# How Low Catholics Have Gone



## Hir (Nov 14, 2009)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html



			
				Washington Post said:
			
		

> The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.
> 
> Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
> 
> ...




This really shows where the catholics priorities really are. Discuss, I guess.


ZJempTV nailed my opinion.


----------



## Jelethorim (Dec 9, 2009)

1) The city should not have right to tell a church to allow gay weddings.  It's against the religious beliefs, and should not be forced.

2) The church should not withhold from the needy.  That is not the ways of Christ.

That is all.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 9, 2009)

So long as the Church finds a different way to provide for their social services outreaching, I think they're doing the RIGHT thing.

I don't agree with their stance on gay rights. If anything, I'm pretty much 100% in the opposite court... except...

They have the right to believe as they do, and to act on their morals. The state has no right to force them to act against their moral codes. Because I don't agree with their moral codes doesn't mean they should be forced to agree with MINE.

I don't want to be forced to accept their morality... I will therefor defend their right to live according to theirs. Because NO ONE, even Catholics, should be forced to live by someone else's morals.

That's the whole principle upon which our country is based... freedom.

Even if it's freedom to be a bigot.

So it's about their freedom to practice their religion, which includes bigotry. I assume that my opinion of this abomination of a religion is clear... and I assume that also I've made it clear that, while I think Christianity in all its forms is an abomination... I believe deeply and with total conviction that they should have the RIGHT to practice it if they so desire.

One of the things I despise the most about the various forms of Christianity and Catholicism, is that they want to impose their morality and their religion on others-- will they, nil they.

I won't join them in trying to force others to my morality. I won't take part in taking away their freedom [to be bigots], because when I participate in taking someone else's freedom away... I participate in taking away freedom. And that, I will NOT do.

Let it be clearly known, however, that the christian religions [including Catholicism] have done at least as much evil as they have good. And the religion itself is perverse and if I ever catch someone trying to indoctrinate my child into it, there's going to be fire and brimstone alright.


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 9, 2009)

It must be so difficult to do God's work in a world so full of evil people you can't seem to avoid without simply dropping the livelihoods of suffering and needy.

It'll be interesting to see what the Church has to say in regard to a compromise, inspired by and modeled after something that solved the same dispute, but over in San Francisco. They sound awfully uncompromisey in this.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 9, 2009)

...their loss
Not helping people=far less people going to their churches in the city=shooting themselves in the foot.
reaction...
meh
D.C. is a terrible place to live in anyhow


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 10, 2009)

The bastards finally show their true colors for all to see. They don't really care about anything except controlling others, even at the expense of spreading their poison.


----------



## Xx WoLF (Dec 10, 2009)

Aaaaannnddd religion affects yet another large group of people negatively. Yay. I'm catholic, but seriously, some of the shit the catholic church does is just sick and wrong, sometimes makes me wish I wasn't catholic.


----------



## FluffMouse (Dec 10, 2009)

First, I have to agree with the folks above who mentioned the "state not having the right to tell the church what to do" bit. The whole separation of church and state thing *does* go both ways. Mind you, I'm all about gay marriage, and I'm definitely not a christian of any flavor. But any gov't party dictating church activity is about the same as the church getting involved in national politics.

And we all know how much we love the church in national politics. ::rolls eyes::

At the same time however, turbo mega ultra super douche move from the catholic church. You *know* it's not the "Defending our right to govern ourselves" business leading to the threatened discontinuing of social services. That's blackmail and in any other situation that'd be considered illegal.

Edit: This is actually DamionRuthers; didn't realize sugar had logged in on my compy.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 10, 2009)

Jelethorim said:


> 1) The city should not have right to tell a church to allow gay weddings.  It's against the religious beliefs, and should not be forced.
> 
> 2) The church should not withhold from the needy.  That is not the ways of Christ.
> 
> That is all.



Seeing as marriage comes with a ton of social benefits everybody is entitled to it, so either you do all of these legal bindings or none. It is a legal contract, not a mythological one; you can't have the ability to choose who gets and who doesn't get these legal benefits just because of mythological reasons.


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 10, 2009)

Equal Rights > Religious Freedom

Someone's religion is a conscious choice. Who they are is not. Flipping that inequality sign around would open a lot more doors than one would think or want.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Seeing as marriage comes with a ton of social benefits everybody is entitled to it, so either you do all of these legal bindings or none. It is a legal contract, not a mythological one; you can't have the ability to choose who gets and who doesn't get these legal benefits just because of mythological reasons.



I couldn't agree and yet disagree with you more.

The marriage is a legal binding, but that can be done by a Justice of the Peace. It does not have to be done in a church by a priest/preacher/pastor/minister.

Therefor, I agree with you wholeheartedly that everyone is entitled to the legal benefits, and marriage between homosexual people should be equal to that between heterosexuals.

That being said, Churches should not be forced to perform them if it goes against their morality. Gay people can get married by Justices of the Peace at another place besides a church.

So yes, and no. Marriage DOES have legal ramifications, and (for example) a gay person should have every right in the world to be at the bedside of a dying partner. They should have all the rights of family.

But that doesn't mean the churches should have to do it. Especially if it's against their beliefs to do so.


----------



## Duality Jack (Dec 10, 2009)

Kay Generalizations buddy not all catholics are the same. If you spoke about a radical terrorist group and say "how low Muslims go" you'd be called a raciest.
 the only reason you get away with shit like that is its "popular" to hate catholicism.

And I am an agnostic sayin that.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 10, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Kay Generalizations buddy not all catholics are the same. If you spoke about a radical terrorist group and say "how low Muslims go" you'd be called a raciest.
> the only reason you get away with shit like that is its "popular" to hate catholicism.
> 
> And I am an agnostic sayin that.


Islam is not a race. Argument neutralized.


----------



## Duality Jack (Dec 10, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Islam is not a race. Argument neutralized.


 "''Discriminatory asswhipe' a 'general moron' a bigot" replace raciest with any of those phrases then.


... Idiot.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 10, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> "''Discriminatory asswhipe' a 'general moron' a bigot" replace raciest with any of those phrases then.
> 
> 
> ... Idiot.


Or maybe "rational thinker immune to mind control"


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 10, 2009)

Actually, it's pretty clear that 'Catholics' as it pertains to this thread is speaking of the clerical/administrative segment of the institution, and not about individuals who practice Catholicism.

Or at least, it should be.

It's more akin to saying, "Boeing has gone bonkers." This has nothing to do with the Joe Schmoe that works in the factory, and everything to do with the administration's decisions on behalf of the corporate entity "Boeing."


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 10, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Actually, it's pretty clear that 'Catholics' as it pertains to this thread is speaking of the clerical/administrative segment of the institution, and not about individuals who practice Catholicism.
> 
> Or at least, it should be.
> 
> It's more akin to saying, "Boeing has gone bonkers." This has nothing to do with the Joe Schmoe that works in the factory, and everything to do with the administration's decisions on behalf of the corporate entity "Boeing."


Still, letting a few robed prunes control your life is pretty weak.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 10, 2009)

They have a right to do this.  But having the right to do it doesn't make it the right thing to do.  As a charity, naturally they are funded by the good will of the people.  Every donation that was given was given trusting that the church would do its best to use that donation for the good of the community.  Be turning around and wielding their charity as a weapon against the city, they have broken the trust that was placed in them.

I would hope everyone here thinks twice before giving to a religious charity this year.  Especially the Salvation Army, who have been known to pull this same kind of bullshit and worse.



Jelethorim said:


> 1) The city should not have right to tell a church to allow gay weddings.  It's against the religious beliefs, and should not be forced.
> 
> That is all.



This would be a valid point if there was anyone actually trying to force a church to hold gay wedding ceremonies.  They're not.

That is all.


----------



## Duality Jack (Dec 10, 2009)

personally I think if a church wishes to not hold weddings of any type its a right they hold, but that does not mean you can't go to a United church or something of the like instead. does not mean you can't get married just not at a place that has been opposing the idea to begin with. (kinda makes sense)


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 10, 2009)

I agree, Lobar. I don't donate to the SA, ever. They go to disasters and charge money for the help they give! I was absolutely INCENSED when I saw a woman turned away after a hurricane, because she didn't even have the 25 cents to pay for their shitty coffee. She wanted coffee because she couldn't afford any of their food!

Yes, I got her some food, and got her to a place where she was taken care of and didn't have to PAY for the privilege of being displaced thanks to the weather.

*Strangles off the rest of her rant and leaves it at that*


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 10, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> I don't donate to the SA, ever.


  ...the Sturmabteilung?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 10, 2009)

Lobar said:


> They have a right to do this.  But having the right to do it doesn't make it the right thing to do.  As a charity, naturally they are funded by the good will of the people.  Every donation that was given was given trusting that the church would do its best to use that donation for the good of the community.  Be turning around and wielding their charity as a weapon against the city, they have broken the trust that was placed in them.
> 
> I would hope everyone here thinks twice before giving to a religious charity this year.  Especially the Salvation Army, who have been known to pull this same kind of bullshit and worse.
> 
> ...



I would never donate to the Salvation army. That said to me, it would be nice if the heads of the Catholic Church pulling this bull-shit would stop using religion for this way.

Then again the church can't sink lower. Anyone remember how they sided with a rapist and excommunicated a child/young teen for having an abortion, because if she carried the twins in her body to full term, or even allowed them to half develop, her body was so small it would kill her. They forgave the rapist and excommunicated that poor girl...who was only trying to save her own life.

These are the same people going to Africa preaching that condom use is bad. Yeah condoms don't always work but that's no excuse for lying to the African people because of some bull-shit religious views. Something is wrong when you value religious ideology over the lives and welfare of people. 

I don't have problem with those who are catholic butI have a huge problem with that evil shithole the Roman Catholic Church and it's vile arms that stretch into all sorts of places doing vile despicable things. I think it would be wonderful if they rage quit the area and pulled charity. Then maybe some other group with real compassion can slip in, and do what needs to be done for the good of it. I wish the other pope were still alive. He was a rare one in power that recognized that sometimes you have to put aside your own beliefs in order to save people. Now that the Palpatine look alike is in charge...the church went back to what it originally was and that's sad.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 11, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Still, letting a few robed prunes control your life is pretty weak.



Thinking that you aren't being controlled and that you're completely free is pretty weak as well.

OT: This is an issue with the archdiocese of DC and has no bearing on the rest of the country as far as social services are concerned in Catholic Churches.  Is it childish?  As a Catholic, I'd say yeah it is.  Is this an excuse for people to start mocking those who consider themselves Catholics regardless of their affiliation to the Archdiocese of DC?  Absolutely not.


----------



## Carenath (Dec 11, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> I would never donate to the Salvation army. That said to me, it would be nice if the heads of the Catholic Church pulling this bull-shit would stop using religion for this way.
> 
> Then again the church can't sink lower. Anyone remember how they sided with a rapist and excommunicated a child/young teen for having an abortion, because if she carried the twins in her body to full term, or even allowed them to half develop, her body was so small it would kill her. They forgave the rapist and excommunicated that poor girl...who was only trying to save her own life.
> 
> ...


In strong agreement with this right here.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm just going to leave this here...


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 11, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Now that the Palpatine look alike is in charge...the church went back to what it originally was and that's sad.


And there's no seemingly bottomless shaft to hurl the fucker into either.


----------



## icecold24 (Dec 11, 2009)




----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 11, 2009)

His hate has made him powerful.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 11, 2009)

im really surprised by elite political organizations coercing each other
and citizens/followers catching the flak by the nature of their power struggles
really
surprised


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 11, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> im really surprised by elite political organizations coercing each other
> and citizens/followers catching the flak by the nature of their power struggles
> really
> surprised


Leaders are powerless without followers. Take a serial killer's gun away, and he'll reach for a knife. Take that away, and he'll come at you with his bare hands. Blaming the leader is like blaming the weapon. You have to come down on the followers. Don't take the killer's weapon- take his head.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 11, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Leaders are powerless without followers.



So.
Let's say that a follower of the Catholic church goes out and helps people, because that association represents a family tradition and further he likes to help people. This association has been established and supported by the US government to continue its work. Is this person wrong because the Pope decides to coerce the government into giving him what he wants on a moral agenda?

What if the man doesn't agree, but is obligated to continue his work as he has due to cultural traditions?

I don't see that person as being the bad guy.

But they regularly are the bad guy in the "Catholics suck" argument.
I don't think that's really fair, considering how many Catholics don't follow the decree of the pope and are removed by distance and indifference of local clergy to Diocese politics.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 11, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> What if the man doesn't agree, but is obligated to continue his work as he has due to cultural traditions?



 If he feels so "obligated", then maybe he doesn't care so much after all.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 11, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> If he feels so "obligated", then maybe he doesn't care so much after all.



keywords:
"as he has"


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 11, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> keywords:
> "as he has"


I did not ignore that part.


----------



## Miniver (Dec 12, 2009)

Let me just say that my father's Catholic, and he would be appalled by the actions of these people claiming to be part of his faith.
There are good Catholics out there, they're just quiet.
Heck, I lean towards Catholicism in my basic faith, just not when it comes to being super conservative like these dopes.


----------



## moonchylde (Dec 13, 2009)

I have nothing against the catholic church, personally. Half my family is catholic. My problem here is that in the US we have a Constitution that calls for the separation of church and state, and the Catholic church using threats and coercion to force the death of a law they don't like reeks of violating that. I thought we had a deal going; the church doesn't try to make the laws, and the government doesn't ask for taxes. That wasn't good enough for them? 

In any case, I'm sick of hearing all the "gay marriage is wrong and immoral" crap anyway. No one's forcing anyone to marry gay, and the sanctity of marriage was officially killed when "Who Want's to Marry a Millionare" was concieved. This is about money, plain and simple... they just don't want to pay out for benefits that straight married couples enjoy, like tax breaks, health insurance, ect... and since missinformation hasn't been working, I guess they're going for threats and scare-tactics now. With that many people afraid of losing the little bit of help they get, I'm betting this bill's gonna go down in flames. 

I'm pretty sure there's something in the bible about putting the needs of others ahead of your own wants; maybe the church should read their own books for a change.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 14, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> If he feels so "obligated", then maybe he doesn't care so much after all.



I think you've missed the point.

For example, I like to donate things like my child's outgrown clothes. However, the places I have to donate to are few and far between. Almost all of them are Christian. 

Frankly, I don't like supporting any Christian organization in any way. BUT, the fact of the matter is that, without those organizations that people KNOW OF to go to for assistance... getting them together with the baby clothes is nearly impossible.

So I give them to these organizations, because in all my searching around, I haven't been able to find some other way to get these clothes to those who truly need them. I used to live in an area where I could do it through one of the social services offices, but haven't found that here.

I could just keep the clothes, or throw them away, but I want someone to have and use them, who needs them. What am I to do?

So if I'm going to help by giving my clothes to the needy, I am obligated in a certain sense, to use the existing infrastructures. Which includes Christian organizations. They dominate, they're well known, and thus it's nearly impossible to do without them. (on purpose, I think, but that's another story)

Anyway, I don't think you understood his usage of 'obligation.' I don't think he's saying that the guy is helping out of obligation, but that he's obligated to use the existing structures because there are either almost no others-- or no others, period.

The same way that I feel obligated to use what I do. Not because I support those structures-- I don't. But because they're the only route to the needy people who will benefit from what I have to give. So I either do nothing, or use the organizations I would rather not support.


----------



## moonchylde (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> I think you've missed the point.
> 
> For example, I like to donate things like my child's outgrown clothes. However, the places I have to donate to are few and far between. Almost all of them are Christian.
> 
> ...



Try Freecycle.org. No "religious baggage", and you can choose exactly who your stuff goes to.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

The freecycle in our area is a dead zone. No one uses it. 

I tried Craigslist, but people would call for it and never come.


----------

