How "Christian" of him!!

[Kidlicious]

That's why Christ says 'Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's.'

It's all about the control baby.

So we are suppose to pay our taxes so that the government can't control us? You're nuts Ben.

[Asher]

If you are going to quote me get it right.

I'm sure they are some gay people who can think beyond their immediate self interest and realise that this is terrible for their cause.

I singled out the gay rights activists, many of whom I'm sure aren't even gay at all. I'm sure there's a few people out there that hate gay people and are gay rights activists, because they sure aren't doing you folks any good.

You DanSed

Ben, the church's decision to help the needy is not at all tied to gay marriage rights. They're trying to link the two, because they are self-indulgent little ****s. The only people who can stop Christians from being charitable are Christians themselves.

A true Christian loves their neighbors and will help them in their time of need. It's really as simple as that.

Shame on the Catholic church for politicizing their indoctrinating charity work.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Great! So the Church can do without public funding. We're agreed!

Of course, as we know, Ben doesn't really believe that. Because, after all, tax breaks are "public funding".

[Boris Godunov]

I'm sure they are some gay people who can think beyond their immediate self interest and realise that this is terrible for their cause.

No, Ben. As usual, you're completely clueless.

Nobody is going to blame the gay activists if the DC church stops charity efforts (which doesn't look like it's going to happen, anyway). If there's any blowback, it will be against the church. This will be just another PR fiasco for them, helping to further drain support for them in this country.

There's a reason the Catholic church is bleeding members in the developed world, and it's because social attitudes have changed and, by and large, the people in these countries aren't going to abide bigotry masquerading as religious faith.

[Ben Kenobi]

Worked perfectly except for people who were victims of discrimination, you mean.

Again, obviously the fact that they didn't hire gay people is more tragic than the fact that there are real homeless people out there who are in need. This is pure selfishness. Why is it more important that they hire gay people than it is to serve the homeless?

Regardless, this claim is stupid. It would also mean laws against polygamy wouldn't be enforced against any religion who said it was a part of its faith. Any religious group could say they're exempt from following a law because it was contrary to their faith.

Are polygamy laws enforced these days? They aren't enforced up here anymore. BTW, thanks alot for that, it took 5 years between gay marriage and polygamy.

This isn't preventing the church from adhering to its belief, it's just saying that if they want to get government money, they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If they don't want to do so, then they just don't get taxpayer dollars. That's totally fair.

It's foolish because nothing has changed in what the church was doing to help people. In the long run, what it means is that the Catholic charities will be more effective and much more influential because all of their support will come from their parishioners, or from people who truly care about the needy.

It the short run, it means that people will be without their christmas dinner because gay folks had their hissy fit. At Christmas no less. Thanks again for that guys, your timing is, as usually, impeccable.

No, you nimrod. You were the one originally bleating about the conscious exemptions, but you seem to think that it should only apply the consciouses of people that share your views and not anyone elses.

Where did I say that? I explicitly referred to the example of synagogues not having to hire Muslims. Last I checked I wasn't one of God's people Israel.

You think that only the opinions of the religious people matter when it comes to having their taxes fund something they don't like or being expected to abide by the laws by which everyone else must abide.

I think a law forcing religious entities to hire gay people is offensive, and contrary to what we were told, and what you explicitly promised, would not happen. I predicted that this would happen, and all of you poo-poohed me. However you use the same endless arguments of hatred and bigotry.

Let's do a thought experiment here. Gay activists do nothing. Church does charity work, some of which is government funded. Homeless people get christmas dinner.

Gay activists throw hissy fit just before Christmas and pulls funding from Church. Church cuts back on Christmas dinners. Some homeless people get no Christmas dinner.

Who are they going to blame? The folks that help them year in or year out, or the activists who screwed them?

Hell, bigotry against people is worse than abortion in my view, certainly, since I don't see anything morally wrong with abortion. Duh.

And that wraps it up. Thanks for playing Boris. Obviously the crime of not hiring a gay person is worse than killing a baby.

[Ben Kenobi]

How about hocking some of that fancy gold and silver and precious jewels that adorn the Pope and his lackeys in Rome?

I'm astonished by how that is a paraphrase of Judas. Judas, of course loved money and his 30 pieces more than Christ himself.

[The Mad Monk]

While the 'true faithful" will cheer on the Archbishop, many more christians will be disgusted.... the number of people leaving the church will continue to increase... with eventually, only the real hardcore nut jobs left. Good job you morons. No wonder that the church is becoming less and less relevent in moe people's lives.

It's not a popularity contest. You stick to your principles, or why have them in the first place?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Equal benefits for same sex marraiges = mandated to hire gay people. Things are funny in the Beniverse. Oh, and if you think the PR is blowing back on gay activist groups rather than the Catholic Church you are really smoking something.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nobody is going to blame the gay activists if the DC church stops charity efforts.

Sure they are.

If there's any blowback, it will be against the church. This will be just another PR fiasco for them, helping to further drain support for them in this country.

Why? I don't see gay people digging cash out of their pockets to feed the homeless and make up the shortfall.

There's a reason the Catholic church is bleeding members in the developed world, and it's because social attitudes have changed and, by and large, the people in these countries aren't going to abide bigotry masquerading as religious faith.

The West itself is dying. Oh, be sure Boris, when you are pushing up daisies the Church will still be there much as before. What then will the hate accomplish other than hurting you?

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, and if you think the PR is blowing back on gay activist groups rather than the Catholic Church you are really smoking something.

In flyover country, yeah, it's running maybe 1 percent to 99 percent.

That's why this is perfect. The only people this hurts live in the most liberal part of the nation, in Washington DC. I thought liberals were supposed to be compassionate.

[MrFun]

Worked perfectly except for people who were victims of discrimination, you mean.

Regardless, this claim is stupid. It would also mean laws against polygamy wouldn't be enforced against any religion who said it was a part of its faith. Any religious group could say they're exempt from following a law because it was contrary to their faith.

"What do you mean we can't sell our daughter into slavery? You're oppressing my faith!"

This isn't preventing the church from adhering to its belief, it's just saying that if they want to get government money, they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If they don't want to do so, then they just don't get taxpayer dollars. That's totally fair.



No, you nimrod. You were the one originally bleating about the conscious exemptions, but you seem to think that it should only apply the consciouses of people that share your views and not anyone elses. You think that only the opinions of the religious people matter when it comes to having their taxes fund something they don't like or being expected to abide by the laws by which everyone else must abide. This is because you're a bigot, of course.

Hell, bigotry against people is worse than abortion in my view, certainly, since I don't see anything morally wrong with abortion. Duh.

[Boris Godunov]

Again, obviously the fact that they didn't hire gay people is more tragic than the fact that there are real homeless people out there who are in need. This is pure selfishness. Why is it more important that they hire gay people than it is to serve the homeless?

It's not about hiring gay people, you idiot. That's not what the law is about. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Are polygamy laws enforced these days? They aren't enforced up here anymore. BTW, thanks alot for that, it took 5 years between gay marriage and polygamy.

Yes, polygamy laws are enforced in the U.S. Way to miss the point, though. You're clearly too stupid to get the overall point that it's nonsense that a religious organization shouldn't have to obey laws just because they contradict their teachings. That would lead to the hypothetical "I should be able to sell my daughter into slavery" scenario in extreme cases.

It the short run, it means that people will be without their christmas dinner because gay folks had their hissy fit. At Christmas no less. Thanks again for that guys, your timing is, as usually, impeccable.

Yeah, nobody was doing anything about it until some evil gays said "Aha! Christmas is coming! Let's force the city to pass a gay marriage bill so they'll turn out homeless people for the holidays!"

No, you simpleton. This is something that has been in the works for quite a while. That the DC council didn't enact it until now is hardly the fault of gays. Even so, no one is fooled by this stupid reasoning of yours. People will see this as the Catholic charities deciding to turn away homeless people, not some nefarious plot by the wicked homos.

Where did I say that? I explicitly referred to the example of synagogues not having to hire Muslims. Last I checked I wasn't one of God's people Israel.

I clearly said this in the context of blanket religious belief, not a specific one. Can't you ****ing read?

At any rate, don't pretend you're being consistent here. We all remember bigotry towards Muslims over the Swiss minaret issue, so don't try and pretend you're in favor of equality for all beliefs.

The point stands that there's no difference in the value of the consciences of religious people and non-religious people, or people who don't want their tax dollars funding bigots and those who don't want to associate with homosexuals. If the law is going to take into account objects of conscience for one, it has to do so for all. And there's no valid reason why a church should continue to get public money if they refuse to follow the same laws as everyone else. Belief in bronze-age superstitions isn't special, nor does it warrant special treatment.

I think a law forcing religious entities to hire gay people is offensive, and contrary to what we were told, and what you explicitly promised, would not happen. I predicted that this would happen, and all of you poo-poohed me. However you use the same endless arguments of hatred and bigotry.

The law doesn't force religious entities to hire gay people, you unbelievably stupid idiot. You have NO CLUE what you're talking about. Or you're just lying again, as usual. Which is it?

And that wraps it up. Thanks for playing Boris. Obviously the crime of not hiring a gay person is worse than killing a baby.

Only problem is that I don't think abortion is "killing a baby." That's just your dogma talking, not actual fact. So your premise is the problem, not my viewpoint.

[DinoDoc]

You guys do realize that the Church isn't stoping charitable services in DC, right? That was just hysterical fear mongering on Fun's part.

[Boris Godunov]

I'm astonished by how that is a paraphrase of Judas. Judas, of course loved money and his 30 pieces more than Christ himself.

That's your response? Compare me to Judas?

How about a real argument about why it's appropriate for the Catholic Church to hoard such unbelieavable wealth that it chooses to display in such ostentatious ways?

You know who would be most ill at ease in the Vatican's grandeur? A first century Galilean carpenter. (h/t to Stephen Fry!)

[DaShi]

It doesn't surprise me that the Church is stopping charitables services in DC over this. MrFun is right.