Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Giancarlo]

Uh- it protects the Church from the state, not the other way around. Where does the phrase 'separation of church and state' appear anywhere in the 1st Amendment?

WRONG AGAIN. The First Amendment prohibits the state from pushing religious laws. Look it up.

Your church has NO right to advocate religious laws and force them on AGNOSTICS like myself, or anyone else who does not agree with them.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion"

[Ming]

This is an issue between you and Ming both making a promise to God and then breaking your promise.

I have broken no promise with God... you statement is a lie. Yet another sin for you today.

[Dauphin]

WRONG AGAIN. The First Amendment prohibits the state from pushing religious laws. Look it up.

Your church has NO right to advocate religious laws and force them on AGNOSTICS like myself, or anyone else who does not agree with them.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion"

You obviously have the wrong constitution. Ben has a copy and the first amendment says "except for gays, coz God hates teh gays". I think his copy is in his own handwriting though.

[Dauphin]

P.S. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Anyone know who this Jefferson hack is?

[Giancarlo]

You obviously have the wrong constitution. Ben has a copy and the first amendment says "except for gays, coz God hates teh gays". I think his copy is in his own handwriting though.

Oh you're right.

Let me put the official one away... the Ben version is now the new one.

Church membership is also mandatory according to his constitution.

[Berzerker]

Last I checked, tax breaks are not a subsidy.

A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals, usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public.

A subsidy is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[1] Although commonly extended from government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support – for example from NGOs or implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates).[2][3]

You'd better turn in your libertarian card if you believe that tax cuts have to 'be made up'. Since when did you become a democrat?

If tax cuts aint made up it becomes debt, increasing debt to provide subsidies is what Democrats and Republicans are doing - and thats what you advocate, subsidies we dont pay for and more debt. Either you're projecting or you didn't put any thought into your insult.

So you're in favor of never cutting taxes, because that would be bad. Wow. Welcome to the Democrat party, Berz.

I never said that, I'm opposed to increasing the debt to provide subsidies because the state needs more kids. Remember, you criticized me for wanting tax cuts made up? Now you've turned it into an opposition to all tax cuts.

You probably also support keeping corporate taxes the highest in the developed world.

I'm opposed to business taxes, they put USA businesses at a disadvantage against foreign businesses that get subsidies.

As I have said in the past... all pro-free market parties and ideologies are rooted in total fiction and are lacking factually. That includes the falsehood known as libertarianism.

I think the billions of daily decisions made by sellers and buyers define value better than politicians, you disagree... You think politicians should be running the economy and when they screw up you'll blame the market.

[Giancarlo]

Democrats, especially progressives, propose tax increases on the wealthy. Republicans cut taxes on the wealthy with no way to make it up. Reaganomics is a miserable and catastrophic failure. The elite do not put money back in the system. The funnel it offshore through loopholes. Think Trump.

I never said I want politicians running the market. We do need business taxes and strong nonpartisan regulation and well funded regulatory agencies. The decisions by businesses have ****ed up this country far more than politicians, and your faith in the private sector is foolishly misguided.

Politicians may steal and lie, but the rich who run the big businesses do it on a level twenty times. And you are saying I should trust them? This is why libertarianism has and always will be a pile of phony BS.

[kentonio]

Given that I cited Cardinal Sarah - I fail to see your point here. Are you suggesting that Cardinal Sarah is a part of the first world - and that is part of Sarah's point. Those of the First world who abandon the faith for the latest cause celebre are the reason that the Church is struggling in the West. Francis is not helping in this regard.

Either God selects the pope via the papal conclave or not. You do not get to choose which of gods decisions you want to approve of, or indeed to pass judgement over whether you think gods chosen representative is a good choice. If you do that, then you are saying your opinion is more important than gods. If Cardinal Sarah is also questioning Pope Francis judgement then he is guilty of the same sin of pride as you are. In case you've forgotten, God has the power to change whatever rule of law he pleases in line with his plan for the world. If he chose Francis as his representative on earth, there must have been a reason for that choice, and for you to reject that is a direct rejection of gods authority.

You seem to believe that material poverty is worse than spiritual poverty. As for the conclave, why is one needed when we have a living Pope in Benedict? I do not see justification for his resignation, which was a terrible thing. If Popes are indeed appointed by God - then you cannot resign. You will die the Pope.

Wow, you've gone from being a Catholic to being a heretic. Your arrogance is absolutely stunning. When exactly did you and your prideful friends decide that your personal opinions mattered more than Gods will? Or perhaps you've decided that God is a weak willed fool whose plan can be overruled by the machinations of men? You need a serious lesson in humility.

[Giancarlo]

Ben thinks he is a personal spokesperson for the deity he hears voices from. When you hear voices you are generally insane.

[Berzerker]

Yes, the American nation is founded on Christian principles.

Which principles?

All I've been arguing for is the constitution and the first amendment.

That's been said before, by many others, not in America. And certainly not in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Uh- it protects the Church from the state, not the other way around.

The 1st Amendment says the Catholic Church gets to establish Catholicism as the Federal religion?

Which sin is worse? Sodomy or lying?

Neither is a sin...and if God has a d!ck blowjobs are probably a sacrament

I never said I want politicians running the market

You just condemned the market but now you dont want politicians running it?

The decisions by businesses have ****ed up this country far more than politicians, and your faith in the private sector is foolishly misguided.

And your faith is in politicians making our decisions for us

Politicians may steal and lie, but the rich who run the big businesses do it on a level twenty times. And you are saying I should trust them? This is why libertarianism has and always will be a pile of phony BS.

Where are these private sector thefts that dwarf government corruption?

[Giancarlo]

You just condemned the market but now you dont want politicians running it?

Technocrats. Not politicians. People who specialize in regulation. They need more funding and we need more regulation. As if the last decade wasn't any lesson as to how wrong you are.

We need people in charge of agencies whose sole responsibility is the administering of private sector regulation to prevent the disgusting abuses that nearly led to the 2nd depression. The Frank-Dodd reforms are an example. They were gutted by psycho tea party nuts and libertarians in a representation of more disregard for the people of this country. The Frank-Dodd reforms didn't even go far enough. We need Glass-Steagall back.

And your faith is in politicians making our decisions for us



Where are these private sector thefts that dwarf government corruption?

You're just like Ben. Now you're making things up about what I supposedly said.

2007-08. Trillions of dollars wiped out and stolen. Inadequate Government Regulation. One of the worst recessions since 1929. And 1929 itself was because of gross abuse within the private sector.

You're making stuff up... just like Ben.

The private sector CANNOT be trusted to voluntarily obey by regulation, therefore must be forced into doing so. Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew this in the signing of Glass-Steagal. Obama knew this with the Dodd-Frank Act (which wasn't even as half-way effective as Glass-Steagal).

[kentonio]

We need people in charge of agencies whose sole responsibility is the administering of private sector regulation to prevent the disgusting abuses that nearly led to the 2nd depression. The Frank-Dodd reforms are an example. They were gutted by psycho tea party nuts and libertarians in a representation of more disregard for the people of this country. The Frank-Dodd reforms didn't even go far enough. We need Glass-Steagall

You know a lot of the bank deregulation started under Bill Clinton, right?

[Giancarlo]

You know a lot of the bank deregulation started under Bill Clinton, right?

Actually under Reagan, but I know that occurred too. Especially with the republican controlled Congress and Gingrich. Thanks for sharing that though. Bill wasn't perfect, but most deregulation was under Reagan and the first Bush.

But I never brought up Bill Clinton, so you are quite irrelevant. My big complaint about Obama by the way was letting Frank-Dodd getting gutted. He didn't show enough leadership on that issue.

See I have criticisms for everyone, so your argument is not persuasive enough for me.

[Ben Kenobi]

ABsolutely I believe the Church is lying. The Church is lying and Saint Paul is wrong. What a dip**** that guy must have been.

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

St Paul is still a dip****, Gian?

[Ben Kenobi]

That's the key word. I turned my back on the church of corruption and child molestation. I'm not making a promise with anyone (EXCEPT MYSELF!). I'm agnostic. I don't even believe god exists (certainly not in the Christian form).

But, you still made a promise to God.

You are lying once again. You have no right to speak for me. I'm not bound by their rules as I am NOT part of the Church of corruption and child molestation.

Actually, as a confirmed Catholic - yes you are still part of the Church. You chose to take on the vow to defend the teachings of the Church in their entirety. Nobody forced you to do that, Giancarlo - you did. And you're still bound to that promise whatever you may believe now.

The church telling me my sexual orientation is a "sin" and is "wrong" doesn't mean anything. They aren't to be trusted about ANYTHING

And you are? I mean, seriously - Giancarlo. You are angry with the Church in general for breaking promises to people. I understand that - however - here's the problem. You made a promise before God. Why should anyone trust anything you have to say since you're willing to break the promise you made to God? If you're willing to break THAT promise - what promise will you keep?