(02-09-2021 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Huh?

I don't actually understand the question, and I don't see how "other Muslims" are relevant to a conversation about Omar being attacked for her views (i.e. her being Muslim).

You said you know of no one who has attacked Omar for being Muslim.

And I still don't. If the only reason she was attacked was for being Muslim, you would think that the other Muslims in Congress and other venues of public life would have been similarly attacked.

First, actions don't have to occur to everyone of a certain group for them to be relevant. So it's a false assumption that if other Muslims in Congress weren't being attacked for being Muslim, that Omar also must not be.

Second, the other Muslims in Congress? You mean Rashida Tlaib? The only other two Muslims in Congress are Keith Ellison and Andre Carson - not idea if they've ever or never been criticized over their faith. Sounds like you may follow their careers closely enough to say that?

Ellison, Yes, Carson, no, and the mere fact that neither has been targeted for his faith puts the lie to the assertation that Omar/Tlaib have been. Unless now you want to shift to their sex?

Are you 100% sure that Ellison has never been targeted for his faith or had his faith used against him?

I don't know what role gender plays, but I find it absurd that you're trying to wiggle out of the demonstrable fact that Omar's faith has been used against her.

Quote:IMO, Omar/Tlaib have been targeted for their anti-jewish and anti-Israel statement, and their high profile for (a) being part of the Squad, and (b) being loudly proclaimed by the Democrats as evidence of their inclusivity.

Might as well say Jim Jordan is a target for leftists because he is a wrestler. Just because somebody is different in some way does not mean they are targeted on that basis.

Your opinion in no way contradicts or counters the fact that their faith has been a line of attack for some. If it wasn't, Greene would never had said those things about being sworn in on the Bible...

Just bonkers that you feel the need to reject what is plainly obvious.

Bonkers that you are defending Omar/Tlaib on the grounds they have been attacked for their faith, when they are the ones attacking Jews.

I guess it comes down to what is meant by belief. Religious faith was not what I was thinking of. It seems that everybody is attacked for their faith - Christians, Atheists, Mormons, etc. I have heard so much negativity from the Left about the Reliigious Right.

Omar and Tlaib are attacked for their antisemitism. I think anybody who displays antisemitism deserves attacking. Even if they are women or even if they are Muslim. Or even if they are not.

(02-09-2021 03:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And I still don't. If the only reason she was attacked was for being Muslim, you would think that the other Muslims in Congress and other venues of public life would have been similarly attacked.

First, actions don't have to occur to everyone of a certain group for them to be relevant. So it's a false assumption that if other Muslims in Congress weren't being attacked for being Muslim, that Omar also must not be.

Second, the other Muslims in Congress? You mean Rashida Tlaib? The only other two Muslims in Congress are Keith Ellison and Andre Carson - not idea if they've ever or never been criticized over their faith. Sounds like you may follow their careers closely enough to say that?

Ellison, Yes, Carson, no, and the mere fact that neither has been targeted for his faith puts the lie to the assertation that Omar/Tlaib have been. Unless now you want to shift to their sex?

Are you 100% sure that Ellison has never been targeted for his faith or had his faith used against him?

I don't know what role gender plays, but I find it absurd that you're trying to wiggle out of the demonstrable fact that Omar's faith has been used against her.

Quote:IMO, Omar/Tlaib have been targeted for their anti-jewish and anti-Israel statement, and their high profile for (a) being part of the Squad, and (b) being loudly proclaimed by the Democrats as evidence of their inclusivity.

Might as well say Jim Jordan is a target for leftists because he is a wrestler. Just because somebody is different in some way does not mean they are targeted on that basis.

Your opinion in no way contradicts or counters the fact that their faith has been a line of attack for some. If it wasn't, Greene would never had said those things about being sworn in on the Bible...

Just bonkers that you feel the need to reject what is plainly obvious.

Bonkers that you are defending Omar/Tlaib on the grounds they have been attacked for their faith, when they are the ones attacking Jews.

What?

Seriously, are you even reading what I am typing? I have provided no comment on any actual, or potential, antisemitic comments. What a bad faith argument you've just made.

Quote:I guess it comes down to what is meant by belief. Religious faith was not what I was thinking of. It seems that everybody is attacked for their faith - Christians, Atheists, Mormons, etc. I have heard so much negativity from the Left about the Reliigious Right.

Omar and Tlaib are attacked for their antisemitism. I think anybody who displays antisemitism deserves attacking. Even if they are women or even if they are Muslim. Or even if they are not.

They are certainly attacked for more than "their antisemitism." I don't see how telling them to go back to the Middle East or to swear in on the bible has anything to do with criticizing or attacking antisemitic comments.

(02-09-2021 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 03:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  First, actions don't have to occur to everyone of a certain group for them to be relevant. So it's a false assumption that if other Muslims in Congress weren't being attacked for being Muslim, that Omar also must not be.

Second, the other Muslims in Congress? You mean Rashida Tlaib? The only other two Muslims in Congress are Keith Ellison and Andre Carson - not idea if they've ever or never been criticized over their faith. Sounds like you may follow their careers closely enough to say that?

Ellison, Yes, Carson, no, and the mere fact that neither has been targeted for his faith puts the lie to the assertation that Omar/Tlaib have been. Unless now you want to shift to their sex?

Are you 100% sure that Ellison has never been targeted for his faith or had his faith used against him?

I don't know what role gender plays, but I find it absurd that you're trying to wiggle out of the demonstrable fact that Omar's faith has been used against her.

Quote:IMO, Omar/Tlaib have been targeted for their anti-jewish and anti-Israel statement, and their high profile for (a) being part of the Squad, and (b) being loudly proclaimed by the Democrats as evidence of their inclusivity.

Might as well say Jim Jordan is a target for leftists because he is a wrestler. Just because somebody is different in some way does not mean they are targeted on that basis.

Your opinion in no way contradicts or counters the fact that their faith has been a line of attack for some. If it wasn't, Greene would never had said those things about being sworn in on the Bible...

Just bonkers that you feel the need to reject what is plainly obvious.

Bonkers that you are defending Omar/Tlaib on the grounds they have been attacked for their faith, when they are the ones attacking Jews.

What?

Seriously, are you even reading what I am typing? I have provided no comment on any actual, or potential, antisemitic comments. What a bad faith argument you've just made.

Quote:I guess it comes down to what is meant by belief. Religious faith was not what I was thinking of. It seems that everybody is attacked for their faith - Christians, Atheists, Mormons, etc. I have heard so much negativity from the Left about the Reliigious Right.

Omar and Tlaib are attacked for their antisemitism. I think anybody who displays antisemitism deserves attacking. Even if they are women or even if they are Muslim. Or even if they are not.

They are certainly attacked for more than "their antisemitism." I don't see how telling them to go back to the Middle East or to swear in on the bible has anything to do with criticizing or attacking antisemitic comments.

But the vast, vast, vast, vast (get the point?) amount of the attacks are based on their political stances. Something that seems to get fundamentally lost in the endless notation of "how dare they are attacked for 'where they originate'" -- you know, the thing that you steadfastly keep hammering on even in this sub-thread.

Par for the course to overlook that I guess.

One would guess from the time you have spent on the premise of 'they are attacked for "where they came from". that that is the massive predominant thread of such attacks.

The singular issue is that for all you want to focus on the 'where they came from' thread of attack, the *vast* portions of that are detached from your obsession. But, please keep focusing elsewhere.

(02-09-2021 12:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:07 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:29 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We've come far enough that no one has even batted an eye at Biden's faith - but we clearly have a ways to go.

I serious doubt any practicing Catholic would even suggest Biden is in communion with the Catholic faith. As a Catholic 'feaster' I sure wouldn't.

Going to Mass has very little with being a 'good' Catholic and more about being a 'visible' Catholic. (Biden has been denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at least once. )

What constitutes a "good" versus "bad" Catholic is under massive debate even at the highest levels of the Vatican.

Why was Biden denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? What kinds of missteps will lead to this censure? Are you allowed the sacrament if you are divorced? How about if you're gay?

Biden's position on abortion removes him from the Communion rail. (It's those darn commandments Moses gave us.)

Last I heard divorce, if you initiate it, removes you as well. If you didn't and don't defile your marriage bed, you're probably OK. My neighbor was a 'good' Catholic in my opinion, but never took Communion because he divorced his first wife.

Gays are not allowed Communion.

I don't there there's that much of a debate about what constitutes a 'good' Catholic and a 'bad' Catholic. But nice try.

(Time to cook supper for the kids and my ex. Adios.)

I believe you just answered your question about political Christians with the bolded.

If opposition to abortion is strictly due to one's adherent to a faith (and that faith is based in Christianity) then by goodness, we got a winner.

Side note - I think we should look for a different term than "good." Observant would be much better.

So you're stating it's those pesky Christians, and Christians alone, that are pro-life? Not so sure about that.

And by the way I'm pretty sure Moses was Hebrew, but whom am I to question you?

Finally we're back to semantics...'good' vs 'observant'? Generally speaking no one is usually called a 'bad' Catholic, it's more like 'not a very good' Catholic or 'do they really consider themselves Catholic if...?"

So just to let you know what constitutes a basic Catholic (from what I remember of the Baltimore catechism and subsequent Church teachings):
1. Follow the Ten Commandments.
2. Be baptized into the Catholic faith (but I think you can be baptized a Christian and then subsequently confirmed a Catholic).
3. Receives the sacrament of Reconciliation (aka Confession) at least once a year. (That includes being contrite and not just going through the motions.)
4. Receives the Holy Eucharist at least once a year (without the presence of Cardinal sin).
5. Follows the teachings of the Church.
That's about it.
(Even better if you support your church and the propagation of the faith, and throw in a few corporal works of mercy and spiritual works of mercy.

(02-09-2021 05:20 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:07 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:29 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I serious doubt any practicing Catholic would even suggest Biden is in communion with the Catholic faith. As a Catholic 'feaster' I sure wouldn't.

Going to Mass has very little with being a 'good' Catholic and more about being a 'visible' Catholic. (Biden has been denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at least once. )

What constitutes a "good" versus "bad" Catholic is under massive debate even at the highest levels of the Vatican.

Why was Biden denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? What kinds of missteps will lead to this censure? Are you allowed the sacrament if you are divorced? How about if you're gay?

Biden's position on abortion removes him from the Communion rail. (It's those darn commandments Moses gave us.)

Last I heard divorce, if you initiate it, removes you as well. If you didn't and don't defile your marriage bed, you're probably OK. My neighbor was a 'good' Catholic in my opinion, but never took Communion because he divorced his first wife.

Gays are not allowed Communion.

I don't there there's that much of a debate about what constitutes a 'good' Catholic and a 'bad' Catholic. But nice try.

(Time to cook supper for the kids and my ex. Adios.)

I believe you just answered your question about political Christians with the bolded.

If opposition to abortion is strictly due to one's adherent to a faith (and that in this instance is Catholicism, a faith is based in Christianity) then by goodness, we got a winner.

Side note - I think we should look for a different term than "good." Observant would be much better.

So you're stating it's those pesky Christians, and Christians alone, that are pro-life?

And by the way I'm pretty sure Moses was Hebrew, but whom am I to question you?

No, I am not stating that, sorry you interpreted it that way.

Since we were talking about Catholics and their political stance on abortion, it was clear I was talking about this specific instance. See the change in bold to make that crystal clear.

(02-09-2021 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 03:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Ellison, Yes, Carson, no, and the mere fact that neither has been targeted for his faith puts the lie to the assertation that Omar/Tlaib have been. Unless now you want to shift to their sex?

Are you 100% sure that Ellison has never been targeted for his faith or had his faith used against him?

I don't know what role gender plays, but I find it absurd that you're trying to wiggle out of the demonstrable fact that Omar's faith has been used against her.

Quote:IMO, Omar/Tlaib have been targeted for their anti-jewish and anti-Israel statement, and their high profile for (a) being part of the Squad, and (b) being loudly proclaimed by the Democrats as evidence of their inclusivity.

Might as well say Jim Jordan is a target for leftists because he is a wrestler. Just because somebody is different in some way does not mean they are targeted on that basis.

Your opinion in no way contradicts or counters the fact that their faith has been a line of attack for some. If it wasn't, Greene would never had said those things about being sworn in on the Bible...

Just bonkers that you feel the need to reject what is plainly obvious.

Bonkers that you are defending Omar/Tlaib on the grounds they have been attacked for their faith, when they are the ones attacking Jews.

What?

Seriously, are you even reading what I am typing? I have provided no comment on any actual, or potential, antisemitic comments. What a bad faith argument you've just made.

Quote:I guess it comes down to what is meant by belief. Religious faith was not what I was thinking of. It seems that everybody is attacked for their faith - Christians, Atheists, Mormons, etc. I have heard so much negativity from the Left about the Reliigious Right.

Omar and Tlaib are attacked for their antisemitism. I think anybody who displays antisemitism deserves attacking. Even if they are women or even if they are Muslim. Or even if they are not.

They are certainly attacked for more than "their antisemitism." I don't see how telling them to go back to the Middle East or to swear in on the bible has anything to do with criticizing or attacking antisemitic comments.

But the vast, vast, vast, vast (get the point?) amount of the attacks are based on their political stances. Something that seems to get fundamentally lost in the endless notation of "how dare they are attacked for 'where they originate'" -- you know, the thing that you steadfastly keep hammering on even in this sub-thread.

Par for the course to overlook that I guess.

One would guess from the time you have spent on the premise of 'they are attacked for "where they came from". that that is the massive predominant thread of such attacks.

The singular issue is that for all you want to focus on the 'where they came from' thread of attack, the *vast* portions of that are detached from your obsession. But, please keep focusing elsewhere.

Congrats on making an argument against a point that has never been made in this entire thread.

OO said they had never been attacked for their faith - a single instance is proof dispositive of that claim. So it doesn't matter one iota how many other attacks are policy based in this context.

So take up issue with OO trying to deny that this has EVER happened if you want to take issue with the "singular" focus...

Way to come in, move the goal posts, and pat yourself on the back.

(02-09-2021 05:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:20 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:07 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  What constitutes a "good" versus "bad" Catholic is under massive debate even at the highest levels of the Vatican.

Why was Biden denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? What kinds of missteps will lead to this censure? Are you allowed the sacrament if you are divorced? How about if you're gay?

Biden's position on abortion removes him from the Communion rail. (It's those darn commandments Moses gave us.)

Last I heard divorce, if you initiate it, removes you as well. If you didn't and don't defile your marriage bed, you're probably OK. My neighbor was a 'good' Catholic in my opinion, but never took Communion because he divorced his first wife.

Gays are not allowed Communion.

I don't there there's that much of a debate about what constitutes a 'good' Catholic and a 'bad' Catholic. But nice try.

(Time to cook supper for the kids and my ex. Adios.)

I believe you just answered your question about political Christians with the bolded.

If opposition to abortion is strictly due to one's adherent to a faith (and that in this instance is Catholicism, a faith is based in Christianity) then by goodness, we got a winner.

Side note - I think we should look for a different term than "good." Observant would be much better.

So you're stating it's those pesky Christians, and Christians alone, that are pro-life?

And by the way I'm pretty sure Moses was Hebrew, but whom am I to question you?

No, I am not stating that, sorry you interpreted it that way.

Since we were talking about Catholics and their political stance on abortion, it was clear I was talking about this specific instance. See the change in bold to make that crystal clear.

I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

(02-09-2021 05:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:20 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:07 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Biden's position on abortion removes him from the Communion rail. (It's those darn commandments Moses gave us.)

Last I heard divorce, if you initiate it, removes you as well. If you didn't and don't defile your marriage bed, you're probably OK. My neighbor was a 'good' Catholic in my opinion, but never took Communion because he divorced his first wife.

Gays are not allowed Communion.

I don't there there's that much of a debate about what constitutes a 'good' Catholic and a 'bad' Catholic. But nice try.

(Time to cook supper for the kids and my ex. Adios.)

I believe you just answered your question about political Christians with the bolded.

If opposition to abortion is strictly due to one's adherent to a faith (and that in this instance is Catholicism, a faith is based in Christianity) then by goodness, we got a winner.

Side note - I think we should look for a different term than "good." Observant would be much better.

So you're stating it's those pesky Christians, and Christians alone, that are pro-life?

And by the way I'm pretty sure Moses was Hebrew, but whom am I to question you?

No, I am not stating that, sorry you interpreted it that way.

Since we were talking about Catholics and their political stance on abortion, it was clear I was talking about this specific instance. See the change in bold to make that crystal clear.

I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

I have a hard time getting worked up about Biden being denied the Sacrament when divorced and gay people are also denied said Sacrament. To me that is more of a reflection of the Catholic church than any failing of Biden.

(02-09-2021 05:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:20 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:07 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Biden's position on abortion removes him from the Communion rail. (It's those darn commandments Moses gave us.)

Last I heard divorce, if you initiate it, removes you as well. If you didn't and don't defile your marriage bed, you're probably OK. My neighbor was a 'good' Catholic in my opinion, but never took Communion because he divorced his first wife.

Gays are not allowed Communion.

I don't there there's that much of a debate about what constitutes a 'good' Catholic and a 'bad' Catholic. But nice try.

(Time to cook supper for the kids and my ex. Adios.)

I believe you just answered your question about political Christians with the bolded.

If opposition to abortion is strictly due to one's adherent to a faith (and that in this instance is Catholicism, a faith is based in Christianity) then by goodness, we got a winner.

Side note - I think we should look for a different term than "good." Observant would be much better.

So you're stating it's those pesky Christians, and Christians alone, that are pro-life?

And by the way I'm pretty sure Moses was Hebrew, but whom am I to question you?

No, I am not stating that, sorry you interpreted it that way.

Since we were talking about Catholics and their political stance on abortion, it was clear I was talking about this specific instance. See the change in bold to make that crystal clear.

I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

Which becomes political when it creates laws outlawing abortion. You connected Biden's religiousness to his political position on abortion rights - it's not as if Biden is himself having the abortion, performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions. So with that being said, I don't see how Biden's political stance on abortion rights affects whether or not he is a "good" or "bad" Catholic.

If one makes a moral or humanistic argument as to why abortion should be outlawed, it's another story about that being a political stance. But outlawing abortion because the 10 Commandments say "thou shall not kill" is as religiously motivated as it comes.

This all comes to the idea that one can be against abortion, but also be against the state outlawing abortion.

(02-09-2021 06:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:20 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I believe you just answered your question about political Christians with the bolded.

If opposition to abortion is strictly due to one's adherent to a faith (and that in this instance is Catholicism, a faith is based in Christianity) then by goodness, we got a winner.

Side note - I think we should look for a different term than "good." Observant would be much better.

So you're stating it's those pesky Christians, and Christians alone, that are pro-life?

And by the way I'm pretty sure Moses was Hebrew, but whom am I to question you?

No, I am not stating that, sorry you interpreted it that way.

Since we were talking about Catholics and their political stance on abortion, it was clear I was talking about this specific instance. See the change in bold to make that crystal clear.

I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

I have a hard time getting worked up about Biden being denied the Sacrament when divorced and gay people are also denied said Sacrament. To me that is more of a reflection of the Catholic church than any failing of Biden.

I think you're missing the point.

The Left are saying, "See we have no problem with Biden and he's a devout / whatever Catholic." Yes it's true the Left have no problem with Biden, but it's because he isn't a devout / whatever Catholic.

You think it's a bad reflection when the Catholic Church compels it's members to follow its teachings including the Ten Commandments and the the Bible or be denied the Sacraments? Whose Canon Law are you reading? Some believe that Biden should be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. I personally would have trouble arguing against his excommunication. Make it a double header and add Pelosi.

(02-09-2021 06:37 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:20 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  So you're stating it's those pesky Christians, and Christians alone, that are pro-life?

And by the way I'm pretty sure Moses was Hebrew, but whom am I to question you?

No, I am not stating that, sorry you interpreted it that way.

Since we were talking about Catholics and their political stance on abortion, it was clear I was talking about this specific instance. See the change in bold to make that crystal clear.

I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

I have a hard time getting worked up about Biden being denied the Sacrament when divorced and gay people are also denied said Sacrament. To me that is more of a reflection of the Catholic church than any failing of Biden.

I think you're missing the point.

The Left are saying, "See we have no problem with Biden and he's a devout / whatever Catholic." Yes it's true the Left have no problem with Biden, but it's because he isn't a devout / whatever Catholic.

You think it's a bad reflection when the Catholic Church compels it's members to follow its teachings including the Ten Commandments and the the Bible or be denied the Sacraments? Whose Canon Law are you reading? Some believe that Biden should be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. I personally would have trouble arguing against his excommunication. Make it a double header and add Pelosi.

Should gay people and divorced people also be excommunicated according to Canon Law? Would you argue for or against?

(02-09-2021 06:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:37 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, I am not stating that, sorry you interpreted it that way.

Since we were talking about Catholics and their political stance on abortion, it was clear I was talking about this specific instance. See the change in bold to make that crystal clear.

I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

I have a hard time getting worked up about Biden being denied the Sacrament when divorced and gay people are also denied said Sacrament. To me that is more of a reflection of the Catholic church than any failing of Biden.

I think you're missing the point.

The Left are saying, "See we have no problem with Biden and he's a devout / whatever Catholic." Yes it's true the Left have no problem with Biden, but it's because he isn't a devout / whatever Catholic.

You think it's a bad reflection when the Catholic Church compels it's members to follow its teachings including the Ten Commandments and the the Bible or be denied the Sacraments? Whose Canon Law are you reading? Some believe that Biden should be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. I personally would have trouble arguing against his excommunication. Make it a double header and add Pelosi.

Should gay people and divorced people also be excommunicated according to Canon Law? Would you argue for or against?

Is this another case of attacking people for their beliefs?

(02-09-2021 07:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:37 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

I have a hard time getting worked up about Biden being denied the Sacrament when divorced and gay people are also denied said Sacrament. To me that is more of a reflection of the Catholic church than any failing of Biden.

I think you're missing the point.

The Left are saying, "See we have no problem with Biden and he's a devout / whatever Catholic." Yes it's true the Left have no problem with Biden, but it's because he isn't a devout / whatever Catholic.

You think it's a bad reflection when the Catholic Church compels it's members to follow its teachings including the Ten Commandments and the the Bible or be denied the Sacraments? Whose Canon Law are you reading? Some believe that Biden should be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. I personally would have trouble arguing against his excommunication. Make it a double header and add Pelosi.

Should gay people and divorced people also be excommunicated according to Canon Law? Would you argue for or against?

Is this another case of attacking people for their beliefs?

I'm trying to figure out where he stands and I'm telling him my thoughts. Where in the world are you seeing "an attack"?

He started this off by implying that Biden was a "bad Catholic" and I'm trying to figure out how the term is defined.

(02-09-2021 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:20 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I believe you just answered your question about political Christians with the bolded.

If opposition to abortion is strictly due to one's adherent to a faith (and that in this instance is Catholicism, a faith is based in Christianity) then by goodness, we got a winner.

Side note - I think we should look for a different term than "good." Observant would be much better.

So you're stating it's those pesky Christians, and Christians alone, that are pro-life?

And by the way I'm pretty sure Moses was Hebrew, but whom am I to question you?

No, I am not stating that, sorry you interpreted it that way.

Since we were talking about Catholics and their political stance on abortion, it was clear I was talking about this specific instance. See the change in bold to make that crystal clear.

I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

Which becomes political when it creates laws outlawing abortion. You connected Biden's religiousness to his political position on abortion rights - it's not as if Biden is himself having the abortion, performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions. So with that being said, I don't see how Biden's political stance on abortion rights affects whether or not he is a "good" or "bad" Catholic.

If one makes a moral or humanistic argument as to why abortion should be outlawed, it's another story about that being a political stance. But outlawing abortion because the 10 Commandments say "thou shall not kill" is as religiously motivated as it comes.

This all comes to the idea that one can be against abortion, but also be against the state outlawing abortion.

So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

(02-09-2021 07:16 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:20 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  So you're stating it's those pesky Christians, and Christians alone, that are pro-life?

And by the way I'm pretty sure Moses was Hebrew, but whom am I to question you?

No, I am not stating that, sorry you interpreted it that way.

Since we were talking about Catholics and their political stance on abortion, it was clear I was talking about this specific instance. See the change in bold to make that crystal clear.

I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

Which becomes political when it creates laws outlawing abortion. You connected Biden's religiousness to his political position on abortion rights - it's not as if Biden is himself having the abortion, performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions. So with that being said, I don't see how Biden's political stance on abortion rights affects whether or not he is a "good" or "bad" Catholic.

If one makes a moral or humanistic argument as to why abortion should be outlawed, it's another story about that being a political stance. But outlawing abortion because the 10 Commandments say "thou shall not kill" is as religiously motivated as it comes.

This all comes to the idea that one can be against abortion, but also be against the state outlawing abortion.

So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

(02-09-2021 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:16 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, I am not stating that, sorry you interpreted it that way.

Since we were talking about Catholics and their political stance on abortion, it was clear I was talking about this specific instance. See the change in bold to make that crystal clear.

I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

Which becomes political when it creates laws outlawing abortion. You connected Biden's religiousness to his political position on abortion rights - it's not as if Biden is himself having the abortion, performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions. So with that being said, I don't see how Biden's political stance on abortion rights affects whether or not he is a "good" or "bad" Catholic.

If one makes a moral or humanistic argument as to why abortion should be outlawed, it's another story about that being a political stance. But outlawing abortion because the 10 Commandments say "thou shall not kill" is as religiously motivated as it comes.

This all comes to the idea that one can be against abortion, but also be against the state outlawing abortion.

So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

I am not a religious person. Christian background, but also previously atheist.

I think abortion is the killing of a human being. Not a religious stance, a common sense stance. Something that was alive and identifiable as human is no longer alive.

Whether or not it is a legal killing is another matter. Whether or not it is a justified killing is yet another.

I cannot see how lad is going to justify those killings, but this should be interesting.

(02-09-2021 07:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:16 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

Which becomes political when it creates laws outlawing abortion. You connected Biden's religiousness to his political position on abortion rights - it's not as if Biden is himself having the abortion, performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions. So with that being said, I don't see how Biden's political stance on abortion rights affects whether or not he is a "good" or "bad" Catholic.

If one makes a moral or humanistic argument as to why abortion should be outlawed, it's another story about that being a political stance. But outlawing abortion because the 10 Commandments say "thou shall not kill" is as religiously motivated as it comes.

This all comes to the idea that one can be against abortion, but also be against the state outlawing abortion.

So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

I am not a religious person. Christian background, but also previously atheist.

I think abortion is the killing of a human being. Not a religious stance, a common sense stance. Something that was alive and identifiable as human is no longer alive.

Whether or not it is a legal killing is another matter. Whether or not it is a justified killing is yet another.

I cannot see how lad is going to justify those killings, but this should be interesting.

I don't believe it is the killing of a human being. Pretty easy to justify allowing abortions.

I don't think we should outlaw abortion completely (fine with some restrictions, especially based on viability) because of the health issues it creates for women.

As OO just providedm, I completely believe that that are anti-abortion stances that aren't based on religious teachings. Not sure if that was in question, but it seemed to be getting close to it at least.

(02-09-2021 08:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:16 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Which becomes political when it creates laws outlawing abortion. You connected Biden's religiousness to his political position on abortion rights - it's not as if Biden is himself having the abortion, performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions. So with that being said, I don't see how Biden's political stance on abortion rights affects whether or not he is a "good" or "bad" Catholic.

If one makes a moral or humanistic argument as to why abortion should be outlawed, it's another story about that being a political stance. But outlawing abortion because the 10 Commandments say "thou shall not kill" is as religiously motivated as it comes.

This all comes to the idea that one can be against abortion, but also be against the state outlawing abortion.

So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

I am not a religious person. Christian background, but also previously atheist.

I think abortion is the killing of a human being. Not a religious stance, a common sense stance. Something that was alive and identifiable as human is no longer alive.

Whether or not it is a legal killing is another matter. Whether or not it is a justified killing is yet another.

I cannot see how lad is going to justify those killings, but this should be interesting.

I don't believe it is the killing of a human being. Pretty easy to justify allowing abortions.

I don't think we should outlaw abortion completely (fine with some restrictions, especially based on viability) because of the health issues it creates for women.

As OO just providedm, I completely believe that that are anti-abortion stances that aren't based on religious teachings. Not sure if that was in question, but it seemed to be getting close to it at least.

I think it it is human from the moment of conception. Science (you guys like science, right?) tells us that if we take a sample from the embryo, it will come back as Homo Sapiens, not anything else.

My question to you is, if that embryo is not a human being, at what point over the next 25 years does it become human?

Don't give me the old "viability" tap dance, unless you are prepared to tell me an infant can survive without help or that a person on life support is not a human being.

(02-09-2021 07:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:37 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I have a hard time getting worked up about Biden being denied the Sacrament when divorced and gay people are also denied said Sacrament. To me that is more of a reflection of the Catholic church than any failing of Biden.

I think you're missing the point.

The Left are saying, "See we have no problem with Biden and he's a devout / whatever Catholic." Yes it's true the Left have no problem with Biden, but it's because he isn't a devout / whatever Catholic.

You think it's a bad reflection when the Catholic Church compels it's members to follow its teachings including the Ten Commandments and the the Bible or be denied the Sacraments? Whose Canon Law are you reading? Some believe that Biden should be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. I personally would have trouble arguing against his excommunication. Make it a double header and add Pelosi.

Should gay people and divorced people also be excommunicated according to Canon Law? Would you argue for or against?

Is this another case of attacking people for their beliefs?

I'm trying to figure out where he stands and I'm telling him my thoughts. Where in the world are you seeing "an attack"?

He started this off by implying that Biden was a "bad Catholic" and I'm trying to figure out how the term is defined.

If you're going to be a 'good' (as opposed to a 'bad') Catholic or Baptist or Mormon, then I think you adhere to the teachings of each respective faith.

When you do not adhere to the teachings then you are holding yourself outside of that faith. No problem, but you are no longer 'in communion' with that faith. I don't think you need a degree in Theology or umpteenth years in Sunday School to understand something so simple.

If I present myself as a Christian and routinely break (in a premeditated fashion) the Ten Commandments am I a Christian? (The answer you're looking for is "No".)

Biden is not in communion with the Catholic faith and appears to be making no attempt for reconciliation. No problem. He can go worship wherever he choses. He can even attend Catholic Mass, but he can not / should not take the Holy Eucharist as he is not in a 'state of grace'. If the Priest celebrating Mass is aware of this, then they are compelled to deny him the sacrament.

Divorced and Gay people aren't 'normally' excommunicated. There is hope that they will be reconciled to the Church. Divorced Catholics that don't remarry are allowed Holy Eucharist. You can have your marriage annulled in certain circumstances that will allow you to remarry in the Catholic Church. I believe Pope Francis was trying to make annulments easier several years ago, but I haven't followed the progress of those changes as it doesn't affect me personally as a divorced Catholic. The Catholic Church is not changing its stance on homosexuality any time soon if ever.

Sorry I don't have a copy of the Canon Law of the Catholic Church on hand. I haven't seen one for years, but I have a good idea of its intent.

(02-09-2021 08:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 08:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:16 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

I am not a religious person. Christian background, but also previously atheist.

I think abortion is the killing of a human being. Not a religious stance, a common sense stance. Something that was alive and identifiable as human is no longer alive.

Whether or not it is a legal killing is another matter. Whether or not it is a justified killing is yet another.

I cannot see how lad is going to justify those killings, but this should be interesting.

I don't believe it is the killing of a human being. Pretty easy to justify allowing abortions.

I don't think we should outlaw abortion completely (fine with some restrictions, especially based on viability) because of the health issues it creates for women.

As OO just providedm, I completely believe that that are anti-abortion stances that aren't based on religious teachings. Not sure if that was in question, but it seemed to be getting close to it at least.

I think it it is human from the moment of conception. Science (you guys like science, right?) tells us that if we take a sample from the embryo, it will come back as Homo Sapiens, not anything else.

My question to you is, if that embryo is not a human being, at what point over the next 25 years does it become human?

Don't give me the old "viability" tap dance, unless you are prepared to tell me an infant can survive without help or that a person on life support is not a human being.

This line clearly indicates that you aren't actually interested in this conversation and you're more interested in trying to prove a point without understanding mine.

Abortion is a tricky subject - you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. I'm of the opinion that our laws should not outlaw abortions, and I've already provided some insight into that - hope that tap dancing is good enough for you.