republicans not the only ones in war on women

[blue adept]

I could not believe this, even after I read it!

http://news.yahoo.com/vatican-crackd...184558799.html

[Todd Ianuzzi]

This is amazing indictment of the schsism in the church. The Catholic church is turning into just one more fundamentalist christian church. Run by celibate old men.

[Common-Tater]

This is amazing indictment of the schsism in the church. The Catholic church is turning into just one more fundamentalist christian church. Run by celibate old men.

The Catholic Church has had more than one schism in its history and it's survived. Religion is a life style. There are also aspect of each religion that don't change. If you change them, the religion becomes something else. This story makes me think of someone who's hired by a factory that makes spark plugs. Some of the employees decide they want to make marshmellows, not spark plugs, so they write management and expect them to create an assembly line so they make marshmellows.

[Todd Ianuzzi]

The Catholic Church has had more than one schism in its history and it's survived. Religion is a life style. There are also aspect of each religion that don't change. If you change them, the religion becomes something else. This story makes me think of someone who's hired by a factory that makes spark plugs. Some of the employees decide they want to make marshmellows, not spark plugs, so they write management and expect them to create an assembly line so they make marshmellows.

I agree with you that the relgion becomes something else if it changes. If the Catholic Church would ordain women, support birth control, elminate celibacy, it would join the modern world and not have its teachings ignored by many of its members.

[Common-Tater]

I agree with you that the relgion becomes something else if it changes. If the Catholic Church would ordain women, support birth control, elminate celibacy, it would join the modern world and not have its teachings ignored by many of its members.

Should the amish drive cars, use city utilities, and wear blue jeans to join the modern world? There are rules in each religion that are there for reasons. No one is forced to be Catholic. It's like being a member of a Bike Club, or the Foreign Legion. If you want to be part of the organization, you have to follow the rules.

[armyda]

Should the amish drive cars, use city utilities, and wear blue jeans to join the modern world? There are rules in each religion that are there for reasons. No one is forced to be Catholic. It's like being a member of a Bike Club, or the Foreign Legion. If you want to be part of the organization, you have to follow the rules.

Yet I've seen many amish with cell phones, cordless tools (battery type), solar cells on their houses, windmill generators, using bobcats on their property. This is just to point out that many do change.

[Common-Tater]

Yet I've seen many amish with cell phones, cordless tools (battery type), solar cells on their houses, windmill generators, using bobcats on their property. This is just to point out that many do change.

The Bishops in the Amish faith have the final say on these kinds of things. Some are more conservative than others. You won't see all Amish using these things. The same goes for Catholics. Just because some are permitted to do certain things doesn't mean that all of their leaders agree. These rules have nothing to do with a preceived war on women (which doesn't exist).

[blue adept]

The Bishops in the Amish faith have the final say on these kinds of things. Some are more conservative than others. You won't see all Amish using these things. The same goes for Catholics. Just because some are permitted to do certain things doesn't mean that all of their leaders agree. These rules have nothing to do with a preceived war on women (which doesn't exist.]

In your mind only does this war not exist. YOU HAVE PROVEN THAT YOU DO NOT SEE WELL. PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE CHRIST TALKED ABOUT ABORTION AND GAYS, AND NOT ABOUT POVERTY, AND I WILL CONCEDE THE POINT.

[Common-Tater]

In your mind only does this war not exist. YOU HAVE PROVEN THAT YOU DO NOT SEE WELL. PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE CHRIST TALKED ABOUT ABORTION AND GAYS, AND NOT ABOUT POVERTY, AND I WILL CONCEDE THE POINT.

There is scripture that forbids both. I'm sure you've seen it. The Bible is the only inspired Word of God that we have. God and Jesus are part of the Holy Trinity. I'm not going to get into a great scriptual debate with you. Moses, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul all spoke about marriage. But I believe the topic was about a fictional war on women.

[Todd Ianuzzi]

Should the amish drive cars, use city utilities, and wear blue jeans to join the modern world? There are rules in each religion that are there for reasons. No one is forced to be Catholic. It's like being a member of a Bike Club, or the Foreign Legion. If you want to be part of the organization, you have to follow the rules.

Or you change the rules. Catholicism is more of a cultural faith in that many people from many countries in the world are born into the religion as the "national faith of their country." Religious rules that are routinely ignored, just like laws that are routinely ignored, undermine the credibility and authority of the church.

[Todd Ianuzzi]

There is scripture that forbids both. I'm sure you've seen it. The Bible is the only inspired Word of God that we have. God and Jesus are part of the Holy Trinity. I'm not going to get into a great scriptual debate with you. Moses, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul all spoke about marriage. But I believe the topic was about a fictional war on women.

What about the Koran, the Bhavad Ghita, the writings of the Buddha, the Book of Morman, and countless other tracts that claims divine inspiration.

[Todd Ianuzzi]

There is scripture that forbids both. I'm sure you've seen it. The Bible is the only inspired Word of God that we have. God and Jesus are part of the Holy Trinity. I'm not going to get into a great scriptual debate with you. Moses, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul all spoke about marriage. But I believe the topic was about a fictional war on women.

The war on women is real and it is a plank of the Republican party now.

[hairypumper]

There is scripture that forbids both. I'm sure you've seen it. The Bible is the only inspired Word of God that we have. God and Jesus are part of the Holy Trinity. I'm not going to get into a great scriptual debate with you. Moses, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul all spoke about marriage. But I believe the topic was about a fictional war on women.

I've been looking for those scriptures and having trouble finding them. Perhaps you could be more specific.

[blue adept]

I've been looking for those scriptures and having trouble finding them. Perhaps you could be more specific.

Actuaually Hairy, the bible does have a short quip on gay men, I believe it is in Leviticus, and then in the new testament He-man woman hater Paul, brings up that same passage again and again, so it is just repeating the one passage. Abortion isn't mentioned that I remember, except that a child isn't considered alive until it quickens, or starts to move. In that case, the Bible, may not be used as a source of "Life at conception" like the Christian al-qaeda is wont to do.


And you are wrong mister Tater, the war on women is real, and your denial, is a cheap veneer!

[Common-Tater]

And you are wrong mister Tater, the war on women is real, and your denial, is a cheap veneer!

I did a search on "War on Women." All of the subject matter of cases mentioned have always been contested between conservatives and liberals. The only diffference today is that because of the upcoming election, the liberals have put a new spin on it to make it look like a focused effort by the GOP to put women back into the 1950s. Last time, it was GOP trying to "Get Old People." The kicker is that it's not just the GOP. Wasn't Romney's wife just accused by a prominant Democrat of never having worked a day in her life because she chose to stay home and take care of her children? Some people choose to stay home and take care of their children which is a very noble decision to make although an outdated value. Most people just can't afford to do it. That doesn't make her decision any less "work." Just becuase someone believes in a more "traditional" family doesn't make them warmongers agaisnt women. Women do have a choice. If they don't want to be part of that life style, they don't have to be. But those who do, can. Who are any of you to tell them they can't? Liberals seem to want to change the law so that people can do absolutely anything they want as long as they're not hurting someone else. But every choice you make indirectly affects other people. Part of being in a community means personal sacrafice. Anyone who's taken a government course, criminal justice, or sociology has heard that.

[HomeyG]

War on Women, another diversion from the real problem, the economy.

[michael medeski]

Women do have a choice.

.......as long as they choose pro-life. right?

[HoosierHelen]

An interesting tidbit I learned when going through some religious history studies a few years back.... Does everyone realize that the reason the Catholic church determined it preferred their Priests to be unmarried had its early roots in property ownership?

In the early 11th century Pope Benedict VIII responded to the decline in priestly morality by issuing a rule prohibiting the children of priests from inheriting property. A few decades later Pope Gregory VII issued a decree against clerical marriages.

The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy.

http://hnn.us/articles/696.html

Now there is a trend toward tolerance of married Catholic Priests provided they are converts from the Angelican church and are previously married.

[Common-Tater]

Helen, I must ask you. As a woman, do you feel there have been recent changes to the way the government is approaching issues related to women to justify a claim that there is now a "war on women?" Or do you feel is is most likely election year propaganda?

[blue adept]

I did a search on "War on Women." All of the subject matter of cases mentioned have always been contested between conservatives and liberals. The only diffference today is that because of the upcoming election, the liberals have put a new spin on it to make it look like a focused effort by the GOP to put women back into the 1950s. Last time, it was GOP trying to "Get Old People." The kicker is that it's not just the GOP. Wasn't Romney's wife just accused by a prominant Democrat of never having worked a day in her life because she chose to stay home and take care of her children? Some people choose to stay home and take care of their children which is a very noble decision to make although an outdated value. Most people just can't afford to do it. That doesn't make her decision any less "work." Just becuase someone believes in a more "traditional" family doesn't make them warmongers agaisnt women. Women do have a choice. If they don't want to be part of that life style, they don't have to be. But those who do, can. Who are any of you to tell them they can't? Liberals seem to want to change the law so that people can do absolutely anything they want as long as they're not hurting someone else. But every choice you make indirectly affects other people. Part of being in a community means personal sacrafice. Anyone who's taken a government course, criminal justice, or sociology has heard that.

I just read an editorial from Hugh Hefner. The gist of the piece was about hard won rights that took most of the sixties, seventies, and part of the eighties. Basically, way back when, the government would put you in jail for anything other than missionary sex, even if it was with your wife. The sexual revolution changed all that and the government was told to mind their own business, and Roe verses Wade allowed women the power over their bodies. Now, the GOP has it on their agenda to overturn R V W, and set womens rights back 50 years. This has nothing to do with a woman choosing to stay home and raise kids, most women I know cannot afford the luxury of such a decision. As far as changing the law to do anything they want as long as it hurts no one else, i thought as free people we were supposed to already have that, it is called freedom, or have you forgotten what that means? Being part of a community has nothing to do with sacrifice, what planet do you live on? And by the way, if there isn't a war on women, why are they, in addition to trying to get rid of abortions, trying to make it impossible for young ladies to use birth control? And please do not give me that tired argument of it allows them to have sex easier, Holland proved that condoms easily atained does not increase sexual behavior.