Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides

[mrmom2]

Has your goverment had your kids in for the physcological tests yet Nascar you know if there not fit there going to drug them whether you like it or not :roll:

 

[Nascar_James]

Haggis, you are correct in that the government in Canada cannot keep you from attending church. However, when they pass laws that directly associate with our fundamental values, we are directly affected as well. As an example, the most fundamental of all definitions in our global society, the definition of marriage. Who is the government to decide that it has right to tell us that we must interpret a new definition of marriage? It is unacceptable. I will stay with the traditional definition, I want to raise my kids with traditional values, as my folks did with me. I can do that here in the US. Another example of the backwards nature of the Canadian government is the fact that they would rather kill an innocent unborn baby than execute a convicted murderer. This is complete madness. Now you see why the government can force it's values onto you. If you don't agree with them, then (As I did), you have no choice but to move. We need to live in a society that reflects who we are and shares our values.

1. Two people of the same sex who love each other and want to be married. What is inherently wrong or sinful about that, in a non-secular sense (keeping, of course, church and government separate, as both nations claim to do).

2. Abortion is legal in the United States. Twelve states do not have capital punishment. So what is your point when you say, "Another example of the backwards nature of the Canadian government is the fact that they would rather kill an innocent unborn baby than execute a convicted murderer." Oh, and by the way, statements such as that are outlandish, melodramatic, cheap.

3. A government cannot force its values on you.

4. So, you say you want traditional values. Are you selective about that, by chance? Does your wife remain at home, never voting, not working, and subservient to you? Are your daughters growing up in that image? In religious matters, do you believe in the traditional Old Testament or are you into the new-fangled less traditional New Testament? Two hundred years ago, it was traditional for landowners to have slaves, do you support that? So, my point is, traditional beliefs evolve. Do you?

1. In most societies, the definition of marriage comes from a super power much higher than any government, and the government has no business in this jurisdiction.

2. The majority of states do have capiltal punishment as does the federal court. As you noted, the few liberal left leaning states currently do not have the death penalty. As for abortion, the current Bush Administration is pro-Life and the President publically expresses his views and got elected on these views. I am hoping John Roberts once he sits on the US Supreme Court will help in overturning legalized abortion within the entire US (Roe vs Wade). In addition, 16 states still have pre-1973 anti-abortion laws on the books, which means you will have a hard time trying to get an abortion in those states. Those are states that truly respect human life. As an example .. state of Missouri ...

In Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), the Supreme Court declared in a 5:4 decision that a Missouri law was constitutional. It stated that: Human life began at conception, That Missouri state property could not be used to conduct abortions, and A fetal viability assessment could be required before late term abortions are performed.

3. The goverment can indeed force it's values onto you. If you are trying to raise your kids with values passed onto you by your folks and many other generations within your family in Canada, you will have a hard time doing so. I want my kids to keep their faith and last I heard the Vatican does not support abortion nor gay marriage. That is a perfect example of how the government can interfere with family values.

4. Yes my wife is a stay at home wife and she is a registered Republican. Women have had the right to vote here since 1921. And no, the Catholic church does not object to this. And as for your comment on slaves 200 years ago ... the Catholic Church did not approve of slavery unless the individuals were prisoners captured during a war (back in those days they did not have the Geneva convention).

 

[gopher]

Hate is not a value.


It is for the American reich wing.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

The goverment can indeed force it's values onto you. If you are trying to raise your kids with values passed onto you by your folks and many other generations within your family in Canada, you will have a hard time doing so.

Perhaps if you are not strong enough to instill the proper values into your family, yes... I can see your problem. I think, when one does not have the courage of one's convictions, it can seem as though the government forces its values on one, and therefore it is easier to simply move somewhere where the government legislates the values you hold dear. However, we managed to successfully raise our daughter with our strongly-held values, the great majority of which run counter to the avaristic, purposeless, mindless lifestyles adoped by today's society (American or Canadian).

Our daughter is now 29, she is a strong independent thinker, she leads a very principled life. She has a successful career, was married last August, they are expecting their first baby in January, she will be a stay-at-home mother who will home-teach her children.

The things she learned from us were not taught in schools, we taught them to her, and we showed by example. She went out into the world as an adult with the conviction of her beliefs. She practices what she preaches, she lives according to her values, she has never wavered in the face of temptation to go against what she knows is right.

If you're strong and sure of who and what you are, raising a child with strong values comes easy, regardless of where you live. It was for us, it was the easiest thing in the world.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I want my kids to keep their faith and last I heard the Vatican does not support abortion nor gay marriage.

...but apparently it does support diddling altar boys... :x

And as for your comment on slaves 200 years ago ... the Catholic Church did not approve of slavery unless the individuals were prisoners captured during a war (back in those days they did not have the Geneva convention).

Complete and utter bullshit!!

In fact, Roman Catholicism was one of the last Christian denominations to uphold the emancipation of slaves...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav2.htm

1800 +: The Roman Catholic church's Sacred Congregation of the Index continued to place many anti-slavery tracts on their Index of Forbidden Books in order to prevent the public from reading them.

1839: Pope Gregory XVI wrote in Supremo Apostolatus that he admonishes and adjures "in the Lord all believers in Christ, of whatsoever condition, that no one hereafter may dare unjustly to molest Indians, Negroes, or other men of this sort;...or to reduce them to slavery..." The operative word is unjustly. The Pope did not condemn slavery if the slaves had been captured justly. Roman Catholic Bishops in the Southern U.S. determined that this prohibition did not apply to slavery in the U.S. To their credit, various other popes did order or otherwise influence the emancipation of slaves that they considered to be unjustly enslaved.

1863: President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on JAN-1. This is believed by many to have freed the slaves. Actually, it did not. Former slaves in the Northern states had already been freed; slaves in the south were part of the Confederacy, and thus immune to Union proclamations. Author Joel Panzer concluded that Catholic bishops in the U.S. at this time taught that buying and selling slaves was immoral, but merely owning a slave was acceptable to the church. Panzer considers this to be a misinterpretation of Papal teaching.

1865: The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ended slavery.

1866: The Holy Office of the Vatican issued a statement in support of slavery. The document stated that "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law...The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." Some commentators suggest that the statement was triggered by the passage of the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Others claim that the document referred only to a "particular situation in Africa to have slaves under certain conditions," and not necessarily to the situation in the U.S.

1873: Pope Pius IX was concerned about the "wreched Ethopians in Central Africa." He prayed that "Almighty God may at length remove the curse of Cham [Ham] from their hearts." God's curse on Ham was that the Canaanite people would be forever enslaved. Some theologians had long used this Biblical passage to justify enslavement of Africans.

1888: Brazil became the last country in the Western hemisphere to abolish slavery. The Roman Catholic Church reversed its stance "from the affirmation to the condemnation of slavery." 10 Pope Leo XIII sent a letter to the Brazilian Bishops saying that "from the beginning, almost nothing was more venerated in the Catholic Church...that the fact that she looked to see a slavery eased and abolished...Many of our predecessors...made every effort to ensure that the institution of slavery should be abolished where it existed and that its roots should not revive where it had been destroyed." This statement does not agree with the historical record. Previous church documents clearly stated that slavery was quite permissible, as long as the slave was a non-Christian and the slave's captors were fighting in a just war.

1917: The Roman Catholic church's Canon Law was expanded to declare a that "selling a human being into slavery or for any other evil purpose" is a crime.

1965: The Vatican II document "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World" stated "Whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torture...whatever insults human dignity, such as...slavery, prostitution and selling of women and children...all these things and others like them are infamous...Human institutions...should be bulwarks against any kind of political or social slavery and guardians of basic rights under any kind of government."

So while the Vatican did play some easily evadible word games concerning which slaves were perfectly fine to buy and own, and which ones would be considered sinful, it was not until 1917 when it was written into Canon Law that the Church actually condemned slavery...

 

[Nascar_James]

I want my kids to keep their faith and last I heard the Vatican does not support abortion nor gay marriage.

...but apparently it does support diddling altar boys... :x

And as for your comment on slaves 200 years ago ... the Catholic Church did not approve of slavery unless the individuals were prisoners captured during a war (back in those days they did not have the Geneva convention).

Complete and utter bullshit!!

In fact, Roman Catholicism was one of the last Christian denominations to uphold the emancipation of slaves...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav2.htm

1800 +: The Roman Catholic church's Sacred Congregation of the Index continued to place many anti-slavery tracts on their Index of Forbidden Books in order to prevent the public from reading them.

1839: Pope Gregory XVI wrote in Supremo Apostolatus that he admonishes and adjures "in the Lord all believers in Christ, of whatsoever condition, that no one hereafter may dare unjustly to molest Indians, Negroes, or other men of this sort;...or to reduce them to slavery..." The operative word is unjustly. The Pope did not condemn slavery if the slaves had been captured justly. Roman Catholic Bishops in the Southern U.S. determined that this prohibition did not apply to slavery in the U.S. To their credit, various other popes did order or otherwise influence the emancipation of slaves that they considered to be unjustly enslaved.

1863: President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on JAN-1. This is believed by many to have freed the slaves. Actually, it did not. Former slaves in the Northern states had already been freed; slaves in the south were part of the Confederacy, and thus immune to Union proclamations. Author Joel Panzer concluded that Catholic bishops in the U.S. at this time taught that buying and selling slaves was immoral, but merely owning a slave was acceptable to the church. Panzer considers this to be a misinterpretation of Papal teaching.

1865: The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ended slavery.

1866: The Holy Office of the Vatican issued a statement in support of slavery. The document stated that "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law...The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." Some commentators suggest that the statement was triggered by the passage of the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Others claim that the document referred only to a "particular situation in Africa to have slaves under certain conditions," and not necessarily to the situation in the U.S.

1873: Pope Pius IX was concerned about the "wreched Ethopians in Central Africa." He prayed that "Almighty God may at length remove the curse of Cham [Ham] from their hearts." God's curse on Ham was that the Canaanite people would be forever enslaved. Some theologians had long used this Biblical passage to justify enslavement of Africans.

1888: Brazil became the last country in the Western hemisphere to abolish slavery. The Roman Catholic Church reversed its stance "from the affirmation to the condemnation of slavery." 10 Pope Leo XIII sent a letter to the Brazilian Bishops saying that "from the beginning, almost nothing was more venerated in the Catholic Church...that the fact that she looked to see a slavery eased and abolished...Many of our predecessors...made every effort to ensure that the institution of slavery should be abolished where it existed and that its roots should not revive where it had been destroyed." This statement does not agree with the historical record. Previous church documents clearly stated that slavery was quite permissible, as long as the slave was a non-Christian and the slave's captors were fighting in a just war.

1917: The Roman Catholic church's Canon Law was expanded to declare a that "selling a human being into slavery or for any other evil purpose" is a crime.

1965: The Vatican II document "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World" stated "Whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torture...whatever insults human dignity, such as...slavery, prostitution and selling of women and children...all these things and others like them are infamous...Human institutions...should be bulwarks against any kind of political or social slavery and guardians of basic rights under any kind of government."

So while the Vatican did play some easily evadible word games concerning which slaves were perfectly fine to buy and own, and which ones would be considered sinful, it was not until 1917 when it was written into Canon Law that the Church actually condemned slavery...

True, but as I mentioned on a prior post the Catholic Church had only approved slavery if "THE SLAVES WERE CAPTURED DURING A WAR". These were in effect the equivalent of today's prisoners of war.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

True, but as I mentioned on a prior post the Catholic Church had only approved slavery if "THE SLAVES WERE CAPTURED DURING A WAR". These were in effect the equivalent of today's prisoners of war.

Yes, but that was only after Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation...and the fact that even after that, they still upheld slavery under certain circumstances shows that the Pope was just being an opportunistic asshole...

 

[Reverend Blair]

shows that the Pope was just being an opportunistic asshole...

Isn't that his job though? That and covering up for pedophiles, I mean.