General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Catholic Church And Fundamentalist Churches No Longer Believe In Separation Of Church And State
All you have to do is listen to their rhetoric and watch their actions. Anyone who thinks they are not planning to take over some day is not paying attention.
Besides they want your public money through vouchers and faith based funding. But they will keep their tax exempt status thank you.
still_one
(91,965 posts)TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Tansy_Gold
(17,817 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Hell, the Catholic Church WAS the state for most of Europe and Latin America for *CENTURIES*
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)They NEVER did.
Are they more vocal about their motives now? Yes, they are.
But, the churches NEVER gave up the dream of controlling all countries in the world.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)When I see that little Nazi Dolan out there pushing his sick agenda it makes me reconsider what I just said in my post. The next question is how do we push these people back. They show no signs of giving up their hope for a religious coup.
Hell there are more than 6 fundy churches within 5 miles of me. I went by one the yesterday on a main drag in Westminster and there were three city police cars with 4 police standing by a church to direct traffic. They are using public services but pay NO taxes.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)at them. They believe in fairy tales. Point. It. Out.
rurallib
(62,346 posts)to the Constitution from day1.
Back in the 50s the "Pledge of Allegiance" was altered to put "under God" in it.
Religious have always tried to tied their god to our country.
I think that they may seem louder because of the media, but I also think the internet has given their opponents a place to gather and resist.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)there was a huge push by the fundy churches for their 'believers' to go out and preach their beliefs to everyone they meet.
I remember a time when it was considered impolite to discuss politics and religion at a workplace.
Until then. Now, any of those folks come up to me, get a sermon about believing in fairy tales thrown right back at them.
Shuts them up in a big hurry!
Edit to add:
When my kids got 'Bibles' from the Christmas exchange programs at school, I returned it to school with a note that it was as inappropriate as giving them a gun, in my house.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)I had a college roommate like that who would not give up on trying to 'save' me. Now a college freshman is a very pivotal time in someone's life when it comes to shaping their views of religion.
Needless to say I was completely turned off from Christianity from that point on. Many don't realize they do more harm than good when they try to convert people.
rurallib
(62,346 posts)I was working with a jesus freak then. Every time he tried to bring up his religion, I just told him it didn't belong at work.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)I work sub-contract on client sites, so I didn't even have a HR department to complain to about it.
Had to figure out a way to shut them down myself. "I don't believe in fairy tales" usually does it pretty fast.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)and they don't care who they offend with it.
It's like once they start, they have no clue how to stop preaching.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Why would one think they ever did? The separation clause is in there because of fear BETWEEN the religions about if one every got control over the other. And the Catholic church wasn't even in the conversation. Heck, they've been THE state at one time in their history. And since the fundamentalists believe that the state is subjugating them, they feel their only hope is to get to participate in the process.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)I have not practiced sine 1967. Could take the bullshit any more.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)It'd be hard to achieve the "radical" level of the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or the investiture controversy.
Quite honestly Vatican II probably had exactly the opposite effect than was intended. Part of the reforms was to involve the laiety more in the governance at the parish level. But instead of bringing in the views, attitudes, and beliefs of the bulk of the parishoners, it gave an avenue of control and influence to a small minority of extremely conservative catholics to pull the church BACK from the more progressive nature implied by Vatican II. Basically the "charismatic" catholics suddenly ended up running everything from the parish councils to the altar society. This wasn't the Knights of Columbus anymore, it was a small, narrow group of catholics that were envious of the fundamentalist and evangelicals in the protestant religions.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)That way we can feel safe knowing that they are all just as bad as their most extreme elements. It's like that with Islam - sure there are people who talk about peace and brotherhood and building strong communities - but we all know that it's simply the Mullahs of Iran and Osama bin Ladin who really speak for Islam.
Bryant
CanonRay
(14,038 posts)When religion and government power mix, trouble ensues.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Churches exist to dupe people out of money and obtain power.
I'd like to see the results of lie detector tests on church leaders, to see how many of them really believe in a higher being.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)This is like not new.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)They've got the Vice-Presidency, the House Speakership and minority leadership, and 6 out of the 9 Supreme Court Justices. Not to mention 26 Senators (17 Democratic and 9 Republican).
talkingmime
(2,173 posts)caraher
(6,276 posts)Though some of that, I think, is that as more liberal Catholics leave we're left with the lunatics running the asylum.
A prime example was posted recently by a RW Catholic FB friend, twisting an argument for the freedom to engage in even arguably bigoted speech into a case that government should care about saving souls. Basically, the claim was that, since the "homosexual lifestyle" places in peril participants' immortal souls (they also argue it's physically unhealthy with some very dubious support), opposing gay marriage is an act of love. What they ignored, in drawing on some remarks by "atheist Penn Jilette" for support, was that there's a world of difference between expressing one's personal, religion-based opinion about what may or may not result in someone else's eternal damnation in an effort to persuade them to your view, and asking the state to enforce such views on everyone. (I'd include the link except I'm not sure doing so would be compatible with DU TOS.)
I think most Catholics, as individuals, recognize that there's a difference between proper state interests and what their religious beliefs would dictate regarding personal behavior. (Abortion is really the main issue where there's a huge basic conflict, as most pro-life Catholics buy into the notion of fetus-as-person, which for them legitimizes it as a concern that goes beyond the wishes of the pregnant woman. Remove that notion and the vast majority of them would concede the state has no compelling interest in restricting abortion, just as the vast majority of Catholics have no problem with legal artificial birth control.)
Festivito
(13,452 posts)The brand of separation that ignores free practice and wants no free practice of religion if it touches government at all, and government touches just about everything. That is fine with atheists since that would mean they get their lack of practice to be sanctioned even proliferated by government while no one else can.
Again, the wall of separation is to be built out of the ability of all to freely choose and freely practice their respective religion -- as Thomas Jefferson envisioned it.
And, I find the originating premise that the churches want to take over. I think there are groups using churches, and these people take over churches.
But, let's recall. As far as groups go, if there were no churches, other groups would be taken. For example, do you remember Sportsmen for Bush.
I did not want to be those sportsmen; however, I would still like to take a good hike.