Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,595
Thousands of abortion opponents marched from the National Mall to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their annual remembrance of the court's Roe v. Wade decision. Full Story
Atheist Perspective

United States

#322709 Mar 9, 2014
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Greetings "A-P."
While I'll thank you for your reply, I'll confess to still being a tad puzzled by it.
You're either a "new" poster here, or you're someone who's playing at being "new."
I haven't decided which just yet...there have been many cases of older posters showing up under new names/personalities.
That said, if you'd spent any significant amount of time here, you'd know quite well that I don't happen to subscribe to any system of beliefs whatsoever. In fact, I'd likely be sneeringly described by you as a, "gutless agnostic."
I don't claim to know without a shadow of a doubt what lies beyond this plane of existence--personally though, I don't really think that anything does. Once you die, you're gone, kept alive by memories of those who knew you, or those you've influenced.
"Liberal Protestants," that's an interesting if somewhat oxymoronic label. I'm sure that there are Protestants who consider themselves liberals, and vice-versa though the two do seem to be mutually exclusive at face-value. If we're going to get into inter-denominational conflicts here then we're going to spend the better part of eternity pointing fingers and saying that, "this group is wrong on this account, that group is wrong on that account..."
I'd rather not get into that. I've seen both faces of the Catholic faith in some of the posters on here and I can honestly say that none have influenced me much one way or the other. There's a trio of extraordinarily unpleasant posters who all claim to cling to Catholicism, there has also been the flip side of that coin on here. I'll confess to being a bit more impressed with the latest Pope than I'd like to be--I hope the Church follows his lead.
One thing I'm really curious about...if you're an Atheist as your screen-name implies, why do you come across as a "Catholic Activist?"
Yep. Actual atheist here. Which means you don't have to worry about me becoming president because our body politic is chock full of protestants, who would NEVER vote for an atheist. Only reason I'm even mentioning prots vs. caths is that's one of the fattest threads here. And I just pointed out that protestant-originating stereotypical attacks on catholics overrides progressive's supposed enlightened sense of fair play and standing up for steamrollered minorities. Capiche? Just to make this clear, I'd be just as rant-spewing if I lived in Catholism-dominated Ireland, Mexico, Italy, or Quebec. Which led me in this forum to affirm my atheism to...what, Doubting Thomases? Sorry. I amuse myself. Anyway the touchstone for my social/"family" policy is: NO THEOCRACY! I assert that we live in one. And that we need regime change now!

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#322710 Mar 9, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are just looking for an argument. Civil unions for all, period.
If you want a religious ceremony rename the sacrament. The Catholic Church renamed the sacrament of pennance and extreme unction already and they can do it again.
"I think you are just looking for an argument."

Moving on then...
Atheist Perspective

United States

#322711 Mar 9, 2014
Atheist Perspective wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. Actual atheist here. Which means you don't have to worry about me becoming president because our body politic is chock full of protestants, who would NEVER vote for an atheist. Only reason I'm even mentioning prots vs. caths is that's one of the fattest threads here. And I just pointed out that protestant-originating stereotypical attacks on catholics overrides progressive's supposed enlightened sense of fair play and standing up for steamrollered minorities. Capiche? Just to make this clear, I'd be just as rant-spewing if I lived in Catholism-dominated Ireland, Mexico, Italy, or Quebec. Which led me in this forum to affirm my atheism to...what, Doubting Thomases? Sorry. I amuse myself. Anyway the touchstone for my social/"family" policy is: NO THEOCRACY! I assert that we live in one. And that we need regime change now!
Also, some of the best people I've coalitioned with in progressive politics have themselves been religious; eg. Liberation Theologists, Muslims, Unitarians...Wiccans...First Nations. So my point was that, in the real world, being non-Catholic doesn't make a progressive person any less absurd, or bigoted, than the Catholics you bash by route. Zinging poor immigrant Latino families for their hilarious/evil "large families" is as dumbass and racist as any crap the religious right dishes out. Because some pro-choicers are unwaveringly focused on a Nicholas Cage-like Vatican conspiracy. Waste of bigotry! And racist; I grew up in a U.S. city where as a child and young adult I heard unending anti-Latino slurs (though idiot "Whites" just called all Latinos "Mexicans"..."w ho keep coming here...keep having babies...bla bla bla." Sometimes the anti-catholic bias really does carry a racist payload. As for centuries-old rivalries between Christian cults, screw 'em all!
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322712 Mar 9, 2014
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Good afternoon "Ink!"
Always a pleasure to "see" you Milady.
Ehh, I'm getting by, but I have to admit that this winter's brought out the worst in me to date...
Yeah...
I re-read that post three times, and all three times that sentence in particular has bothered me.
I can't deny it, that sentence is a reflection of my personal prejudice--which is wholly unwarranted since I wasn't raised in that faith--against the Catholic Church.
I think my perception of Catholicism has been colored by my father's experience. He's an ex-Catholic, and there's nothing worse to a Catholic than an ex-Catholic, just as there's nothing worse to a smoker than an ex-smoker.
Pretty poor analogy I'll admit, but you get the general idea.
There's a side of me that actively wants to think the worst of the Catholic church, and even as I intellectually, and in my heart of hearts, know that that's wrong, there's that part of me that just won't let go of that.
Like everyone else, I too have traits I wish I didn't possess...
Honest as always. So refreshing. You know I think when we talk about the Catholic Church, we are really talking about two different things. One is the past powerful institution which became a victim of it's own power and extreme methods to keep that power and protect itself from scandals. Entirely legitimate to criticize and indefensible.

Then we have the Catholic people who fervently believe in Jesus and know this is the Church He formed. People who are shocked, disappointed and embarressed by what they have learned in recent times yet struggling to separate their faith from the individuals who control the religion, per se.

I just keep remembering that Jesus was contemptous of the Pharisees and Jewish high priests for putting onerous burdens on the people while they, themselves were exempt. And now we see the Catholic Church has done the same thing. I guess in all cultures Power does corrupt.

My hope and belief is that Pope Francis will bring us back to Jesus' way.

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

#322713 Mar 9, 2014
Atheist Perspective wrote:
<quoted text>Also, some of the best people I've coalitioned with in progressive politics have themselves been religious; eg. Liberation Theologists, Muslims, Unitarians...Wiccans...First Nations. So my point was that, in the real world, being non-Catholic doesn't make a progressive person any less absurd, or bigoted, than the Catholics you bash by route. Zinging poor immigrant Latino families for their hilarious/evil "large families" is as dumbass and racist as any crap the religious right dishes out. Because some pro-choicers are unwaveringly focused on a Nicholas Cage-like Vatican conspiracy. Waste of bigotry! And racist; I grew up in a U.S. city where as a child and young adult I heard unending anti-Latino slurs (though idiot "Whites" just called all Latinos "Mexicans"..."w ho keep coming here...keep having babies...bla bla bla." Sometimes the anti-catholic bias really does carry a racist payload. As for centuries-old rivalries between Christian cults, screw 'em all!
Good afternoon "A-P,"

Forgive the inquiry, but are you in need of a dose of Lithium?
Your posts are growing increasingly incoherent, and you are coming across as rather, manic.
I don't believe I've bashed Catholics(or Latinos) by route, or in any other fashion. Please feel free to point out to me examples of where I've done so.
"Waste of bigotry...?" Am I to infer you believe then, that there are cases where bigotry is justified?

Oh, you still haven't explained your throwaway aspersion regarding "gutless agnostics..."

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322714 Mar 9, 2014
The RCC has always called it holy matrimony. It's irrelevant, though, because marriage has always been the LEGAL term. Civil unions are a recent concept, and not one has ever been equal to legal marriage.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are just looking for an argument. Civil unions for all, period.
If you want a religious ceremony rename the sacrament. The Catholic Church renamed the sacrament of pennance and extreme unction already and they can do it again.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322715 Mar 9, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
The RCC has always called it holy matrimony. It's irrelevant, though, because marriage has always been the LEGAL term. Civil unions are a recent concept, and not one has ever been equal to legal marriage.
<quoted text>
It seems you don't like my idea. Civil unions are a recent concept and a good one. Why not have it replace marraige and everyone will be equal. The legal term marraige has always meant a man and a woman . So it is old fashioned and needs to be changed to something more unisex like civil union.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322716 Mar 9, 2014
The problem is the reverse of what JFK faced running for president. Nowadays, catholics in office get flack for not being "catholic" enough--look at all the flack Pelosi takes for being pro-choice politically.

Well, that and catholic groups paying lobbyists to push their religious agenda into law.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Just on a quick look, I found some RCCs that you might like to know are protecting your interests.
Pelosi D
Collins R
Leahy D
Durbin D
Harkin D
Milkulski D
Murry D
Menendez D
Gillibrand D
What Catholics are you actually talking about in congress?
grumpy

West Haverstraw, NY

#322717 Mar 9, 2014
Atheist Perspective wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. Actual atheist here. Which means you don't have to worry about me becoming president because our body politic is chock full of protestants, who would NEVER vote for an atheist. Only reason I'm even mentioning prots vs. caths is that's one of the fattest threads here. And I just pointed out that protestant-originating stereotypical attacks on catholics overrides progressive's supposed enlightened sense of fair play and standing up for steamrollered minorities. Capiche? Just to make this clear, I'd be just as rant-spewing if I lived in Catholism-dominated Ireland, Mexico, Italy, or Quebec. Which led me in this forum to affirm my atheism to...what, Doubting Thomases? Sorry. I amuse myself. Anyway the touchstone for my social/"family" policy is: NO THEOCRACY! I assert that we live in one. And that we need regime change now!
As I previously posted to John K,
Who gives a shlt!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322718 Mar 9, 2014
Marriage is equally unisex, and there is absolutely no reason to create an entirely different legal institution just because some fools think they own the copyright.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems you don't like my idea. Civil unions are a recent concept and a good one. Why not have it replace marraige and everyone will be equal. The legal term marraige has always meant a man and a woman . So it is old fashioned and needs to be changed to something more unisex like civil union.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322719 Mar 9, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
The problem is the reverse of what JFK faced running for president. Nowadays, catholics in office get flack for not being "catholic" enough--look at all the flack Pelosi takes for being pro-choice politically.
Well, that and catholic groups paying lobbyists to push their religious agenda into law.
<quoted text>
Well they obviously aren't paying enough because Pelosi is still pro choice.

I would like to know who the Catholic lobbiests are because I believe that would be illegal.

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

#322720 Mar 9, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>As I previously posted to John K,
Who gives a shlt!
I think that response was directed at someone else---I'm fairly certain I'd have remembered that.

In any case...awesome post "Grump!"

;P
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322721 Mar 9, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Marriage is equally unisex, and there is absolutely no reason to create an entirely different legal institution just because some fools think they own the copyright.
<quoted text>
No marriage has never been unisex. That is a new concept and it needs a new word. Is it just the 'word' that is important to you or is it the equality regardless of what it's called?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322722 Mar 9, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No marriage has never been unisex. That is a new concept and it needs a new word. Is it just the 'word' that is important to you or is it the equality regardless of what it's called?
My parents were married...MARRIED mind you, by a judge, in an anteroom of the courthouse, reserved specifically for that purpose. Theirs was what used to be termed 'civil marriage', and with it came all the rights and benefits which accrued to those couples married in church, or by a pastor anywhere.'Civil Unions' have always meant something different, and did NOT come with said rights and benefits. It's ludicrous that this is so, still today.

"Marriage" has meant MANY things, across cultures, and has only been 'reserved' to the union of one man and one woman, by certain religious sects, for a few hundred years.

Marriage predates Christianity. Native Americans have revered homosexuals as the "two-spirit" people for centuries, and have, from time immemorial, married them to each other. Don't be so quick to claim ownership of a term that's far older than you. Your religion just co-opted it, changed it to suit, and now resents those who want to 'change' it again.

Tough.
Atheist Perspective

United States

#322724 Mar 9, 2014
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Good afternoon "A-P,"
Forgive the inquiry, but are you in need of a dose of Lithium?
Your posts are growing increasingly incoherent, and you are coming across as rather, manic.
I don't believe I've bashed Catholics(or Latinos) by route, or in any other fashion. Please feel free to point out to me examples of where I've done so.
"Waste of bigotry...?" Am I to infer you believe then, that there are cases where bigotry is justified?
Oh, you still haven't explained your throwaway aspersion regarding "gutless agnostics..."
OK. OK, the "waste of bigotry" thing was a joke. The joke is: a lot of self-styled liberals just won't see their own blatant bigotry. Hardee Har Har? Didn't mean to muddy the waters. My bad. I've just met more than my share of real-life "Brian Griffins." And...yeah, you do deserve an explanation of "gutless agnostics," because it was meant provocatively. It's an actual philosophical issue. Long story short, there's no reason for people who don't believe in Glurf to say, "I'm not sure, one way or the other, about the existence of all-powerful, universe-creating, personal wish-fulfilling Glurf." It's the meaningless questions and anthropomorphic qualities of "God" I reject. That's why I suggested substituting"Glurf" for "God." This helps point up how silly (though deadly) Glurf/God really is. My usual targets for ridicule are the Big Three monotheisms currently ravaging the planet. Hate 'em. Oh, you characterized some drift and apparent non sequiturs -- sorry. Autocorrect on my phone is partly to blame (if, instead of of; the, instead of their). I admit sometimes I answer more than one post at a time, and I can see how scattershot that can look. Point taken.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322725 Mar 9, 2014
Atheist Perspective wrote:
<quoted text>The touchstone for my social/"family" policy is: NO THEOCRACY! I assert that we live in one. And that we need regime change now!
I wish I could say I disagree with you on the former. I cannot. With the latter, I am completely in agreement - but we'll have to wait until 2016 to see, and even then, I doubt it will actually occur.

Given that the current President's policies are interchangeable with his predecessor's, I see no future President for whom the (relatively newly) vast Executive Power, isn't a temptation to reserve more.

And our next one, mark my words, WON'T be a "democrat". He/She will be a theocrat. The rabid religious right will get their numbers out in force for this one. Hide and watch. They pretty much have to, before the pendulum can swing the other way....

:)
Atheist Perspective

United States

#322726 Mar 9, 2014
Right Wing Conspiracy wrote:
<quoted text>
What Church were you forced to join by the government?
Hopefully the religously intolerant never become too powerful. They seem way too eager to take all freedom of religion away from US citizens.
The Church with God on the money and prayer in the Congress and at the White House. The Church of Manifest Destiny. The Church of continual holy wars across the Earth.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322727 Mar 9, 2014
....Not to mention, the Church of the Religiously Exempt - from things like paying taxes, selling contraceptives, providing basic health insurance to one's gestationally-capable employees, and filling combat positions in wartime....yeah, the Church gets TONS of support from our illustrious 'government'.

We're not a democracy, by any means....we're certainly no longer a republic...Hell, the 'United States' are about as politically divided as it's possible to get.

If we're not a theocracy now, we're absolutely headed in that direction.
Atheist Perspective

United States

#322728 Mar 9, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I wish I could say I disagree with you on the former. I cannot. With the latter, I am completely in agreement - but we'll have to wait until 2016 to see, and even then, I doubt it will actually occur.
Given that the current President's policies are interchangeable with his predecessor's, I see no future President for whom the (relatively newly) vast Executive Power, isn't a temptation to reserve more.
And our next one, mark my words, WON'T be a "democrat". He/She will be a theocrat. The rabid religious right will get their numbers out in force for this one. Hide and watch. They pretty much have to, before the pendulum can swing the other way....
:)
Scary! But, Yeah...we've had so many screwball Presidents -- who knows what's coming up next!:P
Atheist Perspective

United States

#322729 Mar 9, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
....Not to mention, the Church of the Religiously Exempt - from things like paying taxes, selling contraceptives, providing basic health insurance to one's gestationally-capable employees, and filling combat positions in wartime....yeah, the Church gets TONS of support from our illustrious 'government'.
We're not a democracy, by any means....we're certainly no longer a republic...Hell, the 'United States' are about as politically divided as it's possible to get.
If we're not a theocracy now, we're absolutely headed in that direction.
Thank you. I forgot to mention the tax shelter. You're right. What a ginormous scam! It's a real entanglement of Church with State!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 56 min Rosa_Winkel 231,938
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr IBdaMann 2,189
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr John Galt 1,144,008
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Bruin For Life 28,242
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 7 hr Star On 47 646
Pat Summitt files for divorce after 27 years of... (Aug '07) Tue Mr bobo 145
Haas Leads Purdue Past Grambling State, 82-30 Nov 22 ngzcaz 1

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE