Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

Pope Francis?

551 posts in this topic

I guess we've come a long way from the time that JFK nearly lost the Presidency because he was Catholic and people thought he would take orders from the Pope!

 

Yep, we suuuuuuuure have, Swithin ol' boy!

 

(...'cause back in 1960 and during his run for the office, Jack assuaged the fears of all those protestant ministers gathered in Houston TX by reaffirming his belief in the separation of church and state, and whereas NOW days it seems any politician who dare do somethin' like that, and especially to the same sort of congregation, would be placing his political future in dire straights, and seein' as how that concept seems to be on the wane recently)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we've come a long way from the time that JFK nearly lost the Presidency because he was Catholic and people thought he would take orders from the Pope!

 

Yes,  we are a long way.   Instead of taking the sound stance JFK took candidates are saying their religion will determine policy.   What Ben Carson said about a Muslim being President is logical for someone that thinks like Ben and would be a President like Ben.   But it is illogical for someone that took the stance JFK took.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,  we are a long way.   Instead of taking the sound stance JFK took candidates are saying their religion will determine policy.   What Ben Carson said about a Muslim being President is logical for someone that thinks like Ben and would be a President like Ben.   But it is illogical for someone that took the stance JFK took.   

But, to Ben's credit, one need only to look at how countries with a Muslim based society is run by Muslim leaders.

 

In THIS country at least, we DON'T relegate certain "denominations" to oppressive, or even lower "castes" of societal considerations.

 

As in other MUSLIM based countries, who even chastise certain "sects" of Muslims---as Shiites do to Kurds and the like.

 

In THIS country, although there was some needless worry about having a Catholic president, he DIDN'T rise up from the depths of the "Catholic sector", Nor did CARTER slide in from the BAPTIST "sector".  Several denominations often manage to live all on ONE BLOCK in any city, and NO denomination is deprived the right to vote.(meaning like, if you're Methodist, you CAN'T be denied the right to vote, etc.)

 

But, many MUSLIM nations do so.   

 

But Carson's WAS a somewhat intolerant thing to say, if you consider there are STILL many I know(unfortunately) who STILL feel a BLACK president is a mistake!

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, to Ben's credit, one need only to look at how countries with a Muslim based society is run by Muslim leaders.

 

In THIS country at least, we DON'T relegate certain "denominations" to oppressive, or even lower "castes" of societal considerations.

 

As in other MUSLIM based countries, who even chastise certain "sects" of Muslims---as Shiites do to Kurds and the like.

 

In THIS country, although there was some needless worry about having a Catholic president, he DIDN'T rise up from the depths of the "Catholic sector", Nor did CARTER slide in from the BAPTIST "sector".  Several denominations often manage to live all on ONE BLOCK in any city, and NO denomination is deprived the right to vote.(meaning like, if you're Methodist, you CAN'T be denied the right to vote, etc.)

 

But, many MUSLIM nations do so.   

 

But Carson's WAS a somewhat intolerant thing to say, if you consider there are STILL many I know(unfortunately) who STILL feel a BLACK president is a mistake!

 

 

Sepiatone

but suppose a muslim candidate expressed an opinion for acceptance of sharia law IN AMERICA,

perhaps THAT is what Dr. Carson was objecting to?

 

suppose that future muslim candidate refused to be separated from his advocacy of sharia law?

 

sharia law would reduce american muslim women to chattel. maybe that is what ben carson would be afraid of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but suppose a muslim candidate expressed an opinion for acceptance of sharia law IN AMERICA,

perhaps THAT is what Dr. Carson was objecting to?

 

suppose that future muslim candidate refused to be separated from his advocacy of sharia law?

 

sharia law would reduce american muslim women to chattel. maybe that is what ben carson would be afraid of?

 

Read the Constitution;  The President doesn't have the power to implement sharia law just like prior Presidents didn't have the power to outlaw abortion or contraception and other items religious individuals are against.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say, the guy's speech to Congress this morning sure seemed to offer up support from and to each side of the aisle, alright...and at different various times depending upon his personal thoughts and opinions about the issues of immigration, climate change, abortion and the death penalty, of course.

 

But hey, you can never go wrong mentioning Honest Abe and the Reverend Martin in a speech to that hallowed assembly to bring people together.

 

(...nope, this Pope seemed to know how to work the room, anyway...good job there Francis baby!)

"I just flew in from the Vatican, and......boy, are my arms tired.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but suppose a muslim candidate expressed an opinion for acceptance of sharia law IN AMERICA,

perhaps THAT is what Dr. Carson was objecting to?

 

suppose that future muslim candidate refused to be separated from his advocacy of sharia law?

 

sharia law would reduce american muslim women to chattel. maybe that is what ben carson would be afraid of?

Doesn't Dr. Carson want a kind of Christian Sharia law?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't Dr. Carson want a kind of Christian Sharia law?

Most Evangelicals do.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be kind of hard for a guy from the 18th century to

keep it going in 2015. He does pretty well, under the

circumstances.

are all those people crowding to see him of the 18th century too? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Evangelicals do.

that is so. evangelicals do want a return to moral sanity for america.

I am neither an evangelical or a fundamentalist but looking at the direction the popular culture is going, I can't help but be sympathetic to what they want. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is so. evangelicals do want a return to moral sanity for america.

I am neither an evangelical or a fundamentalist but looking at the direction the popular culture is following, I am sympathetic. :D

Muslim fundamentals call what they want moral sanity as well. You all have no idea how similar you are!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslim fundamentals call what they want moral sanity as well. You all have no idea how similar you are!

I agree that islam does not advocate unrestricted sexual predelictions anymore than mainstream christianity does so islam is no more invalidated by it's strict moral code than christianity is.

 

neither islam or christianity promote unrestricted sexual license. :D

 

no tell me how that is a negative for either religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that islam does not advocate unrestricted sexual predelictions anymore than mainstream christianity does so islam is no more invalidated by it's strict moral code than christianity is.

 

neither islam or christianity promote unrestricted sexual license. :D

 

no tell me how that is a negative for either religion?

It's none of my business (except that it sort of is, since I have a degree in Theology). But I mean people's religion is their own business. We have laws to govern people. The current amount of religious talk in the public sphere is un-American!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it. That's why the Catholic church has a hard time

selling all of its theology in the U.S. Many of the people

crowding to see him are just 21st century celebrity watchers.

 

That's probably true, Vautrin. I mean, women in these United States have had the vote since 1920, and since that date have fought and achieved some measure of equality with their male counterparts and have almost eradicated that "glass ceiling" in both the public and private sector, AND there is even the outside chance that by the end of next year there might be a woman sitting in the HIGHEST governmental position in our land.

 

And YET, and even in this now 21st Century and with THIS Pope making all these so-called "liberal" sounds, he STILL resists the idea of women holding the same stature within his own church's hierarchy as men do.

 

And so yeah, your thought that non-Catholics, and especially WOMEN non-Catholics are straining their necks to get a glimpse of the guy while he's here in the States IS probably based more upon this whole "celebrity watching" phenomenon than maybe anything else.

 

(...yep, good point, Vautrin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's probably true, Vautrin. I mean, women in these United States have had the vote since 1920, and since that date have fought and achieved some measure of equality with their male counterparts and have almost eradicated that "glass ceiling" in both the public and private sector, AND there is even the outside chance that by the end of next year there might be a woman sitting in the HIGHEST governmental position in our land.

 

And YET, and even in this now 21st Century and with THIS Pope making all these so-called "liberal" sounds, he STILL resists the idea of women holding the same stature within his own church's hierarchy as men do.

 

And so yeah, your thought that non-Catholics, and especially WOMEN non-Catholics are straining their necks to get a glimpse of the guy while he's here in the States IS probably based more upon this whole "celebrity watching" phenomenon than maybe anything else.

 

“Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, that is of no consequence; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for.” – Martin Luther [Erl. ed., 16 2 , p. 538].

 

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_right-wing_christian_leaders_are_often_indifferent_20150924

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone here yet mentioned the complete and utter irony of some of the "Religious Right" in this country now crying about all this media attention being afforded this guy while he's here, and claiming that because the guy is some kind'a political "leftist" that's the primary reason for all the media attention, and that this is somehow "unfair" to them that he was able to speak to Congress and it carried live by the media and in which he spoke in a political vein which encompassed many an opinion which they don't share?

 

Well, I suppose they MIGHT have a point, BUT of course the complete and utter IRONY here is that THESE are the very people who continue to NOT understand WHY those of us who ARE such "devout believers" in the concept of the separation of the Church and State ARE such "devout believers" IN that concept!!!

 

(...yep, once again it seems irony is lost on those who really need to see such a thing the most, huh!)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone here yet mentioned the complete and utter irony of some of the "Religious Right" in this country now crying about all this media attention being afforded this guy while he's here, and claiming that because the guy is some kind'a political "leftist" that's the primary reason for all the media attention, and that this is somehow "unfair" to them that he was able to speak to Congress and it carried live by the media and in which he spoke in a political vein which encompassed many an opinion which they don't share?

 

Well, I suppose they MIGHT have a point, BUT of course the complete and utter IRONY here is that THESE are the very people who continue to NOT understand WHY those of us who ARE such "devout believers" in the concept of the separation of the Church and State ARE such "devout believers" IN that concept!!!

 

(...yep, once again it seems irony is lost on those who really need to see such a thing the most, huh!)

but the intention of the framers with separation of church and state was to protect religious faith from any possible tyranny against religious liberty by the state (federal government). it is the bleeped up gop establishment that has objected to pope francis' address and since when have they been receptive to the gop electorate of late? the gop party leaders are not the gop electorate so alotta republicans might agree with you at this time, Dargy. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the intention of the framers with separation of church and state was to protect religious faith from any possible tyranny against religious liberty by the state (federal government). it is the bleeped up gop establishment that has objected to pope francis' address and since when have they been receptive to the gop electorate of late? the gop party leaders are not the gop electorate so alotta republicans might agree with you at this time, Dargy. :)

so I say let the ol' boy pontificate all he wants. he seems nice enough. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the intention of the framers with seperation of church and state was to protect religious faith from any possible tyranny against religious liberty by the state (federal government). it is the bleeped up gop establishment that has objected to pope francis' address and since when have they been receptive to the gop electorate of late? the gop party leaders are not the gop electorate so alotta republicans might agree with you at this time, Dargy. :)

 

Well, at least maybe that little Cuban dude down Florida way MIGHT anyway, ND. I'm talkin' little Marco Rubio here of course, and considering that HE at least mentioned Article VI, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution which states: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" when he stated a contrary opinion to Ben Carson's "no Islamic President" comment the other day.

 

(...but STILL, I get the idea that there's not a ONE of the GOP presidential candidates who don't FIRST attempt to cater to the Religious Right and their continual refusal to accept the separation concept whenever these candidates state their opinions, INCLUDING little Marco...and, I'll betcha little Marco lost a few potential votes from that crowd after sayin' that...wanna BET?!)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least maybe that little Cuban dude down Florida way MIGHT anyway, ND. I'm talkin' little Marco Rubio here of course, and considering that HE at least mentioned Article VI, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution which states: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" when he stated a contrary opinion to Ben Carson's "no Islamic President" comment the other day.

 

(...but STILL, I get the idea that there's not a ONE of the GOP presidential candidates who don't FIRST attempt to cater to the Religious Right and their continual refusal to accept the separation concept whenever these candidates state their opinions...INCLUDING little Marco!!!)

my understanding is that ben carson further said that he was in no way suggesting that a muslim candidate should be barred from running. I myself regard carson's comments as irrelevant...as irrelevant as the candidacy of bernie sanders.

 

and marco rubio who had done exactly nothing at all in the senate is a gop establishment cog. one of the worst because he talks big and attacks trump but has done nothing in the senate. HE is the epitome of what the gop electorate is reacting to so negatively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my understanding is that ben carson further said that he was in no way suggesting that a muslim candidate should be barred from running. I myself regard carson's comments as irrelevant...as irrelevant as the candidacy of bernie sanders.

 

and marco rubio who had done exactly nothing at all in the senate is a gop establishment cog. one of the worst because he talks big and attacks trump but has done nothing in the senate. HE is the epitome of what the gop electorate is reacting to so negatively.

when rubio made the big announcement today at that gop whatzit that boehner was resigning, he must've loved the applause his announcement was met with. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us