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

There are 43 comments on the pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com story from Sep 27, 2012, titled Catholic Bishop: Voting for the Democratic Party Could Endanger Your Eternal Salvation. In it, pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com.

hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#21 Sep 29, 2012
marysaidyes2life wrote:
<quoted text>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.
This is an interesting point, although you realize what happens when the church gets louder.

Their opponents get louder, too.

This is eternal, non-negotiable, and a fact of life.

You want everyone screeching their heads off 24/7? I'm *sure* the pro-gay would be up to this challenge; I have *no* doubt whatsoever.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#22 Sep 29, 2012
High High wrote:
<quoted text>You want to politicize the IRS/tax-collection agencies to attack your political opponents?
Interesting.
That isn't what he said. The IRS doesn't set the tax rates nor write the tax code.
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#23 Oct 1, 2012
marysaidyes2life wrote:
<quoted text>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.
So you condone churches doing things that aren't legal? You'd welcome the church strong-arming the law of our country? Wowsa. So much for obeying the laws of the land...

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#24 Oct 1, 2012
a voter wrote:
<quoted text>
So you condone churches doing things that aren't legal? You'd welcome the church strong-arming the law of our country? Wowsa. So much for obeying the laws of the land...
He was just pointing out that the IRS doesn't want to act because they're afraid of the consequences. He didn't say he supported it in any way, instead he said he would want the IRS to act.
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#25 Oct 1, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
He was just pointing out that the IRS doesn't want to act because they're afraid of the consequences. He didn't say he supported it in any way, instead he said he would want the IRS to act.
How is it not being strong-armed if they won't enforce the tax code/laws b/c they are "afraid"?
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#26 Oct 1, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
He was just pointing out that the IRS doesn't want to act because they're afraid of the consequences. He didn't say he supported it in any way, instead he said he would want the IRS to act.
BTW I was responding to the post that I quoted in that response.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#27 Oct 1, 2012
a voter wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it not being strong-armed if they won't enforce the tax code/laws b/c they are "afraid"?
That sentence didn't make much sense...simplified, you said "how is it not being strict if they don't enforce rules?" Then you added in the word "afraid," which further confuses what you're trying to say. I don't know how to answer this because its more of a statement than a question.

Though I'm guessing you're asking how they can be afraid. Well, common knowledge details that the Church is powerful. If the IRS went against the Church, they'd have a hell of an enemy from that point and on. They are afraid of the consequences that would come with enforcing the law on such a powerful group.
a voter wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW I was responding to the post that I quoted in that response.
BTW, when you insinuate that I shouldn't answer your post because it wasn't directed at me, you're showing us how your logic is flawed. By that logic, you shouldn't have replied to his post because it wasn't directed at you.

You're in a forum, posting things that the entire public can see. You don't have supreme control over who replies to you. You don't have any special rights to only have the one you replied to reply to you. Jeez, learn to accept you were wrong and don't go deflecting by saying that you were only reply to someone else just because someone outed you for misunderstanding.
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#28 Oct 1, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
That sentence didn't make much sense...simplified, you said "how is it not being strict if they don't enforce rules?" Then you added in the word "afraid," which further confuses what you're trying to say. I don't know how to answer this because its more of a statement than a question.

Though I'm guessing you're asking how they can be afraid. Well, common knowledge details that the Church is powerful. If the IRS went against the Church, they'd have a hell of an enemy from that point and on. They are afraid of the consequences that would come with enforcing the law on such a powerful group.
<quoted text>
BTW, when you insinuate that I shouldn't answer your post because it wasn't directed at me, you're showing us how your logic is flawed. By that logic, you shouldn't have replied to his post because it wasn't directed at you.
You're in a forum, posting things that the entire public can see. You don't have supreme control over who replies to you. You don't have any special rights to only have the one you replied to reply to you. Jeez, learn to accept you were wrong and don't go deflecting by saying that you were only reply to someone else just because someone outed you for misunderstanding.
I did not initially use the word "afraid", the poster that I replied to in the beginning did inferring that the IRS should be "afraid of consequences" if they disallow churches using 501(c) status for their pulpit political maneuvering. You're trying to "simplify" my post to your own understanding but it's meaning stands despite you.

Anyway, so what you mean is if the IRS tried to enforce the Govt's rules about 501(c)s then they should be afraid of the church. If that's not strong-arming language I don't know what is..

I am not insinuating you shouldn't reply to my posts. You just obviously didn't gather the point of the post I was initially responding to which wasn't yours and you apparently did not understand. Yet another post you are failing to comprehend.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#29 Oct 1, 2012
a voter wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not initially use the word "afraid", the poster that I replied to in the beginning did inferring that the IRS should be "afraid of consequences" if they disallow churches using 501(c) status for their pulpit political maneuvering. You're trying to "simplify" my post to your own understanding but it's meaning stands despite you.
Anyway, so what you mean is if the IRS tried to enforce the Govt's rules about 501(c)s then they should be afraid of the church. If that's not strong-arming language I don't know what is..
I am not insinuating you shouldn't reply to my posts. You just obviously didn't gather the point of the post I was initially responding to which wasn't yours and you apparently did not understand. Yet another post you are failing to comprehend.
Your first reply back to me made no sense as a sentence, that is a fact.
I never claimed he said the exact words "they are afraid," and I even said that he MEANT that they were afraid.

I'm not saying that if they enforce the rules, they SHOULD be afraid of the Church. I'm saying that they ARE afraid of the Church. Otherwise, what other reason could they have for not enforcing the law? This is the same thing with many other orginizations. For example, the U.N. has found that the Roman Catholic Chuch is not keeping track or record of their spending. Yet I haven't seen a move on the Church yet.

It is simple, common knowledge that the Church has extreme power. It is also common knowledge that they a use that power in order to get around certain laws.

Ye I did get the point of your original post, you thought he was saying that the IRS shouldn't go forward. You thought he was daring the IRS to make a move, saying they'll regret it. That is completely untrue, he was simply stating that the Church has a grip on the government, and I think that grip is fear, as does the original commenter, it seems.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#30 Oct 1, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first reply back to me made no sense as a sentence, that is a fact.
I never claimed he said the exact words "they are afraid," and I even said that he MEANT that they were afraid.
I'm not saying that if they enforce the rules, they SHOULD be afraid of the Church. I'm saying that they ARE afraid of the Church. Otherwise, what other reason could they have for not enforcing the law? This is the same thing with many other orginizations. For example, the U.N. has found that the Roman Catholic Chuch is not keeping track or record of their spending. Yet I haven't seen a move on the Church yet.
It is simple, common knowledge that the Church has extreme power. It is also common knowledge that they a use that power in order to get around certain laws.
Ye I did get the point of your original post, you thought he was saying that the IRS shouldn't go forward. You thought he was daring the IRS to make a move, saying they'll regret it. That is completely untrue, he was simply stating that the Church has a grip on the government, and I think that grip is fear, as does the original commenter, it seems.
Sorry, after re-reading the original comment, I realize I was wrong, that that was not what he was saying, though my points still stand that they might be afraid of the Church.

He still has a point though, that you took in a way it was not intended to be taken.

I apologize for my misunderstanding though, I will always admit to my mistakes in order to remain as truthful as possible.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31 Oct 1, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
That sentence didn't make much sense...simplified, you said "how is it not being strict if they don't enforce rules?" Then you added in the word "afraid," which further confuses what you're trying to say. I don't know how to answer this because its more of a statement than a question.
Though I'm guessing you're asking how they can be afraid. Well, common knowledge details that the Church is powerful. If the IRS went against the Church, they'd have a hell of an enemy from that point and on. They are afraid of the consequences that would come with enforcing the law on such a powerful group.
<quoted text>
BTW, when you insinuate that I shouldn't answer your post because it wasn't directed at me, you're showing us how your logic is flawed. By that logic, you shouldn't have replied to his post because it wasn't directed at you.
You're in a forum, posting things that the entire public can see. You don't have supreme control over who replies to you. You don't have any special rights to only have the one you replied to reply to you. Jeez, learn to accept you were wrong and don't go deflecting by saying that you were only reply to someone else just because someone outed you for misunderstanding.
What a ridiculous set of assumptions.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#32 Oct 1, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
What a ridiculous set of assumptions.
Mine or his? I agree that some of what I said meant nothing in relation to the original comment, but only too late did I realize that. Though I feel a lot of my points held water.
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#33 Oct 2, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Mine or his? I agree that some of what I said meant nothing in relation to the original comment, but only too late did I realize that. Though I feel a lot of my points held water.
Now look. I get what you're saying and there's no harm done, no big deal, it's a discussion.

I would like you to look though at some of the language in these posts. The Church is strong and powerful does come off as threatening to flex on the Gov't for enforcing laws though. I don't know if that is what is meant but perhaps you can see how that flies in the face of having respect for the laws of the land. Also, how unfair it would be to show legal preferences towards churches. The power, strength, and especially the respect that people give to churches is due to the perception that they deal fairly and are charitable. For a church to do that would mean they would weaken their own moral standing and lose respect that people have for them.

“Stop the liberal madness”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#34 Oct 2, 2012
"Catholic Bishop: Voting for the Democratic Party Could Endanger Your Eternal Salvation"

To vote AGAINST the word of God and for a politcal party which attacks Christianity and the Church is no different than you attacking God.

The Bishop is than correct.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#35 Oct 2, 2012
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
"Catholic Bishop: Voting for the Democratic Party Could Endanger Your Eternal Salvation"
To vote AGAINST the word of God and for a politcal party which attacks Christianity and the Church is no different than you attacking God.
The Bishop is than correct.
And for those of us who aren't believers in, let alone adherents of, this version of God you are talking about, your pronouncement from on high on something of the good Bishop being "correct", means what, if anything, exactly?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#36 Oct 2, 2012
a voter wrote:
<quoted text>
Now look. I get what you're saying and there's no harm done, no big deal, it's a discussion.
I would like you to look though at some of the language in these posts. The Church is strong and powerful does come off as threatening to flex on the Gov't for enforcing laws though. I don't know if that is what is meant but perhaps you can see how that flies in the face of having respect for the laws of the land. Also, how unfair it would be to show legal preferences towards churches. The power, strength, and especially the respect that people give to churches is due to the perception that they deal fairly and are charitable. For a church to do that would mean they would weaken their own moral standing and lose respect that people have for them.
I understand what you're saying, it is unfair, I agree. Though it does happen. The Church doesn't obey many of the laws yet the government lets it slide. It's not fair at all, but it's true. The government won't enforce the laws because if they do, they Church will cry like a baby and scream about it. They'll say that the government hates god, they're getting reprimanded "for nothing." They'll spin it in a way that people would form protests and stuff, causing trouble.

For proof that this will happen, just look at the comment that Palin lover posted under yours. The truth isn't always fair and good.
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#37 Oct 2, 2012
marysaidyes2life wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Lol. There is no muzzle. They are already playing politics from the pulpit. The article itself says this Bishop is telling people they'll be doomed to hell if they vote Democrat. How are they muzzled?
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#38 Oct 2, 2012
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
"Catholic Bishop: Voting for the Democratic Party Could Endanger Your Eternal Salvation"
To vote AGAINST the word of God and for a politcal party which attacks Christianity and the Church is no different than you attacking God.
The Bishop is than correct.
Except that the Democratic party hasn't attacked a religion or Church...What makes you think the Republican party is so Holy? B/c they use an abortion stance as a means to make you think they are righteous? Don't be fooled into thinking one side is inherently good or bad, they are all people who have an agenda of some sort.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#39 Oct 3, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Mine or his? I agree that some of what I said meant nothing in relation to the original comment, but only too late did I realize that. Though I feel a lot of my points held water.
Did you hear about this?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/23/more-th...

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#40 Oct 3, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you hear about this?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/23/more-th...
I hope the IRS and the law itself comes down on it hard. People like this should all be shoved into the same city, then walled off from humanity.

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.

Religion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 min Eagle 12 7,310
News Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 4 min Aliroger1 441,998
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min June VanDerMark 589,656
News Sunday explainer: who are the Rohingya, and why... 15 min ozboy 1
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 18 min rabbee yehoshooah... 220,039
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 47 min Eagle 12 239,082
News Church reels after Ireland's huge 'Yes' to gay ... 1 hr QUITTNER May 24 2015 6
More from around the web