NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, sort of (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21859913-1245,00.html). A stem cell research and theraputic cloning bill is about to go through here in Australia, and unsurprisingly the Church is somewhat annoyed, threatening to excommunicate politicians who vote for it.

Archbishop Hickey said Catholics who did not condemn cloning of human embryos for medical research were acting against the teachings of the Catholic faith.

"Catholics who vote for the cloning of embryos destined for destruction are acting against the teaching of the Church on a very serious matter and they should in conscience not vote that way, but if they do in conscience they should not go to communion," he told the West Australian newspaper.

Archbishop Hickey also said he would consider excommunication, but would rather the issue be solved voluntarily by the politicians themselves.

His threat mirrors that of Cardinal George Pell in Sydney, who yesterday warned of consequences from the church if Catholic NSW politicians supported a bill overturning a ban on therapeutic cloning.

Ah, well. Most of the politicians have told them to get stuffed (never! :eek:) and it looks like this will go ahead anyway. I'm sure all the other atheists and agnostics here will give the usual on how annoying the Church poking its nose into politics is, but what do any Catholics here think of bishops trying to influence these things?

It's always the same old story. The Church feels part of it's power slipping and they use the "holy mandate" to frighten followers back into line, with the election of Benedict XVI I said enough is enough.

Rampant idiocy.

Well, as a Catholic I'm disgusted with the power plays made by the Church.

Seems like some still miss the good ol' days, when all the Church had to do was threaten a king with excommunication to get their way.

I wouldn't say it's just their fear of losing power. They do believe it's murder, after all. If you don't play by the rules, you don't get to say you do.

The Catholic church represents a small fraction of the world's population. It should just shut the fuck up about this. The more it protests, the more it makes itself irrelevant.

The Catholic church represents a small fraction of the world's population. It should just shut the fuck up about this. The more it protests, the more it makes itself irrelevant.It's free to do whatever it wants. 1/6th of the world shouldn't be expected to shut up simply because some people disagree with them... However, if it does work out the way you say it will, it's not really a big concern, is it? :)

The Catholic church represents a small fraction of the world's population. It should just shut the fuck up about this. The more it protests, the more it makes itself irrelevant.

I wouldn't neccessarily say that 1.1 billion people is a "small fraction" but I get your point.

...And who's to say that all 1.1 billion of 'em are as fundie as our Australian friends?

It's free to do whatever it wants. 1/6th of the world shouldn't be expected to shut up simply because some people disagree with them... However, if it does work out the way you say it will, it's not really a big concern, is it? :)

Well, I'm talking on a small scale in a secular nation where the people have diverse beliefs. Not everyone believes the same thing.

I wouldn't neccessarily say that 1.1 billion people is a "small fraction" but I get your point.

...And who's to say that all 1.1 billion of 'em are as fundie as our Australian friends?

;) so... there's 1.1 billion Catholics in Australia? Sure there may be collectively on an international scale but in each nation... not unless all of China suddenly became Catholic. :p

Besides, didn't Howard just preach about how Muslims have to respect secular Australian values and that Sharia would violate those values?

why don't they just jump into a lake

damn, i wish the story was the other way round. could have got a quality thread title out of that :D

It doesn't matter if a person is Catholic, non-catholic christian, little "c" Catholic, or is Islamic, believes in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Confucianism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, Taoism, Shamanism, Animism, Wicca, or Neopaganism. This is still the murder of babies, and can be compaired to the gender-specfic murder of new born baby girls all over the world.

Don't slam the Chatholics because they have the courage to step to the plate and try to protect these unborn cries for help. These are babies we are talking about, cloned or not, still babies being murdered for science. Euthanasia is the next step, and full blown gender selection is rampent all over the world. And yet people think it is alright to continue killing the most helpless.

PS... I am not Catholic, and I don't agree with most of the Catholic principles, but I do agree that murdering babies under the cover of science research is wrong.

It doesn't matter if a person is Catholic, non-catholic christian, little "c" Catholic, or is Islamic, believes in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Confucianism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, Taoism, Shamanism, Animism, Wicca, or Neopaganism. This is still the murder of babies, and can be compaired to the gender-specfic murder of new born baby girls all over the world.

Don't slam the Chatholics because they have the courage to step to the plate and try to protect these unborn cries for help. These are babies we are talking about, cloned or not, still babies being murdered for science. Euthanasia is the next step, and full blown gender selection is rampent all over the world. And yet people think it is alright to continue killing the most helpless.

PS... I am not Catholic, and I don't agree with most of the Catholic principles, but I do agree that murdering babies under the cover of science research is wrong.

babies and embryos aren't the same thing. babies are little screaming smelly things with brains and hearts. embryos are bundles of cells with no independent lives of their own.

I'm personally waiting for them to try this somewhere and have somebody to pull out separation of church and state on them and cause the Church to lose their tax-free status. That'd be hilarious.

PS... I am not Catholic, and I don't agree with most of the Catholic principles, but I do agree that murdering babies under the cover of science research is wrong.

I am also not Catholic, also don't agree with most of the Catholic principles, and I do agree that murdering babies for science is wrong. Please tell me if they start murdering babies for science, so I can get very angry about it, and possibly write a sternly-worded letter.

It doesn't matter if a person is Catholic, non-catholic christian, little "c" Catholic, or is Islamic, believes in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Confucianism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, Taoism, Shamanism, Animism, Wicca, or Neopaganism. This is still the murder of babies, and can be compaired to the gender-specfic murder of new born baby girls all over the world.

Don't slam the Chatholics because they have the courage to step to the plate and try to protect these unborn cries for help. These are babies we are talking about, cloned or not, still babies being murdered for science. Euthanasia is the next step, and full blown gender selection is rampent all over the world. And yet people think it is alright to continue killing the most helpless.

PS... I am not Catholic, and I don't agree with most of the Catholic principles, but I do agree that murdering babies under the cover of science research is wrong.
Here is some educational reading for you: Steam cell breakthrough heralded (http://www.thestar.com/article/222722)

Stem cells don't just come from embryos. If you've done any research or followed the news to a small degree, you'd realise that they were looking for alternatives.

Scientists have developed a new way to produce embryonic stem cells that could lead to an endless supply of the body's basic building blocks and avoid ethical controversies that have dogged their use in cutting-edge medical research.

Researchers from UCLA and Harvard University say they were able to transform skin cells from adult mice into embryonic stem cells, a process that holds promise for organ and tissue transplantation.

If it could be duplicated in humans, the reprogrammed stem cells – which can grow into any type of tissue in the body – could be used to create individualized replacements for diseased organs and tissues that wouldn't be rejected by the immune system, the paper says.

Though stem cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_Cells) and embryos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo) are not babies, not by a long shot.

Dude, very few people give a fuck what George Pell thinks. The man is a joke. I am glad he said it but; it was a good laugh watching all the MPs tell him to bugger off.

babies and embryos aren't the same thing. babies are little screaming smelly things with brains and hearts. embryos are bundles of cells with no independent lives of their own.

Over all, babies are far more annoying.

And (to the person IR was quoting) what's wrong with euthanasia, anyway?

Funnily enough, the Catholic Church is doing exactly the same thing in the UK over abortion and civil unions. It's proof of the irrelevance of the Church in today's secularising societies. If they can't get bums on pews and get their message through that way, just target the MPs, just like every other unpopular lobbyist.

The Catholic Church needs to learn that the middle ages are over. The world does not bend over for them anymore. Mainly because you saw how well THEY ran the world.
(Refusing to do anything to stop the Black Plague in fact helping by hunting down and killing all the cats, Crusades, Serfdom, Witchhunts, Inqusitions, corruption.)

The Catholic Church needs to learn that the middle ages are over.

The Catholic Church: Yes, we CAN keep it the 15th century forever.

It's interesting that the guys who's call it is, Premier Morris Iemma, is a catholic, and Pell threatened to withhold the Sacraments if they supported the Bill and made it pass, which it seems it will. He said in an interview he disagreed with the Bishop and thought if it could cure diabetes and spinal injury Jesus Christ would have voted for it himself. Also Tony Abbot, the infamous liberal federal minister of health (a Roman Catholic) has come into the debate like a bull in a China shop, he's totally irrelevant though.

For the most part, these religious nuts are banging away on topics that the public already have made up their minds on, a majority of Australians support gay rights and marriage and stem cell cloning, that's why their representatives on a conscious vote (basically a vote in parliament where you can vote with the other party if you like - cross the floor - without being kicked from your party) voted for the proposal overwhelmingly.

As usual, the bulwarks of reaction resist progress.

See? its just not here in america! Proof that stupidity isn't bound to Americans!

I am also not Catholic, also don't agree with most of the Catholic principles, and I do agree that murdering babies for science is wrong. Please tell me if they start murdering babies for science, so I can get very angry about it, and possibly write a sternly-worded letter.

I want my baby back baby back baby back baby back baby back baby back ribs. *Chili's* Baby back ribs.

It's doubtful that it will happen, but I read in the paper they could be prosecuted for threatening and intimidating MPs. Ah, how amusing that would be. :p

The Catholic church represents a small fraction of the world's population. It should just shut the fuck up about this. The more it protests, the more it makes itself irrelevant.
Small fraction? Over a billion people are Catholic, and over two billion are less-specifically Christian. That's one-third of the Human population.

babies and embryos aren't the same thing. babies are little screaming smelly things with brains and hearts. embryos are bundles of cells with no independent lives of their own.
Embryos have brain and heart activity at the 5th week of development.

Embryos have brain and heart activity at the 5th week of development.

The actually take the cells before they actually differentiate. That is a maximum of 3 days I think.

The actually take the cells before they actually differentiate. That is a maximum of 3 days I think.

It's just a blastula then. I think it's a bit strange to even be calling an embryo at that point. Part of "Embryonic Development", sure, but not an embryo.

However, saying, "embryo's don't have brains or hearts" is ignorant, which is why I pointed that out.

Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"?
It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are
chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful
tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality,
you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.

-- Chairman Sheng-ji Yang,
"Looking God in the Eye"

I am a Catholic and I am against abortion etc etc but i do not support the law stopping others from choosing to abort, and researching this field in science. I am like Guliani when it comes to this, personally i am against it but i do not believe I, or the government, or the church have the right to stop people from doing these things.

Small fraction? Over a billion people are Catholic, and over two billion are less-specifically Christian. That's one-third of the Human population.

There are over a billion Catholics in the world, including me, but not all of us support what they are trying to do in Australia.

Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"?
It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are
chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful
tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality,
you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.

-- Chairman Sheng-ji Yang,
"Looking God in the Eye"

So True.

Cardinal Pell does not dismiss the fact that this scientific research may be able to save human lives down the track (decades down the track). This research will "use" countless numbers of embryos which are alive and have there full individual genetic make up in that one cell. Every single cell in a human body has to start from this one cell. (So everybody who was an embryo wasn't a human at one stage?) It doesn't matter what the stage in development is called, the whole time from conception to death is an individual life. The end doesn't justify the means. Killing countless lives to save lives is wrong. Whats ironic about this is people who think that this research will save lives don't care about the lives they are killing in order to save lives (or don't understand the subject themselves). Adult stem cells have shown much more promise in research done using them.
To do with the call that the Church should shut up and let people think for themselves, why is the general public and the media blindly following some scientists? Has each individual person done there own scientific research into this?

Oh, by the way, can anyone confirm for me if the Bible specifically says life begins at birth? I heard that somewhere, not sure if it's true.

Oh, by the way, can anyone confirm for me if the Bible specifically says life begins at birth? I heard that somewhere, not sure if it's true.

No, the Bible does not say life begins at conception, 2 months since conception etc, I think the only line the bible has about it is the Ten Commandments and 'thou salt not kill', but it does not define 'Life' as such, or where it begins, the fundies have just taken it upon themselves to define life for us:rolleyes:

Oh, by the way, can anyone confirm for me if the Bible specifically says life begins at birth? I heard that somewhere, not sure if it's true.

It doesn't say that in the Bible. The Roman Catholic religon is not solely based on what is said in the Bible (like Protestantism). George Pell is a Roman Catholic Cardinal.

Oh, by the way, can anyone confirm for me if the Bible specifically says life begins at birth? I heard that somewhere, not sure if it's true.

How long have you had to define life? The Church has been around for nearly two thousand years. Can you think of something better to with the time other then ponder the meaning of life?

How long have you had to define life? The Church has been around for nearly two thousand years. Can you think of something better to with the time other then ponder the meaning of life?

... eh, what?

Certainly an embryo is alive. Many things are alive. Big deal.

Oh, and edit is your friend. ;)

Certainly an embryo is alive.

Now a virus is a different matter...

One of these Bishops may be in deep shit over this. Pell's fine, but his colleague in Western Australia did the same thing, and may find himself in front of a court for it.

WA's got a law against attempting to influence MP's votes via threat. They've started an investigation to determine whether he should be charged.

It's foolish to think that this is about the "poor embryos". The Catholic Church did the same thing in England about gay marriage, which, so far as I know, doesn't "murder" any "poor embryos" or harm anyone for that matter. It's not about the "poor embryos", it's about power, plain and simple. Benedict XVI thinks the Catholic Church is in its glorious days when it could burn, pillage and rule at its whims, or wishes it was, and acts accordingly. The threats are an attempt to show and regain power. All that's left to see is if the congresspeople in several countries, including my own, Brazil, bend over to the garbage this old, and, due to the current Pope, right now rotten institution spews.

Small fraction? Over a billion people are Catholic, and over two billion are less-specifically Christian. That's one-third of the Human population.

As I pointed out... that's worldwide. If we go by nation, proportionately, how many Catholics are in Australia versus other religions and beliefs? So, it's only a fraction of its followers, so... what gives it the right to think it can dictate what politicians do in a nation that has more than just Catholics?

It's like when the Vatican threatened Canada when it moved to legalise gay marriage. It didn't work because there are too many different systems of belief in this nation and it would have been an afront to the rights of the citizens to listen to one religion when they are a small fraction of a nation's total population.

If it was a place like Brazil or somewhere else that IS dominantly Catholic then the Church might have a say but even then it has no place in a nation's politics. It may represent a group of people but it doesn't represent a nation's people.

If it was a place like Brazil or somewhere else that IS dominantly Catholic then the Church might have a say but even then it has no place in a nation's politics. It may represent a group of people but it doesn't represent a nation's people.

It seems most politicians here in Brazil aren't bending over to the crazies either.

If we go by nation, proportionately, how many Catholics are in Australia versus other religions and beliefs?



In response to the 2001 Census of Population and Housing question, Australians' stated religious affiliations were: 27% Catholic, 21% Anglican, 21% other Christian denominations and 5% non-Christian religions. 16% of all Australians stated they had no religion.

So about a quarter of Australians are catholics.

In response to the 2001 Census of Population and Housing question, Australians' stated religious affiliations were: 27% Catholic, 21% Anglican, 21% other Christian denominations and 5% non-Christian religions. 16% of all Australians stated they had no religion.

So about a quarter of Australians are catholics.

And that's a good reason for the politicians to listen to the Vatican? :rolleyes:

Well being excommunicated didnt' cause Castro or Jo DiMaggio much of a problem. I mean what kind of threat is that.

The NSW parliament voted it through anyway, so Archbishop Pell proved himself to be both irrelevant and a complete tool. Good work there. :p

Well, sort of (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21859913-1245,00.html). A stem cell research and theraputic cloning bill is about to go through here in Australia, and unsurprisingly the Church is somewhat annoyed, threatening to excommunicate politicians who vote for it.



Ah, well. Most of the politicians have told them to get stuffed (never! :eek:) and it looks like this will go ahead anyway. I'm sure all the other atheists and agnostics here will give the usual on how annoying the Church poking its nose into politics is, but what do any Catholics here think of bishops trying to influence these things?

he's just saying that if you don't live like a catholic you don't get the luxory of calling yourself a catholic. I don't see how this is a problem. if people disagree with the church then why would they want to be communicants anyway?

It's always the same old story. The Church feels part of it's power slipping and they use the "holy mandate" to frighten followers back into line, with the election of Benedict XVI I said enough is enough.

Rampant idiocy.

...what? this has nothing to do with power, the way they see the world these people are trespassing on sacred ground and doing unspeakable violence to other people. whether or not you agree with their definition isn't the issue - or rather, it is for the people who claim to be catholic but disagree with the church on one of its core issues. there is absolutely nothing idiotic, radical, or power hungry about denying people the priveledge of membership in a private ideological organisation if they directly and openly contradict the core of that organization's ideology.

The Catholic church represents a small fraction of the world's population. It should just shut the fuck up about this. The more it protests, the more it makes itself irrelevant.

if by "small fraction" you mean it represents 1 in every 6 people alive and is the largest ideological organization that has ever existed, then sure. and no, it probably makes itself more relevant the more it takes stands different from whatever is fashionable in the culture.

Well, I'm talking on a small scale in a secular nation where the people have diverse beliefs. Not everyone believes the same thing.



;) so... there's 1.1 billion Catholics in Australia? Sure there may be collectively on an international scale but in each nation... not unless all of China suddenly became Catholic. :p

Besides, didn't Howard just preach about how Muslims have to respect secular Australian values and that Sharia would violate those values?

the Church isn't asking that people to accept ecclesiastical courts or impose theocracy - it's just saying that people who don't agree with the fundamental tenants of their church cannot expect to be counted publicly as members. this isn't a big deal...you're just looking for an excuse to bash the church.

I'm personally waiting for them to try this somewhere and have somebody to pull out separation of church and state on them and cause the Church to lose their tax-free status. That'd be hilarious.

...this has nothing to do with the state. it's church membership for individuals which is none of the state's business.

if by "small fraction" you mean it represents 1 in every 6 people alive and is the largest ideological organization that has ever existed, then sure. and no, it probably makes itself more relevant the more it takes stands different from whatever is fashionable in the culture.

the Church isn't asking that people to accept ecclesiastical courts or impose theocracy - it's just saying that people who don't agree with the fundamental tenants of their church cannot expect to be counted publicly as members. this isn't a big deal...you're just looking for an excuse to bash the church.

I'm saying that it has no business in telling politicians how to govern independent nations and that allowing for religious ideology to dictate policy, they are ignoring the majority of people. The Church doesn't represent the majority of most nations, in fact, just because it represents 1 in 6 people, doesn't mean it represents that many in an independent nation, where there are multiple religions and faiths that shape the face of that nation.

Politicians are NOT elected to push the Church's moral agenda. They are elected to represent the people and to expect a politician representing MORE than just the Catholics to vote against an issue that his/her constituents feel is important and should be legal is a broken promise to adequately represent the people you were elected to speak for.

I have zero issues with people being Catholic or any other religion. In fact, my family is Catholic and I have no problem with the church itself when it's not trying to tell the rest of the world how to live its lives. It can preach to the Catholics till it's blue in the face, but when it starts to threaten politicians who represent a wide variety of people from different walks of life and of different faiths that when I have a problem.

My MP, John Godfrey, if he was a Catholic, I wouldn't care. All I care about is that he uses his head to vote and doesn't listen to religion because his religion and mine are different and I feel it doesn't represent me or many of my neighbours adequately if he votes based on the emotion generated from his religion. He should vote based on his political leanings and toe the party line, voting as they will unless the party permits it to be an open vote, in which case he can vote as he wants but it's in his interests if he wishes to be re-elected to vote as his constituents would want.

If we wanted people to vote like that, we would have a very open system where people who vote on each issue independent of each other so that way if you were opposed to one issue, like stem cell research, you could vote no, while supporting the right of people to marry their cats.

My point is... the church can preach till it's blue in the face, it can say and use stats to show that it has a large following but that doesn't mean it has the right to threaten politicians who are Catholic and bully them into voting against the will of their constituents. After all, it's not the Vatican who has to stand re-election against a disgruntled horde of voters who may have expected their MP to vote according to the party line and not to cave into the childish bullying of religious lobbying.

If the church wanted to remain relevant, it should learn to respect that people are not all a bunch of backward minded puritans who think sex is evil and that gays are somehow morally inferior to heterosexuals and that if stem cell research was supported that it doesn't necessarily mean that embryos would be used. It would respect that in many nations there are people who don't follow its "moral" code and politicians are not their spokespersons.

If the church wanted a voice, it should give up its tax-free exemption status because it's a religion not a political party. Just like any other religion.

The amount of self identified Catholics in Australia is not that much more than the amount of Anglicans.

The blatant cut&paste from Wikipedia![/URL]]Religions and beliefs
Roman Catholic 26.6%, Anglican 20.7%, other Christian 20.7%, 2.1% Buddhist, 1.5% Muslim, 0.4% Jewish, 0.8% other, No Religion 15.5%, Not described 11.7%
The category of "No Religion" includes non-theistic beliefs such as humanism, atheism, agnosticism and rationalism. A fifth sub-category is "No Religion - nfd" ("nfd" = no further definition). The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not provide statistics on how many people belong in each sub-category on "No Religion".
The Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001 Census Dictionary statement on religious affiliation states the purpose for gathering such information:
Data on religious affiliation are used for such purposes as planning educational facilities, aged persons' care and other social services provided by religion-based organisations; the location of church buildings; the assigning of chaplains to hospitals, prisons, armed services and universities; the allocation of time on public radio and other media; and sociological research.
As in many Western countries, the level of active participation in church worship is much lower than would be indicated by the proportion of Christians indicated in the ABS statistics; weekly attendance at church services is about 1.5 million, about 7.5% of the population.

I think there's a reasonable number of Catholics that realize things like stem cell research and birth control are probably good.

I think there's a reasonable number of Catholics that realize things like stem cell research and birth control are probably good.

There is indeed.
As an ex-Catholic, I can tell you that one of the major problems of the Catholic church these days is that it is no longer speaking for the majority of its members (I don't think it realised that yet, though)

i dont have a problem with the catholic church taking an unpopular moral stance or telling any member that a specific action would be a sin and might open them up to excommunication.

i would have a huge problem with any politician who took orders from the leaders of his/her church. any MP who was unwilling to tell the biship to fuck off should be removed from office.

i would have a huge problem with any politician who took orders from the leaders of his/her church. any MP who was unwilling to tell the biship to fuck off should be removed from office.You do realize that any decision that a leader would make would come from the politician's personal morality. Obviously, if they are in an organized religion they usually share quite a few moral rules with their faith. It's not exactly a secret that Catholics don't approve of abortion, and it never has been. Given these facts, if the people did not trust the politician to do what they wanted in moral cases, they should have elected someone else for the job instead of telling him to do something he considers a grave moral wrong after he is elected. If I was an elected official, I certainly wouldn't vote for/approve a death penalty law even if 'the people' wanted it - I find the death penalty a grave wrong, probably equivalent to the Catholics view of abortion. In my opinion, if the people had wanted someone to check their morality at the door, well, they should have picked someone else.

You do realize that any decision that a leader would make would come from the politician's personal morality. Obviously, if they are in an organized religion they usually share quite a few moral rules with their faith. It's not exactly a secret that Catholics don't approve of abortion, and it never has been. Given these facts, if the people did not trust the politician to do what they wanted in moral cases, they should have elected someone else for the job instead of telling him to do something he considers a grave moral wrong after he is elected. If I was an elected official, I certainly wouldn't vote for/approve a death penalty law even if 'the people' wanted it - I find the death penalty a grave wrong, probably equivalent to the Catholics view of abortion. In my opinion, if the people had wanted someone to check their morality at the door, well, they should have picked someone else.

However, we don't elect individual politicians under the British parliamentary system. We elected based on the party's general platform. The politician or MP merely represents a riding for that party in parliament and votes based on the party and often has to vote with the party unless it's a free vote.

If you vote with your conscience and it goes against the party, you'll find yourself like Bill Casey (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/223470), Nova Scotia MP for the Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley riding. He voted against his party and was kicked out because he voted based on his principles. He was a Conservative and how he's sitting as an independent.

Some parties are forgiving, especially if it's an open vote, others aren't and the renegade MP is often punished for ignoring the party line.

I wouldn't say it's just their fear of losing power. They do believe it's murder, after all. If you don't play by the rules, you don't get to say you do.
Exactly. Them's the club rules. Those politicians could go protestant, but that would probably loose them votes.

I'm for stem cell research and don't agree with the Catholic Church on it's position but I'm not sure if you can actually say that it's blackmailing people. What it is doing is excomunicating people who it sees as breaking a important central tenent. In escence, it is the same as a club chucking someone out for breaking a rule. I dont think there is exactly anything wrong about that but I guess there would be questions over whether it is a a political or spiritual motive behind it.

I'm for stem cell research and don't agree with the Catholic Church on it's position but I'm not sure if you can actually say that it's blackmailing people. What it is doing is excomunicating people who it sees as breaking a important central tenent. In escence, it is the same as a club chucking someone out for breaking a rule. I dont think there is exactly anything wrong about that but I guess there would be questions over whether it is a a political or spiritual motive behind it.

They aren't breaking it. Unless any of the congresspeople are actively PERFORMING stem-cell research or abortions, the Catholic Church is, indeed, overstepping its boundaries. They have the right to excommunicate those who perform or go through abortions if they wish. They DON'T have the right to excommunicate those who simply allow it.

They aren't breaking it. Unless any of the congresspeople are actively PERFORMING stem-cell research or abortions, the Catholic Church is, indeed, overstepping its boundaries. They have the right to excommunicate those who perform or go through abortions if they wish. They DON'T have the right to excommunicate those who simply allow it.

O.k. Thanks . I wasnt sure to what extend the Catholic Church has to the power to excomunicate people. I guess that'll teach me from making a point from ignorance :p. Could the Catholic Church not argue however that its morally wrong in the way that allowing or authorising someone to commit a murder would be morally wrong? Actually (and I'm sorry for asking so many questions) do people get excommunicated for moral acts or is it for only certain things, because surely any murderer would therefore have to be excomunicated and I'm not sure if thats the case?

O.k. Thanks . I wasnt sure to what extend the Catholic Church has to the power to excomunicate people. I guess that'll teach me from making a point from ignorance :p. Could the Catholic Church not argue however that its morally wrong in the way that allowing or authorising someone to commit a murder would be morally wrong? Actually (and I'm sorry for asking so many questions) do people get excommunicated for moral acts or is it for only certain things, because surely any murderer would therefore have to be excomunicated and I'm not sure if thats the case?

Well, whether they THINK they have the right to excommunicate people based on what these people ALLOW I don't know. They SHOULDN'T excommunicate people based on what these people ALLOW though. :p

There is indeed.
As an ex-Catholic, I can tell you that one of the major problems of the Catholic church these days is that it is no longer speaking for the majority of its members (I don't think it realised that yet, though)

Maybe the majority of European Catholics. I think you'd find that the majority of Catholics on the American Continent are anti-abortion and anti-stem cell research.

You've got a point if you're merely talking about birth control.

Maybe the majority of European Catholics. I think you'd find that the majority of Catholics on the American Continent are anti-abortion and anti-stem cell research.

You've got a point if you're merely talking about birth control.

I hereby suggest that we rename "anti-stem cell research" to "pro-letting innocent people die slowly and painfully of otherwise curable diseases".

Maybe the majority of European Catholics. I think you'd find that the majority of Catholics on the American Continent are anti-abortion and anti-stem cell research.

You've got a point if you're merely talking about birth control.

Well, don't get this the worng way, but American Christians (based on what I've experienced so far) always seem to have this tendency to be holier than the pope.
If you look at the world population, the USA isn't home to most Catholics, though.

Henry VIII says hi.

And yes, america is msotly protestant/borderline/nonreligious.

Henry VIII says hi and "I'm Henry the 8th I am, Henry the 8th I am, I am, I got married to the widow next door, She's been married 7 times before...".

Fixed just for the heck of it. :D

Well yes, he had six marriages, but remember what his response was to the pope saying he couldn't get a divorce!

I was just adding the song for the kicks, not making any point this time. ;)

Well yes, he had six marriages, but remember what his response was to the pope saying he couldn't get a divorce!

Well, whether they THINK they have the right to excommunicate people based on what these people ALLOW I don't know. They SHOULDN'T excommunicate people based on what these people ALLOW though. :p

Lol, Im not going to attempt to understand excomunication. I belive religion is a personal thing so I don't really see the point in excomuniaction if you believe in God anyway, what effect does it have. I guess it's slightly different with Catholicsm as priests are needed for confession and stuff.

Lol, Im not going to attempt to understand excomunication. I belive religion is a personal thing so I don't really see the point in excomuniaction if you believe in God anyway, what effect does it have. I guess it's slightly different with Catholicsm as priests are needed for confession and stuff.

The Church seems to think (without any evidence) that God told them what to do. :p

You do realize that any decision that a leader would make would come from the politician's personal morality. Obviously, if they are in an organized religion they usually share quite a few moral rules with their faith. It's not exactly a secret that Catholics don't approve of abortion, and it never has been. Given these facts, if the people did not trust the politician to do what they wanted in moral cases, they should have elected someone else for the job instead of telling him to do something he considers a grave moral wrong after he is elected. If I was an elected official, I certainly wouldn't vote for/approve a death penalty law even if 'the people' wanted it - I find the death penalty a grave wrong, probably equivalent to the Catholics view of abortion. In my opinion, if the people had wanted someone to check their morality at the door, well, they should have picked someone else.

there is a big difference between having catholic morality and taking orders from the bishop.

there is a big difference between having catholic morality and taking orders from the bishop.

Especially when said orders are "kill everyone that has genetic diseases so that embryos won't suffer".

Well, don't get this the worng way, but American Christians (based on what I've experienced so far) always seem to have this tendency to be holier than the pope.
If you look at the world population, the USA isn't home to most Catholics, though.

When I said "The American Continent" I was not merely talking about the USA. Take a look at attitudes towards abortion in Latin America.

When I said "The American Continent" I was not merely talking about the USA. Take a look at attitudes towards abortion in Latin America.

You mean the legal attitudes, or the real life attitudes?
Mexico (http://www.reproductiverights.org/ww_lac.html) apparently just legalised abortions, and as for the rest, there are some interesting figures on illegal abortions here (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib12.html)

You mean the legal attitudes, or the real life attitudes?
Mexico (http://www.reproductiverights.org/ww_lac.html) apparently just legalised abortions, and as for the rest, there are some interesting figures on illegal abortions here (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib12.html)

Y viva el México!