As someone who watches this church stuff from the sidelines as a bemused observer, this move by the Catholic Church sounds like when a corporate raider buys up an ailing corporation and absorbs their intellectual property and a few valuable assets.
The Vatican said Tuesday it has worked out a way for groups of Anglicans who are dissatisfied with their faith to join the Catholic Church.
The Vatican says more Anglicans have expressed an interest in joining the Catholic Church.The Vatican says more Anglicans have expressed an interest in joining the Catholic Church.
The process will allow groups of Anglicans, including bishops and married priests, to join the Catholic Church some 450 years after King Henry VIII broke from Rome and created the Church of England, forerunner of the Anglican Communion.
Are you dissatisfied with your church?
Are your crucifixes tired and low in moral fiber???
You need to try THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
Our Jesus is the Son of God 24/7!
Don’t be a lousy Lutheran! Pick up that phone and call 1-777-BEST-GOD today!
OMG I am picturing the Vatican coming after disillusioned Southern Baptists:
Are you dissatisfied with evangelism? Has the wealth gospel gotten you down? Well, we’ve got the doors to heaven open at your local Catholic diocese!
Not getting enough young boy ass in YOUR church?
Come to Catholicism. Literally.
Funny , that’s not the way the Anglicans see it.
Actually, Frank, the site you linked to is the voice of worldwide gay-bashing, women-hating faux Christians who call themselves “orthodox Anglicans.” It has nothing to do with the real Anglican communion, nor does it have anything to do with Jesus. You’d be right at home.
The catholic church has being dying to get the Church of England back in its fold for almost half a millennium. From a theological standpoint this is major news. It would be interesting to see how they act towards married Anglican priests.
The Anglicans are Catholic Lite, having been separated from the Roman Catholic Church by Henry VIII, who had no problem with any of the RCC dogma other than divorce.
Mike, if you were a conservative , and I were a liberal, that would be a personal attack. But since you’re a liberal and I’m a comnservative, fuck you.
Repack Rider is right on – the Anglicans are just more pathetic catholics – a religion founded ’cause of nookie – neat trick eh?
The BOO BOO the anglicans did was to convert half of africa to their bastardized faith – the dumb africans then actually started reading the whole book – not just the 10 or 12 fuzzy Jesus is a Touchy Feely good guy parts and turned into raving lunatics – exactly the APPROPRIATE response if you ACTUALLY read the whole pile of pus.
Well, I declare.
The Vatican has wanted nothing to do with Anglicans for what? About 400 years now? But as soon as a fag-hating splinter group pops up, all is forgiven?
Has the Pope been taking brand-cheapening lessons from the GOP?
Isn’t anyone aware of the blatant bigotry exhibited here? Do you think that the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment is there for you to mock people’s religious beliefs?
What barbarians you are!
Actually, Frank, it sort of is. The right to freedom of religion doesn’t immunize a faith from criticism. If we couldn’t, then we would be losing our right to speak freely. And in any case, those clauses are to protect speech and religion from government action, but individual citizens can have at it. Again, free speech and all.
Do you think that the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment is there for you to mock people’s religious beliefs?
No, that would be the freedom of speech clause.
The First Amendment limits what the GOVERNMENT can do, not what we here can do with our right to free speech. Religious freedom from government intrusion does not protect religious fools from ridicule.
Did I really have to explain that to someone?
Frank – you are a deluded fool.
Your Invisible Spaghetti Monster ADMITS TO: Inventing evil, admits to killing EVERYBODY but a few of his hommies in the flood, admits to ordering rape, murder and stealing land, admits to killing every first born even including the cattle – this SELF CONFESSED mass murdering ball of pus is the guy you dumb fucks want to spend eternity in the loving embrace of!
Religion is madness – freakin’ madness!
Mylegacy: You are a bigot… It is you who are deluded. You think you have outwitted the wisdom and tradition of millenia. Just because you think you are smart doesn’t make you smart.
You are an ape in an overcoat, like the rest of us. Without God, you don’t even have an overcoat.
Repack and abanterer: I have heard of Freedom of Speech. So when Quaker in a Basement uses the word “fag” it’s OK , but if I call you two fags , I’m a bigot. If I call Pres Obama a nigger, I’m a bigot. But when you slander and malign and ridicule a major religious institution, that’s OK.
Oliver confesses his ignorance, when he says it looks like a hostile takeover, when the Catholic Church opens it doors to Anglicans, like Lehman Bros inviting Goldman, Sachs over for tea.
But that’s OK , too.
As I said, is that what freedom of religion means to you? I guess if you practice no religion, no one will ever shut down your church.
So when Quaker in a Basement uses the word “fag” it’s OK , but if I call you two fags , I’m a bigot.
Context matters.
Since these threads only delve into ridiculous pissing matches, I will only allow myself one entry. So I’ll try to make it good.
You think you have outwitted the wisdom and tradition of millenia.
Haha, try “Has actually moved beyond superstition and nonsense that has preyed on fools for millenia.” People were stupid thousands of years ago, Frank, and a book written by even the brightest of those ignorant saps should not be taken seriously in modern times. We know stuff now.
Without God, you don’t even have an overcoat.
I do quite fine without an invisible sky fairy looking over my shoulder, Frank. And I own not one, but TWO overcoats. Yes indeed, I’m living the high life.
I have heard of Freedom of Speech.
And yet you do not seem to understand it.
So when Quaker in a Basement uses the word “fag” it’s OK
Pretty sure that he was using the term to illustrate how others (a religious group) would address gay people. Nice reading comprehension though.
if I call you two fags , I’m a bigot.
Not the same thing at all as what Quaker did. And that would be an unfortunate choice on your part.
If I call Pres Obama a nigger, I’m a bigot.
Yes.
But when you slander and malign and ridicule a major religious institution, that’s OK.
Yes.
Oliver confesses his ignorance, when he says it looks like a hostile takeover, when the Catholic Church opens it doors to Anglicans, like Lehman Bros inviting Goldman, Sachs over for tea.
But that’s OK , too.
Yes.
As I said, is that what freedom of religion means to you? I guess if you practice no religion, no one will ever shut down your church.
What the fuck are you talking about? This is nonsense.
Frank, I think that you confuse the “freedom of speech” with the freedom to be taken seriously and not to be mocked for your stupid comments. Sure, you can say that you believe in God, and are a Christian, etc etc., but I am within my rights to criticize you and your beliefs. I am completely within my rights to call you a knuckle-dragging moron who adheres to an outdated and ignorant dogmatic worldview. You are not above this sort of criticism.
Similarly, people are typically within their rights to call homosexuals “fags”, or to call black people “n-ggers”. However, while they have the right to say those horrible things, others have the right to call them idiotic bigots who should be shunned.
While you entitled to your free speech, you have no right to be taken seriously. Cheers.
Liberals are tolerant and admire and respect diversity.
LOL
I have heard of Freedom of Speech. So when Quaker in a Basement uses the word “fag” it’s OK , but if I call you two fags , I’m a bigot. If I call Pres Obama a nigger, I’m a bigot. But when you slander and malign and ridicule a major religious institution, that’s OK.
Frank, Freedom of Speech works both ways. Just because you have the right to say stuff doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to criticize it. And that criticism does not take away your rights.
As for the topic at hand. If there are Anglicans that hate gay people so much that they want to change their religion, then I don’t see the problem of letting them.
Mambochicken: never have so many words been used to say so little. You are a narrow-minded bigot who fails to understand that this country was founded on tolerance, as well as liberty and equality.
As for “we know stuff now”, we also don’t “know stuff now”, and until all the cards are dealt, I’m betting on God, you can bet on the Big Banger, or the Prime Directive, or the Turttle on the Bottom, or the big, black dirt nap. Cheers.
And I didn’t see any evidence that they hate gays or women. Did you find out they were listening to Rush Limbaugh? Because according to the post-racism rules of Pres Obama, anyone within 100 yards of a radio that is capable of receiving a Rush Limbaugh broadcast, automatically becomes a racist — so watch out!
“The Anglicans are Catholic Lite . . . who had no problem with any of the RCC dogma other than divorce.”
Not so. As someone who was brought up Episcopalian, I can certainly say that I don’t care for the Catholic focus on saints, the idea of the Pope being anything other than a fallable human, and basically see them as a bunch of dogmatic, bigoted sheep who victimize their own people.
Any British Anglican who’d want to be a part of a tradition that puts idolatry and bigotry between a worshipper and the actual teachings of Christ isn’t just a failed Christian, but also a failed citizen!
Mark, excuse me , but perhaps your individual experience is not representative.
I merely pointed to a page from a Religious news service, and I was automatically branded as anti-woman and anti-gay.
In this weblog, smearing people is a all too common occurrence .
Conversely, drawing too much from a personal experience can be wrong, too.
I am completely within my rights to call you a knuckle-dragging moron who adheres to an outdated and ignorant dogmatic worldview. …
Similarly, people are typically within their rights to call homosexuals “fags”, or to call black people “n-ggers”. However, while they have the right to say those horrible things, others have the right to call them idiotic bigots who should be shunned.
Does no one else see the irony here?
While I don’t agree with Frank on very many things, he does have a point. Disagree with him all you want when it comes to religion, but calling him a “knuckle-dragging moron” simply on the basis that he is religious is just as bigoted as using the “n-” or “f-” words.
People were stupid thousands of years ago, Frank, and a book written by even the brightest of those ignorant saps should not be taken seriously in modern times. We know stuff now.
I guess I’ll go throw out my copies of The Iliad and The Aeneid now…
Thank you, Southern Quaker… Occasionally, reason will prevail.
“You are a narrow-minded bigot who fails to understand that this country was founded on tolerance, as well as liberty and equality.”
Frank…We support liberty/tolerance/equality only if we agree. Think about American Indians…African Americans…gays…poor…non-Christians…non-Protestants…atheists… Mary Dyer, executed for her Quaker faith in Boston in 1660…the Mormons that were expelled from Missouri in 1838…the attack on Chinese miners in Wyoming in 1885…the battle of Wounded Knee in 1890, the Ku Klux Klan activities in Mobile, Alabama in 1981…the Crown Heights riot in 1991…the invasion of Iraq…todays politics…
Have to pop in again to defend myself from an unlikely attacker, so I’m going to break my pledge to only have one entry.
Does no one else see the irony here?
No, there’s no irony there. You’re imagining things.
While I don’t agree with Frank on very many things, he does have a point.
Not really.
Disagree with him all you want when it comes to religion, but calling him a “knuckle-dragging moron” simply on the basis that he is religious is just as bigoted as using the “n-” or “f-” words.
First of all, there are many reasons that I can call Frank a knuckle-dragging moron.
Secondly, I disagree that it is “just as bigoted” as using those terms – while one does not have a choice to be either black or gay, a religious affiliation is something that can be chosen.
I think that religiosity is often a sign of a lack of critical examination of the evidence at hand, in addition to a failure of logic. Religious belief is a matter of faith, which is antithetical to reason, logic, and evidence-based understanding of the world. There’s no positive evidence whatsoever to promote the truth of Christianity over any other religion (real or imagined). The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as likely to be real as Yahweh.
Also, I was illustrating a point about freedom of speech. I’m within my rights to call him a knuckle-dragging moron, just as he’s within his rights to call me a “narrow-minded bigot”. This is akin to homophobes being allowed to call gay people “fags” and racists calling black people “n—-rs”. They are within their rights to do so, but it doesn’t mean that they cannot be criticized or shunned for their speech. You can criticize my speech all you like. Go nuts. If you think that what I said was really over the top, you can shun me. Have a hell of a time!
Too often, people think that because they have the right to say stupid crap, that this absolves them of any responsibility for their words. And that is simply not true.
I guess I’ll go throw out my copies of The Iliad and The Aeneid now…
C’mon, Quaker, you’re better than that. No one is living their life according to a literal interpretation of either of those texts. That’s what I meant by “taking them seriously.” Which is not to say that they can’t or shouldn’t be taken seriously as works of literature – just like the Bible should be. Just not as a guide to living one’s life.
Occasionally, reason will prevail.
Hahahahaha, now THAT’S an ironic statement. Hilarious.
Does no one else see the irony here?
While I don’t agree with Frank on very many things, he does have a point. Disagree with him all you want when it comes to religion, but calling him a “knuckle-dragging moron” simply on the basis that he is religious is just as bigoted as using the “n-” or “f-” words.
I agree. I am all for criticizing religion(even though I am a Christian) but at some point others blind hatred for people’s faith is far too telling.
“We know stuff now”- Mambo
I would beg to differ. You can call it fantasy, but we don’t “know” jack squat. Even as an atheist that statement is presumptious or intellectual dishonest.
“Liberals are tolerant and admire and respect diversity.
LOL”-AO
…and this is where I can’t follow folks like yourself. Your making a blanket statement about liberals. You have to seperate those with criticisms and those who just hate religous folks. You can’t take too much from one fellow’s personal experience but I left the Catholic Church because monolithic thinkers such as yourself.
Secondly, I disagree that it is “just as bigoted” as using those terms – while one does not have a choice to be either black or gay, a religious affiliation is something that can be chosen.
So it’s okay to be bigoted, as long as the trait to which you are opposed is chosen rather than inherent? Is it okay to be bigoted against vegetarians? Or socialists?
Of course you are within your rights to criticize Frank; but when it turns into lashing into him just for the kicks of slamming his religion then it becomes bigotry. The link he posted was to the website of a group many here would find distasteful. But instead of pointing out why that might be so, it turned into a round of “let’s bait Frank because he’s a Christian.”
I think that religiosity is often a sign of a lack of critical examination of the evidence at hand, in addition to a failure of logic. Religious belief is a matter of faith, which is antithetical to reason, logic, and evidence-based understanding of the world.
That’s a load of crap. (See, I can exercise my right to free speech, too!) There are plenty of religious people in the world who are nonetheless rational, thinking human beings. One does not need to take the Bible literally to find meaning within it’s text or use it as a guide as to how to live one’s life. There are a lot worse people in history one could try to learn from than Jesus.
How bad does a church have to be for it’s members to consider the Holy Church of Child Molestation? I mean, generally when it comes to religion, my feeling is “one crazy cult is the same as any other”. This is different. The Catholic Church isn’t a religion, and it’s laymen clearly don’t give a damn about reforming it, so why would any sane person convert to this? I’m having a hard enough time figuring out why sane people would stay there. A sense of community or tradition isn’t worth putting your children at danger.
Let me ask you one more question, mambo.
Atheism is a choice as much as religion. Is it bigotry when 50% of Americans claim they would not vote for an atheist for President?
I think that religiosity is often a sign of a lack of critical examination of the evidence at hand, in addition to a failure of logic. Religious belief is a matter of faith, which is antithetical to reason, logic, and evidence-based understanding of the world.
Now explain to me how that diminishes the value of religion.
I promise I won’t read Einstein’s Theory of Relativity for spiritual or moral guidance. You don’t have to read the Bible for natural history.
Deal?
You can call it fantasy, but we don’t “know” jack squat. Even as an atheist that statement is presumptious or intellectual dishonest.
We certainly know more than we did 2000 years ago, Whale. There is no disputing that, at all. I am being neither presumptuous nor intellectually dishonest by saying that.
SQ:
So it’s okay to be bigoted, as long as the trait to which you are opposed is chosen rather than inherent? Is it okay to be bigoted against vegetarians? Or socialists?
I didn’t say it was okay to “be bigoted”. Rather, I am saying that it’s far more acceptable to be critical and/or mocking of someone based on a choice they’ve made. Calling people names based on race or sexual orientation is grossly inappropriate, because these people could not BE otherwise. Why do you suppose that the right had tried, so hard, to make homosexuality into a “choice”?
However, I can criticize someone for their religion. And call them an idiot. I can tell vegetarians that they aren’t being wise, that we were evolved to consume meat and not doing so may be unhealthy. There are certainly valid criticisms of socialism, as well. But it’s stupid for me to go up to a person who’s 6′9″ and tell him, “Haha, you’re a dickwad because you’re so tall! How do ya like that, Tallboy?” See the difference?
but when it turns into lashing into him just for the kicks of slamming his religion then it becomes bigotry.
I disagree. I have perfectly rational reasons to be distrustful of religion and religious people. That’s not bigotry. Bigotry is irrational.
See, I can exercise my right to free speech, too!
Great. Didn’t think I ever said you couldn’t. The opposite, in fact.
There are plenty of religious people in the world who are
nonethelessotherwise rational, thinking human beings.Fixed.
One does not need to take the Bible literally to find meaning within it’s text or use it as a guide as to how to live one’s life. There are a lot worse people in history one could try to learn from than Jesus.
Didn’t say they did. You’re arguing for a philosophical point. And I don’t disagree. I have no problems with Jesus the Philosopher, or the Historical Figure. I do have a problem with Jesus, Son of God. The instant that one goes from following the moral precepts that Jesus taught to worshiping him and Yahweh and thanking them for life’s bounty, that is the instant in which they are becoming believers in irrational nonsense.
No matter what you say, you cannot make religious belief a rational thing. It can’t be done. It isn’t. Deal.
Atheism is a choice as much as religion. Is it bigotry when 50% of Americans claim they would not vote for an atheist for President?
I don’t know if I would call it bigotry, per se. Some or most of those people are probably bigoted against atheists. But that statement specifically? I probably wouldn’t call that bigotry. I would call it idiotic, but probably not bigotry.
Now explain to me how that diminishes the value of religion.
Because it encourages people to act in a manner and believe things that aren’t rational. I would like an informed, reasonable citizenry – it’s tough to have that when so many adhere to crazy nonsense like the Earth being 6000 years old, or that humans popped into existence rather than evolved, etc.
But perhaps here I am conflating “religion” with “certain pushers of religion.” After all, even the Vatican allows for evolutionary theory.
I promise I won’t read Einstein’s Theory of Relativity for spiritual or moral guidance. You don’t have to read the Bible for natural history.
Interesting. I don’t really have a problem with using the Bible for moral guidance – like I said, Jesus’ philosophy isn’t what I take issue with. I do think that turning to the Bible is superfluous, as I (and atheist) can be moral without the need for a holy book. But I don’t think that’s harmful, just redundant. Like I said before, looking to the Bible as anything more profound than a work of literature, or as a philosophical guide to life, is just loony. Which isn’t to say it’s worthless, at all – as a work of literature, it’s very interesting. As a work in philosophy, it is interesting in many ways. But as a “holy” book – no. That’s nonsense.
Also, could you tell your creationist friends about this deal you propose? Maybe then we could stop them from trying to put Intelligent Design in the science classroom.
I have perfectly rational reasons to be distrustful of religion and religious people. That’s not bigotry. Bigotry is irrational.
You may have perfectly rational reasons to be distrustful of some religions and some religious people, but the minute you generalize to an entire population you are engaging in bigotry.
No matter what you say, you cannot make religious belief a rational thing. It can’t be done. It isn’t.
If I have an experience that is meaningful to me and choose to pursue that experience for the value it gives my life, I’d hardly call that irrational decision making. You are equating materialism with rationalism. I contend that they are related, but not the same.
If I have an experience that is meaningful to me and choose to pursue that experience for the value it gives my life, I’d hardly call that irrational decision making.
Neither would I. Perhaps I am being inarticulate. In Christianity, the fundamental belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is not rational. If you should choose to pursue Christianity in spite of this for reasons that you deem beneficial to your life, that’s not irrational. It’s on a foundation of irrationality, but that particular component makes sense.
but the minute you generalize to an entire population you are engaging in bigotry.
Nope. Disagree. I am not “generalizing to an entire population” by acknowledging their fundamental, core theistic beliefs are nonsense. This goes for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and Pink Unicornism. Their theological beliefs are all wacky nonsense – I don’t care what religious group they are affiliated with. It’s a fundamental principle of theistic religions – acknowledging that does not make me a bigot.
I’m quite liberal, and I watch with amusement as conservatives on this blog accuse liberals of seeing racism in innocuous happenings. Despite this, even I think that the bar for declaring a bigot is too low.
I’m quite liberal, and I watch with amusement as conservatives on this blog accuse liberals of crying racism in what they see as innocuous happenings. Despite this, even I think that the bar for declaring someone as a bigot is too low.
Had to fix that, it was bugging me.
Also, could you tell your creationist friends about this deal you propose?
I will, when you tell your bigoted , stereotyping pseudo intellectual, intolerant, arrogant, atheist friends to stop calling priests child molesters, and people who believe in God, ignorant fools, and people who do not advocate birth control ,”murderers of the poor”.
Deal?
I will, when you tell your bigoted , stereotyping pseudo intellectual, intolerant, arrogant, atheist friends to stop calling priests child molesters, and people who believe in God, ignorant fools, and people who do not advocate birth control ,”murderers of the poor”.
No, sorry Frank, no deal. And here’s why. Creationism is not science and has no business being in a science classroom. Virtually everything you said is wrong though.
bigoted , stereotyping pseudo intellectual, intolerant, arrogant, atheist friends
Most atheists I know are very nice and are not any of these things, Frank. We tend to be humanists. So funny with the “stereotyping” charge, too – have you no irony meter? You cannot use that term simultaneously with calling all atheists “bigoted, intolerant, arrogant”, etc. Idiot.
Also, there are far too many priests that ARE child molesters.
Also, people who believe in God believe in a fairy tale. I think people who believe in unicorns and leprechauns and Santa Claus are ignorant fools too. Or they’re children.
Also, I’ve never called people who do not advocate birth control “murderers of the poor”, but they definitely are vicious morons.
So no. No deal. Your suggestion is way lopsided.
Mambo , I was referring to your friends, as you were referring to “mine”. The irony was lost on YOU. Idiot.
As for how many priests are child molesters, would you like to compare their numbers with those of public school teachers, and day-care center employees? I doubt that you would.
Most atheists I know are very nice and are not any of these things As Quaker in a Basement would say – “Haw!”
You aren’t even very nice! I can imagine what your friends are like.
Also “vicious morons” is as slanderous as “murderers of the poor” (which I paraphrased from one of Christopher Hitchins’ may anti – Mother Theresa screeds).