’)The Catholic Church in DC is threatening to stop services for the poor and homeless if the district okays gay marriage. Sometimes you wonder if these people have ever cracked open a bible.
And of course, this diocese was one of those that has harbored child rapists in the past.
And of course, this diocese was one of those that has harbored child rapists in the past.
Monsters.
The Catholic Church is built on moral quicksand.
The Catholic Church should lose their tax exempt status
Well, the way I figure it, this is blackmail, and there’s never any percentage in giving in to blackmail; the moment you do, you’ve essentially agreed to be blackmailed by anyone, at any time. Call their bluff. Or, if it’s not a bluff, let’s let people see what scum these people are.
Jesus said to help the poor – not “the poor Jews”. He said to help the poor. He said to love other people – yes, even the dirty, smelly ones who are cranky and stupid and don’t think the same way you do.
If they’re willing to toss aside the teachings of their leader because they refuse to render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, well, the world should know that, and know that they can’t be trusted to act out of compassion.
Cue Frank! Frank! There are Catholics being oppressed! Help, help, they’re being oppressed!
Bloody peasant.
“The poor and homeless aren’t real people anyway!” -cons
if a religion needs to rely on blackmail and bribes in order to survive — why do I need to show it any deference or respect?
American Catholics need to form their own Rite, comparable to the Coptic Rite or other divisions of Catholicism separate from the Roman Rite. Then we can decide whether to follow the orders of the angry virgins lecturing on sex from the Vatican, or let the Body of Christ (e.g. the congregation) work things out.
The Pope of Rome is basically making the same offer to homophobic Episcopalians, so turn-about is fair play.
More on this idea at Wholly Hodgepodge
I agree. I love mass, and I hate the church! Even during colonial times the Catholic Church has said, “Accept our religion and we will feed you.” Politically they have had many dirty dealings. The were the number one funder of the Trans-Atlantic Save Trade.
Being gay will get you sent to hell.
Hiding child rapists will get you the top spot at the Vatican.
I’d love to see some sort of heirarchy on the supremacy of biblical principle.
So far:
Sketchy gay-hating old testament bits > very clear and unambiguous Jesus help the poor bits
The Catholic Church in DC is threatening to stop services for the poor and homeless if the district okays gay marriage.
Blessed are the hostage takers, for they shall receive ransom.
I’m not sure this even makes sense politically. This is a threat against the poor and homeless, but they don’t have the money to lobby against gay marriage and get out the vote to stop it. Many homeless people aren’t even registered voters, right?
Really, they need to threaten to stop taking confession. Hit their most powerful members with the Immortal Soul card.
they [the Church] would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
And what are those laws?
Is it within th Church’s dogma to obey them?
Cue the anti-Catholic bigotry*…
3 …
2 …
1 …
*{from the article}The child molestations, and filing sticky-fingered priests from diocese to diocese is all part of God’s grand plan
My own opinion? While all the clauses of the First Amendment are still in effect, it should be none of the District’s business what any Church does.
What??? Not the District’s business if there are child molester priests??? I’m Catholic and I am appalled by what the church is and has done. You condone this??? You’re wrong, pure and simple wrong. I don’t even know what to say, you’re so wrong!
Shorter Frank: Help, I’m bein’ oppressed!
The First Amendment doesn’t exempt religious organizations from civil law (human sacrifice would still be illegal due to laws against murder, for example, even for a religion which claimed a need to practice it). Shielding child molesters from prosecution and obstruction of investigations are, indeed, proper concerns of the civil authorities.
Let’s hope this is a lesson to those glibertarians that think that churches and other non-government entities will take care of the poor if there is no governmental safety net- their giving can come with strings attached.
Are you kidding, or what? I was referring to the laws regarding discriminating against gays, and what that mean for the Church, if they agreed to abide by those laws, so they could be of help to the homeless. I eat at a soup kitchen run by a Catholic Church. They don’t ask any questions, or even that you register. You sit down and you are served. A prayer is said before the meal to “whatever God you believe in”.
Why don’t you people ever question anything? You hear “gay” and “Catholic Church” together, and automatically, the Church is the villain.
Um, the Church is the villain here, Frank. They are threatening to shut down their homeless shelters and food kitchens in DC if they have to obey equal protection hiring at those establishments.
So they weigh being able to turn down a gay for a job as more vital than feeding and clothing the poor. WWJD?
That pretty much makes them the bad guys.
Frank DiSalle: if they agreed to abide by those laws
If?
The Catholic Church gets to decide if it wants to follow civil laws?
Historically, that has been the case.
Frank, if the Church persists in this, they should be taxed into non-existence.
Right, because anyone who doesn’t want to be forced to hire gays, in opposition to their religious beliefs, is a bad guy. And their religion is a bad religion, and the people who practice it are bad people.
Um, the District is the villain here. They could exempt “religious organization.”
Right, because anyone who doesn’t want to be forced to hire gays, in opposition to their religious beliefs, is a bad guy. And their religion is a bad religion, and the people who practice it are bad people.
Pretty much. Substitute black, woman, latino, Catholic, Jewish, for “gay” in your sentence and you see how dumb you sound.
Right, because anyone who doesn’t want to be forced to hire gays, in opposition to their religious beliefs, is a bad guy. And their religion is a bad religion, and the people who practice it are bad people.
Yes.
How is hiring a gay person to help run a soup kitchen oppose pose a risk to the Catholic Church?
They have sheltered pedophiles for decades; they don’t have much of a moral stance from which to blackmail any government that dares contradict their archaic and discriminatory practices with anything as trivial as THE LAW.
Mask this however you want, it’s still wrong.
If only they were Muslims, then we’d have to be tolerant. You can’t go wrong bashing Catholics, Italians and people from the South.
You know Frank, when you “cue catholic bashing” in a thread, and then it doesnt happen, and then you complain all butthurt about how much it has happened, and then try to counter by accusing the people who didn’t attack your beliefs of not-attacking a different belief significantly? You come off like a petulant bag of excrement whose mother gives terrible oral.
I’m not saying thats what you are, merely what you’re making yourself seem like.
Now, onto your point about how the Catholic Church should be allowed to break whatever laws it feels like it should, including anti-discrimination laws and underage rape statues I supposes. With that belief that a religious stance gives one carte blanche to violate the law with impugnity, I have to disagree. Your rebuttal?
They seem to be doing a pretty good job of exposing themselves to criticism.
Check the calendar; it’s 2009 not 1809.
– anonymous D.C. resident who agrees with Sarah Palin on the issue of same-sex marriage.
FTW, SaveFerris and and anonymous DC resident !!
Ferris posts a tangential comment not remotely related to the discussion, and naturally Frank seems to think that the quote is A, true by the simple fact that it’s a thing a guy said, and B, proves his absurd point. A quote that, in fact, comes from the worstest mostest librully muslim evil terrorist commie president evar, exclamation point, exclamation point, one, one, one.
Excuse me, I’ve laughed a pile of fudge into my Hanes.
If wifebeaters, substance abusers and chronic masturbators don’t have to disclose their private sinful conduct as a precondition of employment at a Catholic soup kitchen, why would gayness be more of an obstacle to being hired than any other state of sin? Because they don’t believe their conduct is wrong? Surely there are some chronic masturbators among the ranks of current Catholic soup kitchen and shelter employees? I’m not seeing the dogmatic justification for discriminating among particular sorts of sinful job candidates here. Is a confession to a priest part of the hiring process? If not, this just seems darn silly on the part of the diocese.
This is just incredible. Apparently, according to Frank, discriminating against gay people is a constitutional right.
You can’t go wrong bashing Catholics, Italians and people from the South.
Excuse me while I play my violin for you.
Remember how Jesus only spent time helping people that were already healthy and rich? And he never visited prostitutes to help them since they were so sinful?
Neither do I.
This is an improper reading of the Bible. It is bad theology, and an abandonment of the message of Christ. The Catholic Church is being poorly led by the current Pope, and it’s showing.
Gee, you’d think that a Nazi Pope who actively hid child molesters from the law would be an awesome leader.
Just good ole Christian values at work.
But I thought the Pope was infallible?
Not as such, only in the realm of certain pronouncements of the faith, and I think he has to announce that not obeying places one outside the Church. be as it may, the Pope is not considered perfect.
My point is that this particular diocese and teaching, that the Church may end its social work because of the laws of the region is anathema to the teaching of Christ. The work of attending to the least of men is incidental to whether the region obeys Rome, it is a commandment of Christ to do so. Even if the person who they tend to is gay himself, they have that duty to act, if asked for help. To do otherwise is disobedience, and even Papal infallibility has to recognize this.
I was joking. Realize that I have a quite reasonable understanding and a very deep-seated distrust of organized religion, particularly Christianity. Though I think all religion is pretty much hogwash.
Except for Pastafarianism. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and may you all be touched by His noodly appendage.
Ah.
Ne’ertheless, within the context of a responsible Catholic diocese, this should not be considered. Even as a secular matter, it would represent a threat to their own tax exempt status. If they are unwilling to obey the law of the district, even on their ethical standards, they must be willing to accept the penalties of that action. I don’t expect they will, and I’ll be bet you a thousand bucks and a pillar of salt that Bill Donohue will start farting quite loudly should such a thing come to pass.
A church refusing to help the poor and homeless unless they get their way….I’m not surprise.
Today churches are nothing more than another political arena where people at the lowest denominator get yanked around for fun.
This is disgusting and sad.
Catholics in America; at some point you’ll have to decide if staying with a church who will cease helping someone because the city won’t allow them to deny employment of an entire class of people, if staying with a church like that is really worth your while. Because, at the rate the Catholic Church is going down, they’re approaching the approval level of complete monsters like Halliburton/KBR/the KKK/LA Clippers/Aryan Brotherhood/MS13/John Birch Society.
Zython, are you saying that discriminating against gays is unconstitutional? And that discriminating against Catholics, Italians and southern Americans is OK ?
That’s very interesting.
A church refusing to help the poor and homeless unless they get their way
Wow! That is some spin! I thought they were saying, “If you try to force us to violate our own dogma, we will be forced to stop operating.”
Oh, well. I say poh – tay – toe , and you’re an anti-Catholic bigot, as are most liberals.
I’m not spinning nothing that is how it is.
Also wouldn’t they be violating their dogma by not helping the needy?
Wow. Frank, really, you are an idiot.
Seriously….
I mean, really. You are a HUGE idiot. I can’t get over how stupid that was.
Southerns, Italians etc …have nothing to do with this argument. These people are not even mentioned in the article. They were only mentioned because you are throwing around straw men. The Catholic Church, the one whose prophet says we are to feed the hungry and love our neighbor as ourselves, is refusing to do what Christ ordered if they don’t get there way politically. Even after Christ said to give to Cesar what is Cesar’s.
No one is asking Catholics to like the law. They are not even saying The Church has to marry them. or even recognize their marriage. This really had nothing to do with The Church until they opened their mouths. If Atheists can get married around The Church by having a civil ceramony, without God, there is no reasons any gay man or lesbian can’t have the same….
…other than the fact that the Catholic Church is run by a bunch of out of touch, defunct neanderthals.
So, the Catholic Diocese of Washington says we would rather deny aid to thousands than employ ONE gay person.
How is that not bigoted again?
When was the last time someone was denied a job in America because they were Catholic, Italian or South American?
What the Hell are you talking about?
Zython, are you saying that discriminating against gays is unconstitutional?
14th Amendment.
And that discriminating against Catholics, Italians and southern Americans is OK ?
Criticizing someone’s beliefs and/or saying they can’t discriminate is not discrimination. I’d say “Nice try”, but that was pretty damn pathetic.
Frank, are you honestly trying to tell us that it’s dogma that the Catholic Church not hire a lay person, who happens to be gay, in one of its charitable operations? We’re not talking marriage or communion, here. We’re talking about hiring a secretary or cook to work for a social service program. Does the Church screen other sinners with as much vigor? Does it refuse to hire people who’ve gone through a divorce, or had an affair? (both cases of adultery in the eyes of the Church, I believe.)
Is it really more important to the mission of the Church not to have to hire a person – in a non-Church position, mind you – who happens to be homosexual, than it is to feed and clothe the poor?
The Archdiocese of DC will still donate money and resources to feed and cloth the poor, SQ. It’s false to portray them that way. Because they may cut their contracts with the city does not mean they won’t continue what they’ve always done.
It’s absurd for you to state that the Archdiocese will be discontinuing feeding and clothing the poor because it chooses to protect the principles of its beliefs.
If they will “continue what they’ve always done” (and I presume you’re not talking about such things as oppression, protecting rapist, and other such activities which they’ve always done but rather you’re referring to helping feed, clothe and assist the poor) then why don’t they just do continue to do it?
Why proclaim “it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District”?
How is “We’re going to stop doing something” interpreted by you as “they’ll continue to do what they’ve done”?
Fortunately, after this church discredits itself to such a point, volunteers and donations will go to other charities, and eventually services will be restored, under a more rational management.
It’s really too bad that it will take some time though.
In my very first comment, I asked if it was “within the Church’s dogma” “to obey the anti-discrimination laws of the District?
No one answered the question, because the assumption was that anything that forbade discrimination against gays, couldn’t possibly conflict with Catholic dogma.
However, because you know little or nothing about Catholic dogma (treating Jesus’ teaching to feed the hungry like a Papal Encyclical, and interpreting “render unto Caesar” to mean obeying any law passed by anyone); and nothing about the District anti-discrimination law (what does it actually require? What might have drawn an objection from the Church?), you find yourself hurling invectives at me, the Church, and the Pope.
P.S. You who are manning the death watch over the Catholic Church: Its membership is increasing.
“In my very first comment, I asked if it was “within the Church’s dogma” “to obey the anti-discrimination laws of the District?”
Well yes, and also in that comment, in a response to a comment on the church’s shuffling of rapists from parish to parish, that “it should be none of the District’s business what any Church does.” I daresay, contrary to your obvious wisdom, the courts at the very least might be compelled to take a sleight interest.
“No one answered the question, because the assumption was that anything that forbade discrimination against gays, couldn’t possibly conflict with Catholic dogma.”
No, Frank, nobody answered the question initially because you went into your “it should be none of the District’s business” thing about the rapist-priests. Also, there are Catholics who are, in fact, upset with the church’s behavior in this, so if hatin’ on the homos is within their dogma, you may wish to notify them directly, since they’re clearly not ‘real’ Catholics if they don’t despise queers, right?
Well, I mean the non-priest queers, of course, the other kind are wonderful, aren’t they?
So just to clarify, your contention is that the Catholic Church cannot, in accord with their dogma, employ homosexuals, and shouldn’t be forced to, because, being a religion, they should be above any and all laws they find inconvenient, yes?
“You who are manning the death watch over the Catholic Church: Its membership is increasing.”
Well yes, we already know all about their medieval opinion on birth control. But then the church’s complicity in the Aids epidemic in Africa is a completely separate issue, so I’m not sure why you’d bring it up.
In my very first comment, I asked if it was “within the Church’s dogma” “to obey the anti-discrimination laws of the District?
Yes.
Rex, how could you possibly know that the answer is “Yes”?
Zython , No. You are wrong. As I pointed out above , none of you have the knowledge of the Law or of the Church, to decide who is right or wrong. My opinion is, at least, contingent on the content of the DC Law, and how it fits or doesn’t fit with Catholic dogma.
You just keep submitting more and more evidence that you are anti-Catholic bigots.
none of you have the knowledge of the Law or of the Church, to decide who is right or wrong.
I am confident that no amount of knowledge of the Church has any bearing on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of behavior. Religion has nothing valid to say about morality that the absence of religion (i.e., secular humanism) does not also say. Plus, areligious humanistic philosophies tend to not discriminate for stupid reasons against gay people! Score!
Agh, stupid HTML tags.
Jesus Herman Christ, Frank, where the hell did I even say the answer was Yes?
What I said was that there are Catholics who, somehow, manage not to be anti-gay, and don’t feel they are violating Dogma, so if they were maybe you had better have a word with them, and that it seemed you were basically making the point that, IF the law went against their Dogma, that they should be exempt from having obeying it.
I neither know, nor care to, what is Dogma to the church, because I am not a Catholic. As a result, I can not, and have not, made a single damned concrete statement on what the Catholic Dogma states in the matter, much less a negative, “bigoted” one.
I love my catholic friends and my equally catholic mother, not least of all because they aren’t anti-gay, and moreso the more they recognize the seriousness of scope of the another-topic-entirely sexual abuse charges, as well as the insanity of their ‘condoms are somehow causing Aids to spread’ argument.
You’re free to tell me that I despise my closest friends and family all you damned well like, Frank, and to do so out of a pathetic need to satiate your bogus persecution complex as much as possible, but please, be aware though, that nobody, ever, at all, anywhere, at any time, believes a goddamned thing you have to say about shit.
So, Jesus’ middle name was Herman. I did not know that. I’m learning more about Christianity every day.
I think that there would be fewer Christians in the world if Jesus’ full name was common knowledge. Who’s going to believe what a guy named “Jesus Herman Christ” has to say?
Zython , No. You are wrong. As I pointed out above , none of you have the knowledge of the Law or of the Church, to decide who is right or wrong. My opinion is, at least, contingent on the content of the DC Law, and how it fits or doesn’t fit with Catholic dogma.
Translation: “Fuck the Bible, I have an agenda to follow!”
Zython , I would never be so crude as to say, “Fuck the Talmud” or “Fuck the Torah”, but Fuck you — that I can say.
For all the rest of you anti – Catholic bigots
Read this
It represents my position very well.
Nice link, there. It definitely does represent your position – and how it’s built on nothingness. Except for your own personal madness, perhaps.
Oh, and it’s not bigoted to say that Catholics shouldn’t discriminate against gay people. It’s bigoted for Catholics to discriminate against gay people. But I know you don’t see the difference.
Care to explain to me how I am an anti-Catholic bigot? I would like you to tell me, because I haven’t had it elucidated to me. If you can demonstrate that I am bigoted against Catholics, I will offer you a full apology for my repugnant behavior. But I have a hunch that you cannot.
Good luck.
Zython , I would never be so crude as to say, “Fuck the Talmud” or “Fuck the Torah”, but Fuck you — that I can say.
But “Fuck the Koran”? That’s a completely different story!
And I don’t think you quite get the “Translation:” part of my post.
Read this
Ok, ‘this’. Huh, seems a bit lacking in substance.
Seriously, though, you might want to try again, these comments break links all the time.
I’m anti child-rape and anti anti-sensible views about contraception.
So I guess I’m anti Catholic Church, yes.
I am not a religious person, but I’m also not an atheist(nothing wrong with that). I just find it really funny how people like to cling to some parts of their religious beliefs while totally being contradictory to the rest.
Religion is not the same as it used to be 30 years ago, 100 years ago, or when it was first originated.
Religion has change gradually as decades gone by as we(as a whole) start to understand ourselves and our surroundings more.
Religion is a business now. Everyone can make a religion out of anything and decades later we will still be fighting over what is the “true religion” if there is one.
First of all , let me clear one thing up . Zython, you are lost. I was suggesting that you, yes YOU, should not be saying “Fuck the Bible” under any circumstances , but it was rude and crude and disrespectful. I made that suggestion by saying that I would never such say such a thing about the Torah or the Talmud , the holy books of your religion. You “answer” by saying “But “Fuck the Koran”? That’s a completely different story!”
What? I mean what is that supposed to mean? Are you crazy?
And I don’t think you quite get the “Translation:” part of my post.
Actually, I did , before you even wrote it. when I said “Zython , No. You are wrong. As I pointed out above , none of you have the knowledge of the Law or of the Church, to decide who is right or wrong” That was in reference to a previous comment that contained the exact same verse that you cited , and I said back then it was being inappropriately applied.
Got it, now ?
Care to explain to me how I am an anti-Catholic bigot?
The reason why you have a “hunch I cannot” is because if I had a videotape of you nailing Jesus to the Cross, you would say it might not be a nail, it might not be a hammer, and I may have doctored the tape.
What the story explains very clearly is that there have been situations in the past where the District council made exemptions for religious institutions, but in this case they are digging in their heels. I suspected as much, because I know that as much as CJ is not totally correct when he says that all religions are all about money, it is nonetheless true all institutions require money, and Catholic Parishes, like all not for profits, are hurting for cash.
Of course this means that the Catholic Church is conscious about its image. I feel that because I am baptized Catholic that does not require me to pretend it never makes mistakes. However, the anti – Catholicism of people on the left has beem obvious to me since the 70’s. Yes, Obvious.
I was immediately suspicious of a headline that was worded as that one was. You did believe it, though, because most of you, believe terrible untruths about the Catholic Church and willingly repeat them (the Catholic Church approves of child – rape and “has no sensible views bout contraception”).
Such views come out of ignorance , and worse, you have a belief that the idea that such things might be lies is not even worthy of investigation). That is intolerance, willful ignorance, and negative stereotyping, and that spells B-I-G-O-T-R-Y.
The reason why you have a “hunch I cannot” is because if I had a videotape of you nailing Jesus to the Cross, you would say it might not be a nail, it might not be a hammer, and I may have doctored the tape.
Translation: I can’t back up my idiotic ramblings with facts, so I will just continue to cling to my unsupported beliefs and insist that YOU are the one who is somehow deficient.
Pathetic, Frank. Pathetic.
Can you please stop calling me a “he”? I do believe I’ve made it clear a long time ago that I am a she.
Also I am totally correct in saying that religion is a business now. Churches or religious institutions spend way to much money nowadays to get things their way, and I am not just talking about the Catholic Church.
I find it way too disturbing that religion institutions are trying to be in everyone’s affairs instead of letting the people come to them for their guidance.
If you want to believe in the Bible, Jews in the Talmud, Muslims in the Koran, Wingnuts in the Church of LimbaughPalinism, go right ahead.
It may be disrespectful of people to say ‘Fuck them all,’ but it’s no greater crime to curse religion than it is for religion to dupe and coerce people with centuries of falsehoods, bigotry and hatred of those only they have the power to deem as inferior or blasphemous.
This is not the 14th century, religion is no longer the supreme arbiter of morality, and has in fact all too often come to represent the very worst elements of the human condition.
Ask a victim of abuse at the hands of a Priest whether they have the right to say ‘Fuck the Bible,’ then see if you can muster the same outrage at their vitriol.
All right Frank, fair enough. How would you characterize the Catholic Church’s efforts to combat child abuse committed by its priests? That is to say, perhaps ‘approval’ is an exageration, but can you claim with a straight face they’ve done an adequate job?
Parthenon, I don’t know exactly what they have done or not done. I don’t if all the cases were rape or molestation or simply shoulder rubbing or butt patting. I simply do not know enough about the cases, the parishes, the dioceses, and the students / altar boys involved to make a real judgement . The usual answer to that is usually, “Oh, c’mon, Frank! You know were they doing!” No, I don’t know what they were doing.
These settlements and transfers are not necessarily signd of guilt. Or innocence . But I believe that there are ministers and rabbis molesting teens ; male and female non-clerical teachers molesting teens; and day care staff molesting pre teens .
Why pick on the Catholic Church?
so I will just continue to cling to my unsupported beliefs and insist that YOU are the one who is somehow deficient.
Of course , MY beliefs are unsupported. Your evidence is non-existent. “Despite what I have said , and the positions I have taken, I am not a bigot because I say so. Not because anything Frank said about me is incorrect, but because I deny it.”
As far as I am concerned , that makes you a bigot who denies he is a bigot.
“Why pick on the Catholic Church? ”
Because they will refuse to feed the poor and homeless unless they get their way. That’s good enough excuse for me to pick on them.
Of course , MY beliefs are unsupported. Your evidence is non-existent. “Despite what I have said , and the positions I have taken, I am not a bigot because I say so. Not because anything Frank said about me is incorrect, but because I deny it.”
As far as I am concerned , that makes you a bigot who denies he is a bigot.
Oh boo fucking hoo, Frank. Jesus tapdancing Christ. I asked you to quote me, and tell me how I am being an anti-Catholic bigot. I just wanted you to provide evidence that demonstrated my bigotry. And you reply with this garbage.
You are the one making an assertion about my bigotry. You are the one who is responsible for backing up your assertion. How am I supposed to defend myself from a charge that comes out of the ether?
For fuck’s sake.
What? I mean what is that supposed to mean? Are you crazy?
I assume it wouldn’t make any sense if you assumed everything you said is considered to be in a vacuum. Sadly, for you, this is not the case. We all know about your attitude towards the Muslim faith. It has been, shall we say, less than pleasant?
“Why pick on the Catholic Church?”
Because it raped children and then tried to hide the fact that it raped children.
I see no point in continuing this bizarre dialogue , where the only evidence of what occurred between the Council and the Church indicates that they have equally been obstinate . But somehow this means the Church is to blame.
And before that point was established, you all assumed that the Church was to blame . Rex and Mambo mock the name of Jesus Christ, Zython says “Fuck the Bible”, and then you want ME to prove you are anti-Catholic bigots ?
And let’s not forget the child – rape charge levelled by Doctor Demento, AKA Jaim.
But, no you’re not bigots … You have levelled the charge of bigot and racist against myself , and any number of Republicans , with far less evidence in the past.
And CJ I have not read your biography, and if you ever told me you were female , I have forgotten that.
Zython , you don’t know any such thing about my attitude towards Islam. You are making that up to cover up your blatant error , made while trying to cover your original error. I am going to check another comment elsewhere , and go to bed. Zython, I suggest you do the same. You’re doing worse than usual.
Are you saying Catholic priests didn’t fuck little boys then cover it up? Because even the Catholic church has admitted that this is the case and has paid out millions to shut up the victims.
Zython , you don’t know any such thing about my attitude towards Islam.
“You may not wish to believe we are at war with Islam, but you can bet your booties, they think that they are war with us.”
You were saying?
Rex and Mambo mock the name of Jesus Christ
How does this prove I am an anti-Catholic bigot? Do you know what the term “bigot” means? Just because I don’t adhere to your code of reverence for Jesus does not mean I am a bigot. I am under no obligation to be reverential towards the name of Jesus Christ, and my lack of “proper respect” does not make me a bigot.
Try again, Frank.
Good luck.
Rex and Mambo mock the name of Jesus Christ
Frank, you are exhaustingly stupid.
You suggest I make a direct declaration about Catholic Dogma. Asked where I made such a statement, you are silent.
You keep accusing me of hating my catholic friends and family. Asked what you base such a statement on, you are silent.
Now, you accuse me of mocking Jesus by name. At no time have I ever done so, nor do I have any reason to. I would ask you where I did, except we both know you’ll have nothing to say at all, since you’re busy making your next unsupported accusation, most likely about me collecting the blood of newborn kittens to fuel my perpetual joy-killing machine.
…and in fact, at this point, I just realized I made the Jesus Herman Christ comment earlier, and you believe thats me making fun of Christ himself and not the middle initial H given to him for whatever reason, and the idea of well after all what does the H stand for anyway. Also, how is “Herman” a “mocking” middle name, I mean if I were poking fun I’d have said “Hellraiser” or something, whats so funny about Herman, plus since all I did was assign a name to the H, for me to be mocking anything, that would mean you’d actually have to believe Jesus middle initial actually was H, and… oy, I’m bored of this, me and my fiance gotta go to bed while I try and get your imbecility out of my head.
To be fair, “Herman” is a pretty funny name. Heh.