Is this it?

[dalegg 143]

I separate Catholics because there are fundamental differences between mainstreem Christianity and Catholicism- Like the debate on the Holy Trinity. You are also more likely to find higher ranking Catholics opposing the death penalty than other Christians. Don't ask me why that is.

I find that division awkward and quite Americanocentric. In many regions of the world, Catholicism is mainstream Christianity, and there are many Protestant churches (which would be the less charged term in this context) that have even bigger differences between each other than some Protestant churches and Catholics. As to more higher-ranking Catholics supporting the death penalty: That statement holds only true in the US. In most other countries in the world, the majority of Christians (Protestants and Catholics alike) oppose the death penalty because it runs contrary to their beliefs of the sanctity of life. Why this view has not caught on in the US has reasons that lie beyond religion. As an example, only last year did the American Catholic Bishops endorse the World churches oppostion to the death penalty, and they were the last to do so, despite long-term pressures from the Vatican. The death penalty is an American phenomenon at this point in time...

I said "You are also more likely to find higher ranking Catholics opposing the death penalty", but since the Catholics are Christians I will stipulate that I was in error to list them separately.

So, why is it okay in that scenario for the decision to be made within the family (the courts have maintained that against the DeLay's and Bush's time and again in the Shiavo case) and not in the other?

As I recall, right to life supporters were not okay with that scenario either.

Edited February 27, 2006 by dalegg

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, why is it okay in that scenario for the decision to be made within the family (the courts have maintained that against the DeLay's and Bush's time and again in the Shiavo case) and not in the other?

As I recall, right to life supporters were not okay with that scenario either.

As I recall, they couldn't find a court in this country that would put up with their garbage.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I separate Catholics because there are fundamental differences between mainstreem Christianity and Catholicism- Like the debate on the Holy Trinity. You are also more likely to find higher ranking Catholics opposing the death penalty than other Christians. Don't ask me why that is.

I find that division awkward and quite Americanocentric. In many regions of the world, Catholicism is mainstream Christianity, and there are many Protestant churches (which would be the less charged term in this context) that have even bigger differences between each other than some Protestant churches and Catholics. As to more higher-ranking Catholics (edit) opposing the death penalty: That statement holds only true in the US. In most other countries in the world, the majority of Christians (Protestants and Catholics alike) oppose the death penalty because it runs contrary to their beliefs of the sanctity of life. Why this view has not caught on in the US has reasons that lie beyond religion. As an example, only last year did the American Catholic Bishops endorse the World churches oppostion to the death penalty, and they were the last to do so, despite long-term pressures from the Vatican. The death penalty is an American phenomenon at this point in time...

I said "You are also more likely to find higher ranking Catholics opposing the death penalty", but since the Catholics are Christians I will stipulate that I was in error to list them separately.

That was a typo on my part which is now rectified. Sorry about that. My point still is that your view of Christian leaders opposing the death penalty is Americano-centric because this is not the view of most Christian leaders in the rest of the world.

[faith 0]

So who pays for housewives? Their husbands.

The problems would all be solved if people started living decent lives.

Decent lives? Excuse me? I have had to use the public assistance programs in the past. At the same time I was working, going to school, and raising my daughter by myself. Just because someone needs that for medical care does not mean they do not live "decent" lives. It isn't like they hand you a really good job with great benefits when you graduate high school. Right now, those jobs are not even easy to get after obtaining a college degree.

Now I have a good paying job with excellent benefits, but I had to work really hard to get to this point AND I needed a little help along the way. Needing assistance does not equate to not living a decent life.

There are lots of people that have had to use public assistance in the past. Even if you have to use it for more than medical there are lots of good reasons for it.

I have to use the medical assistance right at this moment and I'm not ashamed of it. When I got pregnant my husband was working a temp job with no benefits, and my job does not offer them either. So I had to get the Moms and Babies medical card from the state of Illinois to pay for the medical care of the pregnancy. Now my hubbies benefits will start up on March 20th, but they won't pick up my pregnancy because it's preexisting. So I'll have this baby while on the medical card. My kids are covered by daddy's insurance, so it's just me on the card.

Someone said "go get a job with benefits". Oh yeah, like it's that easy for most people. If I wanted a job with benefits I would have to travel to St. Louis every day to work. I'd have to work for the same amount of money and pay more in communting. I would lose my ability to go to my doctor appointments once per month without missing an entire day of work. (My doctor is right down the street from my current work). Worst of all, my children would not have their mother available to pick them up when they are sick or have an accident at school. I have one extemely healthy child and one with seizure disorder. Even if I had 2 healthy kids I would not want to have to leave my children in the nurse's office for an hour while I had to travel back to town to get them if they got sick.

My using the medical card is a short term thing. There are tons of people that use the public welfare system as just that: a means to get through a short term period. Judging someone SIMPLY because they are using public aid is just sick. You have no idea what anyone's personal reasons are.

Ace13, you need to step out of your fantasy world you are living in and take a look around the real world that the rest of us are living in.

And as far as the south dakota abortion thing: we'll see this in the supreme court, I guarantee it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now my hubbies benefits will start up on March 20th, but they won't pick up my pregnancy because it's preexisting.

Now, suppose for a second that someone with a permanent pre-existing condition gets that job with benefits. They're still fcuked as many plans won't pick them up with that pre-existing condition. For those folks it's either public health care assistance or no health care at all. Does that make them bums? I think not.

[faith 0]

Now my hubbies benefits will start up on March 20th, but they won't pick up my pregnancy because it's preexisting.

Now, suppose for a second that someone with a permanent pre-existing condition gets that job with benefits. They're still fcuked as many plans won't pick them up with that pre-existing condition. For those folks it's either public health care assistance or no health care at all. Does that make them bums? I think not.

I totally agree with you. I was getting to that but ran out of steam (It is monday after all). I have a friend who's son was born with 2 severe medical conditions: heart and growth hormone. Once he grows up and is no longer able to get the medical benefits provided thru his dad's employer (the military) he won't be able to get ANY health care other than public health care.

[dalegg 143]

Wait a minute. I'm confused as to what you are saying. You've edited your statement to read:

As to more higher-ranking Catholics opposing the death penalty: That statement holds only true in the US.

But then you say:

In most other countries in the world, the majority of Christians (Protestants and Catholics alike) oppose the death penalty

And then you say

My point still is that your view of Christian leaders opposing the death penalty is Americano-centric because this is not the view of most Christian leaders in the rest of the world.

Two times you are saying that you think American Christians are nearly alone in their opposing the death penalty. Is that actually your view?

[m_and_m20 0]

oh my God....

that took me all morning to read through, and i only started reading where i left off on friday which was about page 10!

anyway...carry on! Im not in the mood to add my two cents.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Wait a minute. I'm confused as to what you are saying. You've edited your statement to read:

As to more higher-ranking Catholics opposing the death penalty: That statement holds only true in the US.

But then you say:

In most other countries in the world, the majority of Christians (Protestants and Catholics alike) oppose the death penalty

And then you say

My point still is that your view of Christian leaders opposing the death penalty is Americano-centric because this is not the view of most Christian leaders in the rest of the world.

Two times you are saying that you think American Christians are nearly alone in their opposing the death penalty. Is that actually your view?

It's obviously not my day. I also missed the "only" in the first statement and messed up opposition and support in the last one. Sorry for being so confusing and for being a complete idiot.

So let me try again: American Christians (other than upper-hierarchy Catholics who follow world opinion due to pressures of the Vatican) are alone in the world of international Christianity in their support for the death penalty. In other words, most Christians outside the US are united in their opposition to the death penalty.

Does this make sense now?? I have to go search for my marbles...

[Annman 0]

It's rightfully a decision for the family to make not a decision for the legislator.

[dalegg 143]

It's obviously not my day. I also missed the "only" in the first statement and messed up opposition and support in the last one. Sorry for being so confusing and for being a complete idiot.

So let me try again: American Christians (other than upper-hierarchy Catholics who follow world opinion due to pressures of the Vatican) are alone in the world of international Christianity in their support for the death penalty. In other words, most Christians outside the US are united in their opposition to the death penalty.

Does this make sense now?? I have to go search for my marbles...

Yes, it makes perfect sense, and although I haven't done any independant research on the subject, my gut tells me you are probably right.

[Sister Fracas 5]

I have to go search for my marbles...

When you find yours, see if mine are there as well...

[Mand 1]

It's obviously not my day. I also missed the "only" in the first statement and messed up opposition and support in the last one. Sorry for being so confusing and for being a complete idiot.

So let me try again: American Christians (other than upper-hierarchy Catholics who follow world opinion due to pressures of the Vatican) are alone in the world of international Christianity in their support for the death penalty. In other words, most Christians outside the US are united in their opposition to the death penalty.

Does this make sense now?? I have to go search for my marbles...

I don't go to mass here, because I find the type of Catholicism here is not the one I was raised with. It's more....(I'm trying to find the right word)....tough and unforgiving and "preachy". I got too many bad vibes from it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't go to mass here, because I find the type of Catholicism here is not the one I was raised with. It's more....(I'm trying to find the right word) .... tough and unforgiving and "preachy". I got too many bad vibes from it.

Hey, but dome of them do let the faithful enjoy their St. Patrick's day meats even though it's on a Friday during Lent.

LENTEN REGULATIONS 2006

ABSTINENCE: All Catholics who have reached their 14th birthday are bound to abstain totally from meat on the following days: Ash Wednesday, all Fridays of Lent, and Good Friday. However, since St. Patrick’s Day (March 17th) falls on a Friday of Lent this year, Bishop Cunningham has released the faithful of the Diocese of Ogdensburg from the obligation to abstain from meat on that day.

...

Source

Sounds pretty accomodating to me.

[Mand 1]

You're kidding me!!!! Wow...we don't eat meat on Ash Wednesday or Good Friday, but the other Lenten Friday's are not really adhered to that strictly anymore. Plus, Paddy's Day is considered the day you can indulge and have whatever it is you have given up for Lent. My husband thought that was funny! Maybe it's just an Irish Catholic unwritten rule

Anyways back to the matter in hand!!