Skip to main content

Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) continues to snipe at Focus on the Family, Frist's ally in Extremist Sunday. The Senator points out that Focus on the Family board member R. Albert Mohler, Jr said:

The board member, R. Albert Mohler Jr., said Thursday he stands by the comments he made in March 2000 on the cable news show Larry King Live.

"I believe that the Roman church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel," Mohler said at the time. "And indeed, I believe that the pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office."

Salazar called on James Dobson to repudiate Mohler. Well done Senator Salazar.

Tip to Colorado Luis.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:35 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Bingo (none)
    I have been saying this all day....we can burn these bastards on this.....
    •  Shouldn't burn them (4.00)

       That's wrong.  What's done these days is see if they float (witch) or sink (Liberty [sic] University [sic] grad).

       BenGoshi
      ___________________

      . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

      by BenGoshi on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:28:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  LOL (none)
        I just like to see there church turn there back on them.  I'd also like to see more Republican leaders working with flocks like these becaseu I think it'll cost them votes.   They have these people anyway they are just losing votes by pandering to them anyway.
        •  Frist is a Cat-Killer, people do not know this (none)
          Moveon is talking about spreading the word about Frist's move to have the church control our courts, but most people pay little or no attention to the talking heads in Washington.  

          There are 104 million households in the USA with cats, please spread the word far and wide about Frist's Cat Killing.  He deceptively obtained cats from animal shelters, then killed and dissected them, this shows Frist's true character and will strike a chord with people much more than his political "nuclear" option.  Discredit Frist now and his plan to ruin the Senate will fail with him.

          •  The cat killing was brought up (none)
            on a board I frequent.  The board skews heavily conservative, and the general concensus was a large "who cares", with a few people who actually praised him for taking the initiave to improve his surgical skills.

            The cat killing can be used against him, but it won't work as a big gun, just as some additional shrapnel.

            •  But if he went to little girls (none)
              and told them he would provide a good home for the cats they couldn't care for, and then he brutally killed them.  Oh, I think that has power.
              •  SENATOR, I KNEW TED BUNDY (none)
                Ted Bundy was a friend of mine. And Senator Frist, you are no Ted Bundy.*

                * (yet)

                The Book of Revelations is NOT a foreign policy manual.

                by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:45:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The name of the biblical book... (none)
                  is not "Revelations, " it's "Revelation." That's because it's believed to be the revelation that John received from Christ while exiled on the isle of Patmos. But hey, lots of people make that mistake, even Christians who should know better. And BTW, not all Christians interpret the book in the fiery, doomsday way that the majority of Christians seem to prefer nowadays.

                  Cheers,

                  •  Thanks... (none)
                    I used it like the word collections as opposed to collection, (both of which are nouns that have a plural implication though they may take a singular verb.) So while I readily agree it is The Revelation (of one man in whose honor a very funky cathedral was built in New York), many events transpire and hence, revelations. (Like the stoopid tv series with Bill Pullman.)

                    * And yes, most Biblical scholars think Revelation (if you will) is literary allegory condemning the Roman Empire for its persecution of Christians (actual persecution, not James Dobson imagined) and getting it by the censors much in the same way as Bulgakov tried to get Master and Margarita by Soviet authorities.  I'm not Christian bashing at all if that's what you are implying. (Or mistakenly think I am implying.) I'm loony tunes mocking, something altogether different.

                    The Book of Revelations is NOT a foreign policy manual.

                    by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:16:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  keep it going FOF..... (none)
          Keep alienating the Catholic Church...watch your religious coalition collapse...and thank you to Senator Salazar for exposing their dirty thoughts.
        •  No Belief in a Future. (none)
          The crack in the Fundamentalist facade that needs to be exposed, and exploited is their zealeous  " End Times" belief system that stresses that there is no future. The apocalyptic vision that so dominates the religious right  ( Dominionists, Reconstructionists etc.) is antithetical to everything  that not only this country stands for , but also most mainstream branches of Christianity.  Every action the Christian right takes should be tied back to their belief that except for a chosen few, none of us, this country, and in fact the whole world has no future. From Bush's Social Security ponzi scheme and the dismantling of the judiciary, to the elimination of a progressive tax system, the rape of the environment,  and endless wars of occupation; all of these policies can be explained to the American people as a systematic plan by religious fanatics to pave the way for the end times. Simply say: " They don't worry about your future and your children's future because they believe you won't have one"

          Here is where the great schism should come between those " people of faith" who adhere to mainstream religious beliefs(particularly Catholics) and those who can't wait for this world to end and will do everything in their power to make it happen.

          "We are all worms. But I do believe I am a glow-worm" Winston Churchill

          by Duke1676 on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:49:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just a bit simplistic (none)
            I've kept tabs on Dobson's teachings over a number of years, and what you say here is a bit simplistic. Actually, he used to fight tooth-and-nail to get evangelical pastors to care about this stuff. The old slogan was "religion and politics don't mix." And while you're right that there is a strand of teaching that doesn't see much of a future for the world, I think you're wrong to see that approach in Dobson. In fact, if that were his approach, it would be more logical for him to stay on the sidelines, and just let things keep getting worse (from his perspective), in order to somehow speed the return of Christ. What he is doing seems to be just the opposite, i.e. wanting to pitch-in and conserve things the way they have been, with a more traditional, family friendly atmosphere. That seems like digging in for the long haul, not washing his hands of things, waiting for Jesus to come back tomorrow. If that were his approach, he might do like the Millerites did in 1848, quitting jobs, selling possessions and putting on white robes, waiting on a hillside for the Lord's return. So no, I don't connect the dots in the way you have done. On the other hand, I'll be interested to see if he has been influenced by dominion theology in any way, but that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax.
            •  Agreed: it's very simplistic (none)
              But as a policy, if we can paint the entire religious right with a " Left Behind" broad brush we can accentuate the divisions in the Republican coalition. We know how well they reply to simple messages; "they don't care about your future" can be our "they hate us for our freedom". The nuances of the differences between various fundamentalist teachings only matters to the adherents of those tenants. To the average person it only has to sound like snakehandlers to turn them off.

              "We are all worms. But I do believe I am a glow-worm" Winston Churchill

              by Duke1676 on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:33:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sound like a good strategy (3.33)
                Your strategy might work. I'm a Republican, kind of a luke warm one lately, though. The more I look at politics, the more sickened I am by all parties. I think I may end up as one of those drop-outs that I used to detest. You see, if we must overlook "nuances" and "paint with a broad brush," then what you're saying is the end (winning political power for the Dems) justifies the dihonest and propagandist means of lumping ALL Republicans in with SOME Republicans who, since November 2004, seem drunk on power. And why? So we can repeat this whole cycle, when Dems get the upperhand, the perks, etc., and have their turn of being drunk on power? It's enough to make me want to rip up my voter registration card, which will probably make you happy. One less Republican to deal with, Hillary in '08, blah, blah, blah.
                •  It's about nuances (none)
                  then what you're saying is the end (winning political power for the Dems) justifies the dihonest and propagandist means of lumping ALL Republicans in with SOME Republicans who, since November 2004, seem drunk on power.

                  What I'm saying is that most people don't want to have to take a theology course on Fundamentalist Christianity to understand these nut jobs. Whether Dobson believes in a Dominionist interpretation of the "End Times" philosophy or  a Christian Reconstructionist  interpretation where the world must return to ancient Hebrew Law before Jesus can return is not important in the debate.

                  What is important is that his beliefs are dangerous and the American people need to know that.

                  "We are all worms. But I do believe I am a glow-worm" Winston Churchill

                  by Duke1676 on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:43:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  PS (none)
                I would view Dobson as a classic Reconstructionist.
                The values he wishes to " return to" are not modern, but rather the biblical laws of ancient Israel.
                Standard Christian Reconstruction Theology
                http://www.theocracywatch.org/relig_inst.htm#Reconstruction

                "We are all worms. But I do believe I am a glow-worm" Winston Churchill

                by Duke1676 on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:57:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Personally, I am so hoping that they all get (none)
                raptured the Hell off this planet...I am so sick of these people, I can't begin to tell you...

                They are using language that is verging on violence promoting and that is where I draw the line... if they become violent and engage in a Kristal Nacht of some sort...well...we are not going to stand by and allow that to happen...These people need to be monitored very very closely...

                I agree that everything BUSH has done suggests that there is no future for the people of this country unless they are a chosen few who are not being prosecuted for breaking the law now as it is...this is what Cristofascism looks like....

                •  The most dangerous thing (none)
                  The most dangerous aspect of this apocalyptic perversion is how contrary it runs to everything that made this country great. From it's inception one of the basic tenets of this country has been for each generation to leave a lasting legacy for the next to build upon.  The founding fathers envisioned a living and growing democracy that would evolve over time to meet the needs of future generations. Every immigrant who boarded a ship to make the journey to this country did so with the faith that a brighter future was inevitable for not only himself, but also his children. Every visionary, explorer, inventor and entrepreneur who contributed to the building of this nation did so with one eye on the future.

                  Now these foul blasphemers of faith are trying with all their might to take our nations faith in a brighter future away and replace it with a contorted belief system that only benefits their warped and perverted religious vision.

                  "We are all worms. But I do believe I am a glow-worm" Winston Churchill

                  by Duke1676 on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:02:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Hehehehehe (none)
              What he is doing seems to be just the opposite, i.e. wanting to pitch-in and conserve things the way they have been, with a more traditional, family friendly atmosphere.

              Thats FUNNY!

              You yearn for a more traditional family friendly atmosphere? Back when things were good? When niggras didnt associate with white folk? When wetbacks knew their place picking fruit then goin back to mexico? When sluts knew their place and got a backhand if they forgot it? When homos were burned or hung? When the police set dogs on black children for being in the wrong part of town? When little girls and boys knew to shut up about "daddies little secret"??

              Ya... good ol days. Right...

              The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

              by cdreid on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:42:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The new conservatism.... (none)
                ...is actually quite tolerant, if the racial harmony in the U.S. military is any indication. And conservatives as anti-Semitic? Hmm, haven't seen them wanting to torpedo Wolfowitz, a Jew, unless it's someone like Buchanan. Wasn't that Jessie Jackson who once called NYC "Hymietown"?  Bigots aren't limited to one political party...

                As far as conservative Christians go, Dobson's Focus on the Family has offices in Africa, headed by Africans, and yes, supporting the "traditional family" meaning nuclear, not polygamist. And many conservative, evangelical churches are active in Africa, sending missionaries, operating clinics for the poor, running schools for kids who would otherwise be in the streets, and educating for AIDS prevention, and yes, even sometimes talking about condoms as a fall-back strategy, as the ministry Mercy Ships does, in addition to its emphasis upon abstinence and faithfulness within marriage.

                And since we've slammed Franklin Graham on this thread for his political views, let's balance it with what he's done in a humanitarian way through the NGO he heads, Samaritan's Purse, which runs a hospital in Sudan, treating the injured from the longterm war that the U.N. dares not call a genocide, but that Colin Powell rightfully did.

                So when we get beyond talking points on partisan websites, a more balanced picture emerges, not one that lends itself to political battle. But in all wars, whether real or political, truth is the first casualty. Maybe Kerry was on to something when he talked about "naunce"?

                •  Umm (none)
                  The right wing and the gop is tolerant? The peope who use blacks and hispanics as the boogeyman in every election. The people fighting a war to turn americas minority popultions into felons? I'm curious. Have you been to a courthouse lately? Or ever? Have you ever sat in on a superior court session? The right wing is tolerant of Uncle Toms. They love a good Armstrong Williams or Colin Powell.

                  Yes its nice the rich white guy sends folks to africa to teach the niggers how to raise their families. Settin up nice white schools to teach the liluns how to be white ,speak white, make good maids and servants. And all it costs them is that they swear fealty to the whitened western god.  Dont like that language? Too bad. African culture is much much older than western culture. African problems come from western cultures using them for everything from slave labor to test markets for the newest weapons systems and on.. and on.. and on.. Africa was getting along just fine til we showed up. Nice of you rich white folk to go teach the niggras how to live though. Please.....

                  I'm curious. Ever wonder WHY those kids are on the streets? Why africa was turned from a paradise into a hellhole over the last few hundred years?  Where warlords whos men are armed with $100 AK's, $500 M16's and $2000 M60's get the money for those weapons in a edenlike land where people often cannot afford food? Ya im thinkin the millions of africans dying from war for diamonds/oil/power etc, famine, disease etc sure do thank yall for teachin them how to be proper white folk

                  Seems to me you're the one reading off the talking points. Seemingly quoted directly from brochures for the aforementioned "great white saviors". How about we do the african peoples a favor and leave the m the fuck alone.

                  The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                  by cdreid on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:04:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Time for some reconciliation (none)
                    This discussion may generate more heat than light!
                    But hey, let's keep talking.

                    A few points:

                    1. Do I feel that relations between your average, White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, church-going American and African-Americans in general are what they should be? Not at all! Huge reconciliation needs to happen on this score. There are some tentative steps, BTW, through the organization "Promise Keepers," which has spoken much on racial reconcilation, and that includes not only between whites and blacks, but between whites and Native Americans. Far, far to go, as walking into most evangelical churches at 10 a.m. on a Sunday morning will tell you. Churches are supposed to lead the way toward racial reconciliation, but too often, we've only reflected wider divisions in society.

                    2. About Africa -- Were some missionaries sometimes misused by colonial governments in Africa? The record is clear. Yes, some were. Were all? No, and very few today would fall into that category. Most missionaries are contractually forbidden to enter into anything that smacks of politics, while serving in an African country. Nearly unanimously, missionaries go because they want to share their faith in Christ, period. You can be against that, but it is a biblical mandate. And incidentally, it's now countries like S. Korea who are sending nearly as many Christian missionaries as America, so can't tar the global missionary movement with just an "American imperialist" brush. This isn't a "white man's religion," because Jesus wasn't white. He was olive skinned, neither black nor white. The Christian message is universal. And weren't those people better off before missionaries arrived? I guess history will render its verdict, but one practice that the introduction of a Christian worldview has helped stamp-out is the arbitrary killing of the second twin born to parents in Madagascar. Traditional religion on that island taught that giving birth to identical twins was a curse, so one of the two was put to death. Christianity has given those second kids a chance, and to my knowledge, this is no longer practiced. However, some of the second twins are now abandoned in the streets, and some churches have taken to providing food and education in Antananarivo, the capital city. To use your generalization about leaving that "paradise" alone, those kids would have been better off if misssionaries had never arrived.
                    I guess on the twins issue, you could only argue that if you think death is better than life. (I'll resist the urge to bring up the abortion debate here...)

                    3. Frist -- The links posted about Christian Reconstructionism have been interesting, and some Christian pastors are growing more concerned. (See for example Donald Sensing at donaldsensing.com). It's a development to watch. While I heartily agree and would spill my blood for the American idea that there cannot be "establishment of religion," i.e. one religious group officially recognized, others suppressed, neither should the government promote an atmosphere that is hostile to religion. There's a balancing act, isn't there? And I'm not sure we're ever found middle-ground on the issue.

                    A challenge --

                    I would like to see some more analysis here on DailyKos about what Dem Senators have specifically said when turning down the (now infamous!)
                    10 nominees to the Appeals Courts. For example, Schumer has been quoted by some as implying that these nominees are unacceptable because they might let their their religious faith influence their thinking while on the bench. But, is this not applying the very "religious test" that Kossites seem to think FRC is trying to apply through its push this Sunday? To me, that was the message of FRC's boy standing with a gavel in one hand and a Bible in the other. Religious tests are wrong when applied by anyone, from any political party, in any circumstance.

                    •  Good post (none)
                      You seem very conflicted on separation of church and state though.

                      The state has never been hostile to religion. Organised religion has been hostile to the idea that the state might not finance and legislate its activities.

                      Don't feel alone. We're all conflicted a bit on this. I want complete separation of church and state including No state recognition or control of the religious institution of marriage. But apparently most disagree.

                      As for left/centrist/honest christian religious leaders standing up to the falwells. Wont happen. You'll note even prominent Kossack religious figures avoid that thought like the plague and simply see the acendency of the far right in religious terms as an opportunity to expand their power and economic base. It seems avarice rears its head everywhere.

                      The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

                      by cdreid on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 04:24:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  A comment for the Fundies (none)
              The old slogan was "religion and politics don't mix."

              * But the really old slogan was... "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars' and unto God that which is God's."

              Sounds like a recipe for separation of church and state to me. Damn that liberal Jesus of Nazareth! We'll never get the Taliban government we long for at this rate.

              The Book of Revelations is NOT a foreign policy manual.

              by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:30:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  So if she weighs the same as a duck (4.00)
        then she's made of wood?

        And therefore?

        A witch! Burn her! Burn her!

      •  you can't burn them unless they float (4.00)
        because if they float they're made of wood.

        and therefore?

        "A witch!!!"

        * Isn't it a great time to go back to the Dark Ages?

        The Book of Revelations is NOT a foreign policy manual.

        by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:35:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm still (today, anyway) a Roman Catholic, (3.50)
      and I am glad Salazar is on this - but I do want to caveat this - Ratzinger himself said that:

      (From Wikipedia, quoting Dominus Iesus, written by Ratzinger)

      "people outside of Christianity 'are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation", and that non-Catholic Christian communities had "defects". Some non-Catholic groups have interpreted this as disparagement of their faiths...'"

      (and also from Wikipedia)

      "Other religious groups took offense to a 2000 document in which he argued that, 'Only in the Catholic Church is there eternal salvation'".

      So it may not have the force it would have if the RCs were less dirty ourselves...

      Sorry for not HTMLing the Wiki stuff, I am a little rushed.

      I donated to ePluribus Media. Support citizen journalism!

      by dksbook on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:11:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So . . . (none)

         Shall we take that quote:


        "people outside of Christianity 'are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation", and that non-Catholic Christian communities had "defects". Some non-Catholic groups have interpreted this as disparagement of their faiths...'"

         and print up about 75 million leaflets (Kinko's would probably make you drop it off and come back the next day) and stick 'em under the windshield wipers of every car, truck and SUV in every Protestant church parking lot this Sunday?

         Where's that DKos volunteer spirit?

        BenGoshi
        __________________

        . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

        by BenGoshi on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:16:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And that is why (none)
        we don't mix politics with religion.  This just strengthens the point for me.
        •  You called it! (none)
          Relious cutthroat!  Christian Cage Match! Of course, the RC's will win, because they have the best costumes...

          This is exactly why we have the establishment clause.

          I donated to ePluribus Media. Support citizen journalism!

          by dksbook on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:53:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Dear of C of E... (none)
            Church of England (Anglican) still has some vestiges of the groovy Popish garb.

            Even the British Army circa 1740's used the mitre for its soldiers. My three mitres beat your ten irregulars!

            Mitres rock!

            "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

            by rgilly on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:44:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  but nothing beats a stylish Chasibule (none)
                you just can't go wrong with a good Chasibule and properly accessorized Alb....

              Still the Mormons could offer some stiff competition with a Holy Lingere fashion Show.....

              Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

              by Magorn on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:39:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  It's not just the robes and mitres (none)
              We had an Anglican Church in Germany that had a Christmas mass with all the pomp. It included an acolyte with an incense burner on the end of a chain which he swung back and forth to keep burrning and send out the incense.

              An Episcopal acolyte (age 11 or 12) rarely uses on of those things, so as he preceded the priest down the isle, he swung the incense burner high and hard, with great pride and gusto. As he moved forward, he was unaware of the air behind him.

              By the time the procession reached the Alter, the room was so full of smoke and incense that no one could see more than two people down the row they were in and the coughing was a constant refrain.

              We were laughing about that for a year after. But the lesson - an Anglican (C of E or Episcopal) has to be very careful with getting too "High Church." It isn't as easy as it looks. [grin]

              My coins would state "In Cat We Trust" Politics Plus Stuff

              by Rick B on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:04:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Mote, meet Log (none)
        Log, meet Mote.  (Herr RATzinger, not you).

        9/11 was the Neocons' Reichstag fire.

        by Bulldawg on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:29:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Now you're getting (none)
        to the heart of this. It's not at all about being "dirty", the Pope said recently something to the effect that the Catholic church is the only church. Why this would surprise anybody is beyond me. This has been their stance for hundreds of years. They may be willing to work together for common goals, but sorry buddy, no pearly gates for you unless you acknowledge the Pope as the supreme voice of god on earth. What the hell else would one expect the Pope to say? The word "Catholic" means universal. To the properly initiated, there are no other Christian churches.
        On a similar note, ever since Martin Luther nailed his 96 feces, er, theses to a door, there has been an organized set of people who believe in the Bible and the teachings of Christ but think the Pope has it all wrong. They said "Screw you" lo those many years ago, and I don't think so much has changed since. Ironic, somehow, that a branch of these folks seeks to attain exactly what Luther hated, a corrupt theocracy, by taking over a political party, and that their opposition are the ones espousing personal religious freedom of the sort that Luther defined, by trumpeting the separation of church and state. We might want to look into framing a bit of that.
        None of this surprises me in the least. Catholics and Protestants have problems with each other almost by definition.  Wait, forget "almost". Need we cast an eye to Northern Ireland, where these "troubles" have reached a fever pitch most recently?
        I know that the Republican politicians are trying to rope in the Catholics as well with the whole "vote for Christ" thing, but it is certainly a worthy question to ask, "Just whose Christ you talkin' 'bout, Willis?" If they get enough rope, and we build them some scaffolding, they might just wind up getting a number of votes proportional to the population of batshit crazies they  represent.
        •  You're on to something here (none)
          Yep, officially, Catholicism sees itself as the "one, true Church." There have been some interesting developments, though, beginning with Vactican II back in the 60s. One of the key documents produced by that group of RC Bishops calls non-Catholics who profess Christ "separated brethren." What that means has been debated by Catholic theologians ever since, but it does seem to be a crack in the door on the issue. Also, in one small Missouri town where I lived, the Catholic priest was happy to participate in the Good Friday service with pastors of many denominations. He's not alone in that, so there's theory, and then there's practice. Thankfully, we don't always live up (down?) to our theory.
      •  exactly (none)
        When did the dkos become so politcally correct? Not only do different christian sects dismiss the validity of each other's beliefs there is more than one religion not to mention the huge non-religious population.

        Armando is celebrating anti-free speech? Armando is suggesting only large religious organizations can make outlandish claims? Ridiculous.

    •  Send it to Benedict 16 (none)
      He's supposed to be a purist who believes Protestants are in spiritual trouble.  
  •  We always knew (4.00)
    that the monolithic bloc of the "Religious Right" couldn't hold together.  I fear that the main danger is that they succeeded in defining religious as conservative. Similar to how a patriot must be a conservative.

    There is a heaven, but ill never get there... i keep respawning...

    by Sandals on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:25:12 AM PDT

    •  Go lurk at freerepublic (4.00)
      and look at the cracks in the facade of the entire GOP zealot-profiteer-warmonger alliance.  Each feels that another is receiving undue attention from the national party:

      Zealots: why hasn't the Senate already imposed the nuclear option!  They're too busy with social security.

      Profiteers (at freeperville, represented by extreme libertarians): why is the party wasting time with gay marriage when the tax cuts aren't permanent yet?

      Warmonger: why hasn't Bolton gotten out of committee yet?  What's Frist doing?

      The entire alliance is fragile and extremely vulnerable to turning into a circular firing squad in short order.  We should keep up the pressure to ensure that such happens.

      •  indeed (none)
        Stir the pot, drive the wedge.

        When trolling in the feeperville the goal is to not to fight them, but make them fight each other. Stirring up a feeper shit storm: priceless.

        •  I go there to observe (none)
          the meltdowns and pick up on whatever cracks there may be in the GOP's activist alliance.

          Wedges that I have observed:

          1. Schiavo: a sane commenter was accused of "wanting her to die" and called a "death troll" because he/she commented that he/she thought governmental intervention was inappropriate.

          2. DeLay: (particularly his "Kennedy used the Internet comment"): a couple of sane commenters attempted to point out that Lexis and West are on the web, and such research is almost universal in legal practice, and were shut down with stupid comments like "I want a judge who knows what the laws of the Constitution are without having to go online."

          3. Illegal immigration (HUGE wedge): pits those who sympathize with contractors who use illegal laborers with "Minuteman" fans and fanatics who believe that the borders are a national security issue.  The second group is pretty pissed that the GOP has done so little to address this.  This is something that border state Dems should capitalize on, pronto.
      •  2nd Terms (none)
        Yes, this is exactly one of the reasons why Presidents ALWAYS have trouble in the 2nd terms.

        Part of the dynamic is that there are always powerful interest groups that have a) originally put their issues aside in order to form a winning coalition, and b) decide during the second term that now is the time they deserve to have their issues promoted to the top of the pile.

        Add to this that more and more over the next three years, the focus of the Rethugs will be on who's running in 2008.  Most likely all of these groups that want their issues promoted will start supporting one candidate or another in the upcoming Rethug primaries.

        Democrats know this very well from past experience.

        So yes, the Rethug coalition is becoming fragile and will get more fragile over the next few years.  We should drive wedges between them where-ever possible.  

        And one of the biggest fault lines in this coalition is between the American Taliban types and the more traditional Rethugs.  

        We should do everything we can do try to separate the American Taliban from the rest of the Rethugs.  From the opposition, we can do this both by which issues we choose to promote, and also by making the American Taliban types into some very heavy baggage that the non-religious-crazies have to carry.

        With some political skill, we can make the image of the Republican party into the image of the American taliban ... in much the same way that the Rethugs made the peacenik wing of the Democratic Party into the image of the Democratic Party.

        I strongly believe there's a chance here to sink the Rethugs so badly they won't win another election for 20 years.  Nail them hard as the party of War, Recession and Religious Fundamentalism, and then we can walk over them for a long time to come.

        •  And don't discount (none)
          immigration policy.  That appeared to be a genuine contraversy at Freeperville.  There was a contingent which romanticized the Minutemen freaks and are furious at Bush for not closing the borders.  There was another contingent which understands the local economies in which small contractors and business owners rely on illegal immigrants for artificially cheap labor.  They are pleased with Bush's stance.

          A humane immigration policy which might have cross-party appeal on the border states should be priority #1 for border state Democratic parties.

          Also, I think that Bush's 2nd term is a little more disastrous than most because of one factor: he unleashed the zealots.

  •  Of course! (none)
    You can only be evangelical or a REPUBLICAN to be a Christian!  ACK ACK ACK, they make me sick.  God's pretty pissed off, too!  How dare they.
  •  As a Catholic... (4.00)
    a heartfelt "THANK YOU".

    It's bad enuf my country has been hijacked by extremist nuts...but they're taking over my faith too.

    •  An "Unholy Alliance" (none)
      About 10 years ago, Pat Robertson created the "Catholic Colation", a parallel orgranization to the Christian Coalition, and controlled by the Christian Coalition.  The Religious Right downplayed their "The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon!" rhetoric, but didn't end it, they just put on a friendly face.

      It's difficult to keep such an unholy alliance together indefinately.  It's inconvenient for the religious right when they let slip that they think the Pope is the AntiChrist.

      •  Also, a point we forget to make (4.00)
        The Catholic Church is international by definition; and thus doesn't recognize the special hegemony of the Fundies that 'merica is the last religious nation blessed by God. It also uses instruments like "Cannon Law" and "International Law" in coming to its decisions. So the universal nature of Catholicism puts it in direct opposition to the American exceptionalism of the Fundies. To think we are all God's creatures and not just those of us in the lower 48 drives them nuts.

        The Book of Revelations is NOT a foreign policy manual.

        by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:38:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As a Catholic... (none)
      Amen!
  •  Mmmmm.... (4.00)
    Something tells me he is keeping dry powder.  You simply don't go after FOTF as a Colorado Senetor if you aren't prepared for a very bloody war.  Salazar was one tough, serious prosecutor.  He knows how to lay out a case.  This is starting to get real interesting.

    "[A] 'Sharecropper's Society' [is] precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us." - Warren Buffet

    by RichM on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:27:58 AM PDT

  •  Well done. (none)
    Isn't interesting how someone everybody was attacking for his confirmation votes re: Rice, Gonzales is quickly turning into one of the democrats best weapons.  He is finally pushing the point that the religious right leadership are extremists, not simply religious folks.  That is a key argument.
  •  Frist Supports Anti Catholic Group (4.00)
    How can any group that claims to be Christian have someone on the board that believes the largest Christian church is a false church?

    These are extremists and Frist is tied to them....he is anti catholic and anti pope for supporting these people.

    •  There are all kinds (4.00)
      Of people in the Protestant fundamentalist churches that believe the Catholics are varying degrees of bad. The most mundane is that they count "tradition" as strongly as scripture, which bothers those who believe the Bible is the only thing you should refer to (note: every one of these churches has all kinds of extra- or none-biblical practices that they defend for one reason or another).  Then the dislike can ratchet up to Mary-worshipping, and then on to a false church.  The false church claim is difficult for those who are willing to be at all honest with church history, since it implies that their own church is derived from a false church.

      I think the rank and file fundamentalists have tolerated the alliance with Catholics for political reasons, but yes, it's not stable over the long term.

      •  Thanks for that (4.00)
        My Father grew up in Ireland as a Prosistant in a highly Catholic area.....I was never baptisied because his Childhood led him to believe I should choose my own religion.

        If anything can divide up the republician party it could be religion.  They are dangerously mixing religion and politics....but they are getting in bed with people that sometimes don't get along.

        Also while they are sucking up to various religions they are forgetting about the economy.

      •  When will charismatic Catholics . . . (none)

         . . . start standing outside of So. Baptist (and like-politicked) churches on Sunday mornings (early church:  8:00; traditional service:  11:00) handing out leaflets inviting these wayward people to come back into the One True Church?  I shouldn't want to see schisms exacerbated, but seeing the tables turned (remember the Grand Plans of Franklin Graham to send waves of fundagellical missionaries over to Iraq a year or two ago to convert all those heathen Muslims?).

         BenGoshi
        __________________
         

        . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

        by BenGoshi on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:44:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Personal experience: (none)
      Have discovered that many so-called born-agains are anti-Catholic.  I'm not "saved".  In their minds, baptism doesn't count.  The area where I live has so many born-agains, some were friends until they started to evangelize at me.  

      I really think the statements in Armando's article need to be fully distributed to members of the Catholic church, to demonstrate the anti-Catholic bias between so-called Christians and  this administration.

      The only second term dubya deserves is 20 to life!

      by Street Kid on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:05:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When evangelists come knocking,,, (none)
        you'll never see anyone turn tail 180 degrees faster, if you let on that you're Roman Catholic, and maybe they might want to come in and and talk about converting to RC instead.

        the last I've seen the typical LDS evangelical literature (WatchTower, et.al) is still riddled w/ lame, uninformed jibes at Catholicism ...

  •  Coloradans please call (none)
    Senator Salazar at 202-224-5852 and let him know you support his stand against the extreme religious right.  Dobson's drones were ordered to bombard the Senator, but Ken Salazar needs to know that we support him speaking the truth.
    •  Salazar should stick to politics (none)
      Mohler stated his religious opinion. Ratzinger has, in more polite and sophisticated terms, stated the same about Mohler's religion. That's free speech. I think they both represent false belief systems. Salazar should observe the separation of church and state and keep his religion out of our politics.
  •  historical arguments (4.00)
    The reformation leaders used to refer to the Pope and the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon and the AntiChrist. Nice to see nothing has changed in over almost 500 years. Oy. We're continuing to go backwards.
    •  just think of it this way, (none)
      the further we go backwards, the sooner we can start  over.
      •  I can't (4.00)
        Think of it that way. I have daughters. I'm a woman. I can't afford for us to go any further backwards. My life is at stake.
        •  We're going to be okay (none)
          I'm not sure how exactly, but I know we women will win the argument. And, unlike too many of our predecessors, we have a lot of male support today that will circle the wagons if we come under an attack we can't put down on our own.

          I won't let myself or other women down, neither will you, nor will millions of other women all over the country. We've all worked too hard to be taken seriously to drop the ball on each other now.

          We're going to be okay. We're right. We know it and that will give us the strength to persevere. Believe it.

    •  Nope...*they* (none)
      are continuing to go backwards.
    •  Gangs of New York showed historic Cath/Prot wars (none)
      Watch the movie "Gangs of New York." I know Hollywood is Hollywood, but there's a lot of truth in the background of that movie. See those armed gangs killing each other in the streets of New York, sometimes in open battles appearing to be so large they seem to be happening on a real battlefield? That's the historical relationship between Protestants and Catholics in the United States. That's how Protestants and Catholics got along in this country until the turn of the 20th century.

      Now, with Pope Rat I re-affirmaing pre-papal opinions of his in one of his first statements that other faiths are "deficient" in comparison to the Catholic Church, we should be seeing a return to relations between Rome and the Bible Belt to the same kind of cozy relationships shown in Gangs of New York. It won't take much at all before far-right Catholics and Protestants are in open warfare. It shouldn't be too long before Dobson or one like him gets a US flag glass eye just like Bill the Butcher, and start branding the cheeks of Catholics again.

  •  So the fundie wingnuts (none)
    want the catholics on board in the election cycle but then repudiate them in between? Such integrity! As a non-practioner of any faith, I find this laughable.
  •  Religious Bigots (none)
    The Schiavo case and the death of the pope provide the opening for the country to be forced to confront the reality of the Radical Right's peculiar and un-American version of Christianity.

    This isn't just about who wins elections, it's about what kind of country we want.

    We need to demand coverage of people like this guy, and like Bob Jones III, who are the core of Bush's so-called Christian supporters.

    •  bigots and hypocrites (none)
      These same wing-nuts claim to support a "culture of life" in the Schiavo case while they unplug a little black boy in Texas, slaughter thousands of Iraqis who were no threat to us, execute innocent poor people with lawyers who were asleep, and then Pope Ratzinger-Benedict interferes in the US elections by sending a letter attacking Kerry and supporting the killer Bush.

      Get religion out of our government, Jefferson had it right and the Bushites are ruining our country with their religious fanatics leading the way.

  •  Of course they do (4.00)
    Do people think they that they support Isreal for the Jew's sake? I sure hope not, because they don't.  Same thing. Not only do many of these groups think that the Catholic church isn't christian, some think that other protestant denominations aren't christian.
    •  Yeah, they (none)
      all hate each other.  The infighting between "Christians" was bound to happen as soon as they began attempting to shove their brand down others' throats.

      A-holes--if only some of them would now develop an inkling of appreciation for religious freedom.  One can only hope.....

      Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

      by dfarrah on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:45:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Godde, I hope the ordinary pew people (none)
        will figure out soon that the whole point of the establishment clause is to protect the right of all traditions to be freely expressed, not just one, or a few favored ones.  My parents sent me to Catholic school in order to protect me from the protestant prayer goin' on in 1950's schools.  

        I donated to ePluribus Media. Support citizen journalism!

        by dksbook on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:30:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And now we have RATzinger (none)
        saying that the only way to salvation is through the Catholic Church.  I've been a lapsed Catholic for years.  Does anyone know...is there an official way to resign from the Church?  Other than joining another?  I want to send a formal letter of resignation to my bishop and to Herr Ratzinger.

        (Jesus...A German, a former Nazi, and head of what used to be called "The Inquisition."  In the same way that Shrub has made me "nostalgic" for his dad, this piece of work is making me "nostalgic" for JPII.)

        9/11 was the Neocons' Reichstag fire.

        by Bulldawg on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:43:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope, sorry. (none)
          I remember my catechism. Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. Thus, I'm a lapsed and damned Catholic even though I'm a practicing Lutheran. ;)
          •  baptism marks you as Christ's own forever (none)
            not the Pope's own forever, at least that's what I was taught.  In my opinion, you were not "baptized Catholic" but simply baptized.  People are not baptized into denominations.

            Neither the RC baptismal service nor the RC catechism say anything about baptism as a mark of denomination.  Even the sacrament of confirmation says nothing about denomination.  These events mark a sacramental relationship in Christ, not specifically in the Roman Catholic church.

            I agree with you that Baptism does leave an indelible mark on the soul.  So does Confirmation, if you were confirmed.  But lapsing from the Roman church does not invalidate your blessed and baptized status in the "household of God" if you know what I mean--in the small "c" catholic sense.  

            BTW, do you really believe you are damned?  I hope your ;) means it was a joke!

            Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:46:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  This is the Repub's (none)
      Ticking time Bomb, some other religions will get upset that only the far far right and the most vocal get attention and they will slowly start supporting Democrats.

      A man can dream right:)

  •  Don't Expect Repudiation or Apology... (none)
    ...from FOTF.  Muhler's statement is standard belief among most Evangelicals and all Fundamentalists.  I'm surprised no one on left has exploited this fissure in the past.  
    •  Exactly... (none)
      ...its lose/lose for them as soon as attention is focussed on it.
    •  This IS hilarious... (none)
      ...the fundamentalist Christians really DO believe that--
      The timing of this, right before "Theocracy Sunday" is: Brilliant!
      Maybe Dobson will blame SpongeBob for this "whole misunderstanding"...
    •  Talibangelicals feel that way about Mormons, too (none)
      Mainly because of the number of LDS converts 'stolen' from the Baptists - taking donations (and, in theory, souls) from Talibaptists is totally unforgivable.

      Wait until that schism costs the GOP Utah.

      Grizzlebee's: You'll wish you had less fun.

      by sendtoscott on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:17:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How 'bout . . . (none)

         "Right Wing Talibanicals" ?

        BenGoshi
        _________________

        . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

        by BenGoshi on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:33:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well Mormons (none)
        do differ a lot from orthodox Christianity (by which I mean not the Eastern Orthodox, but pretty much all of the rest of Christianity.)

        They think people go to heaven as families and that they can become Gods.  They believe in baptizing your ancestors to make sure that you can all share your personal planet in the after life.

        As a Christian, I'm pretty comfortable saying that it's a different religion.

        •  How is this different from... (none)
          Al Mohler saying that Catholics are not Christian? Or Benedict XVI saying that all non-Catholic Christians have a defective belief. This is just the same. Mormons believe they are Christians too.

          I'm an extremely disaffected Mormon, but I do get tired of this genteel bigotry. Really, this is no different from Bro. Al and BXVI.

          •  Genteel bigotry (none)
            There is a bit of that, sure.

            But I also think that it differs enough in fundamental ways to be treated as a different religion.  The Book of Mormon, the rejection of the Trinity etc.  The belief that humans can attain divinity.

            Whereas Lutherans and Presybtereans are engaged in ecumenical dialogue with Rome.  Of course there are huge differences between them, but even the Roman Catholics refuse to say that the Presbytereans aren't Chrisitan.  They say that being a Presybterean is not as good as being a Catholic, but that is no different from our saying that it is better to be a Democrat than a Republican.

            Wait take that back, there's more mutual respect in the former case, at least at the level of the theologians.

      •  Talibangelicals! I love it!!! n/t (none)

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:52:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Watch Senator Hatch (none)
        He was a charter member of the "Reagan Revolution" but is not a total wingnut. If he and the FOF openly disagree that will be a signal that the LDS church is  starting to come around.

        ownership society - you are on your own

        by Sam I Am on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 02:54:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Something sobering (none)
      many people who are otherwise democrats in every other way
      ALSO THINK OTHER DENOMINATIONS OF CHRISTIANS AREN'T REAL CHRISTIANS.

      I have had Lutherans tell me everyone but Lutherans are going to hell.  I've had Catholics tell me everyone but Catholics are going to hell.  I've had freaky obscure evangelical jeebus freak people tell me everyone but those who attend THEIR fifty member storefront church are going to hell.

      Not all were democrats, but enough to lead me to believe that a christian sectarian war may cut both ways.

      Big Media is hated by the GOP because they sometimes tell the truth. We should hate Big Media for the other 97 percent of the time when they don't.

      by Ugluks Flea on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:19:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  of course they think that on some level (none)

        how can you sincerely believe in the tenets of religion and NOT believe (especially for monotheists) that your church has the One True way?
         You can tolerate fellow travelers who get it almost right , but you are trained to believe in your heart that ultimately your path is slightly superior to theirs.  Its the central postulate of organized religion.

        Don't be too hard on Ratzi's statement (lord knows I disagree with him on nearly everything he's said in the last twenty years but this one is hardly the most egregious)  it was actually meant to be conciliatory in Vaticanspeak.  

        What's meant by the deficient part is all about the Catholics belief in Transubstantiation (that is that the communion bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ during the Mass)  

        Since other Christian sects do not believe this, Catholic believe they are missing a special chance to commune with God (why they call it communion)

        ME? I'm a catholic, but I'm also a  Thomas Merton style ecumenicist

        It seems to me that if there is an omnipotent being of pure love watching over the universe, he's not gonna get pissy about which syllables you use to designate his name.  

        I think Sincere Buddhists, Pagans, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Animists, who live their lives in accordance with the principles of Ethical behavior, brotherly love, and charity that unify nearly every major belief system, are far closer to the mind of God than thousands of so called religious leaders who "love the Text, but Hate the Meaning"

        Would be "Christian " theocrats like DR. Dobson would do well to note that Jesus spent a significant part of his earthly existence denouncing Self-Righteous hypocritical  religious leaders

        Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

        by Magorn on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 02:28:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  False Church! (4.00)
    I would love to see all the orthodox Catholics who are making nice with Evangelicals to see this. Right wing Evangelicals will make temporary alliances with Catholics, Jews, probably even Muslims to get their way. Then you'll see "anti" rhetoric heat up. When I was attending Catholic schools in the 50's and 60's, Catholics stood together because they knew what a lot of Evangelical protestants thought of them. Obviously they have all forgotten that Norman Vincent Peale, Mr. Positive, preached against John F. Kennedy. The reasoning was that if you were a Catholic, your first allegiance was to the Pope not to your country. People forget what KKK stands for - it's not just blacks - it's also Jews and Catholics. A lot of KKK members are "God-fearing" too.
    •  Kennedy vs. Kerry (4.00)
      I find it so amusing that in 1960 Kennedy had to make public speeches saying that he would NOT accept marching orders from the Pope, and that he wouldn't be in the pocket of Rome. 44 years later, John Kerry is accused of not being an authentic Catholic, and of deviating from too many of the Church's teachings.

      Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.

      by David J on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:39:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Orthodox Catholic... (none)
      ... religions have problems with the Vatican and the pope as well.  I'm guessing by 'orthodox' you mean traditional conservative Roman Catholics
      •  Proper nouns/adjectives matter... (none)
        There is a difference between "orthodox Catholic" (i.e., those in line with Catholic doctrinal orthodoxy), "Orthodox Christians" -- who could be fairly called "Orthodox catholics" -- (i.e., members of the various Eastern Orthodox Churches that split from the Catholic Church over the role of the Pope and some other issues), and "Orthodox Catholics", which is an oxymoron.

        (Ambiguity can arise at the beginning of sentences).

        The usage of "orthodox Catholics" was correct.

        •  Many members of Eastern Orthodox Christian... (none)
          "Orthodox Catholics", which is an oxymoron

          ...sects refer to themselves as 'Orthodox Catholics.'  I've heard them say such to me.  Maybe it's colloquial.

          •  Okay... (none)
            ...I've never seen the usage but, since Ratzinger was elected Pope and not me, I don't claim to be infallible.

            At any rate, my main point was that "orthodox Catholics" was correct as it was used, though it wouldn't have been correct (for what it meant) had it been "Orthodox Catholics".

    •  Tu Quoque - Pope Kindwords XVI (none)
      Didn't Cardinal Ratzinger also make wonderfully disparaging remarks about the validity of the Christianity of those who weren't Catholic? Maybe he'll repeat his object to other Christian bodies now.

      Republicans are poor stewards of America's government.

      by freelunch on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:41:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Anti Theocracy Slogan (4.00)
    Would you want to live in a Theocracy not run by your church?

    This kind of fundamentalism that is antagonistic to the free expression and practice of religion is abhorent.

    Also, isn't it funny how the Free Marketers run around with those who don't want a free market for religion?

    •  Randy Rhodes... (none)
      Has made this point repeatedly.  What if they don't pick your religion?

      "[A] 'Sharecropper's Society' [is] precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us." - Warren Buffet

      by RichM on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:37:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  or even if they do? (none)
       Still not a good idea.
    •  C'mon.. (none)
      ..I don't want to live in a theocracy run by my church! Of course it is the Church of Satan. Just kidding, it's C of E; but I still don't want any church in charge, including mine.
    •  My Church is a Representative Democracy (none)
      So, no, I don't want any other type of theocracy whatsoever.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:28:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't want THEIR church either (4.00)
      Even a lot of Americans who want more religion in public life absolutely don't want their priest/minister/whatever to have the power over their daily lives.  Prime example, Roman Catholics and birth control.

      I didn't see at first that the obsessive media coverage of the Pope's illness, etc. has been wonderfully useful, following so quickly after the Shiavo travesty.

      It has made average Americans think about how impossible it is to define "Christian" in any way that doesn't make some folks VERY unhappy.  The closer you look at any religious group, the more sub-sects you find - and these people often hate each other.

      Folks who accepted all the GOPs faith-based hooey without much thought are actually getting the glimmer of understanding of what living in a theocracy would be like.  (Be afraid, be very afraid!)

      The wisdom of the founders' separation of church and state wasn't theoretical.  It came from their generation's direct experience.

      Landed Aristocracy and Share-Croppers - does that sound like an Opportunity Society to you?

      by VA Gal on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:30:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  we could just let the quakers run everything (none)
      it worked fairly well in colonial pennsylvania.
  •  I guess they didn't (none)
    see Lord Vader kneeling at the pope's funeral along with his father, President Clinton, and Condiwife.

    DCDemocrat: Higher editorial standards than The New York Times.

    by DCDemocrat on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:34:04 AM PDT

    •  They use Catholics for political gain. (4.00)
      Why would they disapprove of the president doing the same?

      What amazes me is that I know some Catholics who I wouldn't ordinarily classify as stupid who don't recognize that once the fundies got through with the gays and the liberals, Catholics would be next up. A Dobson-thinking theocracy wouldn't have room for the "papists."

  •  Salazar Rocks (none)
    When Salazar first came in, I was a bit nervous, thinking he might naively think bipartisanship would work with these Republicans.  It seems, however, that he's one of the stronger Democratic voices right now.  He seems to know how to fight the Republicans on their own turf and win.  
    •  I would say (3.20)
      you're overstating your case significantly.

      What Ken has actually learned in my opinion is that compromise with the GOP in today's Senate buys you no favors except bringing you into Karl Rove's sights for the next election cycle.

      Senator Salazar's statements about Focus on the Family are very good and should be rewarded, but he has much more rehabilitation to do.

      •  Sen. Salazar does indeed have a way to go (4.00)
        but he deserves a standing ovation on this one.  Unless you have lived in Colorado, unless you have seen the massive Focus On the Family campus in Colorado Springs, you don't appreciate the cojones it takes for a Colorado Senator to take them on.  

        Salazar is a brave man and deserves respect for this move.

        •  unrelated to Salazar (none)
          but a great way to increase the heat on and scrutiny of Focus on the Family is to support Soulforce.

          On May 1st and 2nd - they will be holding a nonviolent Direct Action against Dobson and Focus on the Family.

          Generic Soulforce link in my sig.  The Dobson specific stuff is at

          http://www.deardrdobson.com
          (warning: a QT movies starts quickly - with sound - you can skip it.  Well worth watching if your at a place where you can.  
          (music and photos of GLBT couples - nothing threatening unless your coworkers or boss think gays are undermining our society by daring to breath....)

          I support Soulforce - seeking Justice for God's GLBT children. Please join us.

          by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:58:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  my hunch is that (none)
          salazar has caught wind of the non-FotF majority in colorado getting fed up with the colorado springs bible thumpers, and is getting out ahead of a building wave. sure, it takes stones, but even more it takes a good sense of which way the wind's blowing. kudos for salazar for paying attention, this kind of thing could be what tips the west into our column.
          •  Salazar's Cover (none)
            And....in the Senate race, it was quite obvious that he and his family have a strong religious faith. So the religious righties can't say he's some sort of Dem heathen.

            Yes, it was pretty obvious to many of us who voted for Senator Salazar that he wasn't going to be a Boulder Dem, but hey, I'd rather have an higher than average vote for issues that Dems care about from him then the 0% that no doubt Pete Coors would have done (and that Republican lock step Senator Allard already does).

        •  Five generations (none)
          of my family have lived in this state, and yes indeedy I am well aware of the gigantic cojones Ken Salazar is demonstrating in speaking out here, and I don't wish to downplay it.

          But it does not absolve his earlier mistakes, and we need to watch him closely and provide both positive and negative feedback as appropriate.

  •  Delay mentality: (none)
    Judges, churches, popes are only "good" so long as they agree with them...

    Jesus believed in justice and tolerance and I do, too !

    by lawnorder on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:35:49 AM PDT

  •  Fianlly, (none)
    The democrats are getting a sense of how to go after these guys.  It's not like they don't give you fresh paper bullets every day or anything.  At this rate, Salazar could cite an idiotic comment a day and still have material left for his re-election campaign in five years...
  •  Looks like I was badly wrong about Salazar. (3.75)
    He's gone where no other Dem has dared to tread. He's put his finger on the underlying schism in this country, and he'll pay dearly without our unstinting support.

    The next step is to attach these views not just to nutcases like Dobson, but to Frist and the GOP in general.

    •  He did vote for the Bankruptcy Bill (none)
      So you're not that wrong, and we can't forget that vote which is more evidence of cowardice, in my mind, than this is of courage.
      •  And AbuGonzo. He went thumbs up... (none)
        ...for the torture man. But, I know, I know, he's still a solid 100% better than Herr Coors would have been.
        •  But I don't need to send him money (none)
          and I wouldn't be out campaigning for him.  Maybe 50% better.  I don't know that I'd say he's 100% better.

          Also when Dems do these things they make something bipartisan, and then it's harder to campaign against it.

          •  I wouldn't send him $ either. (none)
            But the Dems MUST get the majority back in the Senate or we're lost. Try to hold his feet to the fire if possible, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater has been our problem for years. Sometimes it's not your first pick but you've got to hold your nose and go with it. The thought that a piece of excrement like Pete Coors would only be half as bad as Sen. Salazar is something I can't see. As bad as voting for Abu Gonzales and the Loan Shark Protection Act  was, the choice between Coors and Salazar is easy for me.

            Now, in spite of the "D" after his name, if he French kisses the chimp after the next SOTU, then he's in for a seriously downgrade.

            •  off topic.... (none)
              But I was wrecked last night to see a Coors comercial using "Mountain Song" by Jane's Addiction...Hello, Perry?...Followed an hour later by another one using John Denver with Pete himself skiing through a snowy field..both on Comedy Central...oh with a Halliburton ad thrown in between..sigh
              •  Con't off topic (none)
                At least there is the comfort of knowing that there is a trace of irony in these corporate creeps sponsoring some of the best comedy on the tube (Chappelle, South Park) albeit stealing from Jane's Addiction in doing it. I would guess that Perry Ferrell doesn't own the song (like Chrissie Hynde having to suffer through Limbag using her song to open his show). You may remember Reagan wanting to use Springsteen's 'Born in the USA' for his re-election campaign. Boss refused (he owned it) opining that Dutch probably never listened to any of the words besides the chorus.
  •  Focus on the Family & USA Next (3.80)
    Charlie Jarvis, USA Next/United Seniors Association President & CEO, use to be Executive Vice President of "Focus on the Family."  

    I'm telling you, everything is connected and there are a few key individuals pulling the strings.  

    - Browns Fan

  •  A false, unbiblical church ... (3.75)
    ...as compared with the holy snake-handler branch of the Christian Right?
    •  My synagogue is a false church (none)
      There are mirrors set up so the five people who show up on Friday nights looks like a crowd of 500.  And the bulb on our "eternal light" blows out every few weeks because the circuits overloaded.  Don't get me started on the bima. It's only like six inches high.  You call that a bima?

      _Our President believes in DEMOCRACY... as long as people who exercise it share his world view._

      by Steve G on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:50:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mohler is pres of the Southern Baptist (none)
    Theological Seminary. He's repeating the official Southern Baptist view of the Catholic Church.

    Mohler is a completely political guy though, if you're familiar with the columns he writes. Very extreme social conservative who believes his views should be the law.

    •  Except (4.00)
      Traditional doctrine of evangelicals like the Baptists was that each soul was to read and understand the Bible for themselves.

      The reactionaries have taken over the SBC and basically gutted the idea of individual understanding, replacing it with their current approach of demanding that people accept their human doctrines about the Bible and God. For some reason, it's okay when they force their doctrines on the SBC, but not when Benedict XVI does it for the Roman Catholic Church (which actually acknowledges the right of the Pope to do this).

      Republicans are poor stewards of America's government.

      by freelunch on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:51:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  SBC is a different animal (4.00)
        from what they were were when Jimmy Carter or Al Gore was young. The ironic thing is they are even more doctrinaire than mainstream Catholicism.
        •  SBC Refugees (none)
          I grew up in the SBC and stayed with it until the fundamentalist takeover in the 80's.  The fundamentalists are unfortunately all about hate and money and very little about Christian love and mercy.

          Many good folk are still stuck in their churches because of social ties, but do not buy into their cheapened version of the gospel.  

          God and ego are not equivalent expressions of reality.

          by Othniel on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 02:08:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Common thinking (4.00)
        My husband was brought up in a very conservative Lutheran denomonation. They pretty much say the Bible has been interpreted and allow no dissent. I laughed to my husband that if I want old white men dictating my thinking, I'll go back to the Roman Catholicism of my heritage. At least they can make a historical case.
        •  I think you'll enjoy this Magenta (none)
          my mother was raised Catholic and married my Lutheran father.  

          After their divorce - my mother joined an Episcopal chruch - where I was raised (and developed a love of "high church" - now wondering just what was in the incense... but I digress....)

          She studied for awhile to become a Deacon.  My grandparents and she had long since resolved the issues - but still "fought" about the specifics.

          When he learned of her studies - my Grandfather (gruffly joking) said "I prefer my priest to be male and celebate"

          My mom shot right back "if they're not using the equipment what difference does the plumbing make?!"

          - - - -

          Pluralism is one of the great gifts I got from my family.  I learned early on (despite a bit of a fundie spell in my own teen years) that there were deep theological disagreements and that not so long ago - that my parents union would have been just as controversial as an interracial couple in the 60's and a GLBT couple today....   none of us has a lock on truth.

          I support Soulforce - seeking Justice for God's GLBT children. Please join us.

          by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:07:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, and we never will. (none)
            God must find us more than slightly ridiculous as she watches our debates on what is clearly well outside of the realm of human understanding. So many people want to put God in a God box, but I figure if he is as petty as some denominations make him out to be then I don't mind being wrong. Because I wouldn't worship that deity in some bid for a get out of hell free card.
      •  And this is very different (none)
        from other traditions which value the role of the community e.g., Episcopalians who include scripture, tradition and reason as the three foundations of faith.
        •  Thanks for mentioning that abbyv (none)
          John Wesley - hence the Methodist teach this as the Wesley Quadrilateral

          Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason.   All being equal parts of our faith journey.

          Our local focus on that is one of the ways I found the progressive UMC congregation I'm involved with now.  

          The Episcopalians as a whole, in my experience, do a bit better job of keeping their version in focus and out front.

          Wesley's 300th birthday was celebrated last year - and has really helped bring the Quadrilateral back into current discussions within the church (which has helped limit the advances of the IRD backed groups trying to turn us into fundies...)

          I support Soulforce - seeking Justice for God's GLBT children. Please join us.

          by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:18:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yup it'd different (none)
            My understanding of the Methodist teaching is that personal, individual emotional experience is equally valid, whereas --and I'll mangle this--the Anglican understanding of reason includes experience, that is the experience and understanding of the community over time.

            I'm all about catholicity and retaining the historic Episcopate, but we Methodists and Episcopalians can still talk to eachother, right?

          •  Yup it's different (none)
            My understanding of the Methodist teaching is that personal, individual emotional experience is equally valid, whereas --and I'll mangle this--the Anglican understanding of reason includes experience, that is the experience and understanding of the community over time.

            I'm all about catholicity and retaining the historic Episcopate, but we Methodists and Episcopalians can still talk to eachother, right?

            •  Yes we can (none)
              (having been baptised Lutheran, raised Episcopalian, studied Catholicism and now being United Methodist (with a number of stops including some determined tries at agnosticim in between)
              I certainly hope we can talk.)  

              Heck  - I even have to talk to myself :-)

              Ain't none of us got a lock on truth and our similarities vastly outweigh our differences as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Pagan, Wiccan, Agnostics and Atheist. (and skeptics and dozens of other labels and traditions I left off).

              I claim as my path the Christian tradition - that is my home - but two of the most life changing experiences I've had are witnessing a Native American drum ceremony (I'm convinced God was present and blessed them - but it was clearly not my path)
              and reading Sura 5:48 of the Koran (translated/paraphrased"
              "If Allah had so desired, he could have made us all one congregation. He chose not to - instead we are to compete with one another in good works.  In the end, all will return to Allah and then that which we disagree on will be made plain to us."

              That's about as profoundly true as I've seen anywhere.  God will sort it out - our differences DO matter and should not be glossed over - but judgement is not ours.  When our paths cross, should learn from one another, enjoy what we can share - respect our differences where we cannot.

              My apologies to those who dislike religious discussion on dKos - but everything I just said applies - in my opinion - every bit as much to my encounters with atheist and agnostics.

              None of us have a lock on truth - all of us have valid insights and some darned good reasons we are where and who we are.

              The enemy is any of us who decide our view must be forced on the next person...
              that Only WE know which is the False Church...and which is the one true way to think....
              that all must adhere to our world view.  
              That is where I find the most grievous form of idolatry.

              Namaste.

              I support Soulforce - seeking Justice for God's GLBT children. Please join us.

              by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:45:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Mostly right (none)
            The Wesleyan quadrilateral is the four points you mention, but they aren't equal. Scripture is the primary authority, while the other three are secondary. If Scripture's against something, it doesn't matter what the other three say. More often than not, though, tradition, reason and experience serve to confirm what we understand Scripture to be saying. In the debate over homosexuality, part of the tension is that reason and experience (at least as understood by part of the UMC) seem to be out of joint with Scripture and tradition. So, the UMC is being torn in two.
            •  Episcopalians place scripture first too (none)
              They just tend to think that modern biblical criticism is part of it, and you have to take it in its totality.

              I kind of like the Orthodox.  They think that the Tradition is inseparable from Scripture, one big seamless web.

            •  Scripture is primary (none)
              but is understood by use of the other 3... so it's all interrelated.

              On the chart with the arrows you put it at the top - and first in the list - but given the interrelatedness it's a first among equals sort of thing.

              I support Soulforce - seeking Justice for God's GLBT children. Please join us.

              by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:19:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  and to briefly respond (none)
              to the later have (a full discussion would really go on another thread) - I agree with your description of our divided church and the reasons for it.  I'm hoping we're on the same "side" of the debate over GLBT inclusion.

              I would argue that what we have in the UMC is a "traditional definition" of Scripture that has taken primacy for one camp - so it is Tradition and not Scripture that has really been held up as First among equals.  I think a growing number of us see that.  It's easy to say "Scripture First" - as long as it's defined the "right" way.  

              Ezekiel 16:49 for example has much to say to us.... but is neglected in favor of passages that fit the tradition "better"

              I'm leading a class called "Claiming the Promise" that is a pretty deep study of the Scriptures that get cited in these discussions.  I would argue that many of them have been misunderstood and misused.   You might also be interested in Reconciling Ministries
              http://www.rmnetwork.org - I encourage all UMCers to check it out.   Grace and Peace

              (my apologies to others for the long post on this tangent.)

              I support Soulforce - seeking Justice for God's GLBT children. Please join us.

              by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:49:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Complexities abound... (none)
                ...on the homosexuality issue. I'm one of the "traditionalists" you mention, seeing Scripture as fairly clearly against the practice of homosexuality. That being said, conservative churches are pretty quick to make this sin THE sin, when the Bible just  puts it as one sin among many. I haven't heard too many sermons on gluttony lately, but arguably that's a bigger problem today than people being attracted to members of the same sex. So, I would just call for consistency, meaning let's do what Jesus did: love people where they are, and realize that, as James says, "in many ways, we all offend." And from that starting point, encouraging each other and with God's help, we can all move up and out of our sin, whatever those various sins happen to be.  
        •  Even Calvin and Luther (none)
          Even Calvin and Luther were fans of a traditional form of teaching taken from the RCC. They set out to be reformers in a real sense, keeping what they honored and trying to remove the rest.

          Today the Christian Churches that accept the Nicene Creed probably have more in common with each other than the main original Protestant Churches (Lutheran Evangelical, Calvinist Reformed and Anglican) have with the modern 'protestant' bodies like Baptists, Church of God and other Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who reject the Nicene Creed as an article of faith.

          Republicans are poor stewards of America's government.

          by freelunch on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:25:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Mohler on Catholicism: (4.00)
      from a recent column of his about the new Pope:

      Evangelicals rightly point to the papacy as an unbiblical office that, by its very nature, compromises the integrity of Scripture and invests an unbiblical authority in an earthly ecclesiastical monarch. Claims of papal succession, papal authority, and papal infallibility do nothing but widen the breach between evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church. The conservatism that leads Ratzinger to defend historic Catholic positions on abortion, euthanasia, and a host of other issues go hand-in-hand with his defense of the papacy, magisterial authority, and the evolving body of Catholic doctrine.

      however:

      There is not one syllable in (quoted anti-liberal statements of Ratzinger's) with which evangelicals would not be in full and enthusiastic agreement. Indeed, Ratzinger's writings reveal a keen theological mind that understands the contours of the postmodern crisis and signal a staunch defense of truth against a posture of relativism.

      http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-04-20

      •  good find (none)
        and there's that same fundamentalist mindset: If you agree with us you are good!  Wonder what happens when or if the new Pope continues the Catholic Church's denunciation of the death penalty and the War in Iraq?
      •  Fundamentalists and... (none)
        ...evangelicals  might not quarrel much with Pope-a-Ratzi's theology, but they have BIG problems with the Catholic Church's hierarchy, saying that not a bit of it's in the Bible, therefore, it invalidates them as an organization.
        •  Fundamentalists and evangelicals... (4.00)
          ...at least in the American Religious Right, might have some problems with Benedict XVI's theology -- judging from his past writings; the question is will there be as much attention in those areas?

          Consider, for instance, the Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation Cardinal Ratzinger issued in 1984:

          Promoting participation

          86. Wages, which cannot be considered as a mere commodity, must enable the worker and his family to have access to a truly human standard of living in the material, social, cultural and spiritual orders. It is the dignity of the person which constitutes the criterion for judging work, not the other way round. Whatever the type of work, the worker must be able to perform it as an expression of his personality. There follows from this the necessity of a participation which, over and above a sharing in the fruits of work, should involve a truly communitarian dimension at the level of projects, undertakings and responsibilities.(130)

          Priority of work over capital

          87. The priority of work over capital places an obligation in justice upon employers to consider the welfare of the workers before the increase of profits. They have a moral obligation not to keep capital unproductive and in making investments to think first of the common good. The latter requires a prior effort to consolidate jobs or create new ones in the production of goods that are really useful. The right to private property is inconceivable without responsibilities to the common good. It is subordinated to the higher principle which states that goods are meant for all.(131)

      •  Quoth Mohler: "Cut the unbiblical cord!" (none)
        Ok, so not exactly.  It's just that I kept seeing "unbiblical" and reading "umbilical".

        A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim.

        by sharkbite on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:21:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They've kept doing it (none)
    Why else do you think that a theory is going around claiming the next Pope will be the AntiChrist?

    "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

    by RBH on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:41:38 AM PDT

  •  Salazar and his part in the downfall. (4.00)
    may not be the purist that many democrats want to represent our party.  Still, individuals like Salazar have their place and part in bringing down the whole of the right wing.  One way to look at it, is that Salazar may be too conservative in some of his actions and vote in favor, but on the other hand would a more liberal Democrat be taken seriously by the right wing religious movement when being called out?

    It is interesting to see that all of the players in the religious play for power are seeing themselves in the reflection of each other and running for safety from their mirror images.  They are able to fake a coordinated effort, mimicking each others moves, until their own individual power is at stake and then they have to turn agains their effort and chew their own legs off in the effort to save themselves.

  •  Eek.. I hope they don't pick up their guns (none)
    I don't want wingnuts and Catholics taking to the streets and shooting each other over the question of who's going to Heaven.
    Of course, anyone that wants to go to such a boring place should be allowed in, IMO
    •  When you shoot each other over that question (none)
      then the answer will be "No" for all involved

      Some people forget Matthew 5:44

      "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

      by RBH on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:48:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why do Republicans hate Catholics? n/t (none)

    "Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for."

    by DriftawayNH on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:46:51 AM PDT

      •  Oh man I need to study Religion (none)
        I thought Catholics are Christian.....doesn't Christian simply mean that one believes that Jesus was the sun of Christ?
        •  What are you... (4.00)
          ...some kind of heretic?  That's Soooo first-millennium.  Nowadays it's all about Leviticus.

          Rubus Eradicandus Est.

          by Randomfactor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:07:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  yes (none)
          that is true. The difference is that Catholics believe that the Pope is a descendant of St. Peter, the "rock" of the Catholic church and who has authority to speak about religious matters. Most other christian religions denounce the Pope as an interpreter of christianity. From there, there are many many splinters. Baptists believe in adult baptism, and so forth.  Many left Catholicism because of the perceived violation of the scripture about not worshipping false idols.  If you notice, most non-Catholic christian churches do not have statues of Christ, Mary or any other person.

          Also, Catholics believe in the Saints....while others do not necessarily believe that these people were chosen by God to perform some holy or mysterious act.  

          Lots and lots of other differences, but these are a few of the main ones.

          •  Successor, not Descendant... (none)
            The Church is an elective, not hereditary, monarchy.
          •  Thanks everyone (none)
            For confirming my belief that at most I'll be a person of Faith not religion:)
          •  Baptism (none)
            "Baptists believe in adult baptism, and so forth."

            I overheard a fragment of a conversation between a Baptist and a Methodist:

            B:  And you really believe in infant baptism?!?

            M:  Believe in it?  Hell, I've seen it done!

          •  just to clarify (none)
            you make some nice points in your posts, and also include some common misconceptions.

            I'm a former Roman Catholic, now Episcopalian.

            To become an Episcopalian I did not have to denounce or renounce the Pope.  I acknowledge the authority of the Bishop of Rome to speak about religious matters and interpret Christianity, but give his insights no more or less value than other spiritual leaders who live a sincere and prayerful life of faith.

            The (Episcopal) church I worshipped at in 1999 had statues of Mary and the crucified Christ.  I have attended several other Episcopal churches with statues and icons.

            As for saints, the Episcopal Church has its own complete yearly calendar of "feast days", honoring people who lived holy lives and/or performed deeds demonstrating exceptional obedience to God.  Our calendar even overlaps with the RC calendar in places.  This month alone we share the same commemoration on April 5 (Vincent Ferrer), April 7 (John Baptiste de la Salle), April 21 (Anselm), April 23 (George), April 25 (Mark the Evangelist) and April 29 (Catherine of Siena).  We usually don't call them "saints" but we still honor them.  We don't pray to them, but we pray "with" them, because we believe they have no more access to communication with God than anyone else.

            So there are a lot of differences between the Roman Catholic church and many evangelical protestant denominations, but the protestant Episcopal Church, especially those who follow Anglican practices, have way more in common with Roman Catholics than most RCs realize.  That's why  I (and many others) are called Anglo-Catholic and always include the adjective "Roman" when referring to those catholics who believe in the infallibility of the Pope and celibate male priests.

            Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:19:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  quite true (none)
              But many more "mainstream" christian churches, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, lower Episcopalian, Society of Friends, Salvation Army, Unitarian, to name a few, do not believe in the authority of the Pope.  The reasons for the splits and the points importance in each church are a history in and of themselves. Many are quite fascinating. Unitarians, who reject the trinity of God. Many who reject the Pope (I would say, aside from high episcopal, and RC, who else believes in the Pope's authority?). There are also GReek Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic, who I don't think believe in the authority of the Roman pope (not totally sure of that).

              Icons are another...baptism another.  Quakers, for the most part, do not believe that another human being is required to interpret the scripture. MAny of their meetings are "silent worship" where any member is free to speak to whatever they believe the holy spirit says to them.  Other Quaker churches are more conservative and do have ministers. They take the gospel teaching quite literally and are one of the only churches which has been consistently consciencious objectors in all wars, including WWII.  

              Anyway, it is all interesting history.

              •  i can see you have studied a lot (none)
                And you have several interesting posts on this thread.

                I admire your curiosity and willingness to explore the differences between denominations.

                Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

                by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:50:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  for whatever it is worth (none)
                  it is an inherited trait. I was brought up agnostic, from a long line of agnostics. My grandfather challenged a proselytizer (can't remember denomination) to tell him, since he had read all of the major books of worship and many other treatises on the subject, why his was better than the others. The poor guy shook his head in despair. My grandfather was already lost!!

                  I spent my high school years in a Friends church in which our Sunday schools were at all of the other churches in town. I have attended Southern Baptist, Catholic, Jehovah's witnesses, Methodist and a host of others. I myself converted to Catholicism after I got married. I have a friend who was raised Methodist (her father was the minister) and she converted to Mormonism. Another whose parents were both ministers in the Salvation Army church...and he spent his growing up years particpating in all kinds of events.

                  I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who truly believe, and for whatever it's worth, most of the differences, are, in my mind, trivial (certainly not in the minds of others).  I am a believe in the philosophy of Jesus Christ...but I am a scientist and statistician and the "mystery" part is a bit harder for me to accept.

                  As my grandfather said, they are all great, wonderful traditions, whose to say which is the "better" of them? Or the truth?

              •  quite true (none)
                Byzantine Catholics have accepted the authority of the Pope since the Union of Brest in the late 16th century. Their liturgy follows the Orthodox divine liturgy and they have their own bishops who are ultimately subject to Rome. Orthodox Christians (including Greek, Russian, Romanian, Antiochian, Bulgarian and Carpatho-Russian) have their own hierarchy and their patriarchs govern through ecumenical councils. They are not in union with Rome.
        •  Lots of areas of conflict (none)
          Confession to a priest, absolution, intercession, Mary, saints, on and on.

          There's a story from a Protestant branch of my family of one new to America who refused to go a second time to a church of his own denomination because the minister turned his back on the congregation and prayed facing the alter - Papacy!

          And I know Missouri Synod Lutherans who are adamant that other Lutherans don't have much of a chance, let alone the rest of us.  Get "professional" Christians talking doctrine and they will be at each others' throats in no time.

          You can't compromise when it comes to eternal souls!

          Landed Aristocracy and Share-Croppers - does that sound like an Opportunity Society to you?

          by VA Gal on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:49:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  On compromise (none)
            Wow, this thread is right up my alley, so forgive me this third post tonight...

            A 19th century slogan said:

            "In things essential, unity;
            in things non-essential, liberty;
            but in all things, LOVE."

            Ideally, this is how Christians are to relate to each other, no matter what denominational stripe you're talking about. Unfortunately, different groups define what is "essential" in different ways. Most Protestants, in theory, agree that salvation, i.e. the way to heaven, is ultimately the only thing worth dividing over. In the real world, we get a lot more picky than that.

            And the love part? I guess that's for the non-Christians to decide if we live up to THAT one. Lately, it's not lookin' too promising on that score, I'm afraid, and I'm one of those Christians.
             

        •  Roman Catholics ARE Christian! (none)
          Just not fundie Christians!

          The only second term dubya deserves is 20 to life!

          by Street Kid on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:10:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Some are fundie (none)
            especially in leadership, some (I think most - certainly in the US are not, but many are single issue voters... which is at least borderline fundie-ish...)

            I spent a period of my life within that tradition and was very fundie while I was there.  Long story I won't get into - but it was my encounters with a very different form of Catholicism (Liberation Theology, Romero, and Dorothy Day's workers movment) that snapped me out of it.

            I support Soulforce - seeking Justice for God's GLBT children. Please join us.

            by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:58:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I second the already mentioned notion (none)
    that we need to brand these crazies as Unchristian and Unamerican.  Simple.
  •  Dobby Dobby Dobson-free (none)
    The Catholic Church is evil because no commandment condemns Spongebob.....
  •  As a Coloradan (none)
    and coming from a very Irish Catholic family, I made his office aware that I support this effort on his behalf.  We should also let Republicans of the Catholic faith be more than aware of the sentiments of James Dobsons group and get them to comment on it.
  •  This Explains Why Bush Never Listened to Pope... (none)
    ...when the Holy Father made repeated appeals to spare the lives of those on death row in Texas.
  •  Bad news then.... (4.00)
    ...for R. Albert Mohler, Jr.  Guess who decided what the Bible would be?  Guess who selected from the various religious writings -- or gospels, if you like -- that were circulating around the Roman world in the two or three centuries after Jesus's death?

    If you answered "The Catholic Church" you're absolutely right!  Catholics decided the Gospel of John was the Word of God, but not the Gospel of Thomas.  Or the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

    Ya say ya don't like Catholicism???  I would argue all Christians are Catholic, whether they know it or like it or not.  The Catholic Church picked the doctrines that your Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists choose to interpret.  

    You can't go into a sushi restaurant and order ravioli, kids.  You can pick from the sushi you like, and the sushi you don't like.  But the menu was set before you even got into your car...

    "...your grasp has exceded your reach/ And you put all your faith in a figure of speech..." -- Warren Zevon

    by Roddy McCorley on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:51:59 AM PDT

    •  But didn't you know (none)
      the baptists claim that they existed ever since Jesus, even before the creation of the catholic church! Jesus as a baptist, didn't you know?

      and no i'm not kidding, i've heard people say that.

    •  Not entirely true (none)
      While it's true that the Catholics chose the books, it's not true that the Protestants didn't rechoose when they broke off.

      And it's certainly not true that "all Christians are Catholic" based upon this.

      For example, the Roman Catholic Bible and the Eastern Orthodox Bible include the Book of Baruch, whereas Protestants do not; moreover, the Catholic Baruch differs from the Eastern Orthodox Baruch in that it includes a part of the book that the EOs call the Letters of Jeremiah; the remainder of which is in neither the Catholic Bible nor Protestant Bibles.

      Eastern Orthodox Bibles include Esdras, whereas neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants do.

      EO has four Maccabees books, of which RC has the first two, and of which Protestants have none.

      Ethiopian Orthoxes include a whole bunch of books different than other branches, including even books from the new Testament (such as Acts of Paul).

      There are lots of other examples.  It's simply not the case that "the Bible is the Bible is the Bible".

      •  Big C Catholic versus little c catholic (none)
        I think that most Orthodox Christians consider themselves catholic, that is part of the universal church.

        The two biggest differences that I know of where they differ from Roman Catholics is that

        (1.) They do not respect the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

        (2.) They differ from the rest of the Western church in their interpretation of teh filioque.  That is the part of the Nicene Creed (which some scholars call the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, because it was the work of two counsels where those who belong to the western church say that they believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the father and from the Son.  (The Orthodox dtrike the "and from the Son" bit.)

        •  Big C Catholic versus little c catholic (none)
          I am a Roman Catholic, as I understand it, church governance developed differently in the West than it did in the East. In the West, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Papacy developed into the only supra-national authority and as such, it acquired a significant amount of temporal authority in the process. In the East, the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire retained political authority, and the patriarchs retained authority over the church. The Christian church in the East governed itself through ecumenical councils, and over the generations, it developed a liturgy and governance that differed from the Christian church in the West.

          As far as the filioque goes, my understanding is that Charlemagne prompted its inclusion in the Creed. The Orthodox never added it to the Creed. Furthermore, the Byzantines were not happy when the Papacy granted him the title of Holy Roman Emperor. To the Byzantines, he appeared to be competition.

      •  books in my bible (none)
        My bible contains the Book of Baruch.  The Episcopal Church lectionary includes a passage from Baruch during Advent and at the Easter Vigil.

        My bible also has 1 and 2 Esdras, all four Maccabees, and the Letter of Jeremiah, although I could not find any lectionary readings from those books.

        I agree that christians are still arguing over which books belong in the bible, but some of the older arguments have been put to rest.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 02:28:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  different Bibles . . . and the courts (none)
        Here's something to think about. Suppose you're in court, and are asked to swear on the Bible. Should you be allowed to ask for a copy of the Bible used by your religion? How many Bibles would the courts have to carry in order to administer it properly.
           For instance, if I'm conservative/traditionalist, I might want a Bible version in the original Greek. Or Latin.
        If I'm progressive, I might want it in colloquial language. Or maybe in French, to oppose official opposition to the French reflected in such considered policy making as the "freedom fries" debate--notable for its lack of collective memory of Lafayette and the French Fleet at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, and the assistance of the French underground in WWII. If scholarly, an annotated Bible. As someone of Irish descent, I personally would rather swear on something of historic/cultural value as well, such as a facsimilie of the Book of Kells, preferably in Latin, with the great illustrations. Would I be allowed to bring my own? If I was called as a hostile witness, against my will, would I be allowed to demonstrate that by demanding a Bible written in Klingon?
    •  I just love so many of your comments! (none)
      Yeah, we're all eating sushi, we Christians!  

      I was always so confused as a parochial school girl when I was asked if I was Christian.  I thought I was Ueber-christian, that the Prods were christian-lite.  

       Yeah, the menu was decided about 313 CE.  

      I donated to ePluribus Media. Support citizen journalism!

      by dksbook on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:48:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with most of what you say here (none)
      but it is slightly misleading to say that the "Catholic Church" decided early church doctrine.  The early church had no denominations.

      In a slightly irreverent analogy, when there was only one phone company it was just "the phone company."  Only after deregulation did people start emphasizing the differences between AT&T and MCI and Sprint.  

      However, I wholeheartedly agree that everyone who is christian now is a branch on the tree from the trunk of the early church.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 02:03:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Perfect for 2008 (none)
    Great material for anti-Frist commericals. Not only can Frist be labeled the "cat killer", but if he were to get the Republican nomination, just think of the commercial that could be run in every area with a substantial Catholic population hammering Frist as a tool of anti-Catholic bigots. It'd be a beautiful thing. And Frist has also got that whole long neck/dead-animal-on-head thing going on, too. (or maybe he just stole one of Sam Donaldson's toupee's.)
  •  Speaking as a Catholic myself... (none)
    ... I can see how one could voice this kind of sentiment and not do it in a nasty way.  I mean, of course the guy doesn't believe in the way the Catholic Church is teaching the Bible; if he did, he'd be Catholic.

    So for a normal guy from out of the blue, I'd say, ease up on him.  But given the context (i.e., the group he's a part of) it's pretty clear what this jerk means when he's using loaded terms like "false churc" and "unbiblical" (is that even word?).  So good for Salazar for going after him.  About time Dems showed some cajones on this front...  

  •  So What? (none)
    I believe that too.  I believe the Roman church is false.  I believe it taches a false gospel.  I believe the pope's office is false.

    The only word from that quote that I'd potentially disagree with is "unbiblical" (since I believe the Bible is false in the first place, and so wouldn't use it as a justification for the pope's office anyway).

    The problem is not holding that opinion, or stating that opinion.

    The problem is that this opinion shouldn't be intersecting the political realm at all - nor should its opposite.

  •  This is delicious (none)
    It was inevitable that these clowns would eventually have their Elmer Gantry moment(s). Let's hope they are many and lingering.  Way to go Sen. Salazar!
  •  Well... (4.00)
    I think it's great that the Catholics and the Protestants have finally gotten together in common cause.

    It's just too bad the common cause is a message of hatred.

    "If any question why we died, Tell them, because our fathers lied." - Rudyard Kipling, 1918

    by Steve4Clark on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:04:02 AM PDT

    •  you need to be more descriptive lest you (none)
      sound like a conservative with his head up his ass.

      that would be, "Reactionary Catholics". I'm a progressive Catholic who's world view is 180 degrees from that of any fundamentalist.

    •  That's all right, Steve. (4.00)
      As Tom Lehrer sang in his tune, "National Brotherhood Week":

      Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
      And the black folks hate the white folks.
      To hate all but the right folks
      Is an old established rule.

      But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
      Lena Horne and Sheriff Clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
      It's fun to eulogize
      The people you despise,
      As long as you don't let 'em in your school.

      Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
      And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
      All of my folks hate all of your folks,
      It's American as apple pie.

      But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
      New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.
      Step up and shake the hand
      Of someone you can't stand.
      You can tolerate him if you try.

      Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
      And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
      And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
      And everybody hates the Jews.

      But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
      It's National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
      Be nice to people who
      Are inferior to you.
      It's only for a week, so have no fear.
      Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

    •  Hey, Why Not? (none)
      We're not doing anything for the next 30 years, right?  Let's have a war!

      "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

      by JJB on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:12:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Catholic Church has no locks to keep one in (none)
    "If the shoe don't fit  - you can always git."
  •  Support Salazar, and (none)
    You can tell Dobson what you think too: http://www.family.org/
  •  And our Courts are false courts? (none)
    Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.

    An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.

    The discussion took place during a Washington conference last month that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who discussed efforts to bring a more conservative cast to the courts.

    LATimes/Yahoo

    "Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other." - JFK

    by jillian on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:08:09 AM PDT

  •  As an incredulous "Cherry-picking Catholic... (4.00)
    This is just plain insane. In my entire life I do not recall public debate, especially from politicians, about who-beleives-what-and how-and why pertaining to religion.
    I call myself a "Cherry picking" Catholic because I cannot support all the rules of Catholicism although I do get some comfort when I'm in a Catholic church.  For heaven's sake whoever God is, I really do not think he gives a CRAP about all these rules and different denominations. Live a good life, treat others the way you want to be treated and take care of those less fortunate.
    The other night on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart showed the headline from Fox the day they elected the new Pope. It read "We have a new Pope!"
    What the fuck???? Catholics have a new pope and no one ever really cared before this fundie-religious crap started being a way to garner votes.
    Can you tell I am really, really, annoyed?

    "Democrats win when people think"...Bill Clinton

    by Limabean on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:08:55 AM PDT

  •  Who cares? (none)
    Isn't this implicit in different religions?  I mean, I'm as anti-religious nutballs as the next person, but belonging to any religion implies that other religions are "false" to some extent.

    Is this really the issue we want to "go after" these people after?  Not that it can't come in handy when talking to Republican Catholics or Jews.  But still.

    •  Oy vey (4.00)
      Think on it.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:12:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you can't explain it (none)
        maybe you should think on it.
        •  OK (none)
          I'll leave now.

          "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

          by Armando on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:22:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wow you have some Balls (none)
          Lets just say do you think that the Senater leader should be endorseing and supporting activist groups that favour one religion over another?

          Should we be allowing not only religion guide politics but one specific religion guide politicians on how to treat judges....

          •  Huh? (none)
            I'm not talking about the remarks with regard to the judiciary.  I'm simply pointing out that I don't find that someone who believes Religion A is, per se, out of line for saying that Religion B is false.

            Hell, I'd be a hypocrite if I did.  I'm agnostic and therefore think that all religions are "false".  Now, I don't rub people's noses in it.  And I don't begrudge people their personal views.  But if you are asking, yes, I think that Catholicism is "false"...as are all forms of Protestantism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and animism.  And as is the belief in the Easter Bunny.

            •  Okay (none)
              Think on this.

              Bill Frist is specifically endorsing people that hold a very specific and hardline religious viewpoint.  If he was speaking at the United Churches council or something that was supportive of people of other faiths sure then I would be okay.  

              I don't want the 4 th person in line for the presidency of the United states endorsing anything that picks one religion over another.  Same would be true if Clinton had spoken in support od a Catholic group that said Jews had false churches....or that the ISlam worships false Idols in Mecca during Ramadan.

              Come on he said Catholics had a false church not a different viewpoint

              •  The Balls part (none)
                Was only because you said that to Armando below:)
              •  I agree with everything about Frist (none)
                and the mixing of Church and State.  No disagreements there.

                But Armando's post was about a private individual, not Frist.  And frankly, I find your use of "different viewpoint" instead of "false church" to be a distinction without a difference.

                It may be politically incorrect for people of different faiths to knock on each other's views, but the truth is Jews do believe that Christians are WRONG about Jesus being the son of God.  And Christians think that the Islamic belief that Jesus was merely a prophet is a FALSE belief.  And we know what they all think about the Hindus and cows.

    •  Western religions (none)
      are very membership-based and have sharp boundaries.  I was a card-carrying Jew until I went and married a shiksah.  Now I have to show two forms of ID and recite the Sh'ma on demand.

      The whole notion of going out of your way to say the other guy's god is false is in my opinion always out of line.

      We sometimes get this kind of treatment from evangelical Christians who say we "reject Christ" or traditional Muslims who see all non-Muslims as infidels.

      But eastern religions are more accepting of multiple ways to look at the world.  Your god's ok, my god's ok.  In Hinduism, Jesus can be an avatar of God just as Vishnu and Ganesh are.

      Can I get an Amen?

      _Our President believes in DEMOCRACY... as long as people who exercise it share his world view._

      by Steve G on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:46:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Prior to 1929... (none)
      The Catholic Church refused to aknowledge that Italy existed. The Pope ordered a massive book burning in 1869. The Popes, prior to John XXIII were always reactionary when it came to the subject of religion.

      Prior to Vatican II, the official dogma of the Catholic church is that being a Protestant was a bigger sin than being Jewish.

      The Protestants just returned the favor.

    •  Who is implying what? (none)
      I disagree with your premise that believeing one religion automatically implies not only that you reject other religious beliefs for yourself, but must also, after a fashion, reject the religious beliefs on behalf of everyone.

      But moreover, I think you are missing a larger point.

      To call another religion "false" is perjorative and baiting.  And the way it is "used" in this instance, is particularly baiting, as Mr. Mohler's appearence on Larry King Live, was to accomplish just that goal.

      This is not about sharing one's religion or giving testimony.  This is about government sanctioning of those who do not.  This is about the acquisition of political power and using religious means to do so, in Frist's case.

      I will ask you this--for someone who is taking part in such a wide ranging number of religious based ideological political pursuits, does he strike you as a holy man of God?

      •  Okay, here goes (none)
        I don't believe in God. I don't believe anything is "holy". I don't believe the Pope is any more of a "man of God" than Dr. Dobson, Pat Robertson, or Al Sharpton.

        That said, the Focus on the Family crowd strikes me as a bunch of assholes that are, as you suggest, baiting others.  They appear to be rather rude about expressing their beliefs.  That makes me dislike them.  But I'm not sure it rises to the level of scandal.

        p.s. I'm not talking about Frist.

    •  Alliances... (none)
      I think you miss the point.

      Yes, certain religions implicitly contradict each other and it is nothing surprising that members of such religions should say things like this about each other.

      Its even not surprising that they should do so when politically cooperating on matters of common interest.

      OTOH, when one of them tries to motivate someone across the sectarian divide to oppose another political faction on the primary basis that that faction is aligned against their religion, the fact that the person seeking the ally is dead-set against the would-be ally's religion is something that it can be productive for those who would rather the alliance not occur to point out.

  •  Turn them against each other (none)
    Yes, divide and conqueor.

    Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

    by Benito on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:10:15 AM PDT

  •  Breaking news (4.00)
    Born-agains think everyone else is going to hell.  Film at eleven.
    •  Fox News ALERT! (none)
      The Rapture has begun. Born-agains, please begin boarding the spaceships which will depart Earth for the other side of the sun at exactly 0900 EST on April 30. For your convenience, spaceships will be leaving from Libert University in Lynchburg VA, Oral Roberts University in Tulsa OK, and the reverend Lou Sheldon's Rapture Debarcation Station in Riverside CA. Do not pack anything, toothpaste, clean underwear, and tampons will be provided by the Creator when you get there. Remember to unlock your safes and leave the keys to your safety deposit boxes on the front seat of your car.

      We the undersigned urge you to support Federal funding for research using human pluripotent stem cells. -80 Nobel Laureates to Pres. Bush

      by easong on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:21:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tampons?!?!?! (none)
        Hey hey hey - don't you know tampons are the devil's evil manhood, pushed on our innocent young girls so they will be pulled into debauchery and immoral thoughts of sexual congress?

        In case you're wondering, some do believe this, BTW.

        Big Media is hated by the GOP because they sometimes tell the truth. We should hate Big Media for the other 97 percent of the time when they don't.

        by Ugluks Flea on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:50:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  please (none)
        tell me I wont have to have a period in heaven.. if there is a god...

        I do not raise children so that they may follow standards but to free them so that they may set their own.

        by nika7k on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:53:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do we REALLY want the phrase... (none)
          ..."sexual congress" here? I may have to pluck my mind's eye out--again.
          Also, I sure hope that I don't have to use tampons after this Rapture thing, either, especially since I'm a middle-aged male...
      •  Do women qualify for rapture? (none)

        Well-behaved women rarely make history - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

        by jaysea on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:22:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Focus on your own family (4.00)

    Well-behaved women rarely make history - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

    by jaysea on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:13:19 AM PDT

  •  Same From Catholics Toward Protestants (none)
    I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood hearing the analogue of every bit of this from the Catholic kids, and more than occasionally from their parents.

    The differences between Catholics and Protestants create a huge gulf. Both branches are strenuously opposed to teachings and practices of the other, and both have a history of being in position to make or to influence life-and-death decisions over mass quantities of the others' followers.

    There is nothing new under the 6,000 year old sun here. There is no prayer of these strongly oppositional opinions disappearing. The problem for America of course is what people do about these views in their public life--and in government.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:21:19 AM PDT

  •  can't you feel the ground shifting (none)
     
    beneath these brown shirts....all cycles have their peaks and respective valleys....they don't seem to see that dropoff coming up and have just finished gorging themselves on greenbacks...

    quick..turn your head

  •  As a practicing Catholic (none)
    I have seen how much contempt these Far right Christians have for my religion. The Left Behind series was very anti-Catholic. I hope the conservative Catholics realize that they are not welcome in the Religious Right camp and are being used.
    •  Ditto! (none)
      And, I'm also wondering about some former Catholics who now attend fundie churches.  (There's a few where I live.)  Can't understand why.

      The only second term dubya deserves is 20 to life!

      by Street Kid on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:54:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How do you sort out the contradictions? (none)
      Since you are a practicing Catholic, and also a Liberal, and now there's a pope who was once a member of Hitler Youth and is now totally against what he calls "the dictatorship of relativism," who is according to the Catholic Church infallible....

      Um, is it a "true church" with a "false pope"? Because if you believe it's a "true church" with a "true pope" then how do you reconcile your own Liberal beliefs?

      From the outside, it looks like the officialdom of the Catholic Church is just another wing of the Religious Right - whatever the schisms and brotherly hatred. I'm hesitant to attack the Catholic Church as vehemintly as I sometimes do many of the Protestant sects. My own recent ancestors who were of conventional faith were Protestant, so I'm comfortable pointing out that most of the Evangelical leaders really, literally are Satanists. And I have friends who are actively evangelical who mostly agree on that. But where are the Catholics willing to call out Church leaders as ... well whatever the Catholic equivalent of "in league with the Devil" is?

      Can a church remain true as a whole when the head rots?

  •  for most people (none)
    when you insult their relegion you may as well be insulting their mother.
  •  Dobson's latest revelation (4.00)

    OMG! Spongebob is CATHOLIC!!!

    Look at that outfit--white shirt, brown pants, and a tie? C'mon, that is totally a young parochial school outfit.

    Spongebob is the disciple of a False Church! OMFG!!1!1one!!

    Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.

    by David J on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:34:44 AM PDT

    •  Saying about republicans is witty (none)
      Your quip about Republicans is really funny. I am sending it to my friends in the local democratic club. Best wishes from a state that's still Blue--so it ain't our fault . . .
  •  It's been tough (none)
               this week. All of the media curiosity about the election of the Pope, all the praise for JP2... and so much of it from people who consider the Pope and the Church the Whore of Babylon.

    And all the "no salvation but in the Catholic Church" stuff just waiting in the wings.

    So many contradictions. So little time.

  •  This may sound weird, but... (none)
    ...a small part of me---a very small part of me--- is glad that Kerry lost.

    It has allowed a very bright light to be pointed directly at the fundie thug winngut crazies and all they are capable of doing to destroy this once great country. Now it is out there for everyone to see clearly what we are up against. Obviously, everyone here knew the score and what the stakes were, but many Americans, sadly, aren't as obsessed with politics as we are. But now, even a passive consumer of news can see what the fuck is going on in this country. Had Kerry been Prez, it would have been much cloudier. Now, everyone can see what we were talking about.

    In short: we told you so.

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:50:06 AM PDT

    •  Brave statment (none)
      Lol maybe we can take back everything by 2008 and hold it for longer becasue of how crazy the fundies are:)
      •  That's the way it is looking (none)
        The bottom is falling out all over the place for Team Chimpy...and it is has given us time to build our opposition infrastructure...

        Maybe there was a silver lining to this disaster....

        I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

        by Volvo Liberal on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:06:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My only comfort at the time... (none)
          was the thought that the whole damn mess would be clearly and unequivocally Bush's fault.  If Kerry had been elected, it would have taken him a long time to fix all the disasters, if that was even possible.  Repubs could say that if Bush had only stayed in office, it would have all turned out ok; therefore, all the bad stuff was because Kerry screwed it up.  This way, try as they might, only the most devoted wingnuts won't see that Junior screwed it up ALL BY HIMSELF.  And royally, I might add.
          •  Hmmm... (none)
            Bush mucked it all up in Texas, too.

            Then he shook the dust from his shoes, walked away and went on to the Presidency.

            That's his style.  It's why he doesn't care about reckless spending, the trade deficit, the national debt, third world poverty, AIDS, the slaughter of innocent civilians in Iraq, or environmental travesty.  He doesn't care.  In his mind, he doesn't have to.  He's got one sandal out the door right now.

            Did I mention he just doesn't care?

            George Bush vacations in Texas; he LIVES in Denial.

            by Joon on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:36:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Depends... (none)
          ...on how long it takes us to undo their damage.
  •  WTF? (none)
    "Roman church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel."

    and

    Hope all Roman catholics are as pissed as I am!

    "Pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office."

    "You are Peter and (up)on this rock I will build my church"  NEW TESTAMENT

    The only second term dubya deserves is 20 to life!

    by Street Kid on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:51:35 AM PDT

  •  reality check (none)
    Why are people surprised?  There's a reason that "Christianity" isn't one vast megachurch, but rather a splintered faith composed of many churches which gasp don't all like one another (and to varying degrees).  Anyone who's surprised by this apparently needs to go back and study the Reformation.  You expected Mohler to lie?  If his faith says the Catholic Church is evil, why should he have a problem saying so?  Does he have a problem saying gays or unwed mothers are evil?  
  •  Good luck with _that_ (none)
    No way Dobson would do that, since FotF sees the Catholic Church exactly as Mohler says. When I was a teen I remember reading a flyer published by FotF on "false churches" and why the Mormons, Catholics, Jehovahs Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Scientologists, were going to hell. Of course, I do know Salazar does not actually expect Dobson to repudiate Mohler, so, well done political move.

    theJoeSpinZone|

    by joewlarson on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:03:53 PM PDT

  •  Christofascist (none)
    I used this term to describe the people meeting at the big theocracy rally this weekend and a commenter objected. Do people think this term is out of line.
    •  it might be problematic (none)
      People might interpret that word as denoting that all Christians are fascists.  To effectively attack our enemies, we should use language as precise as possible, so that we don't offend potential allies.
  •  Let's look at some other... (none)
    ...wingnuts who have gone out of their way to suck up to Catholics recently. Joe Scarborough? Sean Hannity? Others? Our Powerline friends? Any idea what their personal religions are? -- I mean, besides themselves, I mean. Those who are fundamentalist or evangelicals ought to be asked some questions about this, ya think?
    •  Catholic.... (none)
      Hannity is, I'm not a hundred percent sure, but Scarburough is too.

      If your Catholic, sucking up to the Pope is just natural.

      •  Excuse me? (none)
        That's insulting.  

        I am a Catholic who parents' best friend is a Monseignor.  I do not now, nor have I ever felt the need to suck up to any Pope.  

        I am also not thrilled with the level of anti-Catholic bigotry you presume with that statement either, nor the attempt to group other Catholics and their thought on faith in with the likes of Hannity and/or Scarborough.

        Is there such a paucity of religious bigotry in the world that people feel the need to start individual branches?

        •  Have you ever MET one? (none)
          I've seen JP2 celebrate Mass in Central Park in NYC, and have heard stories of World Youth Days in both Canada and Colorado. Millions apon millions of people sucking up to the Pope.

          JP2 let more people suck up to him than any other pope in history.

          It all has to do with hypocricy. You either buy the whole package or you don't. The Church doesn't permit divorce, so Rep.Joe Kennedy (D-MA) went to the Church and tried to bastardize his own children.

          Ted Kennedy, Joe's uncle, is a bigomist under Catholic dogma, so's John Kerry. I'd vote for either one of them, but they're both hypocrites.  

          Under the rules, the Church is supposed to withhold communion. IF they don't, the priest is at fault.

          President Kennedy was lucky enough to have been elected during the reign of John XXIII, not Benedict XVI.

          •  Suck up? (none)
             The use of the words "suck up" just doesn't fit the situation and doesn't make any sense.

            Are you yourself a Catholic?  You sound like someone looking in a window, putting bits and pieces together, and trying to figure out what is going on inside.  Without experiencing and practicing any religion, you are at a loss to really judge how it should be practiced.  No, religious practice is not black or white, all or nothing,an entire package or not.  We're working with human nature here, not robots.

            I grew up as a Catholic.  Though I don't practice it anymore, I've tasted the experience enough to know what it is all about for the members.  

            •  Um, not exactly... (none)
              Let me steal your last paragraph: I grew up as a Mormon. 4th generation. Great grandparents that walked away their families and roots and countries to follow it to Utah. I'm still surrounded by it. And though I don't practice it anymore, I've tasted the experience enough to know what it is all about for the members.

              But I don't. Not a freakin' clue about it. I get glimmers at some moments, but in general there are always some members who I consider unfathomable or utterly-damaged-goods. This holds even within my extended family. I often think to myself that I'd as easily understand Martians.

              Religion, like a lot of other mental pursuits (art, music, reading, politics) creates a different experience in everyone that partakes.

              You sort of said that in your first paragraphs, but swerved wickedly at the end. As unpleasant and negative as 'suck up' was, you have to see that there is considerable truth to saying there's an intoxicating long-term effect a leader/celebrity can have in altering someone's level of committment to some aspect of art/music/religion.

              That's why I am angling to get my kids into an upcoming visit by the Dalai Lama.

              •  Maybe I'm not defining suck up the same as others. (none)
                To suck up to something in my experience means to please, and falsly pander with the purpose of gaining favor from them.  How a person or politician would suck up to the pope is beyond me.  Pretending to admire a particular faith and or belief in order to get money,votes, and favor from the followers as the politicians are doing now, is sucking up, but that is as far as it can be stretched.  Maybe sucking up to something has a different connotation in different parts of the country.

                My last paragraph was trying to explain that just as I have no idea what it is to be familiar with Mormanism from the inside, a person who has never been a Catholic from the inside out, cannot suppose what a Catholic should do or how they should follow their religion.  An outsider in any religion does not have the experience of that religion from the perspective of feelings and emotions, and therefore can only rely on strict interpretations that they have gleened from reading literature and the "rules" of the church set down in a book.

                Therefore demanding that Catholics are only served communion if they strictly follow everysingle aspect of every teaching, as the post above was insinuating is a misunderstanding of how most Catholics live their lives.  They live them individually with their own experience, not according to strict dogma.  It is not right to stand outside of a faith and criticize and demand that Catholics not be "cafeteria" Catholics if the person with the demands is not living the life.

                You may not understand the feelings of some of the members of the Morman faith, but you are a thousand steps ahead in understanding than someone never in the church at all.

                Personal experience or a taste of something from the inside does not denie the different experience of everyone who partakes, it just helps you to understand why experiences of each person can be so different from how others or have no experience of it judge that it should be.  Outsiders can't fathom how a person can be a Catholic and not follow the dictates stictly right down to the word. They cant fathom "cafeteria" Catholics.  They shouldn't try, because they wont figure it out with out the emotional aspect of the experience.  Don't see how that idea is a wicked swerve from the rest of my comment.

  •  nota bene (none)
    just in case anybody's still worked up over the pope brouhaha of last week, that is what a god damned anti-catholic bigot looks like.
  •  Salazar is a hypocrite. (none)
    If he has problems with the religious right maybe he shouldn't vote in favor of their issues all the time. Coors lite indeed.
    •  Fine line (none)
      I know that Salazar is what most of us consider Repug-lite, but he is also a religious person, himself. And like most religious Dems he is the target of the right wing wackos moral hypocrisy, just like the rest of us... He is going to inevitably piss many of us off from time to time, but honestly, who cares as long as he fights back? In the last couple of days he has levied some clever wedge attacks on the wingnuts that help all of us...
  •  SpongeDob StickyPants (none)
    should start paying taxes.

    We have to, why shouldn't Dr. Dobson?

  •  Well, heck the Church is (none)
    false and full of crap!  Let the Catholics defend the Pope-a-dope, Democrats should stay out of the religious game. Period. Except to make it clear that the government, under Democrats, will protect peoples' right to not have religion dictated to them, or religion involved in government. No greying of the linese, as many on this thread so mindlessly would have it.

    "I haven't failed, I just found 100,000 ways that don't work." Albert Einstein

    by wilderchild on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:32:54 PM PDT

  •  opium, they're on opium (none)
    Amigos, get a grip--the RC chruch is false, the Prots are false, Jewish religion et.al.--they are all false--opium, opium is what those fuckers are soaking up--"your day will come when you enter heaven/rapture--until then just work, have babies and WATCH THE RICH TAKE YOUR PILE--" WISE UP FOLKS!!! RELIGION RACKET # 1
  •  I don't know if this has been pointed out before (none)
    I just heard NPR report that Jeb Bush will be going to Rome for the Pope's confirmation. They stated that Jeb! converted to Catholism 10 years ago.

    So he's a member of the false church.

  •  Let the religious wars begin (none)
    It will and should be a circular firing squad of those who have allied themselves with Dobson and Fallwell and their kind, because in doing so they have made a deal with the devil.

    This is the pressure point on which to hammer the religious right; not to try and attack religion itself--that only makes it stronger-- but to reduce these erstwhile religious alliances on the right to the intercinine squabbles that have characterized religion thoughout history. If you'll allow me to quote myself from a discussion of Mormons and the religious right:

    I would warn them [Mormons] that, although Jones and Falwell and thier ilk have now allied themselves with conservative Catholics, Mormons and Jews, their doctrines will require them to turn against [those same Mormons, Catholics and Jews] when the opportunity presents itself. Not if, when.

    I think it's when.

  •  Legal implications of discrimination (none)
    One aspect of this anti-Catholic bias worth exploring is the effect it would have on federal funding for faith-based organizations doing charity work, or those that held federal contracts (such as health care, school aid, etc.)
    The recent court case brought by the ACLU against having the Boy Scouts supported on federal property may be on point here. The issue was that discrimination in violation of Equal Opportunity rules would disqualify the Boy Scouts from being supported on federal installations, or by them. Thus, if there are both words like those quoted above, plus at least one overt act of discrimination (Bob Jones University?), then Focus on the Family and their affiliates should be unceremoniously shorn of federal dollars on the basis of overt religious discrimination. If we have any ACLU attorneys out there, they could fill in the blanks on this theory. 4-22-05 end message.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site