18 Comments

• 1. congressive  |  May 10th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

  Deleted - off topic.

• 2. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J.  |  May 10th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

  Too many things to cover in this post but you do offer a juicy topic Mr. Noonan. And since my kind can rarely refuse to bite a juicy fruit here goes.

  If the Archbishop of Kansas wants abortion to be illegal in his state then he should run for governor and have one priest or bishop in each congressional district run for each available seat on a platform of making abortion illegal. If the people want their elected leaders to make abortion illegal then they will vote for those running under the Archbishop’s platform if not then the issue would appear to be settled. Majority rule seems to satisfy on most things as it applies to plebiscites.

  And as far as the taking of communion goes I think Governor Sebelius knows how I feel about a church that doesn’t want you as a member. This all goes back to why the founding fathers did not erect the Church of England as their “state religion” despite many wanting it to be so. Once the organization of religion for a political purpose exists the people begin to suffer the loss of their civil rights. So it is so it has always been. Or as Pain says, “Faith saves empires; religion whelps corrupt kings.”

• 3. Canadian Observer  |  May 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  Once the organization of religion for a political purpose exists the people begin to suffer the loss of their civil rights.

  2. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. May 10th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

  Is there anyone who can argue the truth of that statement?

• 4. Mark Noonan  |  May 10th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  Cavlor,

  Actually, you owe your civil liberties to the Roman Catholic Church…in fact, the very concept of you having an individuality worthy of respect is a Christian concept. Funny how some people want what the Church provides, but don’t want to pay the required price to get it and keep it…

  At any rate, the issue here is important in a political sense - and thus blogged - because the dividing line is being drawn, and it will become ever harder for Catholic politicians to straddle leftism and Catholicism - a choice will have to be made.

• 5. 42  |  May 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

  “2) in the future would use her exceptional leadership abilities to develop public policies extending the maximum legal protection possible to the unborn children of Kansas.”

  -wouldn’t that mean mandatory prenatal care the moment of conception? so, Dr. in the bedroom or can you only have sex in a hospital?

  -Woman where I work miscarried after 6 weeks, didn’t even know she was pregnant…miscarried due to a medication she was on….Will you join me Noonan…we’re fighting to bring her up on manslaughter charges, she’s a murderous pig!

  “the very concept of you having an individuality worthy of respect is a Christian concept”
  Nice try, but being a sheep in a flock leaves out individuality, name ONE aspect of Christianity that address individuality in a positive way

• 6. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J.  |  May 10th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

  Not that it applies to me but I was under the impression that the Magna Carta was not very well received by the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that was Innocent III who rejected the 1215 Great Charter.

  And here is the great metaphysical fjord of which we stand on opposite sides. You with your Faith which I respect and I with the Rights of the Sentient with which I am sure you respect. The bridge is often very shaky between the two, but somehow I feel that it is a great breach of the people’s trust in a heterogeneous society to stand on one’s religion and apply that standard to matter of the State. In such a bright light I am sure that politicians will find themselves more and more often making the logical secular choice more often than not.

  This would make a fantastic question for debate in doctoral level law classes, philosophy, theology or even political science.

• 7. Jeremiah  |  May 10th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

  ‘Of law there can be no less acknowledged that that her seat is the bosom of God, her voice the harmony of the world. All things in heaven and earth do her homage; the very least feel her care, and the greatest are not exempt from her power. Both angels and men, and creatures of what condition soever, though each in a different sort and name, yet all with one uniform consent admire her as the mother of their peace and joy.’

  Regarding Sabbath schools - ‘When we consider these schools as the nurseries of society, we cannot too highly appreciate them. The children are taken as tender plants; ever noxious branch is cut off, and the ground is prepared as to impart the utmost vigor and healthfulness. Under such care, the fruit must be good. The mind and the heart of a child may be as certainly formed for good works by moral training as the plant may be improved by careful culture.’

  ‘Who can estimate the influence on society of five millions of children thus educated?’

  REPENT AMERICA! TURN BACK TO THE GOD OF OUR FORE-FATHERS!! DON’T TURN BACK NOW, VOTE THE WAY GOD WOULD HAVE YOU!!!

• 8. 42  |  May 10th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

  Jeremiah = troll

  could you stay on topic and stop shouting?

• 9. Canadian Observer  |  May 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

  it will become ever harder for Catholic politicians to straddle leftism and Catholicism - a choice will have to be made.

  4. Mark Noonan | May 10th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  To become a Catholic, must I now forsake my liberal views, beg forgiveness and convert to neoconservatism?

  How can you be sure, Mark, that there isn’t a closet liberal sitting beside you during Mass or has the Catholic Church now instigated a weeding out process to get rid of any and all loathsome liberals?

  I don’t know, Mark, perhaps you are right and it is impossible to be a liberal and Catholic at the same time. Are there any practicing Catholics out there who are still allowed to maintain their liberal principles?

• 10. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J.  |  May 10th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

  7. Jeremiah | May 10th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

  I am nearly rendered speechless that in modern America someone would make a point for Theocracy by quoting a 16th Century cleric, Richard Hooker and a 19th Century bombast in the form of BF Morris. And you wonder why the majority does not hold the same views as you? The jinni ser is out of the bottle and the bottle is smashed!

• 11. Jeremiah  |  May 10th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  The jinni ser is out of the bottle and the bottle is smashed!

  Yep! And right over your head!!

  HAHAHA!

• 12. Jeremiah  |  May 10th, 2008 at 6:52 pm

  42,

  Do you have have something worth saying? If not, then don’t say anything at all and shut up.

• 13. 42  |  May 10th, 2008 at 6:55 pm

  “Do you have have something worth saying? If not, then don’t say anything at all and shut up.”

  I did say something, it’s post 5, care to respond…do I still have to “shut up”?

• 14. bongoman  |  May 11th, 2008 at 1:18 am

  Ignore Jeremiah.

  Despite all his talk about ‘freedom’, he actually wants a Christian theocracy established in the United States.

• 15. Mark Noonan  |  May 11th, 2008 at 1:55 am

  CO,

  Liberalism - as a set of political ideologies - and Catholicism are in fundamental conflict, and always have been, and always will be. Mankind is not perfectable, and only Our Lord can save us and bring us to the Kingdom of God - we can’t do it, ourselves, here on earth.

  But that, of course, is the conflict between liberalism and Catholicism - which liberalism many Catholics subscribe to out of a lack of understanding of what it is they’re doing. Here, particularly, we are concerned with abortion, and a person who claims to be a Catholic in good standing while working directly in favor of something considered immoral by our Church. Its not like the Archbishop is demanding that the governor go to a pro-life rally and devote all her political efforts to banning abortion - no, the Archbishop just wants her to understand that to work in favor of abortion places her immortal soul at great risk, and the Church cannot remain forever silent on her actions, lest other Cathollics be tempted to follow her.

  Your views - if you wish to be Christian - must conform to Christianity. There’s no way to make Christianity conform to you. If there’s a conflict, then you have got it wrong, not the Church (in the sense, of course, that God is head of the Church - not in the sense that you and a particular priest might have a disagreement and you’ll have to agree with the priest no matter what). You can be as liberal as you want, but you much conform to Christianity if you wish to remain Christian…and as you conform, you’ll find that a whole host of liberal ideas will have to be discarded to the point where, on balance, you are no longer considered liberal.

• 16. congressive  |  May 11th, 2008 at 5:33 am

  Catholicism, and in fact, all religions divide, they do not unite us. Simply accepting the Lord Jesus as your personal savior is good enough for God, but not good enough for Catholics. Somehow they have a higher standard than God.

  There is no “conform to Christianity” scripture. There is only the litmus test of accepting Jesus. That’s it. That’s all. That Jesus character, one of the most LIBERAL characters in all of history.

  Religions are all hocus pocus, and if all churches finally kicked out all unacceptable sinners, they would be empty on Sunday morning, and the world would be a better place. Religions would be history. What a wonderful world that would be.

• 17. Canadian Observer  |  May 11th, 2008 at 8:52 am

  That Jesus character, one of the most LIBERAL characters in all of history.

  16. congressive | May 11th, 2008 at 5:33 am

  Yes, that’s what has me totally baffled. How has it happened that a religion in His name has become so far removed from His example?

• 18. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J.  |  May 11th, 2008 at 8:57 am

  Well CO you have to look at it in terms of power over great masses of people, the accumulation of physical property and wealth and the ability to be the sole arbiter of mysterious gifts would of course corrupt most institutions. There is such a thing as having too much power especially when you are the last court of appeal so to speak. This just proves you can take any messenger and skew the message to suit your own goals.

Matt Margolis on Twitter