Associated Press
First up from the God Machine this week is the end of the extraordinary Nuns On The Bus tour, which wrapped up in Washington this week, after a series of well-received events in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states. Suzy Khimm reported this week on the culmination of the successful tour.
"It's immoral!" [Sister Diane Donohue, an] 81-year-old Catholic nun said of [Paul Ryan's] fiscal plan, as the crowd gathered on Capitol Hill erupted in cheers. Another nun, Sister Simone Campbell, denounced the proposed cuts to food stamps, child care, and other programs for the needy. "That's not Christian," said Campbell, who leads a Catholic social justice lobby called NETWORK. [...]
The nuns were concluding a two-week bus tour through nine swing states to protest the Ryan budget proposal, contending that it undermined Catholic teachings to serve the poor and vulnerable. Their rally on Monday outside the United Methodist Church's D.C. offices was peppered with prayers, gospel songs, and Bible verses (Isaiah 58:7: "Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless.")
But the Catholic nuns also understand that Kumbaya moments aren't enough to change votes in Washington: They have a full-fledged lobbying campaign, complete with a 53-page "faithful budget" that outlines their own fiscal priorities in considerable detail, backed by an interfaith coalition of social justice groups.
There can be no doubt that the nuns have been noticed on Capitol Hill. Indeed, Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced a resolution this week, coinciding with the end of the tour, honoring nuns. They said in a statement that the resolution "recognizes the Catholic Sisters' fulfillment of their vital missions to teach our children, care for the sick, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, lead major institutions, demand corporate responsibility and fight for policies that promote human dignity."
The priorities of the Nuns On The Bus are non-partisan, but given their proposed policies -- a rejection of austerity, coupled with higher taxes on the wealthy -- Republicans, especially the right-wing chairman of the House Budget Committee who inspired the tour in the first place, are generally dismissive of their pleas.
When Democrats disagree with Catholic leaders on contraception, it's billed as proof of a war on faith. When Republicans disagree with Catholic leaders on social justice, it's proof that the right is fiscally responsible.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* A Republican state senator this week recommended a proposal that would prevent Muslims in the state from building houses of worship. Other faiths would not be affected.
* A Christian minister in Alabama is hosting a pastor's conference this weekend, and "all White Christians" are invited. Asked about the discrimination, the Rev. William Collier said, "We don't have the facilities to accommodate" those who are not "part of the chosen race."
* The Vatican is running its largest budget deficit in years. After briefly running a profit, the Vatican ran a $19 million deficit last year.
* And a growing number of American Mormons are going high-tech in the hopes of boosting Mitt Romney's Republican presidential campaign. Romney, of course, would be the nation's first Mormon president (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip).
Leave a Comment:
In the spirit of Christian Fellowship, those "white xtians" in Alabama will conclude their conference with a ceremonial "lighting" of a cross. Hoods optional.
That isn't, in fact, sarcasm. That is precisely what they are planning -- only with an electrified 'fiery cross.' These are members of "Christian Identity" the neo-Nazi version of 'Christianity.'
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." -- Anne Lamott
Just sayin'.
Don't forget what Jesus said: F the poor to give more to the rich!
-Mark 10:25
The same GOP supporters that tout Christian values think that is enough, following and adhering to those same values does no matter....hypocrisy, plain and simple!
Regurgitating the nonsensical right wing talking points, to them, is what matters....easy, it requires NO cognitve thought! Remember, whites, with limited education will gravitate to the notion that they are more intelligent than anyone not like them!!! Blacks, like Thomas and Allen West and others take advantage of their historical reference to BS the former for their monetary upward mobility. This applies to other ethnic individuals not white.
Case in point, Herman Cain, those on the right had a negro without sustance to call their own so not to be called racist, look, we have one in the GOP, virtually all white. Those people of color or any other ethinicity, without a moral core take advantage of this lunacy for THEIR gain. What we all know is this, folk that do this for financial gain are basically distrusted by those they BS and those BS'd, regardless of ethnicity. Cain, West, Thomas etc. have no credibiltiy with the folk like them and no credibility with those not like them. Status and Money drives them.....not morality.
"...Asked about the discrimination, the Rev. William Collier said, "We don't have the facilities to accommodate" those who are not "part of the chosen race."
I did hear that they are accepting donations to build colored restrooms and drinking fountains.
Having lived in AL for five years, I never saw those kinds of crosses. The crosses I saw were X'ed out job applications in trash cans.
The nuns would persuade me to be Catholic, but the rest makes God weep.
The nuns persuaded me to stay the h*ll away from the KKKatholik church. A truly brutal bunch, under their burkas.
well, if God existed, maybe. But for a supposedly omnipotent character that supposedly constantly interfered with humanity, this god of yours sure does nothing to show who the True Christians are. Does the Pope know what God "really wants" or is it the nuns? The nuns are good women despite religion, not because of it at all.
a bit more about that anti mosque state senator....
truly ugly stuff in denver last weekend at the western conservative summit sponsored by the colorado christian university’s centennial institute.
among other things there were speeches from noted islamophobes geert wilders and frank gaffney.
in response to the former, colorado republican state sen. kevin grantham said, “If we look at the philosophical underpinnings of what is called Islam, (it’s) very fair how he treats that. Now, there’s some Muslims, obviously, like Mr. Wilders said, that we would call moderate. But the philosophical underpinnings of that system, of that culture of Islam — those are very serious problems and they are antithetical to the American way.
As he said, mosques are not churches like we would think of churches. They think of mosques more as a foothold into a society, as a foothold into a community, more in the cultural and in the nationalistic sense. Our churches — we don’t feel that way, they’re places of worship, and mosques are simply not that, and we need to take that into account when approving construction of those.”
----
much more on the speeches if you can stomach it
http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/993597-dutch-lawmaker-brings-his-crusade-against-islam-conservative-confab
There's a very simple, non-discriminatory way to solve this problem.
Make it illegal to open ANY houses of worship!
We would have a better world for it.
There's a very simple, non-discriminatory way to solve this problem. Make it illegal to open ANY houses of worship! -- Angeleno213
I'd be happy just seeing their tax-exempt status taken away. This country shouldn't be providing financial incentive to bigoted and discriminatory hate spewing "religious" groups.
These religious cults are always crying about war being waged on their religious freedom. FREEDOM comes at a price .... a price that they DONT pay.
The German's at a time in our history, Hitler, believed in white superiority and thought ALL other ethinicities inferior. Then, like now, that is not the case and history.....proven reality....is fact. Because someone is not like you, practice a different religion etc......considering 9-11, does not make them inferior or someone to be afraid of or demonized. Just as Ted Bundy, Milken, those that destroyed our economy is not representative of the whites.......nor are those, people of color, that are outliers to our moral core of law and decency, as a group, representative of those different or of color.
Accepting differences strenghens the collective, not weaken it. This election is the most important of our lifetime and sane must dictate, not the insane!!!
apologies if steve covered this item earlier this week
religious group challenges alec's non profit status
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) “elevates commercial gain for a few over the well-being of society’s less fortunate,” says a complaint penned by Marcus Owens, the former chief of the Internal Revenue Service’s nonprofit corporations division, on behalf of Clergy VOICE, a group of ministers from progressive churches in Ohio.
In its complaint, Clergy VOICE says ALEC has “deliberately and repeatedly failed to comply with some of the most fundamental federal tax requirements applicable to public charities” and that evidence “quite strongly” suggests that the group is violating civil and criminal tax laws.
The clergy’s complaint goes beyond allegations of improper lobbying, claiming that ALEC exists for the “private benefit” of its members rather than for charitable, educational or other exempt purposes that serve the public interest and deserve special tax treatment.
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/02/12524532-alec-the-power-behind-legislation-faces-tax-complaint-from-clergy-group?lite
I like it. Just like Al Capone, get them on tax evasion. Breaking the circle of crime (and legal abuse/loopholes) is the goal, use whatever means available accomplish it!
Russell ... I'm always amazed that ALEC, the "Super Pacs," or the 527s from either side of the aisle manage to get non-profit status from the IRS. The requirements for attaining that status are very exacting, and IRS rigorously reviews the applications of organizations that apply. At least the smaller, or less notorious ones. Given IRS' diligence in assessing the compliance of the activities of smaller 501(C)(3) orgs, I can't imagine how these politically oriented entities hang on to their tax exemption.
Fine, let's make sure they go after Media Matters and Center for American Progress as well.
Yea, 'cause Media Matters and Center for American Progress tell too much truth for your tastes, huh Shooter?
shooter .... How much money do Media Matters and the CAP give to candidates, or spend in advertising on their behalf? How much do they spend lobbying (which is expressly, and I mean EXPRESSLY, prohibited under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code? To what extent do these two organizations write model legislation? How much corporate money do they launder through the system in the form of in-kind donations to current legislators?
I wasn't talking about the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, or any of the thousands of right wing think tanks, which equate to some degree to the two organizations you cite. I'm talking about the ones tilting the playing field financially. But, if we're going after those two, the entire structure of right wing philosophical and media support would certainly be in question, as well. And you're right. Maybe it should be.
More false equivalency brought to you by the far right.
shooter ... You might also try reading all the way to the END of the first line of my original post. The part which includes the phrase, " . . . from either side of the aisle . . ." I know it takes a certain amount of work to actually READ the post, instead of just making inferences about it based on the first few words, but try to keep up.
You're asking too much of Shooter, mpguy; he's doing well to get as far as he does.
Isn't it nice to see religious people pressing for public compassion, empathy, sympathy, and understanding in its politics instead of Republican Jesus' insistence on the asymetric, unfettered free market's (imaginary) Invisible Hand?
I'm waiting for them to stop putting his invisible hand down the pants of young boys!
That probably happens more often than we think. Religious right figures and politicians make a lot of noise, much greater than their numbers warrant. Everyone else just goes about their business pretty quietly as rule, relatively speaking, so they don't get as much attention.
re DisgustedWithItAll...
You are forgetting the parable that Jesus taught that It is easier for a camel to fit thru the eye of a needle than for a poor man to go to heaven.
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ. Mahatma Gandhi
Saying I haven't much use for churches of any stripe would be an understatement. But what's not to like about a gaggle of dedicated nuns whose empathy with the poor drives them to publicaly protest the greed and insensitivity of their own? I have often wondered when an official of the Mormon church will finally call out Mitt Romney on his war on the poor and pathological lying. I guess these traits don't merit denouncement in some circles.
You have never lived in a city that was mostly Mormon or you would know that the ONLY poor the Mormons care about are their own. If you don't belong to the "church" they could care less if you live or die!!
Google the mormon church, you will find that their missonaries lied to those they wanted to convert.......like Romney!!!! I am of a firm belief that when an indivdual claims his/her religious faith and call themselves christian..........it is simple....how does their claim match christian beliefs, policies and ACTIONS. What a pol says is irrelevent, what he/she does is a more accurate measure!!!
I'm not sure how much more you can expect of a religion that baptizes people after they're dead, when they can't object. That's going pretty low on the ethics scale. Being selfish and hypocritical, wishing ill for the poor and sick, lying to achieve one's goals, and treating women and children as lesser brings seems right up the Mormons' alley.
I wonder if the dear Reverend and his following have a belief-policy on freckled-white people?
Can they, too, get into the Reverend's heavenly place of hatred? -Kevo
Begs the question of red-headed step children being allowed in doesn't it?
A person who has faith in God does not define God. God is what God is and that cannot be changed by a person. A person's expression of belief about God merely indicates the nature and personality of the speaker. Therefore, someone who calls herself a Christian and then expresses racist, sexist, or hateful remarks no more defines the nature of God than if she were describing an inkblot. These religious people of any faith speak for themselves and for those who affirm them. Under this criteria, I'll stick with the nuns on the bus and feel safe that their description of the inkblot is a healthier, more Godly interpretation.
Very well put Tom.
Concisely stated.....agree!!!!
every theist says the exact same thing. "My prefernces are "Godly" and those "others" are not. Nothing new here, only more claims of having the "right" answer and no evidence for any of this nonsense.
Oh for crying out loud, he said they lack the facilities. I mean is it his fault the meeting place does not have separate bathrooms for "people of color"? Then of course there would be a need for separate seating areas and...
It's not that he is a racist honky pig he just don't like non-white folk.
By 'facilities' he may have meant 'crematoria'. But maybe I'm being a tad unfair.
More than a tad unfair! I did hear that next year their cross burning is going to be old fashioned (wood) and that, in the spirit of inclusiveness, they are looking for a black male to fill the role of J.C. on the cross.
It is amazing still to me how much people on the Left embrace and encourage Christian involvement when the position of the person or organization agrees with them but ridicule and chastise Christian involvement when they disagree with the stated position. To that point, this quote from above:
The US Government is not Christian and thus labeling those actions as "not Christian" is self evident. Those voting on these issues, while they may be Christian, are acting as a representatives of constituents as a part of the same Government.
While the Christian church and Christian individuals certainly have a directive to care for the less fortunate, there is nothing in their teachings that says this should or must be done through the government, quite the opposite...It is the individual's and the church's responsibility.
That said, I am for governments' active work and participation in helping the poor and those in need.
I was under the impression that it was the people on the right who claim to have a monopoly on "christianity." Seems to me that they are the ones who define christianity as to whether or not it follows their political and economic philosophy.
It's amazing still to me how much people on the right think they have the corner on christianity or what is christian.
It's also amazing that that those on the right want to use religion as a basis to oppress women and people of color and the poor.
That said, I am for religious beliefs being kept out of policy decisions entirely.
This can never happen. Many laws are based on morals and values. Most laws make a value judgement of right/wrong, fair/unfair, etc. and one sense of these are often shaped by religious beliefs. So, rightly or wrongly, agree or disagree religion will always be a part of politics because religion often shapes the politician. In the US, our aim is to still be respectful of people of various faiths but maintain a "community" morality/value as well.
Bull. Many laws are based upon logic and reason. Period. No matter how you try to spin it.
And tell your last quote to those who aren't christian whose mosques and synagogues are being attacked and vandalized, and those who are now being racially profiled because of their religious beliefs.
Again: keep your religious beliefs OUT of policy.
Militant Reactionary Christians and their apologists obviously want complete domination of the US no matter how much they try to whitewash/sugar-coat what they are doing with their fatuous, deceitful circumlocutions.
I think that morality, or the understanding of a common good, is the basis of various religions and various societal laws. I also think that a people do not necessarily need a religion in order to instill moral values. Some people are comfortable with religion, and some people are not.
re RobDon and Donna J.
You are both partially correct, but so 'out-dated'.
RobDon says Many laws are based on morals and values.
Donna J. says Many laws are based upon logic and reason.
Both are 'out-dated' concepts. In our current political environment, most laws are based upon the desires of corporate and wealthy interests. At the federal level, the politicians, including most democratic senators, are corporately owned. (i.e. Chuck 'Wall Street' Schumer) At the state levels, politicians are dancing more to the tune of ALEC than of their 'morals and values' or 'logic and reason'.
No spin. Logic and reason are definitely used but it is morals and values that provide the substance. Take our concept of private property. It is logical to conclude that the one who has the most might gets to take what he wants. There is logic involved. But we apply the value that each individual is entitled to his own possession without risk of someone stealing it.
Why wouldn't it be logical to say the one with the most might could take what he wants and keep it? Why isn't that logical UNLESS you insert respect for the individual which is a value.
SadOldVeteran, your point is taken. We were speaking about the ideal and/or the way it is designed.
Sad,
You are right.
And those interests are cloaked in this fake religious righteousness of the right.
@ Rob
Bull again.
Again, you are justifying your own religious beliefs.
And your explanation is based upon your own religious beliefs which are not logical at all.
What is "good" and what is "bad" "right" or "wrong" is not based upon "morals" or "religious beliefs" no matter how you spin it. These examples that you give can just as easily be explained using logic and reason. And really, using morals, and religion in an attempt to justify your position only proves my point that right wing people think they have the corner on christianity or what is christian.
The fact of the matter is: they don't. And using religion to justify law or policy decision only further proves my point.
And these same right wingers use religion to oppress other people.
And again: keep your religious beliefs out of policy.
I love it when people believe that if you are not christian you have diminished morals or values.
If religion is the only way you know right from wrong then you are incapable of rational thought.
@shooter
You failed to think.
Further thought would have let you to pick a different example. In a society massive stealing results in a total stop to production. Why work to produce something if it will be taken away from you? People will just gather food on a day by day basis.
So logic demands limits on stealing. The opposite is worse for the "ones with the most might".
I have said before that any law that is based on just religion should only be passed if a very large majority agrees. Stealth legislators should not pass such laws by a bare majority. They will not stand anyway.
terriels, I was not/am not saying that having religion "is the only way to know right from wrong," nor "that if you are not a Christian you have diminished morals or values."
I was saying that peoples faith impact their sense of right/wrong and morals/values. Many, many other things do as well. People who do not have a religion can and ARE very moral. Their morals or values were not influence by religion but maybe by family, school, life experiences, etc.
I am also saying that laws represents a community's (state's, country's) values. If you are part of the process of making laws, albeit voter or lawmaker, then you bring your values to the table and all that shaped those values. It is impossible to fully divorce yourself from them.
Donna, what is right/wrong, good/bad are TOTALLY based on morals and values! This is not spin. (My point is that people's faith is one of the things that can influence their morals and values.)
Actually Rob, they are not: and you are too narrowminded to see that it doesn't.
"People of faith" thought slavery was okay with them.
Jason, you are correct. I wasn't trying to validate anyone's values only addressing where they come from and how they are used.
Donna, to say that values are based on logic and reason would mean smart people have better values and the uneducated and/or intellectually challenged have worse values.
lennybruce48 in re Mormon church. There are Mormons, particularly what we might call "fundamentalist Mormon's" that believe in caring for the poor, preserving the land, and fairness and equality (within the limits of their faith), but they are not, shall we say, "official(s) of the Mormon church."
Addendum: I am with you lenny in re churches, and Mormonism has some particularly nasty bits hidden in it based on published sources and people I know who have "fallen," but people are still people: some good, some bad, most inbetween.
Best post on the thread (next to mine)!
I think you may be correct. No spelling errors. No offensive language. No untruths. Wow.
...too funny.
Ken's absolutely right. He was listing everything Republicans have done in the past several decades to help those in the middle and working classes. And everything Mitt Romney WILL do to help these groups should he be elected.
It got 2 votes. :)
an update on a story i left in last week's "twig" comment thread
(Reuters) - A group of about 150 Mormons quit their church in a mass resignation ceremony in Salt Lake City last Saturday in a rare display of defiance ending decades of disagreement for some over issues ranging from polygamy to gay marriage.
http://news.yahoo.com/mormons-quit-church-mass-resignation-ceremony-010739174.html
Mich: Are you saying people being people make their action equivalent regardless of their model being Mormonism or whatever? Yes, people are still people within some bell-curve relative to their model of operation, be it that includes the "nasty habits" of Mormonism or the horror of neo-evolutionary Nazis. Models have varying severity that produce unequal results of whatever is the good and bad of them. Any individual is susceptible to group behavior from one model to the other that may change their own behavior to some according extent.
There would be a lot less chaos if the Democrats and Republicans would switch there positions on birth control.
Then the Republicans can say "You are on your own from cradle to grave" and the democrats can say" I will help you from precradle to grave."
Mikulski opposes the Ryan budget and has worked hard to protect and extend the safety net. But if Collins and Landrieu want to do something really meaningful to honor nuns, why don't they support these nuns' cause and support their budget proposal.
Nuns have traditionally worked to further social justice and economic fairness. Putting some political muscle behind those priorities is the right way to honor them.
Today's Republicans, especially of the toxic Tea Party strain, are giving Judas Iscariot a run for his money.
"It's immoral!" ... "That's not Christian,"
And??? We're talking about republicans and the republican policy here. No one seriously claims that they are either Christian or moral. Stating the obvious is not productive.
The Republicans have weaponized the bible.
Resigned over polygamy? Thought that was a long-gone issue? Why would it even be part of the discussion unless...
"A Republican state senator this week recommended a proposal that would prevent Muslims in the state from building houses of worship. Other faiths would not be affected."
You sometimes wonder if Republicans have even read the Constitution, because if they had they'd have surely read this bit:
But apparently that bit doesn't count when applied to any other faith than Christian.
Why can't we just prohibit building all houses of worship?
The constitution says they can exercise their religion. We say, go for it, just don't build any dens of perversion to do it in!
Whether they say so openly or not, Militant Reactionary Christians and their apologists operate using an extremely narrow and self-serving definition of "religion". If it isn't the right religion, then it isn't a real religion and thus is not protected.
Because the answer to unthinking reactionary intolerance is not more unthinking reactionary intolerance. And since you actually have that explained to you...goodbye.
We prohibit crack houses.
We prohibit brothels (except in Nevada).
We can prohibit houses of degeneracy, too.
It's not intolerance, its good Public Health.
We don't prohibit crack houses or brothels. We do prohibit doing and selling crack and prostitution. It's not the "house" that is prohibited, it is what is being done inside. You aren't suggesting we prohibit the practice of religion are you?
* A Republican state senator this week recommended a proposal that would prevent Muslims in the state from building houses of worship. Other faiths would not be affected.
Ah yes. Religious freedom at it's best except when it is a religion the teapubs dislike for any reason.
.
I love those Nuns on a Bus!!! I really hope they vote for Obama! That Alabama preacher is example of people who make me want to stay away from church.
Sr Simone Campbell is nothing but a radical imposter. She has been an activist dissenter from true church teahing for over 25 years. She is for all intents & purposes, nothing but a professional "lawyer" posing as a nun. She has long held firm to views that dissent from the Catholic Church. Demytholigizing every basic Christian tenant. Jesus Christ was "not divine, did no miracles, did not rise froom the dead, was not sinless, is not the foundation of the catholic church, is not truly present in the Eucharist (Blessed Sacrament) the Holy Spirit's presence with us is nothing but an emotional experierence, ................ need I go on? She is a firm believer in a totally Marxist Socialist theology, Liberation Theology. She is a FAKE! NETWORK is a democrat political lobbyist group supportive of democratic candidates (of which Barak Obama was but one) she, much to the approval of TRMS & blog, a gay rights in the church activist who has defied Pope John Paul II's requests to reconcile her false teachings with the true church as has Pope Benedict XVI. She is a proponent of a schism from the Church in Rome.
The entire story coverage here is as I stated last week, is nothing but the makings of a catholic bigot. Dr Rachel Maddow. Dr Catholic Bigot. One need only view the hateful posts the story generates against the Catholic Church here. Obviously the purpose of the story is established, hate mongering against catholics and the Catholic Church.
As for your many posts condeming the catholic church for it's recent problems which are truly scandalouos. Priests who have abused innocent young boys and girls I give you this:
Only 1/10 of 1% of catholic priests were involved in such scandals. While hundreds of thousands have never commited such crimes.
As properly recorded in a recent book authored by a man who has been 45 yrs a Catholic Priest and 45 yrs a Clinical Phycholgist, Fr Groeshel (read From Scandal to Hope) as he has personally experienced the "move within the church to promote such things and has treated, concilled and studied subjects/guilty parties of such scandals.............."there is no pediphillia problem in the Catholic Church." "It is a homosexual problem". I know you refuse to hear this but that my little biggoted friends is the truth.
So,................ enough said, Sr Simone Campblell and Nuns on the Bus are FAKES!
TRMS and Blogs are Biggots with a capital B
Have a nice day!
But we still want to help the poor, needy, and downtrodden, right?
If it is true there has been but 1/10 of 1% pederast priests, then they haven't been too difficult to hide.
The answer to your question is obvious. These are absolute missions of the Catholic Church. They are part of the fiber of the church. They are at the root of the church's mission. However, it is a spiritual poverty which supersedes even that in the teachings of Christ. Read The Beautitudes contained in Matthew chapters 5 thru 7 & 8.
Your question seeks to sidetrack the argument. Thus the obvious response. The heart of the matter is this:
Either Sr Simone Campbell who believes the Jesus Christ is not God Incarnate, Not divine in nature, did no miracles, did not rise from the dead and did not begin "Thou art Peter, The Rock and upon this rock I build MY church", a church we catholics believe to be the Catholic Church. And either she is right that Christ is nothing but a demytholigized spritual leader who founded a movement predominantly political & social in nature .................. Or Jesus Christ who taught the opposite of all Sr Campbell believes is right.
Either Sr Simone Campbell is a Liar and a Fake or Jesus Christ is a Liar and a fake.
I as did Peter belive that "You are the Christ, the son of the living God". and Sr Simone Campbell a Marxist Socialist political activist who poses as a nun in the catholic church a church's whose teachings she does not believe in. She is ...Just a Fake. Her Nuns on the Bus trip was just a facade for her political activism as a Democrat Lobbyist lawyer. She's a FAKE!
Stay on point. The post is about Sr Campbell being a fake.
I could care less if she is a "good" catholic according to you or not. She is a good woman.
Pedophile priests are a fact and the protection of said priests is also a fact. Those facts are very much anti-catholic and yet the powers of the church are being used for very anti-catholic endeavors in that regard so pervasively that it is a global issue.
The power of the name of the catholic church as a moral or ethical yardstick to measure up to has lost all credibility, and the church has noone to blame but itself.
Terriels,
Well, in fairness, the church's uncritical True Believers are also to blame.
Women are both more spiritual and moral than men are. This invalidates most if not all orthodox religions that claim women to be inferior to men.
Read any of the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Nowhere will you find support for the argument that women are inferior to men. All are equal period. Your argument is political not religeous.
Mary the Mother of God is the most important highest honored and most adorned with "hyper Dulia" of all the saints of the Catholic Church. She is the Mother of the Church. The church honors women (see how many are "Doctors of the Church" one need only read the gospel narratives to know that women were the only ones (besides St John at the foot of the cross) first to visit the tomb on Easter ect ect ect to know women are the heart & soul of the church. Your argument is political. Learn what you're talking about, read Fr Vincent Micelli's "Women priests and other Fantasies" and know what you're talking about silly.
The point here is NOT about who's right and who's worng as concerns political matters of the church. Stay on topic. The object of the post is to reveal that Sr Simone Campbell is a Fake and Ms Maddow a bigot.
Thanks Have a nice evening
Naturally, there is nothing fake about your Nazi Pope. Oops, sorry. He was only a member of The Hitler Youth Party.
Whatever Sr Simone may be to you (a fake) in religious terms, she has real social/economic solution that to me is more about good works.
Karl Marx had a "social/economic message/solution" too. Sr Simone Campblell's self admittedly is the very same. She is a Marxist. Oh yes, that is a great solution. One once referred to as the "Final Solution". Her's is not a "good works mission" but "Good works provided by the government". Not done in the name of Christ but in the name of the democratic party and big gov't.
Hitler's youth army???? where'd read that crap, the NY Times. Perfect example of generated catholic bigotry produced by this blog and the TRMS show. Thank You for provng my point. Maddow is a bigot and this blog's sole purpose is to ignite hatred for faiths and esp the Catholic Church.
But please, stay on subject. Sr Simone is a Fake!
The subject of Sr Simone as a religious fake includes her works which I am saying are real secular solution, may conflict with your belief in Christian tenant and encyclical, but have a result that in practical terms constitutes good works but where you believe done for the love of God is in question.
Sr Campbell nor her advocacy group (numberiing 13) do nothing manefest that pertains towards the collection/distribution or actual movement of goods or products to the needy or poor or anyone for that matter. They are strickly a vocal advocacy group which heralds a move towards distribution of wealth -taking from the wealthiest and redistributing to the common good through government operations. And she does this under a false cloak of being a catholic nun. She isn't associated with Catholic Charities or anything even remotely associated with an authentic catholic organization. In other words, hers is only a theory with no action or true interaction.
And I am sorry you disagree. But the pinacle of the copntroversy is that she is not acting in the name of the church but only using the church's title (Catholic) as a facade for her true advocacy message, Marxism. It's all a pretense.
This was why Cardinal Ratzinger abolished the movement as it was generating momentum in South America is the 80's and 90's acting as Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Catholic Church in the late 90's and why those involved lost their cathicity in their defiance. That historical fact is why the NY Times atacked him when he became Pope. It was a precursor to the current argument. To you and those who adhere to "secular solutions" Marxism may well work as constituting "good works". But not to the Catholic Church. That is her error. And a great definition point, her movement (although entirely vocal including NO literal acts or works in action) is done on a false bully pulpit, falsely under the name of "catholic". Doubling down on that false claim that in her words, " we are only doing things according to the true spirit of the Second Vatican Council". As though God the Holy Spirit who is the author of that council is null and void.
Under any name, under any circumstance Sr Simone Campbell is a Fake! She should be honest, put a giant picture of Marx, Stalin and Leniin on the bus and call themselves Women for a socialist marxist revolution in and outside of the church. "Comrades on the Bus" slash "Nuns against the Pope" She may as well ad an 800 PLanned Parenthood number on the back of the bus because she and NETWORK are worthy vocal advocates for abortion rights. Another reason TRMS loves her. Oh yes, that action on the part of Sr Campbell and her company is truly authentic catholic in name and in church approval standards.
Sr Campbell is a FAKE!
Then, they would be being honest.
Irish: Nothing you've said changes the facts of my post, does it? Secular is not synonymous with Marxism. I don't care if solution is in the action of works or words, or might be labeled "Marxist". Given what you said about Sr. Campbell, she sounds like a contradiction in terms, like "Jews for Christ". I will look more closely at Sr. Campbell.
Actually no, I am not inferring that secularism is in any way naturally correlative to Marxism. My fault for not being clear. In this case, of Sr Simone Campbell however she has clearly stated the relative nature of her secular involvement as interwoven with a spiritual attachment to Marxist socialism through Liberation Theology. She is the focus of my posts.
Sr Campbell is self described as a "Progessive Catholic" and is not shy about her leanings towards a socialist ideological framework with which to justify "her version" of what defines catholic teaching on "social justice" of which John Paul II wrote extensively in both his books and or papal encyclicals. The two versions are mutually exclusive.
If she is in earnest a true believer in social justice which finds it's roots in fairness and helping the impoverished. Why then does her concern NOT reach towards the most vulnerable of the helpless and poor, those who cannot defend themselves. The Unborn. In her own words, "I am uncomfortable describing myself as "pro life" so because of my pride." end quote. Truth is, she is a very strong advocate and supporter of Planned Parenthood and every and any legislation which protects the rights of women's reproductive rights. That, coupled with her defiance against teachings and believing that Christ is Divine, a belief in the Holy Trinity and the Magisterium of the Church is why the Vatican has silenced her and further reprimanded her organization NETWORK. Much less to do with "too much concentration on the poor and social justice and not enough on abortion and homosexuality issues" as reported as the major issues of concern against her on TRMS segment in which she was featured. That is intentionally misleading to TRMS show's audience and disengenous on the parts of both Dr Maddow and Sr Campbell.
Simply put, Sr Simone Campbell is a post christian with a catholic vaneer. A Fake in my terms.
Thanks for listening.
Thank you Irish Pat. You have actually done a tremendous service to this blog with your small minded biggoted view of the world.
I have come to realize that the reason you are here is because people like you are beginning to feel "cornered" and so you come here to "lash out". If you didn't feel "cornered" and afraid you probably wouldn't be posting here!!!
Your posts have given me (and others) real hope that the world may be changing again and views like yours are starting to fade!! I think you are finding that there REALLY AREN'T many people you can talk to anymore!!
I have never followed religious persons but you've convinced me that there may be actual Catholics who do know what Jesus was all about. I'm going to be following Sr. Simone Campbell for now on!!
Keep on posting, IrishPat, I can't WAIT to see what "corners" you next!!!
And Good Morning to you too "oncearepub". I guess you don't appreciate my posting here. Looks as though we must disagree on this matter. That's OK. Hey and thanks for the psychoanalysis! I do hope I don't owe you anything for the visit though because as usual you are wrong 100%.
Maybe I can help you flame throw at me????
How's this: I was deficated from the ugly bowels of that hate mongering biggot Rush Limbaugh and dropped right into this corner.
Feel better............... you have a nice day too!! :-)
Oh, no, IrishPat,
You have me ALL WRONG!! I am beginning to ENJOY your posts! They are truly starting to fascinate me!! I do wish you wouldn't repeat yourself so much though!
And I truly think you are doing all of us a service, because through you, we can start to understand what drives the fear that we see on the EXTREME Right - and who it is that really scare you - like Nuns on a Bus!!
Now WHY would simple women like a few Nuns scare you so badly that you had to flame them like you did? Now THAT is an INTERESTING question!!! Could it be that you sense a movement starting?
Irish: I got a link on Sr. Campbell’s “Network” organization which is, from what I can tell, a legitimate Catholic organization though criticized by the Bishops not so much for what they do but don’t do, speaking out against abortion and gay marriage. The Church is on record as not investigating Network, as they are and have other Catholic sanctioned organization. I could find nothing from the Church that questions Sr. Simone’s legitimacy as a Catholic nun.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/nuns-start-tour-protesting-1459765.html
I am sorry but a "surface search" will unearth nothing about Sr Campbell. You'd need to go to Natioanl Catholic Register to begin with to find a true understanding of Sr Campbell's links to radical theologies and the progressive move within the NETWORK and associates issues driven movement.
Good starter would be googling Sr Simone finds Ahmadinejad's view on "poverty quite touching".
But NCR is a good start point. Then linking from NETWORK to assoiciates such as Catholics United (extreme radical left movement within the Catholic Church (see attachments to Bishop Romero one time Liberation Theology leading advocate) and Catholics for Free Choice ect ect. All of these, including NETWORK are merely "self described catholic organizations". They are NOT Catholic Church sanctioned.
It is in the language expressed and commonly used by these organizations that you begin to see the connection to Liberation Theology and in the case of Sr Simone's definaition of "social justice" as it contradicts church teachiing vs Liberation Theology. It perhaps takes a trained eye, I have been studing catholism both as a layperson and cathechism teacher for 30 years. Moral theology and authentic catholic teaching being of special interest. Today, even a well intended cathecist has to thoroughly review available materials to discern what's conducive or not so with true catholic teaching authority.
Inevitably you begin to see where Sr Simone's views contrast wildly against authentic teaching (ie abortion, euthenasia, women priests, chucrh authority, the divinty of Christ, the real presence in the Eucharist, the ressurection ect ect)
For me, just watching the many interviews of Sr Simone Campbell on MSNBC (at least four with various hosts) on CNN and Democracy Now (yes I view Democracy Now to "enlighten myself to what those whose opinions may vary from my own believe" I try not to be too close minded but certainly know enough to discern from fact and opinion ect ect. That's why I view Maddow's show and blogs on occation. To see what's relevant what's the left's take on this particular issue. In this case I see a distinct agressive agenda being promoted. I attempt to exercise an objective rather than subjective assessment and discernment of the topic. In this case, Sr Campbell, the lesson is very easy to see through.
In her interview with Lawrence O'Donnell she vaguely described to him what her being "silenced by the Vatican" meant. A very serious sanction/censure by the church.
Anyway, that I guess would be described here as Irish Pat7's biggoted remarks on the issue. I've been called worse here, like "wingnut, short buser, phuckface ect ect"
Oncearepublican asked: "Could it be that you sense a movement starting"?
No, the "movement" started well over 30 years ago and that not exclusive to women's religious towards a schism in the church. See Pope John Paul II visit to America in 1979. "Catholic nun publically attacks JP II at mass celebrated during the Holy Father's visit". Once again you are incorrect.
More simply, Wikipedia "Liberation Theology". That theology is the heart & soul of Sr Simone Campbell and NETWORK's "catholic mission".
Irishpat,
Isn't "liberation theology" what Jesus was teaching in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? As I recall, liberation theology started in response to how the dictators in Latin America were treating their citizens. As I recall, it was first blessed by the Roman Catholic Church.
So can you tell me WHY "liberation theology" bothers you? Do you think those Latin dictators had the right to treat their citizens like they did?
IrishPat,
From what I've read about Sister Simone, the ONLY thing the Catholic Church chastizes her for is not talking enough about abortion. I can't see that they had a problem with her "Nuns on a Bus" tour decrying Ryan's budget.
Didn't Jesus heal the sick? Did he ask for their insurance cards first? Don't we also have the duty to heal the sick in the only way we can - by providing affordable healthcare?
Aren't Sister Simone and the Nuns just reminding us of what Jesus said in Matthew 23:
Irish Pat,
So is your problem with Sister Simone is that she actually tries to preach what JESUS said?
I still don't see why YOU call her a fake. You've listed a number of papers that aren't sanctioned by the Catholic Church but I don't see what that has to do with Sister Simone?
You've told me YOU teach in the Catholic Church, but I don't see what that has to do with Sister Simone.
I still just don't understand your viewpoint - could you elaborate further just WHY it is you have chosen HER to attack, rather than, say, priests who molest little boys?
No, absolutely not. Jesus is not the author or liberation theology and it radically contradicts the message of Christ and did not gain full approval of the RCC at any time. The condemnation came following years of review and the church's condemnation in full came from Pope John Paul II after the completion of that review by Cardinal Ratzinger.
See the difference between the Pope's approval of the Solidarity movement in Poland (non neo marxist socialistism) in contrast to Liberation Theology in Latin America.
Much like examining the differences between Thomistic Theology vs Existentialism.
I am sorry, you are thoroughly incorrect. On all counts stated above.
Oncearep: Is the moral of the Matthew 23 story to beware of those with a pair of large phylacteries?
Please see next page (page 2) for reference to Monsignor William Smith that should answer any questions.
OOOOOOHHH, trying to throw BIG WORDS at me!! DO YOU know what they mean?
YOU may believe that the Catholic Church can't be understood except through Thomism, but I wasn't quoting the Catholic Church, I was quoting JESUS, and his words were written, NOT to be interpreted, but to be understood by all! Doesn't he say that himself: "Hear Me, everyone, and understand"?
As for existentialism, do you have a clue what that means? I really don't think so - I think it is just another "BIG WORD" that you are trying to throw around.
OK so you don't like Liberation Theology, and I can agree that it did get taken over by the Marxists LONG after it actually started, but tell me, don't you like the words of Jesus, and isn't that what the Nuns on the Bus were trying to say?
Again, WHY chose 14 harmless nuns to attack instead of someone like pedophiliac priests, which I would think would be a MUCH MORE LIKELY target. Or does Thomism preclude your attacking them?
Bluesmokeand mirrors,
LOLOLOL!! Oh, you are NOT getting me to go there!!!