The Tea Party Can smell of elderberries A Johnsonville brat

[kujo]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1343195260' post='2458687']
A Jewish man at that.

And I thought Representative King was already doing the anti-Islamic McCarthyism thing?
[/quote]

Don't attack Harris' lack of originality.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1343195151' post='2458685']
"floopy bombs". The fiddler makes me laugh.
[/quote]

I actually typed floopy bombs myself. The fiddler can't take credit this time.

[Amory]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1343193834' post='2458670']
Your reaction here shows just how hypocritical [u][i][b]some[/b][/i][/u] Catholics are on the issues of religious liberty. When the mandate was passed you were, as I recall, amongst those announcing that Nero was again ascendant. But an actual religious witchhunt takes place and you don't give two floopies. Why? because you don't really give a floopy about religious liberty. You care about your religion getting special treatment.
[/quote]

Of course one is going to be more concerned with his own--and his co-religionists'--freedom to practice the religion he believes to be true than one is with a religion he has no special ties to and that he considers false.

Personally, I only support the free exercise of religion espoused by the First Amendment because it ensures the freedom of the Church. If the Church's freedom could be secured without a strong freedom of religion as seen in the United States, I'd be inclined to push for government restrictions of non-Catholic religious practice.

[BG45]

I wish I could prop you Kujo lol.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1343195356' post='2458689']
I actually typed floopy bombs myself. The fiddler can't take credit this time.
[/quote]

Okay, in that case, to do my best Oprah... "and you get a prop!"

Edited July 25, 2012 by BG45

[Marie-Therese]

Kujo, you win my favourite of the day award, for this sentence:

[quote] Far as I can tell, there's, like, a minimum standard of rhetorical flourishes regarding a desire to wrap one's naked body in the loving embrace of an amalgam of the U.S. Constitution and George Washington's wig, and some ill-formed idea of federalism and subsidiarity. [/quote]

That, sir, wins you the internets for today. A sentence so lovely it brought a wee tear to my eye.

[4588686]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1343195016' post='2458684']
Hey, you don't need to convince[font=arial][size=2][color=#000000] [/color][/size][/font]me that Bachmann is a pile of croutons. Afterall, I did create this video:


[/quote]


I think you recorded the wrong Bachmann. But glad to see that Marcus is enjoying fleet week.

[Amory]

By the way, I don't support the (ridiculous) singling-out of a particular woman who, as far as I can tell, does not in any way lack in loyalty to her country.

[kujo]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1343195456' post='2458692']
Kujo, you win my favourite of the day award, for this sentence:

That, sir, wins you the internets for today. A sentence so lovely it brought a wee tear to my eye.
[/quote]

Bless your heart <3

[4588686]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1343195553' post='2458694']
By the way, I don't support the (ridiculous) singling-out of a particular woman who, as far as I can tell, does not in any way lack in loyalty to her country.
[/quote]

Yeah. I know. And I highlighted some because I know that most Catholics are decent people. But I do find it frustrating that amongst the strongest opponents of the mandate as an affront to religious freedom are Catholics who will support this overtly or by simply not objecting to it.

[kujo]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1343195553' post='2458694']
By the way, I don't support the (ridiculous) singling-out of a particular woman who, as far as I can tell, does not in any way lack in loyalty to her country.
[/quote]

No, you just support the ability to restrict that particular woman's ability to exercise her religious beliefs.

...as per your previous post.

[Amory]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1343195732' post='2458696']
Yeah. I know. And I highlighted some because I know that most Catholics are decent people. But I do find it frustrating that amongst the strongest opponents of the mandate as an affront to religious freedom are Catholics who will support this overtly or by simply not objecting to it.
[/quote]

The mandate is, I'd say, an affront to (or at least a violation of) the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment. I don't expect non-Catholics to care about the freedom of the Church [i]qua[/i] the freedom of the Church. The only way I (and other Catholics like me) can convince other Americans to support our cause--and, just as importantly, persuade the judiciary to rule in favor of our cause--is to appeal to the United States' Constitution.

Technically, we could also appeal to some vaguely defined, ill thought out, and apparently "self-evident" natural right to religious freedom, but--at least for me--that would be intellectually dishonest as I don't accept the existence of Lockean natural rights. I do, however, think that the Constitution of the United States has established a generally good government, and few of my compatriots would disagree.

[Amory]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1343195740' post='2458697']
No, you just support the ability to restrict that particular woman's ability to exercise her religious beliefs.

...as per your previous post.
[/quote]

Assuming that the Catholic Church's beliefs are true (in the same sense that the Church understands that its beliefs are true), it would make sense in certain circumstances to limit the influence of religions that would corrupt society with their false beliefs.

One would probably also need to accept that governments exist to further the common good rather than to protect that notion of natural rights which I criticized above.

[kujo]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1343196529' post='2458702']
Assuming that the Catholic Church's beliefs are true (in the same sense that the Church understands that its beliefs are true), it would make sense in certain circumstances to limit the influence of religions that would corrupt society with their false beliefs.

One would probably also need to accept that governments exist to further the common good rather than to protect that notion of natural rights which I criticized above.
[/quote]

The government, in your scenario, would simply be a regionalized bureaucratic-wing of the Catholic Church.

And call me crazy, but I'm far more concerned about the corrosive effect of human selfishness and greed than I am about what religious plurality could do to society.

[Amory]

Well, I do think it's a bit crazy to be more concerned with any temporal problem than with eternal salvation, which (of course) comes through the Church.

And I'd agree that selfishness is a problem, but the most corrosive examples of it in society today are ideologies that would place one's own convenience over the procreation of children and one's own emotions over the stable upbringing thereof.

[Amory]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1343196752' post='2458703']
The government, in your scenario, would simply be a regionalized bureaucratic-wing of the Catholic Church.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. In most historic Catholic confessional states, the Church and the State were separated--in the sense that each operated in its own sphere even while usually co-operating, though of course nothing like the Enlightenment conception of separation of Church and State existed.

If anything, the danger was that the Church in a particular country would become a regionalized bureaucratic-wing of the State, as occurred in the Byzantine Empire and in 17th century France.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Amory