Bishop Tobin is doing his best to prove the anti-Catholic bigots right
By David Neiwert Wednesday Nov 25, 2009 4:00pm
Bishop Thomas Tobin, the fellow who decided that abortion-tolerant Catholics like Rep. Patrick Kennedy should be denied the right to partake of Communion ceremonies, went on The O'Reilly Factor last night to try to answer his critics.
In the process, all he did was make it look like the anti-Catholic bigots of yore were right after all.
Tobin's arguments were not exactly convincing. When O'Reilly asked Tobin why it's OK to deny Communion to politicians who are pro-choice but not to Catholics who are pro-death-penalty, Tobin answered with a flimsy argument that amounted to nothing more than theological lawyering, evading the core issue that both are core matters of Catholic beliefs pertaining to "defending the values of life."
And when O'Reilly pointed out that, for people like Kennedy and Sen. John Kerry, it's a matter of democratic principle to separate their personal religious beliefs about abortion from the conduct of their policy, Tobin replied that opposing abortion rights is a matter of "defending your faith."
What people like Tobin refuse to acknowledge is that their belief that abortion is murder, based on the belief that life begins at conception, is fundamentally a religious belief that is not shared by many other Americans, especially those who take a more strictly biological view of the process.
So in denying any American the right to an abortion, anti-abortion politicians are fundamentally shoving their religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else. That's not "defending your faith", it's forcing it upon everyone else. Which is what that whole First Amendment thing about church and state was bout.
Wiser politicians, like Kennedy and Kerry and many others, recognize that this is fundamentally an anti-democratic, anti-First Amendment, and anti-American, way of doing things.
Guys like Tobin? They just make living caricatures of themselves -- people who are the living incarnation of the "Papists" who it was at one time imagined were trying to take over the country so that America would be run by fiat from the Vatican.
Back when anti-Catholic bigotry was much more common in America, it was one of their articles of faith that Catholic politicians were always going to be forced to do the bidding of the Vatican, and to have ultimate loyalty not to the Constitution but to the Church and its edicts.
The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s, for instance, was particularly and viciously anti-Catholic. Its magazines and books -- including Klansmen: Guardians of Liberty and The Ku Klux Klan in Prophecy -- were largely anti-Catholic tracts warning of the dire consequences of "Papist" influence on the political system.
This anti-Catholicism spread into other areas as well, including education. The Klan's anti-Catholic propaganda campaign led to the formation of groups targeting private and parochial schools on anti-Catholic grounds, including the National League for the Protection of American Institutions, which fomented to "protect" the public schools from Catholic ideology.
Remember Al Smith?
Smith was the first Catholic to win a major-party presidential nomination.... Smith’s Catholic beliefs played a key role in his loss of the Election of 1928. Many feared that he would answer to the pope and not the constitution. The people also criticized him for being a drunkard because of the stereotypes placed on Irish Catholics of the day.
The belief that Catholics would be forced to heel to the demands of the Vatican -- that they would essentially be puppets of the Church -- was finally blunted by John F. Kennedy in 1960:
A key factor that hurt John F. Kennedy in his 1960 campaign for the presidency of the United States was the widespread prejudice against his Roman Catholic religion; some Protestants believed that, if he were elected President, Kennedy would have to take orders from the Pope in Rome. To address fears that his Roman Catholicism would impact his decision-making, John F. Kennedy famously told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me." He promised to respect the separation of church and state and not to allow Catholic officials to dictate public policy to him. Kennedy also raised the question of whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class citizenship just because they were Roman Catholic. Even so, it was widely believed after the election that Kennedy lost some heavily Protestant states because of his Catholicism.
Kennedy went on to win the national popular vote over Richard Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point (0.1%) - the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century. In the electoral college, Kennedy's victory was larger, as he took 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219 (269 were needed to win). The New York Times, summarizing the discussion late in November, spoke of a “narrow consensus” among the experts that Kennedy had won more than he lost as a result of his Catholicism, as Northern Catholics flocked to Kennedy because of attacks on his religion.
Now, ironically, the Church itself is turning on another Kennedy and acting as though it expects total political obeisance to Vatican edicts -- in other words, making the anti-Papist bigots look as though they are right.
Fortunately, that younger Kennedy is around to continue to prove them wrong.
Login or Register to post comments.
...that Kennedy didn't HAVE an abortion. This asshat is literally denying Kennedy communion because of policy decision.
Tax em.
this is exactly what I was going to say! I can guarantee the Bishop that Kennedy probably won't be anywhere near an abortion clinic.
Interesting too is that the Bishop or whoever in Colorado wanted to deny those who voted for prochoice issues or those who supported them...not those actually partaking in their choice.
I didn't know voted a particular way was a sin.
My imaginary friend is mad at your imaginary friend so there. My cellphone told me.
An old history of mine told me that even thought the Noxon-Kennedy race was so verry close, after the assassination you could NOT find anyone that voted for Nixon.
Also: "And when O'Reilly pointed out that, for people like Kennedy and Sen. John Kerry, it's a matter of democratic principle to separate their personal religious beliefs about abortion from the conduct of their policy..."
Really? Bill actually said that? That's seems a little science fictiony to me. Stranger things I suppose. Doesn't make him any less of an a-hole though.
You could even make the argument that even O'Reilly realises how this is making the church look. Or it could even be a matter of principle. Stranger things have happened.
Don't remember Noxon...
sorry Lib, it looked too good to leave alone.
I'd be more impressed by the Catholic Church's stand against abortion if they weren't also against birth control. Can't they see that effective birth control is a great way to prevent abortions?
Birth control is abortion to these idiots.
Every Sperm IS sacred! NOT every egg!
Women's sole purpose of existence is for impregnation, they have no other rights or duties.
Nazi-Youth Pope Ratburger said so...
"Every sperm is sacred".
Which is why a ritual of spraying it in the face of a 12 year old boy is a rite of passage for Catholic clergymen.
Every Catholic I've had sex with all swallowed...
And "Best Comment of the Night" goes to.........
.
.
.
.
SIXANDSEVENEIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can't really believe all priests fit that bill do you?
than they admit. Many more. As a former alter boy, I can tell you first hand. I never allowed myself to go to alter boy practice alone. I was warned by former alter boys. One year, a priest was beaten almost literally to a pulp after reports of his advances were ignored.
I'm not Jewish, but I only recently learned that Jewish faith may allow for a case by case, contextual evaluation of when an abortion may be permitted, esp. in cases where the mother's life is at stake.
Apologies for my ignorance if I am wrong or misguided in this.
It also bothers me that all the conceived babies are discussed as though they are viable. Many mothers really really want to have these babies and sadly, it is not to be.
Most people on the Religious Right believe that human life (rather than the potential for human life) begins at the moment of conception, which is why they're opposed to many forms of contraception since they act by preventing fertilized eggs from properly implanting in the uterus. However, what they can't explain is why fertilized eggs don't implant 100% of the time -- and in fact fail to implant up to 30% of the time even without the use of birth control and without the woman ever knowing that she had conceived. They also can't explain the fact that based on everything we know at present about biology, it's quite simply not possible for a zygote to have anything remotely resembling human consciousness. Where's the logic in believing that the soul comes into physical being at the moment of conception when there's no biological basis for its presence at that moment...and when there's a fair chance that its mother's body will reject it or refuse to accept it before it even had a chance to develop? I suppose you can always attribute it to the ineffable mystery of God if you like -- it can't be denied that we haven't yet managed to conclusively identify a biological basis for the unique self-awareness which humans and a few other higher mammals seems to possess -- but the idea that God would place a soul in a human body with the risk that it will simply die a day or two later as the result of a purely natural process quite simply does not make any sense.
"many forms of contraception since they act by preventing fertilized eggs from properly implanting in the uterus"
NOT TRUE!!! That is a false argument that the fundies have invented.
The Pill, and other hormone-based birth control options prevent ovulation to start with, so there is no egg to be fertilized!
Only the IUD prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, but even then the Mirena is an IUD with hormones. The idea is that the hormones to the 'heavy lifting' by preventing ovulation, but the IUD is there as a backup incase an egg does get out.
"they can't explain is why fertilized eggs don't implant 100% of the time -- and in fact fail to implant up to 30% of the time even without the use of birth control and without the woman ever knowing that she had conceived"
Exactly! And what about stillbirths and miscarriages? My wife and I have had two of those along with our three living children. If 'Life Begins At Conception" AND "Fertilized Eggs Equal Full Human Beings", then my wife MUST be investigated for murder. And since 2/3 of stillborns have no identifiable reason for having died, then what?
"the idea that God would place a soul in a human body with the risk that it will simply die a day or two later as the result of a purely natural process quite simply does not make any sense."
We are talking about religion here, so making sense is strictly forbidden!
My tire is going flat again. I think it's my rims rusting.
.
So in denying any American the right to an abortion, anti-abortion politicians are fundamentally shoving their religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else. That's not "defending your faith", it's forcing it upon everyone else. Which is what that whole First Amendment thing about church and state was about.
Wiser politicians, like Kennedy and Kerry and many others, recognize that this is fundamentally an anti-democratic, anti-First Amendment, and anti-American, way of doing things.
*******************************************************************
And of course, the same argument applies equally well to gay marriage since opposition to it is based primarily (if not solely) on religious beliefs rather than anything remotely resembling scientific data or factual evidence. In fact, considering that a variety of bird and animal species have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior and that accounts of human homosexual behavior have been found throughout just about all of recorded history in virtually every society that has ever existed...it seems safe to conclude that it is technically not even remotely "unnatural" as some conservatives on the Religious Right would like to believe.
If I knew how I'd love to do a video mash-up of a Catholic boy's choir singing a Christmas carol
This one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xam01uaj6Vg
Followed by a disclaimer, "No choir boys were molested in the making of this video...DAMN!
David:
There is no EXPLICIT separation of church and state in the First Amendment. That phrase comes to us from Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists.
HOWEVER, the combined freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment: of speech, religion, press, and assembly ... PLUS the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances strongly suggests a state in which government is not entangled with the church, else it cannot be a fit guarantor/protector of another's freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, or freedom of assembly.
And then there's the treaty of Tripoli, signed and ratified in 1797, which confirms there is NO state religion:
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
That Treaty was over-tturned a short time later by a Congress that thought it went too far.
Could you tell me when or with what treaty did they do this? I am not sure you are correct.
I am not finding that info. Do you mean that it was superceded by the 1805 treaty? I can't find any evidence that the 1797 treaty was ever 'over-turned' by an act of Congress.
The historical fact is that the 1797 treaty, including the "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" line was enthusiastically endorsed by the President and unanimously adopted by the Senate, so there certainly was no one in Congress that "thought it went too far" at the time of adoption.
And a Google search of "Treaty of Tripoli" + Overturned returned nothing.
The fact remains beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US is not now, nor has never been a Christian nation. That is a myth invented by anti-American 'christians' that hate freedom and democratically elected republics.
It was pressure from Congress that caused it's apparent removal in 1805, although even that point is under debate.
However, the 1797 treaty was significant since most of the Founding Fathers were still alive, and no letters or articles of disapproval have appeared to date.
"It was pressure from Congress that caused it's apparent removal in 1805, although even that point is under debate."
Huh. I sure would like to know the source material for that one.
"However, the 1797 treaty was significant since most of the Founding Fathers were still alive, and no letters or articles of disapproval have appeared to date."
Exactly. The text was ready in full in the Senate, they knew what they were doing.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/s...
It doesn't mention the pressure, but I think I got that from a PBS documentary.
Here's an interesting article, although it refutes my point
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/6/21...
This makes more sense, since the Constitution makes it clear that the president negotiates treaties, subject to the Senate's advice and consent of 2/3'ds vote, and the Supreme Court's power to enforce treaties.
The argument about the clause sounds reminiscent of the "null and void" argument.
However, the revision process between 1797 and 1805 sound whacked.
However, upon further reflection, the process might sound whacked because post-modernists 21 century America sensibilities actually takes such issues way more seriously than 18th century figures, who have been secularly canonized since their day.
Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:16 — Shadowgm
That's why in legal circles they mostly talk about the establishment clause.
But what's also not there is a precise definition of an establishment. Is it sects or is it the entire movement? conservaturds will say it is the former, as in The Church of England, but England had it's own share of religious troubles with the Dissidents who would not sign off on the 39 Articles of Anglican Faith, and a growing Jewish population. Basic civil rights they were otherwise entitled to could be denied on the basis of their religion.
So the entire point, in legal circles, seems to be the government can't recognize religion, without defining what religion is and is not, to some groups advantages, but not to others, and that's what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, particularly since religious orientation often led to partisan differences in the UK, and they wanted to avoid political parties as well as they could.
... that David made a specific remark about 'that church and state thing in the First Amendment,' and it's inaccurate.
I am not disputing the need nor the wisdom of a separation of church and state.
So basically Bishop Tobin is proving that the KKK has been right all along. The Catholic Church has been biding it's time until the KKK's influence has decreased (although it has been increasing in the last year) to implement the Ultimate Goal of Papal control over all Catholic politicians in the US.
So when do Tobin and Billo-the-clown have to start serving their collective prison sentence for their collective catholic sins of opening their mouths at the same time??
Talk about twiddle dee and twiddle dumb...what a pair... Looks like David nailed it AGAIN - right on the money...
Writing like 'Bishop Thomas Tobin, the fellow who decided that abortion-tolerant Catholics like Rep. Patrick Kennedy should be denied the right to partake of Communion ceremonies, went on The O'Reilly Factor last night to try to answer his critics.
In the process, all he did was make it look like the anti-Catholic bigots of yore were right after all.' is some of the best writing in a LONG time....
Thanks Dave for the confirmation....teehee.....
So I'm a bigot if I hate everything the Catholic Church is and stands for?
Me too. Big bigot.
of intolerance? Shame.
There is a difference between having issues with the church and having issues with someone just for being a member of the church.
Is there a difference between having issues with someone just for being a member of a church and having issues with someone because they belong to an organization that is sexist, has covered up child abuse and rape, actively works against human and civil rights, and promotes ignorance?
>"Is there a difference between having issues with someone just for being a member of a church and having issues with someone because they belong to an organization that is sexist, has covered up child abuse and rape, actively works against human and civil rights, and promotes ignorance?"
Yes.
I do not begrudge the right of the Bishop to authorize that communion be denied to Congressman Kennedy, what I do very much mind to the "pick-and-choose" aspect of all this. I could be imagining things, but I think this is a gutless way to get back at Senator Edward Kennedy. There was a big outcry by conservatives over Senator Kennedy even having a Catholic funeral, and I think this all goes back to that original decision, and this is a way to get back at him from beyond the grave. And I extremely mind how this is being only applied to Patrick Kennedy. Honestly, if bishops are going to do this, it should be a uniform policy, across the board, not some bs by a bishop who cannot even articulate his reasons. To my mind, there are so many things wrong with this decision, I don't even know where to start.
It is a very selective and subjective action by the Bishop, who repays the Kennedys for a lifetime of loyalty by condemning them with his narrow minded and unabashedly political retaliation.
This jerk for a Bishop ought to relearn genuine compassion by reading the Beatitudes of Matthew instead of being a political operative of a backward looking faith.
He, being a Catholic, is entitled to the last rites.
During those rites, he is able to give his last confession.
Then all is good.
There are some stipulations ,like, an act of contrition.
But if he requests a priest to come to his side when he/she is dying. all the above apply. That's how they do it.
My fathers brother(my uncle) was a Monsignor.
So you're saying you can be a shit catholic? Never pray, contribute, or go to mass, but as long as you ask for a priest on your death bed, all is forgiven?
You Betcha.
Either someone is trying to steal your soul or I didn't fuck up as bad as I thought I did.
the person has to be truly contrite. They have to mean it.
They have to be 100% Honest.
But most priests will do it.
Just look at condemned prisoners. They get the last rites.
At least that's the way they do it.
As for someone like Jeffrey Dahmer. Who knows?
It's an easy out for people who are afraid of dying.
IMO.
Education is the cure for religious cancer.
how long before Bishop Tobin is discovered with the head of a 13 year old boy in his crotch?
by organized religion. All of them. The more orthodox/fundamentalist/hardcore, the more He shakes his head in disgust.
It has heads?
These aren't God's people. They are the Devil's people disguised as God's people to confuse folks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JKvJaJKPPk
Six billion people on the planet and they preach abstinence. Yeah, that'll work.
... the Catholic church is against contraception and abortion is so there'll be more Catholics.
There is nothing in the bible about this, the church has been pretty upfront about this stand. If Catholics have more kids chances are the kids will be Catholic too, they want to out breed all other faiths.
And it's not like the priests are going increase the catholic population.
Or at least find a Christian denomination that's more understanding of the nuance of life outside the confines of the sanctuary.
How about leave period. Have nothing to do with any religion.
Spiritual, yes. Religious, no.
Tobin: "No one is forced to be a Catholic"
This is true. Fortunately more and more people are turning away from organized religion. Hopefully one day Troglodytes like this ass hat will be nothing more than a fossil record.
Actually, Patrick Kennedy could simply ignore the orders of that bishop; and he and other progressive Catholics could simply form a seperate Catholic group of their own to administer the sacrements; while remaining devout Catholics. Nothing says that he or other progressives have to obey the dictates of Ratz Benedict the Nazi Symp.
Remember that the Anglican Church was formed by Henry VIII under a similar rift from the RCC (though it was mostly due to Henry VII wanting to anull a marriage to spawn a male heir to his throne).
And if the RCC wants to become as fundamentalist and as reactionary as the Southern Baptists and the Evangelical Protestant churches are...well then, they all can just give up their tax exemptions and the pretense of being "non-political".
Anthony
Tobin is such a Catholic clown. The whole issue is NOT ABOUT ABORTION it's about a womans right to CHOOSE what she needs in her life. Abortion isn't my choice but I'm not the woman who decides to make that CHOICE, I'm the male. I believe it's this FREEDOM OF CHOICE that we need to defend for a womans right. Tobin is wrong. And GOD knows it.
Again...Kennedy is not "PRO ABORTION"...He is "PRO CHOICE". Get it straight for just once and then for all.
I think people by in large are not pro abortion.
They are Pro Choice.
They've been beating this dead horse for so long.
I wonder if any of the talking heads will ever distinguish the two.
.... which Catholic doctrine to go by. Would Tobin refuse communion to a Republican that voted against healthcare reform? People in the US DIE due to inadequate healthcare coverage. Would he refuse communion to a Republican that votes, consistently, against helping the poor, against changing the social, political, and economic policies that harm the poor and votes for the rich accumulating even more wealth? Bishop Tobin should read the Catholic Church's official social doctrine:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_i...
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_i...
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_i...
It seems Jesus wanted people, even bishops, to help those in need.
This Bishop is nothing more than a politician.
As I always say, this again proves "the Catholics are the second most dangerous cult in the world."
We could argue all night about who is first (the Mormons, the Branch Davidians, etc.) but everyone agrees that the Catholics are 2nd.
Pastafarians?
Hands down, the mormons (too many "m's" in the name) are probably the most dangerous cult in the religious playing field. Like Jim Jones they brainwash. They rape 13 year old girls and call them wives. They shut out anybody who denies their twisted outlook(stopping family members from seeing family members). They stole the Masons(a fraternity) tablets and called them their own. They murdered travellers at the Mountain Meadow Massacre. And there's so much more. Really...Look at Glen Beck...he's a moron...uh, mormon (too many "m's" in the name). They don't even read their bible (s)...And they deny it when you do.
Catholics second? Hmmmm. There's gotta be another "worst cult"...I'm thinkin' ok.
Thank you again David for your posts!!
When JFK was running for office in 1960, the call came out: Do we want the Pope making US policy? JFK said his religion and his political actions were two different things.
Is the Catholic church THAT stupid? Do they really want citizens to refuse to vote for a Catholic, based on Vatican orders? Do they want to drive even more out of the church? Are they THAT stupid? Based on recent actions, I guess so.
Oh yes, and if we did everything the Vatican said, we still wouldn't believe the earth revolved. (Well, they just came around recently.)
Didn't listen to this video but reading the synopsis it sounds like O'Reilly did a better job with this clown than Matthews. Not only is it hypocritical if this dude doesn't hand down the same edict against those in favor of the death penalty but if I'm not mistaken the Pope came down against the Iraq war -- that's a helluva lot of communion going back in the cupboard.
I'm not sure what Pope Benny thinks about the war.
Pope John Paul II was opposed to it. Bush also tried to lift the 'Culture of Life' phrase from JP2, ignoring the war and death penalty parts of it.
... to try to answer his critics?
Talk about "preaching to the choir". Did he really think that his critics watch O'Reilly?
So, let me guess: Round two of his "answering his critics" will take place on Limbaugh's program?
You have to wonder if the owner of the magic muffin factory has ever used a condom, or coveted his neighbors goods or wife, or cooked the bools for a bank loan, or was out of grace for any of thousands of violations while receiving the flesh of his savior through transubstantiation?
Transubstantiation? Are you kidding me? Is this the 21st century?
Poor Catholics, held prisoner by a tasteless thin wafer.....a little nutmeg and cinnamon might make it substantially palatable,but why do they submit themselves to such idolic symbolism?
Time to revolt catholics! Tithings are the most cruel tax of all....taxation without representation anyone?
The RCC and the British Royalty looted Ireland for hundreds of years and left poverty in their wake, and yet the Brits are the exclusive owners of Irelands past troubles.
Let every man examine himself and after each man doses this, or not, he, the man, or woman, makes the individual decision, I advise, not to do this lightly, without deep remorse and affection for Christ. Yet, still, it is an individual thing, a personal thing, an outward act, of an inward conviction.
This examination... for each individual should happen at the time just before the communion.
1 Cor. 11:28 -- "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup."
Now where in the Bible dose it say, it's the Bishop, Reverend, Pastor, Apostle, Prophet's Communion to choose whose heart and soul, or conviction... he has no ability to examine, I cannot chose for anyone, but myself. None of these Men can denied even a murder, communion and the murder has been through a court of law. I offered communion to my grandfather, months before he passed, and I had no way of knowing his life’s soul, except, I know I had a duty to offer.
To go on TV, a news show and send out press releases and pontificate about his communion, was beyond and politization of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and I cannot countenance it, for my fellow man, I must speak out on that.
Get your face off the Political shows and back in the Pulpit, or in counseling, but to make another mans personal decision, your political statement is wrong, yesterday, today and tomorrow.
... similar - or maybe the same - wafers here. About $24 for a little less than a pound. Can last you a lifetime, and you don't have to listen to an hour of bs.
Isn't the Catholic Church opposed to the death penalty? Why do I never hear of politicians being refused communion because they support capital punishment? The same was true of the invasion of Iraq - condemned by two popes, but no Catholic supporters have been denied the Eucharist (to my knowledge.)
The hierarchy labels believers who ignore some Church teachings "Cafeteria Catholics." It's bad form to even THINK about it when the hierarchy does the same thing. The Catholic Church: The biggest dysfunctional family in western civilization.
Another excerpt from the JFK speech to the ministerial association:
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.
Your Excellency: Go sit on your miter.
In 1960, the fear was JFK might be TOO obedient to the church.
In 2009, the fear is that his nephew isn't obedient enough.
Anti catholic bigot? Give me a break! The child molesting, nazi aiding homophobes are worthless.
I kid the catlicks
But seriously, they're the only Church that appears to have Social Consciousness
You have to have a strong since of duty to care for the poor and indigent
Before setting them on fire.
You are one of the many reasons, too many to count as to why I have not attended a mass or any catholic function other than a wedding or funeral since 1970. You think you do God's work?
...and Catholics in general. Here's why:
1. Literally tens of thousands of innocent children have been raped over the decades and throughout the world (in every nation that has been infected by the perverse sickness of catholicism) by Catholic priests, and church officials from the Pope on down have actively shielded the rapists from justice and have transferred the perverts to other places where they have raped even more children.
2. From the Pope on down, including every person who remains a member of the Catholic Church, by continuing to support this international child sex ring, each such individual is guilty of aiding and abetting the rape of innocent children, and each person should be arrested and prosecuted. The only defense for lay members of the church is insanity.
3. As is all of Christianity, the Catholic Church is based purely on a mountain of lies. There is not a shred of documented scientific evidence to support any of the church's claims, including the very existence of the Bible's Jesus Christ. Yet the church promulgates their lies as if the truth and uses this fraud to take advantage of emotionally needy and mentally ill individuals. Based purely on FRAUD, the church convinces these sick individuals to give it their money, their property, and even their lives. The church, from the top down, is guilty of criminal fraud and the Pope and all of his minions should be arrested and prosecuted. All the assets of the church should be confiscated and sold with the funds derived distributed evenly among the millions of victims of the church.
4. The Catholic Church poses a grave danger to the United States in that it habitually violates the separation of church and state in constant efforts to impose its will on our nation. The grave damage this evil organization has done to our nation far exceeds any actual attack or threat posed by al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. If anyone should be locked up in Gitmo, it should be the Pope.
5. The Catholic Church constantly robs the American taxpayers by refusing to pay its fair share for the use of governmental services and the infrastructure. It owes us billions of dollars.
There is NOTHING good about the Catholic Church or any of its leaders and lay members. Dismissing those who oppose this evil, destructive and dangerous organization as "bigots" is the same as saying those who oppose la Cosa Nostra (Mafia) are merely "bigots."
It's time to face the truth about the Catholic Church: it is a dangerous, destructive organization that we must erase from all the nations of the planet.
Login or Register to post comments.