Hmm. And then vote…
the democrats are attacking the little sisters of the poor again.
how do you all justify this stuff
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro have each filed legal challenges to force the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious organizations that object to abortifacients to finance them in their worker healthcare plans.
You link two Catholic Church writings. That just proves my point that The Church is still standing behind that awful document rather than repudiating it.
And Pius IX did have Spain in the front of his mind when talking about church and state, but he did not write “Spain.” He broad-brushed it to imply “every state” and if you scan his other writings, I think it’s clear that he would think it should apply to every state. He was the pope who gave us Vatican I, which he controlled the outcome of with an iron hand. Through Vatican I, Pius IX declared the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which a lot of Catholics don’t realize is less than 200 years old. That pope liked POWER.
Hello Victorygirl, I am glad you grew up in an environment of love and care.
The results of the study are quite stark. Yes the study does rely on self reporting but because the results are so stark the only answers would appear to be because of political ideology or untruthfulness in reporting. If it was untruthfulness then this would also have to be a very marked phenomena and you would expect that other studies would have shown this trait.
What I agree with the researcher in hypothesising is that the victim mentality may cause one to justify criminal behaviour. I think Left ideology is very much wrapped up in victim culture where they believe there are certain groups (gender, race, religion et cetera) who oppress or who have oppressed other groups. This is largely a fabrication which seems to generate a manufactured morality which in the end justifies hostility and entitlement.
When I look back at all the horrors of last century, most of the groups doing terrible violence had the idea that they were the victims and they were just ‘evening up the score’ working from their own manufactured morality.
Even if you look at ISIS today, they believe they are the victims. I have grown up in such an environment and you see one set of violence as terrible and evil and another set of violence as ‘evening up the score’. Such thinking is based on a victim mentality and can lead to evil and its justification in my opinion/experience.
In my opinion such thinking is dangerous because one believes that in thinking this way one is being righteous when in fact it is very far from that.
Thanks jfz178, I will take your word for it that the pope was wanting to include other states if you have read his other writings. The problem with having a Catholic state in a pluralist society (or any other religion) is that the religion and the state act together, one justifying the other even when one acts badly. This then affects both and if there is an assumed ‘right of power’ then it can invite let’s say drastic action in opposing it.
You have obviously thought much about this issue. If we are forgiven for going off topic, can I ask your views on the best way forward for the church today with it’s place in society and in relationship to governing states.
I’m just looking for intellectual consistency. A lot of times, when people say “separation of Church of state” they don’t mean when it comes to helping the poor and definitely not Islam.
From your link, here are the first two:
- Belief in G-d
This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, “I am the L-rd, your G-d…”
- Prohibition of Improper Worship
This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, “You shall not have other gods…” It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.
Nonetheless, Jews regard
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
As their COMMANDMENT #1.
I once asked this question 10 + years ago in a Jewish forum about their first commandment. I got hammered. Everyone steadfastly stated it is a COMMANDMENT
Judaism, unlike Catholicism and Protestantism, considers “I am the L-rd, your G-d” to be the first “commandment.”
You claim from here to the end of days, it is just a declaration, but it will not negate how the Jews regard it.
Jews and the First Commandment
For Jews, the second verse is the first commandment: I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. That doesn’t sound like much of a command, but in the context of Jewish tradition, it is one. It is both a statement of existence and a statement of action: is saying that he exists, that he is the god of the Hebrews, and that because of him they have escaped slavery in Egypt.
In a sense, the authority of God is being rooted in the fact that he has helped them in the past — they owe him in a big way and he intends to see that they don’t forget it. God defeated their former master, a pharaoh who was regarded as a living god among the Egyptians. The Hebrews should acknowledge their indebtedness to God and accept the covenant he would make with them. The first several commandments are, then, naturally concerned with God’s honor, God’s position in Hebrew beliefs, and God’s expectations as to how they will relate to him.
Many of the Jewish sages taught that the greatest of all the mitzvot (commandments) is the very first commandment, “I am the LORD your God” (Ex. 20:2a). Why is that? Well, until we are really willing to accept Adonai as our God, the rest of the commandments are not likely to be obeyed. The God of Israel is calling us to obey the glorious truth that He is our God. Are we willing to obey?
It does not negate the Jews belief that it is “COMMANDMENT #1”.
I asked that question of Jews in a Jewish forum back in 2002/2003 range. I took it also as a declaration.
The Jews explicitly stated it is a COMMANDMENT.
What I find Peculiar about our Catholic rendition of the Ten Commandments is that the 9th is ripped out of the middle of the text.
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
It is one flowing set of text.
You could claim it was separated out because it appears first in
Deu 5:21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
In either case whether it is from Exodus or Deuteronomy, it is one fluid statement.
Did Jews get it all wrong from the get go?
That is silly. I referenced you, not “The Jews.” I do not understand your obsession with this. How about going back to the topic.
Are you not equally obsessed? You keep replying to it.
Thanks for your response. It would indeed seem that the possibility of deceit would go across the board.
Someone here asked if I just came here to tout my own agenda. Actually nothing could be further from the truth. I was identifying as Democrated but after reading all the posts, I am starting to see that there is a real problem with being a Democratic.
I am sorry I forget this name, but one gent here said he realized he had to go third party. I am coming to that same conclusion.
The issue is linking religious issues with political ones.
From AD711 to AD 1492 Spain was ruled by Islam.
And again from AD 1530 to AD 1780.
The political implications are HUGE and ignored in today’s society.
You’re welcome and good luck with it all.
It seems whichever party you support you will be making a positive contribution.
I don’t see that one must necessarily “go” third party. If you are only voting.
I try to consider the various outcomes according to where I am. If I were in CA, my vote would not “count,” so I would vote for whoever I preferred. However, I realized in 08, when it seemed Hillary would be running, that in a swing state I did not have that luxury. There I needed to vote R unless I was OK letting HC choose the SC Justices.
(Yes, I am bummed that that is what it came down to :()
I am registered Independent, but even if I were registered in a party, I would still be free to vote for whomever I preferred.
I could never be a Democrat, and if I were in a position to work with a party would work with the GOP, much as I am unhappy with many of their ways.
I believe I could have more of a beneficial effect with them than with the Democrats.
That’s a really awesome post!
So did this thread decide that I can keep being a Democrat given that I’m not terribly involved with the party and feel free to vote for who/ what I please, or is this one more thing I’m supposed to be going to hell for?
Oh oh. Get that oil boiling!