Happy Scrappy Hero Pup, directing the “Wally”/putz smiley toward another poster is forbidden in GD. If you need to use it to express yourself, take it to the Pit.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Whoops.
Was going for the grinny guy underneath Wally.
Won’t happen again.
[QUOTE=The Highwayman]
I wonder what party those “patriots” at the border carrying guns are? Republicans or Democrats? Which do you think?
There is just no denying that the Catholic leadership is becoming more militant.
OK, Evil, laddie. Notwithstanding that when YOU make a claim, it’s up to YOU to provide the proof of that claim…
I will provide cites for you.
Under canon law, the following offenses may be punished with excommunication:
[ul]
[li]Being an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic (Can. 1364 § 1)[/li][li]Throwing away the consecrated species or, for a sacrilegious purpose, taking them away or keeping them. (Can. 1367)[/li][li]Using physical force against the Roman Pontiff (Can. 1370 § 1)[/li][li]A priest absolving his partner from sin against the Sixth Commandment (Can. 1378 § 1)[/li][li]Not being an ordained priest and unable to give valid sacramental absolution, but attempting to do so, or hearing a sacramental confession (Can. 1378 § 2(2))[/li][li]A Bishop who consecrates another person Bishop without a valid pontifical mandate, and the person so consecrated (Can. 1382)[/li][li]A confessor who directly violates the confessional sacramental seal (Can. 1388 § 1) or an interpreter who is privvy to the confession violating it (Can 1388 § 2)[/li][li]A person who actually procures an abortion, provided he or she is aware of this penalty (Can. 1398)[/li][/ul]
Concerning the first item, the definitions that are relevant:
Now, Evil Captor you have asserted that the Catholic Church may threaten excommunication, and this may sway a Supreme Court Justice in his duties. When asked for a specific cite, you have weaseled - see above.
I have now laid out for the complete list of offenses under the law of the Church that may be punished by excommunication.
None of these are offenses that should trouble a Supreme Court Justice in the performance of his duties. You may protest that “heresy” is a catch-all term; for this reason I included the definitions for the term. Heresy refers to denying truths about the faith; it has nothing to do with judgements on secular law. I also note that your ears may quiver at the mention of abortion; I direct your attention to the “actually procures” text, which limits the penalty to the person who directly obtains the abortion, not the person who, for example, passes the law permitting it (or judges such a law constitutionally permissible).
Now - with that data in front of you, do you have any remotely plausible defense concerning your charge with respect to excommunication?
- Rick
I don’t think you’re a bigot. I think you’ve got a coarse and inflammatory posting style.
But to the point of this debate: What are these religious beliefs Roberts supposedly has, that we should be “examining”? What information do you have that I’m missing?
Best I could come up with relative to religion was a couple of paraphrased quotes from two Senators, one of which is in dispute. You didn’t comment on them, so I have no idea what your take is.
Is it possible that: 1) You could have framed this debate in a less inflammatory way, and 2) We do not yet have the information necessary to “examine” in a reasonable way?
Now, I understand it could easily turn out that we won’t get this information prior to his confirmation. But even so, you could have framed your debate in a way that reflected and incorporated that possibility.
What I’m really curious about is what you think is gained by starting a thread under these conditions? As you’ve said in the “Rove” thread, we internet users are not the same as the “TV idjits”. I believe you also said we “have no power to change things”.
So what’s the point of this thread? What is your “fiendish plan”, Evil Captor? 
News to this Catholic. Can you give me some examples from the last forty or so years of Catholics who were excommunicated for having political opinions that varied from the Church’s?
Psst…at least three of us have asked essentially the same kinda thing.
Evil Captor feels that it’s beneath him to “spend half his day Googling for cites”…
real life intervenes, so I can’t do much now, but I’ll see if I cant’ get you guys some quotes and explanations soon. Though I have to tell you, even if I came up with a website detailing Roberts’ specific role in the Pope’s conquest of Philadelphia (thus controlling the American cream cheese market) I don’t think it would help.
If you’ve got a Papal Cream Cheese Domination cite, I assure you, it would be very helpful to me.
But by all means, take care of business, and get back to us.
Let’s see. We have Bricker, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and ole duffer all members of the Church. Since we all march lockstep in thought and deed, you can all cancel plans you’ve made for anytime after 20.00 GMT today. The Earth will implode. Even the proven laws of physics won’t be able to handle this one. 
Well, I suppose that could be the result of the intransigence of all us extreme right-wing Catholics (such as Miller, Metacom, and I) who have ganged up on you in this thread. On the other hand, perhaps it is simply that your thesis (for which you have failed to demonstrate the slightest evidence, relying wholly on the personal opinions of nutcases and a few members of the hierarchy while ignoring the complete lack of support from the overwhelming majority of the hierarchy as well as the actual official proclamations of the church, along with the utter lack of precedent for the scenario you have attempted to propose) is, in fact, without substance.
Just as you first claimed that asking for actual evidence was"ONe of the oldest tricks in GD" now you are attempting to poison the well by claiming that we won’t accept your citations. In fact, you have already outlined your approach when you issued this preemptive declaration:
However, no one has argued against a strain of political philosophy that can be found among some conservative Catholics. That was not your argument. Your argument was that
and you have provided no evidence (not weak evidence, NO evidence) that the Vatican has ever issued a directive for a judge to rule a particular way or a legislator to vote in a particular way in the last 200 years or ever in the U.S. (You have not even cited examples older than 200 years or outside the U.S., but I will ignore your lack on that point as not relevant to this discussion.)
E.C.
Don’t let them get you down, Bud. I see your point. Don’t be too glum about the situation either. It could have been a lot worse, and it almost was; The other two potential nominees were a jew and a black man, so look on the bright side.
Oh, and we’re out of pistachios at the Klaven, so could you bring some?
Yeah, because you know, it’s funny to think of our current court comprised of eight white males composed in any other way! That would be just against the natural order of things.
Ridiculous. This is a public message boards people with varying levels of all kinds of topics may hold discussions on them. Generally, the response to a poster on this board who clearly lacks the fundamental knowledge to interact on a thread is to provide some cites and suggest that he or she read up and then join the debate.
I think all that’s needed to have an opinion on the influence of the Catholic church on American politics is some knowledge of the history of the Catholic church on American politics – I have such knowledge. I suspect that your “meaningful debate” standard just means you’d rather confine discussions of Catholic influence on American politics to True Believers … not gonna happen.
Irony meter going off the charts in aisle 5.
Wow…you have this magical knowledge…but can’t provide meaningful cites that address the OP, despite repeated requests from posters of all stripes?
Boggle.
Well, being members of the legal profession, I would expect them to do what they believe and dissemble like hell in a legal sort of way about why theyr’e doing it.
In short to behave just as you say the’ve behaved.
I doubt if the Pope and his crew care on what grounds Roe v. Wade is overturned so long as it is overturned.
You should know that I believe in basing my opinion of people on their actions, rather than their words. That’s why I’m not nearly as enamored of Bill Clinton as some other liberals. He did some truly half-assed things as President.
Really? Are there some votes they’ve taken that run strongly against Catholic political ideals, other than the death penalty, which as has been noted in another post, has some weasel-word exceptions to it?
If you really have any knowledge, now would be the time to trot it out and let us see it. So far, you have resorted to distortions of doctrine and practice along with citations to individual actions that have not been supported by the church, at large. Based on the OP, alone, I would say that you have, essentially, NO knowledge of the Catholic Church in its interaction with American history.
** that can be traced to their religion and/or the influence of the Vatican.**
Your request, is, sadly, impossible to fulfill. Being judges, they will of course couch their opinions in legalese, not religious doctrine.
Firstly, where did I bash anyone?
Secondly, surely you understand that calling someone a bigot, however honestly felt, is the rhetorical equivalent of punching them in the nose. You are somewhat naive at best if you don’t expect some sharply worded responses.
You know, if you’ld be more comfortable over in IMHO where you can simply base an entire thread on opinions without having to support them, I can arrange that.
Has he outed any CIA agents lately?
Didn’t think so. Bzzzzt! Thanks for playing!