Religions can be very strange monsters. Like herding little children, the Church seems to try to maintain control over their masses in a paternalistic manor. The "faithful" need to be "excused" from obligation, as if they cannot make up their own minds as to whether it is safe, or wise, to make the trip, or risk the lives of those they would drag along with them. If the Church had any sense at all, they would announce that all services are canceled for the day, out of concern for the safety of those whose very thoughts they try to control through the corrective intrusion called confession.

Robert the confession you call corrective intrusion, is also the intercession of the patriarchs with god, on behalf of the sheep they herd. I am completely confounded that perfectly intelligent people subscribe to this enormous stupidity. Did you know that the Pope is considered infallible in all matters spiritual? Even when their power has been totally eroded, these fathers of the church will preserve the illusion of power, give themselves airs and excuse folks their absence at mass, rather than admit to the simple fact that manipulation of the masses itself is loathsome. Who do the priests confess to? To each other?--"Father I had sex with a a little boy toady. Will Jesus forgive me?" "Don't worry sonny--I'll reassign you to a perimeter diocese where they would have never heard of your shenanigans. The lord looketh out for his own. Say your prayers before you go to bed each night!" Thus goes life for men of the cloth.
Ravensfan Anon

Did you know that the Pope is considered infallible in all matters spiritual?

Wrong.

Before you start making completely false statements you should do some basic research.

Both of your comments are bitter, ignorant anti-Catholic bashing. Why do you care? Does it affect your individual lives? Get a life and stop ranting about a religion on a message board.

Amy - I know it must be so difficult for you to deal with the reality that views in opposition to religion can no longer be silenced by killing them, but that is the price that you are going to have to pay in a secular pluralistic society. We, who have always subscribed to rationality, are celebrating our protected freedom to raise a voice against the absurd, and find it most enjoyable to plant that seed in the fetid pile of rot that has dominated for so long. It is of little concern to us that those standing knee deep in it somehow have come to think the stench smells sweet, or that we should be respectfully silent over institutions that merit no respect at all.

Amy no false statement--I know more than one Catholic who subscrbes to the myth that the Pope is spiritually infallible and I have read it on these boards. May be you don't believe it and you understand it differently.
ravensfan Anon

The Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Doesn't mean he's impeccable, it means he can't teach falsehood. It's not his human wisdom, it's Christ's. You don't have to subscribe to the theology, but you might try being respectful. It'll win you friends.

'Patriarch' and 'church father' are specific terms. Both can mean leaders of the early Church; 'patriarch' means leaders of the Eastern Church. Just sayin', yo.

You should be aware that receiving the Eucharist at a Sunday Mass is for Catholics an obligatory response to the love of God. The obligation comes not from the power of the great big evil institutional Church but is a natural response to a God who loves us. That means you, Robert Littel and all Ravens fans, anonymous or not.

Happy Christmas :]

Jed - Being respectful of institutions that are based on superstitions and myths, that are acting in ways that are not healthy for the survival of our species, who are trying to superimpose their narrow clenched butt psychosis on everything from health care to whom may love whom, ain't gonna happen.

Your superstitious rituals and thought control, priest controlled, confessionals, are not anything the rational person can consider as being worthwhile to people who know (because of lack of proof) that a god does not exist. If your god does not exist, then your symbolic consumption of the body and blood of its god/Human hybrid son, during your cannibalistic communion ritual is something as bizarre as a vampire drinking blood, and just as plausible.

Hey Jed,
Patriarch as in lower case patriarch-like in patriarchal--merely a leader--I realize that Patriarch with a capital refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church leader but in Catholicism it refers to the episcopal bishop next in rank to the Pope. Hard to respect any of this mind control mumbo jumbo--look, Robert Littel is right-- if the church didn't foist itself forcefully through politics on non Catholics--if the church simply stuck with the ecumenical and the spiritual then its customs wouldn't matter to people who don't subscribe to its philosophy but the church throttles non believers and believers of other faiths alike by its intrusions and must cease and desist to earn respect. Your explanation about the Pope's infallibility sounds hollow at best and insane at worst.
Ravensfan Anon

I am so tired of hearing people say how the church is forcing itself through politics on non-Catholics.

The thing is simple, the Church has a right to set rules for its members. Some of those rules can have political consequences, most recently its abortion and gay marriage. The Church has and has always had, well before it was a political issue, a firm stance that both are wrong and all Catholics must adhere to that. So, a politican who claims to be Catholic should vote against abortion and against gay marriage, if they don't then they are a liar if they call themselves Catholic. The Church set the rules, you chose and join and choose to stay knowing the rules, either follow them or get out. The Church isn't forcing you to stay.
Again, both of thee issues the Church had a firm stance on them well befor ethey were ever considered political issues. The Chuch hasn't changed, the politics have.

As far as the Church stating their opinion on a bill as they did with health care, that's great. Why can't think they give their opinion and say they support it. The government isn't requird to have th approval of the Catholic Church or any protestant congregation before passing a bill. THey want support from all Churches and all organizations, but its not required. They seek it from the Church and from unions and from the NAACP, AARP and ACLU and whoever else when they need it to get extra votes or to keep voters happy. Buts its not the Church forcing itself, its Congress courting them.

People need to understand that the Church is not political. It doesn't agree with either Democrats or Republicans. It agrees with Republicans on moral issues and with Democrats on most social services issues. Sometimes its even "to the left of the leftest" of Democrats and sometims its even "to the right of the rightest" of Republicans. The Church doesn't care about which "political" side it is on of any issues, it simply cares about what God wants.

Lastly, on the issue of the original post which started these complaints. The Archbishop was reminding Catholics that they do not need to attend this SUnday if travel is unsafe. It doesn't mean that Catholics weren't free to make that choice before he announced it, of course they were. Just like hey encourae you to miss Sunday Mass when you are sick. He was simply reminding Catholics, trying to tell them not to risk their lives. The rule has always been there, he simply was reminding and advising. Just like the Govenor did when he told people to stay in and not go out. Any leader of a large grou pof people, whether politial or spiritual makes statements like this simply to reassure people its ok. The Archbishop did it, the Govenor did it. There is no need or reason to be laying hate on Catholics for it.

Anon - You & Robert complain about the Church forcing its beliefs on others and her you both are attacking a message that is essentially meaningless to anyone but Catholics. I'm struggling to see how that doesn't make both of you hypocrites. In fact both of you seem to go out of your way to malign, mock and insult the beliefs of others. That hardly sounds like the acts of people who are comfortable with their lives in my opinion. It would seem to me if your views were so attractive you could make a solid case for them by talking about them rather than attacking someone else’s.

I agree with the comments of Richard and Ravensfan here. My problem is with the "mass obligation." Yes, the bible says that we are supposed to attend a church if we can and worship with a body of believers. I just see it as being too much of a routine for some Catholics, a mass obligation when they need to be on fire for God in many cases. Obligations from a church encourage too many people to feel like they have to do something when in fact they should already want to do it themselves. Is a man who stays home and worships God and reads the bible any less better off than someone who goes to church just to fulfull an obligation? I would have rather seen the Archbishop tell people in his message to stand up at 4 oclock in the afternoon that day and praise and cheer for the Lord. The church needs to get free from too much tradition. I honestly believe it would be better off. Perhaps the church worries that some would therefore leave and go to other denominations. If the church was more on fire for God instead of tradition, I would attend a Catholic church as much as any other. Then maybe we could have one true church again instead of all the denominations? Thanks.

Clay – I would agree that sadly too many Catholics do seem to attend as if there mere showing up is all that is required of them once a week. While I don’t agree with you your assessment on tradition, I would like more Catholics take time to reflect and think about why they are going to Mass. If it’s simply to fulfill some ritual obligation it really doesn’t help them. I would like to see the Church do more to encourage a feeling among Catholics to want to go to Mass as opposed to have go. I would also like to see more reaching across to our brothers of other denominations as I feel we have much we could learn from each other.

Give me a break brother Richard--the church is apolitical according to you and the church knows what god wants. Congress courts the churches but this spiritual organization is willing to play footsie with Congress--it takes two to tango--the Church doesn't say, that it is not interested in dirty politics because its concern is the spirituality of its flock and not the terrestrial shenanigans of Congress. The church has, from medieval times been a political organization--it is also a legal organization, having shielded so many pedophiles and creators of illegitimate kids throughout its existence, using lawyers to cover its sullied butt. Popes of yore fought wars and instigated them for territorial acquisition. You are a blind follower who spouts what he has been taught by the church to be true of the church. Hello, Ravensfan, you have popped up to be the broken record of these blogs as usual. The Archbishop is merely being the same as the governor to the people of Maryland--all very well, but he wouldn't go around saying what he did, if he didn't want the death of some folks who take the sacraments literally and run to the church, come hell or high snow (and that kind of idiot can only be begotten by a church that brainwashes people into submission) to be on his head. Why my interest in something meant for a Catholic audience--why not? With a church that has its long Pinocchio nose in every affair of the state--the excuse being that such concerns overlap with the spiritual beliefs of the church--I am indeed wary and watchful--this church has undue influence on the ordinary citizens of this country through the political process, and that influence affects a lot of non Catholics.
Ravensfan Anon

Anon – You call me the broken record of these blogs yet every time I come here I see Robert or you or both on your soapbox lecturing about what you see as evils with Church. You try and justify making your comments with the weak excuse of the Church meddling or influencing. Truth told if it were ideas you agreed with you would find no problem with it would you. You would also find no problem with the state sticking its nose in affairs of the Church. As I said both you and Robert come off as hypocrites with a need to appear as if you are on the moral high ground. Anyone who doesn’t agree with your view is somehow deluded, brainwashed or mentally inferior Like Robert you seem to have trouble making an argument with insults or mocking what you don’t agree with. To try and justify making attacks on a blog which has no meaning to nonbelievers is laughable. The Church exerts no more political influence than any other group. For whatever reason you dislike the Church and it compels you to attack even on a blog about Sunday obligations.

Ravensfan anon. I dont think that the Archbishop said what he said because he wants the "death of some folks to be on his head." Do you really think that he wants to be that powerful? I think he sees an obligation to his superiors to do what he sees as them wanting him to do. It is called respect for authority. I disagree with some of the ways the church runs things and some of the traditions and all. However, I dont need to make up stories about them that arent true to make them look bad. I dont need to keep harping on priests that have done wrong things anymore than coming down on pastors from other denominations that have also. They have made mistakes, but they arent the cause of 3/4 of the world's evil. If you have been hurt in some way by the church then ask for God's help and pray for the situation. Thanks.

Clay I swrote that the Archbishop said what he said because he DIDN'T want the accidental death of those folks who would rush to church no matter the weather to be on his head. Ravensfan, the state is becoming a creature of the church--it dances the "bishop rumba". Look no further than the Stupak Amendment and also look at this Protestant, group called the FAMILY--an elusive religious entity that endorses near fascism to spread the word of the lord and seize political power for the religious.
Ravensfan Anon

ravensfan - The Church, "exerts no more political influence than any other group", is exactly why the separation principle exists. The freedom of religion is dependent on the enforcement of the freedom FROM religion for those who so choose. You may believe any stupid thing you wish as long as you do not use the coercive power of the state to force your peculiar beliefs down the throats of the rest of us. When you try to limit the freedom of women to choose, you have crossed the line. No one is preventing you to not have an abortion, or marry someone you love who happens to be the same sex as you, but when you try to force others to bow to your religious prejudices, you have violated the constitutional restraints against such action.

If the Church confined its counsel to the pulpit and its direction to its congregation, I could buy the notion that it is apolitical. But that is not the case, is it? The Bishops lobby legislators and (as was the case in DC) hold disadvantaged kids ransom to further their political agenda.

As I have said here before, I fully support any religious community's right to deny sacremental blessing to a same-sex couple. Sacramental blessing is, after all, of interest only to some couples. Once CIVIL same-sex marriage is acknowledged as a Consitutional right, couples can "shop" for a congregation that admits the validity of their relationship and personhood (or entirely do without that extra -- unnecessary -- step). Religion is less and less relevant; all that is left, it seems, is a wheezing political machine.

Anon – Spare me the Stupak amendment nonsense. We both know if the Democrats had enough votes to pass the reform they would have told the bishops to stick it. They needed the bishops support to get their billed passed. It’s not really any different then the deal making going on in the Senate right now. Why don’t you try putting the what you consider blame where it belongs on the guys who actually drafted and voted for the amendment. To the compare that to the FAMILY simply shows how desperately you want to believe you are on the moral high ground. Bring it up when the bishops lobby for using the government to spread the word of God and I might actually take it seriously. For now all I can do is laugh.

Robert – The bishops weren’t forcing any beliefs rather pushing a political issue that goes well beyond belief in God. The idea of abortion as killing goes beyond any religious beliefs. Like Anon you try and frame it as such in order to rationalize why it should be legal. If the bishops were forcing a completely religious concept or some preferred treatment for one faith over another or none you would have a valid argument. Since that isn’t the case your argument lacks any merit. You need some lessons on constitutional law Robert as you seem to be lacking in that area. As long as my right and my Church’s to view it as immoral and wrong is protected I have no problem with gay marriage being legal. The problem is most proponents want more than that. They want their lifestyle forced on us as acceptable.

BankStreet - Like any other citizens bishops have the right to lobby. We have tax payer funded groups like Planned Parenthood lobbying and gay rights groups as well. We either extend the right to any groups or none. You can't pick and choose which groups get that right.

You oversimplify what is happening in DC. The Church their asked for a waiver and it was denied as I understand it. The council decided to use those disadvantaged kids to try and force their agenda on the Church. Interesting how you skip over that. All the Church has said is that if that is the case they won’t be able to work with the city. They will do what they can on their own.

I have no problem with civil same sex unions as long as the concept isn’t used to force acceptance on any religious groups who feel it morally wrong. Any amendment would need to guarantee that as well. The problem is most gay marriage supporters have a problem with the second part which leads me to wonder what the real intent is.

ravensfan - I don't care what silly stupid beliefs you may have, but when your church, or any church, makes it their cause-celeb to take away the rights of an entire class of citizens (women) and have the gall to try to impose their religious position on the rest of society, they have crossed the constitutional line. Non-religious people can be uncertain of when life begins and their opinion has no more weight than those who believe otherwise. It is the fanatic god infused soul, at the moment of formation of the zygote idea, that has no place in the debate, AT ALL. If you can show me where in The Constitution the soul, or the god it rode in on, is identified, then I will give credence to the religious argument, but until then, keep your stinking religion out of the bedrooms and doctor offices of America.

ravensfan --Please provide evidence of any credible effort by supporters of CIVIL same-sex marriage to force acceptance on any religious group. Please limit examples to instances in which the religious group is forced to conduct same-sex marriages; acknowleging CIVIL authority over CIVIL marriage doesn't count.

Yes, (tax-exempt) Bishops have the right to lobby. I never said they didn't. What they should not do is impose religious dogma on the non-religious (or ask the State to do that).

BankStreet – I’m wondering why you picked such a narrow window for your challenge. You limited only to a specific instant which I never actually said had occurred yet. In DC there was arguing over this

“any “religious society, or a nonprofit organization which is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious society” may deny same-sex couples any “services, accommodations, facilities, or goods for a purpose related to the solemnization or celebration of a same-sex marriage.”

If it’s not going to happen why the concern over including the wording in any legislation? This is why I said it.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80743

Nothing the bishops argue is solely religious dogma. Its views you don’t share and you and opposing groups have every right to lobby for your view. Like many you want to place the blame on the lobbyist rather than lawmakers when things don’t go your way. The bishops have no power to impose anything. All they can do is what anyone other group does. In the end it’s legislators who write civil laws.

Robert – Funny I don’t ever recall the Constitution guaranteeing a woman the right to decide the fate of another. Show me in the constitution where abortion is defined as a right and I’ll agree the argument is unconstitutional. It’s right was granted by the court interpreting what it thinks the authors intended. Stop making it a religious argument. Is that the only way you can convince yourself of your view. Until it can be proven when life begins your argument invalid and your knowledge of law lacking. What you think has a place in any debate means NOTHING to me. As does your credence or approval for anything. Sorry to break it to you but the Constitution grants me the same rights as you. I realize if you had your way you’d take that right away and only save it for those who agree with you. My religion is nowhere near anything except your obsessed mind for some reason.

ravensfan -- The "narrow window" of my challenge was intended to limit your objections to same-sex CIVIL marriage ... and not allow you to veer off into vague protestions about having to "accept" a "lifestyle" with which you are uncomfortable.

The BashBack story you link to has different versions, depending on the source, by the way ... and does not speak to my "challenge."

I think we may be in essential agreement. We both accept the propsect of same-sex CIVIL marriage (OK, you refer to "unions"; I'll grant you that ... so long as heterosexual marriages agree to be retro-fitted as "unions" ... they're the same thing, right??) We both agree that no pastor should be required to solemnize a marriage s/he finds objectionable, right? Congregants are free to vote with their feet (and checkbooks), if they are unhappy. And we all have equal access to the Marriage Bureau at the Courthouse.

So...what's the problem?

BankStreet – My veer off was to simply show you where my concern comes from. We are essentially in agreement. I have no opposition for retro-fitting heterosexual marriages as civil unions as long as the term marriage can still be used for religious purposes. I have no problem supporting equal access to the Marriage Bureau at the Courthouse as long as my religion isn’t required to recognize the marriage for any reason accept civil law purposes. My concern isn’t with you or even mainstream same sex marriage proponents. I just don’t want to see anyone try to use it to force their own idea of morality on my faith or family. I have already read of issues where same sex couples considered litigation to gain access to religious resources when the religion opposed same sex marriage. As long as any law written protects against that or teaching my kids morality in conflict with our faith I have no opposition to it.

OK. We're making progress. A couple of questions: 1) Can I assume you would not voice objection (athough you may not agree) when a Unitarian/Quaker/whatever congregation "marries" a same-sex couple? 2) What is your response when your third-grader comes home from school to tell you that the teacher has said that it's "OK" that Tommy "has two mommies" (or at least that it's "not OK" to give Tommy a hard time about that)? Of course, you are completly free to teach your own child your own beliefs (and to deal with that when he later comes out to you as a Gay man, of course....).

BankStreet – 1) I would voice no objection to any congregation that marries a same sex couple as long as it is not forced by the civil government. You are correct I would disagree, but as long as the decision is the congregations I have no right to object. If I were a member I would have the right to leave, but not interfere. 2) I would emphasize and already have that at no time should anyone be given a hard time for their situation. I would mention the basis for why our faith believes it wrong, but strongly remind every person needs to be treated with respect and dignity. That includes those who come from a family with different values. It is not our place, but God’s to judge. That is the message I currently tell my kids now. If I found out my children gave Tommy a hard time I would discipline them appropriately. I would like to think that if one of my kids comes to me later as a gay man I would have the wisdom and strength to respect his choice even though I didn’t agree with it. I hate saying I definitely would as I don’t think you can honestly answer that until you are in that situation. I do feel for those whose parents couldn’t accept and love their kids for who they are and certainly hope I would not act that way. Any other questions feel free to ask. I find this type of dialogue more constructive than angry exchanges and trading barbs.

ravensfan--I very much agree with you as to the value of our constructive dialogue here. It is to easy (albeit tempting) to lapse into barbs and jabs in this anonymous setting. But nothing is gained by that, and much is lost without mutual respect ... which I hope you and I have achieved. Although we disagree in many ways, your answers to my questions scored a 95% in my book. ( I quibble with your use of the term "choice" as to your son's orientation. His only "choice" will be in choosing to be honest with you.)

Thanks for listening. So much of this larger debate would be more productive if more people did that.

BankStreet - Sorry about the poor choice of words. I did not intend to promote the idea that it is a choice on someone's part. You are right it is very easy to trade barbs and jabs at one another. You have my respect. We may not agree on all points, but you show real interst in establishing constructive not destructive dialouge. I agree that the larger debate would be more productive if more people did that as well.

ravensfan - Abortion was not a large concern in pre-industrial agrarian America of 1789, because it was necessary to have large families for a variety of reasons. Many children born, did not survive, more children needed in pre-mechanized farm work and if you wanted to assure that someone would be there to take care of you in your old age, then you had to have enough to beat mortality rates, which were oppressive by today's standards, not to mention an entire native denuded continent to fill. The Constitution did not address abortion because it was not needed much, was a dangerous procedure to begin with, which discouraged its implementation and if used, was viewed as a societal taboo, that was denied even when it occurred and caused the death of the desperate woman. You might as well ask for where in the Constitution it mentions that we have the right to go to the Moon.

The Constitution was meant to be an evolving document that could adapt to the rapid changes our society would and has, gone through. That you would call for justification for freedom of choice in that document is pretty much covered in the definition of our rights and the protections enumerated to guarantee them. Conversely, I would ask where in the Constitution the fetus gets a status as a person. It is evident that the existence of the fetus was well known at the time and it didn't rate even the meager 2/3 of a person classification that that document assigned to slaves. You really don't want to get into a constitutional argument with me, considering how I made my living all my life.

This went surprisingly long and wide. Good focus, team.

It's rather unreasonable to think that Christianity is based on superstition. Belief in a supernatural reality like God is actually pretty reasonable. It does require an open mind to see that perspective though. You're talking to an erstwhile agnostic, btw.

Your disrespect hurts.

Merry Christmas anyway :]

Jed - To subscribe to god concepts, it is of utmost importance to open your heart and close your mind. Kind of like the way most people pick their first spouses.

Robert – As usual you did not answer what I asked for and instead of admitting you couldn’t chose to try and change the subject a bit. You are quite correct the Constitution was designed as document which could be changed over time. Those changes come by way of amendments not the courts. Choice is not an unlimited freedom in the Constitution. If that were true then freedom of choice could be used to justify any kind of action. Freedom of choice has limits. The right to choice can not limit the rights of another or society as a whole. I’m not afraid of getting into an argument with you on any topic. You’ve threaten me before with your vast knowledge and based on what I’ve seen here you pose no real challenge Sorry to be insulting, but don’t threaten me with your over inflated opinion of yourself. You answered my question with a question. Didn’t you accuse me similar tactics and now you use them. That sounds a little hypocritical to me. My argument is simple. Science does not know the point at which human life begins and to arbitrarily make it birth is wrong. More than likely it’s a point somewhere between conception and birth. Until that can be established current law is in fact violating someone else’s rights in many cases. Since I’m sure you will bring it up in your response let me say it now. My religious views have nothing to do with it. They say it begins at conception and aren’t subject to change. However, they are not and should not be binding as law. Now prove me wrong otherwise accept that

Ravensfan,
You keep yammering away about when life begins. Can you pluck a zygote from a woman's womb at conception and keep it alive and develop it into a full blown human without the mother's womb for support? As long as you need to rent this womb Ravensfan--that is until the point of viability of the fetus, you also need to consider the woman's take on the issue--as Robert would put it, you cannot force her to breed against her will--yes, you can in the throes of your religious fervor and paternalism, criminalize abortion so as to charge her with murder if she were to get one--but the legal take on this is a balance between the rights of the mother and rights of the fetus. Your search for answers as to when life begins and Pattycakes' rhapsodic paean to the point of fertilization as the beginning of a unique life are futile and redundant in the eyes of the law--if you would imprison women for abortion Ravensfan, the jails would overflow and many of the women in there would be the moms, sisters and daughters of the religious.
Ravensfan Anon

ravensfan - You can insist that a line be drawn in the sand all you want, but that will not stop the rest of us, the courts, reason and logic and all the women you would oppress, in-order to serve what is a religious position of the fetus being sacred, from crossing that line and obliterating it during the trip. If the fetus is not sacred (outside of divine influence) then the opinion of anyone who has chosen an opinion of when a fetus gains person-hood, that differs from yours, has an opinion that is every bit as valid as yours. The difference is that you would use the coercive power of the state to enforce your opinion on those who have every right (under The Constitution) to believe otherwise. You insist that we prove when life begins, yet the basis for your beliefs (despite your denials) is the ensoulment by a god you cannot, and will not, prove exists. You are every bit as intractable as pattycakes and Clay, even though you are clever enough to try to hide behind the contrived lie that is right out of the fundamentalist handbook on how to cloud the issue and present an argument that skirts ensoulment by a god creature.

Robert – The line has already been drawn. You can’t seem to separate legal from religious points either. What part of “My religious views have nothing to do with it. They say it begins at conception and aren’t subject to change. However, they are not and should not be binding as law. “ didn’t you comprehend. The problem is you want to make it a religious argument because you can’t make a logical counterargument to a non-religious logic argument against abortion. If you want to maintain the point at when a legal rights apply you have to prove when life begins. The one hiding behind the handbook is you. It’s the standard liberal one that says all pro-life advocates are religious. Not true I’m sure if researched we would find atheist among them as well. Next time try actually making a valid, legal and rational counterargument. I keep asking and you keep doing everything except that. If you can’t do it then I suggest you move on and don’t respond.

Anon – I never said when the point was that life begins. I always love the forced breeding fallacy. Unless the woman was raped her pregnancy was the result of her own actions or inactions if you like. One of the potential consequences of sex is getting pregnant. Before you lecture me on the obvious fact birth control can fail how many times does it when done correctly? My guess is not very often. Spare me the rights nonsense. Unlike the women the, insert any term you like here for the unborn, is the result of the choice already made. As for my religious fervor read my reply to Robert. Both of you seem to suffer from the delusion that abortion is solely a religious argument. I don’t really know if that’s how you rationalize your support, but it’s a completely inaccurate view. I love the last justification Anon that we might fill the jails. It actually makes the religious nonsense seem intelligent. Let me say to you what I did to Robert. If you can’t make a rational, logical and legal argument for your position then I suggest you move on to some other topic.

ravensfan - Unless you can prove that the fetus is a person, your opinion of when life begins has no more weight, in law, than that of someone who insists person-hood occurs at the moment of birth. Any contention that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception would have to offer PROOF that it occurs then, especially if you were to insist that that position be imposed on all women. Until you offer proof, you have no leg to stand on and you know it. The charade that you are acting outside of religious considerations is transparent, with your smoke-screen justification nothing but a ploy to attain a religious goal that The Constitution will not allow. Your misuse of the term "logic" is laughable considering that your position is anything but. You are a fraud and you have no problem lying to further your delusional beliefs.

Robert – I have no legal opinion as to when personhood is attained since I don’t know what that point is. You are the one making the determination so the burden of proof is on you. You continually accuse my argument of being based on my religious beliefs. Prove that assertion for a change. It’s completely obvious you can’t mount a logical counter argument so you resort to your old standby of personal attacks. For someone who threatened me with his constitutional knowledge I’m not impressed. The fraud here is you. Maybe you could try making a logical rational & legal counter argument instead of using normal ad hominem argument. Drop the appeal ridicule. If you can’t then I’ll just have to drop this debate and assume you can’t do it and won’t admit it.

ravensfan - I have no problem with any perception that you may have about when a fetus becomes a person. What I have a problem with is your willingness to use statute law to set that point at the moment of zygote formation, just to be on the safe side of the issue. It is not the job of The Constitution to make a determination about a subject that argues when an unborn mass of cells gains the "sanctity" of person-hood. The Constitution does say anything about the sanctity of life at the fetal stage, or for that matter, after live birth either, (unless you were born a slave {later amended}). The Constitution does address the establishment of clearly religious principles over all, to satisfy the desires of one (or more) religions, by banning it under The Separation Principle of the Establishment Clause.

I, and many others, do not consider the zygote, or any stage beyond that where viability cannot be guaranteed without herculean effort, to be a person. It does not contain the one essential quality that makes a person a person, and that is self awareness. There is no other consideration that is so determinate about what is involved in person-hood. Self-awareness is indisputably, a point where we can all agree that Humanity has been achieved. Any other consideration, (potential, gene formation, heartbeat, whatever) is not a demonstration of something so important that the status of the fetus should be raised beyond where it already stands in most statute law. In the NY State penal code, a Human being is defined as "a person who is living and has been born" {sec. 125.5}. With minor adjustments to protect viable late term fetuses being reasonable limitations, I'm very happy to use that as my guide. It is law I can live with and if your standards are more narrow, feel free to act personally within your own framework , but don't impose it on everyone. Any determination beyond what is outlined by Sec.125.5 of the NY State Penal Code, goes beyond reasonable and logical, into the "sanctity" side of the equation, and no matter how much you deny it, that is crossing over the delusionally superstitious line of religious interference, clearly in violation of The Constitution. You have lost this debate, you haven't a leg to stand on and by acting the victim of personal attack, because someone has the temerity to challenge your ridiculousness, only shows a desperation of a rigid position that can no longer be defended with your fake excuse for rationality.

Robert – Wow you finally actually brought a fact to the table I’m impressed. Actually my argument doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause because I’m not even following the laws of my faith. That’s the point that you don’t want to accept. My faith has defined the point and as I’ve said in the past that is only binding on Catholics. That makes your assertion it’s a religious view completely wrong. Deny it all you want. It doesn’t change the facts. It is exactly because the Constitution made no determination of when a fetus becomes a person that we are even having this debate. If it did there would be nothing to debate the matter would be settled. Why or how does going beyond by Sec.125.5 of the NY State Penal go into the "sanctity" side of the equation? That’s your opinion not a legal reality. We also have statues on the books for fetal manslaughter in many states. My argument has as much if not more validity then yours. In fact mine allows for refinement as science gains more knowledge while yours does not. It draws an arbitrary line in the sand. You can declare victory if it makes you feel better that makes no difference to me.

ravensfan - When has the opinion of anyone who disagrees with a doctrinaire religionist, or a doctrinaire Right-wing troll, like yourself, ever made a difference to them? Your perceived function is to attack anyone who offers alternative ideas, even going so far as to seem to support the right of those people to speak out. It is a tactic employed by the late (and not so great) Lee Atwater and perfected by Bush regime spokes-prostitute, Karen Hughes, who used to take a question from Tim Russert, on "Meet the Press", and twist it around by agreeing with it superficially (called taking possession of the point) and then leading the discussion off on a tangent that never addressed the question, She was so good at it, that even Tim Russert couldn't react fast enough to stop her from gutting the point of the inquiry. The politics of parry and deflect can only go on for just so long, and you have reached the end of that process. You are nothing but a doctrinaire troll, either in the pay of those forces trying to maintain corporate control over all aspects of our society (with religion being just one of their tools), or a voluntary doctrinaire troll, so clueless that you have no idea how cheaply you have been purchased to serve at the altar of greed and selfishness of the 4000 or so, who control one out of every two dollars of wealth in this country. In either case, you are most pathetic.

Robert –Take out religion and right-wing references and replace with extreme liberal that’s a perfect description of you and what you do as well. Are you saying you don’t attack anyone with alternative ideas? I addressed your points. The problem is you know I’m right and now it’s you off on a tangent resorting, as you always do when cornered, to your ad hominem arguments making your appeal to ridicule. Why is it you seem to lack the ability to disagree with out insulting? “Bush regime spokes-prostitute”. Before you call me a Bush supporter or worse keep in mind I consider Bush among the worst Presidents in US history. The sad truth is the doctrinaire troll is you bleating like a sheep off the extreme left talking points sheet. That must be your bible Robert. You quote from it enough. Like I said before think what you like it makes little difference to me. We both know you can’t support most of what you say. I know there is no getting through that thick wall of dogma you’ve wrapped yourself in. All you really are is a far left atheist fanatic. You are the polar opposite of the religious conservative right wing extremist, Anti-Clay. Maybe I’ll start calling you that.

ravensfan - I have already reached the point where your inconsistencies and seeming willingness to claim to be playing both sides of the street, are just tactics to muddy the water. I don't believe anything you say, because you are not here for discourse, you are here to shut down anyone who speaks out against the obvious flaws inherent in delusionalism (religion), or who contravenes your obvious Right-wing bent. That you would think so badly of George W. Bush is undoubtedly a result that to you, he is too far to the left for your tastes (or lack thereof).

Robert – What you call playing both sides of the street is actual being a moderate. I don’t share the views of either extremes yours or the rights. That’s what you can’t comprehend. You view anyone assume anyone who disagrees with you an a topic has to be the other extreme and when they move closer to where you are on a topic you can not comprehend. Your bigotry causes you to place all those who believe in God as agents of the far right. For someone who has claimed to be so knowledgeable in the past you show such narrow minded and delusional thinking. In your deluded world there are only left and right extremes. You have the mind of a child Robert and an angry one at that.

ravensfan - The mind of a child accepts fairy-tales and lies as ultimate truth. The mind of a child runs from doing anything meaningful about health care, by urging us all to compromise it to death and then leave it in the hands of thieves, because doing the correct thing is so damn hard. The mind of a child says they are centrist, when every action they have taken serves the Right.

You are fooling no one and you better get used to the idea that the One-Payer Health concept is the desired moderate position, because it is the majority position. Your clique of slogan screaming trolls (teabaggers) and industry owned legislators are the lunatic fringe and despite your efforts to deny your affiliation with them, while at the same time doing their bidding, is culpable at the least.

Robert – In order to be a lie you would need to prove it not true. Since you can not other than to say I can prove God exists you make a completely invalid and illogical argument which is nothing more than your usual appeal to ridicule. Compromise is the only way any reform will ever get passed. Enlighten me how has my every action taken serve the right? While you made the accusation you failed to support it so forgive me if I dismiss it as yet another of your attempts to malign rather than discuss.

If you honestly believe that the majority want single payer then I am sorry to say that the fool is you. You can toss around all the extreme left rhetoric and empty propaganda you wish it doesn’t change the fact that your view is in the narrow minority. It still astounds me that someone who demands such rigid proof to except the existence of God so readily embraces the fairy tale that single payer will solve the nation’s heath care problems. You even admit the current government’s flaws and yet still embrace a system with no track record of ever reducing actual cost of providing services and causing fiscal problems in every country using it.

ravensfan - I understand the need for you to give your highly improbable beliefs the acceptance that they might be true, but the odds against that are so high as to make your attempt meaningless, except in a receptive deluded mind. Say that I assert that the third planet in the Alpha Proxima star system is covered with a three foot layer of French brie, I could declare that a possibility, and demand that you respect that the way you are demanding I respect your assertions. That would allow me to do exactly what you are attempting to do, because you cannot prove that assertion false, then there must be a probability that it is true. The same applies to your god concepts. So unsupportable and irrational are they, that to propose that they have any chance of being true, is as ludicrous as the French brie assertion.

Your only recourse in this type of discussion is to paint those who will not subscribe, or give any respect to your clearly ridiculous beliefs, as if they are engaged in a campaign of hatred against you and what clearly is a system of beliefs based on NOTHING, but your desire for it to be true. You are asking us to accept a level of understanding that cannot be given unless we as well become vacuous enough to abandon rational and logical thought. To us, that is a crime against everything Humanity should be trying to achieve in understanding the universe around us.

In regard to health care, you will find that the majority of citizens do support the expansion of Medicare to all, which is nothing BUT the one payer plan. You are operating on the assumption that the Fox News poll that framed the question in terms that used trigger words like "socialist" , "communist", "death panels" and so on, as part of the question, as being relevent to the question. We all know that these polls have been manipulated to serve the interests of the thieving industries now killing 45,000 of us each year to protect their bottom line and your continued support for the lies that they spin has made you a willing party to their crimes against Humanity, no matter how you try to spin it. The only excuse you have left to not man-up and admit you are wrong, is your willingness to support the absurd, by signing on to what clearly are out and out LIES.

Robert – We’ve been down this road before. You making statements like that are not the same as they are not supported by over 2,000 years of history. To compare one person stating something with my religion only shows limited thinking on your part. You also mix the idea of respecting a belief with respecting a person. Maybe to you those are one in the same. If so it would explain your need to attack anyone who shares different views than you.

What generated my hate comments has nothing to do with the debate on God, but the way how you choose to make your argument and how disrespect anyone who does believe. What makes your post hateful is the tirade of insults, mocking and other personal attacks running through them. It has nothing to do with proving God’s existence to you as I have never really made a serious attempt to do that. As I’ve said your mind is far to closed to the possibility so anything I would present you would dismiss anyway. Acceptance and respect are two different concepts Robert. That seems to be another problem your rational logical mind does not comprehend. Humanity is working to achieve understanding of the universe around us it’s simply your atheist dogma that wants to take the narrow view that religion and science and other disciplines can not co-exist. Of far more importance to humanity is leaning to live with each other in harmony and respect regardless of beliefs. Something seriously lacking in all of your posts.

I have seen no poll anywhere that supports your health care claims. If you know of some by all means share and if they are from a true independent source I’ll re-examine what I said. Since you didn’t supply any and simply went on one of your usual ravings and appeals to ridicule I can only assume you can’t prove your point.

Living in harmony with people who chauvinistically believe that they are superior to their fellow Human beings because they have a monopoly on truth based on an improbability, that they wish to share (even through coercion), is hardly possible. As long as delusional superstitionism insists that it can coexist with rationality, there will always be conflict when rationality will not bend to absurdity's demands. It has already been demonstrated that delusionalists are more than willing to kill each other over minor differences in interpretation of doctrine, so what makes you think that your church, or any church or religion, will be able to resist the tendency of all such institutions to seek dominance whenever the opportunity presents itself. The only reason there is relative peace in multi-delusional western societies is because of the rise to power of the secular model of governance.

As to your disdain for my demeanor in presenting my side of the argument, you will have to remember how many obstacles have had to be overcome throughout time just to get them heard in the first place. Today, shunning at the subtle level is practiced in such a manner that even those practicing it are unaware they are doing it. When that fails, we can always count on someone like you to step forward, to more overtly try to shut down attacks against accepted (though ridiculous) doctrine and to use any tool they can come up with to demonize those with the gall to challenge the notion of your unsupportable god concepts. You are such a person, and for that reason, you deserve no respect from me, or from anyone you are trying to suppress. You are just another Torquemada wannabe operating for the moment within a framework that will not allow you to kill us anymore.

Robert - Anyone living with any belief of feeling of superior to anyone isn’t following the teachings of Christ. Christians are supposed to practice humility. If anyone of guilty of projecting superiority it’s you my friend and it comes out in every post you make. I could ask what makes you think any nonreligious group wouldn’t seek the same sort of dominance. You yourself at times exhibit the concept of wanting to stamp out religion. There really is no point in rehashing the cause for wars and suffering because you are too caught up in your own dogma to examine anything with an open mind.

Don’t confuse honesty for distain. I pity you not only for your lack of belief, but your ability to only see the negative in any situation and your own arrogance in believing that your views are the only ones deserving respect. How exactly have I tried to shut anything down? You keep claiming that but as with most of your arguments it’s long on accusations and sort on support. You can drop the atheist martyr nonsense as well. I didn’t buy it the first 100 or so times since you never actually have supported it. In the end all you are doing is trying to rationalize your own hate and feelings of superiority as justified.

Robert - Everything you spout -- cloaked in "intellectual" prose -- all boils down to a simple, child-like understanding of freedom. Why is this important? Because without an understanding of TRUE freedom -- defined as the ability to choose what is RIGHT measured against an absolute to thereby FREE oneself from subjective rationalization -- we are not totally free in our humanity. Robert wants to do whatever Robert wants whenever he wants without regard to bigger implications. Fine. Only you in your heart know if you are truly free. I would propose you are not. Why? Just listen at the tone of your
posts.

Religion is the enemy because religion tells Robert otherwise. Throw in some bad "religious" experiences and a few books by Dawkins and Hitchens and presto! An intrinsically bitter, self-serving crusader on a doomed mission to try and spread religious misunderstanding and confusion. Why? because Robert has not found comfort in what he himself believes.

You don't need "religion" to live a good life, and you may search the ends of the earth for something "true" but it (religion/faith) is structured so to give us guidelines to live in unison with the physical/spiritual world all within the context of absolutes and right vs wrong. Once you realize this, it starts to make sense. First, you must be open to the idea. As much as you say you have given religious faith a try Robert, I do not sense you have given genuine FORGIVENESS -- a docterine of most religious faiths -- a fair try. Whoever or whatever religious "nut" did whatever deplorable thing(s) to you in religions name (not that it is my business), maybe try letting it go? Find a ladder. Be the bigger man dude. Give belief another shot. You cannot possibly be open to the goodness of faith if you see no goodness to begin with. This is why being at peace yourself is so crucial; look at the objective goodness which belief has to offer. All you see are the "sins of man" protracted in religions name going directly against what religion was established for in the first place.

p.s. How are you man? I've missed you so!

pattycakes- I do not give any of the crap that flows from that waste of gray matter between your ears, any credence at all. You are not up to the task of having a rational discussion so don't even bother. Your simplistic homilies carry no weight outside of the limits of your own inability to grasp of logic and every post you make is an embarrassment you are not able to appreciate.

Robert - You accuse pattycakes of not being up to the task if a rational discussion and yet rather than rationally or logically rebut any of the points made you resort to personal attacks. You appear to be using the tactics used by someone who knows has no rational and logical response. You proclaim the other person somehow beneath you and use that to justify why you make no intelligent rebuttals. Sorry between you and pattycakes it’s no contest. It would appear that it’s you who appears to have the trouble with grasping logic. Anytime anyone confronts you with a rational logical argument you resort to the same thing. Actually I think pattycakes post describes you perfectly. Your response simply confirms it.

ravensfan - When someone repeatedly comes back at you using their god as their proof, it becomes evident that they do not have the capacity to understand that what they are using as a proof has no value in an argument. pattycakes will attempt to engage, but it always devolves into her invoking her deities and the damnation of eternal retribution, in one form or another, as her final proof. I would no more consider she/he/it as being worthy of my time than I would in arguing with someone in a coma. When it is pointed out that what is spouted as being valueless in a logical or rational discourse, you counter with that as being a manifestation of hate, but that too is just your way of coping with the fact that the religious argument has nothing to stand on. After all, the blasphemer must be silenced any way you can if the con of religion is to persist.

Robert - You still don't it either by choice or ignorance. What makes the hate claim valid isn't your pointing out your opinion of another person’s beliefs. What makes it a manifestation of hate as you put it are comments such as these"

" every post you make is an embarrassment you are not able to appreciate"

"you are most pathetic"

"You are such a person, and for that reason, you deserve no respect from me"

"You are a fraud and you have no problem lying to further your delusional beliefs"

These are just comments you made on this blog. You’ve made much worse on others. That is what makes your post hate filled. It’s isn’t what you say but how you say it and the needless personal attacks and ridicule that you try and rationalize. Please don’t do your usual rationalization and try and portray yourself or your beliefs as the victims in order to justify spewing your vile. You want to deny God’s existence go ahead that’s your right, but stop the sham of pretending to be enlightened or intellectual superior because of what you believe or don’t believe.

Hi Robert,

You claim:

"You are not up to the task of having a rational discussion..."

Well, you can start anytime you are ready my friend. I'm all ears. I'm sure Ravensfan is too. The difference between what you believe and what I (or others) believe, is that I am more then willing to go point-by-point with you to show why it is reasonable to be of "religious faith". You have always been near the brink of engaging in a stimulating conversation, only to resort to your appeals to ridicule, baseless "rebuttals" and subjective rationality. If it were true that you did hold the "key to enlightenment" or an argument for atheism worth considering, you would have produced it by now.
If you could only see how redundant your posts are becoming, it may even open up intellectual possibilities in your favor for communicating what it is you truly feel.

Until then, you adhere to your tired old rhetoric of personal beliefs that only differentiate themselves from "religious faiths" by promoting a sad, uninspiring existence in which human life is worth about as much as your opinions are worth in the real world. Step up Robert. It would be truly refreshing. Such a mind as yours displaying an ability to put forth real arguments might even be cause for concern in religions court; you have the smarts, all you need to do is bring them to the table.

pattycakes - Arguing with an absolutist who cannot support their absolutist beliefs by producing the central evidence for those beliefs, and yet, insists they can carry on a "point by point" discussion that will counter the devastating truth that you have nothing to stand on except your wishing what you believe to be true, IS NOT ENOUGH, ever. That you even think you can mount such a dialogue is evidence enough of your delusional state. I do not have to prove anything, because I make no positive claims. The burden of proof is totally on your head and because you cannot support the claims you make about what you have blindly (as in with no proof in sight) made the center of your life, I can only point out the futility in my arguing with someone who has the flexibility and understanding of a rock. You are not worth my time, or my patience, that could (if I chose) be more profitably spent picking hairs out of the nose of a corpse.

Robert - Not surprising instead of jumping at the chance to show the superiority of your rational logical debating skills you choose to insult and attack. From what I've seen you lack patience, flexibility and understanding yourself so I'm not sure why Pattycakes would want to waste time discussing anything with someone as close minded as you anyway.
Funny how you use the logic that since you make no positive claim the burden of proof falls to Pattycakes yet in health care where you make positive claims there is no burden of proof on you for your single payer system. Maybe it’s me but that appears rather hypocritical.