+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: The Fools Strike Again (/thread-6411.html)
The Fools Strike Again - Quark - 05-09-2005
So apparantly now some church has decided that not voting Bush means you should be excommunicated.
That link doesn't have the best description, but it links to multiple full stories and has a followup higher on the page (here). I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.
Quote:Another man who got excommunicated said that the rest of the congregation stood up and applauded as the Democrats were told to leave.
Even worse, there's a bill out there to make this crap legal. Well, here's to hoping all the complaints the IRS gets forces them to rescind tax-exempt status from the church.
The right seems to make itself look worse every day, and yet they're somehow too big to make it matter :(
The Fools Strike Again - Yrrek - 05-09-2005
This is appalling. Religion has no place in government. It only makes things worse.
*sigh* :(
The Fools Strike Again - WarLocke - 05-09-2005
Yrrek,May 8 2005, 11:06 PM Wrote:This is appalling. Religion has no place in government. It only makes things worse.
*sigh* :(
[right][snapback]76665[/snapback][/right]
Hey don't worry! We have Separation of Church and State.
Everything is just fine.
:shuriken:
The Fools Strike Again - Doc - 05-09-2005
Ugh.
Ugh ugh ugh.
While I don't like it, and disagree with it, I can understand why it was done.
You know the whole abortion thing right... Well, you support certain people with an abortion agenda, and that makes you an accessory in some people's eyes... An accessory to murder. By voting a certain way you enable undesireable behaviour. And there are folk that take this sort of stuff very seriously. There is a conflict of interest here. You can't support things like abortion and be a good Christian, which is why some of these folk and many others are being excommunicated from whichever church and "being sent to hell."
Being an excommunicated heretic, a blasphemer, and a pariah my self, I am somewhat sensitive to these issues. I would like to state in my own defense that I earned those titles for doing all of the right things... But I wont go into details.
You can't have it both ways... The whole Lukewarm Christian thing doesn't pan out. You can't have two masters. And while I am all for seperation of church and state, I believe a minister also has rights to apply certain codes of behaviours for his church. Those that follow more secular behaviour could be a stumbling block to their brothers and sisters, a bone of contention, and a source of bad vibes man. And a pastor has to protect his flock.
There are no easy answers.
The Fools Strike Again - Occhidiangela - 05-09-2005
Quark,May 8 2005, 10:01 PM Wrote:So apparantly now some church has decided that not voting Bush means you should be excommunicated.
That link doesn't have the best description, but it links to multiple full stories and has a followup higher on the page (here). I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.
Even worse, there's a bill out there to make this crap legal. Well, here's to hoping all the complaints the IRS gets forces them to rescind tax-exempt status from the church.
The right seems to make itself look worse every day, and yet they're somehow too big to make it matter :(
[right][snapback]76664[/snapback][/right]
Wow. This guy kills me. A Protestant(Baptist) who tries to act like an old school Papist. His congretation ought to kick him in the nuts every election day, just to remind him that their right to vote is a matter of their own conscience. God did not select G. W. Bush to run for President, the Republican party did. Republican Party does not equal God. Or did this fellow just fall off of a tobacco truck?
EDIT: Being sent forth from one little church does not have the same stigma as being thrown out of The Catholic Church or the Episcopalian Church. I'll bet there are lots of other denominations, locally, who will accept those who were "excommunicated" from that little church into their congregation. That dude seems to have delusions of grandeur.
Jimmy Carter, for all his foibles, is proof positive that one can be a good Christian man and a Democrat at the same time.
Occhi
The Fools Strike Again - Griselda - 05-09-2005
Doc, I could understand what you were saying if we were talking about a single up-or-down vote on abortion itself. But, the presidential race is about electing a candidate, and a whole host of issues are on the table.
The Fools Strike Again - Encore - 05-09-2005
Wow, that's just stupid. God is to church as Government is to, well, people places and things <_< But when you twist them up, ugh...
By the way, I wonder what the magority of the board is, Democrat or Republican?
The Fools Strike Again - Raelynn - 05-09-2005
Griselda,May 9 2005, 10:09 AM Wrote:Doc, I could understand what you were saying if we were talking about a single up-or-down vote on abortion itself. But, the presidential race is about electing a candidate, and a whole host of issues are on the table.
[right][snapback]76680[/snapback][/right]
I'm going to have to agree here. There's too many issues to say that because you voted for one person, you supported them with a speciic issue. There may have been certain economic key points that the people who voted for Kerry may have disliked in Bush that led them to vote the way they did. In something such as this, it seems stupid to point out the one problem, even though there were likely just as many problems possibly picked out from voting for Bush if you felt like digging for it.
I personally hope this act does not go through. There are many blind faithful who will listen if the church says "Vote this way or you're out!" The reason there's laws against this is that they have a nice little bonus from being tax-exempt, so they should be able to sway the political tides towards something they want. If this bill goes through, there will be much more news like this and probably some big news around a presedential election concerning something similar.
The Fools Strike Again - Occhidiangela - 05-09-2005
Raelynn,May 9 2005, 08:27 AM Wrote:I'm going to have to agree here. There's too many issues to say that because you voted for one person, you supported them with a speciic issue. There may have been certain economic key points that the people who voted for Kerry may have disliked in Bush that led them to vote the way they did. In something such as this, it seems stupid to point out the one problem, even though there were likely just as many problems possibly picked out from voting for Bush if you felt like digging for it.
I personally hope this act does not go through. There are many blind faithful who will listen if the church says "Vote this way or you're out!" The reason there's laws against this is that they have a nice little bonus from being tax-exempt, so they should be able to sway the political tides towards something they want. If this bill goes through, there will be much more news like this and probably some big news around a presedential election concerning something similar.
[right][snapback]76682[/snapback][/right]
Devil's advocate.
It seems to me that any Church that presumes to dictate to its laiety how to vote is engaging in self destructive behavior. It is for precisely for such reasons that I did not, and shall never, undergo Catacumen and become a member of the Catholic Church, a course of action I considered after I got married to a wonderful Catholic woman. The Sacred Heart Church opened my eyes on Catholic Doctrine, and laid out for me the "you are for us, or against us, and these matters are non negotiable, as well as not abstainable." Right, I'll meet you in Hell, Deacon, where your Vanity will bring you, as mine will me. It was an interesting conversation. Three weeks later, our son was baptized in that same Church. Those people thought I was certifiable. (Hmmm, they may be right.)
The Church that crosses that line is saying to its membership "my way, or the highway." Some folks will hit the road, congregation shrinks. Is that healthy for the church in question? The departers are likely to be people of strong mind, self confident people. Not the kind of folks I want to throw out of a congregation, but then, I am not a clergyman. Maybe all they want is sheep to shear. Or, like in a marriage about to fall apart, they are bound and determined to be Right.
Occhi
The Fools Strike Again - Raelynn - 05-09-2005
Occhidiangela,May 9 2005, 10:50 AM Wrote:Devil's advocate.
It seems to me that any Church that presumes to dictate to its laiety how to vote is engaging in self destructive behavior. It is for precisely for such reasons that I did not, and shall never, undergo Catacumen and become a member of the Catholic Church, a course of action I considered after I got married to a wonderful Catholic woman. The Sacred Heart Church opened my eyes on Catholic Doctrine, and laid out for me the "you are for us, or against us, and these matters are non negotiable, as well as not abstainable." Right, I'll meet you in Hell, Deacon, where your Vanity will bring you, as mine will me. It was an interesting conversation. Three weeks later, our son was baptized in that same Church. Those people thought I was certifiable. (Hmmm, they may be right.)
The Church that crosses that line is saying to its membership "my way, or the highway." Some folks will hit the road, congregation shrinks. Is that healthy for the church in question? The departers are likely to be people of strong mind, self confident people. Not the kind of folks I want to throw out of a congregation, but then, I am not a clergyman. Maybe all they want is sheep to shear. Or, like in a marriage about to fall apart, they are bound and determined to be Right.
Occhi
[right][snapback]76684[/snapback][/right]
I've gone through all the sacraments but mainly because I was raised Catholic. My biggest problem with the church is it seems to not want to accept that times have changed. The rules that worked in the middle ages either don't work now or are stupid because the reason that they were true isn't the case anymore (big one being limitation on what you eat due to health concern originally).
Another problem I have is all the changes in the true teachings. Taken for what it truely is, the Catholic teachings are some of the greatest in history. They teach acceptance and understanding. Taken for what is actually taught, they seem more like the ancient "eye for an eye" teachings. Too much is taken out of context, or too literally, or just plain wrong.
Don't even get me started on Bible-quoters ;)
The Fools Strike Again - Ashock - 05-09-2005
Occhidiangela,May 9 2005, 06:56 AM Wrote:Jimmy Carter, for all his foibles, is proof positive that one can be a good Christian man and a Democrat at the same time.
Occhi
[right][snapback]76678[/snapback][/right]
Jimmy Carter, for all his foibles, is proof positive that one can be a Democrat and an Idiot at the same time. Not that more proof was really necessary.
-A
The Fools Strike Again - ShadowHM - 05-09-2005
Raelynn,May 9 2005, 10:51 AM Wrote: Too much is taken out of context, or too literally, or just plain wrong.
Don't even get me started on Bible-quoters ;)
[right][snapback]76687[/snapback][/right]
Cherry-picking scripture is a long-standing tradition. :P
My favourite, for use when I am finding myself chastised by a Bible-quoter:
Ecclesiastes 9:7 Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
The Fools Strike Again - Occhidiangela - 05-09-2005
Raelynn,May 9 2005, 09:51 AM Wrote:I've gone through all the sacraments but mainly because I was raised Catholic. My biggest problem with the church is it seems to not want to accept that times have changed. The rules that worked in the middle ages either don't work now or are stupid because the reason that they were true isn't the case anymore (big one being limitation on what you eat due to health concern originally).
Another problem I have is all the changes in the true teachings. Taken for what it truely is, the Catholic teachings are some of the greatest in history. They teach acceptance and understanding. Taken for what is actually taught, they seem more like the ancient "eye for an eye" teachings. Too much is taken out of context, or too literally, or just plain wrong.
Don't even get me started on Bible-quoters ;)
[right][snapback]76687[/snapback][/right]
One area where I continue to learn is in the area of Papal Bull and Doctrine versus Scripture. I have to in order to intelligently discuss Scripture versus Doctrine with my kids. The 1870 Bull on the Infallabilityof the Pope . . . Clergy can't marry . . . lots of stuff.
Anyway, doctrine never stops evolving because people keep on thinking and, as you note, the world keeps on changing.
I daresay that is true for the followers of Islam as well.
Occhi
The Fools Strike Again - Occhidiangela - 05-09-2005
Ashock,May 9 2005, 10:23 AM Wrote:Jimmy Carter, for all his foibles, is proof positive that one can be a Democrat and an Idiot at the same time. Not that more proof was really necessary.
-A
[right][snapback]76689[/snapback][/right]
Harrumph.
While not a huge fan of Jimmy Carter as President, if he made Hyman Rickover's cut he is no idiot. Somewhat idealistic and naive? Sure. The toughest job in the world, President of the US, takes a broad array of gifts that darned few people possess.
Occhi
The Fools Strike Again - Count Duckula - 05-09-2005
Raelynn,May 9 2005, 03:51 PM Wrote:Don't even get me started on Bible-quoters ;)
[right][snapback]76687[/snapback][/right]
This reminds me of the West Wing, both the pilot episode and a first season episode where Pres. Bartlet puts a couple of Fundies in their places. It's pure poetry.
It's off topic, I know, but watching West Wing gives me hope for a more democratic world.
The Fools Strike Again - jahcs - 05-09-2005
As a person who generally votes Republican (I do not hold rigidly to a party line.) I would be proud to stand up and leave that church with the folks that voted for the other guy or attempt to have the pastor removed if I was a member of the congregation.
How you vote is a private matter. No one has any business telling you how to vote or blackmailing you into voting a certain way by holding out on goods or services. People can attempt to convince you to follow their point of view through research and dialogue, but to go any farther borders on criminal.
The Fools Strike Again - Occhidiangela - 05-09-2005
Count Duckula,May 9 2005, 12:01 PM Wrote:This reminds me of the West Wing, both the pilot episode and a first season episode where Pres. Bartlet puts a couple of Fundies in their places. It's pure poetry.
It's off topic, I know, but watching West Wing gives me hope for a more democratic world.
[right][snapback]76699[/snapback][/right]
TV. Fantasy. Not reality. But we can dream, I suppose . . . just like I used to dream, as a teenager, of meeting a gal just like Ahura (well, who would like me)
Occhi
The Fools Strike Again - Rhydderch Hael - 05-09-2005
Occhidiangela,May 9 2005, 08:43 AM Wrote:Harrumph. Aye. Wait, does that make him the only President currently in history who has ever had actual hands-on experience with a nuclear device? (a reactor, that is)
While not a huge fan of Jimmy Carter as President, if he made Hyman Rickover's cut he is no idiot. Somewhat idealistic and naive? Sure. The toughest job in the world, President of the US, takes a broad array of gifts that darned few people possess.
Occhi
[right][snapback]76693[/snapback][/right]
The Fools Strike Again - Occhidiangela - 05-09-2005
EEEEP! Double post. :blush: See below.
Occhi
The Fools Strike Again - Occhidiangela - 05-09-2005
Rhydderch Hael,May 9 2005, 12:06 PM Wrote:Aye. Wait, does that make him the only President currently in history who has ever had actual hands-on experience with a nuclear device? (a reactor, that is)
[right][snapback]76702[/snapback][/right]
Nuclear weapon and a nuclear reactor are considerably different applications of nuclear physics. Apples and Oranges? Had he served on SSBN's, SLBM equipped sub, then he'd have had experience with nuclear weapons.
OK, checked. No, he did not deal with SLBM's, he dealt with nuclear propulsion plants. SSBN's are not in his resume, only SSK and SSN submarines.
Quote:Excerpts From the Jimmy Carter Library site
14 JUN 1948 - 17 DEC 1948 -- Duty under instruction at the Officer's course, USN Submarine School, Submarine Base, New London
17? DEC 1948 - 01 FEB 1951 -- Duty aboard USS Pomfret (SS-391) Billets Held: Communications Officer, Electronics Officer, Sonar Officer, Gunnery Officer, First Lieutenant, Electrical Officer, Supply Officer Qualifications: 4 Feb 1950 Qualified in Submarine
05 JUNE 1949 -- Promoted to Lieutenant (j.g.)
01 FEB 1951 - 10 NOV 1951 -- Duty with Shipbuilding and Naval Inspector of Ordnance, Groton, CT as prospective Engineering Officer of the USS K-1 during precommissioning fitting out of the submarine.
10 NOV 1951 - 16 OCT 1952 -- Duty aboard USS K-1(SSK-1) Billets Held: Executive Officer, Engineering Officer, Operations Officer, Gunnery Officer, Electronics Repair Officer Qualifications: Qualified for Command of Submarine Remarks: Submarine was new construction, first vessel of its class
01 JUNE 1952 -- Promoted to Lieutenant
16 OCT 1952 - 08 OCT 1953 -- Duty with US Atomic Energy Commission (Division of Reactor Development, Schenectady Operations Office) From 3 NOV 1952 to 1 MAR 1953 he served on temporary duty with Naval Reactors Branch, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. "assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels." From 1 MAR 1953 to 8 OCT 1953 he was under instruction to become an engineering officer for a nuclear power plant. He also assisted in setting up on-the-job training for the enlisted men being instructed in nuclear propulsion for the USS Seawolf (SSN575).
9 OCT 1953 -- Honorably discharged at Headquarters, 3rd Naval District. Discharge was at Carter's request. Total service: 7 years, 4 months, 8 days
10 OCT 1953 -- Appointed to US Naval Reserve and placed on inactive duty.
7 DEC 1961 -- Transferred to retired reserve with rank of Lieutenant at his own request, but without pay and allowances in accordance with Title X, U.S.C. section 1376 (a).
Occhi