Daschle and company can no longer claim to be "pro-choice" Catholics

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Remove the Catholic Label



Seems the Democratic Party might have finally twisted itself into a loop regarding the reasoning trying to keep everyone from gay rights activists to pro-life Catholics in the same party. (I am not saying that either group is wrong per se, just that it is hard to believe one party can meet all their very divergent needs)



Could this have an effect on the next election? Could it send groups like Latinos and others into the Republican fold?



Nick
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    "Daschle, in turn, rose on the floor of the Senate in Washington to denounce his own bishop back in South Dakota..."



    Sounds more like political bickering than anything else. The Pope spoke out pretty severly against GW because of the war but I doubt anyone cares.
  • Reply 2 of 33
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    I think it will be good to remove all religions labels from politicians. Politicians have the right to take inspiration in their religions, but should not be a spokesman of any religious group : this is the job of the clerics.
  • Reply 3 of 33
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    [B]I think it will be good to remove all religions labels from politicians. Politicians have the right to take inspiration in their religions, but should not be a spokesman of any religious group : this is the job of the clerics.



    Too right. We all know what happens by default when big religion and government share the same bed. It is always a messy deal...the record speaks for itself, the world over, through all the ages.
  • Reply 4 of 33
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Well, shit. Time to excommunicate every politician who's ever used a condom, I suppose.



    Your politics does not define your religion. And the Bishop certainly has no moral right to question a person's faith (and the status of their soul) because that person believes the world is more nuanced than the offical Catholic Church can admit. If the Church disavowed themselves of anyone who's ever:

    - had sex outside marriage

    - used any form of birth control

    - supported abortion, euthenasia, or the death penalty

    - supported rights for gays (or is gay)

    ...there would be about five Catholics left in the US. And none of them would be wearing robes.
  • Reply 5 of 33
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Towel

    Well, shit. Time to excommunicate every politician who's ever used a condom, I suppose.



    Your politics does not define your religion. And the Bishop certainly has no moral right to question a person's faith (and the status of their soul) because that person believes the world is more nuanced than the offical Catholic Church can admit. If the Church disavowed themselves of anyone who's ever:

    - had sex outside marriage

    - used any form of birth control

    - supported abortion, euthenasia, or the death penalty

    - supported rights for gays (or is gay)

    ...there would be about five Catholics left in the US. And none of them would be wearing robes.




    `



    It's not about questioning someone faith, but about "official" religious label, something where churchs have certainly some rights. Imagine that an Apple evangelist, claim that the P4 beat a G4, Jobs certainly will fire him. Now as a mac fan, i have the right to said it, but i have not any "official" or moral contract with him.



    However you are right to point out , that world is more nuanced than the official catholic church (or to many others churchs) that's why i think it's bad for a politician to have an official religious label. Dogma are for the clerics, politicians have the obligation to be more pragmatic, and to deal with real life.
  • Reply 6 of 33
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Powerdoc is right.



    By definition, you have to identify with an organization's rules if you want to be a member. If you don't like it, start your own religion---it worked for Mohammed and Joseph Smith---who knows---you might get lucky.
  • Reply 7 of 33
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    To what extent do the bureaucrats (for lack of a better word) in a religion have the ability to say who is or is not a true member of the religion? This seems to be a recurring issue among Catholics and Jews, but I've never heard of it being an issue among Protestants.
  • Reply 8 of 33
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Because protestants just invent a new branch and become part of that. More flavors, nobody gets left out.
  • Reply 9 of 33
    enaena Posts: 667member
    That's also right. Catholic metaphysics is much more corporate than Protestant's.
  • Reply 10 of 33
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena



    By definition, you have to identify with an organization's rules if you want to be a member.




    How would this hold for Bush's support of the Death Penalty?
  • Reply 11 of 33
    Nice one, trumptman.







    How political can that South Dakota archdiocese get?
  • Reply 12 of 33
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    That's also right. Catholic metaphysics is much more corporate than Protestant's.



    That depends on your sense of corporate, and then it wouldn't be metaphysics in question. But, not to deflat the humorous tone too much, if you you mean to imply finances through the term corporate, well, if you wanna make money guilt free, then you ought to be a presbyterian or a methodist. Haha... Money is still evil in Catholicism, if the working people have any.
  • Reply 13 of 33
    enaena Posts: 667member
    No, not at all, theologically Protestants go about their faith in ways that a Catholic wouldn't dare (absolution, the priesthood, all that.)
  • Reply 14 of 33
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I don't get it, which is why I latched on to the financial residue of the word corporate.



    Is the protestant association or unification into a body with rights and responsibilities really different from the catholic so much so that you could call Catholics more corporate? Only if you treat all protestants as a group and then say they make space for individuals through a process of choice, but within themselves each branch is no less corporate.



    Each has advantages and disadvantages, like one big corporation and many small ones. So I guess I get it, but I don't think it' that meaningful, money is often more interesting.
  • Reply 15 of 33
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    How would this hold for Bush's support of the Death Penalty?



    I would say that it would likely be explained like this. SBC link



    I don't know for sure that Bush is a Southern Baptist, but I would guess that any group he belonged to wouldn't be far from their teachings.



    Nick
  • Reply 16 of 33
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Bush is a Methodist.
  • Reply 17 of 33
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    To what extent do the bureaucrats (for lack of a better word) in a religion have the ability to say who is or is not a true member of the religion? This seems to be a recurring issue among Catholics and Jews, but I've never heard of it being an issue among Protestants.



    I would say it is because Catholicism is much more defined with regard to actual actions you must undertake to be in good standing. Most protestant groups, for better or for worse, don't really enforce their ethics except in extreme cases. Out here in California there was a big uproar regarding a pastor named Dave Moore. He is a very talented speaker and also very contemporary in many ways. He got into some trouble (look it up if you care to find out more) and half the church still wanted him back.



    One of my pastors at my church has actually been through a divorce and is still a marriage counselor. (He wasn't even a pastor when divorced though) This definately couldn't happen in the Catholic church.



    Nick
  • Reply 18 of 33
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Bush is a Methodist.



    Well I suppose if they call him and tell him he can't call himself that, he will just have to become a Southern Baptist.



    I still don't see what any of this has to do with Daschel and the Catholic church though. If religions want to insure the politicians claiming membership strictly follow church beliefs, it is fine by me. Claiming other politicians don't strictly follow the beliefs of their church is fine by me.



    The questions I asked specifically was how do you think this might pan out for the Democratic party eventually. They see any religion that is fairly strict as "Religious Right." This bishop was just the first official in America to enforce a new policy from Rome. The Democrats have already tossed lots of religious groups out of the party. I just wondered out loud whether they could do this with Catholics and still have any hopes of being a majority party again.



    Nick
  • Reply 19 of 33
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I would say it is because Catholicism is much more defined with regard to actual actions you must undertake to be in good standing. Most protestant groups, for better or for worse, don't really enforce their ethics except in extreme cases. Out here in California there was a big uproar regarding a pastor named Dave Moore. He is a very talented speaker and also very contemporary in many ways. He got into some trouble (look it up if you care to find out more) and half the church still wanted him back.



    One of my pastors at my church has actually been through a divorce and is still a marriage counselor. (He wasn't even a pastor when divorced though) This definately couldn't happen in the Catholic church.



    Nick




    But the truth is that MOST 1st world catholics treat the rules of their church more as arcane suggestions anyway. They love their churches and want to keep them as they are, but they also don't want to be bogged down by the rules. Italy for example is remarkably cosmopolitan and secular in the day to day social/sexual morays, but they keep their church and take pride in it, even when they don't follow the rules.



    And the Catholic church is very interesting, much more of a "religion" than the post schismatic protestant flavors, especially in America, but then it's older and it should be. For example, for every rule, there is an exception, just that it has to come from the vatican, or you have to understand the process to work around it. Priests don't marry right? Well yes, but not really, I had a priest who IS married and a Catholic who perfroms the sacrements, you just need to get permission. Anulments are similar, if you put up with the BS, you can get one in many (but not all cases) and be welcome to marry again in the church. Or if you were previously married outside the church, you can technically were never married as a catholic, well then, welcome. The politics and bureaucracy has a wonderful intricacy and richness about it -- mebbe not the reasons to like a church, but I would rather be an anthropologist than a traditionalist, I guess, or an agnostic rather than one of the devout. hehe, you can't help being born what you are, but that doesn't mean you abandone it for another set of delusions. The converted, the born again, yikes, there's a class of people with some mental trouble.
  • Reply 20 of 33
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    The converted, the born again, yikes, there's a class of people with some mental trouble. [/B]



    I thought that our diversity was our strength, and that we should be tolerant of all beliefs. How can you make an completely intolerant statement like that?
Sign In or Register to comment.