Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#762728 Jul 28, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless it's a coincidence that every justice without ties to the Vatican interpreted the Constitution one way, and every one with such ties voted the other way, it strongly suggests that the Catholics are more loyal to their pope than their Constitution.
That was fear when JFK ran for office. Here was his response, which the SCOTUS clowns, who are old enough to remember, have conveniently forgotten. Let's not forget that Article 6, Paragraph 3 of The Constitution of the United States of America clearly states that there shall be no religious test required to hold office.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

Continued...

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#762729 Jul 28, 2014
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)— instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Continued...

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#762730 Jul 28, 2014
Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.

...Oh my, how far in reverse we have travelled. A Presidential candidate could actually articulate the separation of church and state and illustrate that no religious test was required and get elected. Of course, they did shoot him in the head.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#762731 Jul 28, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
I thought that was a new word. It's not.
Nevermind.
It is a wired, and that it is a word is extremely disturbing.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#762732 Jul 28, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently Christian Mingle doesn't have a Women seeking Women section.
Who knew?
You can find these, though:
https://www.google.com/search...

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#762733 Jul 28, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a JASP of the poster formerly know as RiversideRedneck AKA ProxyQueen.
Just Another Sock Puppet.
That's not really fair. As misinformed as he is, if his sobriquet were banned and he refiled, it is not puppetry.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#762734 Jul 28, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got the order wrong, but those are the elements of healthy thinking, which has been called a cult by many Christians. And Christians typically call rational judgments antagonistic to their religion biased. Is it biased to have a negative opinion of drunk driving or unsafe sex? My feelings about Christianity were derived the same way my feelings about drunk driving and unsafe sex were. Rational biases are good things. They're knowledge.
I understand that you say that you are not a Christian, and I believe that you are being sincere. Nevertheless, you bear the mark of Christianity. When you take a position as you have here, it's typically the one the Christians take.
Typically? Exclusively.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#762735 Jul 28, 2014
dirty white boy- wrote:
<quoted text> Traditionally speaking IANS, the fruits of the spirit are how God is revealed, He knows us by the fruit we bear..
Matthew 15 : 16
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep clothing, but inwardly are ravenous
wolves, you will know them by their fruits..
Jesus Instructed to go and bare fruit and that fruit remain... LOVE!
John 15 : 18
You rebut the rebuttal to your claims about not being a Christian by quoting the most immoral tome ever composed. You're two fried eggs in a pan.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#762736 Jul 28, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I'll reproduce some of it here for you:
"These two sets of findings, one concerning children's ideas about magic and the other concerning their ideas about God, suggest that with appropriate testimony from adults, young children believe that otherwise impossible outcomes can occur. Accordingly, it is plausible to expect that children who grow up in religious households will not treat a religious story as a fairy tale. Instead, they will conceive of the protagonist in such narratives as a real person—even if the narrative includes impossible events.
Two recent studies support this prediction. Woolley and Cox (2007) found that preschoolers increasingly claim that the miracles in religious (i.e., biblically based) storybooks could have really occurred. Moreover, as compared to children from nonreligious families, children from Christian families were especially likely to regard such events as plausible. In a follow-up study, Vaden and Woolley (2011) examined the judgments of 4-, 5-, and 6-year olds about closely matched religious and nonreligious stories. In both story types, ordinarily impossible events occurred (e.g., the parting of the seas), but in the religious stories, there was also a reference to divine intervention. Children were more likely to claim that the story character and the ordinarily impossible event were real in the context of the religious stories than in the context of nonreligious stories. This pattern was more evident among 6-year olds than younger children, more evident for familiar religious stories, and more evident among children with a Christian upbringing. Moreover, when subsequently interviewed about the impossible story events, children acknowledged their impossibility but often invoked God to further explain the story events.
In summary, these two studies provide persuasive evidence that older preschoolers and preschoolers with more religious exposure readily think of Bible stories as accounts of actual events that include real people. By implication, even if young children differentiate between realistic stories that are shorn of any impossible elements and fictional stories in which the impossible can occur, they can also come to recognize a third story genre—stories that describe miracles, that is, events that are ordinarily impossible but did actually occur."
...
" As noted earlier, the proportion of such children in the US population is quite small (16%), but they offer an important opportunity to test two competing predictions about children's stance toward the miraculous. The analysis offered by Corriveau et al.(2009) implies that, in the absence of a religious education, children will regard miracles as implausible because they involve ordinarily impossible outcomes. Accordingly, they should conclude that the protagonist in a story that includes a miracle is a fictional character rather than a real person. In that respect, the judgments of such secular children should diverge sharply from these made by children who have received a religious education."
So the above tells us directly that religion is damaging to one's cognitive abilities, and this damage begins in childhood.
How did they collect their data for that "study"?

How many children were interviewed and how did they conduct the interview?

Where was the "study" conducted?

Over what period of time was the "study" conducted?

Who interpreted the data for the study and how do we know they're accurate?

That so-called study leaves too many questions to be blindly believed. Questions that rational people would raise.

Or so you'd think....

“The who whating how...”

Since: Dec 12

"...with huh?"

#762737 Jul 28, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>From the moment I could read, and learned of the Ancient Greeks, I reasoned that if their gods were false, all gods were false.
That's relatable, by the time I finished primary school I'd read about most myths, witnessed several religious cults and experienced a few first hand.

One thing they all have in common is that they do not like questions and discourage independent thinking.

Despite knowledge gained, I still think it would've been nice to grow up without religious nonsense.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#762738 Jul 28, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Sony!
Tater tots!

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#762739 Jul 28, 2014
Bigger Baby Jeebus wrote:
Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.
...Oh my, how far in reverse we have travelled. A Presidential candidate could actually articulate the separation of church and state and illustrate that no religious test was required and get elected. Of course, they did shoot him in the head.
That's purdy Jeebus..

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#762740 Jul 28, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:

1. How do you prove that someone's religion is causing them to cut off contributions to certain aspects of health care?
2. Can we now deny people of other religions our health care plans?
3. Can we now use the "it's against my belief" to deny anyone access to any particular kind of health care?
You don't see this as troubling? Societal laws should not be so inconsistent and lenient - what if I, as a believer of religion X, firmly believe that my company's health care plan should not cover some aspect that you need?
Like, let's say I'm a Rasta, and believe that all surgery is wrong. Can I, as the employer, deny you surgery? That's against my religion. So there.
No. The decision made by SCOTUS only concerns only the contraceptive mandate.

If you want to deny surgery you'll have to take it up with them.

The only types of contraception in question here are the two forms of emergency contraception commonly called “morning after” pills and two types of intrauterine devices.

They are readily available to any and all Americans. No rights were revoked and no "war on women" was waged.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#762741 Jul 28, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:

Of all the G8 nations, only America lacks full national health care. It's the main reason for your enormous debt, and the main reason for personal debt.
Not having health care - giving it to private companies - is bad for your GDP and your people.
That certain religions promote thoughtless policies on birth control increases your teenage and unwanted pregnancies, which subsequently reduce people's economic outcomes.
Your national policies are crippling your nation. But, hey, don't worry about it. Don't change. It's great for the rest of us. Seriously. The private sector in America produces lots of new medicines and surgical techniques that benefit the rest of the world - and you are able to do so b/c of the competitive capitalist nature of your health care system, which necessarily keeps health resources out of reach for those of lower income.
Anyways, the nations I live in benefit from your nation's choices, at the expense of your nation's population.
So, thank you America :)
Hidingfromyou wrote:

That certain religions promote thoughtless policies on birth control increases your teenage and unwanted pregnancies
Right.

Because those certain religions are responsible for the teenagers that are having unprotected sex.

Brilliant.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#762742 Jul 28, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You do understand what "aging" means, yes?
You will, like everyone else, get sick and require medical assistance at some point. If you don't have health care at that time, you will go bankrupt. Additionally, depending on the nature of your illness, you may be denied insurance in your nation (unless your gov't prevents that before you get sick).
Seriously, humans do not grow younger. Baring death from accident, you will need health services.
Correct.

Health services are readily available for all.

Moving on...

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#762743 Jul 28, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does everything have to be spelled out in full detail?? Of course when I say Hitler pushed Darwinism I mean social Darwinism.
Ugh.
IANS: This is what you consider to be constructive?

This sort of intellectual dishonesty is why I cannot discuss serious topics with the Redneck.

I will call him out at times, and engage him in lighthearted banter, but will not descend into his dirty basement.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#762744 Jul 28, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:

It's not a debate. You, and other Christians, are history deniers. You feel this strange need to rewrite history, thinking it somehow supports your religious beliefs in the doing so.
Funny. You also say; "Hitler did not persecute Christians". You said that was my false claim.

Hitler shut down the Catholic Youth League, arrested Catholic priests and nuns, had many of them executed and suppressed Catholic publications, even to the extent of replacing the Bible in schools with Mein Kampf.

Nah, that's not persecuting. That's loving.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#762745 Jul 28, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Ljd7f2tFOakXX
https://www.youtube.com/watch...
LOL. "Why else would you go to Africa?"

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#762746 Jul 28, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The decision made by SCOTUS only concerns only the contraceptive mandate.
If you want to deny surgery you'll have to take it up with them.
The only types of contraception in question here are the two forms of emergency contraception commonly called “morning after” pills and two types of intrauterine devices.
They are readily available to any and all Americans. No rights were revoked and no "war on women" was waged.
Check on the prices of having an intrauterine devise inplanted. If you think a woman can spring for that on a waitress salary, or clerking for Hobby Lobby, you are simply tater tots..( that's my substitution for nuts)
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#762747 Jul 28, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny. You also say; "Hitler did not persecute Christians". You said that was my false claim.
Hitler shut down the Catholic Youth League, arrested Catholic priests and nuns, had many of them executed and suppressed Catholic publications, even to the extent of replacing the Bible in schools with Mein Kampf.
Nah, that's not persecuting. That's loving.
Aryan tough love...

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 min onemale 268,874
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min New Age Spiritual... 573,983
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 6 min WasteWater 5,549
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 6 min WasteWater 5,792
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 17 min Antique Annie 608,168
This ~ or ~ That? (game) (Dec '12) 24 min End Times 1,626
skype sex id luv to try it (Aug '13) 29 min athar 97
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr DNF 97,884
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 1 hr Coco 203
More from around the web