NationStates Jolt Archive

Because if your church isn't the one in charge, they'll fuck you over. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8587678/)
ACKSON, Miss. - A Christian adoption agency that receives money from “Choose Life” license plate fees said it does not place children with Roman Catholic couples because their religion conflicts with the agency’s “Statement of Faith.”

Bethany Christian Services stated the policy in a letter to a Jackson couple this month, and another Mississippi couple said they were rejected for the same reason last year.

“It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our Statement of Faith,” Bethany’s state director Karen Stewart wrote. “Our practice to not accept applications from Catholics was an effort to be good stewards of an adoptive applicant’s time, money and emotional energy.” There's more, but I think you get the gist.

This is a group, mind you, that receives state funds from a specialty license plate, and they openly discriminate against Catholics, who, last time I checked, were still pretty mainstream christianity.

It seems that for some people, it's not enough to be a christian--you've got to be their kind of christian, or it doesnt count.

Ridiculous. If they recieve state funds, they can't discriminate against couples on religious grounds. Cut off their funding until they comply, or don't fund them at all (even better).

To the fundies, Catholics like myself are nothing more than the "Babylonians" or "Romanists".

Ridiculous. If they recieve state funds, they can't discriminate against couples on religious grounds. Cut off their funding until they comply, or don't fund them at all (even better).

To the fundies, Catholics like myself are nothing more than the "Babylonians" or "Romanists".
See--I knew the concept wasn't hard to grasp (and I'm not insulting you), and yet there's so many people who just don't get it. Honestly, if the wall between church and state came down, there's only one church I'd trust to meld with the government, and that's the Unitarians, because they're the most accepting of all the christian religions in the US.

And I wouldn't trust them for long, because they'd be infiltrated by Dobson or some other whackjob and we'd be like Britain under Cromwell before long. What a party that was!

Like your name, Nazz -- reminds me of Todd Rundgren.

Another reason to keep church and state separate: After all that hedonistic pseudo-religio-fascism stops in 2008, there may be a backlash against the rest of us... Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Episcopalian and so on... who did not subscribe to what really boils down to the Gospel of Spock: Live long and prosper.

Where did Christ ever say that living 'right' meant you would inevitably merit a certain standard of living? East Parmesan Full Blessing Bible Institute may have promoted the idea, but it's nowhere in my Scriptures, where it does say: Blessed is he that considers the poor and many other passages suggesting we are to look out for each other here.

"It seems that for some people, it's not enough to be a christian--you've got to be their kind of christian, or it doesnt count."

It's been like this ever since Constantine the Great made Constantinople sister capital to the Roman empire. It caused the beginning of the divide of the new Christian faith. That being Catholism in Rome, and Orthodoxy in Constantinople (today's Istanbul).

The same concept also applied long before that. Always my way, MY MY MY MY MY MY way and NO ONE else's. It naturally came to apply to Christianity when it came around.

Because if your church isn't the one in charge, they'll fuck you over. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8587678/)
There's more, but I think you get the gist.

This is a group, mind you, that receives state funds from a specialty license plate, and they openly discriminate against Catholics, who, last time I checked, were still pretty mainstream christianity.

It seems that for some people, it's not enough to be a christian--you've got to be their kind of christian, or it doesnt count.


Well said...

Ridiculous. If they recieve state funds, they can't discriminate against couples on religious grounds. Cut off their funding until they comply, or don't fund them at all (even better).

To the fundies, Catholics like myself are nothing more than the "Babylonians" or "Romanists".

But if you cut thier funding, they will start screaming about how they are being oppressed.
I think that the REAL ISSUE IS: If they are a religious organization, WHY are they getting STATE FUNDING in the first place? Clear Establishment Clause violation.

But if you cut thier funding, they will start screaming about how they are being oppressed.
I think that the REAL ISSUE IS: If they are a religious organization, WHY are they getting STATE FUNDING in the first place? Clear Establishment Clause violation.
Yeah, well, tell that to Bush and his "faith-based initiatives" folks.

Welcome to Jesusland.

To the fundies, Catholics like myself are nothing more than the "Babylonians" or "Romanists".

I'm seeing something extremely ironic here, perhaps I'm the only one. Although I am not a Christian, I am pretty familiar with the Bible, and there was a passage in which Jesus says to Paul, or to Peter, "I shall build my foundation upon thee." Catholicism is thus a direct line from the current pope to Jesus himself. The first pope was either Paul or Peter, I cannot recall at the moment. But anyways. When fundamentalist Christians do things like that to the Catholics, wouldn't they be directly insulting Jesus? ;)

Funny thing is that Mississippi, like many states, has a significant liberal population, especially along the coast. My ex-wife and daughter live there. The Biloxi/Gulfport area has legalized gambling, John Kerry won the 18-25 vote by something like 15 percentage points, and my ex-wife lives openly as a lesbian in the area with little or no hassle.

But when you get into the Jesusland area of Mississippi, well, you better be loving Jesus loud and proud, or you better get the hell out of town.

I'm seeing something extremely ironic here, perhaps I'm the only one. Although I am not a Christian, I am pretty familiar with the Bible, and there was a passage in which Jesus says to Paul, or to Peter, "I shall build my foundation upon thee." Catholicism is thus a direct line from the current pope to Jesus himself. The first pope was either Paul or Peter, I cannot recall at the moment. But anyways. When fundamentalist Christians do things like that to the Catholics, wouldn't they be directly insulting Jesus? ;)

Don't be silly. Only True Christians are capable of interpreting what Jesus really meant. Apparently Jesus had some trouble making himself understood without their help, so it's a good thing they came along to help out with that. (Oh, and it was Peter, by the way.)

I'm seeing something extremely ironic here, perhaps I'm the only one. Although I am not a Christian, I am pretty familiar with the Bible, and there was a passage in which Jesus says to Paul, or to Peter, "I shall build my foundation upon thee." Catholicism is thus a direct line from the current pope to Jesus himself. The first pope was either Paul or Peter, I cannot recall at the moment. But anyways. When fundamentalist Christians do things like that to the Catholics, wouldn't they be directly insulting Jesus? ;)

Tell that to Martin Luther, I think he'd disagree :D

Tell that to Martin Luther, I think he'd disagree :D
I don't think so. Luther never challenged the authority of the early church. he mostly claimed that the Catholic Church had lost its way, and needed reforming. He wasn't all that interested in leaving and forming his own church until he felt he had no choice--largely because it was a dangerous proposition. The Catholic Church didn't take heresy lightly, and it certainly considered what Luther was doing to be heresy.

I'm not sure how this is an argument FOR seperation of church and state. It seems like a case against it, actually.

I don't think so. Luther never challenged the authority of the early church. he mostly claimed that the Catholic Church had lost its way, and needed reforming. He wasn't all that interested in leaving and forming his own church until he felt he had no choice--largely because it was a dangerous proposition. The Catholic Church didn't take heresy lightly, and it certainly considered what Luther was doing to be heresy.

I'll trust you on this; my knowledge of Christianity in general is very lacking.
But wasn't he eventualy excommunicated? I have a gut feeling he wasn't too pleased with whoever of Peter's succesors had done that.

Sounds about right. Stuff like this pisses me off quite a lot...

Because if your church isn't the one in charge, they'll fuck you over. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8587678/)
There's more, but I think you get the gist.

This is a group, mind you, that receives state funds from a specialty license plate, and they openly discriminate against Catholics, who, last time I checked, were still pretty mainstream christianity.

It seems that for some people, it's not enough to be a christian--you've got to be their kind of christian, or it doesnt count.
You think that's bad ... there was an incident here in NC a few years back involving a church league for baseball. A number of the members of some fundamentalist churches refused to even play a game of baseball with members of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints ( Mormons ) because, as one "light of the world" put it: "I don't associate with people who don't believe in the same Jesus Christ I do!"

Real good example of a "Christian approach" to the world. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure how this is an argument FOR seperation of church and state. It seems like a case against it, actually.
How so?

I'll trust you on this; my knowledge of Christianity in general is very lacking.
But wasn't he eventualy excommunicated? I have a gut feeling he wasn't too pleased with whoever of Peter's succesors had done that.
That's why there's a Lutheran Church. It was the beginning of protestantism.

I'll trust you on this; my knowledge of Christianity in general is very lacking.
But wasn't he eventualy excommunicated? I have a gut feeling he wasn't too pleased with whoever of Peter's succesors had done that.
He was pissed at the successors, and he was eventually excommunicated, but he never challenged the validity of the early church. His argument, in fact, was that since the Catholic Church had strayed from the true faith, had become corrupt and wouldn't reform, it was necessary to form a new church that would replace the Catholic Church as the one true church. That became the Lutheran church. His beef was with what the church had become, not what it once was.

But if you cut thier funding, they will start screaming about how they are being oppressed.
I think that the REAL ISSUE IS: If they are a religious organization, WHY are they getting STATE FUNDING in the first place? Clear Establishment Clause violation.

Given that Catholics are the most vocal in oppostition to abortion and pay for these tags the descrimination really bites!
I've run accross this type of fundie too much and they make me sick.
They very often think God is talking to them like if He were on the telephone with them, but they don't realize that claiming that is a form of fals prophecy, the ONE death penalty offense left in the New Testament. They changed and perverted Scripture to their own ends. I'm so damn tired of them. On top of it they are a racket. That's what it is to take money under fals pretenses.
I think everyone ought to boycott those 'Choose Life' plates, and should send them back and demand their money back. The administrative costs to the state would teach a few people a damn lesson!

His beef was with what the church had become, not what it once was.

Lol, that's all I was trying to say.

I'm seeing something extremely ironic here, perhaps I'm the only one. Although I am not a Christian, I am pretty familiar with the Bible, and there was a passage in which Jesus says to Paul, or to Peter, "I shall build my foundation upon thee." Catholicism is thus a direct line from the current pope to Jesus himself. The first pope was either Paul or Peter, I cannot recall at the moment. But anyways. When fundamentalist Christians do things like that to the Catholics, wouldn't they be directly insulting Jesus? ;)

They don't believe that the Catholic church was founded by the apostles. They think it was founded by Roman Pagans, which is to say Satanists.
They don't believe that religions other than their own are as bad as Satanism, they believe that other deities (Shiva, Buddha, Allah) are just names for Satan. Actual, literal, demons. Now, as far as I remember, Constantine worshiped Sol Invictus as well as Jesus, but then converted to Christianity when he became seriously ill, so there is some logic to the idea that many of the first Christians weren't born as Christians, but that's a big 'duh!' statement. Of course any new religion is going to be built by converts. But the fundies think that Christianity was going along the whole time before Catholacism came along.

That's why there's a Lutheran Church. It was the beginning of protestantism.

Luther is often counted as the origin of Protestantism, but the first Christians to say a plague on your houses to both Catholicism and Orthodoxy lived in what is now Bosnia Hercegovina, they were wrongly refered to as Bogomils. The next bunch of people to go that direction were Jan Hus and his followers. Jan Hus was burned at the stake for his beliefs, and the Hussite Wars marked the first large scale use of gunpowder in warfare.
Jan Hus was one of the first known early Protestants, and he stated that his religion was 'Nothing less than Bogomilism' I guess because he was Eastern European it just doesn't count.

Because if your church isn't the one in charge, they'll fuck you over. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8587678/)
There's more, but I think you get the gist.

This is a group, mind you, that receives state funds from a specialty license plate, and they openly discriminate against Catholics, who, last time I checked, were still pretty mainstream christianity.

It seems that for some people, it's not enough to be a christian--you've got to be their kind of christian, or it doesnt count.

You would think that this is so obvious that you shouldn't have to explain it to anyone. But when it comes to fundies, no matter how many times and how many ways you try to explain this to them, they will never get it. They're so sure that they are right and that they will always get to be the ones in charge, and they really don't care about how anyone else feels about it.

I'm not sure how this is an argument FOR seperation of church and state. It seems like a case against it, actually.


Please present your arguments for this point of view you are espousing.

Luther is often counted as the origin of Protestantism, but the first Christians to say a plague on your houses to both Catholicism and Orthodoxy lived in what is now Bosnia Hercegovina, they were wrongly refered to as Bogomils. The next bunch of people to go that direction were Jan Hus and his followers. Jan Hus was burned at the stake for his beliefs, and the Hussite Wars marked the first large scale use of gunpowder in warfare.
Jan Hus was one of the first known early Protestants, and he stated that his religion was 'Nothing less than Bogomilism' I guess because he was Eastern European it just doesn't count.
Not at all. It's just that history focuses more on things that stay around for awhile. That can't be said of Hus, or the Bogomils. Luther was simply the first successful breakaway from Catholicism.

But the fundies think that Christianity was going along the whole time before Catholacism came along.
Some might, who knows? But generally, fundamentalists teach that primitive Christianity was pure until it was corrupted by its widespread acceptance by rulers and governments, especially by the Roman Church. IMHO, they are partially correct, in that Christianity always grew and thrived better under persecution than it did as a "state religion," not so much in numbers of nominal "Christians," but in terms of true, life-changing "conversions." After all, if you know you're going to be persecuted, perhaps killed, for adopting a particular faith, it tends to make you a bit more zealous. :)

That's why there's a Lutheran Church. It was the beginning of protestantism.

I think you're forgetting the 'Anti-Trinitarians' there, Eutrusca. Nazz probably knows about them, if he's up on his Unitarian history.

I think you're forgetting the 'Anti-Trinitarians' there, Eutrusca. Nazz probably knows about them, if he's up on his Unitarian history.
Yeah--the Arian controversy. One of the great myths of christianity is that there was a unified church after the death of Jesus. Nothing could be further from the truth. Christianity never really gained any sort of unified doctrine until around the time of Constantine, and even afterward, there were numerous schisms over the trinity, over the nature of Jesus, over the immortality of the soul. The Catholics came out on top, largely because they had state help, and then they were ruthless about crushing the opposition they could get their hands on. The orthodox churches were big enough and distant enough from Rome to keep their autonomy for the most part, and smaller churches like the Coptics managed to survive through sheer stubbornness I think.

I'm seeing something extremely ironic here, perhaps I'm the only one. Although I am not a Christian, I am pretty familiar with the Bible, and there was a passage in which Jesus says to Paul, or to Peter, "I shall build my foundation upon thee." Catholicism is thus a direct line from the current pope to Jesus himself. The first pope was either Paul or Peter, I cannot recall at the moment. But anyways. When fundamentalist Christians do things like that to the Catholics, wouldn't they be directly insulting Jesus? ;)

"And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." -Matthew 16:18 (NIV)

"Peter" (Petros) means "little rock".

However, from language construction, it's an illusion; and can mean equally "peter" (little rock); or the illusion towards faith Peter showed in the prior:

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

I personally interpret this to mean faith in the Person of Christ, revealed to us by the Father; as that "rock".... Simon being given the name "Petros" (Little Rock) for his show of faith... And that it is upon this "rock" (of faith) which Christ's Church is built...

Yeah, well, tell that to Bush and his "faith-based initiatives" folks.
Those same faith-based initiatives allow religious charities recieving federal funds to discriminate based on religion when hiring workers and to force recipients of services to attend bible studies and prayer meetings. It disgusts me.

Luther is often counted as the origin of Protestantism, but the first Christians to say a plague on your houses to both Catholicism and Orthodoxy lived in what is now Bosnia Hercegovina, they were wrongly refered to as Bogomils. The next bunch of people to go that direction were Jan Hus and his followers. Jan Hus was burned at the stake for his beliefs, and the Hussite Wars marked the first large scale use of gunpowder in warfare.
Jan Hus was one of the first known early Protestants, and he stated that his religion was 'Nothing less than Bogomilism' I guess because he was Eastern European it just doesn't count.

You left out the Waldesians of Lyons France (11th century); as well as Wycliffe's bunch in England (Contemporary to the Hussites; 14th Century).

While Luther was a major part in the period to become known as "the Reformation"; Contest existed centuries before Luther was even born... Luther, Zwingli and Calvin's Reformation in Germany and Switzerland was the culmination, and not the beginning of the "Reformation"; with a the Roman Catholic's own (presently self-admitted) corruption at the time... The RCC's own Counter-Reformation waited too long...

Those same faith-based initiatives allow religious charities recieving federal funds to discriminate based on religion when hiring workers and to force recipients of services to attend bible studies and prayer meetings. It disgusts me.
It ought to.

Look, I'm not one of these people who thinks that we ought to get rid of "In God We trust" from the money, and while I wish "under God" weren't in the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm satisfied that no one can be forced to recite it if they don't wish to. But there is a real danger here to religious people in this move to tear down the wall between church and state, and the danger is to individual religions.

if history teaches one lesson, it's that organizations with the best intentions are corrupted by secular power. That goes for religious groups as well, perhaps to a greater degree, because they're laboring under the belief that they are doing God's will, and they can use that belief to rationalize all sorts of horrid behavior. Give them secular authority, and you get the Salem Witch trials, or the Inquisition, or any of the other horrible abuses that various churches are guilty of.

Yeah--the Arian controversy. One of the great myths of christianity is that there was a unified church after the death of Jesus. Nothing could be further from the truth. Christianity never really gained any sort of unified doctrine until around the time of Constantine, and even afterward, there were numerous schisms over the trinity, over the nature of Jesus, over the immortality of the soul. The Catholics came out on top, largely because they had state help, and then they were ruthless about crushing the opposition they could get their hands on. The orthodox churches were big enough and distant enough from Rome to keep their autonomy for the most part, and smaller churches like the Coptics managed to survive through sheer stubbornness I think.

Arians (Under Arius); Mancheans (Under Mani), Pelagians (under Pelagius), and the Gnostics... The "Church" has been under schism since before the Apostle John even died (in the 1st century).... That doesn't even count the arguments between the Judean, Greek and Roman Christians; though none led to direct schism; as later movements did...

Because if your church isn't the one in charge, they'll fuck you over. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8587678/)
There's more, but I think you get the gist.

This is a group, mind you, that receives state funds from a specialty license plate, and they openly discriminate against Catholics, who, last time I checked, were still pretty mainstream christianity.

It seems that for some people, it's not enough to be a christian--you've got to be their kind of christian, or it doesnt count.
you hit the nail on the head, nazz

people seem to imagine a utopia where teachers of their own relgion are teaching all the children to believe as they do. that the commandments of THEIR religion are going to be posted on the courthouse walls.

they never imagine that the teacher might be a devout mormon or catholic who will teach their children "strange" things about jesus. they never think that some tenets of hinduism might go up on the courthouse wall.

who wants our schools and public places to be turned into a vehicle for conversion to some OTHER faith? they really need to think this thing through.

You left out the Waldesians of Lyons France (11th century); as well as Wycliffe's bunch in England (Contemporary to the Hussites; 14th Century).

While Luther was a major part in the period to become known as "the Reformation"; Contest existed centuries before Luther was even born... Luther, Zwingli and Calvin's Reformation in Germany and Switzerland was the culmination, and not the beginning of the "Reformation"; with a the Roman Catholic's own (presently self-admitted) corruption at the time... The RCC's own Counter-Reformation waited too long...


Sorry for the late reply, log in problems a long time here, actually the Bosnian Church sometimes wrongly called the Bogomils was around from the 10th century, reaching it's peak in the 15th century and disappearing when Bosnia fell to the Turks. It didn't just exist in Bosnia and Hercegovina but in coastal Dalmatia.
I do not call a survival of any doctrine from the 10th to the 15th centuries exactly failed. As for Jan Hus, there are still followers of the doctrines of Hus in Czech Republic.

Because if your church isn't the one in charge, they'll fuck you over. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8587678/)
There's more, but I think you get the gist.

This is a group, mind you, that receives state funds from a specialty license plate, and they openly discriminate against Catholics, who, last time I checked, were still pretty mainstream christianity.

It seems that for some people, it's not enough to be a christian--you've got to be their kind of christian, or it doesnt count.ah, now, you're trying to equate a small company with the government. 1 difference. in a few years, the government undergoes changes through elections. thus if this group operated the same way, the next person in charge of this group may suddenly give preference to Catholics, or may screw all religions over.

but since it's a private company, those shafted by the company, can attempt to sue.