Support NeoGAF

[JayDubya]

Uh, from where does the term "aggressive homicide" originate?

The English language, of course!

Alternatively: the combination of an adjective and a noun, both with specific criteria, all of which are met.

In any event, speculawyer's declared triumphant victory, taken the game ball, and gone home, so while this thread is tangentially about the topic of Catholic leaders wanting to kick defiant Catholics to the curb on the basis of an abortion dispute, there's a thread for abortion disputes themselves. Maybe I'll go bump it later. Other stuff to do first.

I'm not even Catholic, and GAF's Catholics seem to be the sort this fellow wants to kick out, so whatever.

 

[WedgeX]

I'm no expert, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night

Spoiler

was raised roman catholic

!

Everything I know about Jesus, the guy who appears to be the basis of this religion, leads me to believe he wasn't the type who would deny someone a religious ceremony because of who they voted for when they basically had three choices. Do on to others as you would have them do on to you and all that jazz


Wait... I swore this was a communion thread a few pages ago...

At one point, yes.

 

[TheFightingFish]

I don't see the point because you aren't arguing from the same principle. You (presumably) have an absolute believe that life with rights begins at conception. I do not. I am not interested in convincing you ohterwise and I am not interested in being convinced otherwise. It's a waste of time, don't you think? I've given a bit of nuance to my argument and I guess you'd like to discuss that, but I don't really have any interest in debating it. You haven't earned that, by your rather haughty opening response to me.

For the record, if you care:

I would argue that life begins at birth, but it's clear that there is a conscious being before that-- and consciousness cannot be accurately and exactly determined by current science. Therefore, we are left with either taking absolutes, or picking some reasonably safe guess. I understand the third-trimester reasoning, but that's based on viability, not consciousness. I'm willing to give a benefit-of-the-doubt going back to the middle of the pregnancy based on the article you linked, but that same article describes only primitive brain functions through 17 weeks.

Arguing for embryo rights is just stupid to me. It's conveniently black and white but has so little bearing in non-faith-based reality that it seems more like a thought exercise than real life.

My honest apologies to you if I came off as too haughty, it's a heated issue and I honestly don't want to act like a jerk about it. I was honestly interested in your reasoning for your beliefs (which the second part of your above port explained pretty well) and believed that someone who jumped into a debate on abortion would be interested in a little back and forth debate.

I think that I'm getting a little too heated on this and since it's not really the original topic of the thread I should probably bow out.

 

[dark steve]

Alternatively: the combination of an adjective and a noun, both with specific criteria, all of which are met.

Well, "aggressive" has several definitions, and while I'm not denying that one of them may fit, I'd still like to know which one it is.

 

[JayDubya]

Well, "aggressive" has several definitions, and while I'm not denying that one of them may fit, I'd still like to know which one it is.

Fine. Characterized by the initiation of force.

 

[dark steve]

Fair enough. Thank you.

 

[Verano]

JayDub and his technicalities..ugh...

can you not go into threads without being defensive about the controversial topic of abortion?

 

[Jonm1010]

Alright im hearing this argument, and it may have some merit to it.

In 1954 LBG helped pass legislation that stated directly that churches should not be allowed to directly attribute funds to a campaign or openly support a candidate.

Churches currently operate under the guidelines of a 501(c)(3) and for all intents and purposes are classified as a non-profit entity the same as the ACLU.

If we believe that churches should not be allowed to actively take a stance on political issues and denounce or revoke their tax exemption, churches seem like they also have an argument that 501(c)(3)s like the ACLU should also lose there status.

 

[Evlar]

You keep arguing biology yet ignore the fundamental question is NOT whether a zygote is alive or not, but rather should we care about what happens to it? That is NOT a scientific question and your repeated abuse of science to address issues outside its scope in every abortion thread is shameful.

This is a category error so obvious and egregious it doesn't seem plausible he holds it as his opinion, pushing forward the idea that his abortion stance is a fabrication. It's the quality of argument I expect from Young Earth Creationists or somesuch- an inability or unwillingness to separate the kind of statements science can make from the kind it can't. I spent enough time among them and arguing against them to develop a sensitivity to fallacies like this.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

My honest apologies to you if I came off as too haughty, it's a heated issue and I honestly don't want to act like a jerk about it. I was honestly interested in your reasoning for your beliefs (which the second part of your above port explained pretty well) and believed that someone who jumped into a debate on abortion would be interested in a little back and forth debate.

I think that I'm getting a little too heated on this and since it's not really the original topic of the thread I should probably bow out.

It's all cool, really.

One of the reasons I don't generally engage in debate on the topic is that it's inherently doomed, precisely because of those differing basic principles. Take speculawyer and JayDub for instance-- neither is arguing their basic tenent, both are trying to chip away at the other's based on the ramifications. They know at the heart of things they disagree and there's no way to "prove" either side.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Alright im hearing this argument, and it may have some merit to it.

In 1954 LBG helped pass legislation that stated directly that churches should not be allowed to directly attribute funds to a campaign or openly support a candidate.

Churches currently operate under the guidelines of a 501(c)(3) and for all intents and purposes are classified as a non-profit entity the same as the ACLU.

If we believe that churches should not be allowed to actively take a stance on political issues and denounce or revoke their tax exemption, churches seem like they also have an argument that 501(c)(3)s like the ACLU should also lose there status.

ACLU doesn't do the above, does it?

 

[Jonm1010]

ACLU doesn't do the above, does it?

Not sure. I do know that they do take sides on issues and fight for their definition of individual rights often times coming down in support or opposition to political legislation and issues and use money to fight through the courts, but im not sure that is the same thing.

they also inevitably use their own funds to come down on one side or the other on an issue, it could be seen as indirectly getting involved in politics. which is kinda what the OP is arguing about against the church.

I dont know, I support the ACLU and laud religion bringing themselves into politics, but I'm stumped on this argument.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Not sure. I do know that they do take sides on issues and fight for their definition of individual rights often times coming down in support or opposition to political legislation and issues and use money to fight through the courts, but im not sure that is the same thing.

they also inevitably use their own funds to come down on one side or the other on an issue, it could be seen as indirectly getting involved in politics. which is kinda what the OP is arguing about against the church.

I dont know, I support the ACLU and laud religion bringing themselves into politics, but I'm stumped on this argument.

Well, I don't agree with the OP about the tax status, if only because this is post-election. But if the church said you had to vote for a certain candidate or not get communion, then'd I'd agree.

Still, I don't see the ACLU advocating individuals which is what you cited.

 

[polyh3dron]

Here we go again. GAF will undoubtedly take one priest as representing the whole religion. This is completely against what Christianity stands for. He's wrong in denying communion for Obama supporters.

Hell, I'm Catholic, and am an Obama supporter. While I don't agree with some of his views (yeah I'm pro-life...but I don't think it should be enforced by law, because there are circumstances where pro-life is not an ethical option), I agreed with him moreso than McCain. Way too many Christians are taking a stance against Obama on a single issue. However, look at the good side, he's much more of a pacifist than McCain. His views on healthcare are far more ethical as well. To me, although he wasn't perfect, he was the better choice.

Well, this ONE priest's ONE church needs to pay its taxes, because this priest, representing this church decided to inject itself into politics. Them's the rules.

Same with the Mormons for putting all that money into Prop 8.

 

[i heart sluts]

it's like these people WANT the country to go to utter shit.

There's more at stake today than gays and abortion.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Fun fact: Greenville still has de facto black and white catholic churches. I bet you can't guess which one this guy is from.

He wrote a 'you got me all wrong' letter on the church website in which he basically said the same thing except it's the INTENT to vote for abortion that makes you go to hell :lol :lol :lol

Apparently the website has been slashdotted

Here's a letter I wrote to the editor of The State (South Carolina State Newspaper)

On Sunday the Rev. Jay Scott Newman of Greenville, SC set a dangerous example for the Catholic Church and religious groups in general when he told parishioners they should not receive communion and that their souls are in a state of mortal sin if they voted for Barack Obama.

Father Newman wrote in a letter to his parishioners,

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

Since the election social conservatives, long silent since 2000, have been coming out of the woodwork to share their distaste for our new President-elect. Few, however, have been willing to condemn their own faithful for exercising their constitutional right.

Father Newman crossed that clearly defined line on Sunday. Though he may not have much to worry about in his own parish (Greenville County voted for McCain by a margin of +24%) his words sent an unfortunate message to the 54% of Catholics across the country who voted for Obama. The message said that should apologize to God for their vote and if they do take communion, as all Catholics must, they will be condemned to hell.

Father Newman's views place Catholics in a no-win situation. If we vote for Obama, we risk our mortal soul because of his support of abortion. If we vote for McCain, we choose to support the war in Iraq and the death penalty as well as his rather murky stance on abortion in 2000. All issues that make it hard to see McCain as this "plausible pro-life alternative" Father Newman so subtly refers to.

Must Catholics refrain from voting for their preferred candidate "lest they eat and drink their own condemnation"? I think not. I go to Mass every Sunday for worship, not for this political diatribe I could just as easily view on any cable news channel. The Catholic Diocese of Charleston must publicly reject Rev. Jay Scott Newman's involvement of politics in the souls of his parishioners or risk further alienating an already estranged community of Catholics across our state and country.