Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Democrats

Journal pudge's Journal: Reformation Day, October 31 72

Journal by pudge

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther tacked his 95 theses on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg. Today, many celebrate "Reformation Day", to honor that day in particular, and all who have stood up against the Catholic Church and its dogma, who were branded heretics, who risked excommunication, who said, "The Catholic Church is wrong, they are corrupt and immoral, and I am here to put a stop to it!"

I recommend this year we give the day a motto: "Honoring Heretics, From Luther to Kerry."

Any recommendations for how we can celebrate? Maybe go trick or treating as John Kerry, carrying theses in one hand and a hammer in another? Things like, "The Pope is correct that the fetus is a life, but incorrect that we should protect that life."

And don't forget to tell your friends!

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reformation Day, October 31 More

Reformation Day, October 31

Comments Filter:

  • "The Pope is correct that the fetus is a life, but incorrect that we should protect that life."

    Why would Kerry believe that a fetus is a life?

    He believes it because the Pope said it.

    Why would he believe everything the Pope says?

    He is a Catholic and takes it on faith that the Pope is infailible.

    Does that mean that he is going to try and change US law to bring it in line with Catholic dogma?

    Not neccessarily. Many Catholics, Christians, and people of other faiths believe that no religion, not even

    • Not neccessarily. Many Catholics, Christians, and people of other faiths believe that no religion, not even their own, has any place in government.

      Yes, they say that, but it is bullshit. If you believe the child in the womb is a human life, and that government's job -- which the Declaration of Independence makes clear -- is to secure the right to life of the people, you must therefore use the government's power to protect those human lives. There is no logic here, only rationalization.

      The role of gover
      • What about the Death penalty? By your logic how can any Catholic politician support capital punishment?

        Second why the fuck should I care if Kerry isn't in line with the teachings of his Church? I'm not a Catholic nor even a Christian.
        • By your logic how can any Catholic politician support capital punishment?

          I didn't say they could.

          Second why the fuck should I care if Kerry isn't in line with the teachings of his Church?

          I didn't say you should.
          • Ironicly from what I understand of Catholic teachings Rep. Dennis Kucinich is probably the closest to his church's teachings with his political views of any national political figure. Especially before he moderated his views on reproductive freedom and gays.

            Gov. Granholm of Michigan also has political views more in line with church teachings than most politicians. She was a Deacon at one point and gave an excellent explanation of how she could be both a good Catholic and be pro-choice, support birth contro
            • Well, that's the thing, isn't? Kucinich is now pro-gay-marriage and pro-choice, which makes him very far from the Catholic church's teachings.

              BTW are you Catholic?

              No. I grew up in Southeast Mass., in an area that was probably at least 3/4 Roman Catholic (though I'd guess more).
        • By your logic how can any Catholic politician support capital punishment?

          The Pope, and Catholicism in general, is opposed to the death penalty.

          I would ask, how can the Preznit Dubya be pro-death penalty? He's "Christian" after all and should offer grace shouldn't he. He didn't even try to put safeguards in place that would protect potentially innocent or incompentents from being put to death (actively opposed is more like it).

          • The Pope, and Catholicism in general, is opposed to the death penalty.

            I would ask, how can the Preznit Dubya be pro-death penalty? He's "Christian" after all and should offer grace shouldn't he.

            Um ... the Pope and Catholic church have absolutely no authority in Bush's religion. You can argue that a Protestant Christian like Bush should not be for the death penalty, but not by appealing to the Catholic Church.

            That said, I have no opinion on the rightness or wrongness of the death penalty. This is one o
            • Um ... the Pope and Catholic church have absolutely no authority in Bush's religion.

              The part about the Pope was addressed to the the previous submission. So I agree with you.

              You can argue that a Protestant Christian like Bush should not be for the death penalty, but not by appealing to the Catholic Church.

              The first part is what I was addressing. As he is Christian, I find Bush's pro-death penalty stance hard to swallow. I actually find any Christian's pro-death penalty stance as ironic being tha

              • I actually find any Christian's pro-death penalty stance as ironic being that they worship one who was himself executed and many of their ancestors in faith were executed horribly (wrongly) for their faith.

                Christ's execution was not wrong or unjust, though. WE are the ones who deserved to be on that cross, not Christ, but because he took on our sins as his own, he got our just penalty: death. We deserved death. Maybe this is why so many Christians favor the death penalty?

                As to our forebearers in our f
              • The first part is what I was addressing. As he is Christian, I find Bush's pro-death penalty stance hard to swallow. I actually find any Christian's pro-death penalty stance as ironic being that they worship one who was himself executed and many of their ancestors in faith were executed horribly (wrongly) for their faith.

                To make this a more valid criticism the politician should be Catholic like Sen. Santorum or be in another church that has similar expectations for its followers to adhere to church teachi
                • Hmmm, George Bush is Methodist [vote-smart.org] and the United Methodist Church is against the death penalty [deathpenal...igious.org] and yet Bush is pro-death penalty.

                  • I don't know Methodism very well, but if it is like most Protestant sects, it does not fulfill ces' requirement "be in another church that has similar expectations for its followers to adhere to church teachings." The Catholic church is very different from most Protestant sects in this way: us Protestants have broad freedom to decide on our own beliefs, except on the very basics (the Holy Trinity, saved by faith and not works, that sort of thing).

                    Also, there are many brands of Methodism, and the United Me
                    • I don't know Methodism very well, but if it is like most Protestant sects, it does not fulfill ces' requirement "be in another church that has similar expectations for its followers to adhere to church teachings." The Catholic church is very different from most Protestant sects in this way: us Protestants have broad freedom to decide on our own beliefs, except on the very basics (the Holy Trinity, saved by faith and not works, that sort of thing).

                      My understanding of most Protestant churches is your belief
                • Yeah, thanks, I meant to say -- but forgot to -- that the irony is not in the history of the death penalty, but in the Catholics (mostly on the GOP side) who support it, against the view of the Church.

          • I would ask, how can the Preznit Dubya be pro-death penalty? He's "Christian" after all and should offer grace shouldn't he.

            I like how you snottily put "Christian" in quotes, as if to imply he isn't. Cute.

            Christians are to offer grace to those who do wrong to them. However, Romans is quite clear that the job of the government is to punish wrongdoers and to keep the law and order. Paul talks about the sword used by the government to punish those who break the law. It's always seemed fairly clear t

            • Christians are to offer grace to those who do wrong to them. However, Romans is quite clear that the job of the government is to punish wrongdoers and to keep the law and order. Paul talks about the sword used by the government to punish those who break the law. It's always seemed fairly clear to me, as a "Protestant" (I put the word in quotes because I don't like it) that the death penalty is a perfectly acceptable form of punishment for the government to carry out regarding certain crimes.

              And the idea

            • I'll quote the United Methodists' 1980 General Conference statement on Capital Punishment:

              In spite of a common assumption to the contrary, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," does not give justification for the imposing of the penalty of death. Jesus explicitly repudiated the lex talionis (Matthew 5:38-39) and the Talmud denies its literal meaning, replacing it with financial indemnities.

              When a woman was brought before Jesus, having committed a crime for which the death penalty was commonly i

              • I put more stock in Jesus' words and actions than I do Paul's. Paul is so misused by many Christians today. Jesus charged us to worry about and improve ourselves. Often today's Christians use Paul to look outward and judge others instead of taking care of the log in their own eyes.

                I agree with that, but I disagree that we should "put more stock" in Jesus than Paul, because a proper exegesis of Paul will yield -- if you believe in the inspiration of scripture, as Christians do -- God's own words. I do rea

                • But I think Romans is the most wonderful book of the Bible for my daily life, because it talks more about real problems people have than anything Christ said.

                  Speaking of judgmental and Romans, many people use Romans 1 to attack homosexuality, see how evil those gay people are! But in fact, Paul was setting the Jews up with Romans 1: saying, hey, look at all these sinners over here. Then a few pages later, he drops the hammer: you're just as bad off as they are! For all have sinned and fall short of the

      • it is clear he believes that life in the womb is a valuable human life. From there, there is no logical way to avoid the conclusion that government must protect that life.

        The conclusion that government must protect life does not determine in what way that should be done. Often situations arise in which the value of a life must be weighed against the value of other lives, or even ideologies and loyalties. When a death penalty is discussed, the value of the criminal is lower than the value of the lives h
        • The death penalty, war, and self-defense are entirely out of place as examples, because all of them assume that there is some bad person out there that can be justifiably killed. And that is the only reason WHY the killing is justified at all. If anything, your examples show that the killing in abortion is not justified, for that reason.

          The question of choice as it relates to abortion is a question of who gets to decide the value of the unborn life and what is allowed to be weighed opposite it.

          No, we
          • The death penalty, war, and self-defense are entirely out of place as examples, because all of them assume that there is some bad person out there that can be justifiably killed.

            I disagree with lumping war under that rationalization. It is so seldom that the men, women and children dying are the actual bad person (or people). The reason I used these as examples was showing how the valuation of the life involved is what is important.

            No, we already decided this issue many years ago, with slavery. Slaveo
            • I disagree with lumping war under that rationalization. It is so seldom that the men, women and children dying are the actual bad person (or people).

              Fair enough, though you must agree that at least the point of war is to justifiably kill bad people, even if others die too.

              And this is exactly the kind of decision that needs to be made nationally -- whether or not a fetus from the moment of conception is valued as a life and how highly.

              I don't disagree with that at all. Also drawing from slavery, I tak
              • Fair enough, though you must agree that at least the point of war is to justifiably kill bad people, even if others die too.

                Just a quick one. If a war is found not to be "justifiable", then is it as morally wrong as abortion?

              • Sorry about the delay - I timed out my session the first time I wrote this and had to start from scratch.

                though you must agree that at least the point of war is to justifiably kill bad people,

                There is a massive difference between something being justifiable and something having justifications. In this case I can only agree that war is sold to the general public based on the justification that it will stop bad people. However, very few wars are so simple and such justifications really don't make the w
                • Sorry about the delay - I timed out my session the first time I wrote this and had to start from scratch.

                  Ugh, that sucks. I hate that.

                  Religion is not some blanket answer under which everyone agrees

                  Of course not. Neither is anything else.

                  Religion may inform how we make the decision, but then it would be each individual's personal religious beliefs that should be involved (i.e. their choice) rather than a single religion's decision being forced upon others.

                  I never implied otherwise.

                  He doesn't di
                  • It wasn't a direct statement that slavery is wrong, but that doesn't mean the guidelines did not come from the Bible.

                    Biblical passages condone and regulate a barbaric and cruel form of slavery. From Genesis 9:25-27, and one of the Ten Commandments, up to Exodus 21:20-21, "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money," the Bible is only in favor o

                    • Biblical passages condone and regulate a barbaric and cruel form of slavery ... the Bible is only in favor of slavery.

                      Recognizing slavery is not the same as condoning it, let alone being in favor of it. You're speaking falsely, and you should stop that.
                    • Recognizing slavery is not the same as condoning it, let alone being in favor of it.

                      Are you saying that the Bible doesn't explicitly condone slavery? There are several verses which speak of the practice with explicit approval, including one of the Ten Commandments. According to the Bible, those who go against the institution of slavery by trying to escape into freedom are to be dealt the harshest of punishments.

                      You're speaking falsely

                      I think you are.

                      Again, I ask you, where does the Bible say anyth

                    • Are you saying that the Bible doesn't explicitly condone slavery?

                      Um, yes.

                      There are several verses which speak of the practice with explicit approval

                      No, there are not. There is what you think to be *implicit* approval, not *explicit.* There's nothing remotely explicit. You believe it is implied. And I believe you're quite wrong.

                      At least, I hope you really meant explicit, not implicit, because if you meant explicit, you're really lost.
                    • When the Tenth Commandment of Exodus 20:17 places slaves in the same category of houses, wives, oxen, donkeys, and "anything that belongs to your neighbor," how exactly is that implicit? Do you deny that the terms "manservant" and "maidservant" in Exodus 20:17 refer to male and female slaves, or do you wish to take the position that those words mean only paid free agents? In Levitican through late Roman times, more than half of the population was comprised of slaves, usually punished by state-sponsored de
                    • how exactly is that implicit?

                      It explicitly MENTIONS slavery. It does not explicitly CONDONE it. That is IMPLICIT, at best.

                      And until you can understand the difference, I am done with you on this subject.
                    • You imply that I do not understand the difference between explicitly condoning slavery and explicitly condoning slavery:

                      It explicitly MENTIONS slavery. It does not explicitly CONDONE it. That is IMPLICIT, at best.

                      My dictionary begins its definition of "condone" as "to pardon." And "explicit" is defined as "expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity: leaving no question as to meaning or intent."

                      If you think that the catigorization of slaves with houses and donkeys in the Tenth Commandment

                    • If you think that the catigorization of slaves with houses and donkeys in the Tenth Commandment is vague or ambigious in its codification, and thus its pardon, of the practice of slavery as part of the fundamental law of Judaism and Christianity, then in what way do you think it is vague or ambigious?

                      It does not say "slavery is OK." That would be explicit. Saying "this is how you should treat slaves" does not address the question of the rightness or wrongness of slavery. This is not hard. For most peo
                    • Saying "this is how you should treat slaves" does not address the question of the rightness or wrongness of slavery.

                      The word "should" includes a moral judgement, in this case contrary to the truth.

                      When you say this is easy for most people, to whom do you refer?

                  • Religion may inform how we make the decision, but then it would be each individual's personal religious beliefs that should be involved (i.e. their choice) rather than a single religion's decision being forced upon others.

                    I never implied otherwise.

                    No, but you are saying that sometimes an issue is important enough to be forced on others. This brings us full circle to the question of what determines when an issue is important enough. Religion isn't the answer. Religion exists on both sides of the fence.
                    • Oops, sorry about the lack of italics to indicate what I am quoting from earlier. The first two paragraphs are my comment and your reply, as are the sixth and seventh.
                    • No, but you are saying that sometimes an issue is important enough to be forced on others.

                      Of course. Just like slavery. That's a given.

                      This brings us full circle to the question of what determines when an issue is important enough. Religion isn't the answer.

                      It was for slavery.

                      Religion exists on both sides of the fence. ... What makes one religious belief important enough to force on others while the opposing side's belief can be over-ridden?

                      A majority vote, like anything else. Or in the case o

      • Since he believes abortion is wrong, it is clear he believes that life in the womb is a valuable human life.

        Not neccessarily. There is room between abortion is okay, and abortion is murder. The Catholic church also teaches that masturbation, contraception and prostitution are wrong, but that does not imply that any of those involve murder.

        If abortion is a sin but doesn't harm any person other than the sinner(s), then as a good Catholic Kerry should be against it, and in the interest of freedom Kerry s

        • The Catholic church also teaches that masturbation, contraception and prostitution are wrong, but that does not imply that any of those involve murder.

          I didn't say it implies murder per se, only that it implies the human life in the womb has value.

          Anyway, it's a moot point, because Kerry said, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception," [washingtonpost.com] which goes further than implying what I said: it outright confirms it.

          • I stand corrected, Kerry does believe life begins at conception. But I believe he understands that that is an issue of personal faith, a faith he cannot impose on the rest of the US, which is why he does not support making abortion illegal.

            • I stand corrected, Kerry does believe life begins at conception. But I believe he understands that that is an issue of personal faith, a faith he cannot impose on the rest of the US, which is why he does not support making abortion illegal.

              I don't deny he "understands" this. I deny that it is logically consistent. If he thinks it is a human life, he is logically required to believe the government should protect that life, unless he denies that the government has an obligation "to secure those rights."

              • If he thinks it is a human life, he is logically required to believe the government should protect that life, unless he denies that the government has an obligation "to secure those rights."

                But the secular government should only be bound by the secular definition of human life. One cannot use religious faith as reasoning to extend that definition.

                • But the secular government should only be bound by the secular definition of human life. One cannot use religious faith as reasoning to extend that definition.

                  Then we return to slavery. Kudos for you.

                  • You keep making that equivalency and you are mistaken in doing so. There are many reasons to believe that dark skin does not make you inhuman without resorting to religious faith. It is for those reasons slavery should be illegal.

                    If your religious faith tells you some things shouldn't be done, bully for you. But remember that your religious faith is not reason enough to legislate my behavior

                    • You keep making that equivalency and you are mistaken in doing so.

                      No.

                      There are many reasons to believe that dark skin does not make you inhuman without resorting to religious faith.

                      There are many reasons to believe being a fetus does not make you inhuman without resorting to religious faith. But the primary reason for both was and is religious belief in the intrinsic God-breathed value of each person.

                      But remember that your religious faith is not reason enough to legislate my behavior

                      Whatever. Re
    • Why would Kerry believe that a fetus is a life?

      He believes it because the Pope said it.

      Why would he believe everything the Pope says?

      He is a Catholic and takes it on faith that the Pope is infailible.

      In this, there is a mistake that most non-Catholics (and more than a few Catholics) make. The doctrine isn't that everything the Pope says is infallible. It is considered that only specific proclamations from the Pope are infallible (I can't remember their names at the moment). These types of procl

      • Yeah. I think Pudge is being particularly nasty... and probably offensive to Catholics as well.

        A little bit nasty, yes. As to offense, I don't care. There's lots of offense out there, and this ranks pretty low on the totem pole.

        The main point is that I find Kerry's illogic to be far more offensive. He is twisting truth and meaning and spitting on the purpose of government, "to secure those rights." And if you agree with Kerry's philsophical gymnastics, then it is about time someone told you how wrong
        • I personally don't give a shit about Kerry's abortion stance. Abortion is currently legal in the United States. That has yet to change under any Republican President and/or Congress.

          I think it is unconscionable for the President to be anti-abortion and anti-contraception. His abstinence only moralizing is just bad medicine. Kids that are only taught abstinence only (world programs here) are more likely to get pregnant and/or contract diseases than those that are taught about contraception.
          • I think it is unconscionable for the President to be anti-abortion and anti-contraception.

            Bush is not anti-contraception. You are thinking of someone else.
            • He has drastically cut back funding for contraception promotion programs in the 3rd world. Look up George Bush and global contraception. He opposes sex education that isn't chastity based. He is anti-contraception and feels that it promotes promiscuity. Problem is, he is playing with people's lives. Children that are taught chastity only approaches to sex education run higher risks of unwanted pregnancy and highrer risks of sexually transmitted disease. This is a problem when Bush sets global health f
              • He has drastically cut back funding for contraception promotion programs in the 3rd world.

                I know of no such thing. Source? I know he imposed the so-called "Gag Rule," which prevents NGOs who get USAID money from performing abortions or counseling in favor of abortions. This is tangentially related to contraception, because groups that failed to abide by the Gag Rule did not get the funding they needed to buy the contraception.

                But the point of it is not contraception, and it cannot reasonably be said t

    • Not neccessarily. Many Catholics, Christians, and people of other faiths believe that no religion, not even their own, has any place in government.

      Funny, but it sounds as if John Kerry is not one of them. Even in the debates, he talked about how his faith would guide him in office. How we need to be "loving our neighbor more" like Jesus talked about. Why is it ok for him to bring his faith into the picture as long as he feels it lines up with his liberal beliefs, but not when it comes to protecting

    • He is a Catholic and takes it on faith that the Pope is infailible.

      The Pope himself is not infallible. His infallibility is limited to his ex-cathedra teaching - meaning that he can make statements that become doctrine, but only rarely does so.

      Not trying to detract from your argument, just thought you'd want to know.

  • ...but i thought the President was supposed to be a secular, not a religious leader? This means it is not one of his duties to turn other people into his faith. Neither does it meant that he has to correspond strictly to your image of a Catholic/Methodist/Satanist*/whatever.

    As to who's right or wrong, then you're all wrong. So please shut up and think.

    * Would you make such a fuss out of it if Kerry was the member of a Satanist cult, but wouldn't make sacrificing all first-borns to Baphomet compulsory, eve

    • ...but i thought the President was supposed to be a secular, not a religious leader?

      I don't think I implied he was supposed to be a religious leader. I was talking about how good of a religious follower Kerry is.

      This means it is not one of his duties to turn other people into his faith.

      I never implied any such thing.

      Neither does it meant that he has to correspond strictly to your image of a Catholic

      Eh. Everyone wants the President to correspond to their image of [insert many characters/caricatur
      • Argh. "I never implied anything?" Well, i never implied anything, either. I was simply cracking fun at you cracking fun at some poor Catholic. I was a bit tired and cranky, so it's possible that i overreacted a bit, but i don't regret saying what i did.

        The only thing i did imply -- and also something you seemed to neglect -- was that the President's religious beliefs should not be a deciding factor in the things he does, so they really shouldn't matter. Of course it'd be impossible to completely ignore the

        • Argh. "I never implied anything?"

          I didn't say that. I said I never implied any SUCH thing.

          The only thing i did imply -- and also something you seemed to neglect -- was that the President's religious beliefs should not be a deciding factor in the things he does, so they really shouldn't matter. ... But he would still have to keep his faith out of his decision-making.

          I "neglected" it because you didn't express it. Now that you have, I'll say it's bullshit. Almost every President has appealed to God a
  • an heresy is when you don't agree with the current Pope on dogma issues (e.g. transsubstantiation or virginity of Mariah), not on moral ones. I've seen catholic priests on TV that were supporting use of condoms (for example), even though the Pope disagrees, and they're not heretic (hopefully the catholic church lets its followers have personal opinions about non-dogmatic issues.)
  • I see you're mixing religion AND politics. Certainly everyone will agree on that. =)
  • Martin Luther [amazon.com] is my favourite DVD in the PBS Empires Series. [amazon.com] Whether or not you are religious, and irrespective of whether you are a Protestant (at least, my husband, who is a Catholic albeit a collapsed one, thoroughly enjoys it), I strongly recommend it.

    Excerpt from the DVD cover text:

    Martin Luther is the dramatic story of the collaps of the medieval world and the birth of the modern age. [...] Nailing his treatise to the doors of the Wittenberg Cathedral, this previously obscure German monk changed th

Slashdot Top Deals

Your computer account is overdrawn. Please see Big Brother.

Close