John Kerry charged with heresy

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

Post by Sundog »

BURN HIM! BUUUUUUURN HIM!

If this story doesn't at least make you consider voting for Kerry, you're no skeptic...
Huntsman
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:28 pm

Post by Huntsman »

You're sounding awful heretical there, Abdul (if that is your real name...)

Sounds almost like you're doubting the church...

That's it. You're going in the COMFY CHAIR!!!!

In seriousness, it's another example of the same things going on in Islam fanatical groups, but on a lesser scale.

The modern world has produced literally hundreds of things that are not covered by thousand year old religious texts (seriously, is driving a sin because your pollution can, theoretically, cause harm to neighbors?). Since many religions can't cope with this, because of their absolute standards (word of god, perfect, etc), they cling more tightly to core beliefs.

It's more of an anti-modernism reaction than purely religious, I think...it just has religion there as a handy focus. Not to mention that an act like this gets a name in the papers, and the Bishop in question gets to let everyone know how "good" a Christian he is.
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 13375
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Now that's one step beyond.

Post by Skeeve »

Will someone please explain to me how the church can keep its status as an apolitical organization and still persue this?

Tax them, tax them all, I say.
Then Skank Of America could start in...
User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek »

Well, whaddya know--a point in Kerry's favor! If this keeps up, I might have to retract the no-real-difference-between-Kerry-and-Bush claim...

Can we have a priest call for an exorcism to get the evil demons out of him?

(Interesting that Kerry's "murders" of unborn babies is heresy, but Bush's "murders" of innocent Iraqis and Afgans is not...)
Last edited by shanek on Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?
User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

Re: Now that's one step beyond.

Post by Sundog »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:But on the other hand, isn't there something a bit slimy about Kerry trying to gain political juice by being Catholic?
Huh? How is he doing that? :?
User avatar
hgc
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:47 pm

Re: Now that's one step beyond.

Post by hgc »

Sundog wrote:
Abdul Alhazred wrote:But on the other hand, isn't there something a bit slimy about Kerry trying to gain political juice by being Catholic?
Huh? How is he doing that? :?
Merely by being resident in Abdul's imagination.
User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

Re: Now that's one step beyond.

Post by Sundog »

hgc wrote:
Sundog wrote:
Abdul Alhazred wrote:But on the other hand, isn't there something a bit slimy about Kerry trying to gain political juice by being Catholic?
Huh? How is he doing that? :?
Merely by being resident in Abdul's imagination.
Brilliant contrarian strategy, you gotta admit, getting the Pope and all his unholy Bishops to refuse to give you communion because you're such a bad Catholic.

:shock:
User avatar
shecky
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:30 pm

Post by shecky »

Fer chrissakes! If the Boston Archdiocese goes along with this, they'll be handing Kerry a good deal of credibility, considering the real blow it suffered under Cardinal Bernard Law. Charges of diversion will be declared and all Kerry will have to do is take the moral high ground (like many rank and file Catholics who have been demoralized by the Boston Archdiocese in the past few years), and come out smelling like a rose to a good deal of these Catholics, not to mention non-Catholics and skeptics alike.
User avatar
viscousmemories
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:22 am

Re: Now that's one step beyond.

Post by viscousmemories »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Apolitical? Then why does Kerry care about the Catholic vote?
'Cause there's a Gajillion of them running around?
Tax them. OK by me. Imagine what the property taxes would be on Saint Patrick's Cathedral. Prime Mid-town Manhattan real-estate, even an empty lot on that space would have astronomical property tax.

It wouldn't bankrupt the Archdiocese of New York by any means. I say the Archdiocese not the Church, because the Church is not a legal entity. The Archdiocese is a property owning corporation.
Yep. Tax 'em. I've heard the numbers but I can't remember: Is Mc Donald's or the Vatican the landlord with the most properties in the United States? I swear it's one or the other.
But on the other hand, isn't there something a bit slimy about Kerry trying to gain political juice by being Catholic?
Was being tried for heresy his idea?
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 13375
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve »

shecky wrote:Fer chrissakes! If the Boston Archdiocese goes along with this, they'll be handing Kerry a good deal of credibility, considering the real blow it suffered under Cardinal Bernard Law. Charges of diversion will be declared and all Kerry will have to do is take the moral high ground (like many rank and file Catholics who have been demoralized by the Boston Archdiocese in the past few years), and come out smelling like a rose to a good deal of these Catholics, not to mention non-Catholics and skeptics alike.
[ignorance]What is a charge of diversion?[/ignorance]
Then Skank Of America could start in...
User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 73562
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Post by Doctor X »

. . . considering the real blow it suffered under Cardinal Bernard Law.
Hee! Hee!

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out." – Don
DocX: FTW. – sparks
"Doctor X wins again." – Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry." – His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone." – clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far." – Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig." – Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power." – asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." – gnome

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! ImageNBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!! Image
User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

Post by Sundog »

Skeeve wrote: [ignorance]What is a charge of diversion?[/ignorance]
It's the fee you must pay when upgrading software.

I am so sorry.
User avatar
Blue Monk
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:00 pm

Post by Blue Monk »

I for one would love to see a televised heresy trial.

Burning at the stake would be cool too.

I’ve read a lot over the past few years about how some Catholics feel that the church should hold it’s catholic politicians accountable for the political stances that they claim go against the church’s doctrine but I don’t think it will ever amount to much.

Could provide a lot of fodder for late-night talk shows though.
User avatar
viscousmemories
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:22 am

Re: Now that's one step beyond.

Post by viscousmemories »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
viscousmemories wrote:
Abdul Alhazred wrote:Apolitical? Then why does Kerry care about the Catholic vote?
'Cause there's a Gajillion of them running around?
The question is do they vote as a block? This isn't 1930.
Yeah, but most of the Catholics I've met (which of course isn't a huge number, but includes most of my family) are essentially single issue voters, and that issue is abortion. That's kind of voting as a block.
I don't think this heresy trial will change anybody's vote. That's the reason I posted it in the 'Religion' forum. There's plenty of discussion of Kerry over in 'Politics'.
I don't think it will either, actually. And I'm pretty shocked that there are still heresy trials too. I don't remember hearing about any other recent examples of such. Is excommunication the ultimate penalty, or is there a stake or gallows involved at some point?
User avatar
Pyrrho
Posts: 30924
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Post by Pyrrho »

No candidate for President is worth his salt if he hasn't committed heresy of some variety. I won't vote for any candidate the church likes.
The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.
User avatar
Hocus Pocus
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:06 am
Location: Atop the TV

Post by Hocus Pocus »

Sundog wrote:
Skeeve wrote: [ignorance]What is a charge of diversion?[/ignorance]
It's the fee you must pay when upgrading software.
While I am loathe to wade into a politcal thread, I feel it is necessary to let Sundog know that he has been put on the list.
20 years of excellence

Amen
User avatar
Pyrrho
Posts: 30924
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Now that's one step beyond.

Post by Pyrrho »

viscousmemories wrote:
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
viscousmemories wrote:
Abdul Alhazred wrote:Apolitical? Then why does Kerry care about the Catholic vote?
'Cause there's a Gajillion of them running around?
The question is do they vote as a block? This isn't 1930.
Yeah, but most of the Catholics I've met (which of course isn't a huge number, but includes most of my family) are essentially single issue voters, and that issue is abortion. That's kind of voting as a block.
I don't think this heresy trial will change anybody's vote. That's the reason I posted it in the 'Religion' forum. There's plenty of discussion of Kerry over in 'Politics'.
I don't think it will either, actually. And I'm pretty shocked that there are still heresy trials too. I don't remember hearing about any other recent examples of such. Is excommunication the ultimate penalty, or is there a stake or gallows involved at some point?
Stake and gallows ain't the half of it. Excommunication is pretty much a one-way ticket to Hell, if you're Catholic, and church doctrine holds that Hell isn't much fun...roughly equivalent to a week or two in Cleveland.
The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.
User avatar
viscousmemories
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:22 am

Re: Now that's one step beyond.

Post by viscousmemories »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
viscousmemories wrote: Yeah, but most of the Catholics I've met (which of course isn't a huge number, but includes most of my family) are essentially single issue voters, and that issue is abortion. That's kind of voting as a block.
It is, but in old big cities of the USA, the Catholic vote is "traditionally Democrat". But it's really not so much a Catholic vote as a working class pro-union white ethnic vote.

But what was Al Smith's position on abortion? It didn't come up at all back then.

You and I must not know the same Catholics. I know both kinds, including some of my relatives.

No I am not an ex-Catholic atheist like you. That was my father.
I confess I'm not really sure what you mean. I don't consider myself an ex-Catholic atheist because I have never really given much thought to being Catholic, even when I was forced by my Mother to abide by the rituals.

However, it is true that my experience with Catholics is almost completely "Catholics who are also part of the ecumenical, charismatic Christian community my family was a part of". Biblical literalists, YEC'ers, and quite devout. I doubt there was a Democrat among 'em, and I can say there was almost certainly not a pro-choicer among 'em.

Remember the parents that were arrested for allowing their young children to lie down in the street to block traffic in front of an abortion clinic in Kansas? Friends of my family.
User avatar
shecky
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:30 pm

Post by shecky »

Skeeve wrote:
shecky wrote:Fer chrissakes! If the Boston Archdiocese goes along with this, they'll be handing Kerry a good deal of credibility, considering the real blow it suffered under Cardinal Bernard Law. Charges of diversion will be declared and all Kerry will have to do is take the moral high ground (like many rank and file Catholics who have been demoralized by the Boston Archdiocese in the past few years), and come out smelling like a rose to a good deal of these Catholics, not to mention non-Catholics and skeptics alike.
[ignorance]What is a charge of diversion?[/ignorance]
Sorry. that does sound confusing. What I meant was the Boston Archdiocese will be accused of trying to divert attention away from the sex scandals if they get too actively involved with this.

I'd be hard pressed to say Catholics are single issue voters (abortion). The Catholics I know are all over the place politically, and I know of several pro-life Catholics who are definitely voting for Kerry.
User avatar
viscousmemories
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:22 am

Re: Now that's one step beyond.

Post by viscousmemories »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:And I suppose "liberal" Catholics are not real Catholics to some?
Indeed one of the "elders" (for lack of a better word) in the group my family is affiliated with went to visit the Pope about 15 years ago, and got the official sanction to start a "Catholic Fellowship" in my hometown. It's basically a Catholic church but they eschew the liberal excesses of "mainstream" Catholicism. Or something like that.
ceo_esq
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:11 am

Post by ceo_esq »

Sundog wrote:BURN HIM! BUUUUUUURN HIM!

If this story doesn't at least make you consider voting for Kerry, you're no skeptic...
This conditional statement makes no apparent sense.
Skeeve wrote:Will someone please explain to me how the church can keep its status as an apolitical organization and still persue this?
This doesn't fit the classical definition of electioneering. Moreover, although a tax exemption is a conditional privilege, of course, I think there would be a potential First Amendment issue if the privilege were withdrawn as a result of the application of internal disciplinary measures against the organization's own adherents by reference to its own religious code.

By the way, although this is a somewhat different issue, I think your idea of 501(c)(3) entities as "apolitical" is not exactly correct. Nothing prevents such entities from engaging in political advocacy or lobbying, for example. Would you consider the National Abortion Rights Action League or the Sierra Club to be "apolitical"?
shanek wrote:(Interesting that Kerry's "murders" of unborn babies is heresy, but Bush's "murders" of innocent Iraqis and Afgans is not...)
Granting arguendo the dubious proposition that Bush murders innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, what exactly do you find so interesting? That only Catholics can be guilty of Catholic heresy seems rather a banal point.
Abdul Alhazred wrote:But on the other hand, isn't there something a bit slimy about Kerry trying to gain political juice by being Catholic?
Both Kerry and his wife have tried to get some political mileage with Catholic voters by emphasizing, in various settings, their Catholic faith. A Catholic candidate from either party would probably do the same. The only thing that arguably makes this "slimy" is that Kerry doesn't seem particularly sincere about it, based on apparent weaknesses in his "Catholic credentials". I don't really care about that, though, and prefer to leave such considerations to the Catholics.
viscousmemories wrote:Yep. Tax 'em. I've heard the numbers but I can't remember: Is Mc Donald's or the Vatican the landlord with the most properties in the United States? I swear it's one or the other.
I'd be very surprised to learn that the Vatican held much property in the United States. The Catholic Church appears to be highly decentralized when it comes to the holding and disposition of property, with respect to which the dioceses have relative autonomy (and, of course, legal independence).

On a side note, I'd have to imagine that the federal government is technically the biggest landlord in the United States.
viscousmemories wrote:And I'm pretty shocked that there are still heresy trials too. I don't remember hearing about any other recent examples of such. Is excommunication the ultimate penalty, or is there a stake or gallows involved at some point?
Bear in mind that this is not radically different from any private organization conducting disciplinary proceedings regarding its membership. Obviously, in such cases, it would be more shocking for there not to be a "trial" or some equivalent procedure, because it seems fundamentally unfair for disciplinary measures (even private ones) to be imposed arbitrarily.

Clearly, excommunication is the heaviest penalty that the Church imposes. Stakes and gallows were always implements of the state rather than the church anyway.
Pyrrho wrote:No candidate for President is worth his salt if he hasn't committed heresy of some variety. I won't vote for any candidate the church likes.
Echoes of Groucho Marx and his policies on club membership? On a more serious note, though, I can't discern any reasoned political content in this statement.
shecky wrote:What I meant was the Boston Archdiocese will be accused of trying to divert attention away from the sex scandals if they get too actively involved with this.
Well, it seems as though the Archdiocese was not at the origin of this Kerry complaint. That said, the Church has its own judicial system that is probably obligated to adjudicate cases brought before it according to the ordinary rules of procedure. Now that the Archdiocese has reached a settlement with the sex abuse plaintiffs and reorganized itself, the Boston scandal has slipped from "current" to "recent" status. It should be obvious to everyone that the opportune moment for the Archdiocese to engage in a little "Wag the Dog" maneuvering is long gone, so I can't imagine that charges of diversionary tactics would carry much force.
Loon
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Tokyo

Post by Loon »

ceo_esq wrote:
Sundog wrote:BURN HIM! BUUUUUUURN HIM!

If this story doesn't at least make you consider voting for Kerry, you're no skeptic...
This conditional statement makes no apparent sense.
It's not a deep and incisive commentary, but I think (and correct me, Sundog, if I'm wrong) he's saying that skeptics have an opposite view of things to the church, so that someone rejecting or rebuffing the church should automatically arouse the interest of skeptics. I don't agree with him. I suspect that on closer questioning (GRILL HIM!) Sundog would also admit that this is not an entirely true statement.

Pyrrho wrote:No candidate for President is worth his salt if he hasn't committed heresy of some variety. I won't vote for any candidate the church likes.
Echoes of Groucho Marx and his policies on club membership? On a more serious note, though, I can't discern any reasoned political content in this statement.[/quote]

I think this is somewhat similar to, though much more specific that, what Sundog said (and Pyrrho, correct me if I am wrong here). Pyrrho is saying that his view of things and the church's view of things are mutually exclusive. Ergo, if the church likes a candidate, then Pyrrho can be fairly sure that he himself will not. I agree with this on two levels. First is that I trust Pyrrho to be aware of and honest about his political leanings. Second is that I'm no fan of the church, so I'm often at odds with their view of things.
Abdul Alhazared wrote:What would the wretch [Kerry] be at?

It's not an unconditional reason to vote aganist him, but it's troubling.
I do agree with this to an extent. It is something of a contradiction. It sounds like he is saying "Murder is should be safe, legal and rare." I find it hard to reconcile a "pro-choice" stance with "life begins at conception." Sounds like weaseling to me.

That said, Kerry's effective view of abortion (safe, legal and rare) matches my own pretty closely, and even then it's not one of my primary issues. Plus I really dislike almost everybody in the current administration, so I can't help but give this little waffle (the stand, not the candidate) a pass.
I guess there he chose to err on the side of more votes. -[size=75]Grammatron[/size]