The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Anti-Catholics & Elitist Bigots
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Will Hillary Clinton clean out the nest of anti-Catholic bigots in her inner circle? Or is anti-Catholicism acceptable in her crowd?

In a 2011 email on which Clinton campaign chief John Podesta was copied, John Halpin, a fellow at the Center for American Progress that Podesta founded, trashed Rupert Murdoch for raising his kids in a misogynist religion.

The most “powerful elements” in the conservative movement are Catholic, railed Halpin: “It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backward gender relations…”

Clinton spokesperson Jennifer Palmieri agreed: “I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they become evangelical.”

“Excellent point,” replied Halpin. “They can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they are talking about.”

What the pair is mocking here are both the faith decisions of the Murdoch family and traditional Catholic beliefs and social teaching.

This is a pristine example of the anti-Catholicism that historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr., called “the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people.”

In another email in this latest document dump from WikiLeaks, writes Ben Wolfgang of The Washington Times, Podesta and Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, mocked the Miss America pageant, because so many finalists are Southern girls and young women.

Said Podesta, “Do you think it’s weird that of the 15 finalists in the Miss America, 10 came from the 11 states of the CSA?”

The CSA would be the Confederate States of America.

“Not at all,” says Tanden, “I would imagine the only people who watch it are from the confederacy and by now they know that so they’ve rigged the thing in their honor.”

In another email, Podesta himself uses the sort of language liberals once said disqualified Nixon from staying on as president — regarding former Governor Bill Richardson. Podesta refers to him and other Hispanics whom he is trying to court for Clinton as “needy Latinos.”

What these emails reveal is the sneering contempt of liberal elites for Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Southerners, and even Hispanics loyal to them. And the contents of these emails correlate with the revealed bigotries of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

In September, Clinton told a gathering of rich contributors at a gay rights fundraiser in New York City:

“[Y]ou could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.”

Responding to the cheers and laughter, Clinton went on, “Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

What Clinton said to the LGBT partisans echoed what Obama told rich contributors in San Francisco in 2008, who wondered why he was not doing better in Pennsylvania.

ORDER IT NOW

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and … the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. … And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Obama was saying that when small-town Pennsylvanians fall behind, they blame others and revert to their bibles, bigotries and guns.

Yet Obama has never explained what caused him to sit content for 20 years — and be married and have his daughters baptized — in the church of a ranting racist like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who, at the time of 9/11, roared from his pulpit “God Damn America!”

What so attracted Barack Obama to Rev. Wright’s bigotry?

These latest emails confirm what we already knew.

Our elites, who are forever charging others with “racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia,” are steeped in their own bigotries — toward Southerners, conservatives, Middle Americans, Evangelical Christians, and traditionalist Catholics — the “irredeemables.”

Though the election is still a month off, the campaign of 2016 has already done irreparable damage to the American establishment.

Its roots in the nation it purports to lead have been attenuated if not severed. It has shown the world a portrait of American democracy at its apex that approaches the repellent.

Through the savagery of its attacks on those who have risen up against it, the establishment has stripped itself of all claim to be the moral leader of American society. Its moral authority is gone.

Even if Clinton wins, it can no longer credibly speak for America.

As for the national press corps — the Fourth Estate — it has been compromised, its credibility crippled, as some of the greatest of the press institutions have nakedly shilled for the regime candidate, while others have been exposed as propagandists or corrupt collaborators posturing as objective reporters.

What institution in America today, besides the military, enjoys national respect? And if people do not respect the regime, if they believe it acts in its own cold interest rather than the nation’s, why should they respect or follow its leadership?

We have entered uncharted waters.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2016 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Catholicism, Hillary Clinton 
Hide 97 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Okay Pat, we know the Clintons are scum. A test of morality should be of the social fabric of the society. Allowing degenerate filth on the internet under the guise of free speech and letting Hollywood create pure trash and anti white films portraying race mixing as normal is a violation of natural law as well as local ethical standards of any civilized community. Freedom of religion is a different issue from freedom of speech. Saying something idiotic always brings questions of sanity to the issuer, but believing in something(religion) that you have no absolute proof as being true is a cause for placement in a mental institution. If people believed that EVERYONE has rights and no one has the privilege to violate those rights, the world would be a much better place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "A test of morality should be of the social fabric of the society. Allowing degenerate filth on the internet under the guise of free speech and letting Hollywood create pure trash and anti white films portraying race mixing as normal is a violation of natural law as well as local ethical standards of any civilized community."

    First, you are assuming that natural law ought to be the standards of the American society.

    Second, race and ethnic mixing is a natural inclination of human beings.

    Third, if you are opposed to "Hollywood trash", do not watch it.
    , @Nice Man
    Agreee, JEW run companies promote filth and race mixing as a form of white genocide.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Realist says:

    “Will Hillary Clinton clean out the nest of anti-Catholic bigots in her inner circle? Or is anti-Catholicism acceptable in her crowd?”

    You’re kidding….right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    YOU'RE kidding, right?

    See what a persuasive logical argument I just made?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Heymrguda says:

    I’m hardly an admirer of HRC and her staff but I think what they meant here was the establishment of the Catholic Church as the de facto “official religion” of political conservatism.

    This trend has manifested itself thru various means, but most markedly the well publicized conversion of a number of conservative intellectuals — including for example, Russell Kirk — to RC. I have also noticed it on the American Conservative website a number of times. I was banned from further comment there for questioning it, at least I guess that’s what it was, as no further comments from me were posted after that.

    Apparently the people behind this feel they have no fear of offending Protestants. Indeed, us proddies are an easy target; just look at the number of tv shows and movies in which any minister involved is a usually a villain.

    But I do commend pat Buchanan, who has never to my knowledge ever promoted one religion over another, although he himself is a devout RC.

    Read More
    • Agree: John Jeremiah Smith
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "But I do commend pat Buchanan, who has never to my knowledge ever promoted one religion over another, although he himself is a devout RC."

    He has promoted Roman Catholicism over the Muslim faith.

    "Will Hillary Clinton clean out the nest of anti-Catholic bigots in her inner circle? Or is anti-Catholicism acceptable in her crowd?"

    Will Patrick Buchanan clean out the nest of anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim bigots in his inner circle? Or is opposing religions other than Christianity acceptable in his crowd? Would not Patrick and his cronies find elements of Judaism and Islam as being "systematic thought" and consisting of "severely backward gender relations"?
    , @Hibernian
    "us proddies are an easy target;"

    That's terminology used in Ireland; I haven't heard it in 62 years as an offspring of the Irish Catholic diaspora. I think you're indulging in self-pity. National Review Online, for example, prominently features the very Catholic Kathryn Jean Lopez (she was the boss of NRO, not sure if she still is) and Fundamentalist David French, among others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Said Podesta, “Do you think it’s weird that of the 15 finalists in the Miss America, 10 came from the 11 states of the CSA?”

    The CSA would be the Confederate States of America.

    “Not at all,” says Tanden, “I would imagine the only people who watch it are from the confederacy and by now they know that so they’ve rigged the thing in their honor.”

    Umm, the Civil War ended over 150 years ago!

    Read More
    • Replies: @abj_slant
    The flag is still popular.
    , @Michael Hamrin
    This author has correctly nailed the culpability of Hillary Clinton and her ilk. Unless and until the slaughter of innocents ends with confession or guilt the US is headed for disaster. The US is a despicable war-monger who will certainly pay for their crimes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Jason Liu says:

    C’mon, the left doesn’t take anti-Christian bigotry seriously, even if a lot of Catholics are Latinos. They’re just not “other” enough to sympathize with.

    You folks need to get off the “what about racism against me?!” boat and start thinking of ways to purge the left from positions of power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Marcus says:

    Other than Pat and the late Sobran, conservative Catholics tend to be establishment types like Buckley, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, O’Reilly, etc. Most Irish Catholics are still very liberal, Italians and others less so.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stonehands
    • Replies: @Neuday
    First, please consider pre- and post-Vatican II when considering anything "Catholic".

    Secondly, as a post-Vatican II Traditionalist Catholic, your comment the "most conservative Catholics tend to be types like . . .", is utter bollocks. From your list, what you mean to say is "most politicians, regardless of faith, tend to be establishment types".

    Finally, Patrick Buchanan is a Jesuit, and so is Bergoglio. Catholicism has a pretty wide variance.
    , @Hibernian
    Are you kidding?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. I suppose the pending gross treason of the Clinton Gang is made all the more horrible by their anti-Catholic stance?

    That’s a question.

    While we’re asking questions, why are five Supreme Court justices Roman Catholics, and three are Jewish? Why is that? Why is the current nominee, Garland, Jewish? That would produce a Supreme Court consisting of 5 Roman Catholics and 4 Jews.

    Gee, can’t get much more representative of the US population than THAT, huh? If we’re pointing and questioning “bias”, Pat, how about a sensible, unbiased answer to my silly questions?

    Read More
    • Replies: @schmenz
    I will try to attempt a reply. With one or two exceptions (one of them being the late Mr Scalia) the Catholics on the Supreme Court do not behave at all like Catholics should. They are screaming liberals who could care less about their religion. Think Pelosi, Biden, etc. Therefore they certainly don't voice any sort of Catholic opinion or conscience in their rulings. These CINOS (Catholics-in-name-only) will happily shove abortion, sodomy and any other garbage down the throats of people without batting an eye. We Catholics have a name for them: apostates.

    Can Catholics be sinners, hypocrites or worse? Of course. But if they want to stop being sinners, hypocrites or worse they go to Confession. Will that stop them from being jerks? Not always, but if they have the will to change their lives it will certainly help.

    Sorry to get all "Catholic" on you but, well, you did open the door.

    Regards...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Neuday says:
    @Marcus
    Other than Pat and the late Sobran, conservative Catholics tend to be establishment types like Buckley, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, O'Reilly, etc. Most Irish Catholics are still very liberal, Italians and others less so.

    First, please consider pre- and post-Vatican II when considering anything “Catholic”.

    Secondly, as a post-Vatican II Traditionalist Catholic, your comment the “most conservative Catholics tend to be types like . . .”, is utter bollocks. From your list, what you mean to say is “most politicians, regardless of faith, tend to be establishment types”.

    Finally, Patrick Buchanan is a Jesuit, and so is Bergoglio. Catholicism has a pretty wide variance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Catholics tend to be mediocre and conformist since they're taught to obey authority, so they have higher mean than Protestants, but latter have wider range. I was baptized Catholic, but my father converted to Episcopalianism (for the prestige I assume) which is like a wealthier, more faggy Church
    , @Bill

    Finally, Patrick Buchanan is a Jesuit,
     
    Um, no.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    First, please consider pre- and post-Vatican II when considering anything “Catholic”.
     
    How about I simply demand that you keep your religion out of my government, so that I don't get cranky and kill a few of your priests? The Vatican can drop dead, be it I, II, or I-Million. I do not give a DAMN about your religion.
    , @Hibernian
    I've gone to retreats at a Jesuit retreat house, but that doesn't make me a Jesuit. They're not about to lower their standards that much. I think you meant to say that Mr. Buchanan was educated by the Jesuits, at a Jesuit high school in D.C. and at Georgetown.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Marcus says:
    @Neuday
    First, please consider pre- and post-Vatican II when considering anything "Catholic".

    Secondly, as a post-Vatican II Traditionalist Catholic, your comment the "most conservative Catholics tend to be types like . . .", is utter bollocks. From your list, what you mean to say is "most politicians, regardless of faith, tend to be establishment types".

    Finally, Patrick Buchanan is a Jesuit, and so is Bergoglio. Catholicism has a pretty wide variance.

    Catholics tend to be mediocre and conformist since they’re taught to obey authority, so they have higher mean than Protestants, but latter have wider range. I was baptized Catholic, but my father converted to Episcopalianism (for the prestige I assume) which is like a wealthier, more faggy Church

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Your equal opportunity religious stereotyping is amazing. Was it your mother or your father who didn't love you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. One is permitted to badmouth and hate three groups in the modern good-thinking post-racial LGBT West:
    - Genuine Christians, which means Catholics and born-agains.
    - Provincials, which in the US means rednecks.
    - And Russians in general; in particular the Russian ruling elite.

    Hillary manages to viscerally hate all three at once. One of the more likeable things about Trump is that he doesn’t hate any of the three. He is not a Christian, he is not pro-Russian, and he is no redneck – but he doesn’t hate any of the three groups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    He's claimed to be a Christian of sorts, his behavior notwithstanding.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. schmenz says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith
    I suppose the pending gross treason of the Clinton Gang is made all the more horrible by their anti-Catholic stance?

    That's a question.

    While we're asking questions, why are five Supreme Court justices Roman Catholics, and three are Jewish? Why is that? Why is the current nominee, Garland, Jewish? That would produce a Supreme Court consisting of 5 Roman Catholics and 4 Jews.

    Gee, can't get much more representative of the US population than THAT, huh? If we're pointing and questioning "bias", Pat, how about a sensible, unbiased answer to my silly questions?

    I will try to attempt a reply. With one or two exceptions (one of them being the late Mr Scalia) the Catholics on the Supreme Court do not behave at all like Catholics should. They are screaming liberals who could care less about their religion. Think Pelosi, Biden, etc. Therefore they certainly don’t voice any sort of Catholic opinion or conscience in their rulings. These CINOS (Catholics-in-name-only) will happily shove abortion, sodomy and any other garbage down the throats of people without batting an eye. We Catholics have a name for them: apostates.

    Can Catholics be sinners, hypocrites or worse? Of course. But if they want to stop being sinners, hypocrites or worse they go to Confession. Will that stop them from being jerks? Not always, but if they have the will to change their lives it will certainly help.

    Sorry to get all “Catholic” on you but, well, you did open the door.

    Regards…

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    With one or two exceptions (one of them being the late Mr Scalia) the Catholics on the Supreme Court do not behave at all like Catholics should.
     
    I got that far before I started laughing and couldn't stop.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Rurik says:

    while I generally agree with Pat, I do have one question

    if Pat and the Catholics believe that if they were to control the power of the state, and be allowed to use that power to force all Americans to abide by their religious dictates, (against abortion for instance, or presumably even against certain types of birth control), then by that reasoning, why shouldn’t the seculars be allowed to use the exact same power of the state, that they now control, to impose their values (by force) on Catholics?

    If it’s good for the goose…

    my point is my contention that no religions (or lack there of) should ever be allowed to use the power of the state to compel others to abide by their codes and dogmas.

    if my baby was severely deformed, to the point where it would suffer, then I’d want to abort it, and I question anyone’s so-called right to order me not to (if I was a pregnant women).

    religious fundamentalists are fine so long as they restrict their strictures to themselves

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    if Pat and the Catholics believe that if they were to control the power of the state, and be allowed to use that power to force all Americans to abide by their religious dictates, (against abortion for instance, or presumably even against certain types of birth control), then by that reasoning, why shouldn’t the seculars be allowed to use the exact same power of the state, that they now control, to impose their values (by force) on Catholics?
     
    You are implicitly assuming that there is some meta-morality which exists above competing views of morality. You are assuming that there is some kind of symmetry between morality and immorality. That is a clever-silly.

    It's OK for us Catholics to impose our morality on you because our morality is true. It's not OK for you non-Catholics to impose your "morality" on us because your "morality" is false (wherever it disagrees with ours). That's all. Oh, and it's all types of birth control, not just some.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Bill says:
    @Neuday
    First, please consider pre- and post-Vatican II when considering anything "Catholic".

    Secondly, as a post-Vatican II Traditionalist Catholic, your comment the "most conservative Catholics tend to be types like . . .", is utter bollocks. From your list, what you mean to say is "most politicians, regardless of faith, tend to be establishment types".

    Finally, Patrick Buchanan is a Jesuit, and so is Bergoglio. Catholicism has a pretty wide variance.

    Finally, Patrick Buchanan is a Jesuit,

    Um, no.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Bill says:
    @Rurik
    while I generally agree with Pat, I do have one question

    if Pat and the Catholics believe that if they were to control the power of the state, and be allowed to use that power to force all Americans to abide by their religious dictates, (against abortion for instance, or presumably even against certain types of birth control), then by that reasoning, why shouldn't the seculars be allowed to use the exact same power of the state, that they now control, to impose their values (by force) on Catholics?

    If it's good for the goose...

    my point is my contention that no religions (or lack there of) should ever be allowed to use the power of the state to compel others to abide by their codes and dogmas.

    if my baby was severely deformed, to the point where it would suffer, then I'd want to abort it, and I question anyone's so-called right to order me not to (if I was a pregnant women).

    religious fundamentalists are fine so long as they restrict their strictures to themselves

    if Pat and the Catholics believe that if they were to control the power of the state, and be allowed to use that power to force all Americans to abide by their religious dictates, (against abortion for instance, or presumably even against certain types of birth control), then by that reasoning, why shouldn’t the seculars be allowed to use the exact same power of the state, that they now control, to impose their values (by force) on Catholics?

    You are implicitly assuming that there is some meta-morality which exists above competing views of morality. You are assuming that there is some kind of symmetry between morality and immorality. That is a clever-silly.

    It’s OK for us Catholics to impose our morality on you because our morality is true. It’s not OK for you non-Catholics to impose your “morality” on us because your “morality” is false (wherever it disagrees with ours). That’s all. Oh, and it’s all types of birth control, not just some.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    You are implicitly assuming that there is some meta-morality which exists above competing views of morality. You are assuming that there is some kind of symmetry between morality and immorality.
     
    Nope, no such implicit assumption is made or required. Rurik's evaluation is entirely correct.

    Second, there is symmetry between morality and immorality, by necessity. Sorry -- you're just plain wrong on that score. Now, the fine point could be made that there is no symmetry between different, and possibly opposing systems of ethics. But, you didn't say that.
    , @Marcus
    It would be a real travesty if the teeming masses of Africa and Asia practiced birth control...
    , @Rurik

    You are implicitly assuming that there is some meta-morality which exists above competing views of morality.
     
    there is

    it's where my morality comes from, nature and our instincts

    a mother doesn't have to be told to love and care for her child

    a man doesn't have to read it in a book that he should protect his loved ones from harm, and not harm them himself. This is all meta-morality.

    dogs even know it. When two wolves are fighting over dominance and one submits and offers his neck to his adversary, does the other dog go in for the kill? Or does some kind of meta-morality prevent that? It's no different in humans. We all know instinctively not to kill inoffensive people for no reason. When humans do such things they are aberrations, or more likely they're following the orders of some 'leader' (religious or otherwise) who is exhorting them to kill otherwise inoffensive people. Perhaps because they are 'non-believers', like the Protestants slaughtering the Catholics in Ireland or vice-versa in France.

    Most people if left to their own habits and designs, don't go off and slaughter other people unless territory becomes scarce and is competed for. There is an unwritten meta-morality in the world.

    You are assuming that there is some kind of symmetry between morality and immorality.
     
    immorality is just when natural morality breaks down, and people act in ways that are contrary to their natures. Or when a morality is imposed from above that goes against human nature. Like the strictures against fornication for instance. It's not hard to see why people ignore that particular "morality".

    It’s OK for us Catholics to impose our morality on you because our morality is true.
     
    your morality is nothing more than blind fealty to dogmas

    let me ask you.. is it moral to demand that a women carry a dead fetus to term?

    what about if the fetus is missing a brain? There is a medical condition like this, where the brain is missing, and only the brain stem is there, just enough to tell the pitiable baby's heart to beat and to breath, not much else. Should a women be forced to carry such a thing to term?

    Or the popular consideration of a forcible rape. Should a women be forced to carry such a abomination to term? To see the face of her rapist on her child?

    your so called morality is full of certainties that don't add up when put to the rigors of reality. Because you get it out of a book, and not out of the human heart, which is the fount of all true morality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @schmenz
    I will try to attempt a reply. With one or two exceptions (one of them being the late Mr Scalia) the Catholics on the Supreme Court do not behave at all like Catholics should. They are screaming liberals who could care less about their religion. Think Pelosi, Biden, etc. Therefore they certainly don't voice any sort of Catholic opinion or conscience in their rulings. These CINOS (Catholics-in-name-only) will happily shove abortion, sodomy and any other garbage down the throats of people without batting an eye. We Catholics have a name for them: apostates.

    Can Catholics be sinners, hypocrites or worse? Of course. But if they want to stop being sinners, hypocrites or worse they go to Confession. Will that stop them from being jerks? Not always, but if they have the will to change their lives it will certainly help.

    Sorry to get all "Catholic" on you but, well, you did open the door.

    Regards...

    With one or two exceptions (one of them being the late Mr Scalia) the Catholics on the Supreme Court do not behave at all like Catholics should.

    I got that far before I started laughing and couldn’t stop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Oh yeah, well I started laughing as soon as I saw your screen name!

    See what a logical persuasive argument I just made?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Neuday
    First, please consider pre- and post-Vatican II when considering anything "Catholic".

    Secondly, as a post-Vatican II Traditionalist Catholic, your comment the "most conservative Catholics tend to be types like . . .", is utter bollocks. From your list, what you mean to say is "most politicians, regardless of faith, tend to be establishment types".

    Finally, Patrick Buchanan is a Jesuit, and so is Bergoglio. Catholicism has a pretty wide variance.

    First, please consider pre- and post-Vatican II when considering anything “Catholic”.

    How about I simply demand that you keep your religion out of my government, so that I don’t get cranky and kill a few of your priests? The Vatican can drop dead, be it I, II, or I-Million. I do not give a DAMN about your religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    That's the problem: as with Jews and Muslims (and some Protestants like Lutherans), doctrinaire Catholics can only be loyal if their state is not in contradiction of their dogma, such as anti-racism, anti-usury, and a drop of semen being sacred soul. So if we somehow blocked immigration, in contravention to the Pope's will, they will be obliged to disobey. Catholic writer E Michael Jones, who wrote a rejoinder to Buchanan's "racism," even justifies treason on the battlefield
    http://www.culturewars.com/2004/Challenge.htm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Bill

    if Pat and the Catholics believe that if they were to control the power of the state, and be allowed to use that power to force all Americans to abide by their religious dictates, (against abortion for instance, or presumably even against certain types of birth control), then by that reasoning, why shouldn’t the seculars be allowed to use the exact same power of the state, that they now control, to impose their values (by force) on Catholics?
     
    You are implicitly assuming that there is some meta-morality which exists above competing views of morality. You are assuming that there is some kind of symmetry between morality and immorality. That is a clever-silly.

    It's OK for us Catholics to impose our morality on you because our morality is true. It's not OK for you non-Catholics to impose your "morality" on us because your "morality" is false (wherever it disagrees with ours). That's all. Oh, and it's all types of birth control, not just some.

    You are implicitly assuming that there is some meta-morality which exists above competing views of morality. You are assuming that there is some kind of symmetry between morality and immorality.

    Nope, no such implicit assumption is made or required. Rurik’s evaluation is entirely correct.

    Second, there is symmetry between morality and immorality, by necessity. Sorry — you’re just plain wrong on that score. Now, the fine point could be made that there is no symmetry between different, and possibly opposing systems of ethics. But, you didn’t say that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Yawn.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Bill says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    You are implicitly assuming that there is some meta-morality which exists above competing views of morality. You are assuming that there is some kind of symmetry between morality and immorality.
     
    Nope, no such implicit assumption is made or required. Rurik's evaluation is entirely correct.

    Second, there is symmetry between morality and immorality, by necessity. Sorry -- you're just plain wrong on that score. Now, the fine point could be made that there is no symmetry between different, and possibly opposing systems of ethics. But, you didn't say that.

    Yawn.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Marcus says:
    @Bill

    if Pat and the Catholics believe that if they were to control the power of the state, and be allowed to use that power to force all Americans to abide by their religious dictates, (against abortion for instance, or presumably even against certain types of birth control), then by that reasoning, why shouldn’t the seculars be allowed to use the exact same power of the state, that they now control, to impose their values (by force) on Catholics?
     
    You are implicitly assuming that there is some meta-morality which exists above competing views of morality. You are assuming that there is some kind of symmetry between morality and immorality. That is a clever-silly.

    It's OK for us Catholics to impose our morality on you because our morality is true. It's not OK for you non-Catholics to impose your "morality" on us because your "morality" is false (wherever it disagrees with ours). That's all. Oh, and it's all types of birth control, not just some.

    It would be a real travesty if the teeming masses of Africa and Asia practiced birth control…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Marcus says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    First, please consider pre- and post-Vatican II when considering anything “Catholic”.
     
    How about I simply demand that you keep your religion out of my government, so that I don't get cranky and kill a few of your priests? The Vatican can drop dead, be it I, II, or I-Million. I do not give a DAMN about your religion.

    That’s the problem: as with Jews and Muslims (and some Protestants like Lutherans), doctrinaire Catholics can only be loyal if their state is not in contradiction of their dogma, such as anti-racism, anti-usury, and a drop of semen being sacred soul. So if we somehow blocked immigration, in contravention to the Pope’s will, they will be obliged to disobey. Catholic writer E Michael Jones, who wrote a rejoinder to Buchanan’s “racism,” even justifies treason on the battlefield

    http://www.culturewars.com/2004/Challenge.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    That’s the problem: as with Jews and Muslims (and some Protestants like Lutherans), doctrinaire Catholics can only be loyal if their state is not in contradiction of their dogma, such as anti-racism, anti-usury, and a drop of semen being sacred soul.
     
    Indeed. Seems like "Catholic" is a preceding adjective to "traitor".
    , @Hibernian
    No Christian of any denomination who is worth his or her salt can be loyal to an anti-God state. It's a question of degree how far we're willing to be pushed. Also, I grew up in an area where at least half of the Protestants were Lutheran, and the notion that they (or any more than a small portion of Anglicans) are "almost Catholics" is laughable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Realist
    "Will Hillary Clinton clean out the nest of anti-Catholic bigots in her inner circle? Or is anti-Catholicism acceptable in her crowd?"

    You're kidding....right?

    YOU’RE kidding, right?

    See what a persuasive logical argument I just made?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    The question doesn't require a persuasive logical argument . The answer is evident to most....too bad you missed it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. dahoit says:

    Tandem,Podesta and their ilk are just the sort of people we should bar in our immigration,as they hate US.What suicide,to invite all those with historical grievances against us,or others, into America so they eat US from within.
    Sorry,born again Christians don’t seem Christian to me,they seem like lackeys of zion instead of followers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
    And as far as Christians in general,outside of the Presbyterians,the silence is deafening regarding what we do in this world that surely aint Christian.
    As a Teutprot,who married a Catholic,and whose children are married interfaith and inter-race,its all getting old anyway,isn’t it?
    Mutts make better people,just like dogs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    "...Mutts make better people,just like dogs..."

    You got that right, a nation run by unfruitful yapping women and homosexuals- all because their men forfeited masculinity when they refused to be the spiritual leaders of their households-

    Dogs Indeed!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @John Jeremiah Smith

    With one or two exceptions (one of them being the late Mr Scalia) the Catholics on the Supreme Court do not behave at all like Catholics should.
     
    I got that far before I started laughing and couldn't stop.

    Oh yeah, well I started laughing as soon as I saw your screen name!

    See what a logical persuasive argument I just made?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    You seem to be a one trick pony.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    Oh yeah, well I started laughing as soon as I saw your screen name!

    See what a logical persuasive argument I just made?
     
    Sorry. I do not explain simple concepts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Rehmat says:

    Come on Mr. Buchanan – you could do better than that.

    Rupert Murdoch is as much Catholic as former French president Nicolas Sarkozy. Both have Jewish mothers, which makes them Jewish according to Jewish Sharia Halakah.

    Rupert Murdoch is as much ‘Catholic Jew’ as BBC’s sex maniac Sir Saville.

    On October 13, 2010 – one of the most powerful Israel Lobby groups, and Jewish Supremacist organization, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) honored the mainstream media tycon, the billionaire Rupert Murdoch – for his “stalwart support of Israel and his commitment to promoting respect and speaking out against anti-Semitism”.

    Murdoch’s acceptance speech sounded like a page from Israel Hasbara Committee’s manual. He said: “We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews…. For the first decades after Israel’s founding, this war was conventional in nature. The goal was straightforward: to use military force to overrun Israel….. Then came phase two: terrorism. Terrorists targeted Israelis both home and abroad – from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada. The terrorists continue to target Jews across the world. But they have not succeeded in bringing down the Israeli government – and they have not weakened Israeli resolve….”

    https://rehmat1.com/2010/10/18/murdoch-israel-and-jews-under-attack/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Realist says:
    @RadicalCenter
    YOU'RE kidding, right?

    See what a persuasive logical argument I just made?

    The question doesn’t require a persuasive logical argument . The answer is evident to most….too bad you missed it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Realist says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Oh yeah, well I started laughing as soon as I saw your screen name!

    See what a logical persuasive argument I just made?

    You seem to be a one trick pony.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Rurik says:
    @Bill

    if Pat and the Catholics believe that if they were to control the power of the state, and be allowed to use that power to force all Americans to abide by their religious dictates, (against abortion for instance, or presumably even against certain types of birth control), then by that reasoning, why shouldn’t the seculars be allowed to use the exact same power of the state, that they now control, to impose their values (by force) on Catholics?
     
    You are implicitly assuming that there is some meta-morality which exists above competing views of morality. You are assuming that there is some kind of symmetry between morality and immorality. That is a clever-silly.

    It's OK for us Catholics to impose our morality on you because our morality is true. It's not OK for you non-Catholics to impose your "morality" on us because your "morality" is false (wherever it disagrees with ours). That's all. Oh, and it's all types of birth control, not just some.

    You are implicitly assuming that there is some meta-morality which exists above competing views of morality.

    there is

    it’s where my morality comes from, nature and our instincts

    a mother doesn’t have to be told to love and care for her child

    a man doesn’t have to read it in a book that he should protect his loved ones from harm, and not harm them himself. This is all meta-morality.

    dogs even know it. When two wolves are fighting over dominance and one submits and offers his neck to his adversary, does the other dog go in for the kill? Or does some kind of meta-morality prevent that? It’s no different in humans. We all know instinctively not to kill inoffensive people for no reason. When humans do such things they are aberrations, or more likely they’re following the orders of some ‘leader’ (religious or otherwise) who is exhorting them to kill otherwise inoffensive people. Perhaps because they are ‘non-believers’, like the Protestants slaughtering the Catholics in Ireland or vice-versa in France.

    Most people if left to their own habits and designs, don’t go off and slaughter other people unless territory becomes scarce and is competed for. There is an unwritten meta-morality in the world.

    You are assuming that there is some kind of symmetry between morality and immorality.

    immorality is just when natural morality breaks down, and people act in ways that are contrary to their natures. Or when a morality is imposed from above that goes against human nature. Like the strictures against fornication for instance. It’s not hard to see why people ignore that particular “morality”.

    It’s OK for us Catholics to impose our morality on you because our morality is true.

    your morality is nothing more than blind fealty to dogmas

    let me ask you.. is it moral to demand that a women carry a dead fetus to term?

    what about if the fetus is missing a brain? There is a medical condition like this, where the brain is missing, and only the brain stem is there, just enough to tell the pitiable baby’s heart to beat and to breath, not much else. Should a women be forced to carry such a thing to term?

    Or the popular consideration of a forcible rape. Should a women be forced to carry such a abomination to term? To see the face of her rapist on her child?

    your so called morality is full of certainties that don’t add up when put to the rigors of reality. Because you get it out of a book, and not out of the human heart, which is the fount of all true morality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    there is

    it’s where my morality comes from, nature and our instincts . . . There is an unwritten meta-morality in the world.
     
    Yeah, that's called natural law and is a primary basis of Catholic morality. So, though it is certainly above every other "morality," it isn't above Catholic morality since they are the same.

    Most people if left to their own habits and designs, don’t go off and slaughter other people unless territory becomes scarce and is competed for.
     
    Shrug. If by "most" you mean at least 51% of people whose ancestors have been living in civilization for a few thousand years, then, yeah, but so what? If you are trying to claim this as some kind of human universal, then you don't know what you are talking about. Maybe read a book?

    Or maybe you're trying to explain why abortion is immoral? It certainly is true that very few people and very, very few apparently psychologically normal people can stand to work in that industry. All that murdering babies tends to get to you after a while. Well, for most people right away, but for some people after a while. For psychopaths, never. For example, you know that it is somebody's job to put the baby corpse back together after it has been torn apart during the abortion? You know, to make sure "we got it all." Also explains the total hysteria apologists for that industry go into any time someone tries to cut through the thick layer of obfuscation carefully placed between mothers and what they are about to do.

    your morality is nothing more than blind fealty to dogmas
     
    Your brain contains nothing more than infantile slogans you picked up from your middle school teachers who picked them up from watching TV. Are you, perhaps, a big fan of Dick the Dolt?

    your so called morality is full of certainties that don’t add up when put to the rigors of reality. Because you get it out of a book, and not out of the human heart, which is the fount of all true morality.
     
    Yeah, sure. Here's Pope St John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor quoting Pope Leo XIII, himself paraphrasing St Thomas Aquinas himself paraphrasing Aristotle on what natural law is:

    "the natural law is written and engraved in the heart of each and every man, since it is none other than human reason itself which commands us to do good and counsels us not to sin"
     
    You sound like some savage who has picked up a watch someone dropped in a field going around congratulating himself on having discovered time-keeping.
    , @Stonehands
    ..."a mother doesn’t have to be told to love and care for her child..."

    ..."a man doesn’t have to read it in a book that he should protect his loved ones from harm, and not harm them himself. This is all meta-morality...."

    I live in the inner city of Philadelphia, this couldn't be any farther from the truth, and is writ large across all inner- cities in America that have rejected the Word of God. The courts are over-flowing with human refuse that maltreats all interactions.


    "...When two wolves are fighting over dominance and one submits and offers his neck to his adversary, does the other dog go in for the kill?..."

    On the contrary- "Homo homini lupus".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Corvinus says:
    @Heymrguda
    I'm hardly an admirer of HRC and her staff but I think what they meant here was the establishment of the Catholic Church as the de facto "official religion" of political conservatism.

    This trend has manifested itself thru various means, but most markedly the well publicized conversion of a number of conservative intellectuals -- including for example, Russell Kirk -- to RC. I have also noticed it on the American Conservative website a number of times. I was banned from further comment there for questioning it, at least I guess that's what it was, as no further comments from me were posted after that.

    Apparently the people behind this feel they have no fear of offending Protestants. Indeed, us proddies are an easy target; just look at the number of tv shows and movies in which any minister involved is a usually a villain.

    But I do commend pat Buchanan, who has never to my knowledge ever promoted one religion over another, although he himself is a devout RC.

    “But I do commend pat Buchanan, who has never to my knowledge ever promoted one religion over another, although he himself is a devout RC.”

    He has promoted Roman Catholicism over the Muslim faith.

    “Will Hillary Clinton clean out the nest of anti-Catholic bigots in her inner circle? Or is anti-Catholicism acceptable in her crowd?”

    Will Patrick Buchanan clean out the nest of anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim bigots in his inner circle? Or is opposing religions other than Christianity acceptable in his crowd? Would not Patrick and his cronies find elements of Judaism and Islam as being “systematic thought” and consisting of “severely backward gender relations”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Corvinus says:
    @Ironfist666
    Okay Pat, we know the Clintons are scum. A test of morality should be of the social fabric of the society. Allowing degenerate filth on the internet under the guise of free speech and letting Hollywood create pure trash and anti white films portraying race mixing as normal is a violation of natural law as well as local ethical standards of any civilized community. Freedom of religion is a different issue from freedom of speech. Saying something idiotic always brings questions of sanity to the issuer, but believing in something(religion) that you have no absolute proof as being true is a cause for placement in a mental institution. If people believed that EVERYONE has rights and no one has the privilege to violate those rights, the world would be a much better place.

    “A test of morality should be of the social fabric of the society. Allowing degenerate filth on the internet under the guise of free speech and letting Hollywood create pure trash and anti white films portraying race mixing as normal is a violation of natural law as well as local ethical standards of any civilized community.”

    First, you are assuming that natural law ought to be the standards of the American society.

    Second, race and ethnic mixing is a natural inclination of human beings.

    Third, if you are opposed to “Hollywood trash”, do not watch it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stonehands
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Marcus
    That's the problem: as with Jews and Muslims (and some Protestants like Lutherans), doctrinaire Catholics can only be loyal if their state is not in contradiction of their dogma, such as anti-racism, anti-usury, and a drop of semen being sacred soul. So if we somehow blocked immigration, in contravention to the Pope's will, they will be obliged to disobey. Catholic writer E Michael Jones, who wrote a rejoinder to Buchanan's "racism," even justifies treason on the battlefield
    http://www.culturewars.com/2004/Challenge.htm

    That’s the problem: as with Jews and Muslims (and some Protestants like Lutherans), doctrinaire Catholics can only be loyal if their state is not in contradiction of their dogma, such as anti-racism, anti-usury, and a drop of semen being sacred soul.

    Indeed. Seems like “Catholic” is a preceding adjective to “traitor”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    It was, in Protestant countries. The reverse was true in Catholic countries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @RadicalCenter
    Oh yeah, well I started laughing as soon as I saw your screen name!

    See what a logical persuasive argument I just made?

    Oh yeah, well I started laughing as soon as I saw your screen name!

    See what a logical persuasive argument I just made?

    Sorry. I do not explain simple concepts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Wyrd says:

    He has promoted Roman Catholicism over the Muslim faith.

    Despite its current Marxist pope, Roman Catholicism is far above the so-called faith of the paynim. Just a statement of fact, cuck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Hibernian says:
    @Heymrguda
    I'm hardly an admirer of HRC and her staff but I think what they meant here was the establishment of the Catholic Church as the de facto "official religion" of political conservatism.

    This trend has manifested itself thru various means, but most markedly the well publicized conversion of a number of conservative intellectuals -- including for example, Russell Kirk -- to RC. I have also noticed it on the American Conservative website a number of times. I was banned from further comment there for questioning it, at least I guess that's what it was, as no further comments from me were posted after that.

    Apparently the people behind this feel they have no fear of offending Protestants. Indeed, us proddies are an easy target; just look at the number of tv shows and movies in which any minister involved is a usually a villain.

    But I do commend pat Buchanan, who has never to my knowledge ever promoted one religion over another, although he himself is a devout RC.

    “us proddies are an easy target;”

    That’s terminology used in Ireland; I haven’t heard it in 62 years as an offspring of the Irish Catholic diaspora. I think you’re indulging in self-pity. National Review Online, for example, prominently features the very Catholic Kathryn Jean Lopez (she was the boss of NRO, not sure if she still is) and Fundamentalist David French, among others.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Hibernian says:
    @Marcus
    Other than Pat and the late Sobran, conservative Catholics tend to be establishment types like Buckley, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, O'Reilly, etc. Most Irish Catholics are still very liberal, Italians and others less so.

    Are you kidding?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Rule of thumb, if a white liberal isn't Jewish he/she is probably Catholic especially of Irish variety

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/catholics-real-liberals/
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/trump-and-the-white-vote
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Hibernian says:
    @Neuday
    First, please consider pre- and post-Vatican II when considering anything "Catholic".

    Secondly, as a post-Vatican II Traditionalist Catholic, your comment the "most conservative Catholics tend to be types like . . .", is utter bollocks. From your list, what you mean to say is "most politicians, regardless of faith, tend to be establishment types".

    Finally, Patrick Buchanan is a Jesuit, and so is Bergoglio. Catholicism has a pretty wide variance.

    I’ve gone to retreats at a Jesuit retreat house, but that doesn’t make me a Jesuit. They’re not about to lower their standards that much. I think you meant to say that Mr. Buchanan was educated by the Jesuits, at a Jesuit high school in D.C. and at Georgetown.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Hibernian says:
    @Marcus
    Catholics tend to be mediocre and conformist since they're taught to obey authority, so they have higher mean than Protestants, but latter have wider range. I was baptized Catholic, but my father converted to Episcopalianism (for the prestige I assume) which is like a wealthier, more faggy Church

    Your equal opportunity religious stereotyping is amazing. Was it your mother or your father who didn’t love you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Hibernian says:
    @jimbojones
    One is permitted to badmouth and hate three groups in the modern good-thinking post-racial LGBT West:
    - Genuine Christians, which means Catholics and born-agains.
    - Provincials, which in the US means rednecks.
    - And Russians in general; in particular the Russian ruling elite.

    Hillary manages to viscerally hate all three at once. One of the more likeable things about Trump is that he doesn't hate any of the three. He is not a Christian, he is not pro-Russian, and he is no redneck - but he doesn't hate any of the three groups.

    He’s claimed to be a Christian of sorts, his behavior notwithstanding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    Presbyterian
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Hibernian says:
    @Marcus
    That's the problem: as with Jews and Muslims (and some Protestants like Lutherans), doctrinaire Catholics can only be loyal if their state is not in contradiction of their dogma, such as anti-racism, anti-usury, and a drop of semen being sacred soul. So if we somehow blocked immigration, in contravention to the Pope's will, they will be obliged to disobey. Catholic writer E Michael Jones, who wrote a rejoinder to Buchanan's "racism," even justifies treason on the battlefield
    http://www.culturewars.com/2004/Challenge.htm

    No Christian of any denomination who is worth his or her salt can be loyal to an anti-God state. It’s a question of degree how far we’re willing to be pushed. Also, I grew up in an area where at least half of the Protestants were Lutheran, and the notion that they (or any more than a small portion of Anglicans) are “almost Catholics” is laughable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    No, the other churches don't have a centralized authority with universal pretensions that supersedes all allegiances. This was the issue in Germany for example with the kulturkampf and ultramontanism
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Marcus says:
    @Hibernian
    Are you kidding?

    Rule of thumb, if a white liberal isn’t Jewish he/she is probably Catholic especially of Irish variety

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/catholics-real-liberals/

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/trump-and-the-white-vote

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Rule of thumb, if a white liberal isn’t Jewish he/she is probably Catholic especially of Irish variety
     
    I suspect our Israeli masters like to import millions of poor Catholic peons from the hellholes of Central and South America in order to have an easily-controlled and basically stupid herd of oxen. A higher order of being -- say, something in the "dog" category, would be too intelligent. Can't have that. Bring in the stupid ones to do the work for cheap, and Asians to whip them when they balk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Hibernian says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    That’s the problem: as with Jews and Muslims (and some Protestants like Lutherans), doctrinaire Catholics can only be loyal if their state is not in contradiction of their dogma, such as anti-racism, anti-usury, and a drop of semen being sacred soul.
     
    Indeed. Seems like "Catholic" is a preceding adjective to "traitor".

    It was, in Protestant countries. The reverse was true in Catholic countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    It was, in Protestant countries. The reverse was true in Catholic countries.
     
    Meh. I am convinced that the human race will never climb out of the swamps until religion is replaced by true spiritual independence. Religion keeps people stupid, controlled and enslaved.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Hibernian
    It was, in Protestant countries. The reverse was true in Catholic countries.

    It was, in Protestant countries. The reverse was true in Catholic countries.

    Meh. I am convinced that the human race will never climb out of the swamps until religion is replaced by true spiritual independence. Religion keeps people stupid, controlled and enslaved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Marcus
    Rule of thumb, if a white liberal isn't Jewish he/she is probably Catholic especially of Irish variety

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/catholics-real-liberals/
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/trump-and-the-white-vote

    Rule of thumb, if a white liberal isn’t Jewish he/she is probably Catholic especially of Irish variety

    I suspect our Israeli masters like to import millions of poor Catholic peons from the hellholes of Central and South America in order to have an easily-controlled and basically stupid herd of oxen. A higher order of being — say, something in the “dog” category, would be too intelligent. Can’t have that. Bring in the stupid ones to do the work for cheap, and Asians to whip them when they balk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Marcus says:
    @Hibernian
    No Christian of any denomination who is worth his or her salt can be loyal to an anti-God state. It's a question of degree how far we're willing to be pushed. Also, I grew up in an area where at least half of the Protestants were Lutheran, and the notion that they (or any more than a small portion of Anglicans) are "almost Catholics" is laughable.

    No, the other churches don’t have a centralized authority with universal pretensions that supersedes all allegiances. This was the issue in Germany for example with the kulturkampf and ultramontanism

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. markflag says:

    Miz Hill’s biggest problem with the Catholic Church is the consistent stand on abortion and killing sick old people upon request, which in Belgium has progressed to killing non-sick old people who are simply tired of living. Miz Hill’s stance on late-term abortion, i.e. killing a child who could survive outside the womb, a child whose brain is by then fully endowed with all the neurons it will ever have, is appalling. Crushing a baby’s head or, alternatively, sucking out the brain so the skull will collapse is a sickening thought. Yet, she is pushing for it.

    The woman is deserving pity. A grandmother who would deprive others of becoming one. A feminist, whatever that means these days, who described her husband’s quickies (and not so quickies) in terms generally reserved for a men’s locker room. A hypocrite poseur who is ‘shocked, I tell you shocked’ at locker room language, who has used, and more than likely uses, every one of the words that Donald Trump is accused of using when referring to Monica and the others in Bill’s now closed stable..

    We get the kind of leaders we deserve. In a country that breathlessly follows the lives of celebrities, a country that forms its opinions from late night comedians whose only purpose is to entertain, in a country of ‘if it feels good do it’ what more can one expect from a woman who is overall not too bright but very very shrewd?

    Read More
    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @schmenz
    Well said.
    , @Rurik

    Miz Hill’s biggest problem with the Catholic Church
     
    Miz Hill's biggest problem with the Catholics is that some of them won't vote for her. As to why, she couldn't care less. The needle on her moral compass points directly to power and never deviates. Period. All other considerations are mute. If she says she's against abortion or for, it all depends on one thing, will it get her closer to the levers of power.

    Belgium has progressed to killing non-sick old people who are simply tired of living.
     
    they're not killing them, they assisting them with suicide. They're allowing them to kill themselves.

    should we force people to live who're terminal and in abject misery?

    that's another issue I have with the Catholic Church (and the AMA)

    what kind of God would demand that a 90 year old woman with cancer so advanced she has no hope of recovery and suffers copremesis and other horrific debilitations that make her existence a minute by minute horror. Some Christians say that if she suffers so, it's because God wants her to, and she must have earned His wrath somehow. And it's not for us mortals to intervene when she begs us with every fiber of her being to 'Please, 'oh God, for God's sake, please let me just go!'.

    We steel ourselves to her suffering, and harden our hearts to any compassion we might feel. Sure, we'd put down a pet for much less, but if a human suffers, then that is surely what God (and the AMA) wants.

    (I mention the AMA because 90% of a persons wealth is often spent in the last few weeks of their life, so the medical establishment wants to get while the gettin's good. If you allowed them to just check out, there may be months of hospital charges they've just escaped and accumulated wealth they've just handed to their children, instead of your pocket where it belongs)


    killing a child who could survive outside the womb
     
    for how long?

    so you've saved the baby's life by outlawing abortion in this case. Now what?

    what if it's mother is a crack whore with AIDs, and now the child has AIDs and a crack addiction it's inherited from its mother. It will require very expensive medical treatment just to get it over the crack withdrawals, where it will scream for weeks on end. Are you going to pay for all of that and then take the baby in and raise it as your own?

    or are you simply going to say "I saved its life, now it's all up to Rurik and the rest of society and the tax payers to deal with the baby'

    Pretty much?

    That's an issue I have with the pro-life crowd. They always demand the baby be born, but then never seem to give a rip what kind of life the little guy or gal is going to have. Does Haiti really need more babies born to the abjectly poor who can't even feed themselves, let alone another baby. Many of the desperately poor girls in Haiti (or even the US) are little more than babies themselves, with zero education and zero prospects and zero maturity and a thousand other hurdles to their lives, but the Catholics would demand that anyone providing such people with family planning is a terrible sinner. [those girls knew the wages of sin before they decided to spread their legs!] I wonder, who is really the sinner here? We all know that the Catholic church- just like Miz Hill- loves money and power. Is it just possible that the leadership in the Vatican is more interested in arses in the pews than with 'are those arses well fed and cared for'.

    As I've said, most Catholics are the best of the best people who care deeply about such things and each other and the suffering of a baby, but not the leadership, who simply want more and more and more power, and alter boys and the elimination of all Western borders, if recent revelations are any indication.

    If the gorgon war sow gets in the White House, it will be because there are a lot of women who perceive the Republican party as dismissive of their concerns as women and mothers. - That these arrogant men imperiously demand that women shut up and do as they're admonished- by the men and the church- that are not to be questioned or doubted. To do so is a sin, or so they claim. As Miz Hill prepares to appoint her supreme court, because Catholics and Republicans couldn't see beyond their dogmas and patriarchal hubris and thus; handed the reins of power to the hag.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    You’d better convert to Judaism while you still can, Buchanan.

    I know of a wise guy, a Continetti who recently did, and he wasn’t the first, actually he followed some other wisemen example.

    That is a feature of wisemen: once they see what path the other wise ones have taken, they do not let doubts tether themselves and follow the others.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and … the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. … And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

    Nothing to do with the way blacks help themselves find an explanation to why they stand at the bottom in every society, and throw aggression at non-blacks, Barack, or does it?
    Nice to see you are a good psychologist, if only at times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. schmenz says:
    @markflag
    Miz Hill's biggest problem with the Catholic Church is the consistent stand on abortion and killing sick old people upon request, which in Belgium has progressed to killing non-sick old people who are simply tired of living. Miz Hill's stance on late-term abortion, i.e. killing a child who could survive outside the womb, a child whose brain is by then fully endowed with all the neurons it will ever have, is appalling. Crushing a baby's head or, alternatively, sucking out the brain so the skull will collapse is a sickening thought. Yet, she is pushing for it.

    The woman is deserving pity. A grandmother who would deprive others of becoming one. A feminist, whatever that means these days, who described her husband's quickies (and not so quickies) in terms generally reserved for a men's locker room. A hypocrite poseur who is 'shocked, I tell you shocked' at locker room language, who has used, and more than likely uses, every one of the words that Donald Trump is accused of using when referring to Monica and the others in Bill's now closed stable..

    We get the kind of leaders we deserve. In a country that breathlessly follows the lives of celebrities, a country that forms its opinions from late night comedians whose only purpose is to entertain, in a country of 'if it feels good do it' what more can one expect from a woman who is overall not too bright but very very shrewd?

    Well said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Rurik says:
    @markflag
    Miz Hill's biggest problem with the Catholic Church is the consistent stand on abortion and killing sick old people upon request, which in Belgium has progressed to killing non-sick old people who are simply tired of living. Miz Hill's stance on late-term abortion, i.e. killing a child who could survive outside the womb, a child whose brain is by then fully endowed with all the neurons it will ever have, is appalling. Crushing a baby's head or, alternatively, sucking out the brain so the skull will collapse is a sickening thought. Yet, she is pushing for it.

    The woman is deserving pity. A grandmother who would deprive others of becoming one. A feminist, whatever that means these days, who described her husband's quickies (and not so quickies) in terms generally reserved for a men's locker room. A hypocrite poseur who is 'shocked, I tell you shocked' at locker room language, who has used, and more than likely uses, every one of the words that Donald Trump is accused of using when referring to Monica and the others in Bill's now closed stable..

    We get the kind of leaders we deserve. In a country that breathlessly follows the lives of celebrities, a country that forms its opinions from late night comedians whose only purpose is to entertain, in a country of 'if it feels good do it' what more can one expect from a woman who is overall not too bright but very very shrewd?

    Miz Hill’s biggest problem with the Catholic Church

    Miz Hill’s biggest problem with the Catholics is that some of them won’t vote for her. As to why, she couldn’t care less. The needle on her moral compass points directly to power and never deviates. Period. All other considerations are mute. If she says she’s against abortion or for, it all depends on one thing, will it get her closer to the levers of power.

    Belgium has progressed to killing non-sick old people who are simply tired of living.

    they’re not killing them, they assisting them with suicide. They’re allowing them to kill themselves.

    should we force people to live who’re terminal and in abject misery?

    that’s another issue I have with the Catholic Church (and the AMA)

    what kind of God would demand that a 90 year old woman with cancer so advanced she has no hope of recovery and suffers copremesis and other horrific debilitations that make her existence a minute by minute horror. Some Christians say that if she suffers so, it’s because God wants her to, and she must have earned His wrath somehow. And it’s not for us mortals to intervene when she begs us with every fiber of her being to ‘Please, ‘oh God, for God’s sake, please let me just go!’.

    We steel ourselves to her suffering, and harden our hearts to any compassion we might feel. Sure, we’d put down a pet for much less, but if a human suffers, then that is surely what God (and the AMA) wants.

    (I mention the AMA because 90% of a persons wealth is often spent in the last few weeks of their life, so the medical establishment wants to get while the gettin’s good. If you allowed them to just check out, there may be months of hospital charges they’ve just escaped and accumulated wealth they’ve just handed to their children, instead of your pocket where it belongs)

    killing a child who could survive outside the womb

    for how long?

    so you’ve saved the baby’s life by outlawing abortion in this case. Now what?

    what if it’s mother is a crack whore with AIDs, and now the child has AIDs and a crack addiction it’s inherited from its mother. It will require very expensive medical treatment just to get it over the crack withdrawals, where it will scream for weeks on end. Are you going to pay for all of that and then take the baby in and raise it as your own?

    or are you simply going to say “I saved its life, now it’s all up to Rurik and the rest of society and the tax payers to deal with the baby’

    Pretty much?

    That’s an issue I have with the pro-life crowd. They always demand the baby be born, but then never seem to give a rip what kind of life the little guy or gal is going to have. Does Haiti really need more babies born to the abjectly poor who can’t even feed themselves, let alone another baby. Many of the desperately poor girls in Haiti (or even the US) are little more than babies themselves, with zero education and zero prospects and zero maturity and a thousand other hurdles to their lives, but the Catholics would demand that anyone providing such people with family planning is a terrible sinner. [those girls knew the wages of sin before they decided to spread their legs!] I wonder, who is really the sinner here? We all know that the Catholic church- just like Miz Hill- loves money and power. Is it just possible that the leadership in the Vatican is more interested in arses in the pews than with ‘are those arses well fed and cared for’.

    As I’ve said, most Catholics are the best of the best people who care deeply about such things and each other and the suffering of a baby, but not the leadership, who simply want more and more and more power, and alter boys and the elimination of all Western borders, if recent revelations are any indication.

    If the gorgon war sow gets in the White House, it will be because there are a lot of women who perceive the Republican party as dismissive of their concerns as women and mothers. – That these arrogant men imperiously demand that women shut up and do as they’re admonished- by the men and the church- that are not to be questioned or doubted. To do so is a sin, or so they claim. As Miz Hill prepares to appoint her supreme court, because Catholics and Republicans couldn’t see beyond their dogmas and patriarchal hubris and thus; handed the reins of power to the hag.

    Read More
    • Agree: John Jeremiah Smith
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Bill says:
    @Rurik

    You are implicitly assuming that there is some meta-morality which exists above competing views of morality.
     
    there is

    it's where my morality comes from, nature and our instincts

    a mother doesn't have to be told to love and care for her child

    a man doesn't have to read it in a book that he should protect his loved ones from harm, and not harm them himself. This is all meta-morality.

    dogs even know it. When two wolves are fighting over dominance and one submits and offers his neck to his adversary, does the other dog go in for the kill? Or does some kind of meta-morality prevent that? It's no different in humans. We all know instinctively not to kill inoffensive people for no reason. When humans do such things they are aberrations, or more likely they're following the orders of some 'leader' (religious or otherwise) who is exhorting them to kill otherwise inoffensive people. Perhaps because they are 'non-believers', like the Protestants slaughtering the Catholics in Ireland or vice-versa in France.

    Most people if left to their own habits and designs, don't go off and slaughter other people unless territory becomes scarce and is competed for. There is an unwritten meta-morality in the world.

    You are assuming that there is some kind of symmetry between morality and immorality.
     
    immorality is just when natural morality breaks down, and people act in ways that are contrary to their natures. Or when a morality is imposed from above that goes against human nature. Like the strictures against fornication for instance. It's not hard to see why people ignore that particular "morality".

    It’s OK for us Catholics to impose our morality on you because our morality is true.
     
    your morality is nothing more than blind fealty to dogmas

    let me ask you.. is it moral to demand that a women carry a dead fetus to term?

    what about if the fetus is missing a brain? There is a medical condition like this, where the brain is missing, and only the brain stem is there, just enough to tell the pitiable baby's heart to beat and to breath, not much else. Should a women be forced to carry such a thing to term?

    Or the popular consideration of a forcible rape. Should a women be forced to carry such a abomination to term? To see the face of her rapist on her child?

    your so called morality is full of certainties that don't add up when put to the rigors of reality. Because you get it out of a book, and not out of the human heart, which is the fount of all true morality.

    there is

    it’s where my morality comes from, nature and our instincts . . . There is an unwritten meta-morality in the world.

    Yeah, that’s called natural law and is a primary basis of Catholic morality. So, though it is certainly above every other “morality,” it isn’t above Catholic morality since they are the same.

    Most people if left to their own habits and designs, don’t go off and slaughter other people unless territory becomes scarce and is competed for.

    Shrug. If by “most” you mean at least 51% of people whose ancestors have been living in civilization for a few thousand years, then, yeah, but so what? If you are trying to claim this as some kind of human universal, then you don’t know what you are talking about. Maybe read a book?

    Or maybe you’re trying to explain why abortion is immoral? It certainly is true that very few people and very, very few apparently psychologically normal people can stand to work in that industry. All that murdering babies tends to get to you after a while. Well, for most people right away, but for some people after a while. For psychopaths, never. For example, you know that it is somebody’s job to put the baby corpse back together after it has been torn apart during the abortion? You know, to make sure “we got it all.” Also explains the total hysteria apologists for that industry go into any time someone tries to cut through the thick layer of obfuscation carefully placed between mothers and what they are about to do.

    your morality is nothing more than blind fealty to dogmas

    Your brain contains nothing more than infantile slogans you picked up from your middle school teachers who picked them up from watching TV. Are you, perhaps, a big fan of Dick the Dolt?

    your so called morality is full of certainties that don’t add up when put to the rigors of reality. Because you get it out of a book, and not out of the human heart, which is the fount of all true morality.

    Yeah, sure. Here’s Pope St John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor quoting Pope Leo XIII, himself paraphrasing St Thomas Aquinas himself paraphrasing Aristotle on what natural law is:

    “the natural law is written and engraved in the heart of each and every man, since it is none other than human reason itself which commands us to do good and counsels us not to sin”

    You sound like some savage who has picked up a watch someone dropped in a field going around congratulating himself on having discovered time-keeping.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith


    it’s where my morality comes from, nature and our instincts . . . There is an unwritten meta-morality in the world.
     
    Yeah, that’s called natural law and is a primary basis of Catholic morality. So, though it is certainly above every other “morality,” it isn’t above Catholic morality since they are the same.
     
    No, natural law is by no means a basis of Catholic morality. Inasmuch as such a declaration is apostasy, I'm guessing you're another ignorant jackass braying about concepts about which you know nothing.

    Morality in Catholicism, or "moral law" if you prefer the term, is God's law. Always. 99% of all tenets of Catholic doctrine derive from the Bible, which is the revealed word of God -- the rest are divine revelations, or, again, God.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Rurik says:

    If you are trying to claim this as some kind of human universal, then you don’t know what you are talking about. Maybe read a book?

    hmm. A tad insulting are we?

    Yes, I am claiming that a natural disinclination to murder people is a human universal. We may kill enemies, but humans don’t, as a rule kill members of their own tribe without a good reason. They’re generally kind and considerate to members of their own tribe, (or nation) without the need of religion to force or threaten them to be so.

    I’m not saying there’s no purpose or need for religion, just that when there’s some tweaking to be done, too often the religious are counter-productively rigid in their strictures.

    All that murdering babies tends to get to you after a while.

    I can only imagine. Make no mistake, I’m not proponent of abortion. I consider those on the hard left to be just as indoctrinated and mulish as any on the hard right.

    I advocate a nuanced position with such difficult issues. A one by one approach, when the reasonable lines are crossed by human experience.

    Just as I think it’s outrageous to allow a women to arbitrarily decide to abort her baby ten minutes before it’s born, so too I consider it criminally outrageous for some on the religious right to demand that a birth that might cause the death of the mother to proceed regardless of the wishes of the mother and father and all the medical personnel. As some fanatics have advocated.

    it’s the positions of the extremists that I object to, on both sides.

    Ok, I’ll bite. Who is dick the dolt? Some extremist from the opposite side of the chasm you’re pointing out to make your extremism seem less extremist?

    “the natural law is written and engraved in the heart of each and every man, since it is none other than human reason itself which commands us to do good and counsels us not to sin”

    good stuff!

    human reason, and human compassion

    the mind and the heart. It is from a combination that we arrive at true wisdom and enlightenment.

    You sound like some savage who has picked up a watch someone dropped in a field going around congratulating himself on having discovered time-keeping.

    actually you’re not far off with this

    I am a savage who is wandering around in the darkness, and fumbling for the light- and the wisdom and truths that have been pondered and arrived at to some degree by some very great men and women who have come before.

    Occasionally I do find the odd broken watch, like the words of men like Aquinas, that do provide some light, and help chart a path through the darkness.

    If you study the workings of the broken watch, and carefully try to understand the genius behind it, you just might glimmer some very simple and deep truths.

    If a poor women desired access to birth control, then I suspect such a compassionate accommodation would find a welcome nod from the greats of the ancient world. Even from Aquinas himself. (if not from that one who exhorted us to love and use compassion as our light, He that washed the prostitute’s feet, and counseled us never to be the one to throw that stone, or point at the speck in someone’s eye).

    If I advocate a more nuanced view of Catholic doctrine, whereby the Pope is not infallible, and so when he demands that America do away with her borders, and allow all people, including unlimited numbers of Muslims and everyone else to pour in, I reserve the right to tell him to go to hell. And being the savage that I am, I take pleasure in deciding all questi0ns of religious or any other truths using my own savage mind, and contracting none of it out to priests or Popes or anyone else for that matter. (not even your “dick the dolt”)

    Such are the ways of a savage. I use compassion as my foundation, and reason as my method -for understanding the world and my place in it. I never look to books, as you suggest, to tell me what to think or who to kneel down to. But rather as tools for better understanding the world and as a way for the greats to teach me what they’ve learned, so that I too can benefit from their light (and knowledge and wisdom).

    that’s all

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. the catholic church: the crusades; the inquisition; missionaries; sordid abuses in ireland; vatican nazi sympathy; vatican banking corruption; horrid child abuse; homo haters; slave holders; woman as submissive; papal armies; empire builders; funny hats & silly rituals…..etc. and that’s just off the top of my head. undoubtedly, much more unholy behavior is documented.
    remember cardinal bernie(above the)law? the boston bad man who protected serial pedophile priests? who said the boston globe’s revelations into priestly child abuse were scandalous? who fled in the middle of the night to the protective arms of the vatican before he was hauled in front of a judge for his crimes?
    that extradition of law isn’t demanded of the vatican remains cowardly.
    paleo pat went to gonzaga, i believe. a jesuit college. just sayin’. bet ole pat knows his latin, and supplication, and bowing & scraping before some ginned-up priest in the confessional.
    how any parent can send a child into a catholic church is beyond me.
    did nixon lackey, paleo pat, write scathing editorials of the catholic church when the abuse came to light?
    perhaps, readers can send me links.

    if i deplore the actions of the catholic church does that make me a bigot?
    if i deplore serial child rapists does that make me a bigot?

    fortunately, catholic churches are closing around the country. attendance is falling, and will continue to fall. the church’s tax exempt status should be revoked, books opened up, due to politicking. how many families were paid off to keep quiet re: child abuse? how about mafia influence? open the box, and the devil spreads his wings.
    finally, it’s only idiots like g w bush, or perhaps even the goofy gipper, who want religious nuts in an administration.
    religiosity is the hallmark of a backward country.
    saudi arabia, anybody?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    religiosity is the hallmark of a backward country.
     
    no

    humans are spiritual beings, we crave a religious life

    the problem is with the corruption of everything in Western civilization, including the Christian religions

    The Catholic Church should allow married men to serve as priests, and ban homosexuals from the clergy

    that would end all the abuse

    then they should allow the practice of birth control that most Western Catholics are practicing anyways.

    then repudiate homosexual marriage in the strongest terms possible, and tell the West that they should build no walls around their borders any taller and stronger than the walls around the Vatican. (only with machine guns ; )

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/vatican-wall.jpg

    if they'd move in that direction, then I believe their membership would burst forth like a deluge
    , @Wyrd
    Blah-blah-blah-blah.

    You, sir, are a leftwing atheist moron. You hate God and wish Satan's lies were true.
    , @Stonehands
    The Catholic church is a golem stitched together to preserve the patrician/pagan wielders of the levers of power during the decline and fall of Rome. It features the synthesis of sun worship, goddess worship and elements of the caananite god Dagon with Biblical Christianity.

    Augustine synthesized Christ with Plato, and later Aquinas developed Aristoteleanism; offering the notion that philosophy and religion are equally valid in their respective spheres [in complete contradiction to scriptures Col. 2:8, 2 Cor 6:15 ]

    To this day the Romish pope is referred to as the Pontifex Maximus- the supreme bridge builder [god on earth] between man and God- a title inherited from the Babylonian mystery religion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Rurik says:
    @Lawrence Fitton
    the catholic church: the crusades; the inquisition; missionaries; sordid abuses in ireland; vatican nazi sympathy; vatican banking corruption; horrid child abuse; homo haters; slave holders; woman as submissive; papal armies; empire builders; funny hats & silly rituals.....etc. and that's just off the top of my head. undoubtedly, much more unholy behavior is documented.
    remember cardinal bernie(above the)law? the boston bad man who protected serial pedophile priests? who said the boston globe's revelations into priestly child abuse were scandalous? who fled in the middle of the night to the protective arms of the vatican before he was hauled in front of a judge for his crimes?
    that extradition of law isn't demanded of the vatican remains cowardly.
    paleo pat went to gonzaga, i believe. a jesuit college. just sayin'. bet ole pat knows his latin, and supplication, and bowing & scraping before some ginned-up priest in the confessional.
    how any parent can send a child into a catholic church is beyond me.
    did nixon lackey, paleo pat, write scathing editorials of the catholic church when the abuse came to light?
    perhaps, readers can send me links.

    if i deplore the actions of the catholic church does that make me a bigot?
    if i deplore serial child rapists does that make me a bigot?

    fortunately, catholic churches are closing around the country. attendance is falling, and will continue to fall. the church's tax exempt status should be revoked, books opened up, due to politicking. how many families were paid off to keep quiet re: child abuse? how about mafia influence? open the box, and the devil spreads his wings.
    finally, it's only idiots like g w bush, or perhaps even the goofy gipper, who want religious nuts in an administration.
    religiosity is the hallmark of a backward country.
    saudi arabia, anybody?

    religiosity is the hallmark of a backward country.

    no

    humans are spiritual beings, we crave a religious life

    the problem is with the corruption of everything in Western civilization, including the Christian religions

    The Catholic Church should allow married men to serve as priests, and ban homosexuals from the clergy

    that would end all the abuse

    then they should allow the practice of birth control that most Western Catholics are practicing anyways.

    then repudiate homosexual marriage in the strongest terms possible, and tell the West that they should build no walls around their borders any taller and stronger than the walls around the Vatican. (only with machine guns ; )

    if they’d move in that direction, then I believe their membership would burst forth like a deluge

    Read More
    • Replies: @schmenz
    "that would end all the abuse"

    Alas, my friend Rurik, it would not. The Church is full of human beings, flawed, sinful, sometimes unreliable human beings, just like the rest of society.

    I wish that you and I could one day sit down and have a chat about these things and sort all this out.

    Many years ago the strong and brilliant Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc was attending a literary dinner with his literary peers. Among the guests was George Bernard Shaw who was having a whale of a time needling old Belloc about his Catholicism. Belloc was enjoying the conversations and giving as good as he got. But when Shaw pointed out some of the rather dicey clerics who were notorious for speaking Catholic but acting otherwise Belloc piped up and said, "The Catholic Church is an institution which I hold as being of Divine origin and now spanning twenty centuries. But for those of you who doubt that let me remind you that no merely human organization conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight."

    Regards, as always...
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    humans are spiritual beings, we crave a religious life
     
    Non sequitur. There is no compulsion to religion in humans. There appears to be an innate tendency to superstition, yes, but not religion. Religion is a product of the unscrupulous taking advantage of the gullible. Religion is ALWAYS structured, and that structure, that design, is a human creation that is essentially a political schema that adopts a supernatural etiology.
    , @Lawrence Fitton
    sorry. i'm a human being and i don't believe in spirits. if you care to believe in myths & fairy tales & mumbo jumbo and and let an institution demand that you live your life according its precepts, by all means do. it's free country.
    i'd rather think for myself, thank you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. schmenz says:
    @Rurik

    religiosity is the hallmark of a backward country.
     
    no

    humans are spiritual beings, we crave a religious life

    the problem is with the corruption of everything in Western civilization, including the Christian religions

    The Catholic Church should allow married men to serve as priests, and ban homosexuals from the clergy

    that would end all the abuse

    then they should allow the practice of birth control that most Western Catholics are practicing anyways.

    then repudiate homosexual marriage in the strongest terms possible, and tell the West that they should build no walls around their borders any taller and stronger than the walls around the Vatican. (only with machine guns ; )

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/vatican-wall.jpg

    if they'd move in that direction, then I believe their membership would burst forth like a deluge

    “that would end all the abuse”

    Alas, my friend Rurik, it would not. The Church is full of human beings, flawed, sinful, sometimes unreliable human beings, just like the rest of society.

    I wish that you and I could one day sit down and have a chat about these things and sort all this out.

    Many years ago the strong and brilliant Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc was attending a literary dinner with his literary peers. Among the guests was George Bernard Shaw who was having a whale of a time needling old Belloc about his Catholicism. Belloc was enjoying the conversations and giving as good as he got. But when Shaw pointed out some of the rather dicey clerics who were notorious for speaking Catholic but acting otherwise Belloc piped up and said, “The Catholic Church is an institution which I hold as being of Divine origin and now spanning twenty centuries. But for those of you who doubt that let me remind you that no merely human organization conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.”

    Regards, as always…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Christs bride -the church- is an organism not an organization!
    , @Talha
    Hey schmenz,

    Hilarious and brilliant retort by Belloc, he was a very intelligent man.

    Peace.
    , @David
    I'm guessing that Belloc was thinking of the second story in the Decameron in which Abraham a Jew visits the Papal Court at the urging of a goy friend to see if he, the Jew, might be prompted by something he saw there to become a Christian. Upon Abraham's return, the goy asks him doubtfully what he thought and is surprised to learn that Abraham will convert, reporting that as far as he could see everyone associated with the church in Rome is so sinful and corrupt that it seems they are trying to destroy the church, not to perpetuate it.

    "But since it is evident to me that their attempts are unavailing, and that your religion continues to grow in popularity, and become more splendid and illustrious, I can only conclude that, being a more holy and genuine religion than any of the others, it deservedly has the Holy Ghost as its foundation and support."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Art says:

    As someone who is a none practicing Catholic – I want to resistor a complaint with my non-Catholic fellow Christians.

    The Protestants on the left have abandon responsibility for being Christian to government – they think, if they vote for more government that they are fulfilling their Christian responsibilities. That is nonsense. Using guns to do good, is un-Christian – it is an oxymoron – it does not work – it has unintended hurtful consequences. The heart of Christianity is freedom – not force. Actual practicing Christian love for your neighbor is the engine of human progress.

    And those Bible pounding Protestants on the hard core right want to kill, they want to make war – they want to kill their way to a better world just like the Jews do. The Old Testament John Hagee types are just plain evil. They are more Jew then Christian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. @dahoit
    Tandem,Podesta and their ilk are just the sort of people we should bar in our immigration,as they hate US.What suicide,to invite all those with historical grievances against us,or others, into America so they eat US from within.
    Sorry,born again Christians don't seem Christian to me,they seem like lackeys of zion instead of followers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
    And as far as Christians in general,outside of the Presbyterians,the silence is deafening regarding what we do in this world that surely aint Christian.
    As a Teutprot,who married a Catholic,and whose children are married interfaith and inter-race,its all getting old anyway,isn't it?
    Mutts make better people,just like dogs.

    “…Mutts make better people,just like dogs…”

    You got that right, a nation run by unfruitful yapping women and homosexuals- all because their men forfeited masculinity when they refused to be the spiritual leaders of their households-

    Dogs Indeed!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Wyrd says:
    @Lawrence Fitton
    the catholic church: the crusades; the inquisition; missionaries; sordid abuses in ireland; vatican nazi sympathy; vatican banking corruption; horrid child abuse; homo haters; slave holders; woman as submissive; papal armies; empire builders; funny hats & silly rituals.....etc. and that's just off the top of my head. undoubtedly, much more unholy behavior is documented.
    remember cardinal bernie(above the)law? the boston bad man who protected serial pedophile priests? who said the boston globe's revelations into priestly child abuse were scandalous? who fled in the middle of the night to the protective arms of the vatican before he was hauled in front of a judge for his crimes?
    that extradition of law isn't demanded of the vatican remains cowardly.
    paleo pat went to gonzaga, i believe. a jesuit college. just sayin'. bet ole pat knows his latin, and supplication, and bowing & scraping before some ginned-up priest in the confessional.
    how any parent can send a child into a catholic church is beyond me.
    did nixon lackey, paleo pat, write scathing editorials of the catholic church when the abuse came to light?
    perhaps, readers can send me links.

    if i deplore the actions of the catholic church does that make me a bigot?
    if i deplore serial child rapists does that make me a bigot?

    fortunately, catholic churches are closing around the country. attendance is falling, and will continue to fall. the church's tax exempt status should be revoked, books opened up, due to politicking. how many families were paid off to keep quiet re: child abuse? how about mafia influence? open the box, and the devil spreads his wings.
    finally, it's only idiots like g w bush, or perhaps even the goofy gipper, who want religious nuts in an administration.
    religiosity is the hallmark of a backward country.
    saudi arabia, anybody?

    Blah-blah-blah-blah.

    You, sir, are a leftwing atheist moron. You hate God and wish Satan’s lies were true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lawrence Fitton
    well, miss wyrd, ye make no sense. you call me an atheist, then write that i hate god and believe in satan. do you even know what the definition of atheist is?
    just for the record, i have no ideology. religious, political or otherwise.
    oh, and i don't believe in bigfoot or ghosts or flying monkeys, either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Rurik

    You are implicitly assuming that there is some meta-morality which exists above competing views of morality.
     
    there is

    it's where my morality comes from, nature and our instincts

    a mother doesn't have to be told to love and care for her child

    a man doesn't have to read it in a book that he should protect his loved ones from harm, and not harm them himself. This is all meta-morality.

    dogs even know it. When two wolves are fighting over dominance and one submits and offers his neck to his adversary, does the other dog go in for the kill? Or does some kind of meta-morality prevent that? It's no different in humans. We all know instinctively not to kill inoffensive people for no reason. When humans do such things they are aberrations, or more likely they're following the orders of some 'leader' (religious or otherwise) who is exhorting them to kill otherwise inoffensive people. Perhaps because they are 'non-believers', like the Protestants slaughtering the Catholics in Ireland or vice-versa in France.

    Most people if left to their own habits and designs, don't go off and slaughter other people unless territory becomes scarce and is competed for. There is an unwritten meta-morality in the world.

    You are assuming that there is some kind of symmetry between morality and immorality.
     
    immorality is just when natural morality breaks down, and people act in ways that are contrary to their natures. Or when a morality is imposed from above that goes against human nature. Like the strictures against fornication for instance. It's not hard to see why people ignore that particular "morality".

    It’s OK for us Catholics to impose our morality on you because our morality is true.
     
    your morality is nothing more than blind fealty to dogmas

    let me ask you.. is it moral to demand that a women carry a dead fetus to term?

    what about if the fetus is missing a brain? There is a medical condition like this, where the brain is missing, and only the brain stem is there, just enough to tell the pitiable baby's heart to beat and to breath, not much else. Should a women be forced to carry such a thing to term?

    Or the popular consideration of a forcible rape. Should a women be forced to carry such a abomination to term? To see the face of her rapist on her child?

    your so called morality is full of certainties that don't add up when put to the rigors of reality. Because you get it out of a book, and not out of the human heart, which is the fount of all true morality.

    …”a mother doesn’t have to be told to love and care for her child…”

    …”a man doesn’t have to read it in a book that he should protect his loved ones from harm, and not harm them himself. This is all meta-morality….”

    I live in the inner city of Philadelphia, this couldn’t be any farther from the truth, and is writ large across all inner- cities in America that have rejected the Word of God. The courts are over-flowing with human refuse that maltreats all interactions.

    “…When two wolves are fighting over dominance and one submits and offers his neck to his adversary, does the other dog go in for the kill?…”

    On the contrary- “Homo homini lupus”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Rurik

    religiosity is the hallmark of a backward country.
     
    no

    humans are spiritual beings, we crave a religious life

    the problem is with the corruption of everything in Western civilization, including the Christian religions

    The Catholic Church should allow married men to serve as priests, and ban homosexuals from the clergy

    that would end all the abuse

    then they should allow the practice of birth control that most Western Catholics are practicing anyways.

    then repudiate homosexual marriage in the strongest terms possible, and tell the West that they should build no walls around their borders any taller and stronger than the walls around the Vatican. (only with machine guns ; )

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/vatican-wall.jpg

    if they'd move in that direction, then I believe their membership would burst forth like a deluge

    humans are spiritual beings, we crave a religious life

    Non sequitur. There is no compulsion to religion in humans. There appears to be an innate tendency to superstition, yes, but not religion. Religion is a product of the unscrupulous taking advantage of the gullible. Religion is ALWAYS structured, and that structure, that design, is a human creation that is essentially a political schema that adopts a supernatural etiology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey JJS,

    Religion is a product of the unscrupulous taking advantage of the gullible.
     
    Sometimes.

    Religion is ALWAYS structured, and that structure, that design, is a human creation that is essentially a political schema that adopts a supernatural etiology.
     
    One way of looking at it for sure.

    Another way...if the raison d'être of human existence is the knowledge/worship of his Creator. Why wouldn't that Being have a say in how man organizes himself socially? Being that sub-optimal organization would present impediments and distractions to achieving the primary goal.

    One will agree/disagree based on what he believes that primary goal is in the first place...if any.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Bill

    there is

    it’s where my morality comes from, nature and our instincts . . . There is an unwritten meta-morality in the world.
     
    Yeah, that's called natural law and is a primary basis of Catholic morality. So, though it is certainly above every other "morality," it isn't above Catholic morality since they are the same.

    Most people if left to their own habits and designs, don’t go off and slaughter other people unless territory becomes scarce and is competed for.
     
    Shrug. If by "most" you mean at least 51% of people whose ancestors have been living in civilization for a few thousand years, then, yeah, but so what? If you are trying to claim this as some kind of human universal, then you don't know what you are talking about. Maybe read a book?

    Or maybe you're trying to explain why abortion is immoral? It certainly is true that very few people and very, very few apparently psychologically normal people can stand to work in that industry. All that murdering babies tends to get to you after a while. Well, for most people right away, but for some people after a while. For psychopaths, never. For example, you know that it is somebody's job to put the baby corpse back together after it has been torn apart during the abortion? You know, to make sure "we got it all." Also explains the total hysteria apologists for that industry go into any time someone tries to cut through the thick layer of obfuscation carefully placed between mothers and what they are about to do.

    your morality is nothing more than blind fealty to dogmas
     
    Your brain contains nothing more than infantile slogans you picked up from your middle school teachers who picked them up from watching TV. Are you, perhaps, a big fan of Dick the Dolt?

    your so called morality is full of certainties that don’t add up when put to the rigors of reality. Because you get it out of a book, and not out of the human heart, which is the fount of all true morality.
     
    Yeah, sure. Here's Pope St John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor quoting Pope Leo XIII, himself paraphrasing St Thomas Aquinas himself paraphrasing Aristotle on what natural law is:

    "the natural law is written and engraved in the heart of each and every man, since it is none other than human reason itself which commands us to do good and counsels us not to sin"
     
    You sound like some savage who has picked up a watch someone dropped in a field going around congratulating himself on having discovered time-keeping.

    it’s where my morality comes from, nature and our instincts . . . There is an unwritten meta-morality in the world.

    Yeah, that’s called natural law and is a primary basis of Catholic morality. So, though it is certainly above every other “morality,” it isn’t above Catholic morality since they are the same.

    No, natural law is by no means a basis of Catholic morality. Inasmuch as such a declaration is apostasy, I’m guessing you’re another ignorant jackass braying about concepts about which you know nothing.

    Morality in Catholicism, or “moral law” if you prefer the term, is God’s law. Always. 99% of all tenets of Catholic doctrine derive from the Bible, which is the revealed word of God — the rest are divine revelations, or, again, God.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    No, natural law is by no means a basis of Catholic morality. Inasmuch as such a declaration is apostasy, I’m guessing you’re another ignorant jackass braying about concepts about which you know nothing.
     
    Your ignorance and stupidity are wonders to behold. Voluntarism, which is what you seem to be incoherently trying to invoke, is mostly a Protty thing, though even they seem to be backing away from it in recent years. I'm not saying Protties came up with Voluntarism, but they attached themselves to it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Nice Man says:
    @Ironfist666
    Okay Pat, we know the Clintons are scum. A test of morality should be of the social fabric of the society. Allowing degenerate filth on the internet under the guise of free speech and letting Hollywood create pure trash and anti white films portraying race mixing as normal is a violation of natural law as well as local ethical standards of any civilized community. Freedom of religion is a different issue from freedom of speech. Saying something idiotic always brings questions of sanity to the issuer, but believing in something(religion) that you have no absolute proof as being true is a cause for placement in a mental institution. If people believed that EVERYONE has rights and no one has the privilege to violate those rights, the world would be a much better place.

    Agreee, JEW run companies promote filth and race mixing as a form of white genocide.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Lawrence Fitton
    the catholic church: the crusades; the inquisition; missionaries; sordid abuses in ireland; vatican nazi sympathy; vatican banking corruption; horrid child abuse; homo haters; slave holders; woman as submissive; papal armies; empire builders; funny hats & silly rituals.....etc. and that's just off the top of my head. undoubtedly, much more unholy behavior is documented.
    remember cardinal bernie(above the)law? the boston bad man who protected serial pedophile priests? who said the boston globe's revelations into priestly child abuse were scandalous? who fled in the middle of the night to the protective arms of the vatican before he was hauled in front of a judge for his crimes?
    that extradition of law isn't demanded of the vatican remains cowardly.
    paleo pat went to gonzaga, i believe. a jesuit college. just sayin'. bet ole pat knows his latin, and supplication, and bowing & scraping before some ginned-up priest in the confessional.
    how any parent can send a child into a catholic church is beyond me.
    did nixon lackey, paleo pat, write scathing editorials of the catholic church when the abuse came to light?
    perhaps, readers can send me links.

    if i deplore the actions of the catholic church does that make me a bigot?
    if i deplore serial child rapists does that make me a bigot?

    fortunately, catholic churches are closing around the country. attendance is falling, and will continue to fall. the church's tax exempt status should be revoked, books opened up, due to politicking. how many families were paid off to keep quiet re: child abuse? how about mafia influence? open the box, and the devil spreads his wings.
    finally, it's only idiots like g w bush, or perhaps even the goofy gipper, who want religious nuts in an administration.
    religiosity is the hallmark of a backward country.
    saudi arabia, anybody?

    The Catholic church is a golem stitched together to preserve the patrician/pagan wielders of the levers of power during the decline and fall of Rome. It features the synthesis of sun worship, goddess worship and elements of the caananite god Dagon with Biblical Christianity.

    Augustine synthesized Christ with Plato, and later Aquinas developed Aristoteleanism; offering the notion that philosophy and religion are equally valid in their respective spheres [in complete contradiction to scriptures Col. 2:8, 2 Cor 6:15 ]

    To this day the Romish pope is referred to as the Pontifex Maximus- the supreme bridge builder [god on earth] between man and God- a title inherited from the Babylonian mystery religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lawrence Fitton
    thanks for the update.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @schmenz
    "that would end all the abuse"

    Alas, my friend Rurik, it would not. The Church is full of human beings, flawed, sinful, sometimes unreliable human beings, just like the rest of society.

    I wish that you and I could one day sit down and have a chat about these things and sort all this out.

    Many years ago the strong and brilliant Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc was attending a literary dinner with his literary peers. Among the guests was George Bernard Shaw who was having a whale of a time needling old Belloc about his Catholicism. Belloc was enjoying the conversations and giving as good as he got. But when Shaw pointed out some of the rather dicey clerics who were notorious for speaking Catholic but acting otherwise Belloc piped up and said, "The Catholic Church is an institution which I hold as being of Divine origin and now spanning twenty centuries. But for those of you who doubt that let me remind you that no merely human organization conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight."

    Regards, as always...

    Christs bride -the church- is an organism not an organization!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Stick says:

    Pat, how do you explain that the Pope, of all people, has not weighed in on Hillary’s Catholic bigotry? I think you might like to add the Catholic Church as another institution infested by the Global Fascists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. Talha says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    humans are spiritual beings, we crave a religious life
     
    Non sequitur. There is no compulsion to religion in humans. There appears to be an innate tendency to superstition, yes, but not religion. Religion is a product of the unscrupulous taking advantage of the gullible. Religion is ALWAYS structured, and that structure, that design, is a human creation that is essentially a political schema that adopts a supernatural etiology.

    Hey JJS,

    Religion is a product of the unscrupulous taking advantage of the gullible.

    Sometimes.

    Religion is ALWAYS structured, and that structure, that design, is a human creation that is essentially a political schema that adopts a supernatural etiology.

    One way of looking at it for sure.

    Another way…if the raison d’être of human existence is the knowledge/worship of his Creator. Why wouldn’t that Being have a say in how man organizes himself socially? Being that sub-optimal organization would present impediments and distractions to achieving the primary goal.

    One will agree/disagree based on what he believes that primary goal is in the first place…if any.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith


    Religion is a product of the unscrupulous taking advantage of the gullible.
     
    Sometimes.
     
    There are some religious people (not the religion per se) that do not take advantage of the gullible. There's also non-religious people who don't take advantage of the gullible. On a percentage-of-whole basis, I would willingly wager that "good" non-religious people outscore the "good" religious people.

    Another way…if the raison d’être of human existence is the knowledge/worship of his Creator. Why wouldn’t that Being have a say in how man organizes himself socially? Being that sub-optimal organization would present impediments and distractions to achieving the primary goal.
     
    I don't see any connection between what I wrote and your demurral, but do you find anything, anything at all, disquieting in a premise that the very reason for human existence is to worship a Creator? Do you find nothing in such an assumption that implies a highly-flawed Creator? What would you think of a human who built a robot whose function was a daylong recitation of "Thou art great, Creator!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Talha says:
    @schmenz
    "that would end all the abuse"

    Alas, my friend Rurik, it would not. The Church is full of human beings, flawed, sinful, sometimes unreliable human beings, just like the rest of society.

    I wish that you and I could one day sit down and have a chat about these things and sort all this out.

    Many years ago the strong and brilliant Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc was attending a literary dinner with his literary peers. Among the guests was George Bernard Shaw who was having a whale of a time needling old Belloc about his Catholicism. Belloc was enjoying the conversations and giving as good as he got. But when Shaw pointed out some of the rather dicey clerics who were notorious for speaking Catholic but acting otherwise Belloc piped up and said, "The Catholic Church is an institution which I hold as being of Divine origin and now spanning twenty centuries. But for those of you who doubt that let me remind you that no merely human organization conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight."

    Regards, as always...

    Hey schmenz,

    Hilarious and brilliant retort by Belloc, he was a very intelligent man.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Flip says:
    @Hibernian
    He's claimed to be a Christian of sorts, his behavior notwithstanding.

    Presbyterian

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Talha
    Hey JJS,

    Religion is a product of the unscrupulous taking advantage of the gullible.
     
    Sometimes.

    Religion is ALWAYS structured, and that structure, that design, is a human creation that is essentially a political schema that adopts a supernatural etiology.
     
    One way of looking at it for sure.

    Another way...if the raison d'être of human existence is the knowledge/worship of his Creator. Why wouldn't that Being have a say in how man organizes himself socially? Being that sub-optimal organization would present impediments and distractions to achieving the primary goal.

    One will agree/disagree based on what he believes that primary goal is in the first place...if any.

    Peace.

    Religion is a product of the unscrupulous taking advantage of the gullible.

    Sometimes.

    There are some religious people (not the religion per se) that do not take advantage of the gullible. There’s also non-religious people who don’t take advantage of the gullible. On a percentage-of-whole basis, I would willingly wager that “good” non-religious people outscore the “good” religious people.

    Another way…if the raison d’être of human existence is the knowledge/worship of his Creator. Why wouldn’t that Being have a say in how man organizes himself socially? Being that sub-optimal organization would present impediments and distractions to achieving the primary goal.

    I don’t see any connection between what I wrote and your demurral, but do you find anything, anything at all, disquieting in a premise that the very reason for human existence is to worship a Creator? Do you find nothing in such an assumption that implies a highly-flawed Creator? What would you think of a human who built a robot whose function was a daylong recitation of “Thou art great, Creator!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey JJS,

    I would willingly wager
     
    I'd like to see stats on this 'goodness' factor before putting any money down.

    your demurral
     
    Just giving a different perspective on the issue of 'structure or design in religion'.

    anything at all, disquieting in a premise that the very reason for human existence is to worship a Creator?
     
    Not really.

    Do you find nothing in such an assumption that implies a highly-flawed Creator?
     
    Not really.

    What would you think of a human who built a robot whose function was a daylong recitation of “Thou art great, Creator!”
     
    Waste of his effort. Problem with the analogy is the assumption of any 'effort' on the part of the Creator in the act of creation. A second problem is that the robot could easily be reciting while doing other tasks or that those tasks could readily stand in place of the recitation as the 'worship'. Again, just a perspective.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Talha says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith


    Religion is a product of the unscrupulous taking advantage of the gullible.
     
    Sometimes.
     
    There are some religious people (not the religion per se) that do not take advantage of the gullible. There's also non-religious people who don't take advantage of the gullible. On a percentage-of-whole basis, I would willingly wager that "good" non-religious people outscore the "good" religious people.

    Another way…if the raison d’être of human existence is the knowledge/worship of his Creator. Why wouldn’t that Being have a say in how man organizes himself socially? Being that sub-optimal organization would present impediments and distractions to achieving the primary goal.
     
    I don't see any connection between what I wrote and your demurral, but do you find anything, anything at all, disquieting in a premise that the very reason for human existence is to worship a Creator? Do you find nothing in such an assumption that implies a highly-flawed Creator? What would you think of a human who built a robot whose function was a daylong recitation of "Thou art great, Creator!"

    Hey JJS,

    I would willingly wager

    I’d like to see stats on this ‘goodness’ factor before putting any money down.

    your demurral

    Just giving a different perspective on the issue of ‘structure or design in religion’.

    anything at all, disquieting in a premise that the very reason for human existence is to worship a Creator?

    Not really.

    Do you find nothing in such an assumption that implies a highly-flawed Creator?

    Not really.

    What would you think of a human who built a robot whose function was a daylong recitation of “Thou art great, Creator!”

    Waste of his effort. Problem with the analogy is the assumption of any ‘effort’ on the part of the Creator in the act of creation. A second problem is that the robot could easily be reciting while doing other tasks or that those tasks could readily stand in place of the recitation as the ‘worship’. Again, just a perspective.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Waste of his effort. Problem with the analogy is the assumption of any ‘effort’ on the part of the Creator in the act of creation.
     
    Who said anything about "effort"? Get down to brass tacks: What kind of omnipotent, omniscient, immanent being creates a race of lesser beings whose sole purpose is to worship the omnipotent, omniscient, immanent being?

    Don't know 'bout you, but not MY kinda omnipotent, omniscient, immanent being!

    Just another perspective, of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Rurik

    religiosity is the hallmark of a backward country.
     
    no

    humans are spiritual beings, we crave a religious life

    the problem is with the corruption of everything in Western civilization, including the Christian religions

    The Catholic Church should allow married men to serve as priests, and ban homosexuals from the clergy

    that would end all the abuse

    then they should allow the practice of birth control that most Western Catholics are practicing anyways.

    then repudiate homosexual marriage in the strongest terms possible, and tell the West that they should build no walls around their borders any taller and stronger than the walls around the Vatican. (only with machine guns ; )

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/vatican-wall.jpg

    if they'd move in that direction, then I believe their membership would burst forth like a deluge

    sorry. i’m a human being and i don’t believe in spirits. if you care to believe in myths & fairy tales & mumbo jumbo and and let an institution demand that you live your life according its precepts, by all means do. it’s free country.
    i’d rather think for myself, thank you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @imnobody00


    sorry. i’m a human being and i don’t believe in spirits. if you care to believe in myths & fairy tales & mumbo jumbo and and let an institution demand that you live your life according its precepts, by all means do. it’s free country.

    i’d rather think for myself, thank you.
     

    I am always amazed that, for some guys, "thinking for myself" means "being the million-th guy who repeats a trite worn-out slogan that schools and media have drilled into my head".

    I am amazed at the originality of this thinking. Religion is mumbo-jumbo, fairy tales!. Never heard that! This guy know how to think with originality because he has profound insights! You missed the Flying Spaghetti Monster, pal.

    Of course, I am not going to debate about the existence of God, because they are books about that and this topic cannot be debated with a guy who believes that thinking is writing a two-line cliché that begs the question.

    But I want to make a comment about "it's free country", this cliché that "freethinkers" receive straightly from the government. When I lived in America, I was amazed at all kind of people saying "this is a free country". I assumed that this is drilled into their heads from the kindergarten on because I have never felt less free than in America. Go to your workplace and say that gay people are people with psychological problems or women are worse in Math than men. Then you will see how free your country is.

    I was working in a school and male teachers were forbidden to enter kid's restrooms. A (male) colleague of mine heard (male) kids fighting and screaming from the outside and got into the bathroom to separate them because he was worried for them. He was quickly fired. So much for freedom.

    The concept of a free country is an oxymoron. A country must have a law, and a law must allow some things and forbid other things. You are only free if you do things that are allowed. You can be completely free in the forest because there is no anybody else. But not in a country, which needs laws for the society to work.

    How does a country distinguish between things that are to be allowed and things that are to be forbidden by the law? Because it has a conception of the good, so it allows things that are considered good and it forbids things that are considered evil.

    We can call "religion" to this conception of the good . A religion is an ideological system that defines what is good and what is evil. This is why each country has an official religion, which is codified in the laws. Our "original" freethinker could say that "no, religion is only for people who think about God and other mumbo-jumbo". But Buddhism has no concept of God and Confucianism has not a concept of the spiritual. So I stand by my definition.

    The United States of America is founded on a religion called "secular humanism" (whose latest sect is political correctness). The US laws are written to enforce the conception of the good that the religion of secular humanism defines. All other religions are tolerated while they don't interfere with the official religion. The same way Islamic countries tolerate other religion while they don't interfere with Islam, which is the official religion.

    In the case of Hillary Clinton, we have a fanatic believer of the religion of secular humanism that is appalled that believers of other religions think different than her. So he wants to impose her beliefs to other people. This is not new in the history of mankind. It is very old and has always been called "religious fanaticism".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Wyrd
    Blah-blah-blah-blah.

    You, sir, are a leftwing atheist moron. You hate God and wish Satan's lies were true.

    well, miss wyrd, ye make no sense. you call me an atheist, then write that i hate god and believe in satan. do you even know what the definition of atheist is?
    just for the record, i have no ideology. religious, political or otherwise.
    oh, and i don’t believe in bigfoot or ghosts or flying monkeys, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    well, miss wyrd, ye make no sense. you call me an atheist, then write that i hate god and believe in satan.
     
    I would really like for some knowledgeable Believer to give me a rundown -- a bullet list would suffice -- of "Satan's lies". Must be some real whoppers in there.
    , @Wyrd
    you call me an atheist, then write that i hate god and believe in satan.

    You do hate God, along with grammar. Atheists don't believe there is no God. They just hate Him, and prefer to emulate rebellious Satan. Since He didn't give you your preferred Easter Egg basket as a child, you lot pretend He doesn't exist. I see it time and time again. "Bwaaa! Life isn't the way I think it should be! Therefore, God doesn't exist!" "Guwaaa! Muh feelz are hurt! Therefore, God is a superstition!"

    Sad and predictable. But I'm sure you're charging out of the gate to provide some silly analogy of a tea-pot orbiting Pluto to "prove" your point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Stonehands
    The Catholic church is a golem stitched together to preserve the patrician/pagan wielders of the levers of power during the decline and fall of Rome. It features the synthesis of sun worship, goddess worship and elements of the caananite god Dagon with Biblical Christianity.

    Augustine synthesized Christ with Plato, and later Aquinas developed Aristoteleanism; offering the notion that philosophy and religion are equally valid in their respective spheres [in complete contradiction to scriptures Col. 2:8, 2 Cor 6:15 ]

    To this day the Romish pope is referred to as the Pontifex Maximus- the supreme bridge builder [god on earth] between man and God- a title inherited from the Babylonian mystery religion.

    thanks for the update.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. David says:
    @schmenz
    "that would end all the abuse"

    Alas, my friend Rurik, it would not. The Church is full of human beings, flawed, sinful, sometimes unreliable human beings, just like the rest of society.

    I wish that you and I could one day sit down and have a chat about these things and sort all this out.

    Many years ago the strong and brilliant Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc was attending a literary dinner with his literary peers. Among the guests was George Bernard Shaw who was having a whale of a time needling old Belloc about his Catholicism. Belloc was enjoying the conversations and giving as good as he got. But when Shaw pointed out some of the rather dicey clerics who were notorious for speaking Catholic but acting otherwise Belloc piped up and said, "The Catholic Church is an institution which I hold as being of Divine origin and now spanning twenty centuries. But for those of you who doubt that let me remind you that no merely human organization conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight."

    Regards, as always...

    I’m guessing that Belloc was thinking of the second story in the Decameron in which Abraham a Jew visits the Papal Court at the urging of a goy friend to see if he, the Jew, might be prompted by something he saw there to become a Christian. Upon Abraham’s return, the goy asks him doubtfully what he thought and is surprised to learn that Abraham will convert, reporting that as far as he could see everyone associated with the church in Rome is so sinful and corrupt that it seems they are trying to destroy the church, not to perpetuate it.

    “But since it is evident to me that their attempts are unavailing, and that your religion continues to grow in popularity, and become more splendid and illustrious, I can only conclude that, being a more holy and genuine religion than any of the others, it deservedly has the Holy Ghost as its foundation and support.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Talha
    Hey JJS,

    I would willingly wager
     
    I'd like to see stats on this 'goodness' factor before putting any money down.

    your demurral
     
    Just giving a different perspective on the issue of 'structure or design in religion'.

    anything at all, disquieting in a premise that the very reason for human existence is to worship a Creator?
     
    Not really.

    Do you find nothing in such an assumption that implies a highly-flawed Creator?
     
    Not really.

    What would you think of a human who built a robot whose function was a daylong recitation of “Thou art great, Creator!”
     
    Waste of his effort. Problem with the analogy is the assumption of any 'effort' on the part of the Creator in the act of creation. A second problem is that the robot could easily be reciting while doing other tasks or that those tasks could readily stand in place of the recitation as the 'worship'. Again, just a perspective.

    Peace.

    Waste of his effort. Problem with the analogy is the assumption of any ‘effort’ on the part of the Creator in the act of creation.

    Who said anything about “effort”? Get down to brass tacks: What kind of omnipotent, omniscient, immanent being creates a race of lesser beings whose sole purpose is to worship the omnipotent, omniscient, immanent being?

    Don’t know ’bout you, but not MY kinda omnipotent, omniscient, immanent being!

    Just another perspective, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Brass tacks, yes...

    I mean, I don't know, 60 or so years of toil and obedience for eternal bliss sounds like a fairly good retirement package from said Being. Pascal thought so.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Lawrence Fitton
    well, miss wyrd, ye make no sense. you call me an atheist, then write that i hate god and believe in satan. do you even know what the definition of atheist is?
    just for the record, i have no ideology. religious, political or otherwise.
    oh, and i don't believe in bigfoot or ghosts or flying monkeys, either.

    well, miss wyrd, ye make no sense. you call me an atheist, then write that i hate god and believe in satan.

    I would really like for some knowledgeable Believer to give me a rundown — a bullet list would suffice — of “Satan’s lies”. Must be some real whoppers in there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wyrd
    Shut up! One shit at a time!

    -Sheriff Bruford T. Justice
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Wyrd says:
    @Lawrence Fitton
    well, miss wyrd, ye make no sense. you call me an atheist, then write that i hate god and believe in satan. do you even know what the definition of atheist is?
    just for the record, i have no ideology. religious, political or otherwise.
    oh, and i don't believe in bigfoot or ghosts or flying monkeys, either.

    you call me an atheist, then write that i hate god and believe in satan.

    You do hate God, along with grammar. Atheists don’t believe there is no God. They just hate Him, and prefer to emulate rebellious Satan. Since He didn’t give you your preferred Easter Egg basket as a child, you lot pretend He doesn’t exist. I see it time and time again. “Bwaaa! Life isn’t the way I think it should be! Therefore, God doesn’t exist!” “Guwaaa! Muh feelz are hurt! Therefore, God is a superstition!”

    Sad and predictable. But I’m sure you’re charging out of the gate to provide some silly analogy of a tea-pot orbiting Pluto to “prove” your point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    You do hate God, along with grammar. Atheists don’t believe there is no God. They just hate Him, and prefer to emulate rebellious Satan.
     
    Never mind that last. Forget it -- you're in free. You are pathologically nuts, and you are Ignored. Bye now.
    , @abj_slant

    Atheists don’t believe there is no God.
     
    I was born and raised without religion; I am always astounded at those who are unable (or maybe unwilling?) to comprehend that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Wyrd says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    well, miss wyrd, ye make no sense. you call me an atheist, then write that i hate god and believe in satan.
     
    I would really like for some knowledgeable Believer to give me a rundown -- a bullet list would suffice -- of "Satan's lies". Must be some real whoppers in there.

    Shut up! One shit at a time!

    -Sheriff Bruford T. Justice

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    I suspected you couldn't come up with so much as one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Lawrence Fitton
    sorry. i'm a human being and i don't believe in spirits. if you care to believe in myths & fairy tales & mumbo jumbo and and let an institution demand that you live your life according its precepts, by all means do. it's free country.
    i'd rather think for myself, thank you.

    sorry. i’m a human being and i don’t believe in spirits. if you care to believe in myths & fairy tales & mumbo jumbo and and let an institution demand that you live your life according its precepts, by all means do. it’s free country.

    i’d rather think for myself, thank you.

    I am always amazed that, for some guys, “thinking for myself” means “being the million-th guy who repeats a trite worn-out slogan that schools and media have drilled into my head”.

    I am amazed at the originality of this thinking. Religion is mumbo-jumbo, fairy tales!. Never heard that! This guy know how to think with originality because he has profound insights! You missed the Flying Spaghetti Monster, pal.

    Of course, I am not going to debate about the existence of God, because they are books about that and this topic cannot be debated with a guy who believes that thinking is writing a two-line cliché that begs the question.

    But I want to make a comment about “it’s free country”, this cliché that “freethinkers” receive straightly from the government. When I lived in America, I was amazed at all kind of people saying “this is a free country”. I assumed that this is drilled into their heads from the kindergarten on because I have never felt less free than in America. Go to your workplace and say that gay people are people with psychological problems or women are worse in Math than men. Then you will see how free your country is.

    I was working in a school and male teachers were forbidden to enter kid’s restrooms. A (male) colleague of mine heard (male) kids fighting and screaming from the outside and got into the bathroom to separate them because he was worried for them. He was quickly fired. So much for freedom.

    The concept of a free country is an oxymoron. A country must have a law, and a law must allow some things and forbid other things. You are only free if you do things that are allowed. You can be completely free in the forest because there is no anybody else. But not in a country, which needs laws for the society to work.

    How does a country distinguish between things that are to be allowed and things that are to be forbidden by the law? Because it has a conception of the good, so it allows things that are considered good and it forbids things that are considered evil.

    We can call “religion” to this conception of the good . A religion is an ideological system that defines what is good and what is evil. This is why each country has an official religion, which is codified in the laws. Our “original” freethinker could say that “no, religion is only for people who think about God and other mumbo-jumbo”. But Buddhism has no concept of God and Confucianism has not a concept of the spiritual. So I stand by my definition.

    The United States of America is founded on a religion called “secular humanism” (whose latest sect is political correctness). The US laws are written to enforce the conception of the good that the religion of secular humanism defines. All other religions are tolerated while they don’t interfere with the official religion. The same way Islamic countries tolerate other religion while they don’t interfere with Islam, which is the official religion.

    In the case of Hillary Clinton, we have a fanatic believer of the religion of secular humanism that is appalled that believers of other religions think different than her. So he wants to impose her beliefs to other people. This is not new in the history of mankind. It is very old and has always been called “religious fanaticism”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I am always amazed that, for some guys, “thinking for myself” means “being the million-th guy who repeats a trite worn-out slogan that schools and media have drilled into my head”.
     
    Kinda like repeating worn-out religious slogans and liturgical cant. SSDD.

    We can call “religion” to this conception of the good . A religion is an ideological system that defines what is good and what is evil.
     
    No, it is not. Religion is not ideological; religion is theological. Religion does not define what IS good and evil. Religion lists actions that are "evil", and actions that are "good".

    Sorry about having to make fine points, but, let religionists get away with opening bullshit, and it never ends.
    , @Talha
    Hey IN00,

    As usual, excellent post, sir - lots tithing about.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Talha says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Waste of his effort. Problem with the analogy is the assumption of any ‘effort’ on the part of the Creator in the act of creation.
     
    Who said anything about "effort"? Get down to brass tacks: What kind of omnipotent, omniscient, immanent being creates a race of lesser beings whose sole purpose is to worship the omnipotent, omniscient, immanent being?

    Don't know 'bout you, but not MY kinda omnipotent, omniscient, immanent being!

    Just another perspective, of course.

    Brass tacks, yes…

    I mean, I don’t know, 60 or so years of toil and obedience for eternal bliss sounds like a fairly good retirement package from said Being. Pascal thought so.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I mean, I don’t know, 60 or so years of toil and obedience for eternal bliss sounds like a fairly good retirement package from said Being. Pascal thought so.
     
    I was very much aware you had no meaningful answer. No harm done -- believe as you like. Just don't throw around invented bullshit like it's fact, ay?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Wyrd
    Shut up! One shit at a time!

    -Sheriff Bruford T. Justice

    I suspected you couldn’t come up with so much as one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Wyrd
    you call me an atheist, then write that i hate god and believe in satan.

    You do hate God, along with grammar. Atheists don't believe there is no God. They just hate Him, and prefer to emulate rebellious Satan. Since He didn't give you your preferred Easter Egg basket as a child, you lot pretend He doesn't exist. I see it time and time again. "Bwaaa! Life isn't the way I think it should be! Therefore, God doesn't exist!" "Guwaaa! Muh feelz are hurt! Therefore, God is a superstition!"

    Sad and predictable. But I'm sure you're charging out of the gate to provide some silly analogy of a tea-pot orbiting Pluto to "prove" your point.

    You do hate God, along with grammar. Atheists don’t believe there is no God. They just hate Him, and prefer to emulate rebellious Satan.

    Never mind that last. Forget it — you’re in free. You are pathologically nuts, and you are Ignored. Bye now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wyrd
    “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

    -C.S. Lewis, The Abolition Of Men
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Talha
    Brass tacks, yes...

    I mean, I don't know, 60 or so years of toil and obedience for eternal bliss sounds like a fairly good retirement package from said Being. Pascal thought so.

    Peace.

    I mean, I don’t know, 60 or so years of toil and obedience for eternal bliss sounds like a fairly good retirement package from said Being. Pascal thought so.

    I was very much aware you had no meaningful answer. No harm done — believe as you like. Just don’t throw around invented bullshit like it’s fact, ay?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey JJS,

    Who said I was throwing around facts - there is no emperical proof for any of this. 'Belief' and 'faith' obviously have a meaning in the lexicon. Plenty of people find meaning and coherence in what I stated, if you don't, well...you don't.

    I'm not trying to convince you of anything; one either sides on the path of the material explanation for history and phenomenon or the immaterial. To me, both seem to be rational conclusions.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @imnobody00


    sorry. i’m a human being and i don’t believe in spirits. if you care to believe in myths & fairy tales & mumbo jumbo and and let an institution demand that you live your life according its precepts, by all means do. it’s free country.

    i’d rather think for myself, thank you.
     

    I am always amazed that, for some guys, "thinking for myself" means "being the million-th guy who repeats a trite worn-out slogan that schools and media have drilled into my head".

    I am amazed at the originality of this thinking. Religion is mumbo-jumbo, fairy tales!. Never heard that! This guy know how to think with originality because he has profound insights! You missed the Flying Spaghetti Monster, pal.

    Of course, I am not going to debate about the existence of God, because they are books about that and this topic cannot be debated with a guy who believes that thinking is writing a two-line cliché that begs the question.

    But I want to make a comment about "it's free country", this cliché that "freethinkers" receive straightly from the government. When I lived in America, I was amazed at all kind of people saying "this is a free country". I assumed that this is drilled into their heads from the kindergarten on because I have never felt less free than in America. Go to your workplace and say that gay people are people with psychological problems or women are worse in Math than men. Then you will see how free your country is.

    I was working in a school and male teachers were forbidden to enter kid's restrooms. A (male) colleague of mine heard (male) kids fighting and screaming from the outside and got into the bathroom to separate them because he was worried for them. He was quickly fired. So much for freedom.

    The concept of a free country is an oxymoron. A country must have a law, and a law must allow some things and forbid other things. You are only free if you do things that are allowed. You can be completely free in the forest because there is no anybody else. But not in a country, which needs laws for the society to work.

    How does a country distinguish between things that are to be allowed and things that are to be forbidden by the law? Because it has a conception of the good, so it allows things that are considered good and it forbids things that are considered evil.

    We can call "religion" to this conception of the good . A religion is an ideological system that defines what is good and what is evil. This is why each country has an official religion, which is codified in the laws. Our "original" freethinker could say that "no, religion is only for people who think about God and other mumbo-jumbo". But Buddhism has no concept of God and Confucianism has not a concept of the spiritual. So I stand by my definition.

    The United States of America is founded on a religion called "secular humanism" (whose latest sect is political correctness). The US laws are written to enforce the conception of the good that the religion of secular humanism defines. All other religions are tolerated while they don't interfere with the official religion. The same way Islamic countries tolerate other religion while they don't interfere with Islam, which is the official religion.

    In the case of Hillary Clinton, we have a fanatic believer of the religion of secular humanism that is appalled that believers of other religions think different than her. So he wants to impose her beliefs to other people. This is not new in the history of mankind. It is very old and has always been called "religious fanaticism".

    I am always amazed that, for some guys, “thinking for myself” means “being the million-th guy who repeats a trite worn-out slogan that schools and media have drilled into my head”.

    Kinda like repeating worn-out religious slogans and liturgical cant. SSDD.

    We can call “religion” to this conception of the good . A religion is an ideological system that defines what is good and what is evil.

    No, it is not. Religion is not ideological; religion is theological. Religion does not define what IS good and evil. Religion lists actions that are “evil”, and actions that are “good”.

    Sorry about having to make fine points, but, let religionists get away with opening bullshit, and it never ends.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. mad1 says:

    Get over Christianity it was after all just a “false flag op” that succeeded beyond all imagination.

    http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Talha says:
    @imnobody00


    sorry. i’m a human being and i don’t believe in spirits. if you care to believe in myths & fairy tales & mumbo jumbo and and let an institution demand that you live your life according its precepts, by all means do. it’s free country.

    i’d rather think for myself, thank you.
     

    I am always amazed that, for some guys, "thinking for myself" means "being the million-th guy who repeats a trite worn-out slogan that schools and media have drilled into my head".

    I am amazed at the originality of this thinking. Religion is mumbo-jumbo, fairy tales!. Never heard that! This guy know how to think with originality because he has profound insights! You missed the Flying Spaghetti Monster, pal.

    Of course, I am not going to debate about the existence of God, because they are books about that and this topic cannot be debated with a guy who believes that thinking is writing a two-line cliché that begs the question.

    But I want to make a comment about "it's free country", this cliché that "freethinkers" receive straightly from the government. When I lived in America, I was amazed at all kind of people saying "this is a free country". I assumed that this is drilled into their heads from the kindergarten on because I have never felt less free than in America. Go to your workplace and say that gay people are people with psychological problems or women are worse in Math than men. Then you will see how free your country is.

    I was working in a school and male teachers were forbidden to enter kid's restrooms. A (male) colleague of mine heard (male) kids fighting and screaming from the outside and got into the bathroom to separate them because he was worried for them. He was quickly fired. So much for freedom.

    The concept of a free country is an oxymoron. A country must have a law, and a law must allow some things and forbid other things. You are only free if you do things that are allowed. You can be completely free in the forest because there is no anybody else. But not in a country, which needs laws for the society to work.

    How does a country distinguish between things that are to be allowed and things that are to be forbidden by the law? Because it has a conception of the good, so it allows things that are considered good and it forbids things that are considered evil.

    We can call "religion" to this conception of the good . A religion is an ideological system that defines what is good and what is evil. This is why each country has an official religion, which is codified in the laws. Our "original" freethinker could say that "no, religion is only for people who think about God and other mumbo-jumbo". But Buddhism has no concept of God and Confucianism has not a concept of the spiritual. So I stand by my definition.

    The United States of America is founded on a religion called "secular humanism" (whose latest sect is political correctness). The US laws are written to enforce the conception of the good that the religion of secular humanism defines. All other religions are tolerated while they don't interfere with the official religion. The same way Islamic countries tolerate other religion while they don't interfere with Islam, which is the official religion.

    In the case of Hillary Clinton, we have a fanatic believer of the religion of secular humanism that is appalled that believers of other religions think different than her. So he wants to impose her beliefs to other people. This is not new in the history of mankind. It is very old and has always been called "religious fanaticism".

    Hey IN00,

    As usual, excellent post, sir – lots tithing about.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    *to think* about- LOL - stupid phone!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Talha says:
    @Talha
    Hey IN00,

    As usual, excellent post, sir - lots tithing about.

    Peace.

    *to think* about- LOL – stupid phone!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Wyrd says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    You do hate God, along with grammar. Atheists don’t believe there is no God. They just hate Him, and prefer to emulate rebellious Satan.
     
    Never mind that last. Forget it -- you're in free. You are pathologically nuts, and you are Ignored. Bye now.

    “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

    -C.S. Lewis, The Abolition Of Men

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. “It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith”

    Amazing. To which branch of ‘the faith’ do they belong that they claim the right to adjudicate the correctness of any version of it, especially the really old ones?

    ““Excellent point,” replied Halpin. “They can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they are talking about.””

    Even more amazing from the kind of people who throw up all the usual folderol about intersectionality and hierarchies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. Talha says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    I mean, I don’t know, 60 or so years of toil and obedience for eternal bliss sounds like a fairly good retirement package from said Being. Pascal thought so.
     
    I was very much aware you had no meaningful answer. No harm done -- believe as you like. Just don't throw around invented bullshit like it's fact, ay?

    Hey JJS,

    Who said I was throwing around facts – there is no emperical proof for any of this. ‘Belief’ and ‘faith’ obviously have a meaning in the lexicon. Plenty of people find meaning and coherence in what I stated, if you don’t, well…you don’t.

    I’m not trying to convince you of anything; one either sides on the path of the material explanation for history and phenomenon or the immaterial. To me, both seem to be rational conclusions.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I’m not trying to convince you of anything; one either sides on the path of the material explanation for history and phenomenon or the immaterial. To me, both seem to be rational conclusions.
     
    Sorry, I tripped a wire without malicious intent. The sentence "Just don’t throw around invented bullshit like it’s fact, ay?" should have been set off a bit, and should have had some preamble. I intend it only as generic declaration applicable to any argument about religion -- "Don't characterize as "true" anything you cannot substantiate.", is what I meant.

    You are free to believe as you like, as am I. I do not believe there is the tiniest shred of substantiating evidence for the (imo) malarkey spouted by Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Satanists .... you name it. Not a crumb, not a molecule, not an atom. It is pure invention and no other. Now, is some of it beneficial, in some applications? Sure. So is impartial justice and law and order based on some constructive systematics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Bill says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith


    it’s where my morality comes from, nature and our instincts . . . There is an unwritten meta-morality in the world.
     
    Yeah, that’s called natural law and is a primary basis of Catholic morality. So, though it is certainly above every other “morality,” it isn’t above Catholic morality since they are the same.
     
    No, natural law is by no means a basis of Catholic morality. Inasmuch as such a declaration is apostasy, I'm guessing you're another ignorant jackass braying about concepts about which you know nothing.

    Morality in Catholicism, or "moral law" if you prefer the term, is God's law. Always. 99% of all tenets of Catholic doctrine derive from the Bible, which is the revealed word of God -- the rest are divine revelations, or, again, God.

    No, natural law is by no means a basis of Catholic morality. Inasmuch as such a declaration is apostasy, I’m guessing you’re another ignorant jackass braying about concepts about which you know nothing.

    Your ignorance and stupidity are wonders to behold. Voluntarism, which is what you seem to be incoherently trying to invoke, is mostly a Protty thing, though even they seem to be backing away from it in recent years. I’m not saying Protties came up with Voluntarism, but they attached themselves to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    I reiterate, you pompous jackass: Natural law is not the basis of Catholic morality.

    Is NOT.

    The rest of your tripe you may feel free to self-insert, sideways.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Talha
    Hey JJS,

    Who said I was throwing around facts - there is no emperical proof for any of this. 'Belief' and 'faith' obviously have a meaning in the lexicon. Plenty of people find meaning and coherence in what I stated, if you don't, well...you don't.

    I'm not trying to convince you of anything; one either sides on the path of the material explanation for history and phenomenon or the immaterial. To me, both seem to be rational conclusions.

    Peace.

    I’m not trying to convince you of anything; one either sides on the path of the material explanation for history and phenomenon or the immaterial. To me, both seem to be rational conclusions.

    Sorry, I tripped a wire without malicious intent. The sentence “Just don’t throw around invented bullshit like it’s fact, ay?” should have been set off a bit, and should have had some preamble. I intend it only as generic declaration applicable to any argument about religion — “Don’t characterize as “true” anything you cannot substantiate.”, is what I meant.

    You are free to believe as you like, as am I. I do not believe there is the tiniest shred of substantiating evidence for the (imo) malarkey spouted by Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Satanists …. you name it. Not a crumb, not a molecule, not an atom. It is pure invention and no other. Now, is some of it beneficial, in some applications? Sure. So is impartial justice and law and order based on some constructive systematics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Bill

    No, natural law is by no means a basis of Catholic morality. Inasmuch as such a declaration is apostasy, I’m guessing you’re another ignorant jackass braying about concepts about which you know nothing.
     
    Your ignorance and stupidity are wonders to behold. Voluntarism, which is what you seem to be incoherently trying to invoke, is mostly a Protty thing, though even they seem to be backing away from it in recent years. I'm not saying Protties came up with Voluntarism, but they attached themselves to it.

    I reiterate, you pompous jackass: Natural law is not the basis of Catholic morality.

    Is NOT.

    The rest of your tripe you may feel free to self-insert, sideways.

    Read More
    • LOL: Bill
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. abj_slant says:
    @Mike Zwick

    Said Podesta, “Do you think it’s weird that of the 15 finalists in the Miss America, 10 came from the 11 states of the CSA?”

    The CSA would be the Confederate States of America.

    “Not at all,” says Tanden, “I would imagine the only people who watch it are from the confederacy and by now they know that so they’ve rigged the thing in their honor.”
     
    Umm, the Civil War ended over 150 years ago!

    The flag is still popular.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. abj_slant says:
    @Wyrd
    you call me an atheist, then write that i hate god and believe in satan.

    You do hate God, along with grammar. Atheists don't believe there is no God. They just hate Him, and prefer to emulate rebellious Satan. Since He didn't give you your preferred Easter Egg basket as a child, you lot pretend He doesn't exist. I see it time and time again. "Bwaaa! Life isn't the way I think it should be! Therefore, God doesn't exist!" "Guwaaa! Muh feelz are hurt! Therefore, God is a superstition!"

    Sad and predictable. But I'm sure you're charging out of the gate to provide some silly analogy of a tea-pot orbiting Pluto to "prove" your point.

    Atheists don’t believe there is no God.

    I was born and raised without religion; I am always astounded at those who are unable (or maybe unwilling?) to comprehend that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I was born and raised without religion; I am always astounded at those who are unable (or maybe unwilling?) to comprehend that.
     
    I assume your astonishment has waned with age and experience?

    The mind of a child can be permanently molded to accept a world-view that does not rely upon verifiable facts and observations. Very, very few religionists are able to throw off that yoke of early-childhood conditioning. As a result, very, very few of them are worth wasting time on. The closed mind rarely opens.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @abj_slant

    Atheists don’t believe there is no God.
     
    I was born and raised without religion; I am always astounded at those who are unable (or maybe unwilling?) to comprehend that.

    I was born and raised without religion; I am always astounded at those who are unable (or maybe unwilling?) to comprehend that.

    I assume your astonishment has waned with age and experience?

    The mind of a child can be permanently molded to accept a world-view that does not rely upon verifiable facts and observations. Very, very few religionists are able to throw off that yoke of early-childhood conditioning. As a result, very, very few of them are worth wasting time on. The closed mind rarely opens.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. abj_slant says:

    I assume your astonishment has waned with age and experience?

    Dum spiro, spero

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. i love it catholics crying bigotry.no one on this planet is more bigoted than jews and catholics ,both say their religion is the only one.and it used to be if like the jew you were not a jew,you were not catholic you may not get permission to marry a catholic.and i was in several wedding were they compromised and the wedding did not take place at the alter but behind the kneeling rail. i stood for that wedding which allowed me not to genuflect or kneel .i stood there like a dunce . there has always been anti catholic movements/ sentiment etc.britain was a prime example.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. @Mike Zwick

    Said Podesta, “Do you think it’s weird that of the 15 finalists in the Miss America, 10 came from the 11 states of the CSA?”

    The CSA would be the Confederate States of America.

    “Not at all,” says Tanden, “I would imagine the only people who watch it are from the confederacy and by now they know that so they’ve rigged the thing in their honor.”
     
    Umm, the Civil War ended over 150 years ago!

    This author has correctly nailed the culpability of Hillary Clinton and her ilk. Unless and until the slaughter of innocents ends with confession or guilt the US is headed for disaster. The US is a despicable war-monger who will certainly pay for their crimes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?