Thank goodness that didn't happen, that would be bad.Talking about pedos...when did your orange douche-bag stop molesting his daughter?Actually Pedo Joe is the perfect Catholic by left definition....he likes the little ones.That is the point, everyone knows him and knows that he does not abide by the Church's precepts. Therefore there is no reason why they should allow him to participate. Would Planned Parenthood allow Cindy Hyde-Smith, for example, to work at an abortion mill or sit in on board meetings? They would allow an anonymous pro-lifer who disagreed with them but not enough to refuse a paycheck.I disagree, it a civil issue and like I said everyone knows him, me no one knows me.Maybe they should have. The priest who took your confession could have told them to deny you until you did penance. In this case, however, Quid Pro is a well known person who deliberately and steadfastly refuses to follow Church doctrine and has voted for and supported legislation that the Church disagrees with. There is no good reason why he should be allowed to participate.Do you blame them.Democrats to declare war on the Catholic Church for following their own doctrine and holding politicians accountable for their public policies.
That’s sure to go over well with Hispanic voters.
I was never asked my name when I received the host. For all they care I could of been a serial killer that tortured many children before I killed them.
IOW, with great privilege and fame come great responsibility. Quid Pro simply can't get away with things that an anonymous person can get away with. OTOH, he's been living in the lap of luxury and exercising great power over the lives of Americans for decades. I see no reason why an organization should allow someone to participate in activities with them who vehemently disagrees with a central tenet of the group.
Ooof
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Democrats threaten Catholic Church for denying Biden Communion
- Thread starter theHawk
- Start date
Murder is murderWhy would the child be our responsibility?What about the rights of the child?abortion is a political issue, it should fall under civil rights.Legally separating them from Bishop's oversight might be a positive. They could still have charitable status.They should be stripped of that anyway. The church as an entity.
I believe orgs like Catholic Charities and the Sisters of Mercy will be OK.
I'd prefer it if religious organizations did not offer "official" pronouncements on political issues. If an individual bishop wants to run his (and read his) diocese the way he sees fit, so be it.
Abortion isn't a political issue. The church has had prohibitions against murder since the time of Christ. Other religions have had it for much longer.
At the moment of conception, it's not a child. It's a zygote.
And as always, I find your concern for the "child" to be amusing.
Because we both know if it's carried to term, once that child falls out of the mother, you won't
give two hoots about what happens to it. Take away its healthcare, take away
the mother's access to to any services like foodstamps or other programs if needed,
and defund the child's access to public education.
Sure. The child has rights. But first, we're gonna put our boot on the mother to shove her into a ditch
while she gives birth, then we're gonna let the kid climb out of that ditch on its own.
Why would the mother's right to seek an abortion be any of your concern? Why do you feel the need to control her right to it?
You just asked "What about the rights of the child". Well, at the moment of conception..it isn't a child.
According to you. Based in all likelyhood on a religious judgment.
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,382
- 2,180
No morals do you have any?Murder is murderWhy would the child be our responsibility?What about the rights of the child?abortion is a political issue, it should fall under civil rights.Legally separating them from Bishop's oversight might be a positive. They could still have charitable status.They should be stripped of that anyway. The church as an entity.
I believe orgs like Catholic Charities and the Sisters of Mercy will be OK.
I'd prefer it if religious organizations did not offer "official" pronouncements on political issues. If an individual bishop wants to run his (and read his) diocese the way he sees fit, so be it.
Abortion isn't a political issue. The church has had prohibitions against murder since the time of Christ. Other religions have had it for much longer.
At the moment of conception, it's not a child. It's a zygote.
And as always, I find your concern for the "child" to be amusing.
Because we both know if it's carried to term, once that child falls out of the mother, you won't
give two hoots about what happens to it. Take away its healthcare, take away
the mother's access to to any services like foodstamps or other programs if needed,
and defund the child's access to public education.
Sure. The child has rights. But first, we're gonna put our boot on the mother to shove her into a ditch
while she gives birth, then we're gonna let the kid climb out of that ditch on its own.
Why would the mother's right to seek an abortion be any of your concern? Why do you feel the need to control her right to it?
You just asked "What about the rights of the child". Well, at the moment of conception..it isn't a child.
According to you. Based in all likelyhood on a religious judgment.
Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,260
- 15,767
- 2,210
Its really none of your business.What about the rights of the child?abortion is a political issue, it should fall under civil rights.Legally separating them from Bishop's oversight might be a positive. They could still have charitable status.They should be stripped of that anyway. The church as an entity.
I believe orgs like Catholic Charities and the Sisters of Mercy will be OK.
I'd prefer it if religious organizations did not offer "official" pronouncements on political issues. If an individual bishop wants to run his (and read his) diocese the way he sees fit, so be it.
Abortion isn't a political issue. The church has had prohibitions against murder since the time of Christ. Other religions have had it for much longer.
Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,260
- 15,767
- 2,210
He looked at a child of 10 with sexual feelings.Thank goodness that didn't happen, that would be bad.Talking about pedos...when did your orange douche-bag stop molesting his daughter?Actually Pedo Joe is the perfect Catholic by left definition....he likes the little ones.That is the point, everyone knows him and knows that he does not abide by the Church's precepts. Therefore there is no reason why they should allow him to participate. Would Planned Parenthood allow Cindy Hyde-Smith, for example, to work at an abortion mill or sit in on board meetings? They would allow an anonymous pro-lifer who disagreed with them but not enough to refuse a paycheck.I disagree, it a civil issue and like I said everyone knows him, me no one knows me.Maybe they should have. The priest who took your confession could have told them to deny you until you did penance. In this case, however, Quid Pro is a well known person who deliberately and steadfastly refuses to follow Church doctrine and has voted for and supported legislation that the Church disagrees with. There is no good reason why he should be allowed to participate.Do you blame them.Democrats to declare war on the Catholic Church for following their own doctrine and holding politicians accountable for their public policies.
That’s sure to go over well with Hispanic voters.
I was never asked my name when I received the host. For all they care I could of been a serial killer that tortured many children before I killed them.
IOW, with great privilege and fame come great responsibility. Quid Pro simply can't get away with things that an anonymous person can get away with. OTOH, he's been living in the lap of luxury and exercising great power over the lives of Americans for decades. I see no reason why an organization should allow someone to participate in activities with them who vehemently disagrees with a central tenet of the group.
Ooof
Donald Trump once saw a child on an escalator and said, "I’m going to be dating her in 10 years"
A new video shows the horrifying moment.
www.vox.com
No morals do you have any?Murder is murderWhy would the child be our responsibility?What about the rights of the child?abortion is a political issue, it should fall under civil rights.Legally separating them from Bishop's oversight might be a positive. They could still have charitable status.They should be stripped of that anyway. The church as an entity.
I believe orgs like Catholic Charities and the Sisters of Mercy will be OK.
I'd prefer it if religious organizations did not offer "official" pronouncements on political issues. If an individual bishop wants to run his (and read his) diocese the way he sees fit, so be it.
Abortion isn't a political issue. The church has had prohibitions against murder since the time of Christ. Other religions have had it for much longer.
At the moment of conception, it's not a child. It's a zygote.
And as always, I find your concern for the "child" to be amusing.
Because we both know if it's carried to term, once that child falls out of the mother, you won't
give two hoots about what happens to it. Take away its healthcare, take away
the mother's access to to any services like foodstamps or other programs if needed,
and defund the child's access to public education.
Sure. The child has rights. But first, we're gonna put our boot on the mother to shove her into a ditch
while she gives birth, then we're gonna let the kid climb out of that ditch on its own.
Why would the mother's right to seek an abortion be any of your concern? Why do you feel the need to control her right to it?
You just asked "What about the rights of the child". Well, at the moment of conception..it isn't a child.
According to you. Based in all likelyhood on a religious judgment.
See Post #104.
You have no right to use your religious beliefs to control other people's lives.
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,382
- 2,180
Once again it's not a religious belief it's morals, also in some places you can get charged with double homicide if you kill a pregnant womanNo morals do you have any?Murder is murderWhy would the child be our responsibility?What about the rights of the child?abortion is a political issue, it should fall under civil rights.Legally separating them from Bishop's oversight might be a positive. They could still have charitable status.They should be stripped of that anyway. The church as an entity.
I believe orgs like Catholic Charities and the Sisters of Mercy will be OK.
I'd prefer it if religious organizations did not offer "official" pronouncements on political issues. If an individual bishop wants to run his (and read his) diocese the way he sees fit, so be it.
Abortion isn't a political issue. The church has had prohibitions against murder since the time of Christ. Other religions have had it for much longer.
At the moment of conception, it's not a child. It's a zygote.
And as always, I find your concern for the "child" to be amusing.
Because we both know if it's carried to term, once that child falls out of the mother, you won't
give two hoots about what happens to it. Take away its healthcare, take away
the mother's access to to any services like foodstamps or other programs if needed,
and defund the child's access to public education.
Sure. The child has rights. But first, we're gonna put our boot on the mother to shove her into a ditch
while she gives birth, then we're gonna let the kid climb out of that ditch on its own.
Why would the mother's right to seek an abortion be any of your concern? Why do you feel the need to control her right to it?
You just asked "What about the rights of the child". Well, at the moment of conception..it isn't a child.
According to you. Based in all likelyhood on a religious judgment.
See Post #104.
You have no right to use your religious beliefs to control other people's lives.
So you go from him saying that he could see a girl was going to become a beautiful woman to he molested his daughter? Where's the connection? Or are you hoping to cloud the issue enough to lend credibility to a charge that isn't known to be true?He looked at a child of 10 with sexual feelings.Thank goodness that didn't happen, that would be bad.Talking about pedos...when did your orange douche-bag stop molesting his daughter?Actually Pedo Joe is the perfect Catholic by left definition....he likes the little ones.That is the point, everyone knows him and knows that he does not abide by the Church's precepts. Therefore there is no reason why they should allow him to participate. Would Planned Parenthood allow Cindy Hyde-Smith, for example, to work at an abortion mill or sit in on board meetings? They would allow an anonymous pro-lifer who disagreed with them but not enough to refuse a paycheck.I disagree, it a civil issue and like I said everyone knows him, me no one knows me.Maybe they should have. The priest who took your confession could have told them to deny you until you did penance. In this case, however, Quid Pro is a well known person who deliberately and steadfastly refuses to follow Church doctrine and has voted for and supported legislation that the Church disagrees with. There is no good reason why he should be allowed to participate.Do you blame them.Democrats to declare war on the Catholic Church for following their own doctrine and holding politicians accountable for their public policies.
That’s sure to go over well with Hispanic voters.
I was never asked my name when I received the host. For all they care I could of been a serial killer that tortured many children before I killed them.
IOW, with great privilege and fame come great responsibility. Quid Pro simply can't get away with things that an anonymous person can get away with. OTOH, he's been living in the lap of luxury and exercising great power over the lives of Americans for decades. I see no reason why an organization should allow someone to participate in activities with them who vehemently disagrees with a central tenet of the group.
Ooof
Donald Trump once saw a child on an escalator and said, "I’m going to be dating her in 10 years"
A new video shows the horrifying moment.
We do that all the time. What do you think the male weightlifter competing against women in the Olympics is all about? Not science, that's for sure.No morals do you have any?Murder is murderWhy would the child be our responsibility?What about the rights of the child?abortion is a political issue, it should fall under civil rights.Legally separating them from Bishop's oversight might be a positive. They could still have charitable status.They should be stripped of that anyway. The church as an entity.
I believe orgs like Catholic Charities and the Sisters of Mercy will be OK.
I'd prefer it if religious organizations did not offer "official" pronouncements on political issues. If an individual bishop wants to run his (and read his) diocese the way he sees fit, so be it.
Abortion isn't a political issue. The church has had prohibitions against murder since the time of Christ. Other religions have had it for much longer.
At the moment of conception, it's not a child. It's a zygote.
And as always, I find your concern for the "child" to be amusing.
Because we both know if it's carried to term, once that child falls out of the mother, you won't
give two hoots about what happens to it. Take away its healthcare, take away
the mother's access to to any services like foodstamps or other programs if needed,
and defund the child's access to public education.
Sure. The child has rights. But first, we're gonna put our boot on the mother to shove her into a ditch
while she gives birth, then we're gonna let the kid climb out of that ditch on its own.
Why would the mother's right to seek an abortion be any of your concern? Why do you feel the need to control her right to it?
You just asked "What about the rights of the child". Well, at the moment of conception..it isn't a child.
According to you. Based in all likelyhood on a religious judgment.
See Post #104.
You have no right to use your religious beliefs to control other people's lives.
Democrats to declare war on the Catholic Church for following their own doctrine and holding politicians accountable for their public policies.
That’s sure to go over well with Hispanic voters.
Churches that engage in partisan politics are not entitled to a tax exemption. One of the church's doctrines is opposition to capital punishment. Republicans generally support capital punishment. Republicans shouldn't be able to receive communion. They should play by the same rules for Republicans and Democrats.
Legally separating them from Bishop's oversight might be a positive. They could still have charitable status.They should be stripped of that anyway. The church as an entity.
I believe orgs like Catholic Charities and the Sisters of Mercy will be OK.
I'd prefer it if religious organizations did not offer "official" pronouncements on political issues. If an individual bishop wants to run his (and read his) diocese the way he sees fit, so be it.
Abortion isn't a political issue. The church has had prohibitions against murder since the time of Christ. Other religions have had it for much longer.
The church has prohibitions against capital punishment. When are they going to hold Republicans responsible for that?
Can't tax religion, it's unconstitutional. It violates the First Amendment, sorry.They should be stripped of that anyway. The church as an entity.
I believe orgs like Catholic Charities and the Sisters of Mercy will be OK.
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
Hypothetically? It would pose an undue burden on new religions, favoring established well off denominations of Protestantism, Judaism, and Catholicism .. . . which would, by default, amount to the state sanctioning those as establishment religions.
Taxing religion interferes with the "free exercise thereof." Sorry godless atheist. . . YOU ARE SHIT OUT OF LUCK.
The first amendment does not prohibit taxing churches.
Well lots of Democrats are in the Church, promoting and practicing their satanic and unholy beliefs. Isn’t calling them out a good thing? As long as they keep “forgiving” these blatant sinners, will it change? Now they are willing to call them out, and you’re upset about it.A church that protected its pedophiles for decades is cool.Democrats to declare war on the Catholic Church for following their own doctrine and holding politicians accountable for their public policies.
That’s sure to go over well with Hispanic voters.
If anyone is unholy it is Republicans. They are attempting to take over the country.
It's up to them, isn't it? And, BTW, churches engage in partisan politics all the time. They particularly like to help democrats.Democrats to declare war on the Catholic Church for following their own doctrine and holding politicians accountable for their public policies.
That’s sure to go over well with Hispanic voters.
Churches that engage in partisan politics are not entitled to a tax exemption. One of the church's doctrines is opposition to capital punishment. Republicans generally support capital punishment. Republicans shouldn't be able to receive communion. They should play by the same rules for Republicans and Democrats.
That is the point, everyone knows him and knows that he does not abide by the Church's precepts. Therefore there is no reason why they should allow him to participate. Would Planned Parenthood allow Cindy Hyde-Smith, for example, to work at an abortion mill or sit in on board meetings? They would allow an anonymous pro-lifer who disagreed with them but not enough to refuse a paycheck.I disagree, it a civil issue and like I said everyone knows him, me no one knows me.Maybe they should have. The priest who took your confession could have told them to deny you until you did penance. In this case, however, Quid Pro is a well known person who deliberately and steadfastly refuses to follow Church doctrine and has voted for and supported legislation that the Church disagrees with. There is no good reason why he should be allowed to participate.Do you blame them.Democrats to declare war on the Catholic Church for following their own doctrine and holding politicians accountable for their public policies.
That’s sure to go over well with Hispanic voters.
I was never asked my name when I received the host. For all they care I could of been a serial killer that tortured many children before I killed them.
IOW, with great privilege and fame come great responsibility. Quid Pro simply can't get away with things that an anonymous person can get away with. OTOH, he's been living in the lap of luxury and exercising great power over the lives of Americans for decades. I see no reason why an organization should allow someone to participate in activities with them who vehemently disagrees with a central tenet of the group.
Republicans do not follow the Church's precepts on capital punishment. Republicans should not be allowed to participate. Trump got away with numerous things. The church had no issues with that.
I don't know if you haven't been paying attention or just hopelessly naive, but that's the goal of every political party.Well lots of Democrats are in the Church, promoting and practicing their satanic and unholy beliefs. Isn’t calling them out a good thing? As long as they keep “forgiving” these blatant sinners, will it change? Now they are willing to call them out, and you’re upset about it.A church that protected its pedophiles for decades is cool.Democrats to declare war on the Catholic Church for following their own doctrine and holding politicians accountable for their public policies.
That’s sure to go over well with Hispanic voters.
If anyone is unholy it is Republicans. They are attempting to take over the country.
TRUMP! isn't a Catholic. If he was, they likely would have refused him as well. The Catholic Church is one of the few institutions still willing to publicly hold and enforce unpopular beliefs. Let's face reality, though. The thread isn't about Republicans, it's about Quid Pro, who has had problems with the Catholic Church pretty much all of his career.That is the point, everyone knows him and knows that he does not abide by the Church's precepts. Therefore there is no reason why they should allow him to participate. Would Planned Parenthood allow Cindy Hyde-Smith, for example, to work at an abortion mill or sit in on board meetings? They would allow an anonymous pro-lifer who disagreed with them but not enough to refuse a paycheck.I disagree, it a civil issue and like I said everyone knows him, me no one knows me.Maybe they should have. The priest who took your confession could have told them to deny you until you did penance. In this case, however, Quid Pro is a well known person who deliberately and steadfastly refuses to follow Church doctrine and has voted for and supported legislation that the Church disagrees with. There is no good reason why he should be allowed to participate.Do you blame them.Democrats to declare war on the Catholic Church for following their own doctrine and holding politicians accountable for their public policies.
That’s sure to go over well with Hispanic voters.
I was never asked my name when I received the host. For all they care I could of been a serial killer that tortured many children before I killed them.
IOW, with great privilege and fame come great responsibility. Quid Pro simply can't get away with things that an anonymous person can get away with. OTOH, he's been living in the lap of luxury and exercising great power over the lives of Americans for decades. I see no reason why an organization should allow someone to participate in activities with them who vehemently disagrees with a central tenet of the group.
Republicans do not follow the Church's precepts on capital punishment. Republicans should not be allowed to participate. Trump got away with numerous things. The church had no issues with that.
It doesn't prohibit Churches from engaging in political activity, either. They still can if they want to, they would just have to pay taxes. But surely you cannot pretend that the IRS hasn't been weaponized and would indeed hamper the free exercise of religion.Can't tax religion, it's unconstitutional. It violates the First Amendment, sorry.They should be stripped of that anyway. The church as an entity.
I believe orgs like Catholic Charities and the Sisters of Mercy will be OK.
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
Hypothetically? It would pose an undue burden on new religions, favoring established well off denominations of Protestantism, Judaism, and Catholicism .. . . which would, by default, amount to the state sanctioning those as establishment religions.
Taxing religion interferes with the "free exercise thereof." Sorry godless atheist. . . YOU ARE SHIT OUT OF LUCK.
The first amendment does not prohibit taxing churches.
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 76,272
- 52,562
- 2,645
Mike Huckabee is a reverend and believes that Churches should be taxed. The tax exempt status is a way of government controlling what churches say.
There is no religious prohibition against capital punishment for the guilty. Those who commit heinous crimes are not compared to an innocent unborn infant.Democrats to declare war on the Catholic Church for following their own doctrine and holding politicians accountable for their public policies.
That’s sure to go over well with Hispanic voters.
Churches that engage in partisan politics are not entitled to a tax exemption. One of the church's doctrines is opposition to capital punishment. Republicans generally support capital punishment. Republicans shouldn't be able to receive communion. They should play by the same rules for Republicans and Democrats.
It's up to them, isn't it? And, BTW, churches engage in partisan politics all the time. They particularly like to help democrats.Democrats to declare war on the Catholic Church for following their own doctrine and holding politicians accountable for their public policies.
That’s sure to go over well with Hispanic voters.
Churches that engage in partisan politics are not entitled to a tax exemption. One of the church's doctrines is opposition to capital punishment. Republicans generally support capital punishment. Republicans shouldn't be able to receive communion. They should play by the same rules for Republicans and Democrats.
-It is up to the IRS. using communion as a political weapon is partisan politics of the worst kind. There is no evidence black churches favor Democrats. They may personally favor Democrats but when they encourage their parishioners to vote, they do not exclude Republicans.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 130
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 644
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 67
- Views
- 244
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
- Replies
- 36
- Views
- 457
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 7995
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 465
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-