The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom

[mistergus]

Robert my brother.  I have not posted on this board in some time. However, you just seem tohave a way of pulling me from the light into the darkness.  The enemy is not the RCC.  In fact we owe them for many good things.  I love all who own Christ as their Lord and savior.  Radical Islam and lack of commitment to the cause of Christ are the veheciles I believe saton is using against the kingdom of Christ today.  Later Johnb

You remind me of those in the 1930's who dismissed Hitler as a threat, convinced that his boasts and intentions (previously stated) was just talk, and nothing to worry about.  Appeasers always end up being wrong, don't they?

I know it's hard to think about the unpleasant things in life.  Better to just ignore them, and they will go away, right?  We have the president of Iran today stating his intention to destroy Israel as soon as he can.  Those ignoring him today are in the same camp as those who ignored Hitler.

History shows that people who ignore the stated threats to us are always the enemy and hinderance of freedom.  Those who recognize the gathering and present threats are the ones who we owe our freedoms to.  They are the heros.

The position of the Roman Catholic Church is clear.  They've told us what they intend to do.  They will strip you, Johnb, of your religious freedom at their first opportunity.  Do you not believe them?  Do you not care?  Do you want America to be as Mexico, where only the Roman Church has free reign?

"Am I your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"

Time to get your head out of the sand, Johnb.

Robert G

[zoonance]

I find some "Outstanding" publications reflect in print rather clearly, my experience of suppressed religious freedom

[ravenlorre]

Up until now, I have decided not to respond to this thread, however I can no longer ignore my two favorite topics - Catholic bashing and conspiracy theories.

There are two issues here, temporal and spiritual leadership.  Political power has the power to corrupt good people, unlimited political power corrupts all people.  Spiritual leadership has the power to corrupt good people as well, but if you mix temporal leadership and spiritual leadership together, you are certain to create tyranny.

Yes, the Catholic Church played dual roles in the Middle Ages, both in spiritual and temporal leadership.  The Reformation and the plague helped to put the Catholic Church back into a proper role: concerning itself with people's spiritually, rather than striving for temporal leadership.  Unfortunately, despite the Reformer's best intentions, their actions did not stop unscrupulous people from using religion as a means to gain temporal power; in fact, it only created a void and proceeding power grab between various Reformers and Popes.

If the Reformers were really concerned with reforming Christianity during the end of the Middle Ages they would have realized that absolute power really does corrupt ALL people (not just Catholic leadership), and would have worked toward separation of Church and state, rather than replacing the current power structure (the Vatican) with their own (Anglican, Calvin, Zwingli) forms of government, which they believed to be righteous.  Of course it is easy to see this in hindsight, especially since we can now see how well separation of church and state inoculates against religious power grabs.

Although the Catholic Church is not shy about exerting spiritual influence among todays world leaders, just like Pat Robertson, the former Jerry Falwell and a whole slew of Evangelical leaders; the Vatican is not concerned with, nor would it be possible for it to gain the political power it once held - as long as we are diligent about protecting the idea of separation of church and state.  Also, we need to be just as guarded against people who attempt to use any church leadership role to gain temporal power, not just people who use Catholicism.

So it appears to me that we all need to work to keep religion dogma (not influence) out of politics - separation of church and state protects religion and protects us from people who like to use religion to gain and justify their own power.  I sort of like Turkey's model of government; Turkey has a constitutional law that guarantees a secular government and religious freedom as protection against radical Muslim leadership taking over the government.  The army is in place to overthrow any leader that shows signs of enacting religious dogma into law.

Finally, this thread is a bit ridiculous because it is conspiracy minded and presupposes that the Catholic Church is the only religious power structure that has ever used religion to exert temporal power in a corrupt manner. 

blessings

[marc]

As has been noted elsewhere on this board, a comparison to Hitler tends to be a strong sign that one should stop taking the argument seriously.

[mistergus]

Finally, this thread is a bit ridiculous because it is conspiracy minded and presupposes that the Catholic Church is the only religious power structure that has ever used religion to exert temporal power in a corrupt manner.

Do you know of another denomination among "Christiandom" which has pledged and committed itself to denying the religious freedoms of other believers?  In advance?

If you do, then tell us who it is.  If you don't, then stop attacking the warning you're being given.

Anyone?

The spirit of Neville Chamberlain lives on this board, doesn't it?  Thank God for those who recognize the Roman Catholic Church for the unGodly threat that it is.

They only are the ones who protect religious freedom.

Robert G

[Johnb]

Robert seems we always have a difficult time communicating.  Because I love Catholics and all who own Christ as their savior and understand their contribution to preserving the word does not mean I trust their or any other organized religious hierarchy.  No one can take my religious freedom because it does not come from man.  They may take my life but not the freedom I have in Christ.  The greatest threat to Christianity is from within not from outside forces.  Lack of commitment to the simple gospel is our greatest enemy.  That is where saton wins.  I don't  pratice appeasment I just save my combat for the real enemy and try not to waste my time attacking windmills on a donkey.   At least your are not complacent. Later johnb


" The harder you have to look for something good to say about a person; the more desperately they need to hear it. "   

[ravenlorre]

Finally, this thread is a bit ridiculous because it is conspiracy minded and presupposes that the Catholic Church is the only religious power structure that has ever used religion to exert temporal power in a corrupt manner.

Do you know of another denomination among "Christiandom" which has pledged and committed itself to denying the religious freedoms of other believers?  In advance?

If you do, then tell us who it is.  If you don't, then stop attacking the warning you're being given.

Anyone?

The spirit of Neville Chamberlain lives on this board, doesn't it?  Thank God for those who recognize the Roman Catholic Church for the unGodly threat that it is.

They only are the ones who protect religious freedom.

Robert G

Puritan New England, Quaker Pennsylvania, Amish Pennsylvania, Anglican England, Calvinist France, Presbyterian Scotland, Conservative Protestant South (the Bible Belt) were or are all intolerant of religious freedom.

You're kidding right?  How about the Religious Right, in America, for one?  Exerting their belief that nonChristian ideals and practices should be criminalized - homosexuality, plural marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc; while advocating the legalization of Christian ideals and practices like displaying the Ten Commandments in government facilities, administrative lead prayer in schools, teaching the philosophy of Intelligent Design in science classes, presenting only the Christianized viewpoint of History in classrooms, teaching abstainance only in schools, pro-Israel politics, etc.

And please, don't try and tell me that a Conservative Protestant Christian leaders in this country would not forbid Catholicism, Islam and Eastern religions if they could get away with it.

Puritan New England outlawed Shakers, Quakers, Catholics and Anabaptists for well over a century in this country.  Catholicism and Judaism are still censored in parts of the South, even today. 

The answer is to protect the ideal and practice of the separation of church and state, not to accuse other groups of being tyrants, when our own group either has a track record of the same crimes or would commit them if they had half a chance.

blessings

[ravenlorre]

BTW, I have noticed with relief that most of the people who have responded to this post are level-headed, evenhanded Christians that may not believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, but recognize the difference between blaming one church for bad behavior and recognizing a flaw in human nature.

blessings

[mistergus]

Ravenlorre,

Please name one example of a "Christian" denomination that has enshrined in their official body of doctrine their official intention to deny freedom of religion to other believers.

You don't want to recognize what's in front of you, do you?

Acccidental sin is one thing.  To plan it in advance...that's something entirely far worse.

Robert G

[marc]

The Puritans.

[ravenlorre]

Ravenlorre,

Please name one example of a "Christian" denomination that has enshrined in their official body of doctrine their official intention to deny freedom of religion to other believers.

You don't want to recognize what's in front of you, do you?

Acccidental sin is one thing.  To plan it in advance...that's something entirely far worse.

Robert G

Before the separation of Church and State, the law of the land was the law of the Church or denomination in control of the country at the time.

1.  Zwingli:  Under the Reformation, Zürich became a theocracy ruled by Zwingli and a Christian magistrate. Sweeping reforms were instituted, among them the conversion of monasteries into hospitals, the removal of religious images, and the elimination of Mass and confession. Eventually Zwingli taught that devout Christians have need of neither pope nor church.

During 1525 a radical Protestant group called the Anabaptists challenged Zwingli's rule. In a disputation, however, held before the council on the following January 2, Zwingli defeated the Anabaptists, whose leaders were then banished from Zürich.

2.  King Henry VIII rule of England as the head of the Anglican Church:  The Act of Supremacy of 1534 declared the English crown to be 'the only supreme head on earth of the Church in England' in place of the Pope.  Opposition to Henry's religious policies was quickly suppressed in England. A number of dissenting monks were tortured and executed. The most prominent resisters included John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas More, Henry's former Lord Chancellor, both of whom refused to take the oath and were subsequently convicted of high treason and beheaded at Tyburn in 1535. Thomas Cromwell, for whom was created the post of "Vicegerent in Spirituals", was authorized to visit monasteries, ostensibly to ensure that they followed royal instructions, but in reality to assess their wealth. Cromwell's commissioners for the suppression of religious houses included Lavton, Pollard and Moyle. The death of Abbot Richard Whyting is just one example of the bloodshed during the suppression. In 1536, an Act of Parliament allowed Henry to seize the possessions of the lesser monasteries (those with annual incomes of £200 or less). These suppressions in turn contributed to further resistance among the English people, most notably in the Pilgrimage of Grace, a large uprising in northern England in October of the same year. Henry VIII promised the rebels he would pardon them and thanked them for raising the issues to his attention, then invited the rebel leader, Robert Aske to have a royal banquet with him. At the banquet, Henry tactfully asked Aske to write down what had happened so he could have a better idea of the problems he would 'change'. Aske did what the King asked, though he had actually just written what would later be used against him as a confession. The King's word could not be questioned (as he was held as God's chosen, and second only to God himself) so Aske told the rebels they had been successful and they could disperse and go home. However, because Henry saw the rebels as traitors, he did not feel obliged to keep his promises. The rebels realized that the King was not keeping his promises and rebelled again later that year, but their strength was not as great and the King ordered the rebellions crushed. The leaders, including Aske, were arrested and executed for treason. Dissolution of the remaining, larger monasteries followed a subsequent authorizing act by Parliament in April 1539.

3.  John Calvin:  But within Geneva itself a struggle took place between those who wanted mild reform (such as no compulsory church attendance) and those who demanded radical reform such as Calvin and Farel. The split was deeper than this however. The mild reformers were called the Libertines and they wanted magistrates firmly in control of the clergy. Calvin wanted a city controlled by the clergy - a theocracy. In 1538, the Libertines won the day and Farel and Calvin fled the city and went to Strasbourg.

4  Puritan New England:  Puritan oppression, including torture and imprisonment of many leaders of non-Puritan Christian sects, led to the (voluntary or involuntary) "banishment" of many Christian leaders and their followers from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This negative impact of Puritanism on many new colonists had a positive result on American history in that it led to the founding of many new colonies—Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New Hampshire, and others—as religious havens that were created for devout Christians who wanted to live outside the oppressive reach of Puritan theocracy.

5.  John Knox and Scotland Presbyterianism: That remained the picture until the Scottish Reformation in the early sixteen century, when the Church in Scotland broke with the papacy, and adopted a Calvinist confession. At that point the celebration of the Roman Mass was outlawed.  The revolution resulted in a powerful hatred of the Roman Church. Over the course of later medieval and early modern history violence against Catholics has broken out, often resulting in deaths, such as the torture of Saint John Ogilvie and execution of a Jesuit priest.

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point - people of all denominations and religions are susceptible to persecuting people of other denominations or religions - it is not the religion, it is the people.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism if you are interested in reading a short history of Anti-Catholicism.

Also, I found this statement, which I agree with completely:

Modern Anti-Catholic polemics

As well as standard Protestant polemics which likened Catholicism to the Anti-Christ and the Whore of Babylon other themes of modern anti-Catholic controversialists included accusations of paganism, idolatry and conspiracy theories which accuse the church of seeking world domination. 

After researching this Baxter fellow, he appears to be a decent sort of guy; well educated, yet entrenched in Church of Christ doctrine.  It beats me why he decided to assemble a document full of primarily out of context quotes from Catholic theologians that are not involved in creating official doctrine; I guess Baxter has bought in to the Anti-Catholicism prevalent in his community.

blessings

[mistergus]

After researching this Baxter fellow, he appears to be a decent sort of guy; well educated, yet entrenched in Church of Christ doctrine.  It beats me why he decided to assemble a document full of primarily out of context quotes from Catholic theologians that are not involved in creating official doctrine;

From the Baxter tract...



                                    Syllabus of Errors

     Pope Pius IX, in 1864, published a famous document entitled, Syllabus of Errors.  This document has been and still is a fundamental part of Roman doctrine and policy.  It contains these shocking declarations of policy:
"The State has not the right to leave every man free to profess and embrace whatever religion he shall deem true.
"It (the State) has not the right to exclude the pontiff or clergy from all dominion over temporal affairs.
"It (the State) has not the right to the entire direction of public schools.
"It (the State) has not the right to separate itself from the Church.
"It (the State) has not the right to uphold any marriage solemnized   otherwise than according to the form prescribed by the Council of Trent, even if solemnized according to a form sanctioned by civil law.

     After stating what the State may not do, then Pope Pius IX went on to state positively what the church could do.
"She (the Catholic Church) has the right to exercise her power without the permission or consent of the State.
"She has the right to employ force.
"She has the right to claim dominion in temporal things for the clergy and the Pope.
"She has the right to deprive the civil authority of the entire government of public schools.
"She has the right of annulling marriages solemnized only by civil contract.
"She has the right to require that the Catholic religion shall be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all others.
"She has the right to require the State not to permit free expression of opinion.



Did you catch that part about employing force? 

Did you get that this is from a Pope, and still part of official Catholic Doctrine?

It amazes me that some will try to claim the sky is green, no matter what the facts are.  And they'll say it with a straight face!

Robert G

[ravenlorre]

Did you catch that part about employing force? 

Did you get that this is from a Pope, and still part of official Catholic Doctrine?

It amazes me that some will try to claim the sky is green, no matter what the facts are.  And they'll say it with a straight face!

Robert G

After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who value winning at any cost rather than seeking a mutual understanding or even reaching a mutual disagreement.  Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric.  Let's take a closer look, shall we?

1.  Make an outrageous claim. It doesn't matter whether the Pope is speaking infallibly or not, or if you use a comment out of context, or even if the group you belong to is as guilty as the group you are making accusations against, because the goal is not to be fair-minded, even-handed or even accurate; all you need to do is elicit an emotional response from your opponent rather than a logical one.  Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is to supply enough emotional rope for your opponent to hang himself.

2.  Rely on Mocking or Humor to ignite passion:  If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking, morally superior tone to deliver your message (James White, Ann Coulter, etc); if you happen to be liberal, use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent's attempts to present himself/herself as morally superior (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Al Franken).  BTW, liberals get the most points when they present themselves so convincingly that even conservatives mistake them as conservative! (Steven Colbert, Archie Bunker)

3.  Do not give an inch:  If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny or re-frame the conversation!  In all cases, do not concede even a minor point to your opponent.

4.  Make your opponent work harder:  Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm created by your opponent.  Most importantly, make sure he spends most of his time researching the topic; make him feel like he has to prove you wrong.  If he presents troubling information about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it.  The fact is, you set the pace and the agenda of the debate; after all, your opponent is merely a brainwashed innocent, or at worst, a conniving, interloper, who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit.  Furthermore, he is challenging you intentionally; therefore it is your Christian duty to put him in his place.

5.  Do not waste time reading posts or listening to responses from your opponent:  After all, reading your opponent's posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal: winning.  Instead of reading, skim your opponent's post for statements that can be quickly molded to aid you in your goal.  The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponent's point - why re-post something meaningful or relevant?  Oh, and make sure you continuely apply the steady drumbeat of either a tone of mocking / moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.

6.  Stay the Course!:  Eventually your opponent with either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory.  Like any good staring contest or series of tic-tac-toe draws, it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing.

My point in this conversation is that we need to protect the ideal of the separation of Church and State because unscrupulous people use religion to gain and secure power.  Rather than denying that the Catholic Church has abused it's position in the past, I have simple widened that lens to include all religions / Christian churches and I have included examples to support my claims.  I believe that human nature leads to abuses of power rather than institutions. 

I have noticed that Robert is not concerned with acknowledging my, somewhat benign statement, despite the evidence presented.  This leads me to believe that he would rather remain married to the antiquated belief of a man who has apparently bought into a tired version of anti-catholic rhetoric; instead of trying to gather as many facts and perspectives about the situation in order to cultivate an educated point of view.

Is Baxter, a committed member of the Church of Christ the final word on Catholic doctrine and political policy?  Should we all trust a man who obviously disagrees with Catholicism to be unbiased in his assessment and compilation of quotes by a 19th century Pope?  It seems to me that people who are more interested in gathering facts rather than wallowing in the muck and the mire of conspiracy theories and anti-Catholic rhetoric, would seek out multiple sources to develop an educated opinion.

So Robert, are you intellectually curious enough to look beyond the salacious?  Do you have the character necessary to be intellectually honest or are you going to stay the course?

blessings

[mistergus]

So Robert, are you intellectually curious enough to look beyond the salacious?  Do you have the character necessary to be intellectual honest or are you going to stay the course?

Intellectually curious?  Character?

Oh, man...

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is to deny religious freedoms to non-Catholics once they become the majority in a country.  This is the facts.

You would rather blow smoke and throw red herrings (Ann Coulter) than deal with that.

Well, I am now doubting that you have the intellectual honesty to handle this topic.

Good day to you.

Robert G

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement.

1.  Make an outrageous claim. It doesn't matter if the Pope is or is not speaking infallibly, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the group you belong to is just as guilty as the group you are making accusations against, because the goal is not to be fair minded or even handed or even accurate; all you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from your opponent rather than a logical one.  Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is to supply the emotional rope necessary for your opponent to hang himself.

2.  Rely on Mocking or Humor to ignite passion:  If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking, morally superior tone to deliver your message (James White, Ann Coulter, etc); if you happen to be liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent's attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Al Franken).  BTW, liberals get the most points when they present themselves so convincingly that even conservatives mistake them for a conservative! (Archie Bunker)

3.  Do not give an inch:  If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny or re-frame the conversation!  In all cases, never concede even the most minor point to your opponent.

4.  Make your opponent work harder:  Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you.  Most importantly, make sure he spends most of his time researching the topic; you must put him in a place where he feels like he has prove you wrong.  If he presents troubling information to you about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it.  The fact is you set the pace and the agenda of the debate; your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving, interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit.  Most importantly, he is challenging you intentionally; therefore it is the "Christian" thing to do to put him back in his place.

5.  Do not bother reading posts or listening to responses from your opponent:  After all, reading your opponent's posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, winning.  Instead of reading, skim your opponent's post for statements that can be molded to aid in your ultimate goal.  The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponent's point - why re-post something meaningful or relevant?  Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat of either mocking / moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.

6.  Stay the Course!:  Eventually your opponent with either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately.  Like any good staring contest or series of tic-tac-toe draws, it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing.

I'm gonna frame that and hang it on the wall behind my computer.   

[ravenlorre]

So Robert, are you intellectually curious enough to look beyond the salacious?  Do you have the character necessary to be intellectual honest or are you going to stay the course?

Intellectually curious?  Character?

Oh, man...

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is to deny religious freedoms to non-Catholics once they become the majority in a country.  This is the facts.

You would rather blow smoke and throw red herrings (Ann Coulter) than deal with that.

Well, I am now doubting that you have the intellectual honesty to handle this topic.

Good day to you.

Robert G

I see you have chosen to employ #6 and stay the course.

Too bad,

blessings

[mllevaleur]

You're kidding right?  How about the Religious Right, in America, for one?  Exerting their belief that nonChristian ideals and practices should be criminalized - homosexuality, plural marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc; while advocating the legalization of Christian ideals and practices like displaying the Ten Commandments in government facilities, administrative lead prayer in schools, teaching the philosophy of Intelligent Design in science classes, presenting only the Christianized viewpoint of History in classrooms, teaching abstainance only in schools, pro-Israel politics, etc.

Whoa, now...totally different direction than the purpose of this thread (which I pretty much chose to ignore), but while I agree that some of these are examples of trying to use the government to force Christian beliefs on others, some of them I think are simply protecting life, period, regardless of religious beliefs. I mean...how far do we take it? I think murder is wrong, but what if someone else doesn't? Should I not have laws in place to criminalize murder just because "thou shalt not kill" happens to be part of my religious belief? I just don't think you can lump all of those into the same category of whacko religious right, personally.

[marc]

So Robert, are you intellectually curious enough to look beyond the salacious?  Do you have the character necessary to be intellectual honest or are you going to stay the course?

Intellectually curious?  Character?

Oh, man...

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is to deny religious freedoms to non-Catholics once they become the majority in a country.  This is the facts.

You would rather blow smoke and throw red herrings (Ann Coulter) than deal with that.

Well, I am now doubting that you have the intellectual honesty to handle this topic.

Good day to you.

Robert G

I see you have chosen to employ #6 and stay the course.

Too bad,

blessings

I prefer #2.

[ravenlorre]

Whoa, now...totally different direction than the purpose of this thread (which I pretty much chose to ignore), but while I agree that some of these are examples of trying to use the government to force Christian beliefs on others, some of them I think are simply protecting life, period, regardless of religious beliefs. I mean...how far do we take it? I think murder is wrong, but what if someone else doesn't? Should I not have laws in place to criminalize murder just because "thou shalt not kill" happens to be part of my religious belief? I just don't think you can lump all of those into the same category of whacko religious right, personally.

Hi Stephanie,

I have no doubt that you support life issues apart from religious reasons (I share this belief), but many in the Religious Right also support these issues and they would impose a Theocracy if they could gain enough power in this country.  Remember, I am not opposed to religious influence in America, I am opposed to one religious group taking control and imposing a Theocracy; therefore limiting religious freedom.  Once again I believe in the separation of Church and State as a means of protecting religious freedom.

blessings

[kamakaz]

Robert my brother.  I have not posted on this board in some time. However, you just seem tohave a way of pulling me from the light into the darkness.  The enemy is not the RCC.  In fact we owe them for many good things.  I love all who own Christ as their Lord and savior.  Radical Islam and lack of commitment to the cause of Christ are the veheciles I believe saton is using against the kingdom of Christ today.  Later Johnb

You remind me of those in the 1930's who dismissed Hitler as a threat, convinced that his boasts and intentions (previously stated) was just talk, and nothing to worry about.  Appeasers always end up being wrong, don't they?

I know it's hard to think about the unpleasant things in life.  Better to just ignore them, and they will go away, right?  We have the president of Iran today stating his intention to destroy Israel as soon as he can.  Those ignoring him today are in the same camp as those who ignored Hitler.

History shows that people who ignore the stated threats to us are always the enemy and hinderance of freedom.  Those who recognize the gathering and present threats are the ones who we owe our freedoms to.  They are the heros.

The position of the Roman Catholic Church is clear.  They've told us what they intend to do.  They will strip you, Johnb, of your religious freedom at their first opportunity.  Do you not believe them?  Do you not care?  Do you want America to be as Mexico, where only the Roman Church has free reign?

"Am I your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"

Time to get your head out of the sand, Johnb.

Robert G

first of all it is not the truth, and it is not the Catholics church, it is the Church of our Lord, Jesus Christ, or do you not believe that? The gates of hell will not provail against it, and for your statement to be true, it would have to be hell working thru the Catholic church, so see, we have nothing to fear but fear itself, your whole idea of Catholic world dominance is ridiculas. No man can take away my freedom in Christ. The only thing that can is fear, so are you free in Christ or a slave to fear? You should be careful about comparing the church to hitler, God may not appreciate that.

[mllevaleur]

Whoa, now...totally different direction than the purpose of this thread (which I pretty much chose to ignore), but while I agree that some of these are examples of trying to use the government to force Christian beliefs on others, some of them I think are simply protecting life, period, regardless of religious beliefs. I mean...how far do we take it? I think murder is wrong, but what if someone else doesn't? Should I not have laws in place to criminalize murder just because "thou shalt not kill" happens to be part of my religious belief? I just don't think you can lump all of those into the same category of whacko religious right, personally.

Hi Stephanie,

I have no doubt that you support life issues apart from religious reasons (I share this belief), but many in the Religious Right also support these issues and they would impose a Theocracy if they could gain enough power in this country.  Remember, I am not opposed to religious influence in America, I am opposed to one religious group taking control and imposing a Theocracy; therefore limiting religious freedom.  Once again I believe in the separation of Church and State as a means of protecting religious freedom.

blessings

Ok gotcha! 

[kamakaz]

So Robert, are you intellectually curious enough to look beyond the salacious?  Do you have the character necessary to be intellectual honest or are you going to stay the course?

Intellectually curious?  Character?

Oh, man...

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is to deny religious freedoms to non-Catholics once they become the majority in a country.  This is the facts.

You would rather blow smoke and throw red herrings (Ann Coulter) than deal with that.

Well, I am now doubting that you have the intellectual honesty to handle this topic.

Good day to you.

Robert G

the Catholic church is not the power of the church, have we all forgotten who has defeated the enemy and who the enemy is? who is it sitting at the right hand of God?

IF, the church in America looses its freedom it will not be because of the Catholic church, but rather because God allowed us to have our religious freedom takin away, and why? Because we are either asleep (cold) or lukewarm. And if God chooses to use the Catholic church to do so, then that would be His choose. But this is all hinged on 'IF" God chooses to do so, and 'IF' He uses that vichicle to do so, but He could use birds or even stones to do so, if He wanted. But the bottom line, no one can take our freedom unless God allows it to happen.

[janine]

In various times and places, the Catholic church has repressed and oppressed a lot of people and a lot of freedoms.  So?  They've also built a lot of hospitals and fed a lot of orphans.  So?

Why is a thread like this even going on so long?  It's like starting a thread with an OP like "The sky is blue.  Sometimes it has rained, though."  The only real reply is "And your point is?"

[broach972]

Considering that many non-Catholic denominations are living in glass houses, they need to put those stones back where they got them.  To accuse the Catholic Church of wanting to politically control this country is quite hypocritical and quite absurd.  Ravenlorre makes some excellent points throughout history where non-Catholics and non-Catholic groups have instituted theocracies that have smashed personal liberties and freedoms.

I can assure you that George Bush is not a Catholic and look what he has done at slowly chipping away at our personal freedom.  The Religious Right, most Evangelical Protestants, in this country are doing everything to control what you watch on TV, see at the movies, and even what books you read.  Mistergus, you have committed the cardinal sin in historical studies.  You have pulled a document from a different time and presented it in hopes of many here will judge it by our own values and standards.  You simply cannot do this and make a valid argument.  Besides, you never mention why this document was even issued.  What were the circumstances behind it, etc.

Mistergus, if you want to bash Catholicism, then by all means make every attempt.  But stick to current doctrine and teachings of the Church.  Don't pull out some obscure document that has nothing to do with official doctrines or teachings of the Church.  Should I believe that every current Southern Baptist believes in and supports the institution of slavery simply because it was created for that very purpose?  I think you get the picture.

[broach972]

After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who value winning at any cost rather than seeking a mutual understanding or even reaching a mutual disagreement.  Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric.  Let's take a closer look, shall we?

1.  Make an outrageous claim. It doesn't matter whether the Pope is speaking infallibly or not, or if you use a comment out of context, or even if the group you belong to is as guilty as the group you are making accusations against, because the goal is not to be fair-minded, even-handed or even accurate; all you need to do is elicit an emotional response from your opponent rather than a logical one.  Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is to supply enough emotional rope for your opponent to hang himself.

2.  Rely on Mocking or Humor to ignite passion:  If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking, morally superior tone to deliver your message (James White, Ann Coulter, etc); if you happen to be liberal, use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent's attempts to present himself/herself as morally superior (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Al Franken).  BTW, liberals get the most points when they present themselves so convincingly that even conservatives mistake them as conservative! (Steven Colbert, Archie Bunker)

3.  Do not give an inch:  If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny or re-frame the conversation!  In all cases, do not concede even a minor point to your opponent.

4.  Make your opponent work harder:  Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm created by your opponent.  Most importantly, make sure he spends most of his time researching the topic; make him feel like he has to prove you wrong.  If he presents troubling information about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it.  The fact is, you set the pace and the agenda of the debate; after all, your opponent is merely a brainwashed innocent, or at worst, a conniving, interloper, who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit.  Furthermore, he is challenging you intentionally; therefore it is your Christian duty to put him in his place.

5.  Do not waste time reading posts or listening to responses from your opponent:  After all, reading your opponent's posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal: winning.  Instead of reading, skim your opponent's post for statements that can be quickly molded to aid you in your goal.  The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponent's point - why re-post something meaningful or relevant?  Oh, and make sure you continuely apply the steady drumbeat of either a tone of mocking / moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.

6.  Stay the Course!:  Eventually your opponent with either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory.  Like any good staring contest or series of tic-tac-toe draws, it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing.

My point in this conversation is that we need to protect the ideal of the separation of Church and State because unscrupulous people use religion to gain and secure power.  Rather than denying that the Catholic Church has abused it's position in the past, I have simple widened that lens to include all religions / Christian churches and I have included examples to support my claims.  I believe that human nature leads to abuses of power rather than institutions. 

I have noticed that Robert is not concerned with acknowledging my, somewhat benign statement, despite the evidence presented.  This leads me to believe that he would rather remain married to the antiquated belief of a man who has apparently bought into a tired version of anti-catholic rhetoric; instead of trying to gather as many facts and perspectives about the situation in order to cultivate an educated point of view.

Is Baxter, a committed member of the Church of Christ the final word on Catholic doctrine and political policy?  Should we all trust a man who obviously disagrees with Catholicism to be unbiased in his assessment and compilation of quotes by a 19th century Pope?  It seems to me that people who are more interested in gathering facts rather than wallowing in the muck and the mire of conspiracy theories and anti-Catholic rhetoric, would seek out multiple sources to develop an educated opinion.

So Robert, are you intellectually curious enough to look beyond the salacious?  Do you have the character necessary to be intellectually honest or are you going to stay the course?

blessings

Ravenlorre, this is absolutey priceless.  You absolutely rock!!  I have read debates between James White and Dave Armstrong and this is so true.  Even in my own personal discussion and debates with non-Catholics over doctrines and teachings of the Church, I have run into these tactics on many occassions.

[broach972]

Before the separation of Church and State, the law of the land was the law of the Church or denomination in control of the country at the time.

1.  Zwingli:  Under the Reformation, Zürich became a theocracy ruled by Zwingli and a Christian magistrate. Sweeping reforms were instituted, among them the conversion of monasteries into hospitals, the removal of religious images, and the elimination of Mass and confession. Eventually Zwingli taught that devout Christians have need of neither pope nor church.

During 1525 a radical Protestant group called the Anabaptists challenged Zwingli's rule. In a disputation, however, held before the council on the following January 2, Zwingli defeated the Anabaptists, whose leaders were then banished from Zürich.

2.  King Henry VIII rule of England as the head of the Anglican Church:  The Act of Supremacy of 1534 declared the English crown to be 'the only supreme head on earth of the Church in England' in place of the Pope.  Opposition to Henry's religious policies was quickly suppressed in England. A number of dissenting monks were tortured and executed. The most prominent resisters included John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas More, Henry's former Lord Chancellor, both of whom refused to take the oath and were subsequently convicted of high treason and beheaded at Tyburn in 1535. Thomas Cromwell, for whom was created the post of "Vicegerent in Spirituals", was authorized to visit monasteries, ostensibly to ensure that they followed royal instructions, but in reality to assess their wealth. Cromwell's commissioners for the suppression of religious houses included Lavton, Pollard and Moyle. The death of Abbot Richard Whyting is just one example of the bloodshed during the suppression. In 1536, an Act of Parliament allowed Henry to seize the possessions of the lesser monasteries (those with annual incomes of £200 or less). These suppressions in turn contributed to further resistance among the English people, most notably in the Pilgrimage of Grace, a large uprising in northern England in October of the same year. Henry VIII promised the rebels he would pardon them and thanked them for raising the issues to his attention, then invited the rebel leader, Robert Aske to have a royal banquet with him. At the banquet, Henry tactfully asked Aske to write down what had happened so he could have a better idea of the problems he would 'change'. Aske did what the King asked, though he had actually just written what would later be used against him as a confession. The King's word could not be questioned (as he was held as God's chosen, and second only to God himself) so Aske told the rebels they had been successful and they could disperse and go home. However, because Henry saw the rebels as traitors, he did not feel obliged to keep his promises. The rebels realized that the King was not keeping his promises and rebelled again later that year, but their strength was not as great and the King ordered the rebellions crushed. The leaders, including Aske, were arrested and executed for treason. Dissolution of the remaining, larger monasteries followed a subsequent authorizing act by Parliament in April 1539.

3.  John Calvin:  But within Geneva itself a struggle took place between those who wanted mild reform (such as no compulsory church attendance) and those who demanded radical reform such as Calvin and Farel. The split was deeper than this however. The mild reformers were called the Libertines and they wanted magistrates firmly in control of the clergy. Calvin wanted a city controlled by the clergy - a theocracy. In 1538, the Libertines won the day and Farel and Calvin fled the city and went to Strasbourg.

4  Puritan New England:  Puritan oppression, including torture and imprisonment of many leaders of non-Puritan Christian sects, led to the (voluntary or involuntary) "banishment" of many Christian leaders and their followers from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This negative impact of Puritanism on many new colonists had a positive result on American history in that it led to the founding of many new colonies—Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New Hampshire, and others—as religious havens that were created for devout Christians who wanted to live outside the oppressive reach of Puritan theocracy.

5.  John Knox and Scotland Presbyterianism: That remained the picture until the Scottish Reformation in the early sixteen century, when the Church in Scotland broke with the papacy, and adopted a Calvinist confession. At that point the celebration of the Roman Mass was outlawed.  The revolution resulted in a powerful hatred of the Roman Church. Over the course of later medieval and early modern history violence against Catholics has broken out, often resulting in deaths, such as the torture of Saint John Ogilvie and execution of a Jesuit priest.

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point - people of all denominations and religions are susceptible to persecuting people of other denominations or religions - it is not the religion, it is the people.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism if you are interested in reading a short history of Anti-Catholicism.

Also, I found this statement, which I agree with completely:

Modern Anti-Catholic polemics

As well as standard Protestant polemics which likened Catholicism to the Anti-Christ and the wh*re of Babylon other themes of modern anti-Catholic controversialists included accusations of paganism, idolatry and conspiracy theories which accuse the church of seeking world domination. 

After researching this Baxter fellow, he appears to be a decent sort of guy; well educated, yet entrenched in Church of Christ doctrine.  It beats me why he decided to assemble a document full of primarily out of context quotes from Catholic theologians that are not involved in creating official doctrine; I guess Baxter has bought in to the Anti-Catholicism prevalent in his community.

blessings

Yep...I guess it always looks uglier on someone else...

As a history teacher, I am impressed.  Well done.

[DCR]

You have pulled a document from a different time and presented it in hopes of many here will judge it by our own values and standards.  You simply cannot do this and make a valid argument.  Besides, you never mention why this document was even issued.  What were the circumstances behind it, etc.

You raise a point that has been in my mind all along, with regard to this thread.

The article/tract quoted in the OP, if I'm not mistaken, was originally written in or around 1960.  If memory serves, there was a certain candidate running for president that year... when the fact that he was Catholic was held against him by people at the time.  At the time, I believe there was much suspicion about the RCC in non-Catholic America.  Being Catholic was second worst to being a suspected Communist in the minds of some people at the time. 

But, this candidate ultimately won the election anyway.  His name was John F. Kennedy.

So, the article seems to be a product of its time, in a way.

[ravenlorre]

Thanks for the recent comments, everyone.  It is nice to see you again Stephanie and Broach972.  I think Janine is right about this thread - it has run it's course.

blessings

I just read your post DCR - great point - I think you nailed it.

[mistergus]

The article/tract quoted in the OP, if I'm not mistaken, was originally written in or around 1960.  If memory serves, there was a certain candidate running for president that year... when the fact that he was Catholic was held against him by people at the time.  At the time, I believe there was much suspicion about the RCC in non-Catholic America.  Being Catholic was second worst to being a suspected Communist in the minds of some people at the time. 

But, this candidate ultimately won the election anyway.  His name was John F. Kennedy.

So, the article seems to be a product of its time, in a way.

Nice try, but your argument is a red herring.

Our Constitution is a product of another time, the 1770's.  Yet we are governed by it, every man and woman in the military promises to uphold it, every elected official affirms he/she will protect and defend it.

Who would be so silly to say a document written over 225 years ago is irrelevant today?

This stated positions of The Roman Catholic Church are still the same.  The doctrine has not changed, the intentions of the Roman Church have not changed.  They are on record as intending the suppress the religious freedom of every non-Catholic as soon as they become the majority.

Don't try to dismiss it, or sweep it under the rug.  The Roman Catholic Church is a threat to our way of life.

That's it.

Robert G

[marc]

The constitution was made to be amended, and is a living document made vital and relevant by the concept of judicial review.  On the whole, this is a strange, strange comparison. 

[mistergus]

The constitution was made to be amended, and is a living document made vital and relevant by the concept of judicial review.  On the whole, this is a strange, strange comparison. 

And the Roman Catholic Church has not "amended" this position.  They still intend to deny religious freedom to non-Catholics at their first opportunity.

Robert G

[broach972]

Ravenlorre, you never cease to amaze me.

Well, Mistergus, I think that Ravenlorrre has just obliterated your argument and position.  Mistergus, as a teacher and student of history, let me give you a piece of advice--never cite an obscure document unless you know something about it, especially the context in which it was written.  Context is everything.  And never forget, you can never judge what old documents are trying to convey to us by relying on our own standards and values.  These are cardinal rules of studying history and historical documents.

Ravenlorre, I would give anything if my World History Honors and AP World History students had your ability to analyze and make an argument.

[mistergus]

This post was a major waste of time to read.  it says nothing about the Catholic Church renouncing its claim to deny religious freedoms to others once they become the majority.

I found this interesting, though...


(2) By a Catholic State we understand a community which is composed exclusively of Catholic subjects and which recognizes Catholicism as the only true religion. In this case also the relations between Church and State may be different, according as the two powers are closely united for offence and defence, or, while each maintains its independence, are less compactly joined. The first kind of union finds its truest expression in the "religious state", a distinctive feature of the Middle Ages, while the second or looser union may be realized in a constitutional state that admits various denominations and yet retains its Christian character. In view of the difference of the fundamental ideas on which these two forms of state are based, the principles of political tolerance are subject to important modifications.

"...the relations between church and state may be different..."  Now, isn't that interesting?

I've read this mumbo-jumbo you've posted, and found it irrelevant and pointless (regarding our discussion).

A long-winded distraction is not a response.  Try again, okay?

Robert G

[janine]

It might be nice, also, if you actually want long long long quoted copy-and-paste to actually be read, to alter the blinkin' format fer God's sake!  Insert some white space!

Unless you seek to win over everyone whose eyes are not that great, by simple virtue of your extra-large chunks of script.

[broach972]

This post was a major waste of time to read.  it says nothing about the Catholic Church renouncing its claim to deny religious freedoms to others once they become the majority.

I found this interesting, though...


(2) By a Catholic State we understand a community which is composed exclusively of Catholic subjects and which recognizes Catholicism as the only true religion. In this case also the relations between Church and State may be different, according as the two powers are closely united for offence and defence, or, while each maintains its independence, are less compactly joined. The first kind of union finds its truest expression in the "religious state", a distinctive feature of the Middle Ages, while the second or looser union may be realized in a constitutional state that admits various denominations and yet retains its Christian character. In view of the difference of the fundamental ideas on which these two forms of state are based, the principles of political tolerance are subject to important modifications.

"...the relations between church and state may be different..."  Now, isn't that interesting?

I've read this mumbo-jumbo you've posted, and found it irrelevant and pointless (regarding our discussion).

A long-winded distraction is not a response.  Try again, okay?

Robert G

You must be blind.  Did you catch the following:

"The Catholic Church recognizes unreservedly the inviolability of constitutions confirmed by oath, of traditional laws and regular religious compacts, because a breach of the constitution, of allegiance, of a treaty, or of an oath is a grievous sin, and because the Christian moral law prescribes fidelity to the State as an obligation strictly binding in conscience."

The entire document was about the Catholic Church's position on the relationship between the Church and State, not to mention the nature of conversion--no one can ever be forced to accept the Catholic faith...period.

Again, you pull a sentence and present it out of context...and what does it prove?

Mistergus, just because you say the sky is yellow doesn't make it so.

I think that this thread has run its course.  Ravenlorre has made his position clear and has provided solid evidence to support it and has done a fine job in destroying your position.