Jump to content
Construction worker rescued after retaining wall collapse May 21, 2013
Mother Teresa was a great woman to be admired. She took the teachings of the Bible and put them into practice to help people and improve the health and welfare of communities. From this article, I can see very little benefit from this convent. The article mentioned the land preservation but this could be accomplished at lower cost by donating the land for a park. They are living on the charity of others. How can you criticize those finding themselves temporarily on unemployment or welfare and praise these that, from the article, have no intention of earning their own upkeep? So many possibilities for them to give back, from simple things like operating a low cost or free day care for parents in low wage jobs or while looking for jobs. there are also many opportunities for volunteer work in hospitals, schools and other places to serve the public and improve standards. Mother Teresa saw problems and worked for solutions. According to the article, these nuns seem to rely on prayer without any effort to solve problems.
Everyone should be allowed their own religious beliefs. The problems of the Catholic Church stem from the abuse of the very principles they teach. We now know that the protection of priests that violate the laws has been a policy that reaches all the way to the Pope. If the Catholics want to be considered serious in their religion, then they must demand full cooperation of the church and its leaders in the comprehension and prosecution of all violators, including those that knowingly participated in concealing those wanted by the law. While it is true that monks have done much work to reproduce copies of the Bible, I must take exception to the statement "preserved solely by Catholic monks for hundreds of years" . Theologians know well that these copies by monks are not the only ones available for study. Studying earlier texts, we know that monks sometimes added notations that became a part of the bible. Add to that the fact that the original bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages. Most of today's numerous translations comes from text that was first translated entirely into Greek, then into Latin and finally into English. Today we have hundreds of English translations which frequently demonstrate places of confusion as to exact meanings. Most of the translations are swayed by the translators on convictions or rationale, such as changing "Thou shall not kill" to "Thou shall not commit murder" in an attempt to justify killing citizens of another country when our leaders have a dispute with their leaders.
Please read more carefully. I did point out that both parties are guilty of gerrymandering. In the last two years, Republicans have taken it to a new level which has given them a significant majority in the house while getting only about 48% of the vote. That era of racist southern politicians were Dixiecrats. Almost all of them became Republicans by the time Nixon took office. We seem to agree that reasonable defense is okay but aggression is not. Then we get to the question of the line between defense and aggression. It is clear that a preemptive attack is aggression. Further, it is clear that attacking a country because fugitives are hiding inside its borders is also aggression. Additionally, attacks on civilians that had no choice in where the were born is aggression. I do not know of a single war in my lifetime in which America was involved that would not qualify as aggression by American soldiers and yet some Christians seem to think it is their calling to become soldiers to blindly obey the political whims of our leaders.
I am aware that recent translations have changed the word from "kill" to "murder" This was done by conservative Christians translations. I think this was between 1975-1985. Before this, it was taught that self defense to prevent your death or the death of another was the fault of the aggressor, thus not a true violation, providing that lethal force was the only reasonable way to stop the attack. Even with the altered translation of Murder, one cannot justify the death penalty or war. When the state executes an innocent person, it has committed murder. When a soldier kills a non combatant, he has committed murder. If he kills a soldier that is only defending his home (as we would if soldiers were sent here) then this is murder.
I have no problem with requiring some form of ID for the purpose of registering to vote but a SS# or birth certificate should be sufficient. If the want a photo ID, then have them issue one during the registration process. Now the time required and expense of getting the required documentation is a major limitation. The likelihood of not having a birth certificate is greater among the elderly and minorities. A credit card is not a constitutional right, hence the comparison is ridiculous. You are right, both parties have been guilty of gerrymandering and it is wrong by either party. Republicans have recently used it to alter districts. We can see their efforts worked for more votes were cast for Democrats in the House, yet Republicans control the House. If we had true representation, the House would be under Democratic control.
FordGalaxy: I did not say that Christians or anyone else should not have guns. I am saying that they should not feel so scared that they think they must have one with them all the time for protection. Nor should Christians, or anyone else, be so quick to choose deadly force when reasonable alternatives exist. Though I was trying to avoid a theological discussion, I believe the "turn the other cheek" in the Bible means to not react with anger and retaliation. If the writer had intended to teach total submission, then it would have given a stronger example like "if a man stabs your right arm then offer him the left as well." It takes a braver person to walk away from a fight than to engage in a fight. I did not even mention the "do not kill" since most Christians seem to want to ignore or create exceptions. Thank you for pointing out with your scripture quote one of the many contradictions in the Bible.
allwirl: I did understand that you present yourself without prejudice, yet you obviously feel some superiority to atheist. You also want to ignore that the group which you represent are actively trying to suppress groups that are not like them, such as gays. The Republican party are actively attempted to make voting more difficult for non-whites through strict ID laws, limited voting hours in minority districts and intimidation. If you are as socially liberal as you claim, how can you identify with Republicans? Conservative Christians were of significant help in putting Hitler into power and giving him extreme power. Hitler went after liberal groups, even eliminating most of the seats held by liberals in parliament. Hitler went after trade unions and other groups he saw as liberal. Read this to understand that Hitler was not a liberal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
If Wikipedia is too liberal for you, do a search but beware, you will get numerous NAZI sites loaded with misinformation.
I have but I don't limit my reading to such a small portion. I have studied the Bible and books from other religions. The Bible is a conglomerate of writings by different authors. In portions of the Bible, you can even recognize the influence of previous writers and even misinterpretation of older passages. But I do not desire to give you a lesson in theology. If you are comfortable with your religion and it helps you a more moral life, then stick to it. If it pushes you to believe that activities such as the Spanish Inquisition are legitimate, then you really should do more studying and not allow yourself to be manipulated.
Congratulations, Kevin! You have proven that GDP has a sever prejudice against atheist. They not only removed my response to you, they even removed the statement of mine to which you responded. Strange how they are unwilling to allow an open discussion of religion. I guess their faith is not as strong as yours. I do wonder what some would think reading the article and thinking you were commenting on it, maybe this explanation will help.
When you use your religion as an excuse for discrimination and a way to control others, it demeans it and the philosophy of Jesus Christ. Some people need religion to keep them from lying and cheating. Others seem to think that their religion will forgive them, therefore its okay to lie and cheat. I prefer the philosophy that lying and cheating are wrong, therefore decent human beings should not do them. Every major religion has something similar to the golden rule and yet seem to believe that you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on others and that others do not have a similar right if they disagree with you. Your religion supported bigamy and, even worse in my opinion, having slaves and concubines. Fortunately it evolved from these abhorrent ideas. But how can you condemn homosexuals when your religion ever approved of such activity? The bible says "thou shalt not kill" and yet most of your anti abortion people support war and the death penalty. Such inconsistency demonstrates a lack of understanding.
The goal of every church is religious indoctrination. That fact should not distract from the good occasionally performed by church groups. They should be applauded for joining into the efforts of this group to provide aid to those in need. The TimeBank sounds like a great idea and I wish them success in its implementation.
Kathleen, your attempt to minimize the efforts of the Republican party to take away the rights of women demonstrates a lack of understanding of the possible consequences. Romney has sworn to cut all funding to Planned Parenthood and do everything in his power to stop abortions. These same Taliban like forces have assassinated doctors and bombed women's clinics. Many medical schools no longer teach safe methods of abortions. All these efforts have made it more difficult for women that are raped to get proper medical care and pregnancy prevention steps. Republicans have already managed to get too many anti abortion judges in the Supreme Court. No one should be allowed to force their religious beliefs on another. Not me nor Notre Dame. I am morally opposed to habits such as smoking that have no health benefits and considerable health costs and yet my insurance dollars still pay for those that choose to ignore the consequences and continue to smoke. Romney has shifted his positions on almost every area to match that of the current administration. If he is truthful, that would mean our considerations should fall to which candidate wants to restrict freedoms and which one wants to protect our freedoms. If he is not truthful, then he cannot be trusted as our president.
Last login: Tuesday, May 14, 2013