Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[LGBT]: Bigots can go eat a bag of [Chick-Fil-A]

24567101

Posts

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I believe the Catholic Church has every right to excommunicate legislators.

    Also I believe that those legislators have every right to pull the Church's tax-exempt status under Section 501C, which prohibits religious organizations from directly attempting to influence legislation in such a manner.

    As was once said, "Him that will live like a dick, shall pay out the ass."

    After the Proposition 8 debacle, this should have happened to the LDS church.

    steam_sig.png
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Isn't this the country that was worried about electing certain denominations of catholics, due to fear of _____ religious authority being in control of them?

    Anywho, I thought it was the job of a church to spiritually lead their flock. Not, you know, everyone else's flocks.

  • ATIRageATIRage Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    The examples you give don't seem to be evidence of any special care needed, or taken, with religion. They seem to be the application of our legal system to the citizenry. The fact that our legal system is non-sectarian being what allows it to be applied to people with minority religious beliefs.

    You aren't reading the cases then. Yoder is an example of the court requiring a special carve out from compulsory education for Amish children. Barnette is a carve out for religious people (particularly jehovah's witnesses) from having to recite the pledge of allegiance. Same goes for the NH license plate cases. Of course the prayer in school cases are another example of recognizing that individuals are allowed to practice whatever religious freedoms they want without being forced to recite a school prayer (Abbington or Lee v. Weisman). This applies equally to minority religious views and majority religious views like in the football prayer case Santa Fe v. Doe (There a mormon and a catholic)

    Free exercise is the epitome of recognizing that religious practice deserves special protection. I guess you could also look to Title VII which grants a specific exception to hiring practices for religious institutions (which makes sense, can't require that catholic churches hire a Mormon bishop, whereas you CAN require private companies to do so as a matter of anti-discrimination).

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    Why is that bothersome? Is the Church supposed to give legislators a pass? If the Church frames your choice as one between faith and public opinion, and you don't choose faith, you ought to expect a response from your church.

    Yes, they're supposed to give legislators a pass on this. Because who the state recognizes as "married" is a state issue, not a religious one. This is Caesar's due, not God's.

    If instead of a legislator acting in the name of the state, it was a rogue priest who was performing gay marriages in the name of the Church, then it would be a religious issue for which Eucharist-denial or excommunication would be appropriate.


    Consider - the Church does not recognize divorce, while the state does. "What God has joined, let no man put asunder" and all that - the Church lacks the authority to undo a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.
    The Church also does not recognize post-divorce re-marriage (without a Decree of Nullity), while the state does.

    So where is all the talk of excommunication for all persons who have had 2nd marriages recognized by the state? I haven't heard much, if any. Where the politicians who voted for the state to recognize 2nd marriages excommunicated?


    Now, the Church will definitely consider sexual relations within the 2nd marriage to be adultery, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the 2nd marriage is recognized by the state. The Church would also consider it adultery if sexual relations (with someone other than a Church-recognized spouse) took place outside of the state-recognized 2nd marriage.

  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2011
    I believe the Catholic Church has every right to excommunicate legislators.

    Also I believe that those legislators have every right to pull the Church's tax-exempt status under Section 501C, which prohibits religious organizations from directly attempting to influence legislation in such a manner.

    As was once said, "Him that will live like a dick, shall pay out the ass."

    Alternatively, start your own church! It worked for Henry VIII.

    3DS: 2509-1593-4994
    Steam Profile
    PSN ID: Dohaeris210
    Treadmill Desk Twitch Stream : status.php?streamuser=SniperGuy210
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    A decision to deny Communion, or even excommunicate, seems an entirely appropriate, and entirely correct, decision to make. If a legislator is having conflicts between his faith and his job, he needs to choose one and face the consequences as he believes them to be.

    This is objectively Wrong.


    Legislators and public servants are not representatives of specific religious sects, and to act officially in such a manner is arguably unconstitutional. Federal and State representatives' primary duty is to delineate, protect, and define the freedoms of ALL their constituents, not just the ones that subscribe to their particular spiritual faith.

    A Catholic politician voting in favor of gay rights is not representing the Holy See in his or her actions, ergo any punishment from church hierarchy based on those acts as an elected representative should only be considered if and when said politician acts against the actual institution of the Church.

    To wit: Voting to allow secular marriage of gay couples while protecting the Church's ability to deny that right within its own confines is not an act against the Holy Church. Voting to force the Catholic Church in America to confirm marriage rights to any gay couple that requests it would be acting against the Church.

    Unfortunately, supporting gay rights is in opposition to the Catholic Church, and thus they are from their point of view "justified" in performing this excommunication. The church does not support the idea of gay marriage as in their eyes allowing that is allowing a sin or abomination or whatever strong word you want to use. The Church does not acknowledge the separation of Church and State, they would rather the Pope be running the world's governments. In their eyes, supporting gay marriage, in any capacity, especially if you are a catholic and a politician, is speaking in a public forum in direct opposition to their teachings.

    Hell, my Catholic high school told the choir (of which I was part) that we couldn't sing "Seasons of Love" from RENT, because the musical is about gay people. Is the song? Not even a little.

    I'm not arguing the Catholic Church doesn't have the right to excommunicate members on similar grounds; the See can do what it wants regardless of rationality, and has for eons with precedence.

    But a politician isn't a church representative, regardless of the Church's claim or desire. If the Church wishes to act outside the state (or State, in this case), they cannot pass judgment on State-oriented activity that doesn't have any bearing on the constitution of the Church, which this decision absolutely does not.

    In a way, it's a microcosm of much of the argument between civil rights and moral appeals. New York's ruling on gay marriage not only isn't anti-Catholic, practicing Catholics can still vote in favor of the law and maintain their faith without a stain on their conscience.


    The Bible (and similarly, the Vatican) has some stated (and interpreted) opposition to many, many different things to the point at which many seemingly-innocuous legislative decisions could be argued to be blasphemous. Like I said earlier, hate-crime legislation that particularly protects non-Christians or non-Catholics could easily be argued to be in opposition to the Vatican's directives; why doesn't the See come out strongly against these measures as well?

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Atheists assuredly are out, but Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and members of any other Christ-denying sect are to be voided as well.

    OP is wrong. Mormons are not a Christ-denying sect. The actual name of their organization is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They are as Christian as they come.

    But as far as the topic goes, churches are private organizations. They can excommunicate/kick out members for whatever reasons they like, right? Intentions and reasons don't matter I thought when dealing with private clubs/groups/organizations.

    SWTOR Main - Novah (Shadowlands)
    Xbox Live - ObiFett (BF4 / Destiny)
    Other Games - Hearthstone and Diablo 3
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    ATIRage wrote: »
    The examples you give don't seem to be evidence of any special care needed, or taken, with religion. They seem to be the application of our legal system to the citizenry. The fact that our legal system is non-sectarian being what allows it to be applied to people with minority religious beliefs.

    You aren't reading the cases then. Yoder is an example of the court requiring a special carve out from compulsory education for Amish children. Barnette is a carve out for religious people (particularly jehovah's witnesses) from having to recite the pledge of allegiance. Same goes for the NH license plate cases. Of course the prayer in school cases are another example of recognizing that individuals are allowed to practice whatever religious freedoms they want without being forced to recite a school prayer (Abbington or Lee v. Weisman). This applies equally to minority religious views and majority religious views like in the football prayer case Santa Fe v. Doe (There a mormon and a catholic)

    Free exercise is the epitome of recognizing that religious practice deserves special protection. I guess you could also look to Title VII which grants a specific exception to hiring practices for religious institutions (which makes sense, can't require that catholic churches hire a Mormon bishop, whereas you CAN require private companies to do so as a matter of anti-discrimination).

    Hunh. I was under the impression that I wasn't required to recite anything in school regardless.

    Still I take your point about there being special exemptions for religious practice. The reason I'm not a fan of framing free exercise as being about the positive requirement for government to make exemptions for religious institutions is because it tends to lead to religious institutions demanding to have their rights supersede mine. For instance, demanding that marriage be modified to suit them, rather than simply being allowed to practice.

  • ATIRageATIRage Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    I believe the Catholic Church has every right to excommunicate legislators.

    Also I believe that those legislators have every right to pull the Church's tax-exempt status under Section 501C, which prohibits religious organizations from directly attempting to influence legislation in such a manner.

    As was once said, "Him that will live like a dick, shall pay out the ass."

    After the Proposition 8 debacle, this should have happened to the LDS church.

    The problem with this logic is that the 501(c)3 law makes it clear that the political statement has to be used to influence the election of a candidate running for office. A churches general denouncement of a candidate may or may not cross this line when it talks about the candidates electoral possibility. BUT any church is free, and as a matter of other first amendment principles should be free, to state that legislation (not a candidate for office) or a legislators actions (without referencing an election) violates the church's tenants.

    For similar reasons, the prop 8 argument is more wrong. There is no candidate for election, thus no violation of 501(c)3.

    I also have a hard time seeing why this position is acceptable. For churches to exercise their freedoms they get to talk about political issues just like any other group does that gets tax exempt status. For example, PETA, a 501(c)3 is tax exempt and gets to talk about meat being murder, begs the public to regulate mcdonalds and all manner of other things. Why should PETA be allowed to engage in this kind of discourse and not churches? So long as the church and any other tax exempt entity does not contribute to a candidate directly, or endorse a candidate for election (and I think that should be broadened to "political party) then the actions of the church shouldn't get the church removed from the exempt status.

    On the other hand I've seen plenty of occasions where local churches in Utah over stepped their boundaries and flat out said you can't be a democrat and be mormon, or that XYZ candidate (at a religious function) was better than another candidate. And this should be investigated by the IRS (and my understanding is that the IRS is trying to crack down on this kind of behavior)

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    The problem with this is the conflict between the duty as a person vested with the power to marry to do so for all who ask and have the right document, and the belief that doing so violates your religious beliefs.
    spool32 wrote: »
    If a [strike]legislator[/strike] person vested with the power to marry is having conflicts between his faith and his job, he needs to choose one and face the consequences as he believes them to be.

    Really though, no one who can marry a couple is in anyway obligated to marry a couple if they don't want to. And I doubt same-sex couples are going to choose a gay hating church as their initial venue.

    I dunno. Cathedrals tend to be bitching. And if there's a picture of the pope somewhere you could totally high five in front of it.

    PSN: allenquid
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    It bothers me when Catholic politicians are threatened with excommunication for acknowledging we don't live in a theocracy.

    I don't understand why this bothered you. Catholic priests telling members of their congregation that supporting, advocating, and advancing something the church opposes that they are being sanctioned by the church for their behavior...

    Why is that bothersome? Is the Church supposed to give legislators a pass? If the Church frames your choice as one between faith and public opinion, and you don't choose faith, you ought to expect a response from your church.

    A decision to deny Communion, or even excommunicate, seems an entirely appropriate, and entirely correct, decision to make. If a legislator is having conflicts between his faith and his job, he needs to choose one and face the consequences as he believes them to be.

    Sure, but it certainly makes being not-catholic a valid test for voting someone into public office. Because the church is willing to directly meddle with its members on issues down to the single vote level. It basically give credence to the whole 'pawn of the pope' view of catholic politicians.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    God, I wish the Catholic Church would start excommunicating people left and right for supporting progressive causes.

    And then when people didn't burst into flames, maybe some other people would finally get the right idea, and start excommunicating themselves.

  • ChillyWillyChillyWilly Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Obi, whether a group is "Christ-denying" or not depends on what standard you are using. Since the OP is comparing Mormonism with Catholicism (and is thus using a Catholic definition of what Christ was/is/will be), then is it absolutely true to say that Mormonism is Christ-denying. There are major differences in what the two groups believe about Jesus.

    PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.

    Height: 5' 11" Weight: 225 Goal: 200
  • ATIRageATIRage Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Durandal I think I get your last point and we agree there, that religion should NOT be used as a way of disparaging the rights of others. (which is, I think in both of our understanding, something that religious institutions are trying to impose on those who believe in marriage equality, IE denying the right to marry through policy on religious grounds [whether politcians are doing so for the same religious reasons, i guess is a different issue]) In all the exceptions I have stated, none of those cases acted to deny the rights of others and in that, you are very much correct.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Replying above, because iPads are dumb and I can't scroll the comment window down.

    You'll get no quarrel with me if you argue that the Church isn't uniformly applying the standard. That isn't the same thing as arguing they're wrong in the application. They certainly do have a duty to deny communion to any Catholic who remarried without an annulment if they also do so for supporting gay marriage against the wishes of the Church.

    Aso, I think removing tax exempt status for excommunicating a legislator would be prohibiting free exercise. It's much easier to argue that's a financial punishment for exercising their beliefs than it would be to argue that excommunicating a legislator is an attempt to influence his behavior in violation of the 501c3 exempt status.

    BubbaT wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Why is that bothersome? Is the Church supposed to give legislators a pass? If the Church frames your choice as one between faith and public opinion, and you don't choose faith, you ought to expect a response from your church.

    Yes, they're supposed to give legislators a pass on this. Because who the state recognizes as "married" is a state issue, not a religious one. This is Caesar's due, not God's.

    If instead of a legislator acting in the name of the state, it was a rogue priest who was performing gay marriages in the name of the Church, then it would be a religious issue for which Eucharist-denial or excommunication would be appropriate.


    Consider - the Church does not recognize divorce, while the state does. "What God has joined, let no man put asunder" and all that - the Church lacks the authority to undo a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.
    The Church also does not recognize post-divorce re-marriage (without a Decree of Nullity), while the state does.

    So where is all the talk of excommunication for all persons who have had 2nd marriages recognized by the state? I haven't heard much, if any. Where the politicians who voted for the state to recognize 2nd marriages excommunicated?


    Now, the Church will definitely consider sexual relations within the 2nd marriage to be adultery, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the 2nd marriage is recognized by the state. The Church would also consider it adultery if sexual relations (with someone other than a Church-recognized spouse) took place outside of the state-recognized 2nd marriage.

  • ATIRageATIRage Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Also, mormons have christ 2.0, this time with more robots.

  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    Aso, I think removing tax exempt status for excommunicating a legislator would be prohibiting free exercise. It's much easier to argue that's a financial punishment for exercising their beliefs than it would be to argue that excommunicating a legislator is an attempt to influence his behavior in violation of the 501c3 exempt status.

    Depends. If they excommunicate him after the fact, that's one thing. But if he's informed by the church ahead of time "Do X and you're excommunicated." Then that's another.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Oh, I agree they're flirting with disaster here. What surprises me most is that THIS is where they're drawing their line in the sand. Not even abortion Support is getting this strong a response from the Church.

    Really, Benedict? Gay marriage is going to be your American political Waterloo?
    spool32 wrote: »
    It bothers me when Catholic politicians are threatened with excommunication for acknowledging we don't live in a theocracy.

    I don't understand why this bothered you. Catholic priests telling members of their congregation that supporting, advocating, and advancing something the church opposes that they are being sanctioned by the church for their behavior...

    Why is that bothersome? Is the Church supposed to give legislators a pass? If the Church frames your choice as one between faith and public opinion, and you don't choose faith, you ought to expect a response from your church.

    A decision to deny Communion, or even excommunicate, seems an entirely appropriate, and entirely correct, decision to make. If a legislator is having conflicts between his faith and his job, he needs to choose one and face the consequences as he believes them to be.

    Sure, but it certainly makes being not-catholic a valid test for voting someone into public office. Because the church is willing to directly meddle with its members on issues down to the single vote level. It basically give credence to the whole 'pawn of the pope' view of catholic politicians.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Also now that I think about it, I'm arguing from the wrong initial point anyways. Free Exercise isn't the thing that usually gets my guff. What I was supposed to be arguing was that the establishment clause is also protecting the State from the Church, and the Church from the Other Church. Saying the government cannot establish a church also means that the government cannot simply have all of its legislators be Sect X and just happen to only legislate according to the principles of Sect X. Legislation is required to be non-sectarian. The establishment clause is frequently brought up as though it simply means that the government must protect individual churches without acknowledging that the churches are in turn supposed to protect themselves and other churches by not becoming politically involved. Well, often brought up by people who just so happen to want their church to have a say in legislating.

    But yeah I guess specific weird and technically illegal religious practices are also protected so long as they're not straight murdering or something. I didn't know about the Amish school thing, though I think it's kind of horrible. Poor fucking kids.

    Also, why would churches specifically need hiring protections? I was under the impression it operated like the Boy Scouts or country clubs or something, where they could choose who to admit due to being a private organization but not a business?

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    The problem with this is the conflict between the duty as a person vested with the power to marry to do so for all who ask and have the right document, and the belief that doing so violates your religious beliefs.
    spool32 wrote: »
    If a [strike]legislator[/strike] person vested with the power to marry is having conflicts between his faith and his job, he needs to choose one and face the consequences as he believes them to be.

    Really though, no one who can marry a couple is in anyway obligated to marry a couple if they don't want to. And I doubt same-sex couples are going to choose a gay hating church as their initial venue.

    I dunno. Cathedrals tend to be bitching. And if there's a picture of the pope somewhere you could totally high five in front of it.

    Eventually, someone will definitely do this. It's the next clear step, if your intent is to pursue an anti-religious agenda, rather than a civil rights one. Certainly its not controversial to point out that some gay Americans are anti-religious, for various reasons.

  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    The Catholic Church already makes hetero couples jump through some ridiculous hoops to get married by a priest.

    It varies by the priest but I've heard everything from giving them total control of the ceremony to being forced to take couple's classes beforehand

    Pre-Cana (aka couples classes) is pretty standard. I'm pretty sure it's basically required across the board.

    As for total control of the ceremony, ultimately it's their house, their rules. It's a shame they won't let your groomsmen where cat-ears, bro.

    http://i.imgur.com/SVLUjAW.png
    Vanguard wrote: »
    ...poetry is actually the worst
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Atheists assuredly are out, but Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and members of any other Christ-denying sect are to be voided as well.

    OP is wrong. Mormons are not a Christ-denying sect. The actual name of their organization is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They are as Christian as they come.

    . . . . uh . . .hmmmm.

    Most Christians don't believe the Bible had a sequel involving Native Americans and magic dinnerware.

    Mormons are Christians the same way that Terrance Howard fans like Iron Man II.
    But as far as the topic goes, churches are private organizations. They can excommunicate/kick out members for whatever reasons they like, right? Intentions and reasons don't matter I thought when dealing with private clubs/groups/organizations.

    Personally, I'm speaking more from a regard for logic and consistency, which may be pointless in a religious discussion, but I'd like to hope not.

    A diocese shouldn't accuse a pro-gay politician of being anti-Catholic, unless they're also in the habit of accusing divorced politicians or pro-welfare politicians or politicians who suffer the existence of people of other faiths of being the same.

  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I dunno. Cathedrals tend to be bitching. And if there's a picture of the pope somewhere you could totally high five in front of it.

    Eventually, someone will definitely do this. It's the next clear step, if your intent is to pursue an anti-religious agenda, rather than a civil rights one. Certainly its not controversial to point out that some gay Americans are anti-religious, for various reasons.

    The church would tell them to go fuck themselves. About a dozen mouth breathers will take this as proof that the radical homo-queer agenda is totes real. Another dozen hippies will scream that this is the worst oppression since Auchwitz.

    http://i.imgur.com/SVLUjAW.png
    Vanguard wrote: »
    ...poetry is actually the worst
  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2011
    Ross, why are you trying to argue that they shouldn't do something that they still do? I mean, we know it's stupid. The Church believes that by supporting gay rights, you are supporting something morally wrong. If you are promoting a cause that is in direct conflict with a group's beliefs, I would say that group would consider you to be in opposition to them as well.

    For instance, if I were a vegan (ha!) on moral grounds, people who campaign to get meat to more places and to be more prevalent in the world would upset me, as their ideals are in direct opposition to my own. If I was running a Vegan club and I discovered that one of the members was also a spokesperson for a chicken farm, I'd probably kick him out of the Vegan club.

    3DS: 2509-1593-4994
    Steam Profile
    PSN ID: Dohaeris210
    Treadmill Desk Twitch Stream : status.php?streamuser=SniperGuy210
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    Aso, I think removing tax exempt status for excommunicating a legislator would be prohibiting free exercise. It's much easier to argue that's a financial punishment for exercising their beliefs than it would be to argue that excommunicating a legislator is an attempt to influence his behavior in violation of the 501c3 exempt status.

    Depends. If they excommunicate him after the fact, that's one thing. But if he's informed by the church ahead of time "Do X and you're excommunicated." Then that's another.

    I dunno. Is the threat of damnation in the next life enough to be considered an attempt to influence? I think you're ascribing to the Church a power that belongs to God. Let me explain:

    If someone tells you that legislation mandating everyone climb a tree in a thunderstorm, wearing plate mail and waving a sword, is likely to get your struck down by God, is that a attempt to influence your behavior in violation of the statute? I don't think it is. If the Pope tells you that supporting gay rights in legislative votes is likely to get you damned to hell because they can't give you the Sacraments anymore, is that any different?

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Atheists assuredly are out, but Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and members of any other Christ-denying sect are to be voided as well.

    OP is wrong. Mormons are not a Christ-denying sect. The actual name of their organization is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They are as Christian as they come.

    . . . . uh . . .hmmmm.

    Most Christians don't believe the Bible had a sequel involving Native Americans and magic dinnerware.

    Mormons are Christians the same way that Terrance Howard fans like Iron Man II.

    See that bolded part? That's different than being a fringe Christian group. That's claiming that Mormons don't believe in Christ. Reality is that Mormons believe that Christ died for their sins, was resurrected, and is/was the Son of God. Again, basic Christianity there.

    Yes they have a Book of Mormon. Yes they have prophets and stuff. But none of those things are anywhere near Christ-denying.

    Just saying, your terminology is off in your OP. And this being D&D, its kind of important to get your facts straight in the first post.
    Obi, whether a group is "Christ-denying" or not depends on what standard you are using. Since the OP is comparing Mormonism with Catholicism (and is thus using a Catholic definition of what Christ was/is/will be), then is it absolutely true to say that Mormonism is Christ-denying. There are major differences in what the two groups believe about Jesus.

    In that case, then list EVERY OTHER religious group there is in that list. In fact, don't have a list. Just say every other religion. Because all different Christian churches believe different things about Christ. That's why they aren't the same church.

    SWTOR Main - Novah (Shadowlands)
    Xbox Live - ObiFett (BF4 / Destiny)
    Other Games - Hearthstone and Diablo 3
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Ross, why are you trying to argue that they shouldn't do something that they still do? I mean, we know it's stupid. The Church believes that by supporting gay rights, you are supporting something morally wrong. If you are promoting a cause that is in direct conflict with a group's beliefs, I would say that group would consider you to be in opposition to them as well.

    For instance, if I were a vegan (ha!) on moral grounds, people who campaign to get meat to more places and to be more prevalent in the world would upset me, as their ideals are in direct opposition to my own. If I was running a Vegan club and I discovered that one of the members was also a spokesperson for a chicken farm, I'd probably kick him out of the Vegan club.
    Catholics will insist that they aren't running a Vegan club, though. They claim they're running a homeless shelter.

    So, if you kick that person out of helping with the homeless shelter because he's interfering with your (supposedly) insignificant efforts at running a vegan club on the side, you really shouldn't have 501(c)3 status.

    If I were torturing this analogy any more, the Hague would have hauled me off.

  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    In an effort to reduce this tangent, I'll admit that Mormons aren't Christ-denying. A lot of nuance there that we could all go into, I'm sure, but let's not.

  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2011
    Thanatos wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Ross, why are you trying to argue that they shouldn't do something that they still do? I mean, we know it's stupid. The Church believes that by supporting gay rights, you are supporting something morally wrong. If you are promoting a cause that is in direct conflict with a group's beliefs, I would say that group would consider you to be in opposition to them as well.

    For instance, if I were a vegan (ha!) on moral grounds, people who campaign to get meat to more places and to be more prevalent in the world would upset me, as their ideals are in direct opposition to my own. If I was running a Vegan club and I discovered that one of the members was also a spokesperson for a chicken farm, I'd probably kick him out of the Vegan club.
    Catholics will insist that they aren't running a Vegan club, though. They claim they're running a homeless shelter.

    So, if you kick that person out of helping with the homeless shelter because he's interfering with your (supposedly) insignificant efforts at running a vegan club on the side, you really shouldn't have 501(c)3 status.

    If I were torturing this analogy any more, the Hague would have hauled me off.

    I do not understand your homeless shelter bit, could you elaborate?

    3DS: 2509-1593-4994
    Steam Profile
    PSN ID: Dohaeris210
    Treadmill Desk Twitch Stream : status.php?streamuser=SniperGuy210
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Aso, I think removing tax exempt status for excommunicating a legislator would be prohibiting free exercise. It's much easier to argue that's a financial punishment for exercising their beliefs than it would be to argue that excommunicating a legislator is an attempt to influence his behavior in violation of the 501c3 exempt status.

    Depends. If they excommunicate him after the fact, that's one thing. But if he's informed by the church ahead of time "Do X and you're excommunicated." Then that's another.

    I dunno. Is the threat of damnation in the next life enough to be considered an attempt to influence? I think you're ascribing to the Church a power that belongs to God. Let me explain:

    If someone tells you that legislation mandating everyone climb a tree in a thunderstorm, wearing plate mail and waving a sword, is likely to get your struck down by God, is that a attempt to influence your behavior in violation of the statute? I don't think it is. If the Pope tells you that supporting gay rights in legislative votes is likely to get you damned to hell because they can't give you the Sacraments anymore, is that any different?


    When God makes a personal statement on the matter then we can take his opinions into account.

    Until then, administration of sacrements or lack therof to individuals in order to influence secular policy is an action of the church as an entity and must be treated as such.

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    In an effort to reduce this tangent, I'll admit that Mormons aren't Christ-denying. A lot of nuance there that we could all go into, I'm sure, but let's not.

    Fair enough. There is a lot of gray-area in that discussion. I just noticed something in the OP and thought you would want it fixed.

    Sorry for derailing the thread. :(

    SWTOR Main - Novah (Shadowlands)
    Xbox Live - ObiFett (BF4 / Destiny)
    Other Games - Hearthstone and Diablo 3
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Ross, why are you trying to argue that they shouldn't do something that they still do? I mean, we know it's stupid. The Church believes that by supporting gay rights, you are supporting something morally wrong. If you are promoting a cause that is in direct conflict with a group's beliefs, I would say that group would consider you to be in opposition to them as well.

    For instance, if I were a vegan (ha!) on moral grounds, people who campaign to get meat to more places and to be more prevalent in the world would upset me, as their ideals are in direct opposition to my own. If I was running a Vegan club and I discovered that one of the members was also a spokesperson for a chicken farm, I'd probably kick him out of the Vegan club.
    Catholics will insist that they aren't running a Vegan club, though. They claim they're running a homeless shelter.

    So, if you kick that person out of helping with the homeless shelter because he's interfering with your (supposedly) insignificant efforts at running a vegan club on the side, you really shouldn't have 501(c)3 status.

    If I were torturing this analogy any more, the Hague would have hauled me off.
    I do not understand your homeless shelter bit, could you elaborate?
    The Catholic Church says that they're not a lobbying group. They say that they're a religion and charitable organization, and that their lobbying activities are merely incidental to their actual goals of helping people, community, and spreading the Jesus pandemic.

    This is important, because according to Federal regulations, a 501(c)3 organization "may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

    So, if they're a vegan club, then they need to register as a lobbying organization, in which case they lose their government subsidy. If they're a homeless shelter that only runs an incidental, small vegan club on the side, then they're okay.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Deebaser wrote: »
    The Catholic Church already makes hetero couples jump through some ridiculous hoops to get married by a priest.

    It varies by the priest but I've heard everything from giving them total control of the ceremony to being forced to take couple's classes beforehand

    Pre-Cana (aka couples classes) is pretty standard. I'm pretty sure it's basically required across the board.

    As for total control of the ceremony, ultimately it's their house, their rules. It's a shame they won't let your groomsmen where cat-ears, bro.

    Yeah there's nothing wrong with the catholic church requiring certain things in order to be married by the catholic church.

    sig.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Deebaser wrote: »
    The Catholic Church already makes hetero couples jump through some ridiculous hoops to get married by a priest.

    It varies by the priest but I've heard everything from giving them total control of the ceremony to being forced to take couple's classes beforehand

    Pre-Cana (aka couples classes) is pretty standard. I'm pretty sure it's basically required across the board.

    As for total control of the ceremony, ultimately it's their house, their rules. It's a shame they won't let your groomsmen where cat-ears, bro.

    Yeah there's nothing wrong with the catholic church requiring certain things in order to be married by the catholic church.

    not judging it at all. Just saying these kinds of restrictions and arbitrary standards to get a ceremony performed already exist and nobody complains about them. Gay marriages are going to be exactly the same.

  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    ObiFett wrote: »
    In an effort to reduce this tangent, I'll admit that Mormons aren't Christ-denying. A lot of nuance there that we could all go into, I'm sure, but let's not.

    Fair enough. There is a lot of gray-area in that discussion. I just noticed something in the OP and thought you would want it fixed.

    Sorry for derailing the thread. :(

    It's okay, I'm not upset or anything.

  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Deebaser wrote: »
    The Catholic Church already makes hetero couples jump through some ridiculous hoops to get married by a priest.

    It varies by the priest but I've heard everything from giving them total control of the ceremony to being forced to take couple's classes beforehand

    Pre-Cana (aka couples classes) is pretty standard. I'm pretty sure it's basically required across the board.

    As for total control of the ceremony, ultimately it's their house, their rules. It's a shame they won't let your groomsmen where cat-ears, bro.

    Yeah there's nothing wrong with the catholic church requiring certain things in order to be married by the catholic church.

    not judging it at all. Just saying these kinds of restrictions and arbitrary standards to get a ceremony performed already exist and nobody complains about them. Gay marriages are going to be exactly the same.
    The difference is someone can go get married in an Episcopalian church and the Catholic church doesn't give two shits. Here they're actively protesting it. No one is asking the Catholic church to marry gays, the Catholic church is saying it will punish any of its membership that supports gay marriage.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Deebaser wrote: »
    The Catholic Church already makes hetero couples jump through some ridiculous hoops to get married by a priest.

    It varies by the priest but I've heard everything from giving them total control of the ceremony to being forced to take couple's classes beforehand

    Pre-Cana (aka couples classes) is pretty standard. I'm pretty sure it's basically required across the board.

    As for total control of the ceremony, ultimately it's their house, their rules. It's a shame they won't let your groomsmen where cat-ears, bro.

    Yeah there's nothing wrong with the catholic church requiring certain things in order to be married by the catholic church.

    not judging it at all. Just saying these kinds of restrictions and arbitrary standards to get a ceremony performed already exist and nobody complains about them. Gay marriages are going to be exactly the same.
    The difference is someone can go get married in an Episcopalian church and the Catholic church doesn't give two shits. Here they're actively protesting it. No one is asking the Catholic church to marry gays, the Catholic church is saying it will punish any of its membership that supports gay marriage.

    I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around an institution enjoying the First Amendment freedoms granted by the very progressive Western nation hosting it, yet also at the same time thinking they enjoy some kind of authority beyond the powers of said nation and should encourage members who politically represent that nation to act against the very provisions that allow them to exist.

    TL;DR - "Hey, thank God we have a diocese in a country that protects our viewpoints and teachings at a Constitutional level. Now let's go and fuck people over."

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Hell, my Catholic high school told the choir (of which I was part) that we couldn't sing "Seasons of Love" from RENT, because the musical is about gay people. Is the song? Not even a little.

    Since when was RENT about gay people? O_o

  • ToxTox I kill threads Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I've said it before, so I'll say it again.

    Legalize Love: Ban Marriage.

    Grey Ghost wrote: »
    James Dean was the actor, Jimmy Dean was in the sausage business.

    James Deen is both an actor AND in the sausage business.
    Secret Satans! Post | Gaming Wishlist | General Wishlist
    Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around an institution enjoying the First Amendment freedoms granted by the very progressive Western nation hosting it, yet also at the same time thinking they enjoy some kind of authority beyond the powers of said nation and should encourage members who politically represent that nation to act against the very provisions that allow them to exist.

    TL;DR - "Hey, thank God we have a diocese in a country that protects our viewpoints and teachings at a Constitutional level. Now let's go and fuck people over."
    "Power corrupts" etc. Organized religion is a business with a power structure like any other business. Anyone who tells you the Catholic church is about anything besides money and control is fooling themselves.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
This discussion has been closed.