Catholic Bishop: Voting for the Democratic Party Could Endanger Your Eternal Salvation

While it is not my aim to offend anyone of the Catholic faith, I simply have to ask what's up with the Bishops?

[JohnInToronto]

"Father, forgive me, I voted Democratic."

"Say ten Hail Mary's and ten Our Father's and get down on your knees while I unzip my fly!"

[Lacez]

JohnInToronto wrote:

"Father, forgive me, I voted Democratic."
"Say ten Hail Mary's and ten Our Father's and get down on your knees while I unzip my fly!"

They're getting desperate.
Oh, wait, they're already desperate...umm...they're getting more desperate?
No wait, that's been used too...they're getting ULTRA SUPER more desperate!
That's it!

[nOgOd]

"If you believe in judgement day I have to seriously question your judgement."

Bill Maher

[snyper]

They trotting out the old standards:

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

[hi hi]

With *Z-E-R-O* concern for this bishop and his lies, I shall vote as I please, end of discussion.

That was simple.

[Speedieg]

I can not believe the church is engaging in this absolute politicism. They risk themselves greatly, there is no way one religion would be allowed to hold power in this country over the others. That is the real reason we have separation of church and state. We're it not to be so we would be at war internally constantly. These people need to shut up and stay out of politics.

[Lacez]

Speedieg wrote:

I can not believe the church is engaging in this absolute politicism. They risk themselves greatly, there is no way one religion would be allowed to hold power in this country over the others. That is the real reason we have separation of church and state. We're it not to be so we would be at war internally constantly. These people need to shut up and stay out of politics.

I hadn't thought about the war aspect.
Thanks, now to add that to my growing list of things to bring up with religious nuts.

[Lacez]

snyper wrote:

They trotting out the old standards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Thank you thank you thank you.
Made my morning.

[John E]

Separation of church 'n state, people?

[Big Al]

intimidate (v)- persuade or dissuade by frightening; to frighten somebody into doing or not doing something

presumption (n)- something believed without actual evidence

For 1,500 years after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire the Holy Roman Catholic Church controlled the thinking and behavior of the people by “intimidation”. They not only threatened but actually did have people burned at the stake for not following their dictates. We no longer allow burning at the stake but Bishop Paprocki is still using “intimidation” by threatening people with burning in hell for all eternity.

I’m sure Bishop Paprocki would argue that he is not trying to intimidate but merely warning people of the possible consequences of voting for a candidate whose party endorses actions or behaviors contrary to Catholic moral teaching. I would suggest that it is a huge “presumption” on the part of the Bishop to assert that act of voting for any candidate would be considered a mortal sin in “God’s” eyes. Does a candidate have to be canonized a saint before a person can vote for him/her without the possibility of jeopardizing his/her immortal soul?

Whatever happened to “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…”. It’s obvious to me that Jesus was a lot smarter than Bishop Paprocki.

[EastsideJim]

Where's the IRS on this... Shouldn't this be cause to have their tax exempt status revoked? Isn't the rule that you can endorse "ballot inititives" but can't endorse or advocate for a party or particular candidate?

[hi hi]

EastsideJim wrote:

Where's the IRS on this... Shouldn't this be cause to have their tax exempt status revoked? Isn't the rule that you can endorse "ballot inititives" but can't endorse or advocate for a party or particular candidate?

I have a firm theory, nearly unshakable at this point, that the IRS are *afraid* to take these steps. There are so many violations they could be going after right now, and I believe it's pure fear on the part of that organization: They don't "dare" remove the tax-exempt status of churches. I hope it comes to a head. I am sick of organizations in this (recently for-shit) country who will not do the right thing. It's sickening, purely sickening.

[Lacez]

hi hi wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a firm theory, nearly unshakable at this point, that the IRS are *afraid* to take these steps. There are so many violations they could be going after right now, and I believe it's pure fear on the part of that organization: They don't "dare" remove the tax-exempt status of churches. I hope it comes to a head. I am sick of organizations in this (recently for-shit) country who will not do the right thing. It's sickening, purely sickening.

The church has too much money and power, mixed in with corruption. One way they could prove everyone wrong, do the world a favour, and maybe convince us that religion is still useful and good, is by selling some of the stuff on the vatican and giving the money to poorer countries. Didn't Jesus hate the rich or something? Didn't he tell people that they must share their wealth with those who have none or something like that?

Well, up there in the vatican, they're sitting on a city worth more than $500 billion.

[hi hi]

Lacez wrote:

<quoted text>
The church has too much money and power, mixed in with corruption. One way they could prove everyone wrong, do the world a favour, and maybe convince us that religion is still useful and good, is by selling some of the stuff on the vatican and giving the money to poorer countries. Didn't Jesus hate the rich or something? Didn't he tell people that they must share their wealth with those who have none or something like that?
Well, up there in the vatican, they're sitting on a city worth more than $500 billion.

Nothing christlike about them. Nothing at all.

I've repeatedly pointed out that this does not indict *the non-religious* but does indict them, because they are the ones making the claims to godliness, etc. I get flak for this, and I refuse to stop. THEY ARE THE ONES CLAIMING GODLINESS, ETC. They are the ones indicted by their *spectacular failure* to act anything remotely like Christ, or to follow his teachings.

[snyper]

A billboard from another article here on TOPIX:

"Ban Marriage between Church and State!"

[High High]

hi hi wrote:

With *Z-E-R-O* concern for this bishop and his lies, I shall vote as I please, end of discussion.
That was simple.

I don't think homosexuals should have sex with children anymore.
At least maybe the homosexuals could think about cutting down or something.
Wishful thinking, I know!

[High High]

EastsideJim wrote:

Where's the IRS on this... Shouldn't this be cause to have their tax exempt status revoked? Isn't the rule that you can endorse "ballot inititives" but can't endorse or advocate for a party or particular candidate?

You want to politicize the IRS/tax-collection agencies to attack your political opponents?

Interesting.

[marysaidyes2life]

EastsideJim wrote:

Where's the IRS on this... Shouldn't this be cause to have their tax exempt status revoked? Isn't the rule that you can endorse "ballot inititives" but can't endorse or advocate for a party or particular candidate?

the IRS won't revoke the tax exempt status because it is a muzzle. Imagine just how loudly the Church would speak out, with out Tax Exempt status.

I would welcome it.

[hi hi]

High High wrote:

<quoted text>I don't think homosexuals should have sex with children anymore.

So if you think that's what gays are doing,*why aren't you taking this to a court of law*?

Too scared?

When *dared* and *taunted* to take your allegations to a court of law, why will you not?

Hmmmm?

Afraid you'll be found in contempt of court?

High High wrote:

At least maybe the homosexuals could think about cutting down or something.
Wishful thinking, I know!

Aren't you enabling them if you *don't take your allegations to a court of law*? Why not *go lodge a federal court case* and tell the nation what you are saying here?

Too afraid?

Why are you so *afraid* to tell the nation what you say here?

Hmmmmm?

[hi hi]

High High wrote:

<quoted text>You want to politicize the IRS/tax-collection agencies to attack your political opponents?
Interesting.

Suddenly the law is "political"?

When an officer stops someone for speeding, this is "political"?

Oh, wait; I thought the law is the law and that we *follow it* if we want to be an UPRIGHT, HONEST and MORAL nation. Seems you're trying to find ways around it; why should I be surprised?