On Church and State

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

• joeinhell
  Been noticing how the catholic turds are starting to push the boundaries? Yep, they have. I screamed when the fifth catholic was selected to be on the Supreme Court. No minority should ever have control of the countries laws. No no there are good catholics, why look at Patron Saint Kennedy, when he was not screwing every woman that didn't move fast enough, he had the strength and courageousness to follow Cardinal Spellman, the American Pope, right into Vietnam to keep the tiny minority of Catholics in power. Yeah, that great Vietnamese patriot Diem was actually staying in a catholic retreat sponsored by Cardinal Spellman in New York state when his great power of political will brought him to the front, well, actually old man Kennedy, screw everything Kennedy and Cardinal Spellman.
  
  What a naughty thing to say. Just absolute anti Catholic. Well, the catholics composed less than 5 per cent of the Vietnamese ever catholic in name, but out of the 100 vietnamese generals and admirals, 2 were not catholic at the end. In fact the last person to technically run the South Vietnamese was the first Vietnamese to ever rule Vietnam who had not been catholic for over a hundred years.
  
  But then the geniuses that want more power, more power, more power sold the tiny fraction of what was left of their ethics and their souls so the catholics could hold 6 out of 9 members of the correctly titled
  Supreme Joke. Now watch the excesses of the catholics increase. They are so arrogant that they won't even pretend to hear cases, some clerk will type up a summary and send it to the pope who will study it and decide what the Supreme Joke will say.
  
  Now in the course of human events, examples of greed and self delusion there are literally hundreds of thousands of nonentities who have convinced themselves that they are infallible. Some of these are Pope, but a lot of them are snakehandlers, holy rollers, and tent preachers and I promise that there will not be a catholic on the supreme court in less than 5 years.
  
  Buy a big bag of chips for this free for all.
• ProfElwood
  The KKK blames blacks and Jews, you blame Catholics. Your conspiracy theory is your comfort food. People of all religions, including atheists, do a pretty good job of bilking the population are when they get too much of the real opium of power.
• tidbits
  To joeinhell - It is not necessary to have someone to hate for a person to have value, nor is it necessary for groups to hate other groups or compete for dominance within the vast collection of clans and tribes and nations. Hate destroys all who participate and fall victim to it.
  
  To Dorian: Thank you for the reminder of what is so often forgotten. Only by maintaining the wall between church and state can both religion and government remain free.
• JSpencer
  Tidbits is right, the sep of church and state (which people from Kennedy all the way back to Thomas Jefferson clearly understood) is for the protection of both religion and government. I suppose some may have watched that video and thought Matthews was badgering the bishop, when in fact he was insisting on clarity. Our democracy is a balancing act, and the skills required to keep that balance depend on education and a knowledge of history. They also depend on honesty and people who are willing to strip away the layers of politics and explore motives. I hope this bit of dialogue was instructive... particularly for the bishop.
• JSpencer
  Btw, joeinhell makes a good point with regard to the Supreme Ct. As of now, catholics are represented there quite disproportionally. The next appointment ought to be of some other persuasion. This observation has nothing to do with being anti-catholic... which I'm not.
• Father_Time
  This, "bishop", speaks exactly the policy of the catholic church straight from Rome. It is meant to apply pressure to catholic politicians to implement catholic policy into American law. It is an obvious manipulation and if it continues it will cause the removal of catholic politicians from office through elections. It is so sad that these religious potentates arrogantly attempt to manipulate our government. In my opinion this is a justifiable reason to revoke the catholic church’s tax exempt status and make arrests of those whom defy the law.
• DdW
  FT:
  
  Even though I am a Catholic, I have been very disappointed with the Church. I will never forget how they at first tried to sweep the abominable pedophilia scandal under the Vatican's rug, and subsequently totally screwed it up.
  
  That's why it's difficult for me to seriously listen to the moral outrage expressed over issues such as abortion by persons such as the good Bishop from Rhode island.
  
  But that's strictly a personal opinion.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• roro80
  That was a pretty awesome clip. I like CM, but I've made it a point never to watch segments of his where he talks with or about women or "women's issues", because he's so often such an *ss. This was a pretty awesome smackdown, and it focused on one of the grandmothers of women's rights issues; so I stand corrected. I've never seen someone on tv really ask the question: "what punishment should a woman have for getting an abortion?" I think it should be asked more often.
• JLBell
  I agree with Rodriguez. If the Catholic church were to be held up to its own standard, it would be shown to have been failing to live up to its own expectations for centuries. The recent pedophilia is only the latest of their failings. They came out in support of the Ayatollah Khomeini's contract on the life of author Salman Rushdie for the crime of writing a work of fiction. They have supported warfare since their beginning, they were behind the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, they have picked sides in the Middle East in the Israel vs Palestine issue. When it comes to providing a moral compass, the catholic church is in a very large glass house, indeed.
• redbus
  It's possible that I'm one of the few credentialed ministers on TMV. Any church has moral standards. When you join the church, you agree to abide by them. Ours has a clear stand against abortion. If I go against that stand, my credentials can be revoked. Likewise, lay persons in our church agree to abide by the moral standards we hold. If they break them, they can have their membership revoked. A church is a voluntary organization. If you don't like a stand, then find a church that agrees with your position. You shouldn't try to "have your cake and eat it, too." The bishop is absolutely within his rights to withhold communion, since Kennedy by his pro-abortion voting makes a mockery of his Catholicism.
• DdW
  Your comments are well taken, redbus, and I agree with part of them.
  
  Priests and bishops have the right to privately rebuke, counsel, and I guess even to withold communion from parishioners who do not meet the church's religious or moral standards.
  
  But I believe that it is an entirely different matter when these religious personnel do such publicly to make a public (political?) statement, and even worse when they attempt---through their words, appearances (as happened with the Rhode Island Bishop), or actions---to influence legislation.
  
  CM was right to ask the Bishop what he felt the penalty should be for a woman who has an abortion,i.e. breaks the law, once abortions are made illegal, criminalized, as the Bishop apparently would like it to be. The Bishop claimed, well that is not within our "jurisdiction." Well neither is influencing law.
  
  Thanks
  
  Dorian
• roro80
  redbus, just to add to what Dorian is saying: one of the points that CM is making, and that I think is a very valid one, is that there is a difference between what we should personally do to uphold our own morals, and what the law should allow. For example, it's not within my moral code to eat meat, but I don't think it should be illegal. Likewise, most churches do not condone sodomy, but even Texas has taken all sodomy laws off the books; it's not that the Texas legislators are all out committing sodomy or that they even think it's a morally neutral thing, it's that morality is not and should not be dictated by the law, insofaras a particular act does not infringe upon the rights of another.
  
  Of course abortion is a bit more complex, but the same principle stands. A law maker can be for liberal abortion laws while being personally morally against abortion. What the church is trying to do in this case is conflate one with the other.
• Father_Time
  Yes, the C.church gives Catholics the choice, burn in hell forever or do what we want you to do when we want you to do it. What is next, congress consulting the Vatican before voting on a bill because there are catholic members? What about the Hindus? Do they not have the right to demand that we show proper respect to rama the giant monkey god if we do the same for Catholics?
  
  Dorian, religion is corrupt by it’s nature. It uses fear of the unknown to control populations for the empowerment of some demagogic potentate sitting at the top of the heap without concern for what the population has to say about anything. Religion is the most anti-democratic institution on this planet. It is the enemy of freedom.
• DdW
  FT: "What is next, congress consulting the Vatican before voting on a bill because there are catholic members?"
  
  FT, I believe that we are singing out of the same hymn book (oops, bad analogy here) but, anyway, I believe I have said:
  
  "But I believe that it is an entirely different matter when these religious personnel do such publicly to make a public (political?) statement, and even worse when they attempt---through their words, appearances (as happened with the Rhode Island Bishop), or actions---to influence legislation"
  
  As I mentioned in another thread, let's discuss God ( and perhaps religion) after Thanksgiiving.
  
  Have a good one
  
  
  
  
• redbus
  This is a tricky area, isn't it, D.E.? That's why it resonated so much back in '60 when JFK got elected.
  
  The Christian denomination to which I belong (which shall remain nameless) expressly forbids its ministers to endorse the election of specific politicians. However, at the same time, it is our obligation to speak out on the great moral issues of the day. There's a long tradition to doing that, is there not? Many in the early and mid 19th century abolitionist movement, such as Henry Ward Beecher, were pastors. Martin Luther King (a preacher) led the Civil Rights movement. Read some of MLK's sermons some time. To the "you can't legislate morality" argument, King replied that while morality cannot be legislated, laws are intended to restrain the oppressor.
  
  Trying to put myself into the "skin" of Pope Benedict - who as a staunch defender of the unborn and an accomplished theologian is no doubt behind the American bishop's action in sanctioning Rep. Kennedy - it's totally understandable that he would use the tools at his disposable to try to influence a public policy issue that has serious ethical ramificatons. Benedict is acting in the same grand tradition as Beecher and King.
  
  
• redbus

  morality is not and should not be dictated by the law, insofaras a particular act does not infringe upon the rights of another.

  
  
  Ah yes, roro80, our American penchant for radical individualism appears once again! Have we become so fragmented in early 21st century American culture that we simply cannot see that "no man is an island"? In fact, there are very few actions that I take (or others that I neglect to take) that don't have ramifications for others. Yours is an especially strange argument in the context of our hyper-litigous society, where we churn out more attorneys every year to interpret an ever-growing corpus of laws. And so we trumpet the "American legal system" or the "rule of law" on the one hand, then on the other hand, say that "morality is not and should not be dictated by law". We do it every single day. That's what the law is.
  
  Just one obvious illustration: smoking. Long before the Surgeon General issued in the late '60s his now famous warning about the ill-effects on health of smoking, for decades, there were many preachers who sounded off against it. Some churches even required non-smoking as a pre-requisite to membership. (Are you listening, Father Time, because this cuts to your complaints about religion trying to control people). These preachers had no scientific evidence, only general principles in the Bible talking about taking care of of the "temple" (i.e. our bodies). Now we know of course that the preachers were right all along. But there's more! Not only does smoking hurt the smoker, we now know from further studies that even those around smokers are damaged by the ill-effects of second-hand smoke. And the domino effect goes on...effects of smoking on the unborn, costs to the health care system, missed days from work due to smokers who are more prone to respiratory problems, etc. And naturally, our laws now are strict about where you can smoke. Are we "legislating morality"? Whatever we're doing, I'm glad we're doing it. Individual actions affect us all.
  
  So yeah, if I seem impatient with the "as long as you're not hurting someone else" arguments, it's because we don't even know sometimes when someone else is being hurt. And in the case of abortion, where it's as clear as the nose on our face that both mother and unborn child suffer from its ill-effects, then we had better be courageous enough to deal with it in the legal realm.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• redbus

  Dorian, religion is corrupt by it’s nature. It uses fear of the unknown to control populations for the empowerment of some demagogic potentate sitting at the top of the heap without concern for what the population has to say about anything.

  
  
  Forgive me if I psychologize a bit here, FT, but have you been burned by a church or some other religious group? We all see religion through the eyes of our own experience. Mine has been overwhelmingly positive, so admittedly, I find it hard to understand such a statement. Even the Pope - arguably the most powerful religious figure of our day - does not "rule" alone, but is constantly in consultation with other leaders. Granted, where there are fewer checks and balances on the "top dog," there's more room for abuse, but most churches have very democratic institutions in-place, such as church boards or presbyteries, so decision-making power is decentralized. Even in independent Baptist churches with very strong pastors, he'll eventually be ousted if he becomes abusive, or else folks will vote with their feet and go somewhere else where they're not subject to manipulation. For every Jim Jones story (and sadly, those do happen), there are many more that never happened because of the checks-and-balances in-place. So please, let's put our broad brushes away, because they paint a lot of good people with colors they don't deserve.
  
• ProfElwood
  "Religion is the most anti-democratic institution on this planet. It is the enemy of freedom."
  Religion is a choice, at least in this nation, and is therefore perfectly free. Government is, by definition, the group that uses force to accomplish its goals. As someone who wants all people under an unlimited world government, your argument is laughable.
  
• ProfElwood

  And so we trumpet the "American legal system" or the "rule of law" on the one hand, then on the other hand, say that "morality is not and should not be dictated by law". We do it every single day. That's what the law is.

  
  I may not be a preacher, but I am a preacher's son, a deacon of my non-denominational church, and a Sunday school teacher. I also have a problem with legislating morality, to those over 18, for the simple reason that it works poorly at best, and often causes more harm than good. Both liberal and conservative legislation are attempts to bypass the real solution of convincing people to change by choice: if people aren't giving enough money to house the poor, take it from them against their will; if their behavior towards sex is harmful (promiscuity, porn), throw them in jail. Neither has ever been particularly successful, and both lead toward worshiping government and it's ability to use force, rather than the creator and moral teachings.
• kathykattenburg
  I have very mixed feelings on Chris Matthews, but here I think he was awesome. I too was struck by the bluntness of that question he asked the bishop. And fact is, the bishop could not answer it.
• kathykattenburg
  Patrick Kennedy's support for abortion rights in his role as a member of Congress has (or should have) absolutely nothing to do with his church's position on abortion. Rep. Kennedy is not representing the Catholic Church; he represents the people who live in his district.
• kathykattenburg
  And in the case of abortion, where it's as clear as the nose on our face that both mother and unborn child suffer from its ill-effects, then we had better be courageous enough to deal with it in the legal realm.
  
  Speaking on behalf of the mother -- since I am one and you are not one -- and speaking on behalf of that subset of mothers who have at some point in their reproductive lives had an abortion -- since I am one of that subset and you are not -- your assumption of indisputable ill effects to the mother from abortion is not only untrue; it's something you don't even have the right to claim knowledge of. We can all argue about what a fetus feels or doesn't feel, thinks or doesn't think, wants or doesn't want, and because of the fact that the fetus cannot confirm our beliefs, we can get away with such an exercise, those of us who wish to engage in it. But you cannot get away with asserting that the "ill effects" of abortion on the mother are "as clear as the nose on your face" because those of us who have had abortions are in a better position to know that than you are -- and due to the fact that we are here, alive and all grown up and endowed with the ability to speak, we can confirm that you do not know what you're talking about, thank you very much.
• redbus
  Thanks, Kathy, for the reality check. And I presume you speak for all women?
• redbus
  Our little spat aside, Kathy, I enjoy reading your posts. As one who formerly had a blog of my own, I know the time it takes to write careful posts, and your contribution here at TMV is very much appreciated. HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
• kathykattenburg
  And I presume you speak for all women?
  
  Of course I don't speak for all women. But then again, I never claimed to.
• kathykattenburg
  Thank you, redbus. That is very kind and generous of you to say, especially right after you experienced the negative effects of setting off my trigger on an issue that is deeply personal for me.
  
  I will have a wonderful Thanksgiving because I'm spending it with very dear, close friends. The day will fly by, it always does.
  
  I hope your Thanksgiving is joyous and wonderful, too.
• redbus
  Ever watch Friday Night Lights? Jason street, a paralyzed former quarterback, finds out that his "one night stand" is pregnant. She wants to abort; he begs her to keep the baby. I never did see the next episode, to know whether she gave birth, but in that actor's anguished face, I saw etched the forgotten victims of abortion, namely, those who would be fathers, but are denied that privilege.
  
  My co-worker, Mike, and his wife recently had a son. He was especially looking forward to it because Mike himself nearly...wasn't. His mom was in the waiting room of the abortion clinic, but at the last minute decided to leave. She was carrying Mike. Now Mike is studying for the Christian ministry.
  
  Chris Matthews asked the question: What punishment should a woman have for getting an abortion? The obvious answer is: Who am I to say? But somewhere in this whole conversation, let's not lose sight of the Jasons and the Mikes, because too often, they are left out of the whole discussion, as if they simply don't exist. The fact is, they do, and the sooner we come to terms with that, the better off we'll all be.
• DdW
  redbus:
  
  "This is a tricky area, isn't it, D.E.?"
  
  First, Happy Thanksgiving, redbus and thank you for your Service to God. Because of Thanksgiving, I will not spend much time today on the computer. Just want to let you know I appreciate your reasoned comments.
  
  However, I don't think there is anything "tricky" about the separattion of Church and State, as our Founding Fathers so intended, and I will always remain a firm believer of that principle.
  
  In other words, the Church must stay out of government, and the governmen must stay out of our bedrooms and out of a woman's body...
  
  Talk more after Thanksgiving
  
  Dorian
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• kathykattenburg
  I've never heard of Friday Night Lights, and that's a touching story about your co-worker. I also see nothing radically objectionable in the concept of fathers being included in the discussion. But it's still the woman's choice whether to abort or go to term, because she is the one whose body is directly affected.
  
  Also, since you shared those stories with me -- one fictional and one real -- I will share one real story with you. It's not really a story, because I've told it before, in this space. It's a statement of fact. If I had not been able to have those two abortions that I had, because in each case the fetus had the same fatal genetic condition that I watched my first child suffer and die from, I would not now have my 20-year-old daughter, who as I type this is on her way to my house from whence we will be traveling to our friends' house for Thanksgiving dinner.
  
  So are you going to be the one to tell me my daughter should not have been born, or that it would have been better if she hadn't been?
• redbus
  Thanks, Kathy, for sharing your story. By not having your two babies with genetic defects, this allowed you to have your current healthy daughter? I don't expect you to get into gynecology on TMV, I'm just not following the medical science on that one.
  
  Both our children were born perfectly healthy. I'm so sorry that you had to go through the agony of your first child passing away like that. That must have been very difficult.
  
  When my wife was pregnant with our second child, we had a sonogram that really concerned our ob-gyn doctor. The measurements were "all wrong," he said. He scheduled us for another sonogram the next day. What a long night it was as we cried over the prospect of having a severely deformed child. As it turned out, the technician who did the original sonogram had done it wrong, but if forced us to ask: Should we keep a child that is likely to be born with those kinds of disabilities? We decided that abortion was not an option.
  
  I think this is the reason I respect former Gov. Sarah Palin. For are her faults - and they are legion - she and her husband had a Down's Syndrome child. Not everyone is cut-out to care for such a child, no question about it, but I do believe that there are others who through adoption can do so.
  
  Please forgive me if these words come across as hurtful. It is not my intent to stand in judgment, only to "think outside the box" and see how we can come together as community to solve problems that are never simple. In that, we can all do better.
• kathykattenburg
  By not having your two babies with genetic defects, this allowed you to have your current healthy daughter? I don't expect you to get into gynecology on TMV, I'm just not following the medical science on that one.
  
  It has nothing to do with medical science. It has to do with our (my ex-husband's and my) moral and ethical values and also with what we felt our hearts could bear.
  
  My first child was born with Tay-Sachs and died at the age of 3. Between the time she was diagnosed in May 1987, and the end of 1988, my then-husband and I tried several times to have another, healthy child. Since we knew there was a 25% chance with every pregnancy that the fetus would have Tay-Sachs, prenatal testing was an absolute necessity. There were a couple of times I miscarried before I could even be tested, and then there were two pregnancies that I aborted because tests revealed in both cases the fetuses had Tay-Sachs. My now-20-year-old daughter was born on September 30, 1989. She, too, of course, was tested in utero, and found to be NOT Tay-Sachs-affected.
  
  Obviously, the only reason that I chose to try for one healthy child -- knowing as I did that there was a 1 in 4 chance that any fetus I conceived would have the same disease that my first daughter was born with -- was because of the fact that abortion was a legal and readily available option. Had abortion been illegal or difficult or dangerous to obtain, I never.ever.ever. in a millions years would have tried to get pregnant again. It was only because I knew that I could end a Tay-Sachs-affected pregnancy that I took such a risk.
  
  That is why I say that the legal option of abortion is the reason that my 20-year-old daughter is here on earth today.
• DdW
  Hi Kathy:
  
  I have been following your touching commentary without saying much.
  
  First, and I have commented in the past, I am so happy for you that you have finally been blessed with a lovely daughter.
  
  The more I read accounts such as yours, the more I am convinced that (as is the subject of this post) the Church should stay out of the affairs of government, and the government should stay out of the most private, personal affairs of the people. And I do understand that crimes are committed under such circumstances, but a woman deciding about affairs of her own body is certainly not a criminal act.
• joeinhell
  Kathy, thank you for thinking.
• kathykattenburg
  The more I read accounts such as yours, the more I am convinced that (as is the subject of this post) the Church should stay out of the affairs of government,
  
  And that is one of the reasons I tell my experience when an appropriate context arises. Of course, the people who usually are moved by my experience to see the importance of government staying out of private and personal individual and family decisions are usually the ones who already recognized that importance. Sad, but true.
• kathykattenburg
  Hey, Joe. :-) This comment gave me a moment's pause, but then I realized it was a compliment. :-)
  
  And one of the nicest I've received in my blogging life -- thank you.