Church and State

[therealUT]

Considering that the Spanish Inquisition excluded Jews and Muslims, there was no forced conversion. Again, thanks for the lack of information and knowledge on the subject.

 

[hatvol96]

So, stating facts regarding the history of a religion is now considered to be zealotry?

Selectively stating facts, that is. For every scholar you can find who says the Catholic Church aided Jews, I can find one who says they benefitted financially from dealings with Hitler and Mussolini. Historical numbers are always subjected to question. Pat Buchanan, one of the foremost advocates for the advancement of religion into government, isn't even so sure the Holocaust happened. Everybody has their spin. The problem is this: The Catholic Church would like everyone to believe they are this force for good in the world. They do so while protecting pedophiles, promoting what at best can be described as policies that aren't exactly friendly to women, and refusing to follow one of the alleged tenants of their faith and allow the government to handle what should be its domain.

 

[hatvol96]

Considering that the Spanish Inquisition excluded Jews and Muslims, there was no forced conversion. Again, thanks for the lack of information and knowledge on the subject.

How many times have you visited Spain? I've been there several times and the version of events that is taught in the Spanish schools admits that Jews and Muslims were faced with essentially two options, convert or be expelled from the country. I'd call that forced conversion. The Catholic apologists probably hate the government for giving them an option.

 

[volinbham]

Selectively stating facts, that is...

The problem is this: The Catholic Church would like everyone to believe they are this force for good in the world. They do so while protecting pedophiles, promoting what at best can be described as policies that aren't exactly friendly to women, and refusing to follow one of the alleged tenants of their faith and allow the government to handle what should be its domain.

Sounds like you've got the selective statement of facts pretty well mastered :biggrin2:

 

[hatvol96]

Sounds like you've got the selective statement of facts pretty well mastered :biggrin2:

Which of the three assertions I made aren't factually accurate? The Catholic Church either did or did not protect pedophiles. The record on that question is pretty clear. They have always kept women out of positions of power in the church. Undisputed. The fact that their followers also spend copious amounts oftime trying to interject church initiatives into government actions is not legitimately in question. So, how am I being selective in my facts?

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Hey Hat, even if it was 500,000...over 350 years that still doesn't register on the world stage when discussing atrocities. Nice try though. You have to be the most ignorant lawyer I have ever had a discussion with.

I find it interesting that christians, who worship a God who said "Thou Shall Not Kill", can justify half a million murders carried out by the church, regardless of how long it took.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Sorta like abortion.

Or the needless slaughter of Amalekite babies (1 Samuel 15)

 

[GAVol]

I find it interesting that christians, who worship a God who said "Thou Shall Not Kill", can justify half a million murders carried out by the church, regardless of how long it took.

Not sure I really believe that God ordered the killing of children. Those were barbaric times and IMO it was most likely a case of revisionist history on the part of the writer. It sounds like the age old defense of those who commit a crime . . . "God told me to do it."

 

[volinbham]

Which of the three assertions I made aren't factually accurate? The Catholic Church either did or did not protect pedophiles. The record on that question is pretty clear. They have always kept women out of positions of power in the church. Undisputed. The fact that their followers also spend copious amounts oftime trying to interject church initiatives into government actions is not legitimately in question. So, how am I being selective in my facts?

Seriously? OK I'll bite.

By only presenting certain characterizations of the actions of the Catholic Church you are selectively presenting facts. You've chosen to emphasize only the items you feel support your argument and ignored all those that do not. Selective.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Not sure I really believe that God ordered the killing of children. Those were barbaric times and IMO it was most likely a case of revisionist history on the part of the writer. It sounds like the age old defense of those who commit a crime . . . "God told me to do it."

I agree, but it's one of the reasons that I have such a hard time with christianity and wound up walking away. The bible literalist will say that He did and then justify it by saying that He is God and can do whatever He wants. Pretty much a do as I say, not as I do response. I don't know how much the bible can be trusted, but I have a hard time believeing that God odrered the murder of innocent babies.

 

[hatvol96]

Seriously? OK I'll bite.

By only presenting certain characterizations of the actions of the Catholic Church you are selectively presenting facts. You've chosen to emphasize only the items you feel support your argument and ignored all those that do not. Selective.

The statements regarding pedophile priests and the church interjecting itself into the affairs of state are not characterizations, they're fact. I also think it's not really open for serious debate that women are excluded from leadership positions in the Catholic hierarchy. That said, I haven't ignored any facts that would dispute my point, I've simply left their recitation to those who support the pedophile ridden, misogynstic, overreaching institution.

 

[volinbham]

By having a position and choosing only the facts that support you're viewpoint you are by definition being selective in your statements.

 

[OWB]

My position can beat up your position..

 

[volinbham]

Your position puts me in an awkward position

 

[hatvol96]

My position beat up your honor student.

 

[volinbham]

And remember, Imminent Death Syndrome puts us all in an awkward position.

Imminent Death Syndrome

A terminal disease in which the effected individual may experience death at any given time, usually within 80-100 years.

 

[hatvol96]

And remember, Imminent Death Syndrome puts us all in an awkward position.

IDS is likely to strike more quickly if you live in a theocracy and don't swallow the dreck heaped out by the religious majordomos.

 

[volinbham]

IDS is likely to strike more quickly if you live in a theocracy and don't swallow the dreck heaped out by the religious majordomos.

You didn't read the definition. IDS never strikes quickly. The patient is literally on the brink of death throughout their normal lifespan. See Mr. Show with Bob and David for further info.

 

[volnuts]

just leave everything in gods hands , he will take care of everything , remember we hate the sin not the sinner


just cant get into faith , its a bunch of BS to me

 

[therealUT]

I find it interesting that christians, who worship a God who said "Thou Shall Not Kill", can justify half a million murders carried out by the church, regardless of how long it took.

First, it wasn't half a million. Historians agree between 3,000 and 5,000. The lowest estimate being 1,900. Also, read the Greek and Hebrew translations of the Bible and the commandment is "Thou Shall Not Murder."

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

Main Entry: 1kill
Pronunciation: &#39;kil
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, perhaps from Old English *cyllan; akin to Old English cwellan to kill -- more at QUELL
transitive verb
1 a : to deprive of life : cause the death of b (1) : to slaughter (as a hog) for food (2) : to convert a food animal into (a kind of meat) by slaughtering
2 a : to put an end to <kill competition> b : DEFEAT, VETO <killed the amendment> c : to mark for omission; also : DELETE d : ANNIHILATE, DESTROY <kill an enemy>
3 a : to destroy the vital or essential quality of <killed the pain with drugs> b : to cause to stop <kill the motor> c : to check the flow of current through
4 : to make a markedly favorable impression on <she killed the audience>
5 : to get through uneventfully <kill time>; also : to get through (the time of a penalty) without being scored on <kill a penalty>
6 a : to cause extreme pain to b : to tire almost to the point of collapse
7 : to hit (a shot) so hard in various games that a return is impossible
8 : to consume (as a drink) totally
intransitive verb
1 : to deprive one of life
2 : to make a markedly favorable impression <was dressed to kill>

And finally, the executions were carried out by the Spanish Royalty, loosely interpreting an edict from Pope Sixtus.

Please, educate yourself.

 

[OWB]

Please, educate yourself.

Comments like this aren&#39;t necessary.

 

[therealUT]

The statements regarding pedophile priests and the church interjecting itself into the affairs of state are not characterizations, they&#39;re fact. I also think it&#39;s not really open for serious debate that women are excluded from leadership positions in the Catholic hierarchy. That said, I haven&#39;t ignored any facts that would dispute my point, I&#39;ve simply left their recitation to those who support the pedophile ridden, misogynstic, overreaching institution.

If you are going to state something as fact, you had better have some form of documented evidence, cite your sources Hat. Because, you are clearly wrong.

The myth of the &#39;pedophile priest&#39;

The trauma stemming from the Boston case should not be used to accuse the whole Roman Catholic Church

Sunday, March 03, 2002

By Philip Jenkins

The Roman Catholic Church in the United States is going through one of the most traumatic periods in its long history.

Every day, the news media have a new horror story to report, under some sensational headline: Newsweek, typically, is devoting its current front cover to "Sex, Shame and the Catholic Church: 80 Priests Accused of Child Abuse in Boston." Though the sex abuse cases have deep roots, the most recent scandals were detonated by the affair of Boston priest John J. Geoghan. Though his superiors had known for years of Geoghan&#39;s pedophile activities, he kept being transferred from parish to parish, regardless of the safety of the children in his care. The stigma of the Geoghan affair could last for decades, and some Catholics are declaring in their outrage that they can never trust their church again.

No one can deny that Boston church authorities committed dreadful errors, but at the same time, the story is not quite the simple tale of good and evil that it sometime appears. Hard though it may be to believe right now, the "pedophile priest" scandal is nothing like as sinister as it has been painted -- or at least, it should not be used to launch blanket accusations against the Catholic Church as a whole.

We have often heard the phrase "pedophile priest" in recent weeks. Such individuals can exist: Father Geoghan was one, as was the notorious Father James Porter a decade or so back. But as a description of a social problem, the term is wildly misleading. Crucially, Catholic priests and other clergy have nothing like a monopoly on sexual misconduct with minors.

My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination -- or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported.

Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals aplenty, as have Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas -- and the list goes on. One Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) diocese is currently on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of massive lawsuits caused by decades of systematic abuse, yet the Anglican church does not demand celibacy of its clergy.

However much this statement contradicts conventional wisdom, the "pedophile priest" is not a Catholic specialty. Yet when did we ever hear about "pedophile pastors"?

Just to find some solid numbers, how many Catholic clergy are involved in misconduct? We actually have some good information on this issue, since in the early 1990s, the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago undertook a bold and thorough self-study. The survey examined every priest who had served in the archdiocese over the previous 40 years, some 2,200 individuals, and reopened every internal complaint ever made against these men. The standard of evidence applied was not legal proof that would stand up in a court of law, but just the consensus that a particular charge was probably justified.

By this low standard, the survey found that about 40 priests, about 1.8 percent of the whole, were probably guilty of misconduct with minors at some point in their careers. Put another way, no evidence existed against about 98 percent of parish clergy, the overwhelming majority of the group. Since other organizations dealing with children have not undertaken such comprehensive studies, we have no idea whether the Catholic figure is better or worse than the rate for schoolteachers, residential home counselors, social workers or scout masters.

The Chicago study also found that of the 2,200 priests, just one was a pedophile. Now, many people are confused about the distinction between a pedophile and a person guilty of sex with a minor. The difference is very significant. The phrase "pedophile priests" conjures up images of the worst violation of innocence, callous molesters like Father Porter who assault children 7 years old. "Pedophilia" is a psychiatric term meaning sexual interest in children below the age of puberty.

But the vast majority of clergy misconduct cases are nothing like this. The vast majority of instances involve priests who have been sexually active with a person below the age of sexual consent, often 16 or 17 years old, or even older. An act of this sort is wrong on multiple counts: It is probably criminal, and by common consent it is immoral and sinful; yet it does not have the utterly ruthless, exploitative character of child molestation. In almost all cases too, with the older teen-agers, there is an element of consent.

Also, the definition of "childhood" varies enormously between different societies. If an act of this sort occurred in most European countries, it would probably be legal, since the age of consent for boys is usually around 15. To take a specific example, when newspapers review recent cases of "pedophile priests," they commonly cite a case that occurred in California&#39;s Orange County, when a priest was charged with having consensual sex with a 17-year-old boy. Whatever the moral quality of such an act, most of us would not apply the term "child abuse" or "pedophilia." For this reason alone, we need to be cautious when we read about scores of priests being "accused of child abuse."

The age of the young person involved is also so important because different kinds of sexual misconduct respond differently to treatment, and church authorities need to respond differently. If a diocese knows a man is a pedophile, and ever again places him in a position where he has access to more children, that decision is simply wrong, and probably amounts to criminal neglect. But a priest who has a relationship with an older teen-ager is much more likely to respond to treatment, and it would be more understandable if some day the church placed him in a new parish, under careful supervision.

The fact that Cardinal Law&#39;s regime in Boston seems to have blundered time and again does not mean that this is standard practice for all Catholic dioceses, still less that the church is engaged in some kind of conspiracy of silence to hide dangerous perverts.



I am in no sense soft on the issue of child abuse. Recently, I published an expose of the trade in electronic child pornography, one of the absolute worst forms of exploitation, and my argument was that the police and FBI need to be pressured to act more strictly against this awful thing.

My concern over the "pedophile priest" issue is not to defend evil clergy, or a sinful church (I cannot be called a Catholic apologist, since I am not even a Catholic). But I am worried that justified anger over a few awful cases might be turned into ill-focused attacks against innocent clergy. The story of clerical misconduct is bad enough without turning into an unjustifiable outbreak of religious bigotry against the Catholic Church.

And, who is Phillip Jenkins?

Philip Jenkins is Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State. His book "Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis" was published by Oxford University Press in 1996.

Or simply put, more of an expert in the field than Hatvol...

 

[hatvol96]

If you are going to state something as fact, you had better have some form of documented evidence, cite your sources Hat. Because, you are clearly wrong.
And, who is Phillip Jenkins?
Or simply put, more of an expert in the field than Hatvol...

How does a Doctrate in Religious Studies make him an expert on pedophilia and coverups? I could make a cure comment on how he gained such expertise, but I won&#39;t. I&#39;ll go with the mainsteam media over some pointy headed little academician fron State College. If the mainstream media so distorted the facts, I&#39;m sure the Vatican and its minions would have filed slander and libel suits left and right.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Wow, never intended for this to happen.............

Here are the sources jdsa

[1]Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 686 (2002) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

[2]I explore these questions in Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (New York: New York University Press, 2002).

[3]Letter from Jefferson to Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut, 1 January 1802, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Manuscript Division, Library of Congress), Series 1, Box 89, December 2, 1801&#8211;January 1, 1802.

[4]James Hutson, &#8220;&#8216;A Wall of Separation&#8217;: FBI Helps Restore Jefferson&#8217;s Obliterated Draft,&#8221; Library of Congress Information Bulletin, Vol. 57, No. 6 (June 1998), pp. 137, 163.

[5]For a detailed analysis of these letters, see my Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State.

[6]Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879).

[7]Everson, 330 U.S. 1, 16, 18 (1947).

[8]Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union as Amicus Curiae at 8, 12, 34.

[9]In McCollum v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo L. Black revealed the extent to which the Court had constitutionalized the &#8220;wall&#8221; metaphor: &#8220;The majority in the Everson case, and the minority&#8230;agreed that the First Amendment&#8217;s language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.&#8221; McCollum, 333 U.S. 203, 211 (1948).

[10]These themes are explored in John T. McGreevy, &#8220;Thinking on One&#8217;s Own: Catholicism in the American Intellectual Imagination, 1928&#8211;1960,&#8221; Journal of American History, Vol. 84 (June 1997), pp. 97&#8211;131, and Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002). The chief architect of the modern &#8220;wall&#8221; was Justice Hugo Black, whose affinity for church&#8211;state separation and the metaphor was rooted in virulent anti-Catholicism. Philip Hamburger has argued that Justice Black, a former Alabama Ku Klux Klansman, was the product of a remarkable &#8220;confluence of Protestant [specifically Baptist], nativist, and progressive anti-Catholic forces&#8230;. Black&#8217;s association with the Klan has been much discussed in connection with his liberal views on race, but, in fact, his membership suggests more about [his] ideals of Americanism,&#8221; especially his support for separation of church and state. &#8220;Black had long before sworn, under the light of flaming crosses, to preserve &#8216;the sacred constitutional rights&#8217; of &#8216;free public schools&#8217; and &#8216;separation of church and state.&#8217;&#8221; Although he later distanced himself from the Klan, &#8220;Black&#8217;s distaste for Catholicism did not diminish.&#8221; Hamburger, Separation of Church and State, pp. 423, 434, 462, 463.

[11]Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 318 U.S. 54, 68 (1943) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

[12]Berkey v. Third Ave. Ry. Co., 244 N.Y. 84, 94, 155 N.E. 58, 61 (1926).

[13]McCollum, 333 U.S. at 247 (Reed, J., dissenting).

[14]Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 445&#8211;446 (1962) (Stewart, J., dissenting).

[15]Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 107 (1985) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I&#39;d like for you to explain how it has LEFT it&#39;s original meaning. Everyone has the right to worship God as they see fit,OR TO REFRAIN FROM WORSHIP IF THEY SO CHOOSE

Very touchy subject for you is it not? Bad church experience(s)?

What I meant for the original meaning was excluding the so called "religious test" the establishment clause, EC, (complicates something simple) and let people worship how they choose or not worship at all. *Do I need to darken the end? :air_kiss:

I could care less what you do or do not believe, the last thing I want in the world is a theocracy.

The rest of your post(s) I for the most part agree with, I was just quoting the american heritage essay.

For the sake of argument I will complicate it more.

Now the wording of the First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And if we make a list out of it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise (of religion) thereof;

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,

Congress shall make no abridging the freedom law of the press;

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now the 14th Amendment states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Now, I think that we can agree that the part of the 14th that concerns us here is section 1

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Applied to those rights listed in the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise (of religion) thereof;

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,

Congress shall make no abridging the freedom law of the press;

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

As you can see, under the 14th replacing the word ‘Congress’ with ‘The States’ makes sense…except…

The 14th says; ‘No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’

‘Citizens’
‘Person’ (twice)

This, the 14th amendment, is all about people, and their rights and not the ‘establishment of religion’

Now the 14th doesn’t list the rights it’s seeking to protect because the authors wished to protect ALL personal rights, especially I think voting rights…so the First is not listed. Thus for the 14th to be applicable to the EC, it would have to say something like this:


‘No state shall make or enforce any law respecting an establishment of religion, or which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’


Thomas continues on this path in CUTTER et al. v. WILKINSONwithout addressing the 14th

Stating it clearly:

In short, the view that the Establishment Clause precludes Congress from legislating respecting religion lacks historical provenance, at least based on the history of which I am aware. Even when enacting laws that bind the States pursuant to valid exercises of its enumerated powers, Congress need not observe strict separation between church and state, or steer clear of the subject of religion. It need only refrain from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion"; it must not interfere with a state establishment of religion. For example, Congress presumably could not require a State to establish a religion any more than it could preclude a State from establishing a religion.

I think that both these points: the lack of 14th Amendment involvement in the EC, and the lack of ‘historical provenance’ shows that the EC, as envisioned by Black with a ‘wall’ is not the correct view.

The ‘wall’ does not, should not, exist.