church have the right to stand up for its values and tenets?

But doesn't the Church have the right to stand up for its values and tenets?

Yes it does, very much so, but not at the cost of what is nothing more than political extortion in an attempt to force the D.C. government to conform to the ideologies/beliefs of the church.

But doesn't the Church have the right to stand up for its values and tenets?

Sure, and people have the right to be royal dickwads. That doesn't mean you can't call someone out on being a royal dickwad.

But doesn't the Church have the right to stand up for its values and tenets?

What values? You mean the ones where they think it's okay to have sex with boys and then hide it and let the priests continue to molest other boys? Oh, those values? I was confused for a minute.

By stating the services are dependent on on the outcome of legislation they are also effectively lobbying the city government, which their tax exempt 501(c) status prohibits them from doing.

Since when does the church stand up for its own values? They offer benefits to divorced people, people who cohabitate, alcoholics, etc. and never made a peep about THAT.

And let's not even go into the whole protecting child molesters thing again...

S Jayne - "doesn't the Church have the right to stand up for its values and tenets?" This is kind of the point people are making, the hypocrisy of choosing one of its values (hating gays) over others; Feeding the hungry, housing the poor -- see Matthew 25:31 - to end.

The Church is throwing a temper tantrum and saying that if the city won't give in to its perverted anti-Christ values here then the church will take it's ball and go home - at which point they, by their actions, declare themselves to be against the teachings of Christ

This is like putting a neon "I am an idiot" sign on your forehead

eriq,

I assume you read the article....no where is it stated that the Church "hates gays", nor that they will not be feeding the hungry, clothing the naked or housing the poor.

What the article states is that going forward, if the District of Columbia passes legislation that require people working with or for the District are required to give benefits to same sex couples and help with adoption to same sex couples then the Church will no longer work with the District contracts.

The article states that the Church brought ten million dollars to the party. Ten million dollars can buy a few meals and coats.

So, maybe it's not quite what you and others have been getting your knickers in a knot over all day....

Dylan923..Is it just me or are you getting mellow and leaning more to the left a bit in your old age...

IN MY OLD AGE?!?!?!? Are you calling me OLD?!?!? hehehehehehe.....................

Mellow maybe but leaning to the left? I would hardly think so, not to the right either, I stand very tall right in the middle with the occasional sslight sway one way or the other depending upon the issue...........................

MY OLD AGE?!?!?.....................you're really gonna give me a complex here.............LMAO

Dylan923..sorry about the age crack..even though I'm 51 I can sympathize with ya' I get called old by them young-ens' in their new fangled floppy loose clothes because I still wear clothes that fit and I can remember when the Web used to indicate where the spider lived as well as the age of wood burning cats...

eriq,

You should also look into the mistranslation of toevah/toebah into English as abomination and sin.

Hey SC, it's all good, I don't take offense at stuff like that, hell I'd have to walk around offended 24/7 if that was the case, hehehehe...................I still can't figure out how they hold them damn pants up..........................

I strongly support them in their fidelity to their Christian faith.

Ah yes, because Jesus liked burning people at the stake and touching little boys.

The Church has held this stance for over 2000 years

You mean the Church that admitted it was wrong to persecute Galileo? Or, the one that recently had its leader declare that evolution was okay by him? Is it that immutable Church you're talking about, or some other one?

ROTFLMAO! Yeah, them Catholics are real moral uprights, aren't they? Unfortunately, I am technically a Catholic and put my daughter through Catholic school. However, I wouldn't set foot in a Catholic church if it was the last one on earth.

So christianity is all about hating the poor, hating sinners, molesting children, etc.?

Duly noted.

The Church has held this stance for over 2000 years and the current logic of moral relivitism and it's ever shifting sand will engulf those who chase the wind.

Actually, no they haven't. Up until 1944 in Albania, a form of pedaresty was practiced in which young men between 16 and 24 were married (in the church, by a priest) to boys between 12 and 17, in a ceremony called "vellameria", from the Albanian vella, "brother" and marr, "to accept". This practice was a historic remnant of older practices such as the medieval french affrèrement ("brotherment") and the early Christian church's practice of Adelphopoeisis ("brother-making"). The Roman Catholic church specifically had the latin rite "Ordo ad fratres faciendum", which in English means "Order for the making of brothers".

Jarandhel - Now that is truly interesting. Thanks.

Texasguy, the Church can provide all the social services it wants on its own dime with volunteers. When they start to use tax dollars and employ human beings, they find themselves subject to secular laws.

BelindaK:

No problem. It's part of my stock answer whenever anyone starts claiming that no society in history has ever accepted gay marriage. The full version also includes other non-Christian examples.

"The Church has held this stance for over 2000 years" - NO the Catholic church is NOT that old

Money is what the Catholic church is all about. It's the only thing it's about. As a Catholic you are besieged by constant mailings asking for money. That's all they really care about. Every event and every mass is geared toward getting more money. They don't give a damn about my soul, they want my pocketbook.

That is exactly why I stopped giving to the church 20+ years ago.

And we should be free to tax the hell out of them.

They CAN afford to be taxed! If I am being taxed to the max on my hard earnings, so should the churches. Can't recall any church giving to anyone I know in need.

Gee Nicole - I guess that SHOULD be the standard - any charity that does not help a personal acquaintance fo yours has to pay taxes regardless of that pesky Constitution.

"And we should be free to tax the hell out of them."

Bzzt! Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. If you wish to remove the Catholic church's tax exemption for choosing not to extend their charitable efforts to people who have, according to Catholicism, chosen a lifestyle that the church finds objectionable, then you're going to have to be consistent across the board. As an example, you're going to have to tell Muslim charities that they MUST extend their charitable efforts to alcoholics and pregnant teenagers.

Do YOU want to tell the Muslim community that their freely donated money is going to directly benefit drug addicts and promiscuous women, with no repercussions to the recipient, or their charities lose their tax-exempt status? Do you want to tell them that they either "volunteer" to help out those who engage in behaviors they find deplorable, or the government will appropriate those monies and spend them on social programs to help the very same people?

The comments on here, that illuminate the mistaken idea that you can somehow "force" a person or group (Catholics, in this case) to be charitable to people they choose not to be charitable to, is laughable. Basically, the argument has become, "If you Catholics don't give up your convictions and spend money to help the people that WE say deserve it, we'll steal it by changing the tax rules." To which the church has reponded, "Fine....we're out of the charity business in these parts. YOU explain it to the guy we had to turn away from our shelters, the families that rely on our food banks. YOU explain to them that your vision of "what's fair" is more important than us helping the people that we choose to, and can, help."

Any enterprise that claims exemption from taxes to aid people should be held to helping ALL people. If they decide to pick and choose, like any private citizen or company can choose who they give charity to, then they become a private citizen or company and can be taxed. The exemption is there because they claim to do work the government otherwise would have to do, once they stop, they should lose that status no matter what faith or group they represent.

Bzzt! Wrong answer, but thanks for playing.

BZZZT! Wrong answer right back at ya. Read the tax code. It's IRS 503c and it clearly states under the "Jeopardizing tax exempt status" section that they cannot lobby for or against any legislation.

Good guess, though.

"Any enterprise that claims exemption from taxes to aid people should be held to helping ALL people."

Cool...then said enterprises just won't help people, since you've put them in a position of helping someone lead a lifestyle that they regard as immoral and wrong. Fewer people helped, more people hungry and homeless. Happy?

"The exemption is there because they claim to do work the government otherwise would have to do."

Incorrect. The exemption is there because all accredited churches are assumed to be not-for-profit ventures, and the land they occupy cannot be used for industrial or commercial purposes. The concept of exempting churches from taxes predates the existence of the United States by several centuries.

"It's IRS 503c and it clearly states under the "Jeopardizing tax exempt status" section that they cannot lobby for or against any legislation."

Ahhh. I would say that your interpretation of this section of the code is not anywhere close to the commonly accepted interpretation. Under your rather narrow take on the statute, any church that expresses a view about any behavior jeopardizes their status. Referring to Islam again, the religion is on record as being for prohibition of alcohol. Does that mean that they lose their tax-exempt status in any city or state that is considering alcohol-related legislation?

Try again.

Cool...then said enterprises just won't help people, since you've put them in a position of helping someone lead a lifestyle that they regard as immoral and wrong. Fewer people helped, more people hungry and homeless. Happy?

And we all know how concerned the Catholic church is about immorality, don't we? Get off your high horse. The Catholic church is a joke. It's not moral, so where does it get off making condemnations on the morality of others? The Catholic priesthood contains more gays then any other institution on earth and they shelter them. But, it's not okay for other people to be gay? And you don't find this outrageous? I find it completely contemptible.

Ahhh. I would say that your interpretation of this section of the code is not anywhere close to the commonly accepted interpretation.

No interpretation. Direct quote:

In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation
(commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature,
any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive offices), or by the public in a referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.
A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Plain English. Are you saying they are not attempting to influence legislation?

Read it for yourself: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

YOU try again. :)

Lady, I'm an atheist. I don't have a dog (or a high horse) in this fight. I just find it incredibly ironic that the left side of the social spectrum, the ones who supposedly care so much about their fellow men that they're willing to provide welfare and healthcare to them without recompense on a secular level,woud rather see fewer people helped than let someone do something that doesn't fit their defintion of "fair". You'd rather see someone starve if it means that you don't get to substitute your moral code (Help everybody) for the Catholic moral code (Help some people, but not homosexuals). You'll pardon me if I suspect that the hungry man will not thank you for your strict adherence to your high ideals if it means that he stays hungry.

All I'm trying to say is don't ask for special status if you plan to violate human rights and discriminate. No one has ever stopped anyone from picking and choosing who they help but you can't ask for exemptions and then act like a private citizen. It is morally wrong but that never stopped the Catholic Church before. They help pedophiles all the time and never loose sleep over it.

I'll double up here, with apologies.

First off, all law is interpreted. The plain text is where it starts, and then proceeds through all the case law pertaining to the statute. Try to keep up, sport.

"A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body."

According to the article, nothing like this occurred. Tha Catholic church directly told the government that passing this legislation will result in the church closing its charitable organization, and gave their explanations for why this would occur. There is a fine line between "influence" and "informing", and the Catholic church has had about 200 years to find out where that line is, in a legal sense, and ride it for all its worth...and I'll wager that's about 199 years and 364 days longer than it took you to decide that they crossed it.

Now,

"don't ask for special status if you plan to violate human rights and discriminate."

There is no such thing as violating someone's rights by withholding charity from them. That's just called "Not being charitable". Using your logic, you're violating human rights and discriminating because you feed yourself and your family before you worry about how much you can give to the local food bank. Charity cannot , by its definition, be mandated.

Greg_Johnson -

Sorry, but I believe you read WAY too far into my comment regarding the lack of churches benefiting anyone I know. Just for clarification, I used to be a very active member of my catholic church and listened and learned just how little they really do for even their members. I have watched them turn their back on abused women and the children telling them simply that it is their place to serve their husbands. What a crock. I have heard similar stories from other faiths as well.

Like many Catholics, I love my faith, but do not agree with the churches political activities and clout. I disagree with their ancient views on marriage, the priesthood, and on abortion. If they supported the use of Birth Control, the abortion issue would not be as much of an issue. But that would make sense, so why change it? They thrive on intimidation and control.

You're spot on, Nicole!!! They pretend and make a lot of noise about helping. Overtly and covertly, they continue to amass wealth and power to keep themselves in power. They thrive on intimidation and control - and torture, i would add, when you think about a lot of the priests pervert sexual acts. They have been doing that for thousands of years...why would they stop now?