McCain best illustrated the concept of Compassionate Conservatism in his response to the Sandy Hook mom - still grieving over the loss of her child - when asking for an assault weapon's ban...it essentially went like this

Sorry - Too Bad

She is an Aurora parent.

It's just so hard to keep track of the mass-killing shooting atrocities these days.

The mere fact that groups of conservatives had to label themselves as "compassionate conservatives" is telling enough that conservatism is not compassionate.

I differentiate between religious/social conservatives, who are wrathful and merciless, and fiscal conservatives, who tend to be technocratic (provided they have no hidden agenda).

Religious/social conservatives indulge themselves in the childish conceit that their way is the only true and valid way, because their respective canonical texts tell them so. Christian theology had a strangle hold on our civil life, legal and moral, up until the 60's, and there was little separation between church and state until then. As the separation widened, religious/social conservatives wanted to restore that stranglehold, those golden days of sexual repression, back-room abortions, "having to get married," homophobia, and the like, They opposed separation of church and state, hoping to restore extreme Christianity's strangle-hold. But when anything remotely non-christian finds its way into our civil life, even Yoga, they're for the separation. It's like the Catholic hospital that defended against a malpractice suit on the grounds that an unborn fetus is not a person under state law. They oppose separation if it promotes Christian theocracy, but insist on separation when it doesn't.

Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is violent and oppressive, but to say you're doing that because you're a caring person, respectful of human life, conceals the underlying violent and wrathful theocratic impulse. When religious/social conservatives succeeded in labeling themselves "pro-life,"they achieved the greatest public relations coup of the 20th century. Compassionate conservatism was nothing but an attempt to rebrand and broaden religious/social conservatism, because it was being seen as fanatical and relentless in the battle over reproductive rights.

You got that right Sofferclese.

Do you like attaching links to my words Steve Benen. Can you please explain this?

What the Pope needs to do is drop the medieval rule that forbids priests to marry.

I'm not holding my breath, however. The cardinals in line of succession are old conservative men chosen by Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul.

Nothing will change. We need to bring the Catholic Church into the light of the 21st century.

They could also drop the uber-medieval rule that forbids women from becoming priests. They'd probably allow married priests before they'd allow women.

I mean, who would launder and iron the alter linens if women became priests? They'd rather have no priests than let women into the enclave.

I don't honestly think that women are cut out for it. Not that they are inferior, of course, but they are different in their physical and emotional makeup.

I think those linens are simply sent to the laundry. I haven't seen anyone slaving and sweating over a hot iron like Lara in Dr. Zhivago lately.

The 21st century? They just got into the 17th century 20 years ago when they pardoned Galileo...let them catch their breath

I don't know why, but I get the feeling that Catholic priests won't be allowed to marry until gay marriage is accepted around the world. (I lied. I do know why I think that.)

Catch this? Priests In Panties - The Daily Beast

You are funny, Dragoon! I agree, though, they managed to stop burning innocents at the stake. That's progress! LOL

Disgusted,#2.5 I may want to pass on your link.

Our local Episcopal church had a woman rector a few years ago. She was married to a man. I think she was well liked by the congregation. I do not see any physical reason why a woman cannot perform the liturgy or any of the sacraments.

Until the Church recognizes that human beings are sexual creatures, they will continue to fail their congregants. Once they begin to see people as we really are, then married priests, women priests, birth control, gay marriage, etc. should follow as logical progressions.

bflynch,

I was Episcopalian. I agree that priests should marry. Women would not make good priests, especially if they were married and had children. It is terribly demanding and the hours are awful. I just can't see it. I've had three children and I sure wouldn't want it.

I have a problem with all this "equality". Sorry. I think the differences are formidable and I also don't think women should be in combat. Women aren't built for it in any way, emotionally or physically. I personally don't see why anyone wants to turn women into men.

There I said it.

Please do not say I am not for civil rights. That's different.

They also stopped spreading disease and death, India, when they stopped killing all the cats when they burned the "wise village women" as witches. It was the cleansing of Europe of cats in the name of Christian holiness that left the morons with no first line of defense against the rats and their fleas, which led to the Black Death and the death of the feudal society the church dominated.

Then there's the little matter of causing the Dark Ages in the name of fighting paganism when Clement of Alexandria demagogued the mob into burning the Library of Alexandria, "fount of Satan's influence in this world", later making him Pope Clement I in recognition of his tireless spread of the kind of ignorance and superstition that guaranteed the Church its power.

Along with fighting the rise of knowledge in the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and Modernism in general in the name of keeping the rubes ignorant and religious, what good have they done?

I mean, Islam - before it was overrun with fundamentalism in the wake of the destruction of the Caliphate by the Mongols - was the religion that valued knowledge and managed to save most of the ancient knowledge the Christians saw it as their duty to destroy. What similar thing has Christianity accomplished anywhere, other than promoting "Gott Mit Uns" for every "Christian" army? (That actually used to be on the belt buckle of every soldier in the Kaiser's Army)

In NW Iowa, there is a couple married, both Methodist ministers, one works in my town and his wife works in the next town over They have no problem keeping up with their work. Actually they are more visible and working than most Priests I have seen, that you can never get in contact with.

I have thought for years that the Roman Catholic Church is not up to date, especially with the US congregants. I wonder if at some time, they will split into the RC Church and the American Catholic Church. Rules would really be changing then. Also, then it would move around the world. There are many modern industrialized countries where they would modernize also.

India , maybe we should not allow women to vote , or run for office either ? since you feel it is not a civil rights issue , all that voting and politicking would take away from the women taking care of family after all

there is a simple solution to your belief that the women's place is in the home , hire more priests so they all have time to take care of the kids , or what have you , big freakin deal huh ? Some people are naturally celibate , some are not , we have seen the effects of limiting priests to act a certain way , if you have not figured out how unhealthy all that is by now , you never will

Patango, really. That is ridiculous. First, I do believe priests should marry. I agree it has caused a lot of the problems we see in my church as the result of antiquated celibacy laws.

Second, I have not spent my entire life "in the home" and do not recommend it. I do believe children are entitled to a mother when they are quite small. (And damned if they don't always start out that way!)

Third, Of course women should vote. (Unless they belong to the T-Party.)

I think the Catholic church found it easier to hide the fact they molest children and hiding molesting each other's wives would be more difficult.

/snark

bflynch, #2.7

No one knows better than a Catholic priest that we are sexual beings. They hear confessions.

They probably could shock us all rather badly with things they know!

India LeCarre #2.8

As a vet and as a woman, you are under a misconception. Women are better at problem solving. Have more stamina than men. Women can be more vicious than men. Women have higher pain threshold than men. If you can walk around for about 3 months while that baby gets bigger in you belly, you can walk a few miles with a 100 pound pack on your back, etc.

As to the one excuse I head some pundit sound off about how can a small frail woman get some big strong wounded man out of harms way, we have a lower center of gravity than men and the ‘Fireman’s carry’ makes big men as easy to carry as babes.

Israel as had women warriors for decades now.

Being strong in your self, being self reliant, is not making women into men.

Yes I know your pregnant for 9 months not 3, but it is the last three months where the baby puts on it birth weight, and I still say 5-10 lb. in the belly for 3 months is just a difficult as 100 lb. on your back for a day.

#2.5, (i am very self reliant, BTW) I am even handy with a screwdriver and hammer!

You have a point, Old Bat. I concede your argument has merit.

As for me, though, at 119lbs, I have had 3 children, but I doubt I could walk around with 100 lbs. on me.

I have a bad back now from being a medic when I was young and watched those male police officers smile at this 100 lb. paramedic while they stood by smoking a cigarette. I had to carry one very heavy woman once too often, I'm afraid.

Maybe I read too much Phyllis Schlaffley when I was younger. It's possible.

1 Timothy 2:12, I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must remain silent.

I just don't see any wiggle room.

Liberal christians give credence to radical christians.

India

Patango, really. That is ridiculous.

Yet this is what you said

Women would not make good priests, especially if they were married and had children. It is terribly demanding and the hours are awful. I just can't see it. I've had three children and I sure wouldn't want it.

You are saying women are not up to the task , and it is also not a civil rights issue , when indeed it was a civil rights issue for women to been seen as equal, and get the vote , your stance is that they are not equal to men

Your are also claiming priests should be able to get married , while claiming woman could not handle being married , while being a preist , but men could , I just find that all baffling

"YOU" do not want women to be priests , but that is far removed from the fact that women do just fine in the priesthood

And having women pay taxes and lose loved ones in war , then telling them they have no business going and helping to kill the bad guys , is RIDICULOUS , and on par with telling them they had no business voting back in the 19th and 20th century

Now I respect that those are your opinions India , I am just pointing out how I do not see eye to eye with them , not a big deal , you are not comfortable with these issues , I see them as society moving forward equally

Don't take this the wrong way, but:

especially if they were married and had children. It is terribly demanding and the hours are awful.

Is a variation of the argument laying creedence to paying women less for equal work. I have the person in my head who said something like ths, and dangit I can't think of who that was.

Come on, guys! Of course women should receive equal pay for equal work. I have always believed that.

When did women become the same as men, though? I missed that memo.

I think it is a step in the wrong direction, myself.

I don't believe most women would be suited for combat or the priesthood. So burn me at the stake.

Let me clarify this: I believe women are equal to men.

I just don't believe they are men.

I am happy with that arrangement.

India 2.21

"When did women become the same as men, though? I missed that memo."

Women have always been the same as men, same wants, same needs, same emotions.

Women produce testosterone and men produce estrogen.

As fetus we all start out as female, then those who would be male become male.

Agree most women and men today are not suited for combat nor the priesthood nor cop.

But

Women have been at the front lines since men started going to war, and my blood tells me we fought along side our men.

Women have been in the priesthood (priestess) since the beginning of religion.

I am convinced that one should be limited by one's ability not by what others dictate.

If a woman wants to be a doctor so be it

If a man wants to be a nurse so be it

If a woman wants to be a CEO so be it

If a man wants to be a home manager (stays at home with the kids) so be it.

Before the 70's only men were paramedics, and I mean this on all sincerity as a paramedic, you go girl!

We also know there are a lot of men who wouldn't make good priests, but there they are, ministering to (and molesting) the flock.

India,

I think you have a little "blind spot" going there.

Did you ever consider WHY you think women aren't suitable for some jobs? Could it be that those jobs have been "claimed" by men and designed by men for men, and you accept that because "that's the way it has always been" instead of considering WHY?

There is absolutely no reason that women can't be priests. Women have always been the "moral leaders" in society. In fact they were the religious leaders of the church before the First Council at Nicaea.

Don't you think all those "manly jobs" have maintained their "manly" characteristics solely to make it harder for women's entry into those fields?

If women decided how to fight fires, do you think firefighters would depend so much on upper body strength to do their jobs? Don't you think that maybe there are better ways to accomplish that job? I've watched some of the technologies being developed for firefighters and EMTs, and in a few years all that macho fireman stuff can go away - but I don't think it will - mainly because women won't let it go!

War has always been considered a "man's job", but women have been at the front and done everything a man has had to do since the beginning of time. Now that we have finally acknowledged women's contribution to the battle, I'm thinking you will see MUCH smarter fighting strategies and a greater use of technology. Any job that has become a "woman's job" has always shown this to be true. Brute strength really doesn't accomplish all that much!

If women decided how to construct buildings, do you think they would depend so much on heavy labor? Aren't there smarter ways to accomplish these tasks? For instance, I'm watching a construction crew build a 22 story building and the hardest job I've seen so far is the guy who has to climb up the hammerhead crane structure. Someday someone is going to figure out that putting a manlift on that crane is a good idea, and it will be a woman. The guys climbing up to put up the top floors don't walk up the stairs - they have portable manlifts attached to the structure to get them where they have to go. All those old reasons construction workers had to be big strong guys has basically gone away. They have all sorts of nifty equipment these days to do what they have to do. Yet, I look over and see no women working there!! Why is that? Is it because women have accepted all that macho stuff about construction being "man's" work? They should have a look at these guys - the only thing "macho" about them is their beer bellies.

When we women buy into that nonsense that some jobs are "male" jobs, we have only ourselves to blame when we are treated as second class citizens. There are no "male" jobs; there are only tasks that need to be accomplished!

Comment 2.8: I don't agree India. At the beginning of the Christians there was a lot of women that did take lead roles in its development. In addition, saying men are more fit for combat because they are more physically and emotionally fit for combat also is not true. Men suffer from PTSD just as much as women and maybe more in what the results are showing. Look at how many women that have been abused by men over the years and all the things women have had to put up with. Certain men experience such things and they cry like babies making excuses and run to accuse the women of wrong doing. Men are very lucky that more of them haven't been murdered by women from years of abuse. But than again a woman will reach a point just like men will and will eventually strike back.

Luz CanN #2.18: That is Timothy saying that and not Jesus. Jesus has never said any such thing. You shouldn’t forget that there are many Gospels about Jesus and each person was giving their own views and impressions of what they thought the world should be. If you look in other places of the Gospels of Jesus, you will just as well find contradictions to that statement. So you are really better off to just read what Jesus said, because it is us that create what type of culture we want and how we want to live our lives. Remember we were also all given freewill by God and we get judged on our intentions to others, regardless if you are a man or woman.

Back quit a few years ago when women were first given the right to work in coal mines as miners, a news reporter was interviewing one of the lady miners. He asked her: "are there some jobs down here (in the mines) that you cannot do?" She replied: "Yes, but some of the men cannot do them either."

There are men who cannot carry a 100 lb. pack. I think that all people entering the military have to pass a physical. Those who are physically up to the task should have the right to try to do it.

And being a priest and raising three kids is no more impossible than being a doctor, a lawyer, a factory worker, a journalist/TV commentator, a factory worker and having kids. Lots of churches have day care centers, kindergardens, schools and have rectories right next to or close to the church.

The Catholic Church has always required Bishops to be celibate, while they were bishops (e.g. Saint Augustine).

The requirement for priests to be celibate stems more from medieval laws related to inheritance than from theology.

During the Dark Ages and Early Middle Ages, it was very common to divide a father's estate equally between his sons upon his death. This was especially true for areas ruled by the Franks, which was most of western Christendom (roughly the area under the authority of the Patriarch of Rome).

So, when the village priest died, 'his' estate (the parish lands) were by tradition divided between his sons (daughters received dowries upon marriage). Problem was that rents from the parish lands were used to maintain the parish church and village priest, so the Bishops and Papacy had to periodically buy land in these villages so the parish churches would have income needed for maintenance. This was viewed as an expensive problem.

So, a Pope ('the teacher of impossible things') solved this problem by extending the requirement of celibacy to priests and bishops. No legitimate sons, no division of the parish lands, no problem.

Of course, this changed the nature of the Church. Bishops went from being older men celibate in their later years (i.e. often widowers) to being life long celibates. Priests no longer married, and there was no longer a 'village priestess' (who often served as a midwife). The Church went from owning roughly the same amount of land in Europe to owning more and more land as patrons died and willed land to the Church. And the Papal Curia's practice of finding jobs for the 'nephews' of Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes gave us the term 'nepotism' (nepos is Greek for nephew).

Since Church finances are no longer tied to Frankish land law, it is time for the Church to allow the marriage of priests and remove this artificial division between the clergy and the parishioners.

Or the Church can continue to wither due to lack of priests. The choice is up to the next Pope.

Thanks, John, for the information. I had no idea that was the reason!

Now, the college of Cardinals were chosen by Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul. They are all older, traditional, conservative Cardinals. There's virtually no chance of any one of them breaking tradition. If you think Boehner's House members are intransigent, meet the Cardinals.

We can hope, but chances are near zero.

Not funny, Steve. That video is disgusting.

Yeah, I did see a bit of elastic in his pun - seemed to snap right at me after the stretch! Yoga anyone? =Kevo

India

If you are going to hang out on liberal web sights , then you should get use to being offended by such humor , I am a left wing christian , and think making fun of the overly fanatical and hypersensitive CHRISTIANS is not only hilarious , but necessary for comic relief , it is that up tight attitude that turns people off to anyone who is religious

one of the reasons for this Saturday morning discussion , on THE MADDOW BLOG , is to blow the doors off the attitude you are taking with Mr Benen there

Are you saying you find that video acceptable? Well, I don't. I am not the only one who found it objectionable. It is crap.

There's nothing comical about it.

jArmen,

Maybe when you are 85, the days get long again?

What does he do every day that is so time consuming and important. Sit a cardboard cut out of him sitting down, and nobody will notice that he's gone.

You haven't been to Rome, lately, have you, Willow.

C'mon Steve, you've been doing this long enough to know they think the only protected religion in Christianity and that it should receive special treatment and promotion. No other religions need apply. So of course they can have both.

Make that "fundamentalist protestant Christianity." Lutherans (except Missouri Synod), Moravians, and Presbyterians need not apply. Nor should Catholics (except for the Abortion and gay things -- Nuns on a Bus are out) nor Orthodox.

BTW -- I thought the D'Jesus bit on SNL was tasteless. Amusing but tasteless.

Not Episcopalians either.

It's actually a very small "Christian" sect that can apply.

I put "Christian" in quotes because many of their words and deeds are not Christ-like.

I thought it as funny a few weeks ago, when the Satanists are going to demonstrate in Florida to back Gov. Scott because he was bringing back prayer in schools. Can you imagine Friday night football at the high school when the Satanists ask to give the before the game prayer?

And why do these people insist that the founders of this country were Christian? Can they not read?

Actually, the founders WERE pretty much Christian, it is just that many left where they were because those 'more Christian' than they made it intolerable for anyone else. They set things up so that government could not do the same thing here. Those filing suit find that fact inconvenient.

According to the religious right, the United States of America was intended from the start to be a "Christian nation", and the first amendment was intended only to prevent favoritism or persecution of specific Christian denominations or sects over others. In this fantasy world, they think it absurd to erect a wall of separation between Christianity and State, but for any other religion (or versions of Christianity like Mormonism that they'd rather not accept), it's perfectly fine. It's a wall of separation between non-Christian Churches and State.

I'm sure David Barton can find some obscure document with a completely out of context quotation that may vaguely imply that somebody in 1776 once thought that was the way to go, and not the most blatant perversion of a doctrine of religious freedom to construe it to mean its exact opposite.

"The Government of the United States is not, in any sence, founded on the Christian Religion".

John Adams

Larry 74,

That is quite true and it should remain so. The founding fathers were clearly prescient.

They must have seen Pat Robertson coming! LOL

They didn't have to see Pat Robertson coming. The Salem witch trials were history when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

Herd of Cats,

A few of them had been to Europe and likely had heard of the Inquisition, as well!

They are absolutely shameless in their hipocrisy. Here's a little hard evidence from my glorious home state...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/valarie-hodges-lawmaker-retracts-support-for-bill_n_1655249.html

Dixie, sometimes they get angry enough to use their second amendment rights. The next law they pass will be "Stand Your Ground For Christian Religion".

Florida fundamentalists need no help from you, Phenner! They are crazy enough already. LOL

Matter of fact, not just in Florida.

I second that, Amala.

Blood splatter "humor" - not remotely funny!

8.2 Maphi

It is Lent, for Heavens sake. (Excuse the pun). Not appropriate and not funny, Steve.

Some of us on here really are believers and are offended. Besides, do we really need any more videos of blood and gore and gunshot wounds?

Blood splatter jokes are not funny - no matter what they're making fun of.

yeah, steve. you shouldn't run stuff like that during lent.

wait until easter monday ;-)

The SNL ripoff was ok, but the original Robot Chicken version was much better.

Also, since "The Passion of the Christ", Christians don't get to complain about violence in media anymore.

u people need to go hang out in the PG kids section then , great job Steve , spot on , when you people get a major gig like the maddow blog , you can stick with the boring kiddy stuff , I am thinking they do not need any editing help from an audience that can just go else where

"boring kiddy stuff "

Right ... because gratuitous gory blood baths are so ... grown-up.

yeah, right.

blood spatter jokes are not funny...

horse hockey! case in point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

Re: #8.9

I am assuming that the link you provided is to something bloody that you think is funny.

I am not going to watch.

so acknowledging living forms on the earth bleed is immature? lol they drink the blood of jesus every weekend after all

I weigh 119 lbs.

I said "A lot" not all...

India I seriously doubt your version of Sunday services consists of changing the channel from the 700 club to NASCAR and passing the potato chips

LOL Dragoon! Yeah, mine is quite different. Off subject, but,

My secret is no processed foods, and we make everything from scratch. Both my husband and I love to cook and he bakes all our bread. I bake the cakes and pies and cookies.

I think fast food is really bad for people.

What is Nascar? LOL

So is that MacReligion you alluded to. LOL

1 Timothy 4:8

#10.4Good point, Luz.

If it becomes obsessive, physical exercise, like anything else, is not good for the soul.

That's the thing about having a soul...you should at least try and take it out and exercise it a couple of times a week

at the very least try some Spiritual Toe touchies

LOL.

My bible says "For bodily exercise profiteth little,",, I guess "other bibles" describe compulsive exercising? I didn't know that was a problem back in the day. Doesn't seem to be one now.

When I read this I see it as consistent with the incessant theme of renunciation. We were put on this Earth to renounce it. A non-sequitur that the buddhists also love. So to me, that also means we were put on earth to then go to hell, at least for the 7 billions of souls who flubbed the " jesus is the only way" test.

Now I have to go look up what is lent....

Ye , It is a " WHAT IS THE BODY USED FOR " theme thinking .... vanity ? or salvation?

WHAT IS THE BODY USED FOR

I always thought it was a place to keep my hat?

Seriously though once you start getting into the "Meaning of life" stuff...the Who should I be and Why am I here's you have to ask whose definitions of the question you are using...yours, God's (pick one) or someone else's...

I think historically it's more often than not someone else's...we as a species have a bad habit of looking outside ourselves for questions to fit our own answers

Angel, Still has that writing over it!

angel #77...something is causing the picture you use as your "avatar" to malfunction...spilling type over your comment

perhaps you should temporarily remove or change it or Tweet @WillAtWork and tell him you have a technical problem with the maddowblog site.

ps

i'm viewing the site using the firefox browser

I guess the yoga class would still get sued even if it changed it's name to "stretching class"? That would just make it more conspiratorial.

Many lifetimes ago when I was a physical ed teacher in the Detroit Public Schools, one of our counselors tried an after-school Yoga group for students. Parents threw a fit on religious grounds. Mind you, this was in the mid-1980s.

At one point, I decided to include a handful of Yoga poses at the beginning of my phys. ed. classes, only I called it stretching. Students groaned and complained at first, especially because I told them we'd do the "stretching" in complete silence in order to provide the maximum benefit and focus, but after a couple weeks, they would complain if, for whatever reason, we didn't have the stretching time at the start of class.

Russell,#11.2

I use firefox as well. Maybe there is a correlation.

@angel

@india's #11.5 comment

using internet explorer, there's a red "x" in the box where the "avatar" goes...it must be "corrupted" in some way

With Google Chrome there is a sort of little bitty landscape with the upper right corner turned down, which is the Chrome icon for "cannot display image." I'm no computer geek, but something must be going on with the avatar pic.

I have the same result as Russell and India with firefox, and checked with internet exploder and got the red "x". Your avatar is definitely corrupted, Angel.

TC in LA,

Ah, let's face it. Everything is corrupt. LOL

We live in a fallen world.

Seriously TC, I am well aware of the terrible and shameful history of the Catholic Church. I see it as inevitable. What better place for Absolute Evil to infest than Christ's Church?

I could even add a few horrors to your list. I read a great deal. But I still believe that the Church is progressing and doing great works in the lives of people through out the world. Much of the world has become quite secular, but the zeitgeist changes over the years.

@india

i was wondering if someone was going to connect "corrupted" to the general topic of religion and the world... well done

Thanks, Russell.

I hope. I'm never sure on this blog whether to duck or hope.

I duck a lot more often.

Word to the anti-yoga crowd...for Christ's sake lighten up!

It's just the alt text for the image. Get an avatar image that works or remove it entirely, and it'll go away.

@ Paul #11.12

Shouldn't that be "Word to the anti-yoga crowd...don't get all bent out of shape over this!" ??

It does when yours is The One And Only True Religion Of The Word Of Almighty God!"

For these fundamentalist asswipes, the First Amendment is indeed a sword, not a shield, as they strike down the wayward.

Russell

There is a lot more to the "Pastafarian" story...they are world wide evidently...

http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2011/07/pastafarian-and-the-flying-spaghetti-monster.html

...The Vatican knew of Maciel's abuse for decades yet held him up as a model for the faithful because of the order's perceived orthodoxy and ability to attract money and vocations.

"ability to attract money and vocations" - because that is what Jesus would do. *sigh*

Father Maciel was the one who started Regnum Christi, two of the members are Rick Santorum and Mel Gibson ( who is supposedly so pure and holy he has his own Church on his property and forgives his own people by himself, as being so holy). The investigators would go to the Pope and ask him about Fr. Maciel, and the Pope would back him up, "He says he is not doing these things." So it took them years longer to get him investigated for pedophilia and having these children. Fr . Maciel as removed from his office in 2005 or 6 and died in 2007. The Pope was the one who kept the investigators away from Fr. Maciel.

Also about the Pastafarian, in 2009 Austrian police had no problem with the same "problem." They said as long as it didn't hide his face, he could put whatever he wanted on his head.

Russell Leisenheimer,

You could be Steve Benen's research man for this blog! Why not? You manage to find all these interesting things.

Rick Santorum and Mel Gibson are equally nuts. Gibson is at least appealing. I loved him in The Year Of Living Dangerously. He still had his Aussie accent back then.

Rick Santorum has all the appeal of dead sea turtle eggs.

Too much in one bite, Russell L. Lost most readers.....

May be we should include origami & fireworks to the list of things that should not take place on government property because of the separation of church & state rules that our Repub friends want to exstend to yoga.

Can,t have paper butterflies being made for Shinto weddings etc & as for fireworks & all that driving out evil spirits..........

Football is a religion in this country and thus should not be allowed in public schools.

Yeah, but then you get the Mormons suing the schools, then the Satanists start going to their attorneys, then the Pagans get upset, then the Zoroastrians get mad, then pretty soon, you have rotating prayers that take two or three weeks to get back around to Christian. And homeschooling would become really popular with the right.

Excuse me!! You forgot the two most logical religions; the pantheists and the ancestor worshipers. I'm sueing...

Don't forget the gun worshippers (both sects - the Hestonites and the LaPierrians). And those that claim whatever-republican-du-jour as their savior. Yea, verily, yea.

...How about we do everything we can to get kids to exercise and stop demonizing other religions

I'm all in for that.

I say we continue to demonize any religion that considers women to be inferior (1 Corinth 14:35) and/or doesn't encourage education.

Gosh, it isn't a stretch to know if you can't teach yoga, then you certainly can't teach evolution. But jeezo, women shouldn't sing on TV?

1 Timothy 2:12?

A lot of society is quick to forget that even physical exercise takes quite a bit of mental fortitude. I cannot see anything harmful with teaching children that even though you may be in an uncomfortable situation, you can get through it, and in fact, it will make you stronger.

Healthy minds come in healthy bodies.

Do you mean "in our constitution" or do you mean in our society? I think it's fairly evident with the first amendment that the former is not a true statement.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.... "

The word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States either.

The Constitution contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity. It says absolutely nothing about the United States being officially Christian.

So....What point were you trying to make, kd?

I have neighbors that are convinced that the USA is a Christian country. That the Founding Fathers were Christians, that all of our Schools, public buildings, etc. should have Christian prayers, etc. I explained that the Founding Fathers were Deists, they believed in God. "In God We Trust." on our money, etc. I challenged them to find anything official that mentions Jesus . They got irate and left. I am still waiting for them to show me anything mentioning Jesus.

kduflen: kindly remove head from ass before commenting, you Southern Baptist crazy southern traitor piece of something I scrape off my shoe.

#21.4 Tell us how you really feel, TC.

Willow,

In God We Trust was put on our money and in our pledge in the fifties because the marshmallow brains in our government convinced themselves and everyone else that it would be a slap in the face to those Russian commies. Why any other country would care what we print on our money is and has been a mystery to me.

There is no doubt that there was an argument about what religion people were going to follow. Some people trying to leave the State Church of England, in order to have religious freedom.

It is not freedom of religion to demand everyone follow one religion. Hence, the First Amendment days people have freedom of religion and Congress shall make no laws establishing religion.

We have a variety of different ways of "worshipping" and no requirement to do so.

And objecting to yoga in school... really? There may be some that connect spiritually while they exercise…. but yeah… that is a stretch… to say doing yoga is religious.

Recess needs to be banned at once! LOL

I almost became a communist running around that Maypole on the first of May!

Shameful stuff, recess!