Skip to main content

This old Free Republic post contains the text of Jindal's "How Catholicism is Different" article, which is now the focus of a Democratic Party attack ad against him. It won't likely be up long, as the magazine is aggressively seeking to expunge versions of the piece from the web to protect Jindal.

Aside from the fact that it's written like a legal brief, apparently to make it seem "authoritative", it really is a slap across the face of all non-Catholic Christians. Some choice quotes:

Just as C.S. Lewis removed any room for comfortable opposition to Jesus by identifying Him as either "Lord, liar, or lunatic," so the Catholic Church leaves little room for complacent opposition to her doctrines.

Summary: Catholics are right, everyone else is wrong.

It is nearly impossible to derive the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, and other teachings which were disputed in the early Christian community, from Scripture alone without recourse to Church teachings. Sincerely motivated Christians studying the same texts have disagreed on the fundamentals of the faith, thereby dividing not only Protestants from Catholics, but also particular Protestant denominations from each other. Post-Reformation history does not reflect the unity and harmony of the "one flock" instituted by Christ [...], but rather a scandalous series of divisions and new denominations, including some that can hardly be called Christian. Yet Christ would not have demanded unity without providing the necessary leadership to maintain it. The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork; the alternative is to trust individual Christians, burdened with, as Calvin termed it, their "utterly depraved" minds, to overcome their tendency to rationalize, their selfish desires, and other effects of original sin. The choice is between Catholicism's authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy.

Summary: Catholicism is infallible, all other religions are burdened with utterly depraved minds subject to subjective interpretations leading to anarchy and heresy.

Or even more concisely: Non-Catholics are anarchic heretics.

Christ founded the Church and vested her with unique authority. The apostles, the very men who wrote much of the New Testament, were the Church's first bishops, and they appointed successors. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church traces its lineage directly to the apostles, and, thus, the Church claims to be the one Jesus founded.

Summary: Jesus was a Catholic, not a protestant.

Scripture never mentions an "invisible church," a doctrine created by individuals attempting to justify their departure from Rome; rather, it speaks forcefully of an institution blessed with a divine mission to preach the Gospel and offer the graces necessary to accomplish that mission. The Church's foundation was not built on a plurality of prophets; rather the earliest Christians were unified on doctrinal issues in one body. The Catholic Church was the only church for some 1,000 years. Given Christ's promise to be with His Church always, so that "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18), it is hard to believe that the true Faith disappeared from the world with the "fall of the Church" (dated by Protestants at various points in the first seven centuries), failing to reappear until the Reformation around the 16th century.

Summary: Anyone leaving the Catholic Church is a heretic.

One of the most consequential, and yet neglected, Reformation beliefs is the view that utterly depraved man is incapable of meaningful sanctification. This rejection of spiritual regeneration and subsequent separation of spiritual from physical realities has resulted in various widely held current beliefs, ranging from predestination to nominalism. Yet Luther was wrong to claim that our sins are as dung covered by snow, for he underestimated both God's justice and His power. Faith does more than cause God to ignore our sins, for His grace is enough to accomplish a true spiritual rebirth.

Summary: Luther was an idiot.

I trust I have provided enough evidence to indicate that the Catholic Church deserves a careful examination by non-Catholics. It is not intellectually honest to ignore an institution with such a long and distinguished history and with such an impressively global reach. I am not asking non-Catholics to investigate the claims of my neighborhood minister, but rather am presenting a 2,000-year-old tradition, encompassing giants like Aquinas and Newman, with almost a billion living members, including modern prophets like Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II.

Summary: My church is big and old and can kick your church's ass.

There's more, but the piece is pretty much unreadable. It looks impressive if you are easily impressed by cites and the such, but ultimately, it paints a picture of disdain for competing religious denominations.

As an amateur theologist, this might fly. But as a candidate for governor in Louisiana?

One last point:

"Most Americans believe we should respect one another's religion. But not Bobby Jindal," the ad says, according to a script from the Democratic Party. "He wrote articles that insulted thousands of Louisiana Protestants. He has referred to Protestant religions as scandalous, depraved, selfish and heretical." [...]

Jindal said the ad was outrageous, mischaracterizing his writings about religion. He called the ad "an attack on his Christian faith."

"They'll do anything to hold onto their power. This ad is absolutely false," he said.

The passages above definitely refer to Protestants as depraved, selfish, scandalous, and heretical. Stupid, too. Yet Jindal is -- gasp! -- lying about that!

I think Catholics have something to say about that sort of thing...

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:05 PM 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

  •  Jesus was a Catholic? (12+ / 0-)

    Must have come as a surprise to his fellow Jews.

    Besides, Paul et al. founded the Church.

    You're only young once, but you can be immature forever -- Larry Andersen
    Blogging at Peace Tree Farm

    by N in Seattle on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:06:41 PM PDT

  •  Quiet, quiet! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    N in Seattle, moosely2006

    You'll turn out the Catholic voters!

  •  Jindalus fuctus (10+ / 0-)

    losem politicum contestibus.

    "the most profligate and worst decision in the history of American foreign policy" Tom Ricks-MTP 12/10/06

    by Flann on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:11:00 PM PDT

  •  I'm a recovering catholic and I have to say, (4+ / 0-)

    even I'm offended by that bullshit...and I don't even believe in god anymore.  I used to, until I went to a Baptist high school for a year...and, in retrospect, think it's somewhat ironic that my faith (at that time) was more in tune with the Hindu religion (I asked my teachers at the time--my only being 14--if it wasn't possible that Catholics and Xians were BOTH right...that there were multiple ways of entering heaven.  Boy, did that idea get shot down with a heavy load of buckshot.)...

    Anyway, I think the attack ad is something best left to the Republicans.  Fuckin' catholics are as crazy as anyone else.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:11:15 PM PDT

    •  I REALLY don't want to come to the defense .. (5+ / 0-)

      ... of the article which is pretty absurd on its own merits, but absolutely ludicrous as political fodder .. but I do have to take just a little exception to your "catholics are as crazy as anyone else" statement.

      Certainly over the course of history I would agree and perhaps in other countries today (parts of Latin America and Africa) but in this country, at this moment I'm just not sure I can agree with you.  My devoted Catholic, Italian grandmother can be pretty crazy at times but not a quarter as insane as my born-again uncle and his fundamentalist wife ... or the lunatic Southern Baptists who live down the street ... or the evangelicals on TV and in political circles we all know and love sooo much ... or how about the apparent 2/3 of Americans who believe that sometime during their lives God is going to summon them up to Heaven while the rest of us rot back down here in Purgatory.

      Say what you will about Catholicism, and I'm a die-hard atheist so I could pretty much care less, but you do have to admit there has been a historical moderation of that particular faith which because of its doctrinal homogeneity (relative) has been less prone in recent times to the extremist, radicalized beliefs upheld in many Protestant faiths.

    •  You're just as intolerant as Jindal is... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      superdrew, Gottayo, LihTox

      Is Pelosi crazy?  How about John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy*?

      One can disagree w/ a church or its teachings while showing its members some basic respect.

      *At times, you may have a point w/ Biden.  

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:36:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is this a real reply? (0+ / 0-)

        Or are you just joking around ... 'cause I can't tell, and if you're not joking you've really got to take a moments reflection.  We're ( I at least ) am talking about broad, social, institutional swathes of people here, not individuals.  I know I employed individuals as examples but I had assumed that everyone here was nuanced enough to recognize that they were examples of a wider more prevalent problem, and to employ individuals in the manner you just did to attack my position is really quite silly.

        That you felt it necessary to point out the most obvious of positions, that "One can disagree w/ a church or its teachings while showing its members some basic respect" indicates to me that you haven't grasped  at all the principle point of my post.

      •  Sorry for above, thought you're reply was to me (0+ / 0-)
    •  Catholics ARE Christians (0+ / 0-)

      The only ones worth a damn, IMNSHO.

      I weigh 666 pounds in zero gravity; COME AND GET ME!

      by thirdnostril on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:09:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I resent being called "crazy" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluestateLIBertarian

      I am a practicing Catholic and am offended by your statement. You have every right not to agree with the Church and to pick your own religion, but that doesn't give you the right insult those who choose to remain Catholic.

  •  freakin' idiot (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    N in Seattle, Mad Mom

    You don't pay any attention to what your parents tell you, but you watch the way they live their lives...Tom Waits

    by lisastar on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:11:54 PM PDT

  •  No wonder they're scrubbing it (10+ / 0-)

    It is nearly impossible to derive the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, and other teachings which were disputed in the early Christian community, from Scripture alone without recourse to Church teachings.

    That's because the official Church position on the Godhead is the product of 4th century Imperial succession politics (read "assassinations"), not scripture.  The elite sponsors of the other position/s all wound up dead.  

    Cuius regio, eius religio.  God has nothing to do with it.  
    .

  •  I feel bad for (5+ / 0-)

    Jesus and our country's founding fathers.  So much of what they envisioned screwed up by stupid people over time.

  •  Jesus was Jewish until he resurrected (5+ / 0-)

    That's when he became Catholic.

    Everybody knows that.

    What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?- Micah 6:8

    by Mad Mom on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:14:27 PM PDT

    •  Hmmm, tough to do (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      N in Seattle, Overseas, lilyvaldem

      after the resurrection since Peter hadn't gotten around to founding the Church -- and then Jesus ascended into heaven 40 days later -- then Peter didn't know the word, Catholic, just went with the secret Christian society thing till he got caught and crucified upside down.

      That is all for now.  

      My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:20:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks, It Wasn't Convoluted Enough Yet (0+ / 0-)

        And since he's God, if he says he founded the Church upon his Resurrection, then that's what it is.

        It's all based on belief, anyway. I don't see why any non-Catholics should give a crap about one Catholic bigot says. Let alone athiests.

        I weigh 666 pounds in zero gravity; COME AND GET ME!

        by thirdnostril on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:14:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  why to give a crap? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mad Mom

          People with extreme religious beliefs have the bad habit of bringing them into the public sphere and using them to guide public policy.  I don't see any way to make sense of our policy in the Middle East while avoiding discussion of religion.  

          Intentionally breaking the law is an impeachable offense. (Duh!)

          by RickD on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:29:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Trying to guess (0+ / 0-)

    what you're alluding to with that last sentence...
    Is it that Catholics say not to bear false witness?
    Or is it that Catholics say let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
    Or is it that Catholics say judge not, lest ye be judged?

  •  I hate to agree with Jindal (10+ / 0-)

    I am from Louisiana.  I hate the fucking Republican Party.  Bobby Jindal is nothing but a styrofoam Bush cut-out.  I wouldn't vote for little Bobby Jindal if he were running against Pol Pot.

    But attacking Jindal this way absolutely apalls me.  Being a Catholic, or a Democrat or anything means you disagree on certain issues with non-Catholics or non-Republicans.  Duh.

    I do not find these things to be so odd. I don't think his discussion in a religious forum is a proper subject of political discourse.

    •  Agree--Very Rovian (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kck, greenearth, anniebee

      I thought only GOP spins the truth  and I am disappointed we are also doing it.

      35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in Matt 25: 35;

      by timber on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:26:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kck

        Rove would at least have had the common sense to have the Swift Boat Veterans for Protestantism launch the ad.  Or maybe launch a whisper campaign through the LSU law school.  When we try to smear someone, we make sure it says LOUISIANA DEMOCRATIC PARTY right across the bottom line.

        I'm pretty unimpressed with the LDP, and kinda shocked that kos took this particular line of argument and reiterated it point for point across his front page.  This is one of the most clear regurgitations of a party-sponsored talking point I have ever seen here, and while there's nothing wrong with that, I'm a little surprised kos was willing to sign on in this particular case .

        And furthermore, this is hardly a good way to target voters in Northern Louisiana who are leaning GOP.  If you're going to make a seedy hit, you do it where no one but the intended audience will see you... not on the front page of a blog like this one.  Now not just the LDP but the friggin Daily Kos has called Jindal anti-Protestant, and everyone knows it.  I can't see any upside to that, and I can see some potential future downside.  This is neither the most graceful nor the most credible argument to have been published to this front page, and credibility and class are both useful kinds of social capital to maintain.

        But whatever.  I don't know what I'm talking about, and there's a reasonably good chance that kos does.

      •  I'm sorry but they would do it to us (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lilyvaldem, golconda2

        I think that this is a legitimate ad, especially given the fact that Jindal is relying heavily on Protestant fundamentalists to win.

    •  A priest brought the Archbishop of Canterbury... (7+ / 0-)

      to Las Vegas in the mid-60s as the post-Vatican II concept of ecumenism took hold.  That priest was my uncle.  While he was ordained in 1941, he gave the same respect to other faith traditions that he expected others to give to his.  When he left Las Vegas in 1970, the local Jewish community gave him a trip to the Holy Land.

      Jindal's respect (or lack thereof) for other faith traditions is an essential issue for public discourse.  As wavering Vatican II Catholic who is deeply concerned by the Church's current drift, I am appalled by the views expressed by Jindal.  If I saw a Baptist or a Methodist public figure express similar views about Catholicism, I'd be equally appalled.

      Governing in a pluralistic society requires a respect for faith traditions other than your own.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:31:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And this leads to public dissection (0+ / 0-)

        of a candidates underlying religious dogma? Ooh I see this as a terribly slippery slope to bigotry and  religious litmus test.

        Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

        by kck on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:35:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's NOT a question of dogma... (5+ / 0-)

          It's a question of respect. If you want to hold public office in Ireland, Spain or Italy, I guess that you can do so while saying that Protestants are heathens.  If you want to do so in a pluralistic society like the US, you must show basic respect for people of other faiths.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:39:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I hate to break it to you... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Radlein, kck

          but there already is a religious litmus test for public office as a result of the widespread bigotry against atheists - bigotry which has been encouraged by the Rethuglican party.

          Here are the percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years:

               Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%)
               Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%)
               Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%)
               Baptist: 6%
               Woman: 8%
               Mormon: 17%
               Muslim: 38%
               Gay: 37% (1978: 74%)
               Atheist: 48%

          Over 40 Years of Research Show Atheists Are Despised, Distrusted

          •  Yup, you're right, add to that bigotry (0+ / 0-)

            And where's "Women" on that list? This Democratic ad in Markos' post appeals on a level of such cultural distance it clashes and seems to inadvertently be the same kind of bigotry.

            Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

            by kck on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:39:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Respecting other faiths? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        timber, LihTox, anniebee

        Respecting other faiths does not mean giving up one's own.  It means agreeing to disagree.

        This idiotic attack ad shows incredible disrespect for Catholicism.  The idiots here who cheer such shit are bigots in the true sense of the word.

        If Bobby Jindal were publishing stuff bragging about how holy he was or trying to "define" his opponents as being unholy, then fine, his "religious" views would be open to discussion.

        But what he published was about what it means to be Catholic.  Attacking him on this is just plain wrong.

        If you're comfortable being a bigot, have at it.  

        •  Jindal called me an anarchic heretic... (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AlanF, neroden, lilyvaldem, chigh, ksliberal1

          He states: "The choice is between Catholicism's autoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy." The Magisterium silenced Leonardo Boff, drove him from the priesthood, and killed off Liberation Theology.  It attacked Anthony DeMello, whose works I pull out at least once a week, years after his death.

          Thomas Merton, another favorite of mine, was forbidden to write about war and peace issues in the early 60s.  Teilhard de Chardin's writings were largely suppressed until after his death.  The list of great Catholic thinkers who felt the heavy hand of the Magisterium is endless.

          If those views make me a bigot, so be it.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:06:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Take it as a compliment? (0+ / 0-)

            The anarchist intellectual tradition is quite solid, and "heresy" is synonymous with "thought crime".

            -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

            by neroden on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:17:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Jindal is a lay person (0+ / 0-)

            Bobby Jindal does not represent the Magisterium.  Is it your point that Bobby Jindal is somehow linked to perceived or real abuses of the Magisterium?

            Is it your point that a lay person who believes in the Magisterium concept is by definition a bigot?

    •  It absolutely is ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RFK Lives, kck

      Afterall he is running to become a governor not a bishop/pope.

      Afterall even Pope was critisized for saying only catholics will go to heaven (or something similar).

      What the statements show is that Bobby is a bigot. And that needs to be known by the electorate. He can always either stand behind that statement or say he has changed his ideas. Electorate can vote accordingly.

      You can keep talking about your "faith" in public but not discuss what that faith really says.

      Policing a civil war is not "Progress". End the Occupation Now.
      Now Reading : Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv.

      by nataraj on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:33:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Golly Gee (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mad Mom

      I hadn't thought of the Free Republic as a religious forum.  Sounds like it's good politics as long as the conservatives know and everyone else doesn't.

      Some forum.

    •  I'd like to agree, but (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Treg, jfadden, lilyvaldem, golconda2

      let's not forget which party decided that they were going to create an official religion and try to make second-class citizens out of anyone who disagrees with it. (And it's not Catholicism, by the way.)

      So, anyone who wants to run on the Republican ticket better have a really thick skin as far as their religious beliefs.

      Anything that any candidate publishes is fair game, anyway (more rules the Republicans made).

      I may not agree with it, but if you want to beat them at their own game, you have to play by their rules.

      "When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong." -Eugene V.Debs

      by ksliberal1 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:06:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Religious Fight (0+ / 0-)

      Got to fight them on their own turf so we don't have to fight them on ours.

  •  Jindal: A Uniter, Not a Divider. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RFK Lives, ksliberal1

    If you're Catholic.

    Man, guys like this must give Jesus ogeda.

    What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?- Micah 6:8

    by Mad Mom on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:18:55 PM PDT

  •  Uh, so many errors, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    N in Seattle, Ray Radlein, Mad Mom

    so little time.  I guess Jindal didn't do too much exegesis study.  The apostles were dead when the gospels were written.

    The Church (as in the one true Catholic) is ridden with scandal and crazy talk.  

    If he doesn't make governor, he can put his name in for the next Pope since he's following the same goofiness.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:18:58 PM PDT

  •  Potestants and Catholics (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RFK Lives, jfdunphy, lilyvaldem

    made surprising bedfellows in the Republican party the last few years (along with the Hagee Christians united for Israel)... so much so I was wondering when they might take that final leap and bring in some apocalyptic Muslims into the fray.

    It is comforting seeing these major religions go tribal again and start jockeying for power.  Now that the alliance future is still born it makes perfect sense to return to  the age old conflict.

    I don't have a problem with attack ads, especially ones designed to enlighten the public as to a representatives true beliefs.

    The Democratic Coalition will continue to be the Big Tent for all religions that realize that faith is method for deeper understanding of the mind, spirit and community at large, where no one religion is holding all the Aces.

     

    •  I Don't Know Any Catholic Republicans Under 60 (0+ / 0-)

      I think you're smearing Catholics by associating them with the criminal Republican organization.

      I weigh 666 pounds in zero gravity; COME AND GET ME!

      by thirdnostril on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:18:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  O Contrare Monfraire (0+ / 0-)

        Speaking from the gut, I've always thought that Catholics were generally apolitical... at best issue voters.  However in the last 20 years the Republicans have galvanized politics with issues, many drawn straight from conservative Catholic planks (Abortion, Stem Cell, Gay Marriage)

        I have a feeling many of the Catholics OVER 60 were Democrats and certainly turned out in force for JFK.  However the 1960's sexual revolution, 1970's economic crisis turned much of them to Ronald Reagan in the 1980's... but many still remained faithful to Democratic roots (Irish Italian, Unions)

        Here's a link to a recent study

        http://www.catholicvote.net/...

        Catholics unfortunately, especially practicing Catholics tend to be Republicans.  With the new crazed Pope what do you expect?

        Unsurprising to me, after being raised Catholics the Thanksgiving gossip about the recent power grab within the church has moved power away from the liberal jesuits (original liberals) over to the PAC-communion forbidding anti-commie neo-cons like ol' Rat.  That along with the deplorable Sex scandals has all but made the last of the liberal Catholics stop attending church and say bye-bye.  The leftovers are cranky wack-o's who brought their Sunday school kids to see snuff film, The Passion.

  •  I'm always amazed at how the bastions of "love" (0+ / 0-)

    can spew so much ridicule, derision and hate.

    Let's Grow Our Own Candidates!

    by moosely2006 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:24:12 PM PDT

  •  Dems should not go there (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    texas dem, kck, andrew330, anniebee

    I believe in what Jindal said--basically reiterating the Pope and the Catholic teaching.

    What Jindal said is no different from what Christians think of Hinduism, Islam, etc.

    Every Religion thinks they are the right religion.  So Jindal was talking in the religious viewpoint not saying about members of other faiths.

    So I think you are spinning when you claim he does not respect people of different faith.

    That is very Rovian and one reason I dont like GOP politics.

    35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in Matt 25: 35;

    by timber on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:24:39 PM PDT

    •  If you write it, you own it. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RFK Lives, Treg, Mad Mom, chigh, golconda2

      It is one thing to think something, yet another to publish it.  Sorry, but the Republicans have played the religion game for quite awhile.  I think his writings are scary, to tell you the truth.  Lock-step belief in this kind of Catholocism is divisive.  

      My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:33:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  LA is a Catholic State --French (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anniebee

        This spinning is not going to work and will backfire.

        Because what Jindal says is what any Catholic believes and is a teaching of the Catholic Church.

        In fact, I am a Catholic and I am mad about kos post--and I am mad that we are engaging in Rovian spinning.

        35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in Matt 25: 35;

        by timber on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:36:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If it backfires, it backfires (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Treg, Mad Mom, chigh, Bronx59

          it isn't as if the guy has a real challenger.  I'd rather see folks point out what he actually said -- and I think it is offensive.

          My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

          by gchaucer2 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:40:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is the Truth (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anniebee

            Catholic Church believes they are the one true Church and I sincerely believe it is the Church the Jesus founded as it can trace its papacy to St Peter.

            But this is a religious point of view.  It is religion.  Muslims will also say non-Muslims are infidels,  Jewish people will also say--non Jews are heretics, etc.

            This is about religion and should not be used for politics.

            35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in Matt 25: 35;

            by timber on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:44:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I have 2 kids in Catholic schools, and I... (9+ / 0-)

          don't believe it.  I obtained my undergrad education at this country's most prominent Catholic university, and I wasn't taught that view there.  While I was taught to cherish the Catholic faith, I was also taught to respect other faiths.

          Any public figure who shows this level of utter disdain for others' beliefs deserves all the flak he/she gets.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:42:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is nothing in the speech that says this (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lombard, kck, anniebee

            That was the spin by Kos.

            Jindal in his speech was giving a theological viewpoint of why the Catholic Church is the true Church.

            It is wrong for Kos or Dems to spin the speech otherwise.

            It is very disappointing.

            35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in Matt 25: 35;

            by timber on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:49:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The ad is distorted and unfair. I'm not Catholic, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              timber, kck

              and dislike the aspects of Catholic dogma that Jindal is pushing, but I think it's downright warped to say that he calls Protestants selfish, depraved, scandalous and heretics. It's a blatant distortion of his writing.  It's spin. It's deceptive. I don't like seeing the Democrats do this.

              For instance.

              He says that if you don't rely on the "magisterial" tradition of the Catholic church (which they believe trades all the way back to the apostles) to interpret the Bible, then it's left up to individuals, all of whom have their rationalizations and selfish desires that will influence how they see things.  Okay, I don't believe in the "magisterium" of the Catholic CHurch, and dislike that whole argument.  But he's not calling Protestants "selfish" except in the most general sense that all human beings have selfish desires, rationalizations, and other things that can distort their views.  He's not saying Catholics don't have those things too -- as a traditional Catholic he would agree they do.  They just (in his view) have extra help in clearly understanding the Bible, because they have the traditions that extend all the way back to Jesus and his apostles.

              To pull one word out of the context of his argument and say that Jindal calls Protestants "selfish" is purely distortion.  Jindal is well within reason to call it a lie.  It falsifies what he said.  

              Democrats don't need to play this kind of clever word-twisting lying game in order to take a lot more elections next year. And they shouldn't do it.  The ad is a bad idea.  It may well backfire on them if Jindal makes an issue of it in Catholic areas. ANd if it backfires, the Dems would deserve it.

              •  As for the other charges -- (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                timber, kck

                When he first uses the word "depraved," it is in a QUOTE, for god's sake.  He is quoting from Calvin, a major early Protestant figure.  It's rather snide, in context, for him to bring up that quote, but he is definitely NOT calling Protestants depraved.  In fact, he goes on to argue AGAINST the Calvinist concept of "utterly depraved man."  Saying he calls Protestants depraved is flat out false.

                He refers to the "scandalous" divisions of the Protestant churches.  Some Protestants would take offense.  But I've heard many Protestants, especially in the ecumenical movement, use that very same word.  It may refer back to a biblical quote; I'm not sure.  But many Protestants do consider it a "scandal" that Christianity has broken into so many different and often quarreling factions.

                And at no point does Jindal refer to Protestants themselves as scandalous.  There is a big difference.  He's pointing to a flaw in their system, not pronouncing judgement on individuals.

                Finally, Jindal says that the many divisions within Protestantism, the proliferation of individual interpretations with all their flaws, leads to anarchy and heresy.  He does not say that all Protestants are heretics, but that their tendency to split and split and split has produced some heretical sects.  

                Again, I dislike his arguments, but that's no excuse for distorting them and slandering him.

                The fact is that neither liberal Protestants nor liberal Catholics have much use for the concept of heresy any more.  But traditional Catholics regard Protestants as heretics, and traditional Protestants return the favor.  This does not necessarily mean that they hate each other or think the other has nothing of value in their tradition.  It means they each think the other church has gotten the message of Christ wrong in significant ways that limit the value of their teaching and work in the world.  THis is a theological argument that should not concern us one way or the other, directly.  Indirectly -- well, if I know someone is that traditional in their theology, I will want to look at their record carefully to make sure that in their political life they are tolerant and accepting of differences.  Beyond that, it's not my affair.

                I'm more concerned about my party being willing to spin a man's words so far out of synch with his meaning, than with his theology in and of itself.  

                •  Exorcism (0+ / 0-)

                  Jindal performed an exorcisim while in school.  There are factions of the Catholic Church that do not tolerate any other religion.  Only a converted Hindu could possibly hook up with that the intolerant Catholics.

                  •  I'm not going to vote for Jindal, ever. But (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    timber

                    I still don't want the Democrats running a false & distorted ad against him. This party has to become more trustworthy than the Republicans, and than it has been.  Fight hard, campaign hard, use tough tactics, but don't distort and spin to where the ad is a lie.

                •  "depraved" (0+ / 0-)

                  When he first uses the word "depraved," it is in a QUOTE, for god's sake.

                  Let's look at the context here:

                  The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork; the alternative is to trust individual Christians, burdened with, as Calvin termed it, their "utterly depraved" minds, to overcome their tendency to rationalize, their selfish desires, and other effects of original sin.

                  Your criticism is inadequate.  You are implying that Kos is misapplying quoted language to the person using the quote.  But Kos is correct.  Jindal is using the word "depraved" and saying that Calvin would use that word to describe individual minds.  Clearly the quotation is used with approval and Jindal is agreeing with the sentiment Calvin expressed.  Jindal is not merely discussing Calvin's attitude dispassionately.  Instead, he is using Calvin's term to describe his own feelings on the issue.

                  Intentionally breaking the law is an impeachable offense. (Duh!)

                  by RickD on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:00:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  That's What They Taught Me Too (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RFK Lives

            But let's not take away the kids' little Catholic-bashing party!

            I weigh 666 pounds in zero gravity; COME AND GET ME!

            by thirdnostril on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:20:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Way of Teaching (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RFK Lives

            During teh 50's and early 60's, Catholics were not allowed to even enter another church.  The current pope and people like Jindal and Vitter are bringing us back to those days.  

        •  Wrong...overwhelming Protestant in the north... (0+ / 0-)

          ...of the state and Catholic in the south. Which is exactly why Jindal's position is controversial.

    •  Hindu (0+ / 0-)

      How does Jindal justify the religion of his family, which is Hindu?  Are they going to hell, might be why there are family problems.  How does he justify himself, an original Hindu?  Jindal is ridiculous, does not know what he thinks.

  •  I read the whole thing -- it's good and (11+ / 0-)

    it is being misrepresented.

    Jindal wraps up thusly:

    I trust I have provided enough evidence to indicate that the Catholic Church deserves a careful examination by non-Catholics. It is not intellectually honest to ignore an institution with such a long and distinguished history and with such an impressively global reach...

    Nonetheless, the Catholic Church must live up to her name by incorporating the many Spirit-led movements found outside her walls. For example, the energy and fervor that animate the Baptist and Pentecostal denominations, the stirring biblical preaching of the Lutherans and Calvinists, and the liturgical solemnity of the Anglicans must find expression within Catholicism...

    The challenge is for all Christians to follow Jesus wherever He leads; one significant part of that challenge is to consider seriously the claims of the Catholic Church.

    If one is anti-Catholic, one can dismiss his defense of the faith. But this is not hateful writing.

    •  Intellectual honesty .... (5+ / 0-)

      It is not intellectually honest to ignore an institution with such a long and distinguished history and with such an impressively global reach.

      So -- what does he think about Islam?  (Or, for that matter, Hinduism?)

      I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
      the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

      by Major Danby on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:28:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Uh, oh. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chigh

        Now there, he could be a uniter, I'm sure.

        My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

        by gchaucer2 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:30:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They're Not Institutions (0+ / 0-)

        While it may be an interesting question, it doesn't follow if you accept his focus on the institution of the Roman Catholic Church.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:30:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They are. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Overseas

          Pls read your history of Shiites or Dalai Lama or some of the ancient Matts of Hindus.

          http://www.sringerisharadapeetham.or...

          Policing a civil war is not "Progress". End the Occupation Now.
          Now Reading : Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv.

          by nataraj on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:51:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (0+ / 0-)

            There is no trans-national Shiite religious institution that claims universal and exclusive truth for the Islamic faith.  Yes, there are institutions and schools in Iran that educate non-Persians, and within Iran there is a recognized hierarchy of Imams.  But Imams don't take orders from higher-level Imams.  

            And don't assume I haven't read about Shia Islam, or that I don't have dozens of Lebanese Shiite friends, or that I haven't had meetings with Imams.

            As for Tibetan Buddhism, I don't claim much knowledge, but the fact that it's Tibetan and unlike the RCC is not trans-national or with claims of universality seems to support my point and not yours.  

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by Dana Houle on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 04:34:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  As the commenter below notes (0+ / 0-)

          you can certainly make a case for parts of Islam having both long-lasting institutions and global reach.  As for Hinduism, my interest there is the time span, far exceeding that of Christianity.  If mere longevity is an argument that one must respect Catholic precepts, why isn't it an argument for Hinduism as well?

          I imagine that you'll say that he's saying that the Church has both and that's what matters.  Oh well.

          I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
          the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

          by Major Danby on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:35:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know (5+ / 0-)

        He was writing about Catholicism in the context of Christian thought, and responding to attacks on it.

        I'm a lapsed Catholic, and I am very disappointed at the direction of Benedict. But to portray this as anything other than current Catholic teaching is dishonest.

        •  I respectfully disagree (7+ / 0-)

          that this is current Catholic teaching.  It might be current Vatican spin, but not what is taught by enlightened Catholic theologians.  I don't even want to get into the disconnect between this archaic reasoning and what is happening in Central and South American churches.  

          Most Catholics I know cringe every time this Pope opens his mouth.

          My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

          by gchaucer2 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:36:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not sure you are disagreeing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            scrutinizer

            Per the authority of the Pope, "Vatican spin" is "current Catholic teaching," as many enlightened Catholoic theologians have learned over the years.

            •  2 enlightened Catholic theologians are friends... (6+ / 0-)

              of mine.  They both hold tenured positions at Catholic universities, and neither of them parrots current Vatican spin.

              Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

              by RFK Lives on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:44:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Did you ask them a direct question? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Elwood Dowd

                They may avoid it answering the question but there is a reason why they are Catholics.

                Ask them directly if they think Catholic Church is the one true Church Jesus founded.

                35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in Matt 25: 35;

                by timber on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:01:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Enlightended Catholics have cognitive dissonance. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                scrutinizer, RFK Lives, Elwood Dowd

                Papal leadership anyone?  Disagreement with Vatican spin tends to get Catholics suppressed by the, uh, Vatican, which also spreads a bunch of doctrines about Papal authority, and claims that you have to accept them to be Roman Catholic,.... and the Vatican claims the right to prevent tenured teachers from teaching at Catholic universities if they disagree on doctrine, and so on and so on......

                Well, Vatican II took a rather different tack, supporting episcopacy, but the reactionaries since then are clearly trying to destroy the legitimacy the Catholic Church gained then.

                -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

                by neroden on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:25:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Well, at least thanks to Jindal's writing (0+ / 0-)

          we can bring these disagreements into the public political sphere, where they belong!

          </snark>

          I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
          the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

          by Major Danby on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:38:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hindu (0+ / 0-)

        His family are Hindus, he is a Catholic convert, sort of like a reformed smoker.

    •  True, that particular quote is tamer than (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden

      a lot of the "candidate" diaries in this web site!

      However, although some of the criticism may be unfair, there were some troubling (no, not hateful) lines in the other quotes above, like:

      ...the alternative is to trust individual Christians, burdened with, as Calvin termed it, their "utterly depraved" minds, to overcome their tendency to rationalize, their selfish desires, and other effects of original sin. The choice is between Catholicism's authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy.

      The first sentence says thinking for your self will lead to depravity, and the last sentence says the choice is between theocracy and anarchy.

      "I beseech you,... think it possible you may be mistaken." -- Cromwell/Bronowski

      by jockyoung on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:47:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  JFK believed this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mad Mom

        I guess you now cannot be Catholic and progressive.  Sad.  In 1960s it was conservatives who were the anti-Catholic bigots.

        •  JFK certainly did not believe this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          golconda2

          JFK did not believe that the only two possibilities were theocracy and anarchy.  

          Criticizing a Catholic for his extreme theology is not the same as "anti-Catholic bigotry".  You need to learn what those words mean.

          Intentionally breaking the law is an impeachable offense. (Duh!)

          by RickD on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:01:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Again, it's not a bizarre personal interpretation (0+ / 0-)

        IMHO. The doctrine of original sin warns us of our weakness. The "depraved" business is a cute debating trick of bringing Protestant Calvin onto the stand to speak on Jindal's behalf.

        I'd prefer his last sentence were "which can lead to anarchy and heresy," but this also seems relatively tame.

        •  It is a depraved argument, of course (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lilyvaldem

          Arguing that obeying the views of a Church hierarchy is better than thinking for yourself is pretty much depraved theocratic thinking.

          But it is a pretty common view, true.

          In this case, it's a hierarchy which has been notoriously corrupt and self-serving, particularly from 1000-1945 or so.  Most right-wing Protestants prefer brand new corrupt and self-serving Church hierarchies, ones which are less than a hundred years old....

          Thankfully most Catholics in the West have pretty much abandoned the evil anti-thought doctrine of total papal and Vatican authority.  Unfortunately it's still officially promoted.  It retreated in favor of a more democratic episcopalian attitude during Vatican II, which accounted for the revival of the Catholic Church at that time.  But since then it's just been progressively more reactionary at the center.

          -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

          by neroden on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:38:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  actually (0+ / 0-)

            a good percentage of the Catholics of the West have not only abandoned the "evil anti-thought doctrine of total papal and Vatican authority", they have also abandoned the Catholic Church entirely.  For example, take a look at church attendance figures in Italy, the home of the Roman Catholic church.  

            I do not quite understand how people decide to pick and choose which religious beliefs of a given religion are those that they will take seriously, and which they will discard.  The problem with Jindal's commentary is not that it does not reflect Catholic theology accurately.  Indeed, it does.  Most Catholics do not really adhere to the dogma of their own church.  But the fact of the last sentence does not mean that a public airing of Catholic dogma constitutes anti-Catholic bigotry.  

            It is a bizarre line of argument that says that religions must be respected to the point that we cannot honestly discuss their own belief systems!

            Intentionally breaking the law is an impeachable offense. (Duh!)

            by RickD on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:06:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Which all sounds really good (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lilyvaldem

      but it's just a patronizing pat on the head.

      The Catholic church has no intention of welcoming the Baptists and Pentecostals into its membership, unless they renounce their heathen ways and repent and become baptized in the one, true faith.

      It's a little bit hard to think of the Catholic church as an institution with a long and "distinguished" history. The beginnings of that church caused the persecution of many of Christ's followers for many generations.  And they are still being persecuted today by the Catholic church's teachings.

      Sorry, don't have too much sympathy for that; don't think it is very Christian.

      "When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong." -Eugene V.Debs

      by ksliberal1 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:17:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And vice versa. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Major Danby

        The Catholic church has no intention of welcoming the Baptists and Pentecostals into its membership, unless they renounce their heathen ways and repent and become baptized in the one, true faith.

        That seems to be the rules of the game among most Christian faiths. When I was a kind in the 1950s my Protestant friends believed I would go to Hell, and I was taught the same of them.

      •  Not too difficult (0+ / 0-)

        The Catholic church has no intention of welcoming the Baptists and Pentecostals into its membership, unless they renounce their heathen ways and repent and become baptized in the one, true faith.

        Actually, Baptists have been baptized and would be welcomed as such. Christians generally believe in one baptism, not two or three.  If they want to be Catholics though, they would need to believe what Catholics believe. If they want to believe what Baptists believe, they should just stay Baptist. If they decide to become atheists, then they should believe what atheists believe. It's not so hard to understand or quite as sinister as you make it sound.

    •  I wouldn't say it is good, but... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Elwood Dowd

      ...it certainly isn't some kind of extremist bit of religious hate speech.  It is just a rather milquetoast-y rehearsal of the standard defenses of the Catholic Church: that fallible humans need institutional structures (preferably those descended from the early Christian church), that the Catholic Church is the only church to offer a viable unification of all christians, and that human beings can mitigate their sinfulness under the tutelage of a Catholic community.  

      I don't buy any of this for a minute, but it is the Catholic catechism, and the insinuation of the ad seems unjustified.  On the other hand, the more that can be done to get hard right "christians" (Catholics and Protestants) to start going after each others doctrinal differences, the better for the rest of us.

      By the way, the "depraved mind" bit is standard Calvinism: the first principle of the Synod of Dort is that all human faculties, in comparison to the omniscience and omnipotence of God, are depraved and cannot be trusted to give reliable insight into anything.  It is a troubling idea, and one that leads to all kinds of theological contortions within Protestantism, but it isn't a smear dreamed up by Jindal.    

  •  This just goes to show (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    golconda2

    the Republicans have kept the Wingnuts out of view for a while now but they are still alive and well in the Republican party.  

    "We will get fooled again" Me

    by givemhellHarryR on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:25:50 PM PDT

  •  I wonder if Jindal also.. (0+ / 0-)

    ..believes that the anti-Christ was born in 1999 because  "...makes it year 999ad thats three upside down sixes."

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    My soul has dwelt too long with one who hates peace. I am for peace; But when I speak, they are for war.-Psalms 120-6,7.

    by wyvern on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:26:31 PM PDT

    •  Not if he is Catholic (0+ / 0-)

      Catholics do not believe in the "rapture" and all the left behind stuff. That is mainly an American Protestant invention of the 1800s. I have enough problems as it is without trying to keep up with that twisted mess.

  •  Yet more proof of Democratic Message Minimalism (0+ / 0-)

    He wrote articles that insulted thousands of Louisiana Protestants

    Protestants may be outnumbered by Scientologists in Louisiana.  Or maybe more than "thousands" were insulted.

    •  Thousands, yes thousands (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      timber, Treg, lilyvaldem

      As of 2000, the Roman Catholic Church was the largest Christian denomination, with 1,382,603 church members. The leading Protestant denominations were the Southern Baptist Convention, 768,587; the United Methodist Church, 160,153; Assemblies of God, 49,041; and the Episcopal Church, 33,653. There were about 16,500 Jews residing in Louisiana in 2000, a majority of them in New Orleans. The Muslim community had about 13,050 members. Voodoo, in some cases blended with Christian ritual, is more widespread in Louisiana than anywhere else in the United States, although the present number of practitioners is impossible to ascertain. Over 1.8 million people (about 41.2% of the population) did not claim any religious affiliation in the 2000 survey.

      There are no statistics on Scientologists in Louisiana.

  •  I am sure the feeling is mutual. (0+ / 0-)

    We will move on when God finally dies.

  •  Need more info before I support this ad (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not addressing the content of Jindal's writing - I don't care what this candidate's personal religious beliefs are - but if his original piece was written for a religious audience, and it sounds as if it was, isn't using his religious musings a case of mixing religion and state or more appropriately discrimination on religious grounds?

    There are difference in religions and sects, one can assume they're for reasons, historical or otherwise, and up for discussion within those sects...I can see your translations, kos, as being very different within a catholic context.

    Do we want only atheists or religious people who have never expressed or challenged dogma?

    If Jindal's original work was intended for public distribution then I support the ad and otherwise I see it as potentially illegal discrimination.

    Note: I am not catholic, never heard of this guy before and live in the CA-49th.

    Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

    by kck on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:30:53 PM PDT

  •  My experience in Louisiana... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    N in Seattle

    ...there are only two types of Catholics: Those that are and those that aren't. In LA there are two rails that will kill a politician....one is Catholics and the other is African Americans. I suggest the LA D's tred lightly.They are offering an argument that they can't win...at least not in that state.

  •  Tolerance and "respect" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    texas dem, neroden, ThomasB

    It has never been in the nature of Americans to "respect" religions other than their own. Almost every religion has the delusion that they alone know the secrets of the universe and hold exclusively the keys to some pleasant afterlife. In America, we tolerate all religions, and leave everyone free to follow their own delusions as long as they don't mess with anyone else.

    It follows, therefore, that we must tolerate the delusions of exclusivity promulgated by almost all religions. It is no big deal. Just smile indulgently and walk on by.

    I'm a linguist, licensed to use words any way I want to!

    by MakeChessNotWar on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:33:38 PM PDT

  •  Lapsed Catholic (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mad Mom, neroden, marykk

    My church is big and old and can kick your church's ass.

    After a lifetime of being denigrated by Protestants, I'm ashamed to admit that I smiled when I read that about Catholicism.  But . . . I am agnostic and try not to worry too deeply about doctrinal hairsplitting, save to note that this kind of Catholic bigotry is , if not refreshing, then, well, alternatively putrid.

    I have seen the fnords.

    by rhubarb on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:33:47 PM PDT

  •  I'm glad that you posted this in full, Kos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rhubarb, Mad Mom

    I'm not sure that this is as damning as the LA Dem Party suggests -- mostly because I think coming to a conclusion on that would take more time that I'm willing to devote -- but I do agree with your implicit stance that you're on safe ground re criticism and news reporting here so far as copyright issues are involved.  Kudos on having the guts to go ahead with it.  Copyright is not meant to foster embargoes.

    I hope that you'll post a PDF of at least the first page of the article as it appears in the journal so that people know that it's the real deal.

    I manage, but except where indicated do not speak for,
    the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign in CA-42. Join us!

    by Major Danby on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:34:30 PM PDT

  •  He's a Catholic and he's explaining why. (5+ / 0-)

    That's no crime.

    Kos, you should beat the crap out of Jindal for his political philosophy, his allegiance to Bush, and any other relevant topic you can think of, but this attack is off base.

    Catholics do believe, deeply, in the central importance of a single Catholic (and catholic) Church.  That's why they're Catholics.  Jindal isn't doing anything outside the mainstream -- he's engaging in a serious theological debate about why he belongs to the Church he does.  Theologians have been working on these issues for millennia, and to expect anyone to ignore the issue because it's uncomfortable is completely unfair.

    And if he thinks everyone else is going to hell (which I seriously doubt -- plenty of other serious people believe that strictly speaking there's "no salvation outside the Church" but that a whole lot of people still get in through loopholes), who cares?  If it affects his actions as a candidate it's fair game.  If it affects how he prays when he's alone at night, it's not.

    Let's get off this topic ASAP.  I hate defending Jindal.  It makes me feel dirty . . .

    •  who brings religion into politics? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bartcopfan, golconda2

      Jindal and all the religiosos who campaign on their religious belief introduce this topic.  It is absolutely fair to critically examine their theology.  

      Why should it be considered the case that any wacky opinion is sacrosanct solely if it is labeled "religious"?  To the extent that religious candidates hold beliefs that are politically untenable, I think it's absolutely legitimate to call them on said beliefs.  I'm tired of the idea that religion is seen as a free bonus card for any half-wit candidate who can feign religiosity.  

      Religious beliefs, including Catholic beliefs, are very divisive if taken seriously.  It is indeed Catholic dogma to think "we're right and the rest of you all are heretics."  Don't ask Kos or Jindal, ask the Pope.  "Let's all just get along" is a nice sentiment, but it's surely not one that is generated from Catholic dogma (or the dogmas of most religions that I'm aware of).  

      Given that religious sentiments are guiding so many of the worst-thought out adventures that the US is involved in, I think it is not only appropriate but indeed necessary to see how the underlying religious beliefs create the divisions in the US and fuel a passion for self-righteousness and contempt for dissimilar cultures.

      Intentionally breaking the law is an impeachable offense. (Duh!)

      by RickD on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:38:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

        If the theology he's talking about affects his politics, it's fair game.  If not, it's not.

        Does anyone really think that Bobby Jindal will discriminate against protestants if he's elected governor.  Give me a break.

        There are so many thing wrong with Jindal, why are you wasting your time complaining about his theology of salvation?

        •  I'm sorry (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          golconda2

          but given that an atheist cannot be elected dogcatcher in this country, I think it's entirely reasonable that wacky religious views be aired in public.  The argument seems to be "um, it's not polite to discuss what this man actually believes."  I cannot fathom that argument at all.  

          Intentionally breaking the law is an impeachable offense. (Duh!)

          by RickD on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:45:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Seems like a defense of Catholic "Christianity" (9+ / 0-)

    Rather than an attack on protestants and I don't think it is aimed at members of mainline protestant churches.  

    I don't know whether you realize it or not, but many members of fundamentalist Christian churches (particularly in Southern United States) don't appear to regard Catholics as Christians.  In fact, some fundamentalist missionaries working in heavily Catholic parts of the world maintain that they are striving to convert the indigenous peoples to "Christianity." The notion that the Catholic church is somehow not Christian seems ludicrous to those of use who were raised in the Catholic tradition, but there are plenty of people who seem to believe that.

    Jindahl may be just pointing out that the Catholic church was the original Christian church, and historically the most significant.  His trek into some doctrinal differences seems to be a way of explaining why he supports the Catholic side of dogma.  I don't see anything too earth shattering here and I think he remains a tough Republican to beat in LA (the most Catholic of Southern states).

    Parenthetically, I would add that the Catholic church may be very strict and authoritarian in theory but is fairly loose in practice.  That is how they have kept their numbers in a modern world.

    •  Oh, it is absolutely an attack on Protestants (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Treg, Mad Mom

      Any such radical defense of Catholic theology is by definition an attack on Protestants.  Notice in particular the claim that the Catholic church owns the exclusive claim to the apostolic succession - reinforced by the connection of the Pope to the Apostles.

      This is absolutely exclusionary theology.

      I've been to Catholic services, taken communion, and have seen died-in-the-wool Catholics aghast that I had the unmitigated gall to take communion given that I'm by definition unworthy.

      •  On the communion exclusion (0+ / 0-)

        For anyone who grew up in the old Catholic tradition the communion sacrament is a pretty big deal.  Under that tradition, not only non-Catholics but also Catholics who are in violation of Church laws (without confession) should not take communion. My father would not take communion for years because of his knowledge of his own violations and I hadn't taken communion numerous times in the past either because of this ingrained perspective.

        Probably relatively few priests below the oldest generation care much about this anymore and most are happy to give communion to anyone who wants it, but the nuns of the good old days were great indoctrinators and many old timers still have this instinct ingrained in them.

        •  My mom threatened to wrestle me for the wafer (0+ / 0-)

          So, yeah, I get the whole exclusivity thing.

          And I'm not liking it.  At all.  From any religion.  In any quarter.  

          Because I'm not sure how it's supposed to promote UNITY.

          What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?- Micah 6:8

          by Mad Mom on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:00:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  So if Christians state thelr belief (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lombard, handsome pat, anniebee

        that Christ is the Messiah and Savior, is this an insult to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.?

        Jindal is stating that he is a Catholic who believes in Catholic beliefs.  Attacking this is even worse than Allen's attacks on Web for his fictional books.

        Jindal is not attacking other faiths but is stating his belief in Catholicism. As a Catholic, I find this line of attack insulting and ask Kos to please reconsider.

        •  far too kind (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chigh, golconda2

          You say

          Jindal is stating that he is a Catholic who believes in Catholic beliefs.

          What I read is

          I want to refute the notion that Catholicism is merely another denomination with no more merit than any other.

          I think Kos is on target here.  This is a bit more than "I'm a Catholic".  It's "I'm a Catholic and our religion is better."

          Intentionally breaking the law is an impeachable offense. (Duh!)

          by RickD on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:41:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I wonder why he posted on freerepublic? (0+ / 0-)

      That's not exactly what you'd call the Big Tent of Democracy.

      What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?- Micah 6:8

      by Mad Mom on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:50:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He didn't (0+ / 0-)

        A freeper posted it copied in full from New Oxford Review.

        Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

        by kck on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:54:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So why'd a freeper post it on freerepublic? (0+ / 0-)

          Because of its "everybody is welcome at the table" view of things?

          I tell you, there are fringe elements in every religion....Mr. Jindal is definitely doing his part carrying that particular banner in the Catholic religion.

          As is this guy....
          "Catholic priest suggests 'Allah' is god of terrorism"
          http://rawstory.com/...

          What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?- Micah 6:8

          by Mad Mom on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:16:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We know there are lunatic fringes (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lombard, handsome pat

            And the press makes everything worse by selectively printing snippets and parsing and exaggerating the lunatics numbers, products, and influence.

            Sadly, here, seems like Markos slipped on the slope. We all make mistakes sometimes...

            Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

            by kck on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:21:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  With all due respect, I disagree (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RickD, chigh, golconda2

              I don't think Kos made a mistake posting this....what you believe in the dark should hold up in the light....if it doesn't, I think people have a right to know that, especially if the person espousing the views is running for public office.

              Seems to me the biggest "problem" with Kos and any other news outlet posting this info is Jindal can't re-create himself to some polished image now.

              Thank God the Fourth Estate, although in tatters, still lives.

              What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?- Micah 6:8

              by Mad Mom on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:27:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'll be interested in the criteria (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lombard, timber, anniebee

                people come up with to judge personal religious beliefs. I read the article and the writer wrote a traditional catholic theological paper to a catholic audience and published it in a catholic journal. If catholics can't run for office anymore, the same criteria will exclude other religions almost by definition.  There are many catholics in office such as Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry who ascribe to this most basic catholic teaching and repeat these beliefs every Sunday as they recite the Apostles Creed. Should they be impeached? If not, why not? Why this writer and not them? Btw, kos's translations were totally off.

                No, I don't think  DKos, the Democratic party, or the press should be shining light on a candidate's internal religious publications, musings, prayers, teachings, confessions, or investigating candidates specific dogma. I think that's in the Constitution iow.

                (I am not catholic and am not defending catholics or this writer but the principle.)

                Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

                by kck on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:44:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Just as fundamentalists amaze me... (0+ / 0-)

    The militant Catholics who spout doctrine after doctrine which justifies exclusion, intolerance, and hierarchy in a religion in which Christ taught equality, acceptance, and that each of has a personal relationship with God just floors me.

    What is common is this - the use of religious dogma in order to justify political/personal power on this earth - in contradiction with the actual Word.

    He would be pissed - just like the day he threw the moneychangers out of the temple.  Remember - Catholicism invented practices like paying money to have your sins forgiven.

    •  Go read the thing. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kck

      That's not what it does.

      •  I did read it, and while it's politely written... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Treg, neroden

        ...it lays out a doctrine of exclusivity:

        Christ founded the Church and vested her with unique authority. The apostles, the very men who wrote much of the New Testament, were the Church's first bishops, and they appointed successors. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church traces its lineage directly to the apostles, and, thus, the Church claims to be the one Jesus founded.

        "Unique authority".

        Catholics have a connection to Jesus Christ.

        Protestants don't.

        That's pretty clear to me.

        •  Well, you specified "militant Catholoics" (0+ / 0-)

          but what you object to here is mainstream Catholic doctrine.

          •  "Mainstream" Catholic doctine a matter of opinion (0+ / 0-)

            There are fundamentalist Catholics just as there are fundamentalists of other sects.  I've met many Catholics who could care less what the Pope says or whether I take communion.  Indeed, the majority of my present experience.

            Just as I'm sure my own (Protestant) beliefs make evangelicals' hair stand on end.

            At any rate, I'll accept the feedback of bad word choice.  I'll use "fundamentalist" in the future to be clearer.

          •  mainstream doctrine is militant (0+ / 0-)

            It's just that most Catholics don't really care all that much about what their own doctrine actually is.

            Intentionally breaking the law is an impeachable offense. (Duh!)

            by RickD on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:42:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  This was inevitable. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden

    There can be no more fractious factions of human clustering than Christians.

    Catholics, the one true Eucharistic, universal, upon this rock, Jesusians.

    Lutherans

    Presbyterians

    Latter Day Saints

    Methodists

    Baptists

    Anabaptists

    Southern Baptists

    Quakers

    Shakers

    Candlestick Makers

    I bet I could, off the top of my head, name over 200 different Christian sects.  It is for this reason I have never really feared a Christian theocracy.  Inevitably one of the big dogs was going to have to dominate.

  •  A nun went to confession..... (9+ / 1-)

    She told the priest: "Father, I have decided to leave the convent and become a prostitute."

    The priest gasped in shock, and sputtered, and finally said, "My daughter, I can't believe it--what did you say?"

    The nun repeated her statement that she was becoming a prostitute.

    There was a great sigh of relief from the other side of the screen.

    "Whew! For a moment there, I thought you said you were going to become a PROTESTANT!!!"

    •  Some "sins" are harder to forgive n/t <g (0+ / 0-)

      "When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong." -Eugene V.Debs

      by ksliberal1 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:21:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This diary is provocative,and worthy and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mad Mom

      a change from the usual I/P or other entrenched bigotry sort of stuff.

      But joking that amounts to a back handed swipe at Catholicism? I am sorry to spoil the uprates parade, there are many "former " C's like nothing better than distance between old views and new, but this doesn't help us here. maybe over at Street Prophets?

      It just feels wrong to me, and I get the joke.

      Jindal is an intolerant, bigoted a-hole. Every group has a few, or, more than a few inside its ranks.

      I don't know that an advertisement will change things much, but it is a clue to how an extremist in beliefs will let loose in our Senate and become a cheerleader for more extremism and division. It is a contribution to illuminating what sort of a Senator
      Jindal willbe IF he gets in.

      America has been stolen, your citizenship is a hollow fraud, and you have no power. What will YOU do to reverse these hurts, crimes, outrages?

      by Pete Rock on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:38:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There is so much wrong with this article (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Treg, Mad Mom

    that I may have to write my OWN diary on the subject.

    Full disclosure: I am firmly anti-organized religion. I am a "lapsed" Catholic.

    You can blame that lapse partly on assholes like this guy who insist on this "one true church" crap. Yeah, it's Church teaching, although they had moved away from it for awhile, but not all Catholics buy into it in principle.

    As a big fan of the J-Man, I am particularly offended at the following assertions:

    "Yet Christ would not have demanded unity ..."
    Which red words in the Bible is he twisting to come up with that?

    "the same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible..."
    Yeah, it's kind of hard to get it wrong when you're the one creating the ideology.

    "The apostles, the very men who wrote much of the New Testament..."
    UH, no, they did not write the books in the new testament; check with any biblical scholar (including Catholic priests).

    "the earliest Christians were unified on doctrinal issues in one body"
    Wrong again. They had to have a Council to come to a consensus on what Catholics were supposed to believe. The council that decided these things were not even Jesus' kinsmen; they were mostly Roman or Greek (and mostly males in positions of power).

    And in cementing their "doctrine" they persecuted many sects of Christians,  which included the followers of some Jesus' Apostles that didn't get a gig in the Bible. They wrote Gospels, too, but those   were destroyed and/or hidden after the council and they were labeled heretics and driven from the Church.

    Jesus would have been so proud.

    "When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong." -Eugene V.Debs

    by ksliberal1 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:55:24 PM PDT

  •  Bad call ... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lombard, timber, scrutinizer, anniebee

    On Kos's part.

    I'm not even Catholic or ex-Catholic (raised Episcopalian, converted to agnosticism by a fundamentalist friend), and I'm afraid Kos lays on a bit of BS here.  

    For one example, Jindal didn't say that Protestants are depraved, he criticized a major strand of Protestant theology (Calvinism) that argues that everyone is "utterly depraved."  Evaluating that is way above my theology pay grade, but Kos's gloss on it is jive.

    •  jive? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      golconda2

      Kos's analysis seems spot on.  Jindal isn't poking fun at Calvinism.  He is using the standard fundamentalist line of argument which says that we must trust the dogma of the church more than the wandering impulses of unpredictable, chaotic, "depraved" minds.  

      Oh, and I am ex-Catholic.  There has been a lot of make-friendly-with-other-religions noise in the Church in recent decades, but JPII started to roll that back and Ratzinger certainly has shown more interest in asserting the dogma of Catholicism than in trying to continue the tradition of ecumenicalism.

      Intentionally breaking the law is an impeachable offense. (Duh!)

      by RickD on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:12:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Trying to suppress Exorcism Essay (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    timber, Treg, chigh, Dimetrodon

    LA Republic Party trying to suppress the article Jindal wrote describing his participation in an exorcism of his college friend.  The LA Dem Party has kept "hands off" of this story so far.  From:

    http://dailykingfish.com/...

    The next time they were supposed to meet for dinner, Susan was late. She refused to apologize, so Bobby refused to speak with her for a week. But they quickly resolved everything when Susan opened up about her nightmares and the strange, unknown odors emanating from her dorm room. Bobby attributed the odor to the devil, because it smelled like sulfur. Susan also told Bobby about speaking in tongues and visions she had. Bobby became worried and scared. Bobby had heard a priest claim that "angels, spirits, and other such apparitions" were not meant for literal interpretation. Still, he wanted to believe Susan.

    When Susan was telling Bobby this, he excused himself and left the room. Then, he made the sign of the cross and prayed to God for help. When he walked back into the room, Susan "angrily lashed out" at Bobby, and he thought, "Gee. Thanks God. So much for prayer."

    The next day, when Susan went for another set of tests, Bobby and his friends in the University Christian Fellowship club (UCF) organized a prayer meeting for Susan later that evening. Bobby asked Susan if she wanted him to attend the meeting. At first she said no, but she quickly changed her mind.

    The UCF prayer meeting was held in a classroom. A group of people, including Bobby, Susan, and Susan’s sister, sat in a circle on the floor and sang songs and prayed together. Suddenly, right after a group prayer, Susan "emitted some strange guttural sounds." Bobby thought she may be having a seizure. Susan’s sister told everyone to place their hands on Susan’s body. Bobby "refused" and "froze in horror." Susan began to scream Bobby’s name. She yelled, "Bobby, you cannot even love Susan." Bobby thought it was funny she referred to herself in the third person. Bobby walked to the back of the room, and Susan began insulting every person in the room, revealing private information and embarrassing secrets.  
    Susan’s sister and a woman named "Louise," who Bobby says was "a member of a charismatic church," pinned Susan down and prayed loudly and desperately. They yelled things like, "Satan, I command you to leave this woman" and commanded "(all) demons to leave in the name of Christ." Susan continued shouting. Bobby tried to remain calm, though at one point, he thought he could be having a stroke. Bobby considered calling the campus priest, but he also thought that Catholicism could actually be bogus. He was having questions about his faith. Instead, the students in the UCF meeting continued to pray for Susan. Bobby tried praying, but he became exhausted.

    Susan attempted to escape, and during the scuffle, "Alice," the student leader for Campus Crusade for Christ, "entered the room for the first time, brandishing a crucifix." They had tried calling a "rival" Christian group to help, but the preacher "denied" their request for help and told them to not to "confront the demon." Alice made Susan even angrier. Susan tried lunging toward the door. Bobby began repeating the Hail Mary over and over again. He said, "Being new to Catholicism, I had yet to accept the Catholic doctrines concerning Mary and considered any form of Marian devotion to be idolatry." But he could not think of anything else at the time, so he prayed to Mary.
    Susan eventually calmed down because of the crucifix, and her sister brought out a Bible. They all began daring Susan to read passages from the Bible. She would begin to read a passage and then blurt out obscenities. But after reading several passages, Susan changed, almost in an instant. She proclaimed, "Jesus is Lord," and then told everyone she could not remember "any of the past few hours."  

    Susan even asked Bobby if he was okay. Bobby told Susan’s sister he would "commit" to a "nightlife" of prayer for Susan. Susan spent the night in the house of a missionary, because her roommate had pagan-looking decorations in their dorm room.
    Bobby felt a renewed appreciation for his Catholic faith. He no longer doubted, as he had only hours before.

    Susan and Bobby stayed friends. Susan even became a Catholic. And her cancer somehow completely disappeared.

    What This Story Reveals:

    Mr. Jindal was writing about a profound and transformational religious experience, but there is probably a good reason his campaign does not want people to read this essay. The essay raises more questions than answers, and many of these questions are uncomfortable.  
    The type of demonic possession described by Mr. Jindal is a rare phenomenon, and according to Canon law, the Rite of Exorcism can only be performed by an ordained priest. The intervention described by Mr. Jindal is strictly forbidden by the Catholic Church. (The Rite of Exorcism was practically abolished in 1999, and today, it can only be used in extreme circumstances.

    Much more at above link.

    "This whole world's Wild at Heart and weird on top.".....Lula

    by anninla on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:59:05 PM PDT

  •  Don't care for this line of attack (5+ / 0-)

     It is embedded in the DNA of every organized religion that said religion is the one and only arbiter of Truth, and all other religions are wrong. The Catholic Church is NOT unique in this. This is a BIG reason why the separation of church and state is so critical to a functioning society -- no church should have access to the power of government to act out its beliefs.

    That said, this ad campaign uses religion to divide -- the same thing the fundies do. And besides being borderline offensive, I don't think it's all that effective. It's going to look like an instance of "Dems bashing religious people". Not something we need.

    "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

    by Buzzer on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:00:05 PM PDT

    •  respectfully,beg to differ (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      golconda2

      there are Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy and then there is Alito.  All are Catholics, but some views inside that faith are certainly extreme. Jindal's views are problematic when it comes down to judging and rejecting other faiths than Catholicism. That is a medieval view and responsible for lots of trouble.

       Our country was founded by refugees fleeing either anti Catholic bigotry (Maryland) or strict protestantism fundamentalism (think Massachusetts Puritans).

        Somehow we learned tolerance or, acknowledged
      its necessity to survive and thrive.  Jindal's views, as some others are an attempt to inflame and divide. That is the only conclusion, regardless of his intent when he wrote it and explanations now, that you can make.

      America has been stolen, your citizenship is a hollow fraud, and you have no power. What will YOU do to reverse these hurts, crimes, outrages?

      by Pete Rock on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:20:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  negative campaigning (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chigh, golconda2

      I agree with this

      It is embedded in the DNA of every organized religion that said religion is the one and only arbiter of Truth, and all other religions are wrong. The Catholic Church is NOT unique in this.

      I don't think it logically follows that a widespread problem should be tolerated simply because "Everybody does it."  

      I also don't follow this argument:

      That said, this ad campaign uses religion to divide -- the same thing the fundies do.

      The intent seems to be to "divide" thinking people from a religious bigot.  I don't have any problem with that.  Calling attention to the embarrassing true beliefs of a candidate is not smear campaigning.  Negative camapaigning is not smear campaigning.  

      To win elections in the US, it is often necessary to use negative campaigning.  I have absolutely no problem with highlighting the flaws of a flawed candidate.  Indeed, I don't see any argument against this line of work.

      You say you don't think it's all that effective.  The past 25 years of American political history would prove you wrong.  Negative campaigns have worked time and time again.  Democratic candidates shy away from negative campaigning and rationalize it for a variety of reasons, but the upshot to the public is that they look weak when they do so.  Believe it or not, people do not vote against a candidate because he uses negative campaigning.

      Intentionally breaking the law is an impeachable offense. (Duh!)

      by RickD on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:48:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is news to practicing Catholics (0+ / 0-)

    Chances of Jindal being a practicing Catholic are zilch.

  •  Charlemagne (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden

    is just around the corner. It's thinking like that of this blowhard that got us the Holy Roman Empire and the divine right of kings in the year 800AD.

    George Bush, take note.  

    "Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six." Leo Tolstoy

    by Miss Pip on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:07:57 PM PDT

  •  Um (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickD, bluestateLIBertarian

    Jindal's piece is poorly written, but

    isn't the whole point of being a Catholic believing that protestantism is not the authentic Christianity?

  •  "Cafeteria" Catholic here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dinky, neroden

    While the Church does hold uncompromising views regarding its supremacy, it does not teach that we should go around bashing other Christians, or even other non-believers.  What is astounding to me is that this joker would publish something like this.  Isn't it enough that we have all this Christian versus everybody else mentality?  Evidently we are not already sufficiently divided; we have to take it to a whole new level.   If this is not the best possible example of why we should keep religion and politics separate, I don't know what is!  

    Please forgive me if this has already been said.  I didn't get to read through all the comments....

    "We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the peace." - Walter Mondale

    by luckylizard on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:19:13 PM PDT

    •  And Jindal was giving a theological speech (0+ / 0-)

      Not a political speech.

      Have you seen a religion arguing otherwise that they are not the true religion.

      35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in Matt 25: 35;

      by timber on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:59:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  gary wills "what jesus meant" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    N in Seattle
  •  I See a Lot of "Diaries" (Posts) Here Bashing... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    handsome pat, Dimetrodon

    ...Christians and Jews (or thinly-veiled anti-Semitism masquerading as "legitimate criticism of Israel").

    It's funny, but as horrible as Catholics are, talking about--horrors!--how they believe their faith is the best (you know, like EVERY OTHER RELIGION), no Catholic has cut off someone's head for Jesus in recent memory...meaning not for centuries. No Christian has made someone "confess" to being a Jew, as if that were somehow bad, and videotaped it for international consumption.

    Funny how I've never seen even one post on dkos about the intolerance of Muslims. Not even one.

    Funny, that.

    I weigh 666 pounds in zero gravity; COME AND GET ME!

    by thirdnostril on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:30:02 PM PDT

    •  Extremist Religious Fundamentalism (4+ / 0-)

      exists in almost every organized religion.

      Some religions are worse than others, but you can't just put aside the history of violence and intolerance in the Catholic religion by using the words "not for centuries" and think that it absolves the Church from the exact same type of behavior that you describe.

      The Catholics that did it in previous times were wrong and the Muslims that do it now are wrong; there is no superiority to be had, nobody more right (or righteous) than anyone else.

      And there is a huge difference between teaching children that their religion is "the best" and teaching them that they are somehow superior to others because they have a divine right to heaven and everyone else is going to hell and that they should be careful about fraternizing outside of the one true faith.

      However, you are right that the Catholic religion is not the only religion that teaches this.

      Any religion that teaches this is wrong.

      "When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong." -Eugene V.Debs

      by ksliberal1 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:47:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not a reasonable comment. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mad Mom, CA Libertarian

      It's funny, but as horrible as Catholics are, talking about--horrors!--how they believe their faith is the best (you know, like EVERY OTHER RELIGION)

      First of all, this isn't about just claiming that their faith is the best.  It's, first of all, about claiming that it's the only valid choice and all the others are wrong -- exclusivity.  This is a trait shared by most (but far from all) versions of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.  It is not shared by most of the other religions in the world, including Taoism, most versions of Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto, and the traditional religions of Africa, of Native Americans, of native Siberians, Australian Aborigines, etc., etc., etc.

      But it's worse than that.  It's about claiming that the other religions are not only wrong but also depraved, evil, anarchic, etc., etc.

      No Christian has made someone "confess" to being a Jew, as if that were somehow bad, and videotaped it for international consumption.

      Only because videotape hadn't been invented when Hitler took power.

      Funny how I've never seen even one post on dkos about the intolerance of Muslims. Not even one.

      You weren't looking very hard, were you?  How about the diaries about Darfur (Islamist dictatorship in the Sudan commiting genocide) or complaining about US support for the extreme rightist, very intolerant Islamic dictatorship in Saudi Arabia?

      -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

      by neroden on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:52:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You obviously haven't been to Northern Ireland (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden

      Short memory.

    •  Not to mention during WW2... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Spud1, neroden, Pete Rock

      The Pope and - by his example - many Catholics - were practically cheering as Jews were led to the death camps.

      A very dark chapter in Catholic history.

      Certainly, they are not alone - but in such a strong hierarchy where such power is entrusted in the religious leadership - more abuses are to be expected.

      •  That is wrong (0+ / 0-)

        Even Jews thank Pope Pius XII for helping them.

        35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in Matt 25: 35;

        by timber on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:57:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You are wrong, 3rd n. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Spud1, neroden, CA Libertarian

      no Catholic has cut off someone's head for Jesus in recent memory...meaning not for centuries. No Christian has made someone "confess" to being a Jew, as if that were somehow bad, and videotaped it for international consumption.

       The Nazis and "solvers" of the Jewish problem certainly did make some people "confess" and then killed them afterward.Or do Treblinka, Maidanek , Solibor mean nothing to you? Warsaw?  That was only in 1940-1944. that was less than 70 years ago.

      BTW, some of those Nazis were Catholic.As were some similar atrocity - committing belief challenged Italians and some Spaniards.

      Amazing how history just isn't worthy of being taken seriously.

      amazing how it's more than one person (I am referring to the upraters)who has a big empty gap where history is concerned. Is that where your third nostril is located?

      America has been stolen, your citizenship is a hollow fraud, and you have no power. What will YOU do to reverse these hurts, crimes, outrages?

      by Pete Rock on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:58:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Plus the Catholic massacres of Serbian Orthodox (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Spud1

        ...also during world war II - hundreds of thousands were put to death in the Jasenovac concentration camp, Jews among them but principally Serbs and Gypsies - championed by the Ustashi nationalists, who maintained ideological and financial ties to the Vatican.

        People really have a short memory.

  •  There was no single Church in the early days (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Radlein, RickD, Mad Mom, neroden

    Jindal writes this:

    The Church's foundation was not built on a plurality of prophets; rather the earliest Christians were unified on doctrinal issues in one body. The Catholic Church was the only church for some 1,000 years. Given Christ's promise to be with His Church always, so that "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18), it is hard to believe that the true Faith disappeared from the world with the "fall of the Church" (dated by Protestants at various points in the first seven centuries), failing to reappear until the Reformation around the 16th century.

    Not true.  From the very beginning there were significant differences among the churches.  Paul called Peter a hypocrite--in writing--in a Pauline letter that appears in the New Testament.  The Gnostic Gospels prove there was a tremendous diversity of beliefs and practices in the very beginnings of Christianity.

    Jindal, among other things, is a terrible student of Christian history.

    •  My Freshman Theology Teacher Would Have Ripped It (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RickD, MKS

      Thank you! I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that particular whopper in his piece.

      My reaction, overall, is that it's not as bad as Kos is making it out to be, but that he'd be lucky to get a Gentleman's C on it from any teacher at Tulane... or even Jesuit High School of New Orleans, right down the street.


      "I play a street-wise pimp" — Al Gore

      by Ray Radlein on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:36:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  no "plurality of prophets", he says (0+ / 0-)

      and then later he refers to both mother teresa and john paul ii as "prophets."

      ?

      AP: John McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy

      by jethropalerobber on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:57:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think his point is defensible against yours. (0+ / 0-)

      The other strans were ultimately treated as heretical and, well, its practicers were strung up by the balls.

      On the other hand, Jindal forgot about the Orthodox.

      Look at these people! They suck each other! They eat each other's saliva and dirt! -- Tsonga people of southern Africa on Europeans kissing.

      by upstate NY on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:03:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Did he mention which religion was the neighbor (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Radlein

    to the man who was robbed and left to die in the ditch ? I think the robbery was listed on the police blotter in Samaria ....

  •  Why is the magazine trying to scrub the article (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mad Mom

    off the web to protect Jindal?

    If the ad is false, then Jindal and the magazine should want the article to be as widely available as possible so people can read it for themselves and see the alleged mischaracterizations and lies.

    Mind you, I do agree that it's a characteristic of all organized religions that theirs is the One True Way.  In order to keep general society interaction civil, believers refrain from stating this during polite conversation and it's widely considered a gross social faux pas to try to convert someone else.  Jindal was writing for a religious magazine, where this is acceptable discourse, so his writing the article is fine in itself.

    What does become problematic is that this guy who was and possibly still is interested in pushing his specific religion now wants to be governor of a state.  It's potentially mixing what is Caesar's and what is God's, to borrow from Jesus's teachings.  He's not an ordained priest or minister, but he could be argued, by virtue of his writings and the nature of those writings, to have been a preacher.  I need to think about that one.  There's nothing wrong with being religious and being in government; there's nothing wrong with believing your religion is the one true one and being in government; what's wrong is if one uses their government position to somehow favor or advance one religion over another.  Rightly or wrongly, it's become an issue in the Jindal campaign, due to his proselytizing in a public, albeit religious, magazine, and rightly or wrongly, he will now have to address this point.

    That's why most Christian politicians, just like most Americans in public social conversation, avoid trumpeting their particular Christian denomination above other Christian denominations, even if that's what they believe in private.  I don't know if Jindal had political ambitions at the time of the writing of this article; if he did, then it was poor foresight on his part to write the article.

  •  Jindal's Coming "Unpology" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Radlein

    We can expect Jindal to resort to that time-tested Republicans act of social hypocrisy and cynicism: the Unpology. That is, facing recriminations for ethical failings, racist behavior, sexist statements, religious bigotry or outright criminality, this new generation of Republican wrong-doers delivers the facade of apology by uttering obligatory words of remorse devoid of actual regret, contrition - or even an admission of guilt.

    For more on what the coming Jindal unpology might look like, see:
    "The Unpology: How Republicans Never Say They're Sorry."

    •  Hard to Say I'm Sorry (0+ / 0-)

      It's not at all unique to Republicans — the non-apology apology has a long and glorious history of use by athletes and celebrities who have been caught doing or saying horrid things.


      "I play a street-wise pimp" — Al Gore

      by Ray Radlein on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:41:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  LA politics (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Radlein, chigh

    If folks are uncomfortable about this, I would recommend not paying close attention to elections in LA.  Things get down and dirty on the bayou when the stakes are high.  I am half expecting ads with vague racist undertones from some of our more "colorful" citizens.  David Duke is a not so distant memory.  The party will not run them, but some yahoo could come up with something.  If not ads, bumper stickers or road signs.

    Meet me in Cognito, baby

    by out grrl on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:46:59 PM PDT

  •  this is what catholics believe (0+ / 0-)

    and attacking it is just as wrong as a (falsely) perceived attack on protestants.

  •  Having only read the excerpts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ThomasB

    the essay seems more of statement about the core beliefs of Catholicism as opposed to a hate filled hit piece on non-Catholics, begging the question; can you defend Catholicism without insulting other religions?  Frankly I think spirit-in-the-sky based religions are a bunch of superstitious hoo-haa that we should have left behind with fears of sailing off the edge of the earth and the belief that witches float.  Of course that puts me at odds with a large portion of the world populace who needs their Santa Claus.

    ...or wait, was it the Easter Bunny?

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    In a couple of thousand years Scientology will be really, really old too.

  •  I'm disappointed in kos (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethropalerobber, John DE, kck, anniebee

    for posting this article.  Jindal's a douche, and there is plenty of evidence of that without having to attack his religious beliefs.  I happen to disagree strongly with the article he wrote, but as far as religious writing goes (especially by non-theologians), it's fairly stimulating.  
    We're playing the GOP game now, condensing long paragraphs into short, pithy summaries that sound really bad, and take some time to rebut.  We should be above this.
    We just got rid of Karl Rove at the White House.  Let's not invite him, or his tactics, over to play at dailykos

    •  I'm deeply wondering what the hell you are (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      N in Seattle, RickD, wmholt, golconda2

      thinking.  We are NOT PLAYING THE GOP GAME, my friend.  WTF is your thought process regarding that ignorant if not stupid statement?  

      If you are all about the Catholic church, just say it.  If not, just say it.

      If you want to get people to get religion, no matter which denomination, you better bring your game plan next time.  

      Adequate resources are necessary for feasible tasks. -6.00, -6.21

      by funluvn1 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:40:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Radlein, Dinky, neroden

    Jindal was born a Hindu and was converted to Catholicism.

    Hence, his understanding is a convert's understanding -- deeply enthusiastic, but marked by little real knowledge of the texts. Or of his religion, or of the arguments for and against it. Only a someone rather inexperienced would cite Lewis' resoundingly irrational and illogical Trilemma (lord, liar, or lunatic), which is easily disposed of by the counter man, myth, or misunderstood. He is a completely incompetent interpreter of the texts. Consider at random his comments about baptism:

    BAPTISM: Christ commanded us to be "born of water and the Spirit" (Jn. 3:5) and "saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal" (Tit. 3:5; see also Ezek 36:25-27; Mt. 3:14, 28:19; Mk. 1:4, 1:8, 10:39, 16:16; Lk. 3:3, 12:50; Jn. 1:33, 3:5, 13:8; Acts 1:5, 2:28, 2:38-41, 8:12, 8:38, 9:18, 10:48, 11:16, 16:15, 16:33, 19:5, 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4; l Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 4:5, 5:26; Col. 2:12; Heb. 6:2, 10:22; 1 Pet. 3:21; Rev. 22:17).

    Looking at the verses he lists for Mark, 1:4 refers to the Baptism by John, not Christian baptism, Mark 1:8 are words the writer places in John's mouth and do not directly mention Christian baptism, Mark 10:39 is not a reference to Christian baptism, but a reference to Jesus' own death, and Mark 16:16 isn't original to the text of Mark at all. In other words, there is nothing in the authentic text of Mark that supports his case.

    More interesting are the defenses here and at the Free Republic of this. Yes, that's exactly what Catholic Doctrine states -- it's the best, it goes back to the apostles of Jesus, it alone can interpret what the Bible says, etc. While politely stated, even enthusiastic, it's still an expression of the Church's dream of instantiating itself in every mind on earth, and there is hardly anything more revolting than an expression of universal authoritarianism and the destruction and assimilation of all other forms of thought. As long as any religion proselytizes, its adherents will engage in this sort of nonsense.

    That said -- and speaking as a lifelong atheist -- this article should not be the subject of an attack ad. Jindal is Golden Retriever Stupid, but this is the same kind of crap enthusiastic but dumb religious people always write about their religion. The disrespect lies not in Jindal, who is polite in his comments about other religions......

    I am thrilled by the recent ecumenical discussions that have resulted in Catholics and Evangelicals discovering what they have in common, in terms of both theology and morality, and as exemplified by joining to oppose abortion and other fruits of an increasingly secular society, but I do not want our Evangelical friends to overlook those beliefs that make Catholicism unique. The challenge is for all Christians to follow Jesus wherever He leads; one significant part of that challenge is to consider seriously the claims of the Catholic Church.

    .....but in his religion itself. He is merely giving enthused expression to its authority-centric belief that everyone ought to be a Catholic, or else and engaging in the normal and dehumanizing tactic of proselytization. Attacking a convert is bad politics, and I hope that kos will reconsider this piece, and the Dems will reconsider these attack ads. There's lots more to hit Jindal with. Save the attacks on religion for books, blogs, and forums.

    Vorkosigan

    •  Can I double-recommend? (0+ / 0-)

      This is the best statement on the subject.

      -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

      by neroden on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:35:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You mean he wasn't forced to sit in an (0+ / 0-)

      uncomfortable pew bored out of his skull as the priest said mass in LATIN, a language that none of the parishoners knew? Then, he must have endured the early 70's "folk masses", the ones held in the rectory (that can't change that name fast enough) by all the hippy Catholics playing acoustic guitars. But hey - our priest ran off with one of the nuns, so at least there was some excitment for a time.

      17. Ne5

      In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

      by Spud1 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:49:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rebuttal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethropalerobber

    I started writing a rebuttal to this article but it got way out of hand, please see my diary on the subject.

  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

    LA is a heavily Catholic state, but most of its Catholics are probably more Democratic than Republican. The Republican base in Louisiana is filled with Protestants in the northern part of the state. I'm not sure that this will sit well with large parts of the GOP base in Louisiana. I still think Jindal will win, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

  •  Somehow condescendingly sick (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    N in Seattle

    Christ founded the Church and vested her with unique authority.

    to genderize the Catholic Church as somehow "female."

    I came in peace, seeking only gold and slaves

    by revenant on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:52:37 PM PDT

  •  There are actually 3 "original" catholic (5+ / 0-)

    churches, one at Rome, one at Alexandria and one at Antioch. Today, Eastern Rite Christians are followers of this "original" church,  just as much as Roman Catholics are. Interestingly, their priests can get MARRIED! How do you like them apples?

    •  And have really kick ass beards n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mae

      17. Ne5

      In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

      by Spud1 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:45:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just like Shiites and Sunnis... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ThomasB

      ...and as I pointed out in another post, at least one group of Roman Catholics was quite determined to wipe (Serbian) Eastern Orthodox from the face of the earth during WW2.

    •  Not quite right about celibacy . . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mae

      I usually hate pedantic types, but I'm going to be one for a moment.  It isn't really accurate to say that Orthodox priests can marry.  

      Rather, the Orthodox allow married men to  be ordained as priests.  Once ordained, a priest cannot marry (and, typically, a widowed priest cannot remarry).  And married priests can't become bishops (at least, not while they live as husband and wife with their spouses).  

      These rules apply in pretty much all the Eastern Orthodox churches as well as the Eastern Rite churches that recognize the authority of the pope.  So there are actually plenty of married Catholic priests.

  •  uh, kos, have you ever read Luther? (5+ / 0-)

    This is a pretty silly basis to attack Jindal

  •  this sucks, kos (0+ / 0-)

    the ad says jindal "referred to Protestant religions as... depraved"

    what he really did was quote Calvin saying that all humans are "depraved."

    i'm going to assume the rest of what the ad says is bullshit too. this sucks and it makes dems look bad.

    AP: John McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy

    by jethropalerobber on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:49:43 PM PDT

  •  So he's Catholic. So what? (0+ / 0-)

    Jeez people.  What does a person's religion have to do with anything?  People shouldn't be basing their voting decisions on a persons religion.  That's just dumb.  And another thing, Jesus was JEWISH, not Catholic.

  •  220 threads and not a single mention of Orthodoxy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickD

    and Byzantium.

    Historically, he's making an incorrect assertion that the Catholic Church from which the Protestants split was unified for a 1,000 years.

    That's not the case at all.

    The first instantiation of a Church with a clerical and political hierarchy was in the second Roman capital, Constantinople. The Roman Church came later. The two split about 700 years into the formation of the official church.

    One could easily argue that Catholicism is actually only a branch or offshoot of the first established church.

    Look at these people! They suck each other! They eat each other's saliva and dirt! -- Tsonga people of southern Africa on Europeans kissing.

    by upstate NY on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:08:17 PM PDT

  •  Another copy (0+ / 0-)

    http://dumpmike.com/...

    Everyone should copy this and spread it everywhere!

    Summer NH Lakefront Rental. Private swimming, dock, 5 beds, bath, full kitchen, satellite TV, phone, wireless internet

    by nathanrudy on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:24:23 PM PDT

  •  Louisiana Political Madness (0+ / 0-)

    I was born in Louisiana, so I can confirm that there is a virus in Louisiana that strikes when you reach voting age. It causes political blindness and seems to be incurable. Fortunately, I left the state before I could be infected.

    Elsewhere, it says that Jindal is a shoe-in for Governor.  His writings in the Oxford Review are hard to imagine as that of a political candidate.  I can see why he advocates not reading the Bible, or History for that matter.  The facts are just too inconvenient.

    Louisiana re-elected William Jefferson after his video-taped evidence of accepting a bribe was revealed, and $90,000 was found in his freezer.  The bills in the freezer matched the serial numbers on the  payoff money.  David Vitter, of DC Madam fame, is their Senator. I won't mention David Duke.  Oops!

    Jindal will just continue the proud Louisiana political tradition.  I'm glad to be thousands of miles away. :-)

    •  Glad you're thousands of miles away, too. (0+ / 0-)

      Sorry...couldn't pass it up.  "Louisiana" never elected William Jefferson.  How are the restaurants where you live?  If you don't live in NYC or SF, my condolences.  Gonzales, Louisiana probably has better restaurants than where you live.

  •  Well, I'll agree Luther was an idiot! (0+ / 0-)

    Not as bad as Calvin though.

  •  the ad and this diary (0+ / 0-)

    are pretty pathetic. these are opinions, take liberties with statements, and have nothing to do with issues. We usually deplore these tactics. Just my 2 (Catholic) cents.

  •  Lost another 2 votes for November. (0+ / 0-)

    As my name says, I'm a quiet democrat. My wife and I are not loud and I read way more than I write.

    This ad will backfire. We can never vote for Jindal, but this ad is insulting to us. Others have said what I wish to say about why it's insulting, but here are two points I'd like to make.

    1. I thought the Democrat party was the party of inclusiveness. If they turn into Rove-clones, I guess we'll go independent.
    1. Couldn't you find enough real issues to blast Jindal with. I'll get you started, a) support for the  White Lake deal, b) how he balanced the charity medical system (the wrong way), many many more.

    We will be sitting this election out, and Jindal will likely win. This didn't help the party or the state. It's a shame, because Walter Boasso was looking real good to us.

  •  This is crazy. It's also (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pooplatter

    100% pure orthodox Catholicism.  All religions, when you scratch past the post modern gobbeldy gook, claim to have a monopoloy on the truth.  Jindal is guilty of nothing more than being a true believer.

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Kellor

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:06:19 PM PDT

  •  Jindal is Right... Sort Of... Also, Wrong (0+ / 0-)

    I'm an atheist and a humanist.  I hold a certain set of facts to be true and another to be false, and anyone who holds some of the true facts false or false "facts" true is incorrect.  I believe that God does not exist.  If you believe that God does exist, then you're wrong, because God does not exist.

    Of course, if you do believe that God does exist, then you won't like the fact that I think you're incorrect, since you think you're correct and that I'm the one who's incorrect.  We may try to convince each other, but to me, I'm clearly right and you're clearly wrong, and to you, the exact opposite is true.  If Jindal is saying that anyone who denies some things he believes to be true is wrong, then he's perfectly consistent, and more than that, he's saying something perfectly natural.  However, if he also says that you NEED to act according to his religious principles, then he's not respectful of religious freedom.

    Really, you can believe whatever you want, regardless of whether it's true (according to either science or me) -- if you want to believe that the Earth is a cube, I won't deny your right to do that -- but don't expect me to agree with you and say you're right when, to me, you aren't.

    That said, Jindal's a politician.  What the hell is he doing going on and on about religion?  Though I also don't care if MY governor (in MA, actually) thinks I'm wrong in my religious views, so long as I don't have to act according to his.

  •  Another good reason (0+ / 0-)

    why I am neither.  BTW, Jesus cannot be shown to have said a single word contained in the bible, neither can it be shown that he even existed, nor were the apostles the authors of the text.  The Catholic church nit-picked.

  •  As a Believing Catholic... (0+ / 0-)

    ...I find the governor's logic quite distressful.

    And by the way, as a Catholic Governor Jindal should know that Jesus is neither Protestant nor Catholic, but Jewish.

  •  Kos, do you hate "papists?" (0+ / 0-)

    He's articulating the basis for apostolic succession and versus the priesthood of all men.  In the catholic church, individual lay revelatory (including "divinely" inspired interpretations) must be accompanied by facta divina.  facta divina are corroborating manifestations of the divine in the physical world, i.e., miraculous events.

    This monopoly on revelation and interpretation; a priesthood hegemony of doctrine distinguishes the Catholic church from nearly all other Christian denominations with the exception of the Episcopalians/Anglicans who also also (ostensibly) believe in apostolic succession.  

    The article identifies the reasons for maintaining that hegemony, and argues that it is preferable to legion of individual doctrines.  

    If someone summarized the Presbyterian (and several other protestant denominations') doctrine of predetermined salvation, would you rant against that?  You know, that one goes to hell if he or she does not "accept Jesus as ..." and that God has preordained who will and will not be saved, and thus some of us are destined for hellfire from the day we are born.  

    •  It's hard to believe... (0+ / 0-)

      The article identifies the reasons for maintaining that hegemony, and argues that it is preferable to legion of individual doctrines.

      Whatever do you think the Church is? It is the doctrine of the few, institutionalized.

      And yes, the legions of individual doctrines are much to be preferred. They don't generate institutions that wreak havoc with people's lives. Celebration of individual freedom is always to be preferred to worship of authority.

      Vorkosigan

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        as a personal matter with the preference of individuality.  But his adherence to the Church and it's exclusivity does not a political attack justify.

        Unless I missed something, he did not draw a political conclusion from his defense of the Church in that regard: that the doctrine of the few, institutionalized, is preferable.  

        I would also note that many of the right wing evangelicals' opprobrious and purportedly divinely inspired rantings (Fallwell, Robertson, etc.) draw their purported divine justification from their purported individual connection with God; from their own personal revelatory experiences. Hell, Mr. Bush believes in his own such individual connection over reason, thoughtfulness, and logic.  I'd prefer him to engage in the daily affairs of running a country without believing that he can just dial up the big guy in his addled mind, and rely instead upon, oh, I don't know, reason?    

  •  Jesus was a Jew or an alien (0+ / 0-)

    Jesus was neither a Christian nor a Catholic. He was raised a Jew and the last supper was a Passover Seder.

    Alternatively, jesus was an alien who impregnated Mary.

  •  "Summary: Catholicism is infallible...." (0+ / 0-)

    So does Jindal agree with his Church that there should be no "zero-tolerance" policy for pedophile priests and those who cover for them?

    •  Probably (0+ / 0-)

      But bringing up pedophiles every time you mention Catholics is a great way to convince them that they should vote Republican. Maybe we should bring up Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot every time an atheist speaks up.

      I once knew a priest (a very disturbed guy) who was convicted and sentenced to prison for sexual abuse of children. He baptized two of my sons. Don't imagine that you are more upset about pedophiles in the priesthood than Catholics are.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site