My Favorite RWNJ Headline In the History of Planet Earth:Obama Admin Tries to Lock up Body of Christ

[Playinghardball]

TheObamaDiary.com @TheObamaDiary

My Favorite RWNJ Headline In the History of Planet Earth:
"Obama Admin Tries to Lock up Body of Christ"
#Howling

10:24 AM - 16 Oct 2013

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. If Jesus really is who they say he is, couldn't he have gotten out of there

by himself? I mean, didn't he pull a similar stunt once before, with a big rock?

[Divine Discontent]

3. shhhh! you'll ruin their narrative about Obama

being the anti-christ.

And, those folks who are saying this don't understand Jesus, or they wouldn't even make him sound so controllable by a locked door! lol...



http://www.zazzle.com/shutdown_the_gop_by_voting_in_2014_government-128195183613839642?rf=238107662556833486

[Arugula Latte]

5. But if Jesus is in cracker form he has no arms, see.

So it's kinda hard to open stuff.

[Demo_Chris]

53. You saying he cannot morph and assuming other forms??!

Granted, his Burning Bush form seems a bit weak, but what about his giant Mech form with laser chainsaw powered arms?

[Arugula Latte]

66. Hmm, good point.

Also, if people let him into their hearts isn't he outside of this vault already?

[Ken Burch]

153. No, no, no...it's "Jesus Christ ON a cracker", not "Jesus Christ IS a cracker".

It means Jesus transubstantiates into a tasty bowl of California Dip.

(besides...they could probably bake crackers with arms if they wanted to...it's just a question of how you design the dough cutters at the cracker factory).

[Warren DeMontague]

170. He's Jesus, not Houdini!

[Divine Discontent]

2. rec! these people are so out there looney tunes. smh!!!

I know a ton of believers, and only a few are like this. they go off ranting about an attack on Christianity by the muslin in the white house, etc... true cuckoo for cocoa puffs type of conspiracy baloney. thanks for posting this! it it is certainly a howler of a title!



http://www.zazzle.com/shutdown_the_gop_by_voting_in_2014_government-128195183613839642?rf=238107662556833486

[Arugula Latte]

4. These people are crackers ... about crackers.

Ahh, religion. Is there no end to your silliness?

[hrmjustin]

8. NOT FUNNY!!!!

[Arugula Latte]

9. To me claiming that someone locked up an ancient Judean in the form of a cracker is pretty funny.

Just because something is religion doesn't mean people can't find it hilarious.

[hrmjustin]

10. Your post makes fun of a deeply held faith. I am used to critizism but your post is offensive.

[Arugula Latte]

11. Deeply held faith?

Can't any belief be called a deeply held faith? Republican beliefs are deeply held, but yet we criticize them all the time. Why is religion supposed to be immune from freedom of speech? I suspect it's because deep down many of its adherents know the emperor wears no clothes.

I don't owe any respect any medieval superstitious nonsense put out by the Catholic Church. That vile institution has oppressed and abused women, gay people and children for centuries, and continues to do so to this day.

[hrmjustin]

12. Roman Catholics are not the only ones who believe in the real presence of the Jesus in the host.

Your offending many people with that picture. I am Episcopalian and we believe in the real presence. Other churches do as well.

Say you think the Roman Catholic Church is wrong and did wrong but making fun of the host is not about the sins of the church. You don't believe in the faith and that is fine with me, but show some respect for those of on this site that do.

Think of all the progressive people of faith that see your posts and are lurking here. Will they feel welcome?

Please consider self deleting it.

[Arugula Latte]

14. Really? In this year, 2013, we're all supposed to pretend that

thinking a cracker turns into a dead guy's body is somehow not utterly ridiculous? I believe it's important for people to be able to call out patently irrational beliefs, whether in religion or politics or any other field.

I don't get why so many religious people think that "faith" is supposed to be exempt from examination.

[hrmjustin]

15. Your post was not critizing it is down right offensive.

[cleanhippie]

20. Stephen Fry summed it up nicely.

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

[rug]

31. So fucking what.

Recycled memes are trite.

No offense.

[cleanhippie]

33. Who fucking cares.

No offense taken. You can only offend me if you mean something to me.

[rug]

34. Ah, stealing my quotes.

Well, why not. Repeating other's words is a custom of yours.

I give it four more posts before a Sam Harris quote appears.

[cleanhippie]

36. Sorry, that's a Chris Rock quote.

Claiming others' words as your own must be a custom of yours.

I give you one more post before your last-word compulsion becomes apparent. Again.

[rug]

37. Last word compulsion?

Like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121898193

Come on, you can lick it this time. I'm pulling for you.

[cleanhippie]

38. Don't look now, but you're projecting again.

Go on, show us all you can control that last word compulsion.

[Lordquinton]

51. if you're going to complain about recycled memes

Try to not do it in defense of the oldest recycled meme on the planet.

[Arugula Latte]

23. I have a deeply held belief that it would be much better for modern people

to move out from the oppressive dark cloud of superstition and irrationality and anti-scientific views put forth by religion that have damaged this planet so grievously.

[hrmjustin]

25. Ok fine, your not going to take it down.

I just wanted you to know how I feel.

[Arugula Latte]

28. It's a discussion forum. Stuff gets put out there.

Feelings get hurt. People get insulted. I know I have, many times. But I've chosen to participate on an interesting, dynamic board. I say err on the side of putting stuff out there.

[rug]

32. A discussion forum is not a sandbox for juvenile antics.

Typing recycled remarks designed to offend is not a discussion.

Plus, it's stupid.

[Arugula Latte]

83. Juvenile antics? It's a lighthearted, funny thread about wacky anti-Obama religious nutjobs.

You and a couple other posters here seem to think that you should be the arbiters of what people can and can't say about religious topics. It gets old.

[rug]

86. So lighthearted and funny.

I don't owe any respect any medieval superstitious nonsense put out by the Catholic Church. That vile institution has oppressed and abused women, gay people and children for centuries, and continues to do so to this day.

You and a couple other posters here seem to think that anything about religion, generally, or Catholicism, specifically, is a dog whistle. It gets old.

No one is being an arbiter. You shouldn't be surprised - or offended - when you're called on what you post.

[Arugula Latte]

88. I posted that after a DUer suggested self censorship.

Non-believers are constantly being told to shut up and not offend anyone -- but religious beliefs should always be sheltered because they fall under the third rail of "faith." That's when the thread got more serious. But I'm over it. To me, it's a funny thread at its premise.

I'm not surprised when people react to posts. It's a discussion board...I get it. C'est la vie.

[rug]

93. He suggested civility not self-censorship.

[hrmjustin]

165. No one told you to shut up here. All I did was ask you to reconsider. You said no. That is that.

I took offense to it, that is why I spoke up.

[Vashta Nerada]

164. This is the best post in the whole thread.

[Hekate]

22. Arugula: Nobody is saying that "we're all supposed to" do anything or believe anything. Expect be...

... just a little respectful of someone else's faith. Personal faith is just that: personal, even if shared by millions of other persons. If the objects relating to the Mass don't hurt you, why not walk away and stop escalating?

[cleanhippie]

24. When someone says that they are offended by a picture of a cracker, it's not "personal faith"

It's absurdity.

[Pab Sungenis]

139. It's not the picture.

It's the statement "it's just a goddamn cracker."

Equivalent to Bush calling the Constitution "a goddamn piece of paper." Yeah, it's a piece of paper, but it MEANS something.

Same for the Eucharist.

[Humanist_Activist]

150. The Constitution is a piece of paper that we base the structure of our government on...

on a very basic level, not to mention delineating its powers and limits on those powers, and putting into force of law rights for citizens and non-citizens alike. Its a working document in that it is something that is enforced and empowered by human action, in the form of the U.S. federal government. So Bush, being the head of one of the branches of this government, at the time, dismissing the document that empowers him, along with the other branches, and sets limits on their actions as well, is absolutely NOTHING like calling a unleavened wafer of bread what it is and dismissing the belief that it is the actual body of a demigod, which has no evidence, by the way.

[Marrah_G]

160. It is just a piece of bread until the priest performs mass

I can understand some people will be offended. I can also understand the point of people who find the outrage in the article to be absurd. I think though, overall, Christians in general have had to deal with a lot less criticism of their religion in America and that makes it a little more shocking to them when they see it.

[cleanhippie]

161. Sure, it means something to everyone.

To some, it means that reality is suspended for a brief moment and a miracle occurs.

To others, it means that we have a sizeable portion of the population thinks a cracker turns into human flesh which is patently absurd.

False equivalences aside, YMMV.

[Arugula Latte]

26. See post #23.

The religious feel free to espouse their beliefs freely. They make their beliefs known on money. They hold public prayers. They condemn me from their church signs. They even come to my door.

Other, opposing beliefs are supposed to be put under wraps out of "politeness" and of spring the delicate sensibilities of believers.

Apparently the sensibilities of non-believers are never to be considered.

Well, I think the Internet has shown that a lot of people are just plain tired of this old way of doing things.

[hrmjustin]

29. No one here says you can not have a belief. I just thought the post was harsh.

I would never tell you your views or wrong or never to be considered.


All I am saying is that post is over the top. You are going to keep it fine.

[Demo_Chris]

54. Yes, because he doesn't moprph into a cracker, it's a fucking Wafer, and not a Nilla one either...

Show some respect!

[cleanhippie]

16. I find that you believe a cracker turns into Jesus offensive.

It's offensive that in 2013 a reasonable, rational person can choose to believe such an absurdity and expect others to respect that.

No one owes you or your faith an ounce of respect. What you get is respect for your right to believe and nothing more. If you want your beliefs to be respected, then align your beliefs closer to reality.

Think of all the reasonable and rational people that see your post and are lurking here.

Please consider self deleting it.

[hrmjustin]

17. So I have to believe like you?

[cleanhippie]

18. Believe like me about what?

The way that the universe actually operates, commonly known as reality, is not a belief.

Thinking that a cracker magically turns into the flesh of a person is, on its face, absurd.

[hrmjustin]

19. Your opinion. I am not going to argue the point believe what you will. We disagree.

I found that picture offensive.

[cleanhippie]

21. Physics an the natural laws of the universe are opinion?

And you really wonder why faith deserves no respect?

[Caretha]

56. Sometimes

we just have to get over our "cheap selves".

One man's theology is another man's belly laugh. ~ Robert A. Heinlein

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

35. Exactly. Roman Catholic doesn't have a great recent history...

so I would not care....

And just don't get me started with Opus Dei...

[rexcat]

39. You are absolutely wrong...

the magic of turning a cracker into Jesus triumphs rational thought, science and specifically physics any day.

Some people are so thin skinned about their religious beliefs they don't get the humor of the situation. There is not much you can do about superstitious attitudes unless the person is willing to see the absurdity of it (good luck with that one). The SA seems to be strong with some here on DU.

[hrmjustin]

41. Am I the "that one"?

[rexcat]

42. I do believe that I was responding to cleanhippie...

not you.

On edit: there are several on this thread that may or may not be referenced to in my response to cleanhippie. You can take it or leave it, it is entirely up to you.

On another edit: Are you questioning my beliefs, if so that won't offend me at all!

[hrmjustin]

44. I am sorry I read your post wrong and thought you meant me. I am sorry.

[rug]

45. The humor of the situation is that you think it's magic.

Let's see how thin-skinned you are.

[rexcat]

46. Actually...

I really don't think it is magic. The concept of magic is not valid just like I don't think that religion is valid but your are absolutely entitled to your "religious" beliefs. I say that as an atheist and scientist.

You have no valid proof that a cracker that some catholic holy man saying some incantations over it turns said cracker into the body of some person who died nearly 2000 years ago. If you want to believe that go right ahead but don't include me in that camp.

And no offense taken. I have catholic in-laws who hate atheists and have stated it very clearly. That means they hate me and their two grandsons. So much for christian love and tolerance.

[hrmjustin]

47. I am sorry to but in again but I am sorry that your in-laws feel that way.

[rexcat]

61. All my in-laws are doing is mimicking...

Last edited Thu Oct 17, 2013, 02:02 PM - Edit history (2)

what the priests and popes have said about atheist. One of the worst offenders was his popeyness John Paul II. I remember one Easter homily where he blasted atheists and humanists. He was way over the line as far as I was concerned but it gave me insight as to where my in-laws are coming from.

Very few catholics who I have encountered are tolerant to atheists, be they conservative or liberal in their political beliefs. I can also say that for most christians I have encountered to the point that I avoid talking about religion if and when the topic comes up unless they are so obnoxious that I don't care if they walk away from me. It seems to me that a lot of christians like to talk about their beliefs but can't handle an alternate view.

I live in the Cincinnati metro area and the Cincinnati archdiocese is extreme in their conservatism along with their flock of sheep. A lot of money has been given out to sexual abuse victims by the Cincinnati archdiocese for enabling the pedophiles in their ranks. Not necessarily a good legacy.

[rug]

48. "Valid proof" may be pertinent if it was a lab experiment.

But it's not.

The only thing I find truly offensive is lame snark intended to insult. It's so poorly done.

[uriel1972]

50. But it is pertinent to the situation...

You see if we are to respect the belief as fact then we need evidence, otherwise it's just as real as a belief in faeries at the bottom of the garden. You do want the belief to be treated with more respect than that don't you?

[rexcat]

60. Nice response on your part...

I don't think you will get a cogent response back.

[rexcat]

59. Horse dodo...

on both accounts. If you want to believe in superstitious acts that is your prerogative but I don't have to go along with it.

[mr blur]

52. So what? You do not have the right not to be offended.

Get over yourself/yourselves.

"You don't believe in the faith and that is fine with me, but show some respect for those of on this site that do.""

By which, of course, you really mean "I believe in this drivel so you must treat me as if I'm as important as I think I am".

Grow up.

[hrmjustin]

79. Have a blest day!

[Scuba]

57. My sister is an ordained Episcopalian minister and she holds no such belief.

[hrmjustin]

70. Not every Episcopalian holds the belief but a majority of the Anglican communion does.

[Goblinmonger]

58. It is my understanding that that is not dogma of the Episcopalians

When I was looking for an alternative to the RCC for my kids, I talked for a good while with an Episcopalian priest about the belief structure of the church and I asked specifically about transubstantiation. She told me that the church left that up to the individual and it was not a teaching from the church one way or another. Was I led astray? (side note: doesn't really matter because we ultimately went to a UU fellowship but I did find the lack of rigidity to dogma a good thing about the Episcopalians and I really belief that most Catholics--certainly the liberal Catholics--would actually find their beliefs more fit the Episcopalians than the RCC and going to church would feel the same with the exception of not always having someone with a penis in the role of priest.)

[A HERETIC I AM]

67. No, you were not led astray.

I was raised Episcopalian and while we said the words "Take, eat, this is my body"..etc. no one I ever talked to during the 15 years I attended Episcopal churches on 3 continents insisted I believe that the wafer actually turned into the flesh of Jesus.

Mainstream Episcopalians tend to be much more rational in this regard.

[hrmjustin]

72. We don't believe in explaning it but we do believe in the real presence. If you come here to NY

Most Episcopal Churches believe in the real presence.

[A HERETIC I AM]

81. Believing in "the real presence"....

and actually believing the wafer physically turns into the body of Christ are two different things.

It was and is symbolic.


The last 10 times I have been inside an Episcopal church for a Holy Eucharist I got up and walked out during communion, including my fathers funeral. I want nothing to do with and am not taking part in a pseudo-cannibalistic ritual, no matter how important it is to someone else.

[hrmjustin]

84. It is not cannibalistic and that is just plain rude!

[A HERETIC I AM]

85. ?

What is rude? Me walking out?

Or the religion I grew up with expecting a rational person to take part in such a ridiculous ritual?

[hrmjustin]

87. I self corrected my post. Calling is cannabalistic is rude.

[A HERETIC I AM]

90. Well, it isn't rude, it is in fact a cannibalistic ritual.

How else could you possibly describe the implied or actual consuming of human flesh? That sort of practice, the eating of a "scapegoat" precedes Christianity by several thousand years. The church just co-opted that tradition, just like it co-opted almost everything else.

This goes to the conversation you are having above.

You can not expect to be immune from critique or questions or even ridicule just because the things that are being criticized or questioned are of a religious nature, REGARDLESS of how dearly you hold them.

Too fucking bad if you think it is rude, IT'S THE DAMNED TRUTH.

I'm betting you'll get over it. If it shatters your faith, then your faith needed shattering anyway.

[hrmjustin]

91. Nice talking to you and have a good day.

[A HERETIC I AM]

95. Well, that was easy.

[hrmjustin]

96. I won't shut up. I am just done talking to you.

[A HERETIC I AM]

97. Again.....

BTW, by responding yet again, you are doing a piss poor job of being done.

[Gore1FL]

92. If Jesus is God in human form

Eating His body and drinking His blood sounds more than just a little like cannibalism--especially if one believes in transubstantiation.

If I were a Catholic Priest, I'd eat donuts all day. Then, I'd transubstantiate them into Jesus while they were in my stomach. I figure He is mostly protein as He was an avid walker. The pounds would just melt off.

[hrmjustin]

94. I am done!

[rug]

98. I see you know as little about the hypostatic union as you do of transubstantiation.

I don't blame you for not believing it but you should at least know what you are trying to mock.

Just comes off as foolish.

[Gore1FL]

99. Psst. It's a joke.

Though not as funny as Catholic dogma, I admit.

[rug]

100. I'm glad you identified what it is.

[Gore1FL]

101. Communion is Jesus' way of saying "Eat Me!" n/t

[rug]

102. I'm surprised you root for the Cardinals.

[Gore1FL]

106. Only the baseball team and the birds themselves. n/t

[hrmjustin]

104. NOT FUNNY!!!!

[Gore1FL]

107. Matthew 26:26 is rather dry as far as humor goes.

Don't blame me. I didn't write it.

[hrmjustin]

108. Your description is not funny!

[Gore1FL]

109. Yet, it is accurate. n/t

[hrmjustin]

110. Can I ask you why you feel the need to make fun of our faith?

[Gore1FL]

112. It could be a lot of things:

Maybe it's because articles like the one in the OP.
Maybe it's a reaction to being told I deserve to suffer for eternity.
Maybe it's because I am sick of being repeatedly proselytize to convert to a religion I have already experienced, thought through and rejected.
Maybe it's because people like Oprah feel the need to tell me what I can and cannot appreciate.

Maybe I could go on listing things for some time. Instead let me summarize:

Christians have no singular hold on judging others. When they judge me, I judge them right back. If you have a problem with that, then let me refer you to Matthew 7:1-5. Your book. Not mine.

[hrmjustin]

113. Do people here tell you that you are going to suffer hell? Anyone on DU say that to you?

[Gore1FL]

114. Not that I recall. Oprah doesn't post here either, that I am aware of. n/t

[hrmjustin]

116. This post is not about Oprah. If you look in religion you will see I spoke up and said she was

wrong.

[Gore1FL]

118. Did you call out the Vatican about thew whole eternal damnation thing too? n/t

[hrmjustin]

119. First of all I am not a Roman Catholic.

Second I do not believe in hell and I have said that many times.

[Gore1FL]

122. So why is Communion believable while Hell isn't?

How does one chose what to believe and disbelieve in cafeteria-style Christianity?

[hrmjustin]

123. I am not a cafeteria-style Christian.

I believe in a loving God that just does not send people to hell.

[Gore1FL]

124. So when Jesus mentioned Gehenna in Mark 9:44, 9:46, and 9:48 he was lying? n/t

[hrmjustin]

125. I don't believe in hell. If God does not send you to heaven that he makes you no longer exist.

That is my view. Gehenna the land of the dead is nothingness to me.

[Gore1FL]

126. So I will go there? n/t

[hrmjustin]

129. Why would you go there?

[Gore1FL]

133. John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Logically, you must either think I am going to Gehenna or your are doing the cafeteria Christian thing. You said you weren't a cafeteria Christian.

[hrmjustin]

135. I am a devout Christian. I don't think you are going to hell because I don't believe in it.

[Gore1FL]

138. That brings us back to the cafeteria, again, however. n/t

[hrmjustin]

142. Well I believe what I believe.

[cleanhippie]

162. You believe what you CHOOSE to believe.

Fixed it for ya.

[hrmjustin]

71. It is not a dogma but a belief held by most Episcopalians and the wrold wide Anglican church.

[PassingFair]

62. My mother is an Episcopalian, and she doesn't believe in transubstantiation.

Please consider speaking for yourself.

[hrmjustin]

69. I never said Episcopalians believe in transubstantiation.

[Goblinmonger]

73. Um, just so you know where this is coming from

When you said this:

I am Episcopalian and we believe in the real presence.

It kind does sound like you are saying:

...Episcopalians believe in transubstantiation.

[hrmjustin]

75. Yes you are right that I did not make myself clear. We don't believe in explaining it.

It is a mystery of God.

[PassingFair]

77. No supernatural concept can be "explained". nt

[hrmjustin]

80. Yes faith is hard to expalin.

[Goblinmonger]

78. You can certainly believe what you want

I hope I'm clear in that. I don't think that means I have to respect the actual beliefs. But from my years in a very conservative Catholic home and from the seminary days, rigid belief in transubstantiation is one of the things that separated us from the non-RCC (read: those going to hell) along with the Pope, Mary, and saints. (that's obviously a simplistic list--I don't need replies about what I don't know about the RCC--and that isn't aimed at you hrmjustin).

[hrmjustin]

82. I know my friend.

I accept the fact here that most don't believe as I do. I think it is great we have diverse opinions.

That is one of the reasons I love this place.

[PassingFair]

74. OK...I must be seeing things.

YOU: "Roman Catholics are not the only ones who believe in the real presence of the Jesus in the host.
Your (sic) offending many people with that picture. I am Episcopalian and we believe in the real presence."


MERRIAM WEBSTER:

tran·sub·stan·ti·a·tion
noun \-ˌstan(t)-shē-ˈā-shən\

: the belief in some Christian religions that the bread and wine given at Communion become the body and blood of Jesus Christ when they are blessed

[hrmjustin]

76. My fault I did not explain myself. We do not believe in explaining it.

It is a mystery of God. Yes it is also true to say not all Episcopalians believe in it but I can tell you several things. Here in NYC almost all Episcopal churches believe in it. From my experience with the national church and the worls wide church I can say most believe in it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

171. A little difference: the Anglican churches believe in transignification,

which holds that although Jesus' body and blood are not physically present in the Eucharist, they take on at the consecration the real significance of the body and blood, which thus become sacramentally present. Catholics, however, believe in transubstantiation, which is the doctrine that the the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the eucharist is changed into the actual substance of the body and blood of Jesus. Which - no disrespect intended - is actually kind of creepy, when you think of it.

[hrmjustin]

174. Some do. Many Anglicans however do believe in the real presence and I have to say that group is

growing. We just don't believe in explaining it. It is a mystery and should remain a mystery.

But all Christians agree that Jesus is with us when we have communion.

[cbayer]

68. Not to worry Justin. When people thrive on mocking those they see as *others*,

even when they are on the same team, it says much more about them then it does about those they mock.

Take the high road here.

[rbixby]

127. NOt meaning to add fuel to the fire but..

I always thought it was so bizarre that through transubstantiation it actually becomes the flesh and blood of Christ. It seems a bit like ritualized cannibalism if you think about it that way.

[hrmjustin]

128. It is not cannibalism. I am not a RC but Episcopalian but I believe in the real presence as well.

I understand you disagree but it is not cannibalism.

[rbixby]

130. I know its only symbolic

but "This is my body, eat it in remembrance of me...."

[hrmjustin]

132. This is the commandment Jesus gaves his followers. We follow it.

[rbixby]

140. It was just something that I couldn't really get behind when I was into Christianity

I guess its just me though.

[hrmjustin]

143. That is ok. Not everyone believes it.

If it helps us get through this life then it is good.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

173. The "real presence" concept is not the same as transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation is the belief that the host turns into the literal body and blood of Jesus. Transignification, which the Anglican churches generally accept, means that the "real presence" is there symbolically and not literally. A huge doctrinal difference, if you ask me.

[hrmjustin]

175. No the real presence as I am taught in my church is the fact that Jesus is there literally.

We just don't believe in calling it Transubstantiation. It is a mystery and it should remain so.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

177. I am a lapsed Episcopalian and I always understood

that Jesus was not present literally because that's the Catholic thing, transubstantiation, which the Anglican Communion rejected many years ago.

I am "lapsed" because I'm just too skeptical for church. However, I do think the Episcopal church is one of the more decent, accepting and thoughtful groups of Christians. Also, their music is better than anybody elses' except maybe the Lutherans.

[hrmjustin]

179. Anglicans are all over the map.

The Episcopal Church tends to leave things up to the individuals.

Lutherans and Episcopalians are kissing cousins. The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America are in full communion.

[rug]

30. I suspect your ignorance of the subject goes a lot further than any perceived silliness.

[L0oniX]

63. +1

[Tommy_Carcetti]

105. Over the line.

I'm not one to discuss my deep personal religious beliefs to others under most circumstances. Certainly not on this board.

All I will say is that as a practicing Catholic, I do have a certain deep seeded belief about the Sacrament of Eucharist. And contrary to what one may think, my own personal belief about the Eucharist is not rooted in woo or supernatural magical thinking. It is however a personal, legitimate and deeply held belief. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

So, yeah, over the line.

[Bradical79]

115. Your religious leaders have murdered and raped

for over 1000 years. I think you'll understand if some aren't too concerned with your taking offense to people making fun of a bit of superstitious ritual. I think some wouldn't mind discussion of the real issues with your religious organization like protection of pedophiles, institutionalized sexism and oppression of women. I know there's a lot of other crimes I've left out, but I think that would be an ok start.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

117. Sorry.

I don't identify with the Catholic Church of the Crusades or Inquisition since I lived during neither time period.

As for contemporary issues such as cover up of abuse or the unwillingness of the hierarchy to consider married and female clergy, I can discuss and take opposition to those practices without it changing my underlying deeply held beliefs. And I do.

I don't know what your point is. I honestly don't think you have one, other than just wanting to take cheap shots.

[Bradical79]

120. Maybe this post will clarify a bit.

The Catholic church has been continuously committing atrocities from their earliest days up through modern times. How does it make sense to buy into the rituals and traditions of this organization, proclaim yourself a dedicated member, and yet completely disown whatever past your church has because it is inconvenient to your world view? Why do you identify more with the modern church and their institutionalized sexism, protection of pedophilia, and oppression of homosexuals? At what point do people in the past not matter you? At what point does the severity of the crime cause you to no longer identify with the organization?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

121. No, it doesn't.

You're asking me to conflate church organizational policies (abuse policy, policies on clergy) with matters of faith and belief. It doesn't work that way for me.

Maybe by your logic we should cease calling ourselves Americans because of slavery, segregation, WWII internment, and oppression against Native Americans.

[nomorenomore08]

131. +1

I'm not a believer, but I do recognize that the Church hierarchy, and one's personal faith, are two different things. Unless somebody wants to claim that, for instance, calling oneself an American means you approve of slavery or the Trail of Tears.

[Tree-Hugger]

159. +1 nt

[cbayer]

144. Got anything equally hilarious about Jews? Muslims?

[Arugula Latte]

147. I was reacting to the posted story which was about anti-Obama nutjobs freaking out

about Jesus being trapped in a vault -- in cracker form.

I'm sorry but that is comedy gold to most of us.

If there were something equally silly put out by Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or Sufis or what have you of course I'd find that funny too.

[cbayer]

149. "Most of us"? Hardly.

[Humanist_Activist]

154. Many former Muslims and Jews I'm sure find all sorts of things...

about their former beliefs as being silly or funny. You seem to have a problem with people in a majority Christian country being most familiar with Christianity and its various denominations.

[cbayer]

155. What does this have to do with former Muslims and Jews?

My point is that many would see that as a line they wouldn't cross because they are able to recognize that it would be construed as intolerance at best and bigotry at worst.

And despite DU's rules concerning religious bigotry, it thrives here with some people thinking things like this are "comedy gold".

Fortunately it's a small group. Most members here have much more respect and tolerance for those that see the world differently. And many embrace the differences both on the site and within the democratic party.

[Humanist_Activist]

156. People make fun of what they are familiar with, for example, I find the...

whole thing about transubstantiation to be effing hilarious because I went through 12 years or so of Catholic religious education. I wouldn't find some of the weird beliefs about Jews or Muslims to be nearly as funny because I wasn't raised as either, and am not as familiar with them.

And I don't see what is laudable about tolerating absurd beliefs.

[cbayer]

157. It's about being sensitive to and tolerant of those that see things differently, particularly when

those people are on your team and what they believe doesn't do harm to others.

You don't have to share all the beliefs of others to be sensitive and tolerant, do you? Isn't that one of the basic tenets of humanism?

[Humanist_Activist]

166. You are conflating two separate things, respecting the rights of people to hold stupid beliefs...

and tolerating the beliefs themselves, I support the first one, not the second.

I certainly don't expect anyone to tolerate or respect any of my opinions or beliefs, why shouldn't others expect the same treatment from me?

[cbayer]

167. Your definition of humanism must be much different from mine and

others that I have had the pleasure of discussing this with.

For me it means valuing individuals and their perspectives.

Your approach seems distinctly contrary to that. You appear to take the position that those who see things differently than you are just stupid.

It comes across as hostile and intolerant. Is that how you intend it?

[Humanist_Activist]

168. I value people as people, their ideas are different matter entirely...

and their perspectives are valid only insofar that they have a right to those perspectives, if those perspective are irrational, baseless, or nonsensical, I will call them out on that. If that's hostile and intolerant, so be it.

Also, again, you are conflating two different things, ideas vs. people. You can be the smartest person in the world, and still hold stupid ideas, we all do, that's part of being human. I would hope someone would come along and help me correct any erroneous and stupid ideas that I am currently holding. When I say that I think an idea or belief is stupid, that is NOT a judgement on your intelligence, but on that belief or idea.

This, of course, depends on the idea, for example on transubstantiation, its nonsensical but relatively harmless, unless you are talking about priests slapping people for not giving enough respect for the Eucharist at mass in Spain for example, or sending death threats to PZ Meyers for putting it in the trash and photographing it. Those are but two examples, but to be honest this is one of the problems with religion, it makes objects and beliefs sacred, to the point where ANY action in their defense is excusable. That is the source of my hostility, the very idea of the sacred is just revolting.

[cbayer]

169. I think what you are saying makes sense.

I am certainly not one to hold back when I think someone's ideas or positions are patently untrue or likely to cause harm to others.

However, when it comes to religion, I maintain the position that no one really knows where the truth lies, so I attempt to be open minded and tolerant.

But I do draw the line when people's religious views impinge on the rights of others or where science has shown them to be false.

I guess we all have our own lines. It just irks me when I see us, progressive democrats, eating our own because of differences over religious beliefs.

And extremism in most any form is what I find revolting, including extreme hostility towards relatively benign religious beliefs.

[Humanist_Activist]

172. You err in thinking I'm a Democrat(capital D), or call myself a progressive, I'm a Socialist...

bordering on Communism, to be quite frank, though I hold a faint hope that the electoral process is still the best way to manage things without the need for a revolution.

On the existence of a god or gods, I would generally agree with you that no one really knows the truth, but everything else, especially things that are testable, such as transubstantiation, power of prayer, miracles, etc. are fair game. Especially when such ideas are damaging.

An example would be the church in India that has worshipers covering themselves in sewer water because of the mistaken belief that that water was a miracle manifested in a crucifix crying, when its actually capillary action. Or the believers who drink what is actually bug poop from a tree in California because, again, they think its a miracle brought by God that the tree weeps.

What beliefs are harmless and what ones aren't is rather blurry and a moving line, wouldn't you say, after all, if someone gets sick from the actions above, would it not be their erroneous beliefs that ultimately are at fault?

[Gore1FL]

181. Yep

[piratefish08]

163. got milk?

[malaise]

6. These fugging people are raving lunatics

[bluestate10]

7. That story reminds me of some of the religious right people that got interviewed during and after

the republican national convention. Their attempts to answer reporter's questions made one want to jump into the TV, take them by the hand and lead them to the nearest Psych Ward.

[Silent3]

13. Ah, Right Wing Nut Job. I couldn't figure out what New Jersey...

...had to do with this.

[yuiyoshida]

27. This is the first time, but I must admit, I always wanted to use this smiley...

[ohheckyeah]

40. So what's the back story here?

Have a link or something? I'm curious.

[regnaD kciN]

146. The backstory is that…

…the chapel at the Navy base was closed as part of the shutdown. It seems like a really dumb decision by someone (and, if Riman Catholic servicepeople were also forbidden to go off-base to attend Mass, a potential violation of the First Amendment), but the notion that it was part of some White House plot against Christians is laughable.

[ohheckyeah]

148. thanks for the info....

I hadn't heard about it.

[Curmudgeoness]

49. What does Obama have to do with this?

I find it hard to believe that "the Obama administration" put locks on the church. I have no doubt that my wingnut friends will be screaming about this in no time.

[4bucksagallon]

55. My son went to St. Thomas More School here in the Philippines.

But I never saw anything that would give me pause to think they were run by RWNJ's must be a different Thomas More. They are a Catholic School but here you either go to a private Religious school or public school. All the private schools are Religious. The public schools don't offer much in the way of an education, just the basics.

[caraher]

136. The Thomas More Law Center is a RWNJ operation

They have nothing to do with your son's school. Both are named in honor of Thomas More, but Thomas More Law Center was founded by RWNJ more-Catholic-than-thou pizza tycoon Thomas Monaghan for the express purpose of fighting for "religious liberty." In practice, this "religious liberty" consists of the freedom to impose his right-wing brand of Catholicism not just on other Catholics but all Americans.

This whole stink is about Republicans playing to the Thomas Donohue's of America, the ones who imagine their Catholic religion makes them the last openly-persecuted minority group in America. (Yes, they say and believe things like this, and the whole upthread dustup over transubstantiation is the kind of thing they point to as proof that "anti-Catholic bigotry" is endemic in America.) It involves multiple leaps of faith - that the shutdown is Obama's fault, that a hypothetical statement that a civilian chaplain might be subject to arrest for entering a military base constitutes a desire throw Catholic priests in jail and prevent Catholic members of the active duty military from practicing their religion...

[regnaD kciN]

145. Thomas More was a 16th-century theologian and politician…

…executed during the Reformation. There are lots of churches, schools, etc. bearing his name. This right-wing group has also adopted his name, but that doesn't mean there's any more connection than, say, between my own state of Washington and some hypothetical Teabagger organization named the "George Washington Center for Freedom from Taxation."

[L0oniX]

64. OFFS ...that's just bat shit crazy.

[Initech]

65. Is this satire? Please tell me this is satire!!

[Contrary1]

89. We were taught that it was simply unleavened bread...

until it was transformed into the body and blood of Christ right before it was served.

So, unless that has changed, it was not the Holy Eucharist...yet.

Oh, and it was the Republicans that did this.

[Jody Lane]

103. Where is Bill O'Reilly when you need him?

Unfortunately, I don't think this was addressed adequately in "Killing Jesus" - prepare for the sequel.

[madrchsod]

111. oh yee of little faith..the kingdom of heaven is within and without you...

http://faithumc.me/2012/10/27/the-kingdom-within-you-and-without-you/

or they are just assholes that want to blame obama for their lack of faith.

[Vashta Nerada]

134. It's. A. Fucking. Cracker.

Get over it.

[Gore1FL]

158. Jesus is best with cheese and salsa. n/t

[Dash87]

137. Followed closely by "Obama Staffer Proven to be Top Saddam Hussein Government Official."

[sakabatou]

141. The stupid, it hurts

[Ken Burch]

152. Is Tom Robbins writing for Townhall now?

[fadedrose]

176. Bullshit

Please forgive my language, but it's the first word that came to mind.

Lunacy would be another.

[krispos42]

178. Obviously, Obama should have ordered the contents of the church strewn around the yard

before locking the doors due to the government shutdown.


Breaking news: government buildings shut when government shuts down. Duh.

[jmowreader]

180. The truth is scarier than all the cracker jokes y'all are...well, cracking

It seems that Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia, doesn't have an active-duty Catholic chaplain so they hired a civilian priest. With the shutdown in effect, they furloughed him.

If the Republicans were so upset about the monuments being closed, the civilian chaplains being furloughed and...I dunno, Uncle Sam being required to pawn his top hat...maybe they shouldn't have shut down the government.

[Jamastiene]

182. Well, it IS Halloween.

Can't they share the body of Christ with us for Halloween? We'll give it back after Halloween. We promise.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

184. People have killed each other over the centuries

fighting over transubstantiation (the cracker literally turns into the body of Christ) and consubstantiation (the cracker symbolically, not literally, turns into the body of Christ).

I find religious fighting to be utterly ridiculous. Killing people over religious beliefs. HRMJustin I believe is talking about consubstantiation.

In any case, fighting over religious beliefs is pointless. "My God is better than your God! Convert or die! Your choice!".


"God told me to" is another convenient excuse. George W. Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq. What God of Peace????



I've been told I'm going to hell in real life for "worshiping Buddha and meditating". I explained that Buddha is NOT a GOD. He was an enlightened person who taught. He's not like Jesus. This guy didn't know that.