Once again the foreign power, the RCC, tries to impose itself on American politics. I pity the Catholic politician who tries to do the right thing and represent his or her constituints and morality as he/she sees it while Catholic mucky-mucks try to force them to follow the Vatican’s line.
And how do you know a Catholic politician who’s taken a responsible posiiton during the campaign won’t cave in to the pressure after he or she is elected. I hate to say it, but while the bishops are exerting pressures like this the safe thing is to vote for non-Catholics where there is one about as good and the Catholic candidate has not vowed to resist any pressure the Church brings to bear.
We deserve to be able to expect our elected officials won’t be subject to religious pressure from abroad to do what they campaigned against.

Catholics, if they’re good Catholics, are Catholics first and Americans second, just like all Christians should be–our primary citizenship is with Kingdom of God. John Locke was very wise when he, in his letter promoting religious toleration, made it clear that Catholics could never be trusted to be good citizens, and certainly not to be good politicians. Amen! No Christian should want to be trusted to properly govern a secular society. If Christians are capable of being good American politicians, something’s gone seriously wrong.

Science is trying to help humans defeat devastating diseases, andif they happen to be Christian or RCC they are being put down by the Vatican as being immoral. This is something these Scientists will have to work out for themselves, not Popes, Bishops, etc. The government shouldn’t allow one or two religions to make laws that will control many other citizens chances to beat a life killing disease, so they will be able to continue to care for their children who are here and needing them.

I’m having a hard time figuring out where to start. First, no surprise, the RCC is continuing to butt into politics, by “telling” it’s followers what criteria is acceptabe for a candidate. And God forbid they or a candidate should support anything as life saving as embryonic stem cell research or be pro-choice. “Can’t have a wafer if you don’t obey.” Think at that point I’d find another church. My mind is just that, mine. No one has the right to tell me what I have to look for in a candidate. No one. So, guess it is good I’m about as far from a Catholic as one can get.
And now Colorado actually wants to try and put an amendment to their state constitution that would define a fertilized human egg as a person!! Unbelievable. It’s a group of CELLS! It doesn’t wear clothes, eat, sleep, breath, sneeze etc. It is cells! Tiny, tiny cells, that have the potential to save lives that are here.
The RCC is not worried about research that needs embryonic stem cells (cells folks, not living, breathing humans)for aiding the possibility of help with diseases…Parkinson’s, MS, cancer etc.
We can really hope the proposed Amendment to Colorado’s constitution doesn’t pass, and that no other state is stupid enough to try it. If it passes in Colorado, there would be some other politicians that would try it in their states. I live in a predominately Catholic state. The amendment idea is one that would appeal to many here..very scary…mixing politics and religion…

“If Christians are capable of being good American politicians, something has gone seriously wrong.” NateW
That certainly helps explain alot about the current politician in the Oval Office.

This is proof, one again that either the Bishops have done done their homework, or they simply don’t care. Neither speaks well for them.

A BIG oops on my part that post before should read…
This is proof, one again that either the Bishops have NOT done their homework, or they simply don’t care. Neither speaks well for them

Re-reading the statement about the Bishops warning of the “moral” dangers of embryonic stem cell research, guess “morals” didn’t to priests who were molesting children. I wonder if the RCC actually understands it’s own “difinition” of morals. To me it is immoral to NOT do embryonic stem cell research, in order to help and perhaps save lives of living, breathing, human beings who suffer from horrible diseases.

Should read” …guess “morals” didn’t apply to piests who were molesting children.”

No, pagansister, it really doesn’t. George Bush is far from being more committed to the Church than he is to the State. Those committed to the Church over the State don’t lead foreign invasions to serve State interests.

Bush committed a foreign invasion to serve commercial interests. Largely.
He should be impeached. We need to signal to future presidents such behavior will not be tolerated. Instead we tolerate his most outrageous and impeachable behavior.

“Those committed to the Church over the State don’t lead foreign invasions to serve State interests.”
Osma Bin Laden followers of their religion led “Terrorists” over their countries leaders, so it’s possible when religion becomes extreme for anything to happen, anywhere.

To all Fathers in the posting family:
HAPPY FATHER’S DAY!

“Those committed to the church don’t lead foreign invasions to serve State interests.” NateW
The Crusades were what? Religion run wild…causing much death and destruction. That is what happen when the “those committed to the church” come first…or when an idiot president runs things.

The Crusades were far from being a pure matter of religion, because the Catholic Church itself was in the midst of a huge conflict with secular powers over questions of issues of temporal authority. The Medieval Popes were essentially saw themselves as inheriting the role of the Roman Emperors, so suffice it to say that their concerns were radically different from those of pretty much any church today.
The fact stands that if Bush and American evangelicals were MORE Christian and LESS American, they wouldn’t be so gung-ho about the war. At the very least, Christians who are Christians first and Americans second don’t want foreign Christians being killed to support some State interest. American Christianity is far too wrapped up in preserving and controlling the American state, and that’s why they mix their religion and politics in the disastrous ways they so often do.

“At the very least, Christians who are Christians first and Americans second don’t want foreign Christians being killed to support some State interest.” NateW
How many foreign Christians are being killed in Iraq? Isn’t it mostly Muslim (and they can’t get along).(No I’m not in favor of the war).
“American Christianity is far too wrapped up in preserving and controlling the American state,and that’s why they mix their religion and politics in the disastrous ways they so often do.” NateW.
I agree…the planners of this country wanted religion and government totally separate…and Christianity seems to think they have something to say about what happens in the running of this country. “Very scary kiddies”.

If you leave it to Christians to judge how Christian Bush is, Evangelicals came out in droves to vote for him because he talked their talk. Now that he’s not so popular some Christians want to wash their hands of him.
I personally want my presidents to be for the US. The problem comes in deciding what that means, strategy-wise. For instance Obama and McCain probably both are for the US but McCain wants to continue Bush’s failed policies on Iraq and his push for an attack on Iran. I hope Obama would have a fresher view and a little more sophisticated view of what would advantage the US. The Bush/McCain approach has seen our power and influence go way down.

NateW wrote, “Those committed to the Church over the State don’t lead foreign invasions to serve State interests.”
Of course they don’t – they manipulate other people to do the deed for them. Conspiracy to commit murder is still a serious charge. As long as someone is foolish to buy the line “God is on our side”, there will be cannon fodder enough to fuel the ravenous Beast, “War”, and all the parasites that feed off it’s droppings.

I wonder if we’ll ever know how much of our foreign policy is motivated by defeating Islam (as opposed to defeating radical Islam or, “God” forbid, defeating fundamentalism).

nnmns, that’s an interesting question.
Ironically, if we were to try to defeat fundamentalism, we’d likely be at war with ourselves, no?

American Christianity is far too wrapped up in preserving and controlling the American state, and that’s why they mix their religion and politics in the disastrous ways they so often do.
I’ll buy that.

Quote: An initial decision to destroy so called spare ‘cell embryos’ for this research leads to broader abuses; including human cloning, and new risks to women.
What are these new risks to women, does anyone know?
If spare ‘cell embryos’ were used for research in repairing bodies which are suffering from catastrophic diseases wouldn’t that take all the spares that were available? Are they fearing a blackmarket for cells to be used for human cloning? Do they think women would use their bodies in this way to make money? Are they worried that a science fiction machine would carry these cells to develop into a person? Does anyone know??

There have been many Christians trying to “wash their hands” of Bush for a long time. The first conservative Christian books, articles, and sermons aimed against American evangelicalism’s captivity to US (especially Republican) politics came out well before Bush was even in office. It’s not as if Bush was ever particularly loved by coservatives and evangelicals anyway, but he was seen as a better alternative than McCain and Gore, and the fact that he came under intense attack from the Left even before he took office certainly motivated many people on the Right to defend him more ardently than they should have.
Several Christians in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East have been endangered and killed in the war. That’s not to say that Christians should only be concerned with other Christians and not with Muslims, but if Christians are putting America first and paying no regard to the well-being of Christians in other places, that strikes me as a fundamental confusion of allegiance.

Guess the RC Bishops would rather the spare embryos just stay frozen, since I don’t think there are enough families to “adopt” them. Thus no research could be done, and no one could be helped…but I guess that is “morally” acceptable to the RCC!

“Guess the RC Bishops would rather the spare embryos just stay frozen, since I don’t think there are enough families to “adopt” them. Thus no research could be done, and no one could be helped…but I guess that is “morally” acceptable to the RCC!”—pagansister
ahh, the ol’ let’s-just-get-rid-of-’em-because-they’re-an-inconveniance argument. The battle cry of compassionate relativists everywhere.

No one is “getting rid of them”, jramone. They are cells and have the potential to save lives. That isn’t getting rid of anything. Freezing them for all eternity isn’t “disposing of them”?