Michele Bachmann officially leaves her church

[Mr. Shaman]

Just so I understand your position: Who got us into this financial mess, in your opinion?

My best-guess would be those folks who'd convinced The America People that out-sourcing WAR was a pretty-good-idea.

*

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Sorry to disapoint you, but I know quite a few practicing Catholics who have voted for Obama and still plan on voting for him!

I am not a "practicing Catholic," and neither is my husband, be we still support Obama.

Once and for all. . .Pro-CHOICE is NOT Pro-abortion.

And Pro-life is a misnomer, as many "pro-life" people are also proponent of death penalty, wars, and not especially supportive of universal health care, or education funding. . . which is kind of a hypocritical stand!

I would think that ANYONE who argues for smaller governemental involvement in people's life would appreciate that Obama prefers to live it to people to make those life changing decisions!

He certainly is not pushing ANYONE to have an abortion!

As a matter-o'-fact, Obama is the FIRST President to (actually) offer the most co$t-effective way to deal with the issue (seeing-as-how all the "moralists" disappear, after carried-to-term has been enforced)!!!​

"In a statement, Sebelius praised the committee’s work as “historic” and “based on science and existing literature.”

Birth Control Coverage; Health Insurance Plans​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Maybe they'll vote for who seems to be most capable of getting this country out of the mess it's in.

Now, that would be a refreshing change, wouldn't it?

How ironic....a Change to considering/reconsidering....​

PRECEDENCE​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I am a practicing Catholic, and given my options, I would choose the Mormon.

....Who'd successfully implemented managed health-care.​

"A study conducted by the Urban Institute and released in December 2010 by the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy stated that as of June 2010, 98.1 percent of state residents had coverage. This compared to 97.3 percent having coverage in the state in 2009 and 83.3 percent having coverage nationwide. Among children and seniors the 2010 coverage rate was even higher, at 99.8 percent and 99.6 percent respectively. The breakdown of insurance coverage consisted of that 65.1 percent of state residents being covered by employers, 16.4 percent by Medicare, and 16.6 percent via public plans such as Commonwealth Care. The state's Secretary of Health and Human Services, JudyAnn Bigby, said, “Massachusetts' achievements in health care reform have been nothing short of extraordinary. With employers, government and individuals all sharing the responsibility of reform, we continue to have the highest insurance rate in the nation.”

Massachusetts Health Care Reform​

"Maybe there's STILL Hope for you!"​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The bible does say "an eye for an eye."

It says....

....a LOT o' stupid, inconsistent crap....

....typically the end-result o' opportunists who are fighting to maintain whatever job-security they can manage (much like the DEA).

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Good thing we live in a secular society I guess.

I'd say (at least) HALF-the-population would agree-with-you.​

 

[Openmind]

I totally agree.

Except that Palin is not running for president. If she did run for president, that would demonstrate that she is not thinking rationally. We don't need a president who is not thinking rationally. We already know that Bachmann is not.

Oh well, we aren't likely to be faced with a Bachmann/Palin choice.

Are we, are we? Please say no.....

No, I don't think so.

And I agree that Palin won't run! She is much too interested in making millions a year, not a mere $300,000 or so!

And, anyway, if she were to become President. . .it would show "the emperor without clothes" which, in Palin's case, may be very flattering, since she is quite pretty, but is not exactly what the US needs for "LEADERSHIP!"

 

[BigRob]

....Who'd successfully implemented managed health-care.​

And which is widely unpopular withing MA, as well as causing costs to increase etc etc.

Romney has already said he will issue an Executive Order allowing states to opt out of Obamacare if they so choose.

 

[BigRob]

No, I don't think so.

And I agree that Palin won't run! She is much too interested in making millions a year, not a mere $300,000 or so!

And, anyway, if she were to become President. . .it would show "the emperor without clothes" which, in Palin's case, may be very flattering, since she is quite pretty, but is not exactly what the US needs for "LEADERSHIP!"

I agree, Palin is not going to run...

But I will also say, I think we need to dramatically increase the salary of the President, and frankly Congress as well. The people who are truly capable of leading the country simply stay out of politics because it is simply not worth their while.

 

[Openmind]

I agree, Palin is not going to run...

But I will also say, I think we need to dramatically increase the salary of the President, and frankly Congress as well. The people who are truly capable of leading the country simply stay out of politics because it is simply not worth their while.

You know, I agree. Right now, the best people often cannot afford to run for Congress. . .not only because the election process is costly, but also because they can make a lot more money in private industry, and they do have a life and a family (hopefully!).

I would be in favor of raisng the annual salary of Congress, but ONLY if it was like a regular salary. . .no "lifelong" pension, health care, etc. . .AND term limits.

While you're in Congress, you would get a very decent salary
Once you leave (either you lose an election, you decide to leave, or you are at the end of your term limit), you loose ALL future monetary advantages of having been in Congress (except, obviously, all those book contracts and speaking appearances!).

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Funny you should mention all that!
Well, are you aware that the "Catholic Church" is a little like the tail that "tries" to wag the dog, and that the "dog" has increasingly different ideas of what is "moral" and what is not, and have given itself permission to check with their OWN conscience on many of those points, rather than blindly follow the dogma of the Church?

I said it was funny that you mentionned that because, although I had already come to those conclusion through my own observation and checking my OWN conscience, I just receive in the mail, this morning, (my mail had been kept at the post office for the last 5 weeks, while I was travelling, so this is the first time I had access to it), the June 9, 2011 Catholic Miscellany, with latest US Bishops findings on the Catholics opinion about these various issues:

Ibased on telephone interveiws conducted May 5-8 with a random sample of 1,018 U.S. Adults. Margin of error: + or - 45.

Morally acceptable Morally wrong
Doctor-assisted suicie 45% 48%
Abortion 39% 51%
Same-sex relations 56% 39%
Premarital sex 60% 36%
Embryonic stem-cell research 62% 36%
Pornography 30% 66%
Death Penalty 65% 28%
Divorce 69% 23%

I thought this was quite interesting and really demonstrates that, unless the "CHURCH" begins to live in the 21st century, it will become as relevant as the Koran for Catholics.

By the way, I would have LOVED to see one category that involved "birth control devises/pills." I bet the answer would have been 90% moral and 5% not moral. . .in spite of the continued "sin" it represents for the Church!

Most people are sinners -- Catholics included. This isn't news.

Those who take communion while rejecting Christ's teachings and those of the Church He established simply compound the sin of rebellion with the sin of sacrilege and perjury. It's something they'll have to answer for when they come before God.

Meanwhile, natural law remains natural law whether people live by it or not. That's why it's called natural and law, rather than conscientious or emotive or guidelines or suggestions.

 

[ProudLefty]

What evidence is there that there was no moral law before God published The Holy Bible? How outrageous id it that you suggest that moral law only exists to please God?

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

What evidence is there that there was no moral law before God published The Holy Bible? How outrageous id it that you suggest that moral law only exists to please God?

Huh? Natural law is natural law -- as in natural revelation (i.e., reason). It arises organically from human nature, not divine command. This is why it always grates on my nerves when people talk about the Church promoting "religious dogma" as Openmind did; the Church's teachings are rooted in the rational philosophies of classical essentialism and teleology, not arbitrary fiat.

I don't think I've ever even mentioned the Bible once in all my time posting at HoP, much less to justify one of the Church's teachings.

 

[ProudLefty]

Huh? Natural law is natural law -- as in natural revelation (i.e., reason). It arises organically from human nature, not divine command. This is why it always grates on my nerves when people talk about the Church promoting "religious dogma" as Openmind did; the Church's teachings are rooted in the rational philosophies of classical essentialism and teleology, not arbitrary fiat.

I don't think I've ever even mentioned the Bible once in all my time posting at HoP, much less to justify one of the Church's teachings.

Natural Law. I see. There is a difference in natural law for plant eaters and meat eaters? Fish have one set of rules and plants have another?

Natural Law, to me at least, is:
gravity,
fire,
erosion,
the consequences of Earth having a molten ferrite core,
the cycle of life,
water, ice, and steam.

These are natural law. Robbing a bank is not covered by natural law, nor is eating one's young, masturbating over Fox News babes, nor sexting with Anthony Wiener.

 

[Openmind]

Huh? Natural law is natural law -- as in natural revelation (i.e., reason). It arises organically from human nature, not divine command. This is why it always grates on my nerves when people talk about the Church promoting "religious dogma" as Openmind did; the Church's teachings are rooted in the rational philosophies of classical essentialism and teleology, not arbitrary fiat.

I don't think I've ever even mentioned the Bible once in all my time posting at HoP, much less to justify one of the Church's teachings.

You are using circular reasoning: You have decided to believe in the teaching of a Church, good for you.

However, if one doesn't or stopped believing in the teaching of manmade churches, science makes a lot better case for reason than anything related to religious beliefs.

And, sorry I "grate on your nerves," but, although I accept that some simple minded people need the crutch of religious teaching to feel grounded, it does grate on MY nerves also when someone seemingly intelligent and educated feels he/she needs that crutch also.

So. . .are you saying that the Catholic Church's teachings are not based on the Bible first, then on the New Testament?