Get To The Stabbing

Your awesome Tagline

Posts tagged catholic

43 notes

Students Try to Get Catholic Priest Banned From a Catholic Center For Being Too Catholic....

talkstraight:

21st-century-modern-liberal:

talkstraight:

21st-century-modern-liberal:

talkstraight:

Two gay seniors at George Washington University say they feel alienated because the chaplain at George Washington’s Newman Center rejects homosexuality, and they aren’t going to take it anymore.

The seniors, Damian Legacy and Blake Bergen, have announced a coordinated campaign to rid the campus of the Roman Catholic priest, reports The GW Hatchet, the school’s independent student newspaper.

They also assert that 12 or more students have quit the Newman Center in recent years because they can’t tolerate Father Greg Shaffer’s ardent anti-gay – and, for the record, anti-abortion — beliefs.

Shaffer has worked for five years at George Washington’s Newman Center. He told the Hatchet that religion and unrestricted speech “play a vital role at a diverse university like GW.”

Imagine that! A Catholic priest preaching Catholic doctrine at a Catholic church.  Go Figure!

How dare that Catholic go around espousing Catholicness?  Next thing you know he’ll be taking Sundays off and all hell will break loose.

Quit your damn whining, you thin-skinned panty-waisted babyfied rejects.  If you don’t like a Catholic priest that actually follows the doctrine of his church…find another church to go to.

Special little snowflakes make me want to kick a dog. I’d kick them but that would only aggravate their already over inflated victim complex.

His beliefs are hateful. Hateful people should be kicked off campuses.

Oh, I see. So according to your special little world, anyone you may disagree with is hateful and should be censored then forcibly prohibited from doing what he is paid to do-in this case preach Catholic doctrine.

I mean, it’s not like this crybabies couldn’t just go somewhere else for their religious needs.

You liberals really do live up to your self-imposed titles of being “open minded and tolerant” don’t you?

So much for that ‘hearing from opposing opinions” and “diversity” you college goombahs are always touting about.

Oh right! Again….you liberals don’t want to really hear different opinions or really care about diversity unless its imposed by your army of Flying Monkeys and ruled acceptable by your “intellectual elite”

Sheep.

I never claimed to be open minded and tolerant. I hate libertardians, conservamorons, republicunts, pro-lifers, homophobes, white people who deny their privilege, rich people, and a whole lot more. 

Oh. So you’re just a miserable bitch who wants everyone else to be just as disgruntled as you.  Gotcha.

I shouldn’t have insulted idiot liberals by assuming they were the same as you are.  I’ll remember that for next time.

Filed under what the hell Catholic Catholicism clergy homosexuality George Washington University abortion pro-life TS heh burn

60 notes

previewofthoughts: gettothestabbing: communismkills: previewofthoughts: communismkills: Whoops, someone doesn’t understand Judaism at all. I feel like the creator decided to have the WBC to represent Christianity since no Christians think Jews will go to hell. Well… All of the Christians I know personally have told me they think I’m going to hell for being Jewish. Depends on the kind of Christian. Some Christians have a very specific idea of who goes where. Most Christians I’ve met would say that people go to Hell (or their concept of punishment in the afterlife) for their actions, not automatically for their religion. Plus, shouldn’t Islam be pointing to both Christians and Jews? And I thought Jews didn’t believe in hell …  I know Catholicism believes everyone can get to heaven and hell is a decision to be permanently separated from God (feel free to correct me). I believe you - I don’t know many Catholics, or at least know them well enough to discuss Hell with them. Myself, I’m a Christian Scientist, so our conception of Hell is pretty different (i.e. more of a mental state than anything, and always eventually escapable if you learn/repent) from most Christian churches. 

previewofthoughts:

gettothestabbing:

communismkills:

previewofthoughts:

communismkills:

Whoops, someone doesn’t understand Judaism at all.

I feel like the creator decided to have the WBC to represent Christianity since no Christians think Jews will go to hell.

Well…

All of the Christians I know personally have told me they think I’m going to hell for being Jewish.

Depends on the kind of Christian. Some Christians have a very specific idea of who goes where. Most Christians I’ve met would say that people go to Hell (or their concept of punishment in the afterlife) for their actions, not automatically for their religion. Plus, shouldn’t Islam be pointing to both Christians and Jews? And I thought Jews didn’t believe in hell … 

I know Catholicism believes everyone can get to heaven and hell is a decision to be permanently separated from God (feel free to correct me).

I believe you - I don’t know many Catholics, or at least know them well enough to discuss Hell with them. Myself, I’m a Christian Scientist, so our conception of Hell is pretty different (i.e. more of a mental state than anything, and always eventually escapable if you learn/repent) from most Christian churches. 

(Source: inthebellyofaelephant)

Filed under Christiantiy Catholic Catholicism Christians hell Christian Science CS

32 notes

Communism Kills: How can anyone argue religious freedom is alive and well in America when Obamacare forces religious institutions to...

communismkills:

It completely flies in the face of all logic to require a religious institution to provide insurance covering something the religion wholeheartedly opposes.

If an individual employee of the church wants birth control, they have every right to seek their own insurance and not take one provided by the church if they feel like it doesn’t cover all of their needs. They do not, however, have the right to force something that the church is fundamentally opposed to.

I know the Catholic Church sued Obamacare. Does anyone know anything about that case, and if it will be heard by the Supreme Court?

Filed under religious freedom Obamacare birth control healthcare health insurance insurance Catholic Church individual mandate

46 notes

atheistoverdose: I think your conservative/christians beliefs just got destroyedfollow for the best atheist posts on tumblr Why do I even bother … *sigh* The article is most likely referring to the idea that Catholic institutions should have to provide birth control in employee health insurance (despite the Catholic belief that using contraception/birth control is immoral) because it’s the law, or it will become the law. The poll then indicates that “most Democrats and two-thirds of liberals” agree; they see no problem with forcing hypocritical actions from a religiously based institution in the name of the law. The “orange” poster references an event in Genesis where Abraham’s faith is tested by God when God tells him to kill his first-born son Issac (whose birth itself was a miracle considering the age of his mother at the time). Trusting in God’s divine will, Abraham does everything but actually kill his child, something he was actually about to do before God tells him to stop and provides a different holy sacrifice in the form of a ram. The “blue” poster says that it’s not comparable because it violates the son’s rights as an individual. Somehow this destroys Christian and conservative beliefs? … How? The idea of religious freedom is not the same as the idea of “let’s kill people because God said so”. Not only did Abraham not kill his son, he was never happy about being told to do so and only tried to do so because of his great trust and faith in God - he was obedient even if it meant taking away his cherished son and committing a great sin. Murder is a sin, and the story of Abraham and Issac does not change that. (In Islam, Muslims face no penalty for murdering non-Muslims and are even encouraged to fight and kill for Allah.) This is part of the opposition to abortion: abortion takes away a developing child’s right to life, often in horrifying procedures, which is why it is rightfully considered murder by many Christians. I suppose the argument I should focus more on is, “Women’s rights are being taken away because of Catholic morals that they may not necessarily share.” First of all, women don’t have a right to birth control, but they are free to pay for it if they want it. Catholic institutions don’t believe in using birth control and so don’t want to pay for it, citing moral and religious objections. The argument implies that the religious institution should have to pay for something it opposes and doesn’t want so that the women can have it: because it is law that forces that expense on the religious institution, the argument is unconstitutional, as it forces economic activity in the private sphere to occur. Additionally, by ignoring religious objections, it violates the religious freedom of that institution and of those who religiously oppose birth control yet may be forced to pay for others to have it. Just as atheists and agnostics are not being forced to pay for communion wafers or Bibles, many Christians and Christian institutions do not want to be forced to pay for things they do not support and religiously oppose, such as birth control. Abortion is an issue that goes further, as it actually involves taking away a child’s right to life, something that should already be against the law and is against the religious beliefs of Christians. The point is that the actual rights granted to people, not hurt feelings or requested entitlements, are what matter. The religious institution has a right to religious freedom. Women do not have a right to birth control in their healthcare, as birth control is not a right, but a product that they may purchase. To argue that law should be implemented over religious beliefs is irrelevant, as a law requiring all employers (regardless of religious beliefs relevant to birth control) to provide birth control in employee health care would cause direct federal economic intereference specifically banned in the Constitution and thus be unconstitutional and unworthy of being an American law. Furthermore, regulation of religious institutions’ activities, especially their economic activity, violates the First Amendment and is thus also unconstitutional. Therefore, to argue at all that the law should supercede religious beliefs in this case is irrelevant considering the nature of American law and how it relates to the American Constitution. Obviously, though, we’re talking about a very real, very long law I like to call Obamacare. According to the implementation timeline I found online (http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx), the relevant part of this law was implemented back in February under “Coverage of Preventative Benefits”: “On August 1, 2011, HHS issued interim final regulations on preventive services, including requirements that insurers cover birth control with no cost-sharing. On August 3, 2011, HHS issued an amendment to the final regulations. On February 15, 2012, HHS issued final rules “authorizing the exemption of group health plans and group health insurance coverage sponsored by certain religious employers from having to cover certain preventive health services.” (emphasis mine). Due to protest and unconstitutional requirements, Obamacare no longer requires certain religious employers to provide certain services they oppose. Even with all its other unconstitutional elements, Obamacare had to be amended in this case; the website does not specify, however, if this amendment included all or some Catholic employers. Currently, 43 Catholic institutions are suing the Obama Administration over this very issue, so it seems the amendment didn’t solve the problem. Margaret Talbot’s blog on the New Yorker website (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/05/birth-control-and-the-catholic-church.html) calls that case weak by citing three precedents from 2004, 2006, and 2012. The 2004 case (and the subsequent 2006 case, respectively tried in the California and New York courts) said that, to quote the blog, “A law of general applicability that served a legitimate state interest was not unconstitutional even if it placed a burden on a religious practice. It was unconstitutional only if its intent was to do so.” I would argue that those two rulings are incorrect because even if the intent is not present, the result is the same and remains unconstitutional and incorrect. The 2012 case was different, in that it involved American Catholic bishops using taxpayer money not to provide contraception. So, how does this destroy Christian and/or conservative beliefs? I honestly don’t know. I can’t see a coherent argument, unless it’s arguing something that makes no sense, like Christians being pro-murder or conservatives denying people rights they don’t have to products that aren’t essential to life.

atheistoverdose:

I think your conservative/christians beliefs just got destroyed

Why do I even bother … *sigh*

The article is most likely referring to the idea that Catholic institutions should have to provide birth control in employee health insurance (despite the Catholic belief that using contraception/birth control is immoral) because it’s the law, or it will become the law. The poll then indicates that “most Democrats and two-thirds of liberals” agree; they see no problem with forcing hypocritical actions from a religiously based institution in the name of the law.

The “orange” poster references an event in Genesis where Abraham’s faith is tested by God when God tells him to kill his first-born son Issac (whose birth itself was a miracle considering the age of his mother at the time). Trusting in God’s divine will, Abraham does everything but actually kill his child, something he was actually about to do before God tells him to stop and provides a different holy sacrifice in the form of a ram. The “blue” poster says that it’s not comparable because it violates the son’s rights as an individual. Somehow this destroys Christian and conservative beliefs? … How?

The idea of religious freedom is not the same as the idea of “let’s kill people because God said so”. Not only did Abraham not kill his son, he was never happy about being told to do so and only tried to do so because of his great trust and faith in God - he was obedient even if it meant taking away his cherished son and committing a great sin. Murder is a sin, and the story of Abraham and Issac does not change that. (In Islam, Muslims face no penalty for murdering non-Muslims and are even encouraged to fight and kill for Allah.) This is part of the opposition to abortion: abortion takes away a developing child’s right to life, often in horrifying procedures, which is why it is rightfully considered murder by many Christians.

I suppose the argument I should focus more on is, “Women’s rights are being taken away because of Catholic morals that they may not necessarily share.” First of all, women don’t have a right to birth control, but they are free to pay for it if they want it. Catholic institutions don’t believe in using birth control and so don’t want to pay for it, citing moral and religious objections. The argument implies that the religious institution should have to pay for something it opposes and doesn’t want so that the women can have it: because it is law that forces that expense on the religious institution, the argument is unconstitutional, as it forces economic activity in the private sphere to occur. Additionally, by ignoring religious objections, it violates the religious freedom of that institution and of those who religiously oppose birth control yet may be forced to pay for others to have it. Just as atheists and agnostics are not being forced to pay for communion wafers or Bibles, many Christians and Christian institutions do not want to be forced to pay for things they do not support and religiously oppose, such as birth control. Abortion is an issue that goes further, as it actually involves taking away a child’s right to life, something that should already be against the law and is against the religious beliefs of Christians.

The point is that the actual rights granted to people, not hurt feelings or requested entitlements, are what matter. The religious institution has a right to religious freedom. Women do not have a right to birth control in their healthcare, as birth control is not a right, but a product that they may purchase. To argue that law should be implemented over religious beliefs is irrelevant, as a law requiring all employers (regardless of religious beliefs relevant to birth control) to provide birth control in employee health care would cause direct federal economic intereference specifically banned in the Constitution and thus be unconstitutional and unworthy of being an American law. Furthermore, regulation of religious institutions’ activities, especially their economic activity, violates the First Amendment and is thus also unconstitutional. Therefore, to argue at all that the law should supercede religious beliefs in this case is irrelevant considering the nature of American law and how it relates to the American Constitution.

Obviously, though, we’re talking about a very real, very long law I like to call Obamacare. According to the implementation timeline I found online (http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx), the relevant part of this law was implemented back in February under “Coverage of Preventative Benefits”: “On August 1, 2011, HHS issued interim final regulations on preventive services, including requirements that insurers cover birth control with no cost-sharing. On August 3, 2011, HHS issued an amendment to the final regulations. On February 15, 2012, HHS issued final rules “authorizing the exemption of group health plans and group health insurance coverage sponsored by certain religious employers from having to cover certain preventive health services.” (emphasis mine).

Due to protest and unconstitutional requirements, Obamacare no longer requires certain religious employers to provide certain services they oppose. Even with all its other unconstitutional elements, Obamacare had to be amended in this case; the website does not specify, however, if this amendment included all or some Catholic employers.

Currently, 43 Catholic institutions are suing the Obama Administration over this very issue, so it seems the amendment didn’t solve the problem. Margaret Talbot’s blog on the New Yorker website (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/05/birth-control-and-the-catholic-church.html) calls that case weak by citing three precedents from 2004, 2006, and 2012. The 2004 case (and the subsequent 2006 case, respectively tried in the California and New York courts) said that, to quote the blog, “A law of general applicability that served a legitimate state interest was not unconstitutional even if it placed a burden on a religious practice. It was unconstitutional only if its intent was to do so.”

I would argue that those two rulings are incorrect because even if the intent is not present, the result is the same and remains unconstitutional and incorrect. The 2012 case was different, in that it involved American Catholic bishops using taxpayer money not to provide contraception.

So, how does this destroy Christian and/or conservative beliefs? I honestly don’t know. I can’t see a coherent argument, unless it’s arguing something that makes no sense, like Christians being pro-murder or conservatives denying people rights they don’t have to products that aren’t essential to life.

(via atheist-overdose)

Filed under pro-life pro life Christian conservative constitution obamacare abraham bible murder sin catholic birth control