Jump to content

GOP and the Pope


Len_A

Recommended Posts

Maybe because of what's supposed to be our country's separation of church and state? Maybe that keep the Vatican keeping this low key? I'm just speculating.

 

My problem with it all, is that if the Vatican kept it low key, why did the lawyer say anything?

 

Oh, and there's nothing to presume about the Pope's position - the Church is vehemently pro traditional marriage, and the Pope called out the mayor of Rome, who came out in favor of gay marriage rights, and called him "a pretend Catholic". Which I guess would make me one, too, on this issue, but then, I'm not a government employee or official, so who cares what I think.

But unless I'm mistaken, the content of your original post presents the Pope's (ie, the Church's) support of Left-leaning policy? I don't care what the lawyer said, because that is deflection.

 

Here's an excerpt from one of your links.......

 

With the Pope’s visit to the United States launching Tuesday, Republicans are lining up to condemn his views on everything from the climate crisis to income inequality and, most recently, confessional forgiveness for women who have abortions. Why? Obviously because the GOP is cherrypicking the religious teachings it prefers. And yet they throw a fit when they’re accused of selective faith — embracing dogma that supports their pet issues while rejecting dogma that contradicts it.

 

The same applies to the Left who is up in arms over Kim Davis' meeting with the Pope. From my standpoint, the attitude of papal support of Left-leaning policy differs from that which isn't--and that is (or certainly smells like) hypocrisy.

 

Gay marriage is something that has been forced (quite suddenly) on a significant population not prepared to accept it, rather than allowing a natural progression of changing attitudes. (which could easily go either way) That may be fine in the eyes of some, but it is viewed as an offense by others.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what really gets me upset - when people claim that OTHER people who happen to be gay and who happen to be given a legal contract by the state that gives them the same legal rights as straight couples somehow affects them or affects their religious beliefs. Hogwash!

 

And how did we get to this point with a supreme court ruling? Because the Christians tried to (and did) pass laws specifically forbidding gay marriage. Forcing their religious beliefs on other people who do not share their beliefs. Then they cry "lack of religious freedom"? Give me a freaking break.

 

Jewish people choose not to eat pork. Doesn't try to tell other people not to eat pork. Doesn't affect me at all.

Mormons don't drink caffeine. They don't try to tell other people not to drink caffeine. Doesn't affect me at all.

 

Doing your JOB and signing a valid legal license for your JOB does not infringe on your religious beliefs and if you think it does, then quit and go find a new job.

Have you ever heard of a Jewish waitress that refused to serve bacon to other people? Would a Jehova's Witness doctor refuse to give another patient a life-saving blood transfusion?

 

And it's not about atheists, either. That's just a red herring. It's about respecting other people's beliefs that may be different from yours regardless of the religion or atheism or cultural heritage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what really gets me upset - when people claim that OTHER people who happen to be gay and who happen to be given a legal contract by the state that gives them the same legal rights as straight couples somehow affects them or affects their religious beliefs. Hogwash!

 

And how did we get to this point with a supreme court ruling? Because the Christians tried to (and did) pass laws specifically forbidding gay marriage. Forcing their religious beliefs on other people who do not share their beliefs. Then they cry "lack of religious freedom"? Give me a freaking break.

We got to the Supreme Court Ruling because the same people who claim to support peoples' rights failed to heed the peoples' collective will.

 

I've deleted the hyperbole from your post.

 

The question of whether or not gay marriage affects me is not the issue. I believe it will negatively affect society because I see it as a blurring of gender boundaries. Legal rights don't change the fact that men and women are different--and they always will be. Just because you say something is (equal), doesn't make it so.

 

Apparently, a willingness to accept a legal recognition, but not full-on equality wasn't good enough. So, I guess gay marriage supporters need to force others to get their mind right; including forcing them to serve in scenarios they find personally objectionable or lose their livelihood. (note: I'm not referring to Kim Davis, because as a public servant she must follow the law. I'm referring to a sole-proprietor who doesn't want to make cakes, provide flowers, or officiate at a gay wedding)

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We got to the Supreme Court Ruling because the same people who claim to support peoples' rights failed to heed the peoples' collective will.

 

Once again you're only subscribing rights to one group of people. If the people's collective will was more important than individual rights then women would not be voting and blacks wouldn't be able to eat at the same lunch counter as whites. We should not put collective will above individual rights.

 

I'm referring to a sole-proprietor who doesn't want to make cakes, provide flowers, or officiate at a gay wedding)

 

Personally I find this position tricky since I do think business owners should be able to refuse service in general. But they shouldn't be able to refuse service because you're a woman or because you're black, etc. and I put gays in the same boat. I know you don't because you think religious beliefs are different than gender or race.

 

 

But here is my point - what if everyone simply put aside their objections and said we won't discriminate even if we personally object to it? What would happen?

 

Christians would still be Christians and as long as they're not the ones getting married then there is no harm. It's not a sin to bake a cake or provide flowers that end up being used in a gay wedding.

 

The married couple would be extremely happy - it's a lifechanging event for them just as it is for most heterosexual couples. Their friends would be happy.

 

So why do you have to go out of your way to keep people from being happy just because you have a personal objection against it when it has no impact on you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My emotions don't depend on peoples' acceptance of me. Nor should yours. Nor should a gay couple's.

 

It feels great to be "accepting", but personal feelings don't address whether or not what's being accepted is a positive or a negative for society as a whole.

 

No one.....ever......banned the practice of homosexual pair-bonding. They simply said there would be no equal recognition of gay marriage as (traditional) hetero-marriage. That's not the same thing.

 

I agree it's not a sin to bake a cake. But it is wrong (call it a "sin" if you want) to force somebody else to bake a cake against their will.

 

With regard to "blacks wouldn't be able to eat at the same lunch counter as whites". AFAIK, there was never a law that said a business couldn't be integrated, and gradually people's attitudes changed--accelerated by the horror of blacks' treatment by law enforcement they saw on TV.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why do gays have to seek out the place that will not bake them a cake? Just go down the street to the next place that will be happy to bake them a cake. I agree with most everything else you said akirby. (FYI, akirby autocorrects to aliens on my phone :))

 

And the Vatican is distancing itself from Kim Davis. Thankfully, because though I don't believe in gay marriage, she is in the wrong by not following the law.

 

http://catholicsay.com/vatican-distances-itself-from-kim-davis-after-pope-francis-meeting/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there are activists on both sides that seek out conflict and that's not right. It just makes the problem worse. The same thing happens with political issues, race issues, etc. - there are always people who want publicity.

 

If all that a gay couple had to do was pick a different bakery I don't think it would be a big deal. The problem is what if EVERY bakery and flower shop within 100 miles declines?

 

If a fat person ordered 5 cakes for themselves, wouldn't that be gluttony? Isn't that just as much of a sin as homosexuality?

 

What about a wedding for 2 people who were previously married? Would any bakery turn down that order? Of course not, yet the bible says it's wrong.

 

The hypocrisy is staggering and proves to me this is really just homophobia thinly disguised as religious freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if there weren't any gay bakers awaiting the opportunity to make all the gay wedding cakes the world wants.

No one is stopping them from making the cakes.

But, the power of the government to force me to make a cake when I chose not to, for whatever reason, personal or religious, is an infringement on my rights and at some level, tantamount to forced labor.

Edited by FiredMotorCompany
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that might be a difference between the meetings. The gay couple included a personal friend. Áfaik, the Pope didn't know Kim Davis before their meeting.

 

I don't know what the Pope's position is, but I do know he should love all sinners, and not their sins

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that might be a difference between the meetings. The gay couple included a personal friend. Áfaik, the Pope didn't know Kim Davis before their meeting.

 

I don't know what the Pope's position is, but I do know he should love all sinners, and not their sins

the difference between Catholic and protestants is Grace at salvation, we do lots of stuff that is wrong but sinning is not that. Nothing separates a saved sinner from the cross, because as MercyMe says, 'the cross was enough',

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the difference between Catholic and protestants is Grace at salvation, we do lots of stuff that is wrong but sinning is not that. Nothing separates a saved sinner from the cross, because as MercyMe says, 'the cross was enough',

Not sure what to make of that. I'd say sinning in and of itself is wrong, although the act is no more important than what's in the sinner's heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all that a gay couple had to do was pick a different bakery I don't think it would be a big deal. The problem is what if EVERY bakery and flower shop within 100 miles declines?

 

I live in a rural and very conservative area. I can guarantee you I could find a bakery and flower shop within 100 miles that would serve a gay couple (or do just about anything needed). I doubt there are many people in this country who couldn't do the same. With all of social media, just post it 'out there' that you need someone to bake a cake for you because you were discriminated against and you will have people lining up for the publicity. And seriously, making a cake is not like building a car...bake your own cake if it's that big of a deal.

 

 

If a fat person ordered 5 cakes for themselves, wouldn't that be gluttony? Isn't that just as much of a sin as homosexuality?

 

What about a wedding for 2 people who were previously married? Would any bakery turn down that order? Of course not, yet the bible says it's wrong.

 

The hypocrisy is staggering and proves to me this is really just homophobia thinly disguised as religious freedom.

 

I can agree with you, though there are varying degrees of sin (venial/mortal). And each person would have to examine their own conscience on what they felt was right or wrong. Personally, if I were in the cake baking business, I would likely bake a cake for whomever wanted to buy one from me. Just because I am baking a cake for you doesn't mean I condone your actions. Some people aren't that way, and yes, I feel people on both sides are making a big deal about it just to make a scene. I'm a low-key guy, so I don't like to stand out. I just don't feel someone should be forced to perform a service for someone if they feel it violates their beliefs, as long as it doesn't put that person's life in danger. Kindly refuse, then the customer can go on down the street calmly and pick another place of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what to make of that. I'd say sinning in and of itself is wrong, although the act is no more important than what's in the sinner's heart.

sin separates us from God, I can get drunk and curse a stop sign but that may not separate me from God if it does not master me according to Paul when he stated I can do all things but all things are not good for me. Paul even prayed for the thorn to be removed and was told no, the thorn kept him humble, which I think is the most valuable aspect of Christianity when it includes UNselfishness.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I am baking a cake for you doesn't mean I condone your actions.

 

Bingo! Especially when the action in question isn't universally "bad" (like murder e.g.) but is only considered wrong to a subset of the population and only because of what's written in a book.

 

My biggest issue with all this is that some (most?) Christians have no respect for any religion other than Christianity (or lack of religion). They try to force their beliefs on everyone under the auspice of "this is the only real, correct religion" and all others are wrong. This is why we had laws against gay marriage, blue laws against Sunday alcohol sales, etc., public prayer in schools and sporting events, etc.

 

We don't need a public prayer - just have a moment of silence and let each person pray the way they want to pray or not pray at all - respect for the individual. Let each person decide whether they want to purchase alcohol on Sunday (or not).

 

And this isn't about Christians vs. atheists - it's just as applicable to Jews or Muslims or any other non-Christian religion. Respect individual beliefs period and keep your nose out of other people's beliefs.

 

I respect Christians and their beliefs. I respect Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Atheists. Religion is a personal decision

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest issue with all this is that some (most?) Christians have no respect for any religion other than Christianity (or lack of religion). They try to force their beliefs on everyone under the auspice of "this is the only real, correct religion" and all others are wrong. This is why we had laws against gay marriage, blue laws against Sunday alcohol sales, etc., public prayer in schools and sporting events, etc.

 

I wouldn't say most, but many.

 

I've been a practicing Catholic my entire life, and had 8 years of Catholic school. I can say probably the biggest thing that I was taught was to respect others and their beliefs. I still remember the saying, plastered in huge gold letters on the wall of the school: "Treat others as you would have them treat you." So many people (Christians as well as non-Christians) forget that saying. That has stuck with me through the years, and, no matter your belief system, if everyone would obey that simple little rule, there would be none of these issues we have today. That goes for both sides of the coin. I'm not going to force you to pray with me, but don't take away my right to pray during that moment of silence.

 

And I'm not one of those anti-non-Christian folks either. I can see the good in people, and I don't feel that going to church makes you Christian any more than not. It's all in the way you treat others. I dated a girl in high school that was a non-Christian when I met her. I could see the good in her heart, and she was the epitome of that golden rule I remembered as a child. Though she had never been baptized or brought up with any faith, she truly lived the life that I was taught as a child, better than most practicing Catholics that I grew up with. We truly raised some eyebrows when we married 17 years ago, including my grandmother (Catholic) and hers (Baptist). No, we didn't supply alcohol at the wedding reception, but we didn't stop anyone from bringing it in. :) Today, she is a practicing Catholic, living the life I was always taught to live, and struggling to teach our children that golden rule that so many, including the kids at their Catholic school (the same one I went to), forget, or aren't even taught.

 

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, more than anything else, Pope Francis is telling us all to treat others with respect and dignity, and show love for everyone, regardless of whether or not you agree with their choices. Doing this will make this world a happy place for everyone.

 

'the greatest of these is love.'

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sin separates us from God, I can get drunk and curse a stop sign but that may not separate me from God if it does not master me according to Paul when he stated I can do all things but all things are not good for me. Paul even prayed for the thorn to be removed and was told no, the thorn kept him humble, which I think is the most valuable aspect of Christianity when it includes UNselfishness.....

If you can......, and you do....., I can't say if it separates you from God, because I can't read your mind or see your heart.

 

But, I don't subscribe to the belief that "once saved, always saved", nor do I believe that person has only one chance to be saved. What I do believe is that salvation requires a change of heart. And with that change of heart, I can agree that temptation is no longer the master.

 

Christianity preaches against pride--which could be viewed as unselfishness--however I don't believe it is a contest on who can bow the lowest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can......, and you do....., I can't say if it separates you from God, because I can't read your mind or see your heart.

 

But, I don't subscribe to the belief that "once saved, always saved", nor do I believe that person has only one chance to be saved. What I do believe is that salvation requires a change of heart. And with that change of heart, I can agree that temptation is no longer the master.

 

Christianity preaches against pride--which could be viewed as unselfishness--however I don't believe it is a contest on who can bow the lowest.

I can agree with most of that. Humility is a fruit of the Spirit which in my mind simply means I can not do it because Jesus already did do it, He paid for Salvation and I therefore spend my efforts being thankful instead of boasting in my works. Salvation is not earned but a gift that only needs to be accepted,,

 

I do believe, since Salvation was purchased by Jesus that it is a gift and Jesus does not do returns,,, :)

 

Don't think I ever heard of only having one chance to be saved.

 

Thanks for the convo, I need outlets for my thankfulness

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think I ever heard of only having one chance to be saved.

 

Thanks for the convo, I need outlets for my thankfulness

It's a tenet held by some denominations. Can't name them off the top of my head, since (for me) it's not worth remembering.

 

I rarely sidestep a conversation on faith. It's how it's built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...