Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 123

Thread: Self-Composed-Questionaire

  1. #76
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Seems I hit a nerve.

    Well GiGi, I'd have to say only thing in regard to your criticism of the Catholic Church. You certainly are not one to cite bibliographical information enough and you certainly haven't given much by way of contextual support to your claims. Primary sources of what the Church teaches is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with clear bibliographical sources to writings of past Popes, Saints, and Councils. You are one to try and cite secondary source materials or even outside sources. This to me demonstrates your inability to understand the teachings of the Church from its dealings as an ecclesiastical body to pressures from the World as well as false teachers who try to infiltrate from within.

    If you want an educational dialogue, it is well to remember context and citing appropriate sources. As such, I find our current dialogue tiring and wasteful. I'll try and remember to put you in my prayers.

  2. #77
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Seems I hit a nerve.

    Well GiGi, I'd have to say only thing in regard to your criticism of the Catholic Church. You certainly are not one to cite bibliographical information enough and you certainly haven't given much by way of contextual support to your claims. Primary sources of what the Church teaches is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with clear bibliographical sources to writings of past Popes, Saints, and Councils. You are one to try and cite secondary source materials or even outside sources. This to me demonstrates your inability to understand the teachings of the Church from its dealings as an ecclesiastical body to pressures from the World as well as false teachers who try to infiltrate from within.

    If you want an educational dialogue, it is well to remember context and citing appropriate sources. As such, I find our current dialogue tiring and wasteful. I'll try and remember to put you in my prayers.
    My nerves are untouched. Thanks for your concern.
    You may take comfort in the church's propoganda, but I simply can not accept that the Pope is our best resource in matters of faith and morals. That's because the Vatican denied, concealed, paid off victims, and did anything else it could to avoid taking responsibilty for crimes commited by its clergy against children. Moral?
    The Vatican wants to regulate your sex life, and mine. It wants to tell us not to use barrier protection in places where 1 in 4, or even 3 adults are infected with HIV.
    The church and the Pope have proven unworthy of trust. These behaviors are simply unacceptable. Catholics must stand up to its leadership and demand it behave honestly, morally, and honorably. If they can't or won't...well, shame on them!
    Actually, now that I think of it, this has touched a nerve. How dare he place dogma above the welfare of human beings, children? Do you honestly believe the decision to hide child abusers was a moral one? Do you honestly believe the births of babies infected with HIV serves some higher purpose?
    My 7 year old knows it isn't. Do you?
    Please do not pray for me. Get off your knees and tell all your friends, enough is enough, and stop enabling wrong-doers.

  3. #78
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Again, it is not "propoganda" that we are discussing, it is the teachings.

    I will agree with you that priests and others commit sins, but this is not reflecting or touching on the consistency of the teaching. And you don't have to become Catholic, nobody is forcing you or twisting your arm. If a person wants to be a good Catholic, they must recognize what its teachings are; it is here where your criticism of my Church is most streneous, for a ****sexual who might happen to be a professing Catholic must remain celibate in order to be within the rubic of a good Catholic. The "regulation" is within the boundaries of what it means to be a Catholic. If you think it is unreasonable, so be it; but you are not Catholic, so it does not concern you.

  4. #79
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Again, it is not "propoganda" that we are discussing, it is the teachings.

    I will agree with you that priests and others commit sins, but this is not reflecting or touching on the consistency of the teaching. And you don't have to become Catholic, nobody is forcing you or twisting your arm. If a person wants to be a good Catholic, they must recognize what its teachings are; it is here where your criticism of my Church is most streneous, for a ****sexual who might happen to be a professing Catholic must remain celibate in order to be within the rubic of a good Catholic. The "regulation" is within the boundaries of what it means to be a Catholic. If you think it is unreasonable, so be it; but you are not Catholic, so it does not concern you.
    If the shoe fits....
    You know better than most, certainly better than me, what the church teaches.
    I'm less concerned about what it teaches than about what it does.

  5. #80
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    If the shoe fits....
    You know better than most, certainly better than me, what the church teaches.
    I'm less concerned about what it teaches than about what it does.
    Well, if you look at everyone's life, no person is above reproach. This is a teaching of whole Church, that we are all sinners. The problem is based on a threefold relationship between the interaction of the devil tempting our carnal natures with thoughts of pleasure and easiness and the ideas from which are promoted within society with "peer pressure." Ever get the thought about smoking a joint because a person is promoting the idea that "everyone does it" or it is fun and then provides you with the opportunity to test the drug? The person promoting it part of the World, the thoughts which at first tell you it is a bad idea comes from an inner conscienceness which is first a childhood conscienceness from parental punishment vs. reward mentality, but which behind it lies the God within all of us. The moment the idea comes to us is unpreventable, the ideas which attempt to persuade us though it appears in our minds as our own thoughts are not really our own, it becomes our own when we take pleasure in the thoughts, and in thought we proceed to action, of which action because habitual it leads to habit, then during such actions the person not only does it, but approves of others in doing the very same thing.

    Considering the endorsements you give, the manner in which you find the teachings of a person unimportant, whereas you place the greatest on your own views despite any personal problems or sins you commit in the name of your rationale, I would not be surprised that you despise Christ's instruction to "judge not, lest you be judged."

    I am grateful for the amount of forgiveness that Christ has granted me through the Church. I am grateful that I can look forward to the resurrection. What do you look forward to GiGi if an accident comes around the corner and your life as a breath is taken away? Or perhaps you live to be a 110 years old and death is knocking on your threshold? It does not matter if AIDS or cancer is cured unless it embodies a grace from which reconciliation and a new chance in life allows you to be the best of which God intended as a friend, as a mother, as a sister, and as all the things that define you as truly human. In some ways, death is a gift.

  6. #81
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Well, if you look at everyone's life, no person is above reproach. This is a teaching of whole Church, that we are all sinners. The problem is based on a threefold relationship between the interaction of the devil tempting our carnal natures with thoughts of pleasure and easiness and the ideas from which are promoted within society with "peer pressure." Ever get the thought about smoking a joint because a person is promoting the idea that "everyone does it" or it is fun and then provides you with the opportunity to test the drug? The person promoting it part of the World, the thoughts which at first tell you it is a bad idea comes from an inner conscienceness which is first a childhood conscienceness from parental punishment vs. reward mentality, but which behind it lies the God within all of us. The moment the idea comes to us is unpreventable, the ideas which attempt to persuade us though it appears in our minds as our own thoughts are not really our own, it becomes our own when we take pleasure in the thoughts, and in thought we proceed to action, of which action because habitual it leads to habit, then during such actions the person not only does it, but approves of others in doing the very same thing.

    Considering the endorsements you give, the manner in which you find the teachings of a person unimportant, whereas you place the greatest on your own views despite any personal problems or sins you commit in the name of your rationale, I would not be surprised that you despise Christ's instruction to "judge not, lest you be judged."

    I am grateful for the amount of forgiveness that Christ has granted me through the Church. I am grateful that I can look forward to the resurrection. What do you look forward to GiGi if an accident comes around the corner and your life as a breath is taken away? Or perhaps you live to be a 110 years old and death is knocking on your threshold? It does not matter if AIDS or cancer is cured unless it embodies a grace from which reconciliation and a new chance in life allows you to be the best of which God intended as a friend, as a mother, as a sister, and as all the things that define you as truly human. In some ways, death is a gift.
    I thought the Pope's announcement regarding the spread of HIV by condoms was immune to any serious error. I stand corrected.
    The enemy is a devil playing around with our nature, messing around with our thoughts, and peer preasure.
    You've asked if I've ever been tempted to smoke a joint. Yes, but not as an adult. Of course I have known tons of people who do that. I've always been a pragmatist. The risk outweighs any potential benefit.
    Believe it or not, I have heard or read many myths about post-mortem rewards and punishments. None are very convincing. We are natural creatures, animals, ****sapiens, great apes. There is no invisible piece in us that links us to an invisible supernatural being in some other-world.
    We have evolved into creatures better able to manipulate our environment than most other animals. We have devised ways to improve our circumstances, and ways to mess things up.
    When I die, I will be dead in the same way everything alive will be dead someday. That's about it. My hope is that I get from here to there without causing too much trouble, and that those I leave behind will remember me with some fondness.
    BTW: If I "judge not", it's not because I'm concerned about divine judgement. It's because I have empathy. If I do judge (speak out) it's because I'm a person p***ionate and committed to particular ideals. So, I proclaim loudly my distain for any person who would use his authority to affect negative outcomes in our battle against HIV/AIDS.

  7. #82
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Your battle to end HIV/AIDS, is it not due to the fact that it kills?

    Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is it not due to the their sons being killed or injured by drunk drivers?

    The fact is you are fighting death. Death kills even your ideals. You treat the symptoms, but it does not take away death.

    Now here is something I am learning... the Secular Franciscan fraternity that I am going to move from orientation to inquiry in a few months has an apostolate ministry to AIDS patients. They help pay for their housing, eat with them, help spread the word on how people cannot contact AIDS by normal interaction, and other such useful ***istance. We do not want to cure AIDS because it kills, we want to cure AIDS because it give them a chance at living life to its God given potential; and even in the face of death, their God given potential can yet shine forth. While we say we are ministering to them, in reality they minister to the Franciscans. For all your philosophical banterings, it is the Franciscans that actually do something. This is why forums are starting to loose its luster for me. It is not inciting meaningful action. I have a fraternity, it is not just the Franciscans... it is the whole Catholic Church, it is even with seperated brothers and sisters in Christ.

  8. #83
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Your battle to end HIV/AIDS, is it not due to the fact that it kills?

    Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is it not due to the their sons being killed or injured by drunk drivers?

    The fact is you are fighting death. Death kills even your ideals. You treat the symptoms, but it does not take away death.

    Now here is something I am learning... the Secular Franciscan fraternity that I am going to move from orientation to inquiry in a few months has an apostolate ministry to AIDS patients. They help pay for their housing, eat with them, help spread the word on how people cannot contact AIDS by normal interaction, and other such useful ***istance. We do not want to cure AIDS because it kills, we want to cure AIDS because it give them a chance at living life to its God given potential; and even in the face of death, their God given potential can yet shine forth. While we say we are ministering to them, in reality they minister to the Franciscans. For all your philosophical banterings, it is the Franciscans that actually do something. This is why forums are starting to loose its luster for me. It is not inciting meaningful action. I have a fraternity, it is not just the Franciscans... it is the whole Catholic Church, it is even with seperated brothers and sisters in Christ.
    We call it death because ---we die! Until then, we live. See how easy that is?
    I think it's just fine that you and your group are making an effort to help. You may conclude, after working with these patients, prevention "because it gives them a chance at living life to its God given potential; and even in the face of death, their God given potential can yet shine forth" is a better way to go.
    Of course, in places where HIV affects a large percentage of the population, you will have plenty of work to do. Every time one dies prematurely from AIDS there will another to take his place because he didn't protect himself.
    You say it's the Franciscans that are doing something, as if they are unique. The Pope said, the Roman Catholic Church is at the forefront of the battle against AIDS. He also said, "condoms increase the problem". Both statements are false.
    In comparing me to these Franciscans, you suggest I'm all talk. I wonder what makes you think so.
    Do you really think it's the Church, and not healthcare workers at the forefront? Do you believe professionals who volunteer their time to clinics are less effective? Do you think people in healthcare - people like me - should stop testing, stop educating, stop working, and just tell folks to go to church instead?

  9. #84
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    We call it death because ---we die! Until then, we live. See how easy that is?
    I think it's just fine that you and your group are making an effort to help. You may conclude, after working with these patients, prevention "because it gives them a chance at living life to its God given potential; and even in the face of death, their God given potential can yet shine forth" is a better way to go.
    Of course, in places where HIV affects a large percentage of the population, you will have plenty of work to do. Every time one dies prematurely from AIDS there will another to take his place because he didn't protect himself.
    You say it's the Franciscans that are doing something, as if they are unique. The Pope said, the Roman Catholic Church is at the forefront of the battle against AIDS. He also said, "condoms increase the problem". Both statements are false.
    In comparing me to these Franciscans, you suggest I'm all talk. I wonder what makes you think so.
    Do you really think it's the Church, and not healthcare workers at the forefront? Do you believe professionals who volunteer their time to clinics are less effective? Do you think people in healthcare - people like me - should stop testing, stop educating, stop working, and just tell folks to go to church instead?
    I did not say say you are "all talk," but I do say that your message you deliver is inconsequential. You offer no meaning to death, no resurrection, no consistent moral comp*** but what is relative to your kind.

  10. #85
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    I did not say say you are "all talk," but I do say that your message you deliver is inconsequential. You offer no meaning to death, no resurrection, no consistent moral comp*** but what is relative to your kind.
    Oh my....
    This is worse than I thought. It's one thing to have faith that your god will provide an afterlife for you. It's quite another to act on the belief that real world solutions to real world problems are "inconsequential".
    I once spoke with a Catholic lady who invited me to her church. I worked most Sundays and declined, but in the course of conversation, she suggested I look into part-time work at a Catholic hospital.
    One of my interests is end of life care, and the good work hospice does both in and outside of the hospital, and I mentioned it to her. She adopted the facial expression of a person who'd smelled something appauling.
    When she relaxed a little, she said the medications given often cause the person to sleep more, and might make them less aware. Well, I patiently explained that the patient is given a good deal of control over how much is given. I also explained that the medication might be for pain, anxiety, or to ease breathing, and sleepiness is a common side effect.
    She countered, the medicine can shorten life (which is sometimes true), and the patient must be allowed time and clarity to repent.
    It seems like the long way around, but now I realize she was saying what you just plainly stated. Maybe that's the hidden message in the comments made by the Pope.
    My message, to prevent and alleviate suffering and pain, in this world is inconsequential. INCONSEQUENTIAL.
    That's the reason religion, all of it, is dangerous!!!

  11. #86
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    What is that "Real World" cliche again? Sort of like a mantra, but it has no purpose for living except living. If you want to see a non-Christian movie that I think portrays what I am talking about, I would suggest you watch "Ikiru" (means in Japanese 'to live') by Akira Kurosawa.

  12. #87
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    I prefer: It's not what if, it's what now. ~Author Unknown
    and: No yesterdays are ever wasted for those who give themselves to today. ~Brendan Francis
    I read the plot summary and it says, a guy who learned he was dying decided to spend the time he had left getting a park built. Sounds like his service to the community was his legacy.

  13. #88
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    The summary does not give it much justice. Akira Kurosawa is Japan's greatest director. The tranformation of the protagonist is truly remarkable. You will have to realize that what he was building as his legacy up to the point of finding out he had stomach cancer was nothing. The park itself was only a prop to the real story. He is threatened by Yakuza, he is comforted by a novelist who acts as his "Mephistopheles" and attempt to comfort the protagonist with all the flamboyance of a life filled with women and enjoyment.

  14. #89
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    The summary does not give it much justice. Akira Kurosawa is Japan's greatest director. The tranformation of the protagonist is truly remarkable. You will have to realize that what he was building as his legacy up to the point of finding out he had stomach cancer was nothing. The park itself was only a prop to the real story. He is threatened by Yakuza, he is comforted by a novelist who acts as his "Mephistopheles" and attempt to comfort the protagonist with all the flamboyance of a life filled with women and enjoyment.
    Please take a moment to look at this list and the photos next to each item.
    http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/vpcd.htm
    Do you have children?
    If we start believing that the legacy of science medicine has no lasting value, then it won't.
    We have enjoyed record low levels of these (and more) childhood diseases, but if vaccines become unimportant to us, they will return and children will die---lots of them.
    Last edited by GiGi; 09-27-2010 at 09:15 PM.

  15. #90
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    Please take a moment to look at this list and the photos next to each item.
    http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/vpcd.htm
    Do you have children?
    If we start believing that the legacy of science medicine has no lasting value, then it won't.
    We have enjoyed record low levels of these (and more) childhood diseases, but if vaccines become unimportant to us, they will return and children will die---lots of them.
    No, I do not have children.

    I have not stated medical science is worthless. I have stated in so many words that the message is ultimately meaningless. An ancient Jewish philosophy work, if it can be called that, states it fairly explicitly that a man's work is meaningless. "Vanity of vanities" does Ecclesiastes state. The final conclusion although is "Fear God/And keep His commandments. For this is the whole man. For God will bring every work into judgement, Including everything that has been overlooked, Whether it be good or evil" (OSB).

    Which is better, to give Children vaccinations and tell them there is no God; or to give Children vaccinations and tell them there is a God?

    Now before I go further, I want to make one distinctive point. If you support governments to give the vaccinations to the Children in poverty, how much more should you praise the Christian Charities for doing the same? For if the governments are sponsoring it, then it is the burden of all taxpayers including Christians-- but of a Christian charity that operates on the volunteering of support and not mandated by a government en***y... is this not commendable since we are both paying our taxes and giving even further, yet we have a message of hopefulness that surp***es the same medical care that has no concern over a higher moral comp*** than "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we may die."

  16. #91
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    No, I do not have children.

    I have not stated medical science is worthless. I have stated in so many words that the message is ultimately meaningless. An ancient Jewish philosophy work, if it can be called that, states it fairly explicitly that a man's work is meaningless. "Vanity of vanities" does Ecclesiastes state. The final conclusion although is "Fear God/And keep His commandments. For this is the whole man. For God will bring every work into judgement, Including everything that has been overlooked, Whether it be good or evil" (OSB).

    Which is better, to give Children vaccinations and tell them there is no God; or to give Children vaccinations and tell them there is a God?

    Now before I go further, I want to make one distinctive point. If you support governments to give the vaccinations to the Children in poverty, how much more should you praise the Christian Charities for doing the same? For if the governments are sponsoring it, then it is the burden of all taxpayers including Christians-- but of a Christian charity that operates on the volunteering of support and not mandated by a government en***y... is this not commendable since we are both paying our taxes and giving even further, yet we have a message of hopefulness that surp***es the same medical care that has no concern over a higher moral comp*** than "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we may die."
    You have not used the word worthless, and I didn't say you did. You've used other adjectives; meaningless and inconsequentional were two, if memory serves. You also said it has no lasting value. I think I've addressed those.
    Do you know a nurse or doctor, in a secular environment, that tells his/her patients there is no god? I certainly don't. On the other hand, Christian Charity workers do make god-statements, according to your post.
    I don't know about religious colleges and universities, but we are taught cultural responsibility, and my employer insists on cultural competency.
    About cost/benefit; your clinics have volunteers, our clinics have volunteers. They're non-profit and tax exempt. Whether it's a religious or secular wellness clinic, public money may be used to substidize its cost.
    Facilities that recieve public money commit to certain conditions. For instance, they may not discriminate.
    That can be a problem if a patient comes to a Catholic-run clinic with low ***er antibodies in need of a booster, but is admittedly atheist, ****sexual, or some other kind of "enemy", because employees and volunteers may not engage in religious activities.
    If your Catholic hospital or clinic wants to promote its religious agenda, it can not do so with tax dollars, and I can't tell people there's no god. Under these circumstances - where tax money is involved, I'd say we're even.
    Last edited by GiGi; 09-28-2010 at 05:07 PM.

  17. #92
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Considering the kinds of hospitals that Catholics do have, the kind of work that is done in Calcutta when Mother Teresa was there... We are not discriminatory in the least. In fact, it was when big government wants to force the Catholic Church to accept and endorse ****sexual marriage, does the real problem exist. What is interesting is you give empty generalizations with nothing to substantiate your biases. Here is one for the Christians to rally around-->government attempting to force Catholics to believe and support something contrary to our beliefs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030103345.html

  18. #93
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Considering the kinds of hospitals that Catholics do have, the kind of work that is done in Calcutta when Mother Teresa was there... We are not discriminatory in the least. In fact, it was when big government wants to force the Catholic Church to accept and endorse ****sexual marriage, does the real problem exist. What is interesting is you give empty generalizations with nothing to substantiate your biases. Here is one for the Christians to rally around-->government attempting to force Catholics to believe and support something contrary to our beliefs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030103345.html
    I'm not a fan of Mother Teresa, but that's another story.
    The government is not trying to force the Catholic Church to accept, endorse, or believe anything it doesn't want to.
    The Church applies for government substidy and agrees to terms before it gets the money. It's choice to reduce benefits for everyone, rather than offer the same to all, is its choice to continue getting government checks.
    The Church has decided what's most important to them. They knew they couldn't have it both ways.
    What generalizations have I made? I think I simply showed that religious facilities are not better.

  19. #94
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    The stipulations of the Government in the case I cited interfered with religious conviction. The Catholics had to reject giving employee's spouses insurance because it would be forced to accept the Government's definition of marriage allowing for same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the Catholic charities giving aid to sick people, so the government's stipulations were politically motivated to attempt pressure on the Catholic Church to change their religious beliefs through government ***istance.
    It is a good thing that the Catholic Church found a loop-hole, but it makes the near 100 employees who do cover their spouses' health insurance a crime at which the Washington D.C. officials are to blame.
    Since you are for such underhanded tactics of the politicians, and even ungrateful for ALL taxpayer's money, not just your own, I think you should be a little more considerate at who is really paying more for the care of the sick and suffering. I see more Catholic hospitals around the country than I do see "Athiest" hospitals.

  20. #95
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    The stipulations of the Government in the case I cited interfered with religious conviction. The Catholics had to reject giving employee's spouses insurance because it would be forced to accept the Government's definition of marriage allowing for same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the Catholic charities giving aid to sick people, so the government's stipulations were politically motivated to attempt pressure on the Catholic Church to change their religious beliefs through government ***istance.
    It is a good thing that the Catholic Church found a loop-hole, but it makes the near 100 employees who do cover their spouses' health insurance a crime at which the Washington D.C. officials are to blame.
    Since you are for such underhanded tactics of the politicians, and even ungrateful for ALL taxpayer's money, not just your own, I think you should be a little more considerate at who is really paying more for the care of the sick and suffering. I see more Catholic hospitals around the country than I do see "Athiest" hospitals.
    Applicants for public money are made aware of anti-discrimination laws, and must agree to abide or forfeit the money.
    The law prohibits discrimination in all terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, including hiring, firing, compensation, benefits, *** ***ignments, promotions, and discipline. It also prohibits practices that seem neutral but have a disproportionate impact on a protected group of people.
    Race, color, national origin, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age......if the church discriminates-which is perfectly okay-it can do so and still keep its tax exemption, but it can't get additional funding from the government.
    The same rules protect against religious discrimination.
    Same-sex couples pay taxes just like everybody else.
    If you still think this is "underhanded", explain why the Church agreed to the terms in the first place; terms clearly spelled out from the beginning. The "loop hole" is, the church chooses money over so-called religious conviction.
    I've never seen a hospital run by bowlers, quilters, marathon runners, or atheists. Do you mean secular hospitals? In that case, the answer is pretty clear.
    Last edited by GiGi; 09-30-2010 at 04:21 AM.

  21. #96
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    Applicants for public money are made aware of anti-discrimination laws, and must agree to abide or forfeit the money.
    The law prohibits discrimination in all terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, including hiring, firing, compensation, benefits, *** ***ignments, promotions, and discipline. It also prohibits practices that seem neutral but have a disproportionate impact on a protected group of people.
    Race, color, national origin, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age......if the church discriminates-which is perfectly okay-it can do so and still keep its tax exemption, but it can't get additional funding from the government.
    The same rules protect against religious discrimination.
    Same-sex couples pay taxes just like everybody else.
    If you still think this is "underhanded", explain why the Church agreed to the terms in the first place; terms clearly spelled out from the beginning. The "loop hole" is, the church chooses money over so-called religious conviction.
    I've never seen a hospital run by bowlers, quilters, marathon runners, or atheists. Do you mean secular hospitals? In that case, the answer is pretty clear.
    I see hospitals that are extentions of universities, Vanderbuilt in Nashville is an example. I see some built by Christian universities and organizations as St. Thomas in Nashville and there are a few Baptist ones also in Nashville. Secular hospitals, similiar to run of the mill country hospitals, tend to get a lot of support by secular means. Since everyone pays taxes, it should be acceptable that all hospitals should get some ***istence from the government. You seem to be the one that wants to force out religion from hospitals and possibly you would want to see religion forced out of existence. Your ideals for a religionless country is simply not a realistic expectation. Our needs to attribute meaning to the universe, and to the existence of injustice that needs to be righted, and cooping with death (as a beginning of our journey--as people will by their psychological makeup tend to speak to a tombstone as though the deceased is listening) makes us naturally a religious/philosophical people. You cannot removed Church from State, since politicians may be Christian, Muslim, or otherwise, but State should not infringe on the Church--as though it endorces any one religion over the other. What Washington D.C. did with pushing the ****sexual agenda onto Church run hospitals is a violation of religious freedom.

  22. #97
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    I see hospitals that are extentions of universities, Vanderbuilt in Nashville is an example. I see some built by Christian universities and organizations as St. Thomas in Nashville and there are a few Baptist ones also in Nashville. Secular hospitals, similiar to run of the mill country hospitals, tend to get a lot of support by secular means. Since everyone pays taxes, it should be acceptable that all hospitals should get some ***istence from the government. You seem to be the one that wants to force out religion from hospitals and possibly you would want to see religion forced out of existence. Your ideals for a religionless country is simply not a realistic expectation. Our needs to attribute meaning to the universe, and to the existence of injustice that needs to be righted, and cooping with death (as a beginning of our journey--as people will by their psychological makeup tend to speak to a tombstone as though the deceased is listening) makes us naturally a religious/philosophical people. You cannot removed Church from State, since politicians may be Christian, Muslim, or otherwise, but State should not infringe on the Church--as though it endorces any one religion over the other. What Washington D.C. did with pushing the ****sexual agenda onto Church run hospitals is a violation of religious freedom.
    You ***ume:
    I want to force religion out of hospitals, and out of existence. Not true.
    I want a religionless country. Not true.
    The universe must be given some "meaning". Not true.
    All injustices must eventually be addressed. Not true.
    Death demands religion. Not true.

    Corrections:
    We can separate Church and State.
    There is no such thing as "****sexual agenda".
    The right to religious freedom is protected.

    Facts:
    The Church applied for public money.
    The Church understood and agreed to terms and conditions.
    The Church will abide by all terms and conditions, or forfiet the money.
    The Church can keep its tax exemption either way.

  23. #98
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Please explain:
    " Since everyone pays taxes, it should be acceptable that all hospitals should get some ***istence from the government."

  24. #99
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    Please explain:
    " Since everyone pays taxes, it should be acceptable that all hospitals should get some ***istence from the government."
    Self-explanatory. Government should not dictate to the Church to cover health insurance to ****sexual spouses, the Church defines the relationship of marriage to be between a man and a woman.

  25. #100
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Self-explanatory. Government should not dictate to the Church to cover health insurance to ****sexual spouses, the Church defines the relationship of marriage to be between a man and a woman.
    The government does not dictate anything to the church. It allows organizations to apply for subsidy. Applicants agree to terms and conditions.
    The church can define marriage any way it wants to, but it can not discriminate at tax payer expense.
    The church knows this from the start. It agrees. It recieves money.
    Why is this so hard to understand?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •