Talk Elections

http://www.petitiononline.com/tmrloc03/petition.html

Another good read, it is short too.

Big deal.  In a basically democratic body, anybody can request charges against anybody for anything.

Ah, haven't several of Kerry's bishops refused to give him communion?

Look out.  Some of the LIB postertrolls on here will slam you for insinuating religion into the political discourse.

Wow, this is one mistitled thread.  This is an online petition, not a call form the Methodist Church for Bush to repent.

Is it too much to ask that you get little things like this straight?

It was written by:

Rev. Mark Craig - Sr. Pastor of Highland Park UMC
Rev. Michael L. Nichols - D.S. of the Dallas South District
Bishop William B. Oden - Bishop of North Texas Annual Conference United Methodist Council of Bishops

And I think it is all in fair play.  Kerry has not been refused to communion.  One Bishop in Colorado has been ranting against Kerry.  I think that this is important though not only because it is from Bush's own church but also because it just shows some of the moral flaws that in Bush's administration that I feel are very relevant.

As the saying goes....there are church rules, and then there are biblical rules.

I am so glad I'm not a member of a denomination!

---

From the petition: "We believe war and bloodshed are contrary to the gospel and spirit of Christ"

Guess they have never read:

1) "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven...a time for war and a time for peace." (Ecc 3:18)

2) "At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment (Acts 10:1)"....Wonder why Cornelius was never remotely asked to leave the army upon his conversion?  Maybe it is because being a warrior is NOT contrary to Christianity.

Biblical Christianity teaches against MURDER, which the bible distinquishes from war.  The bible, OT or NT, NEVER forbids going to war!

Actually, that is whom it is sent to.  It is written by Courtney Ball and Josh Steward from theymustrepent.com (http://theymustrepent.com). 

First off, you've got some facts wrong on who wrote this and how authoritative it is, but someone below addressed that already.

Secondly; no, Kerry has not been denied Communion, but he is not a Catholic in good standing with the Church.  Many Bishops and priests have spoken against him and most especially against his support for abortion rights, which they consider a core and fundamental issue, even above the death penalty and war. 

Though the Church should deny Kerry the Eucharist, they likely won't because either A) he's only going to friendly churches where he knows the priest, or B) the Church gives him Communion anyway in order to avoid bad publicity, which is certainly not something that the Catholic Church needs more of these days.

Kerry's poor standing within Catholicism goes beyond his stance on issues, though.  To my knowledge, he doesn't attend regular Sunday Mass (meaning EVERY Sunday), often opting to hop around to different Protestant churches more than likely for the photo ops and the pulpit speeches some of them will allow him to give.  Because of Kerry's stance on some issues AND his poor attendance record at Mass, he shouldn't be allowed Communion.  At the same time, if he's a knowledgeable Catholic, he should know that such things make it so that he can't have Communion until he receives Reconciliation. 

I've always disagreed when churches offer up their Sunday pulpits to political candidates.  I seem to remember Al Gore doing that quite a bit in 2000.

OK OK.  I can admit a mistake. I still thought it was an interesting read and I think that it is important to maintian a sane distance between religion and politics.

Here is a letter in today's catholic sentinal.

Becaon of hope

Conservatives would have us all believe that liberals are out to destroy our nation.  A popular conservative refrain is that two types of people live in the United States: Americans and liverals.  That might b funny excet that it's a groresque distortion of American history.  The fact is that every single significant movement advocating an expansion of American liverty and freedom has been initiated by liberals and violently opposed by conservatives. 

Today many good people are being hoodwinked into embracing the conservative agenda because of the new mantra that conservatives are more patriotic and more Christian than liberals.  They are neither.

The conservative philosphy is not patriotic because it seeks to squelch political dissent and it mocks cultrual diversity - the two most important aspects of obth our history and our unique American democracy.

Conservatism cannot be Christian because it embraces all sorts of violence, including the death penalty, unrestricted sale of firearms, destructive expoloitation of our environment and preemptive millitary invasions against defenseless nations.

Conservatives do make a big deal out of their support for the "unborn." but this is a safe position because it doesn't cost them a dime.  It's when people are actually born into this world that conservatives lose their compassion.  Conservatives lead the fights against tax measures and legislation to fund education and human resources, but they happily support measures to put more people in prison and build more bombs.

So if you want to be on the wrong side of American history and the wrong side of humanity, go ahead and call yourself a conservative. As for me, I believe that America will rediscover its great liberal tradition and once again strive to become a progressive, creative nation that stands as a beacon of hope for "the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

Joe Fulton Philomat

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

and a note from me again Abortion is gone up during the Bush Administration, for the first time in over 20 years.  The reason often sited is because the women does not have medical insurance and/or is not in an economically viable situation to have a child.

Still, that's just a letter, not the word of a Bishop or otherwise qualified representative of the Church.  A lot of Catholics have disagreements with the Church on certain things, but I don't think that a letter like this is going to persuade the clergy to embrace liberalism or drop their emphases on anti-abortion efforts.

Such a letter does represent the concerns of many Catholics, but it doesn't change the fact that John Kerry is not a Catholic in good standing.

You also have a remarrage after divorice, though I'm not entirely sure if there was ever an annulment.

It's got 313 signatures so far.

Hah, hilarious.  I still consider religion a dangerous madness, but I suppose 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' applies even to madmen.

By the way, Bush is a Methodist?  Weird.  I assumed either Episcopalian (true to his roots), or Baptist, true to his pretense.  Maybe Laura is Methodist - seems like one.

Bush asked for it by making religion such an important part of his adminstration.

He's *technically* a Methodist (a sop to his wife IIRC). But only *technically*.
He's basically a non-denominational fundamentalist

In other words he's out of control.

From you're perspective, yes. From his, no.

Please stop smashing Bush on his religion. At least he has some core values that he believes, unlike his predecessor. Soon you liberals will make atheism a qualification to become president.

Which would you believe more?  A letter drafted by two people, or this:

"Kerry said to be excommunicated" (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=32830)

I was flipping past the religious channel Sunday, and I came acorss an interview with a Canon lawyer, didn't look at his name.  He made it very clear that in the eyes of the Church ANY Catholic who publically supports abortion rights is by default guilty of herasy.  He continued to explain that casting a vote for a candidate who supported abortion WAS equal to public support, since you are seeking to empower a public official whom you know to be for abortion.  He stated that all other issues are subservient to this one.  Although he didn't mention Kerry by name, it was obvious that he was saying a vote for Kerry is herasy.

Not saying that I agree with this, but found it interesting.

I'd like to say its a prerequisite for me voting for a candidate - but alas its a distance dream that a presidential candidate could be openly atheistic and still win.

Yes, fascinating, the voice of the institution that gave us the Dark Ages is so useful in 2004.

I was making a point of *not* doing that

There are many people that follow the Church you know, I'm sure that their opinions don't matter to you though.  I thought it was really off the wall that they were telling people who to vote for. 

Also do not insult the Church, it serves no purpose here.  Perhaps you need to brush up on history, the church did not cause the dark ages by any strech of the imagination.  That was caused by the decline of the Roman empire.  The Church was the only thing holding Europe together at the time.  I suppose that you could argue that Catholicism served to weaken the empire, but there were far more important reasons for its decline.

???

I think they ran out of lions.  ;)

Um, I'm referring to the Catholic church as being about the only thing holding the social fabric together.  During the dark ages the weight of power was weilded by the papacy as the people had little more than their religion to turn to.

lol on the lions comment :)

1. It's Early Mediaeval
2. "The Church" in the U.K was de facto independent from Rome (and, oddly enough, always was. Amazing how a polluted streak of water can change political dynamics really)
3. Y'know I somehow doubt that the Vikings did what the Pope told them to.
4. Quit pining over past glories that never were.

Actually, ironically, the Moslems kept the great religious books and scripts that the Christian fathers had written. You can thank the scholars in the early muslim faith for keeping europes great ancient texts and the such.

Any 'great texts' came from the pagan Greeks and Romans, not the Christians.

Even atheist scholars believe the Bible is a great work. Comeon now lets give a LITTLE ground here, ok?

And medical books

Also true.

1. It's Early Mediaeval
2. "The Church" in the U.K was de facto independent from Rome (and, oddly enough, always was. Amazing how a polluted streak of water can change political dynamics really)
3. Y'know I somehow doubt that the Vikings did what the Pope told them to.
4. Quit pining over past glories that never were.

1. Who is pining about glories?  I'm not proclaiming the papacy as the end-all-be-all of civilized history, I just asked that the Church not be insulted.  Get off your high horse.

2.  Are you denying that the pope wielded more power from Rome than any secular kings on the continent for centuries?  I am not saying this is good or bad or glorious, IT JUST WAS.

3.  Perhaps I should have taken the time that I was referring to the continental christians in the early midieval period, excuse me but I didn't think I needed to explain every last thing, lest it be picked apart as technically incorrect, as it had nothing to do with the actual conversation anyway. 

I simply brought up a topic that I came across on television as I thought it would provide an interesting discussion, but it seems all you want to do is argue with me about western history. 

It is absolute crap compared to Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes, etc.