The Democratic Party is Evil.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 16 2004, 03:02 AM'] I look at the fact. I judge the facts and I stand by the facts.
[/quote]
No you don't.

You refused to go to the links that I provided, you have numerous misconceptions...

You do not look at facts, you state your opion, you ignore all others.

Kid, you don't know half of what your talking about.

Go to the links and read then and only then will you have intelligently prepared to debate us on what we believe and why...

You first have to know what we believe and why to attack it.

You're providing some great entertainment, but at the cost of making yourself look like a fool.


Explain to me how not listening to what someone else has to say about something is looking at the facts?

There are facts that you don't know about... you would be smart to look for them, and a fool not to.



Get educated. This doesn't mean get schooling... this means study all sides of the topic before trying to argue it. Don't be a donkey.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited November 16, 2004 by ironmonk

[Azriel]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Nov 16 2004, 09:03 AM']
I was thinking the same thing... [/quote]
So was I ... just bit my tongue.

Hard.

[vianney]

And even if he was a celibate he would have a hard time because 60% of a priest's ministry is to women.

[SirMyztiq]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Nov 16 2004, 02:49 AM'] Actually, you've stood by your own opinions.  You've offered nothing more than "because I say so" to support your position.

Here's a fact for you: embyonic stem cell research kills little human beings. 


Boy, if this isn't an echo of both the Nazi and Communist humanist philosophies, I don't know what is.  Too funny...  Maybe one day, when you're learning history, you should read up on the "bad guys" and see what reasoning they use to defend their positions.  Invariably, they are looking to sever ties with the past and build a utopia for the future.

While you're researching the history of Nazi scientists, you'll find it interesting that during their trials, they didn't really see what they had done as "wrong," and showed little or no remorse when face-to-face with their victims.  It's too bad that the victims of embryonic experimentation won't be able to confront the scientists who killed them.


Please support with examples.  Emotional appeals like "one fact remains strong" doesn't work here without proof.  Quote me if the fact is so strong.  I'm not afraid of what I've written on this thread.

Interestingly, the abolishionist movement, the outcry against Nazi attrocities, and other moral battles would have not been won (or even fought) without Christians leading the fight.  Christians also have a goal to make the world a better place.  The difference between the Christian and "progressive scientist"--as others have mentioned--is that the ends cannot justify an immoral means in Christianity.

As things stand, though, I don't recall ever bringing up my religious beliefs with you in this thread.  The fact that an embryo is a living human is established by science.  It's the lawyers that choose to define which humans have rights and which don't.

BTW, here's some links from biased sources (LOL):

[url="http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/06_16_98/story06.htm"]http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/06_16_98/story06.htm[/url]
[url="http://johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/cloningdearc.doc"]http://johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/cloningdearc.doc[/url]

Enjoy. [/quote]
You standpoint from what I get:

SCR is bad because it "Kills humans" It hasn't had any results. And you like comparing it to the Nazi human experimentation.

SCR is not taking a 45 year old man and dunking him in liquid nitrogen to see what would happen. This is not an opinion. I don't just present my opinions. This is what the supporters and the ones who promote it are emphacizing. Not what some nutjobs considered years ago.

SC are BLANK cells. The only reason that I see you people oppose it is because you consider it "killing babies" to which we all know we must shape our lives around. It's not the case.

[color=red][Edited by Kilroy the Ninja: No need for profanity, even veiled profanity.][/color] Making my self look like a fool? I'm sorry but all I've heard from you is nothing but the same old tired Christian point of view backed up by some more christian point of view.

Without the links and all the other junk.

Why are you against SCR?

Edited November 17, 2004 by Kilroy the Ninja

[Mateo el Feo]

Mystiq,

Stem cells are not human beings. Embryonic stem cells are extracted from embryos that are destroyed (aka killed).

The embryos are human beings.

[quote]SCR is not taking a 45 year old man and dunking him in liquid nitrogen to see what would happen.[/quote]

Destroying a human being is a pretty violent act in my book, no matter what the size. The embryonic killers/scientists have more interest in embryos than just cell-harvesting--their experiments can get even wilder than the Nazi experiments. For example, these men are doing some extremely sick stuff with cloning research, where human DNA is spliced with animal or plant DNA, a hybrid being is created, and then killed. If such bizarre acts are immoral (i.e. creating/destroying embryos for these DNA experiments), then embryonic stem cell research is no more or less immoral. This is because the immoral act is the destruction of the human being, regardless of the methods or goals of the scientist.

If, in your world, destroying a human embryo is ethical for embryonic stem-cell research; then I find it doubtful that you'd be able to put up an ethical argument against the most perverse human cloning experiments.

Maybe you've been taught to believe that dunking a man in a cold tub of water is immoral. Maybe you believe that it is moral to perform scientific experiments like splicing fruitfly DNA into a human embryo and watching the result grow, because the results may help people one day in the future.

And please don't try to argue a difference between embryos killed by cloning vs. embryos killed by cell-harvesting.

Iron Monk gave you some good advice: weighing the facts cannot happen if you continue to close your mind to the input of anyone who disagrees with you. I hope you take his advice.

Also, if you want everybody to treat you with more respect, you'd do well to treat others with respect. Personally, I'm not waiting for you to turn off your condescending attitude. I'll treat you with the respect that I think you deserve. But, it would be helpful if you would lose the "I know everything" attitude, not to mention the "religious people are beneath me" attitude.

Mateo

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='vianney' date='Nov 16 2004, 11:12 AM'] And even if he was a celibate he would have a hard time because 60% of a priest's ministry is to women. [/quote]
Well good, because I won't have to worry about any women in a Monastery... but then again, I am considering both the monastic and Priestly vocations.

In any event, if you think I care what your opinion is of me, then think again. Three women get "offended" that I said they shouldn't and don't have a right to vote... big deal. Of course you will think that, just like if I say: protestantism is a heresy for which a person is condemned to Hell, as he is outside the Church, a prot will say: that's not true, you'll never get along with protestants... well, of course he will say that. That doesn't change whether or not my statement is true, and the fact that I won't get along with most prots doesn't change whether or not my statement is true. The fact that 99% of women (even Catholics) are feminists doesn't mean that it is any less true that women don't have the right to vote.

[Azriel]

I'm not offended, and you never answered my question.

Tell me why women "especially" in your words don't have the right to vote.

And I hate to say it, because I don't usually throw up the age factor - but you have not lived long enough to know everything - so don't presume that you do. Cmom, homeschoolmom and I all have life experience that you don't have - so before you start ripping on us, maybe you should show us a bit of respect for being the women that are raising children in the Church.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Azriel' date='Nov 17 2004, 10:57 AM'] I'm not offended, and you never answered my question.

Tell me why women "especially" in your words don't have the right to vote. [/quote]
I think it should be the other way around. What Church teaching says women (or anyone for that matter) has a RIGHT to vote? America is an unjust country in the first place. No one has a right to overthrow a government when he sees fit. That is what the masonic Americanists who founded this coutry did. The Church has taught that one must be obedient to legitimate secular authorities. Those who founded this country did not do that. They had no right to make their own country and wage an UNJUST war. You are basing what you believe on this country's standards, which have been non-Catholic (even anti-Catholic) from the very beginning. If women have some sort of "right" to vote, then I guess all the Catholics et al. who were not giving them that "right" before 1919 were committing some sort of sin.

The idea that a person has a right to vote is based around the anti-Catholic democratic principles. A democracy is not a Catholic government because by definition it is the rule of the people as they see fit. Once 51% of them believing something, it magically becomes "right". That is not how the Church nor a Catholic State would function, which is why there were no Catholic democracies/Republics in Christendom...



[quote]And I hate to say it, because I don't usually throw up the age factor - but you have not lived long enough to know everything - so don't presume that you do.  Cmom, homeschoolmom and I all have life experience that you don't have - so before you start ripping on us, maybe you should show us a bit of respect for being the women that are raising children in the Church.[/quote]

Clearly an anti-intellectual argument. That's like saying: a person who is 14 has never driven a car; therefore, he can't possibly know that driving drunk causes accidents or that teenage drivers often speed and are unsafe ...

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 17 2004, 02:36 AM'] Well good, because I won't have to worry about any women in a Monastery... but then again, I am considering both the monastic and Priestly vocations.

In any event, if you think I care what your opinion is of me, then think again. Three women get "offended" that I said they shouldn't and don't have a right to vote... big deal. Of course you will think that, just like if I say: protestantism is a heresy for which a person is condemned to Hell, as he is outside the Church, a prot will say: that's not true, you'll never get along with protestants... well, of course he will say that. That doesn't change whether or not my statement is true, and the fact that I won't get along with most prots doesn't change whether or not my statement is true. The fact that 99% of women (even Catholics) are feminists doesn't mean that it is any less true that women don't have the right to vote. [/quote]
I am not offended either, I just considered the source and laughed.

Have you explained to your mother she hasn't the right to vote?

[Azriel]

That wasn't an argument. That was a comment on your lack of respect in your manner and demeanor, especially when addressing the women on this thread. I'm not at all saying that you aren't intelligent, nor able to speak intellectually. What I'm saying is that in your demeanor and manner you show a lack of respect for the knowledge that we have gained through years of living, and experience. You can know lots of stuff, and not know anything at all.

Thank you for answering my question - but you didn't answer it completely. You do not address the fact that we do not in fact live in a Catholic state. We live in America. We've had lots of discussion on our obligation to vote for the best Catholic choice, in order to combat the Culture of Death.

We are living here and now, and are obliged to be obedient to our secular government. You've established that our government is unjust and that no one has the right to vote. Ok, that doesn't answer my question still - you said that women "especially" do not have the right to vote. Why do women "especially" not have the right to vote, when according to your argument men do not have the right either.

Why?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]We are living here and now, and are obliged to be obedient to our secular government. You've established that our government is unjust...[/quote]


If you acknoledge that the state is unjust, then one cannot be obliged to obey it, being unjust is evil, evil can have no authority, so our state can have no authority, thus you cannot be oblidged to obey an authority that does not exist, our State unjust or not can and does have power and will punish you if you refuse to obey it but one cannot be morally obliged to obey something which lacks Authority. One is coherced by fear of punishment to obey those with Power but one is not morally obliged to.

[Azriel]

I picked the wrong words and I understand your assessment, Don. The focus of my question to CC is not whether or not the government is just or unjust, or even really that we are obliged to follow it. What is at the heart of my question is more to the role of men and women in our world.

CC has established (in his argument) that the government is unjust - I don't necessarily subscribe to this. That is part of his argument.

I want to know why that "Especially" women do not have the right to vote.

Ok - so according to CC's argument neither gender has the RIGHT to vote. But why the descriptor? Why do women have less of a right then men, as according to his words neither gender has the right to vote.

But yet we have had topic after topic of why would we should vote ... so clear this up for the woman here - why do women have LESS of a right then men, when neither gender, according to CC's argument have the right

[cmotherofpirl]

All the state is unjust or only parts of it? Is the part that provides government food for the hungry unjust or the welfare part unjust or flood relief? Is the local government wrong for providing police and fire protection?

I do recall something in the NT about obeying rulers...

[popestpiusx]

One reason, at least within the political system here, is that a vote, when the country was founded, represented the household of a property owner. There was no concept (and with good reason) that every single citizen had a "RIGHT" to vote. Despite popular opinion, this country was not founded as a democracy.

[amarkich]

I have not really been following this thread, but I subscribe to the statement "No one has the right to vote, and women especially do not have the right to vote" (among other beliefs), so I feel that I am able to answer in some regard concerning the reasons that women especially do not have the right to vote. The basic reasoning is two-fold. First, the Tradition of the Church that women are subject to male authority. Second, the explicit teaching of the Bible on the matter. The Tradition of the Church speaks for itself with women never being permitted to have positions of authority over a man, whether secular or ecclesiastical. The man is always the head of the house and a man is the (human) head of the Church. This understanding is derived from the natural law as well as Divine Revelation. One of the sources of this Divine Revelation is the Bible. There are severl pertinent sections concerning women, some dealing with ecclesiastical authority, others with secular authority, and some others with both. The verses are . They are I Corinthians xi (the whole first half, verses 1-16); I Corinthians xiv.33-35; Ephesians v.22,24; Colossians iii.18; I St. Peter iii.1,5; I St. Timothy ii.9-15. I must go now to attend to academic concerns, but I will check back and provide more information (hopefully from the Fathers, Doctors, etc) for the cause that women are subject. If it is necessary, I will explain how voting initiates an act that is of authority, not of subjection (but I would hope that this is sufficiently obvious).