Religious Leaders On Same-Sex Marriage: “No One View Speaks For ‘Religion’”

[rug]

by Jack Jenkins Posted on April 21, 2015 at 8:00 am

When the U.S. Supreme Court announced last November it would hear oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, a same-sex marriage case scheduled to come before the Court next week, both opponents and supporters of marriage equality fired up their advocacy machines for what many legal analysts suspect will be a landmark ruling on LGBT rights. Predictably, a familiar flock of theologically conservative faith groups submitted amicus briefs — legal documents sent to the Supreme Court that offer additional information for an upcoming case — opposing the freedom to marry. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, longtime adversary of marriage equality, filed a brief rehashing old condemnations of same-sex relationships, as did a group claiming to represent “Major Religious Organizations,” which included the National Association of Evangelicals, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest branch of Mormonism.

Meanwhile, a brief from the Family Research Council (FRC), a right-wing advocacy organization that often couches legal arguments in religious language, echoed a trope common among Christian conservatives: America is a Christian — or at least religious — nation, and since religion is supposedly inherently opposed to LGBT couples, Supreme Court justices should be too.

“Believing that God is the author of life, liberty and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian world view as the basis for a just, free and stable society,” the brief read. “Consistent with its mission statement, FRC is committed to strengthening traditional [meaning opposite sex] families.”

But even as this wave of anti-LGBT briefs makes its way to the desks of Supreme Court clerks, a number of religious groups are also submitting or signing on to briefs in support of same-sex marriage. The briefs, once cobbled together by a few progressive faith traditions, now brandish the names of thousands of historic Christian leaders and institutions, each voicing positions that challenge old religious views of homosexuality and highlight just how far America’s theological goal posts have shifted on the topic of same-sex marriage.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/21/3649064/thousands-religious-leaders-urge-supreme-court-protect-sex-marriage/

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Obergefell_v._Hodges

[cbayer]

1. Glad to see the pushback and particularly glad that it is getting some press attention.

[nil desperandum]

2. Good

to see some people siding with those opposed to discrimination from a moral perspective.

The FRC has more in common with the WBC than they care to admit. It's about time they are exposed for that.

[cbayer]

4. Agree about the FRC and WBC. Birds of a feather.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. How many people are we actually talking here?

Thousands of leaders? Ok. How many progressive people do they represent versus the Christian jackals attacking these rights, right now in the Supreme Court?

Funny how these articles never really include any useful numbers at all.

And there are more than one kind of 'representation'. Catholics poll fairly supportive of issues like same sex marriage, but as long as they remain a part of the RCC proper, they are members of, and giving money to an org that is lobbying, campaigning, and suing against those individuals interests.

What's the signal to noise ratio here? I've been reading about limited numbers of Christians stepping up for civil rights for decades, but it's never been more than just background noise.

[rug]

5. The polls you cite give an indication of how many.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/02/11/catholics-still-lead-way-on-gay-marriage/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-accepting-of-homosexuality/

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/resources/entry/marriage-polling

Assuming 80 million U.S Catholics, that is between 40 and 50 million supporters of civil same sex marriage in the U.S., counting only Catholics.

as long as they remain a part of the RCC proper, they are members of, and giving money to an org that is lobbying, campaigning, and suing against those individuals interests

Your point here is what, precisely?

[AtheistCrusader]

6. My point is

"as long as they remain a part of the RCC proper, they are members of, and giving money to an org that is lobbying, campaigning, and suing against those individuals interests".

That's my point. I can copy and paste it again if you need. Even though they may be in favor of same sex marriage personally, as individuals, and even as voters, they are still members of, and giving money to an org that is lobbying, campaigning, and suing against those individuals interests.

Bold. Italic. Red. I can add more formatting to assist.

[rug]

7. A rather naive political point.

And? Is there anything more to it?

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Does naïve mean 'accurate' in rugspeak?

If I wanted to advocate safe storage, registration, and other gun control elements, it would be odd if I was willing to be a member of the NRA, since that would entail giving money to a political entity that actively works against my interests.

Catholics that are active members of the RCC are doing precisely that, if they personally hold the political view that SSM should be legal.

[rug]

9. No. It means as uniformed and clueless as a newborn.

Without its redeeming cuteness.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Feel free to demonstrate how it is not the case then.

Because the RCC is a political entity. As such, it is actively lobbying, campaigning, and suing to block things like SSM.

Being a member, of a political entity that behaves like that, in the unique condition where base level members don't have any control over the leadership (the NRA members at least have the opportunity to vote for the board members, an improvement over the RCC) is actively working against one's own interests.

[rug]

11. No, I don't think I will.

Comparing it to the NRA means there's way too much brush to clear first. I'm not inclined to do that and you're not inclined to hear it.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. No there isn't. You just don't like the analogy. I can offer others. You'll like them less.

The NRA offers an array of non-political benefit as well, such as training, safety education, hunter courses, etc. Not drastically different from how the RCC offers other content besides its political activities. Content that can appeal to people on either side of the fence on X issue, (firearms access controls for the NRA, and SSM for the RCC.) and both orgs can and do contain people of either base political persuasion.


But none of that is why you don't want to make the comparison. You don't want to make the comparison because you don't have a leg to stand on, and the analogy is terrifyingly accurate, which is unusual as analogies/models in political discussions go.

[rug]

13. I know you're an avid gun supporter.

In fact, you make an excellent apologist for the NRA.

That said, the comparison is stupid and I have neither the time nor the inclination to demonstrate its stupidity.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. You don't know shit.

If you did, you'd know I'm an avid critic of the NRA. Have been for at least a decade. Hard to be an apologist for an org I refuse to be a member of, and consistently attack over easily demonstrable issue positions.

Pretend the comparison is wrong all you want. Let me know when you want to actually support your dismissal.

[rug]

15. Having read your posts, I disagree.

[Goblinmonger]

16. Then you might want to work on your reading comprehension.

Being a gun owner =|= NRA supporter.

[rug]

18. I was referring to knowing shit.

Having read his posts.

Maybe you should work on your own comprehension.

Now, monger, is there anything else you want to say?

[Goblinmonger]

21. Do you even know what the discussion is at this point?

Are you saying that he is lying about his support of the NRA?

Then, once you answer that, perhaps you want to actually go back and discuss the analogy and explain how giving your money to an organization that actively and enthusiastically supports, lobbies for, and sues to stop same sex marriage is somehow, in the bizzaro world you live in, NOT counterproductive for liberal catholics that support same sex marriage.

[rug]

23. I doubt you do.

This discussion is about religious support for civil same sex marriage.

I understand you far prefer meta shitfests to that but, que se dice?, tough shit.

And it remains a stupid analogy. Here's a hint. The NRA is a one issue entity.

Considering where you host, "bizarre world" takes on a whole new meaning.

[Goblinmonger]

31. No, I do.

So let's skip the NRA stuff since it confuses you and gives you a sad.

How is it not counter-productive for liberal Catholics that support same-sex marriage being legal to give money and time to an organization that actively and effectively lobbies, supports, and sues to make sure same-sex marriage doesn't become legal?

[rug]

33. Frankly, gm, nothing you post confuses me.

But I expect this will you.

What amount would you say goes from an attendee at a Sunday Mass to an explicitly political RC organization or PAC?

Take your time.

[Goblinmonger]

35. Who cares?

More than zero.

Isn't that counterproductive?

[rug]

36. With that, my interest in your thoughts has dropped to less than zero.

[Goblinmonger]

38. How much is enough to be counterproductive, then?

If every single liberal Catholic that supports same-sex marriage, stopped giving money to the RCC and gave it to a secular charity that helped the poor, how much of an impact would that have on the RCC and their ability to keep SSM illegal? Wouldn't that be more productive?

And it isn't surprising that once somebody actually brought you back on track to the topic you didn't want to discuss, you lose interest. You are far more transparent than you think you are.

[rug]

44. Speaking of reading comprehension, read my previous reply to you.

And it isn't surprising that once somebody actually asks you a question you didn't want to discuss, you say. "Who cares?". You are far more transparent than you think you are.

[Goblinmonger]

46. So you don't want to answer the inital question?

If every single liberal Catholic that supports same-sex marriage, stopped giving money to the RCC and gave it to a secular charity that helped the poor, how much of an impact would that have on the RCC and their ability to keep SSM illegal? Wouldn't that be more productive?

[rug]

59. I only answer someone who cares.

See, you gave me a sadz.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. That would be massively effective, because they would lose a revenue stream that must be

replaced. It could certainly eat into other church revenue, meaning, lobbying efforts.

That, or start closing local churches, for lack of funds.

[rug]

67. Before you determine what the mass is, you'd better know the actual revenue flo first.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Pinning down the finances of even just the american arm of the RCC is notoriously difficult.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560536

The picture that emerges is not flattering. The church’s finances look poorly co-ordinated considering (or perhaps because of) their complexity. The management of money is often sloppy. And some parts of the church have indulged in ungainly financial contortions in some cases—it is alleged—both to divert funds away from uses intended by donors and to frustrate creditors with legitimate claims, including its own nuns and priests. The dioceses that have filed for bankruptcy may not be typical of the church as a whole. But given the overall lack of openness there is no way of knowing to what extent they are outliers.

I'm pretty sure I know who to waterboard to find out, but I don't think you'd appreciate me doing it.

besides, waterboarding isn't very reliable either.

[rug]

92. Do you have an urge to waterboard?

I'm sure you know where to go for assistance in doing it.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. I have an urge to know the truth. Especially since it is directly relevant to your casual dismissal

of a very obvious problem with the RCC's phantom finance structure.

In fact, I've already demonstrated your claim that 'money doesn't get shuffled around like that' is... how did you put it? Oh yes, "Bullshit".

You've made a claim that cannot possibly be defended. The Church has been struggling with accounting irregularities, lack of transparency, and other bookkeeping problems for decades. I can link you article after article about it. Have done so in the past, yet you pretend that dollar on the plate for candles doesn't in any way ever bolster the church's social activities, such as lobbying. You can't possibly support that.

I think that economist article speaks for itself.

(Waterboarding doesn't work as anything except punishment, that was a dark humor joke.)

[rug]

104. I said "Bullshit", not "'money doesn't get shuffled around like that'".

You brought up waterboarding.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. You said

"But this nonsense that even some old person putting a coin in a box to light a candle is complicit in oppression is complete bullshit."

That sounds an awful lot like you are saying money goes where it is intended to go. I linked you an article on in depth allegations that this is not the case, that money does get re-directed for other uses.

And as I said, the waterboarding thing was a bit of dark humor. I don't believe in torture because it is proven to get bad info. I will leave jokes like that out in the future, because it somehow doesn't come across with you. And that's fine, it doesn't always. If one has to explain a joke, it wasn't funny to begin with.

[rug]

108. Except it doesn't.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. You say that, but there are ample allegations in credible news sources that this is not the case

and the RCC itself admits the books are not formulated in such a way as to enable anyone to actually look and find out.

Worse, there are credible accusations that this isn't just fog of accounting, but rather, by design.
And an amusing little coinky-dink for my NRA/RCC analogy; today an article in CNN broke the story that the NRA is doing the same shit, funning funds for XYZ purpose, to RNC candidates. Just food for thought.

(The NRA has always publicly disclosed money that goes to politicians whether R or D, based on their pro-gun-edness, though anyone who glanced at the numbers could tell, the split was not equal. This allegation is worse, redirecting funds from non-lobbying purposes, to lobbying, and again, biased to RNC candidates.)

[rug]

112. The question was not whether there are suspicious financial practices.

What I called bullshit on is how much of the political cash comes from the parishes and the ridiculous notion of individual complicity in corporate malfeasance.

[AtheistCrusader]

122. I'm aware there's a common admonition not to politicize things like tithing.

That the prosperity of the individual is viewed as god's blessing in the first place, so giving it in tithe is giving it back to god, and misuse is a sin on the heads of the people in the church tasked with using it properly, not on the person who donated it.

Yet.

That admonition of course, comes from people who work for the church. It's a clever diversion.

I'd call it a great stinking scam, call it a day and walk away, except that money can and does get used for political purposes. So, fair game for things like boycotting, or withholding tithes. I know the very idea seems to outrage you, and that's cute and all, but it's an effective weapon against the "political and craven purposes" the church engages in. (Your words.)

Even if the RCC could actually prove that every single dollar donated at that level goes nowhere else, and used on nothing political, one could still induce alarm/pressure in the org to change, by withholding money. It would have to reverse cash flow from other activities, like lobbying, to local upkeep, or wither.

[rug]

124. Since the RCC doesn't practice tithing, apparently not.

[AtheistCrusader]

125. Better tell these guys to get rid of that tithing application.

http://www.saintbridgets.org/m/mass-times.cfm

I'm not going to get into the weeds with you on whatever you want to call the various ways money moves from hands to church.

[rug]

126. There's nothing in there about tithing.

I did see this, though:

Donuts
Our church makes fresh donuts Sunday mornings that are available after the Sunday masses during the school year.

A pretty penny indeed! I will send them a stern letter immediately.

[AtheistCrusader]

127. Its there on the site. bing shows the preview.

I'm on my cell. I'll find a better link later.

[Goblinmonger]

128. Here's a link to their tithing application.

http://www.saintbridgets.org/pdf_files/tithing-form.pdf

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Money flows both ways.

If the entire value of the tithe goes to the operations of the local church, then that is cost the upstream hierarchy of the church no longer has to pay, leaving it free to go lobby and campaign on issues.

Just because that dollar doesn't make it to the pope's desk, doesn't mean it doesn't offset or free up a dollar that does.

(and yes, the 'pope's desk' bit is a simplification for the ways and means money moves through the RCC structure, into the hands of lobbyists and lawyers operating at its behest.)

I'll refrain from calling it political money laundering, but... kinda looks like it.

[rug]

62. I suggest you dig in and see exactly where the money comes from and where it goes.

In particular, the accounts of the USCCB, if your immediate concern is the American church.

Here's a start: http://www.usccb.org/about/financial-reporting/

You'll have to dig further for a complete answer but this canard that the Papists are attempting to control the government is a hangover from the nineteenth century Nativists and the JFK campaign.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. These numbers are incomplete, or money is being shuttled around.

Really, copy/paste is disabled out of this file? Fuck you Adobe.

Ok then.

"Local legislative initiatives fund, 2010: 155,413, 2009: 155,413"

I'm going to assume that's salary/operating cost outlay for the people who actually disburse legislative dollars, because the USCCB spent $30,000 on the fight to keep Physician Assisted Suicide illegal in Washington state, that year. Pretty sure they didn't spend 19% of their budget on one issue in one state that year.

*eyeballs the 116 million in National Collections*

Next biggest chunk is government contracts, for income, and that's for services rendered. (outsourcing government social services to USCCB entities)

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Hang on now.

How, exactly, is the NRA being a 'one issue entity' (your words, not mine) different from the RCC again?

Please be precise.

[rug]

56. Simple. The RCC is not a one issue entity.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. How many issues is it, then?

Can you name some examples?

[rug]

61. Quite a few, actually.

It promotes material charity, "the corporal works of mercy". It emphasizes the dignity of each human being, regardless of status, race or disability. It opposes capital punishment. It supports the cause of migrants and workers. It opposes the amassing of capital and exploitation of workers. It opposes the despoliation of the environment by industry. To name of few.

Here's a summary: http://www.catholicsocialteaching.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/THE-COMMON-GOOD-AND-THE-CATHOLIC-CHURCH_1996.pdf

I suspect you'd agree with much of it, but for the bogeyman of religion.

Where it goes wrong, imo, particularly in the areas of gender, sexuality, and reproduction, is when it attempts to use its power and influence to direct legislation. This is no more than an attempt at forced social behavior.

There is no religious mandate for that. When the institutional Church attempts that, it can and should be opposed. In short, when they do that, they are ignoring "My kingdom is not of this world."

A boycott is not the solution, even were it viable.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. If you are going to include issues like charity, then the NRA is a multiple issue

Entity as well.

And that is precisely why I asked that question.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. That's cheap shit, rug. Dropping an accusation like that without a scrap of evidence.

I have been plenty critical of the NRA here and on facebook. That's not even slightly funny for you to say.

[rug]

19. I don't read facebook or have a facebook account.

Nor do I stalk you.

Is it correct you are an avid supporter of gun rights and that you support the NRA's position in that?

Because you don't have to be a member to be a defender.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Define 'gun rights'.

This is actually directly leading into my comparison of the NRA and the RCC.

I am a 'believer' in the sense that I am a gun owner/enthusiast.
I diverge from the largest organized institution for that 'belief' in that I am a strong supporter of a wide variety of gun restrictions and legal penalties for misuse. Rather than hold my nose and become a member of that org to access certain benefits that membership entails, I go my own way, and work with groups that are in keeping with my values.

It would be of measurable benefit to me, personally, to be a member of the NRA. The NRA has a political and non-political wing, and the non-political wing has a lock on access to liability insurance providers, gun ranges, hunter safety education which is REQUIRED by state law to obtain a hunting permit, etc. However, I refuse to be a member of an org that holds some of the political positions that the NRA holds. There is not enough benefit in the world to cause me to violate my principles.

And that is, again, a tidy map to the comparison I made earlier. The RCC holds access to certain benefits, does it not? To a believer along the lines of the catholic faith, membership has its benefits.

But to access those benefits, one must hold their nose and become a member of a political org that continually stonewalls and attacks legal recognition of same sex marriage worldwide.

[rug]

25. You know more about the NRA definition than I do.

Do you support its definition?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. I do not support the NRA's definition of 'gun rights'.

If you'd taken time to read my previous post, I detailed many ways in which I not only diverge, but specifically attack them.

[Curmudgeoness]

20. Links?

Easy enough to determine who is right if we can see links.

[rug]

22. Easy enough to do a search. Look right up there in the corner Curmudgeoness.

See it? Now use it.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. "atheistcrusader nra site:democraticunderground.com"

First post:

The NRA is schizophrenic. It has two wings. One is a functional, rational, single-issue entity that seeks to keep Americans armed and capable/competent. The other wing is a bat-shit insane political entity that is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. It really hurts their credibility, I think, but on this particular issue, the NRA as a firearm safety advocate, is on the correct side of the issue, and the accidental gunshot/death rate decline over the last 50 years reflects it.

Boy, I'm really defending it there.

The NRA publicly cheered the decision, but the NRA/Republicans/Conservatives are actually quite bitter about a couple bits of language in Scalia's majority opinion.

I don't see how that's supporting the NRA. (Discussion WRT Heller vs. DC.)

Third link I point out the value of the NICS background check system, which the NRA actually supported the passage of (Brady Bill). Not really an endorsement of the NRA, rather, an endorsement of NICS, which is not the NRA's legislation. I pointed out one of the times the NRA did something beneficial in the area of gun control, to piss off the poster of the OP.


Etc.

You got some search results that show me actually supporting the NRA?

[rug]

30. Post 12.

The NRA offers an array of non-political benefit as well, such as training, safety education, hunter courses, etc. Not drastically different from how the RCC offers other content besides its political activities. Content that can appeal to people on either side of the fence on X issue, (firearms access controls for the NRA, and SSM for the RCC.) and both orgs can and do contain people of either base political persuasion.

Is that a denunciation?

[AtheistCrusader]

32. If you look at it through a straw and ignore all the other shit I said in that post, no.

Nor was it a denunciation of the RCC, which you know full well I am highly critical of at pretty much every opportunity. I was comparing favorable data points for two orgs I am highly critical of. (And not a member of)

Did you really just try that? Wow. Feeble.

[rug]

34. Well, then, let's see from you a "favorable data point" of the RCC.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Post 24.

"The RCC holds access to certain benefits, does it not? To a believer along the lines of the catholic faith, membership has its benefits."

There, I even quote mined the shit out of it for you.

Membership in the RCC has non-political benefits for believers. (I didn't define them specifically because I didn't want to quibble on minutiae, so I simply acknowledged it. I defined some specifics about the NRA because you seem to disagree with the comparison) That's a thing that believers clearly desire access to.

Now, I will copy and paste that paragraph with a slight change to illustrate ways in which the two entities are alike:

Membership in the NRA has non-political benefits for gun owners. That's a thing that gun owners clearly desire access to.


None of this is a positive endorsement or defense of the NRA or the RCC.

[rug]

45. That's a ephemism for privilege.

Is that the best "favorable data point" you can muster?



Look at the picture in the OP if you need help.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. So, excommunicated members of the church only give up privilege?

I see. Tell me more.

I didn't specify the exact nature of the benefits because I am not as intimately familiar with them, being an outsider. I can only relate what I have observed, and to restate those things opens the door to quibbling about the nature of the benefits.

Suffice to say, people of the catholic faith have an interest in being members of the church, yes?

[rug]

65. Who's excommnicated? Certainly not the people in the picture.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Will you champion this poor man's loss of privelige?

http://www.charismanews.com/world/41141-pope-francis-excommunicates-pro-gay-marriage-priest-for-heresy

You're putting me in the uncomfortable position of enjoying mocking you, while being uncomfortable that I might be perceived as mocking Fr. Greg Reynolds, which is not the case. I have a great deal of respect for him, taking one for the team on progressive issues, and getting thrown out of the RCC for it.

“My motivation is trying to encourage reform and clear need for renewal in the church,” he told The Standard newspaper. “I still love the church and am committed to it. I’m just trying to bring about in my own little way to help highlight some of the failings and limitations.”

I think that illustrates the desire for believers in the catholic faith to be members of the church, without delving into the nuts and bolts of why. Will you accept that comparison?

[rug]

66. That's a Pentecostal magzine which is, mildly, displeaed with the RCC.

Charisma (also known as Charisma + Christian Life) is a monthly Christian magazine based in Lake Mary, Florida, a suburb of Orlando. It is aimed at Pentecostals and charismatics. Its perspective is influenced by the Word-Faith movement, charismatic revivalism, and other contemporary streams of charismatic Christianity such as the Toronto Blessing, International House of Prayer, and the Apostolic-Prophetic movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charisma_(magazine)

To quote myself, "There's a bit more to it than that."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121895534#post1

Yes, he is a supporter of gay causes but he was excommunicated for giving Communion to a dog, among other things.

To avoid anyone's discomfort, I will restrain from commenting on the progressive aspects of giving Communion to dogs.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Archbishop Hart stated it was because he supported ordination of women.

[rug]

87. There are many Catholics and clergy who spport ordination of women who are not excommnicated.

The letter, a copy of which NCR obtained and translated, accuses Reynolds of heresy (Canon 751) and determined he incurred latae sententiae excommunication for throwing away the consecrated host or retaining it "for a sacrilegious purpose" (Canon 1367). It also referenced Canon 1369 (speaking publicly against church teaching) in its review of the case.

http://ncronline.org/news/global/australian-priest-advocate-womens-ordination-excommunicated

BTW, the type of excommunication involved, latae sententiae, is an automatic one, not the result of a church trial. It is a declaration by a diocese that someone has removed himself from communion with the church by an action.

It is not an expulsion per se but an acknowledgement that someone has left the RCC. I would imagine that you applaud that.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. He doesn't believe he left. And I think it's interesting that the explanation there

is different from what the archbishop said.

[rug]

94. Martin Lther went to his death believing he was still a Catholic.

As did Henry VIII.

Theologcally speaking, they may have been, but not ecclesiastically..

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Yet, the story claims the dog thing wasn't him, despite your finger pointing.

"Reynolds was not aware of the incident with the dog during the liturgy and only learned of it later, he said at the time and yesterday in an interview with NCR.

Though the Melbourne archbishop and others have characterized the group's liturgies as "illicit" on several occasions, Hart’s criticism of Reynolds’ liturgies did not reference the dog incident."

You said:

"Yes, he is a supporter of gay causes but he was excommunicated for giving Communion to a dog, among other things.

To avoid anyone's discomfort, I will restrain from commenting on the progressive aspects of giving Communion to dogs."

Except that not only does he deny having anything to do with it, the archbishop said nothing about that alleged incident when he suggested 'illicit' liturgies.

That looks like a cheap smear. You said that was why, 'among other things'. Please support that claim.

[LiberalAndProud]

75. You're stretching the point.

He didn't offer the dog communion. Allowing the dog at the altar was his error. Seems harsh to consign a man to excommunication (does that translate to eternal damnation according to Catholic doctrine?) for showing a pet owner a small kindness.

[rug]

83. It was mch more than that.

Read up on him.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. The archbishop that dismissed him specified his support for the ordination of women.

Throwing him out for supporting equality for women instead of supporting same sex marriage doesn't help your position any, I don't think.

[rug]

88. See 87.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. A point I already refuted, and used your own link to do so.

Did you read your entire source?

[rug]

111. I did, and you didn't.

[AtheistCrusader]

123. Might want to read it again.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Here's a classic.

1. That's because the NRA is predominatly made up of republicans.

And you can see that in the board of directors they elected.

If not for Ted Nugent, they'd probably be blaming rock music too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101792706

Fucking shame on me. Look at that misspelling.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Did your search find this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=740503


I keep clicking through these search results, not finding a lot of these posts you claim to have read wherein I defend the NRA.

You 'bout ready to walk that accusation back?

[rug]

43. I did find this (via yor link).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022012447#post3

How long were yo a member of the NRA?

And if you're going to defend yourself, know the accusation.

You do not need to be a member to support the NRA's position on gun rights.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. For 2 years, somewhere around 2002-2003.

I quit for the reasons I specified. Because of the NRA's political activities.

In doing so I gave up access to a lot of non-political resources that are of interest to me, but it was worth it.

Basically I walked the talk, when being a member of an entity that engages in political lobbying and lawsuits did things I didn't agree with, I withdrew my financial support, my membership, and I sought greener pastures even at personal cost.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. I didn't address that last sentence. Might have been below the fold on my screen at the time.

I agree membership isn't required to support the NRA's positions. That's why I linked you a bunch of other posts where I also detail specifically how I differ from the NRA on items inclusive of 'gun rights' positions.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Here's one, lol

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022012447#post3

And another

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014377486#post7

"fuck the NRA"

lol

[AlbertCat]

41. I know you're an avid gun supporter.

Oh look!


The ad hominem attack....clearly demonstrating you know you're out of ammo and have lost the argument but won;t back down.

Ego? Fear?

Oh yeah... it "too stupid". Which must also be a synonym for "accurate" in Rugspeak.

[rug]

42. Oh look! The ad hominem attack....

Albert, why do you have such a dim view of his sincerely held belief?

[AtheistCrusader]

51. I don't see anything negative in his post about me.

Are you feeling all right today?

[rug]

63. Suggesting that your opinions on guns is an ad hominem sounds rather judgmental.

Although I was posting in haste earlier. I had to go to my daughter's lacrosse game.

[AlbertCat]

54. a dim view of his sincerely held belief?

Huh?

Who "he"?

The Pope?

[beam me up scottie]

53. Hit a nerve.

AC doesn't support the NRA because he's a liberal who disagrees with their goals.

So why do liberal catholics who claim to be pro-lgbt/women's rights still support the church?

[rug]

68. Read the OP or ask me.

unless you prefer indirect, unchallenged passive-aggression.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. Irony meter service required.

[rug]

78. You definitely need something serviced.

[LiberalAndProud]

77. I'll bite.

Why do liberal catholics who claim to be are pro-lgbt/women's rights still support the church?

[rug]

79. Because the RCC has no authority to speak in civil legislation.

Because the RCC is more than a one issue entity.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. It sure presumes to. It also avails itself of the courts.

[rug]

81. Then those actions are fair game.

But this nonsense that even some old person putting a coin in a box to light a candle is complicit in oppression is complete bullshit.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Money goes in, oppression comes out. Not sure what else to say about it.

[rug]

90. Try describing the digestive tract that way.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. It's only oppressive when I eat at dixies.

Basically the 'man sauce' leaves you hurting for 1 day, for every tablespoon you eat. It's not a happy formula.

I'm not going to follow you into casual humor dismissal though. This is a serious issue. The RCC is heavily involved in lobbying against gay rights, against basic health care for women, not just in the US, but worldwide. This is as serious as it gets for our generation.

The RCC actively lobbies, nationally and locally, to block same sex marriage. It has to stop. Dropping membership, and denying it revenue is certainly one way to tackle the problem.

[LiberalAndProud]

101. What are the issues that resonate with you?

I think the "no authority" argument is weak as the Vatican not only gets face time with world leaders, but holds at least some (sometimes much) authority with parishioners to vote the church's conscience.

[rug]

103. Virtually everything here:

http://catholicworker.org/

Completely nondependent on the hierarchy.

[LiberalAndProud]

116. Would you say the hierarchy is a vestigial appendage then?

Or is the hierarchy integral to Catholicism?

[rug]

117. No, the orders of bishop, priest and deacon go back to the very beginning.

In Catholic theology, they are the means of the transmission of the sacraments and are, as you say, integral to Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

That doesn't prevent them from being used for political and craven purposes.

It was much worse a thousand years ago when simony was rampant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simony#Catholic_church

[LiberalAndProud]

118. Would you say that the tradition is important to you?

While I might agree that simony is less rampant in today's church, the potential for exploiting parishioners remains. Do you think members are somewhat less gullible today than they were back in the day?

[rug]

119. Yes, but more importantant, it's crucial to that religion.

Catholics may come and go, as this thread demonstrates, but the RCC explicitly states its teachings are based on scripture and tradition.

But I do not agree either that Catholics are exploited by the Church (for what reason?) or that they are gullible. Those are condescending and unsupported views. I don't think the 57% of Catholics who are Democrats are gullible.

[LiberalAndProud]

120. On gullibility ...

The authority of the church can play on people's gullibility. I am not making the claim that religious people are more gullible than the general population, but take the antivax folks, for example. I would assume there is a fair representation of that sort of mindset in the church. And yes, I do think the church is in a position to exploit that mindset. You've demonstrated that you're aware that parishioners have been exploited by the church in the past. I don't share your certainty that it isn't happening and/or won't happen again. That would take more faith than I possess.

[rug]

121. To the extent that's valid, any perceived gllibity is in direct proportion to perceived authority.

So, in that sense, I'd say Catholics are less gullible, although a more precise phrase is less deferential. The Church's suthority is actually quite limited.

For the record the RCC is not anti-vaccine.

[pinto]

27. (side note) The demonstrators pictured are from Dignity USA, a GLBT coalition of Catholics.

These look to be from Dignity New York. There are about 45 chapters nationwide -

https://www.dignityusa.org/chapters

[nil desperandum]

52. Boy

[rug]

64. Who knew that Catholics supporting gay rights was controversial?

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Well, there's support, and then there's support.

If one of them means remaining a member of an organization that actively lobbies to suppress gay rights, you might not be supporting gay rights.

[rug]

82. Ignorant bullshit.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Really seems to upset you. Truth hurts, huh?

I don't give money to any part of an organization that goes around hurting people in the courts, with lobbyists, and with proposed pet legislation.

Wish you would do the same. Not like there aren't similar churches that could substitute. I understand the Episcopalians are on the right side of the major issues we've been talking about.

[rug]

89. When confronted with the odor of bullshit, a rational reaction is to recoil.

If and when you post anything bearing a semblance to truth, I'll let you know if it hurts.

I'll light a, no, two candles for you.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Odd that you can't seem to explain how it is 'bullshit'.

[rug]

95. Yo haven't been following along.

In any event, the nose doesn't lie.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. That's what I said when I started looking at the church's public finance disclosure.

I wear a lot of hats in my line of work, and one of them is supporting corporate finance.

So, got a pretty good nose for financial bullshit myself.

[rug]

100. Post what you find.

I bet there's a lot of financial chicanery in there but not the type you think.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Um, I linked you to an economist article on the churchs' overall accounting problems.

I also happened to have historical context around the I-1000 fight in WA, and I highly doubt they spent 19% of their lobbying monies on that one issue for one year.

Then again, maybe Michael Douglas's principles aren't violated cheaply. Hard to say.

[Lordquinton]

105. I'm in awe

To witness someone respond to almost every post in a thread while saying nothing. And they say miracles don't happen.

[rug]

107. Awe does tend to overpower comprehension.

[Lordquinton]

113. you must be in a constant state of awe then.

[rug]

114. Twas you who claimed awe.

[Lordquinton]

115. nice comeback

I mean, not really, but gold star for trying

[LiberalAndProud]

74. “No One View Speaks For ‘Religion' "