Is it OK for a Catholic to vote for Kerry?


YOUR ROLE AS A CATHOLIC VOTER
=================================
http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp
=================================

Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. "Service of the common good require[s] citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community" (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box.

But voting cannot be arbitrary. "A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" (CPL 4). A citizen's vote most often means voting for a candidate who will be the one directly voting on laws or programs. But being one step removed from law-making doesn't let citizens off the hook, since morality requires that we avoid doing evil to the greatest extent possible, even indirectly.

Some things always are wrong, and no one may deliberately vote in favor of them. Legislators, who have a direct vote, may not support these evils in legislation or programs. Citizens support these evils indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, to the greatest extent possible, Catholics must avoid voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically evil. When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies, citizens must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done.


THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES


These five current issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. Intrinsically evil actions are those which fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be deliberately performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues.

1. Abortion

The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.

2. Euthanasia

Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.

In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).

Recent scientific advances show that often medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans.

4. Human Cloning

"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission,' cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6).

Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.

5. Homosexual "Marriage"

True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).


WHICH POLITICAL OFFICES SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT?


Laws are passed by the legislature, enforced by the executive branch, and interpreted by the judiciary. This means you should scrutinize any candidate for the legislature, anyone running for an executive office, and anyone nominated for the bench. This is true not only at the national level but also at the state and local levels.

True, the lesser the office, the less likely the office holder will take up certain issues. Your city council, for example, perhaps never will take up the issue of human cloning but may take up issues connected with abortion clinics. It is important that you evaluate candidates in light of each non-negotiable moral issue that will come before them in the offices they are seeking.

Few people achieve high office without first holding a lower office. Some people become congressional representatives, senators, or presidents without having been elected to a lesser office. But most representatives, senators, and presidents started their political careers at the local level. The same is true for state lawmakers. Most of them began on city councils and school boards and worked their way up the political ladder.

Tomorrow's candidates for higher offices will come mainly from today's candidates for lower offices. It is therefore prudent to apply comparable standards to local candidates. One should seek to elect to lower offices candidates who support Christian morality so that they will have a greater ability to be elected to higher offices where their moral stances may come directly into play.


HOW TO DETERMINE A CANDIDATE'S POSITION


1. The higher the office, the easier this will be. Congressional representatives and senators, for example, repeatedly have seen these issues come before them and so have taken positions on them. Often the same can be said at the state level. In either case, learning a candidate's position can be as easy as reading newspaper or magazine articles, looking up his views on the Internet, or studying one of the many printed candidate surveys that are distributed at election time.

2. It often is more difficult to learn the views of candidates for local offices because few of them have an opportunity to consider legislation on such things as abortion, cloning, and the sanctity of marriage. But these candidates, being local, often can be contacted directly or have local campaign offices that will explain their positions.

3. If you cannot determine a candidate's views by other means, do not hesitate to write directly to the candidate, asking for his position on the issues covered above.


HOW NOT TO VOTE


1. Do not just vote based on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family's voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are often not reliable. You need to look at the stands each candidate takes. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party.

2. Do not cast your vote based on candidates' appearance, personality, or "media savvy." Some attractive, engaging, and "sound-bite-capable" candidates endorse intrinsic evils, while other candidates, who may be plain-looking, uninspiring, and ill at ease in front of cameras, endorse legislation in accord with basic Christian principles.

3. Do not vote for candidates simply because they declare themselves to be Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic moral teaching.

4. Do not choose among candidates based on "What's in it for me?" Make your decision based on which candidates seem most likely to promote the common good, even if you will not benefit directly or immediately from the legislation they propose.

5. Do not vote for candidates who are right on lesser issues but who will vote wrongly on key moral issues. One candidate may have a record of voting in line with Catholic values except, say, for euthanasia. Such a voting record is a clear signal that the candidate should not be chosen by a Catholic voter, unless the other candidates have voting records even less in accord with these moral norms.


HOW TO VOTE


1. For each office, first determine how each candidate stands on each of the issues that will come before him and involve non-negotiable principles.

2. Rank the candidates according to how well their positions align with these non-negotiable moral principles.

3. Give preference to candidates who do not propose positions that contradict these principles.

4. Where ever candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other, lesser issues.

5. Remember that your vote today may affect the offices a candidate later achieves

Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:04:08 -0000
Subject:FREEDOM FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE


FREEDOM FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

No nation with George W. Bush as President will ever be free because
he has marginalized our civil rights, induced the Supreme Court to
subvert the electoral process, bankrupted our Treasury and shackled
us with unemployment, debt, inflation - and likely all three, plus
pollution with the potential to unleash a cancer wave in 20-40 years
that affects most American lives. There can be no freedom when a
tyrant who will not discuss or compromise any issue is in the White
House. To lead is one thing, to be decisive another, and to be an
unyielding pig-headed tyrant is quite another.

Of more worth is one humble honest beggar to society and in the sight
of God than the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Tyranny in the person of the President has led to a war America did
not need, nor want, but was forced to fight because he failed to
defend our borders from terrorist plots that occured on his watch and
he pushed for immediate war without delay. Forgiving though they are,
even the American People do not reward such incompetence and
opportunism with another roll at monarchial tyranny.

In regards to his care and concern in the deployment of our brave and
selfless young men and women overseas, and his disdain for those from
different mainstream American political persuasions, perhaps the
words of Revolutionary War Patriot Thomas Paine say it best: "Even
brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their own
families."

The Birthday of Freedom is at hand, when the President is dealt the
hand he earned in 2000 and earns again in 2004 due to his laborious
acts of deception: rejection by the American People at the Ballot Box.

The spirit of Democracy is alive and well in the hearts, minds, and
hopes of America. Let Freedom ring throughout the land in a new era
of a Democratic Republic where the voices of all Americans are heard
and heeded in national decisions that affect us all. Let Election Day
be Independence Day from tyrants posing as presidents, from Cromwells
fomenting a storm of totalitarianism against the free will of the
American People. John Kerry may not be perfect, but he listens to all
sides, he reasons with a good mind and stout heart, and he
compromises when necessary or wise - all of which is a far better
choice for a nation that yearns to be free from the iron fist that
governs as self-righteous royalty

I would think that the question would be how can a catholic vote for Bouche, when he has sent so many american men and women to their deaths, with no plan in sight to end this disaster and without any remorse..........................Fishy.

Well I guess that shoots ol Kerry in the foot.

Like all religions you have to make a choice. Since he is so religous by his owns words I suppose he will conceed the race? Naw he will squirm and worm his way around it like he has done with everything in his life.

Kinda blows it for ol' Bushy, too. The Pope told him invading Iraq was not the right thing to do, but he did it anyway.

Guess the Catholics have no choice but Nader, Krusty.

Knock ,Knock there Harley anything in that skull? Bush is not Catholic. The pope only counts if you are a catlicker then he is the closest thing to god. Plenty of issues around thast notion as well. If Kerry was Muslim they would cut off his head for betraying Allah.

The answer to the question in one word is no...

The long answer would be yes IF he sought advise and an endorsement from one of the many Catholic poobas who is homosexual or a child molestor...

Perhaps the Catholics welcome the slaughter of innocent men, women and children if they can't "convert" them to Catholicism? Protect unborn babies but go kill a muslim child?

Spreading war and hatred around the globe is NOT something Jesus Christ would have

NO! Look at the history and see how many were killed that refused to convert to the Muslim religion. KILLED,not allowed to move to other areas, murdered- if they did not accept the religion.

At least I know my Catholic religion will not make me turn and tell me to kill anyone else because they do not comply to my beliefs, and I am also allowed my personal justice with my LORD.


Think about this when Muslims say they must kill you. How dare you say the Cathoilics are worse people. They are judgemental, biased, possibly self serving, but at least our leader tries to promote peace. He has even traveled to the war zone to try to promote peace. wHere is the Muslim leader denouncing the autrocities!!!

Bill Press, political analyst for MSNBC and a Catholic, had a column in yesterdays KingCoJournal, on this subject. He concluded the column by saying, "As a Catholic, I will never let any politician tell me how to worship. As an American, I will never let any priest tell me how to vote." Right words, right place, right time...

You don't know much about Christian/Catholic religion in history, do you? For the most part, before the Reformation, all Christians were Catholics.

Ever heard of 'the inquisition' and how they treated 'heretics'? The Spanish inquisition was the most famous and longest, but there were plenty in other countries too. A heretic was anyone who wasn't a Christian, or was *accused* of not being a Christian. This included 'witches'. Note that the burden of proof was a lot less in those days. Someone could be accused with no proof whatsoever other than 'the victim' behaving strangely, and without even knowing their accuser (this is the reason why the justice system now states that the accuser must face the accused). There was a financial motivation for the process too. If the person confessed to being a heretic, then when they died (and being put to death was almost always the punishment for heresy), then the Church and the government would split their belongings, not the person's rightful heirs. After they were accused, the inquisitors would beat and torture them to make them 'confess' and give the names of others so the cycle would repeat itself. There wasn't a lot of choice. The accused was either tortured until they died (but the Church and government didn't get squat), or they confessed. Confessing didn't bring much relief, either. With enough torture, people will confess to anything, true or not, to make it stop. After the confession (if the person wasn't killed during the torture), they were then killed through various painful methods. Burning at the stake was the most popular, though hanging, drowning, being drawn and quartered, and pressing them to death with weights on the chest were also used. While there are no exact numbers, it's estimated that more than 500,000 people were killed in this manner in Europe alone, either through being accused of being heretics, or witches, or werewolves, or other supernatural beings.

So the Christians can hardly claim historical moral superiority over the Muslims.

Nothing to do with superiority in the context of who kills who for what reason. The problem is that the whole world and its religions has progressed in the last 1000 years...The Muslims have not...Their current religion calls on all of them to kill the infidels...the crusaders...those who won't convert to Islam. That is a truly dangerous religion practiced by dangerous people. I don't think a Muslim could vote for either candidate because their religion tells them to kill both of them....beheading is the most effective way too.

I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time worrying about Catholics but I would spend alot of time worrying about Muslims.

Talking about what Christains, muslims did 100's of years ago has what bearing on todays events? Lets compre religions in 2004. if a Christian or Jew beheaded a few Muslims on the NBC nightly news what would be the worlds reaction let alone the reaction of fellow Jews or Christians. Did we see that same reaction from the Muslim world in the past year? How about the rest of the world? Belonging to any group or religion or not requires certain rules being followed as a requirement. The Catholic church has certain requirements good or bad it matters not they are requirements none the less. You do not get to pick and choose. This is a bisic issue with people. They want to say they belong but choose which rules they want to follow.

dead is dead

gruesomely dead is just as dead as lethal injection dead, one just leaves a much more photogenic corpse.

any other difference is purely semantic.

now as for the question....

...of course you can. In fact alot of catholics I know consider questioning the churches policies the duty of a good catholic because, if you take a good look at history the church has been wrong about this type of thing over and over again.

Can methodists still hate gays and be in good standing with THEIR church? Didn't they just vote to allow gay pastors within their ranks?

Another ridiculous question which will have absolutely no bearing on this election....

...but good luck trying!

Can Catholics vote for Kerry with a clear conscience? That's a question of concern to Catholics and their religious leaders but of small consequence to the rest of us.

However, I did see an article in the NY Times that said certain dioceses (diocesi?) would require confession of anyone who sinned (the article's wording) by voting for a proponent of abortion.

That's over the top, in my opinion. Granted Kerry may not be a very good Catholic (divorced, a liar, pro-abortion), the church shouldn't try to influence voting by making the choice a sin. It brings back fuzzy memories of JFK's election (the real one, not the wannabe) where folks were sure the Catholic church was pushing its members to elect Kennedy.

My $.02,

Keith

"dead is dead"

Yeah, right. Some brave talk there.

If you were kidnapped by terrorists and they gave you a choice:

1) Shot in the head and killed instantly, or

2) Put in front of a camera, have a bunch of mulslim extremists screaming and shouting around you for several minutes explaining why they are going to kill you while you sit defenseless and begging for you life. Then they grab your hair and start sawing your neck from the back to the front. You scream like an animal with each cut until your throat fills with blood and you just gurgle as you finally die. Watch the Nick Berg video if you don't think this is what happens...

Dead is dead... right....

first of all, do you really think terrorists would be asking questions like 'how would you like to die?'

ummmmm...no.

strapped to the electric chair or beheaded on camera your fate is still the same, the difference is in YOUR perception of the death....the perception of those that are still alive is all there is. To the dead guy, it really doesn't matter a whole lot now does it?

I believe in God... I also know that the people who wrote the Bible knew for a fact that the earth was flat.. as a board... with an edge you could fall off of... Yea, I want to base everything I believe off that type of data...

LOL. Nice dodge there H20.

B-Run: what a cop-out. There are a few OT verses that have references to the 'ends of the earth' and such, but to claim that all the men involved in helping write the God inspired Bible believed the earth was flat just shows you a lack of understanding on the subject.

In fact, some of these same verses can be interpreted as describing the earth as a sphere - just depends on how \ who chooses to interpret a word or 2 from the original texts.

I guess my Point is.... the persons who wrote that understood little. I guess the story of Jonah really happened ( guy gets ate by whale and it swims around with him in its stomach for 3 days and spits him out ) .. or Maybe Sol's wife really did turn into a pillar of salt ??? The list goes on forever.. I view it as a book of storys written as examples rather than actual fact.... Its people who think that its word for word fact, and base their lives off it that sort of worry me. Thats a cop out in my book.

I guess allegory is a term with a meaning you do not understand. How much of the bible have you read and how much bible study have you done to base your conclusions on. I bet you know more about what sitcoms are on TV this week than you really honestly know about the bible. I suppose the fact that most of science is theory is lost on you as well making most of what we see not valid?

You can bet on one thing King... you know nothing about me. Yet you make this huge assumption... well, after all " You are the King".. How can anyone argue with that ??? Thats O.K, its fun reading your narrow view of the world. Bible expert, gun expert, consitutionalist.... Is there anything you don't know ???

...which is exactly why you should question the church at every opportunity.

..and pp...

i dodged nothing. I both answered your question AND pointed out how idiotic it is.

Should we do an in depth examination of what science has taught us that is correct and what the church has taught us that is correct? Such a comparison could be pretty embarassing for the church.

I studied the bible quite intensely for about fifteen years. I find it hilarious that on the one hand we are supposed to interpret the bible literally , the 'the bible says so' stance as it were. On the other hand we are supposed to interpret the bible liberally, the 'jonah was an allegory' stance.

Perhaps they shoud print the parts that should be interpreted literally in green and the allegorical parts in red just so the average bible reader knows what they are supposed to believe when......

My favorite thing about having this conversation with 'true believers' is that if you question those interpretations, whichever they are, they invariably come back with 'you just don't understand the bible.' No matter how sound your logic, no matter how sound your line of reasoning. No matter how utterly hypocritical you make them look. No matter how grounded in biblical knowledge, much like the conversation where I pointed that the bible says 'kill homos' and all the religious whackos dodged the subject so as not to appear as extreme as they really are.

Clinging too tightly to religious beliefs without question is a sign of weakness. Not questioning authority is a sign of weakness. Not standing up for what you believe is right is a sign of weakness.

The church is as full of weak minded hypocrites as secular society....IMO, even more so, that's what leads people to the church in the first place.

Again especially for you Rory and pp...

...the methodists recently voted to allow gay pastors within their ranks. Can dubya continue to be anti-gay and remain in good standing with HIS church?

I'll bet your brain is hurting over that one....let me answer for you....

Yes, for the very same reasons that Kerry can remain in good standing with his in spite of his differing beliefs.

Total non-issue and quite nearly the most ludicrous question rory has posted to date. Stay tuined though, I'm sure he'll outdo himself before too long..........

"...the methodists recently voted to allow gay pastors within their ranks. Can dubya continue to be anti-gay and remain in good standing with HIS church?"

Based on your view of churches it might make sense. It might pay to do a little study on the matter and see what biblical scholars have to say about various churches. Look up the word apostate for starters and it will take you to the seven churches and the letters written by Christ to the seven churches. All modern churches are born from the seven. If I wanted you to think poorly about something or someone would I give you the best references to check out or would I give you poor examples? With religon it is not hard to find bad examples like with most things in life. If you decide to base your entire opinion on bad examples on churches that have fallen away from the word of Christ have you put the best effort you can into making an informed decision?
I do not have a fondness of modern churches and the study of their doctrine is very important if one plans to join. Like anything in life you have to do your homework.


If one was to only taste fast food would their opinion on the cusine of the the world be valid? No but it's OK with religon for some reason. I think that reason is someone is looking for an easy out.

Unlike you elvis I don't need to look up most words over six letters long. Furthermore I know how to use those words in the right context.

...the easy way. Haha...you mean like "i hates me some gays cuz'n the bible tells me to'?

yeah, real critical thinking skills applied there.... :rolleyes:

No elvis, seeking faith outside the lines is the hard way. Its the difference between coloring in a coloring book and drawing from a blank page. Its those that accept what the church tells them to unflinchingly, without applying their own thought processes to those teachings, that are taking the easy way.

"My favorite thing about having this conversation with 'true believers' is that if you question those interpretations, whichever they are, they invariably come back with 'you just don't understand the bible.'..."

------------------------------------------------------------

For starters, why do yoy say Bush is anti-gay?
------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a methodist and I don't profess to be a spokesman for their denomination of Christianity---But I did find this statement on their (United Methodist Church) website:

------------------------------------------------------------

Those that are hostile towards God and the Christians who they suggest are foolish for believing in Him often quote the book of Leviticus in an effort to try and discredit their belief system.

The book of Leviticus is from the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the 'Old Law' and believers who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior are not bound by 'Old Law'. The New Testament is the guideline (Law) for Christians who are born again and are now 'new creatures in Christ'.
------------------------------------------------------------

That being said, according to the New Testament; All sexual relations outside of the Marriage of a man and a women are considered sin.

According to the new law it is just as sinful for a man to have heterosexual relations before/outside of marriage as it is for a man to engage in homosexual relations. They're both just as bad in God's eye--That's why you never hear me preaching 'fire and brimstone'.

My pastor says that we are to love the sinner and hate the sin.

I'm glad he feels that way because I've certainly sinned in my life.

We all sin, we all fall short of the glory of God.

It's by God's grace and the blood Christ shed at Calvery that the sins of Christians are washed away and forgiven.

People that have truley accepted that cleansing and the 'Peace that passes all understanding' that comes along with it want to share it with others---Regardless of how they sinned and have fallen short of the Glory of God.

I bet if you asked Bush how he felt about salvation for sinners (regardless of how they sinned) he'd tell you the same thing.

The Koran actually does mention beheading as the best way to kill the infidels because it will strike the most fear into the hearts of the rest of the non believers. Like I said, these people believe this and practice this TODAY...I know there are a handful of nuts out there who think God told them to kill abortion doctors and such but there are millions of Muslims who swear allegiance to Islam today.

H20,

You are such a simple child it is a shame that children have children. .

"No elvis, seeking faith outside the lines is the hard way." How can you say that if you have never tried the other way?
That is like saying that living according to the law is the easy way and being a criminal is hard. No waterbrain believing and living to a standard is much harder than taking the easy way out by making your own rules and own reality.

..the easy way. Haha...you mean like "i hates me some gays cuz'n the bible tells me to'?

Proof of you bias and ignorance. Show me one passage on phrase in the bible that says we should hate gays. As always you can never put your money where your mouth is. You take the worst sterotype of any religion and prop it up as proof that you are right to believe what you do. That makes you worse than even worse than the gay hating pusedo Christians. They do it because they are misguided or ignorant you do it purely from hate.

ok, not hate....KILL!

..and you truly are comprehension impared.

I've stated time and time again that I was raised christian and remained so until well past my teen years....

...to say that I haven't tried the 'other way' is asinine and ign'nt. I put down my coloring book and picked up a blank page.

...but those ARE the sorts of comments we've come to know and love from you elvis.

....ahhhhh, the bliss.

Ahhh yes the angry child a rebel against all the wrongs done by the parents. Great place to be at your age. I will asuume you are referenceing this passage

"LEV 20:13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."

Someone raised as a Christian should know that "Death" in this context means spiritual death not literal death. Because we know that there are 4 rules of interpretation we cannot take this passage literally. There are a multitude of passages that show 4 things that conflict with a literal translation

1. God loves all people. 2. God hates all sin equally. 3. Homosexuality is a choice, a sin we have chosen to commit. 4. In order to be saved, one must turn from this and from all sin.

So I would imagine Christ would embrace a gay person no differently than someone that has say ,lied.


But then again it goes on the deaf ears of hate and a history of mommy done me wrong.

Aunty M- TK does that on every subject he rambles about... which is every subject there is.

Awe come on Steely just because I mash your potato head on every issue

I have spent alot of time in Idaho Elk and deer hunting
since the 70's and know a few ranchers in state. No native Idahonian I know shares your views. You must be a import.

TK, there are also things like avarice and vanity somewhere in that text of yours. Why is it all right for you to continue to point fingers at others, when you leave out the interpretations that would chide you for the things that you do? If I am not mistaken then there is also a passage about turning the other cheek also,when do we get to see this side of you?

SSF,

You can take any text in the bible out of context and make it what you want. Which is what you have done. Thats not the intent of the book. The book should be treated as a whole and using rules of interpretation as proscribed by biblical scholars forces you to keep things in context . You might see it as pointing fingers because someone challenges your worldview in a discussion. On sin in general I suggest you research it for yourself. It will mean more if you answer that question yourself.

Damn it King I forgot that your an " what people in Idaho are like expert as well " I should have concidered that I guess.

Just to let you know, not like you don't already... Most people in Idaho are like ( Mormons) and they are quite sure that both you and I are going to hell... unless of course you happen to be a Mormon. ( in that case you are a god on earth and just waiting to go claim your own kingdom )

Kinda fits your personality.... or at a minimum sounds appealing to you ????

Chided by the mis-informed has never set well with me, You are the one that has taken these out of context, because ,everyone shall have the opportunity to define the bible as they shall. The real test is within yourself, each person defines who and what they are.To stand on the sidelines and profess to be the all and knowing, while telling everyone else how to live,think,have sex,vote or whatever does not exonerate you.
Pompousity and avarice are also sins, and let us remember the best one, "Let ye among us without sin, cast the first stone"
Perhaps you should do more reflecting than professing!..................Fishy.

Damn it King I forgot that your an " what people in Idaho are like expert as well " I should have concidered that I guess.

Just to let you know, not like you don't already... Most people in Idaho are like ( Mormons) and they are quite sure that both you and I are going to hell... unless of course you happen to be a Mormon. ( in that case you are a god on earth and just waiting to go claim your own kingdom )

Kinda fits your personality.... or at a minimum sounds appealing to you ????

SSf

"Chided by the mis-informed has never set well with me," Maybe not but being mis-informed seems to have set well with you.

"everyone shall have the opportunity to define the bible as they shall"

I am trying to decide if that is more ignorant than your rant about Bush stealing the election in Fla. ?

H20 - it sounds like your 'page' is still blank...


To many drugs, mushrooms, alcohol, crappy music - they all tend to produce 'blank pages'. But I really don't know if you do any or all of that, I'm just taking a shot in the dark...

But have no fear. As the 'great JFKerry' has fore-told: "Help is on the way!!"

B Run,

30 years ago there where almost no Mormons in Idaho it is a recent thing. Mormons now out number Jews in the world. Mormons are nice people just misinformed. I will take them over liberals ( Morons)however as they are a much better class of misinformed.

What..... Its a recent thing... Turn down your police scanner so you can hear what your saying

Sure Frankin was founded in 1860 by the Mormons. And you would see pockets of Mormons here and there as well as Hutterites and others. But the real migration and growth the Mormon church in Idaho has come since 1980.

So I guess all those Mormon churches ( wards) that have been there ever since I was born were empty... Your talking out your ass.. I guess the neibours on both sides of me growing up were not mormons.. I guess when I went to High school they did not have there own building right across the street just for mormons.. to go to mormon classes.. I guess my wifes parents and grand parents are not mormons.... I guess about half of my freinds are not mormon.. and have been all their lives I mean, after all, you are the King...

Where do you come up with your crap ?? I need to quit reading what you spew... If it wasn't so damn funny... It would be easy to stop.

It goes like this... but I am sure you know better-


Mormon pioneers, led by Charles C. Rich, founded Paris in southeast Idaho on Sept. 26, 1863. Franklin, settled by Mormons three years earlier 25 miles to the southwest, was Idaho's first community.

Hatzenbuehler argues that Idaho likely would have never achieved statehood without these Mormon settlements, which were followed by large-scale Mormon migrations in the 1870s and then the railroad.

He said such settlement would have eventually reached what is now Idaho. However, had it been delayed in the southeastern part of the state by 10 or 20 years, there would have been a much less compelling reason for statehood.

Instead, Hatzenbuehler said the territory would have been divided up among its neighbors instead of becoming the state of Idaho on July 3, 1890.

"It certainly could have happened that way, 49 states," he said.

It didn't happen, though, and today the Mormon church is the largest religious denomination in the state with 366,900 members. Idaho ranks third in the U.S. for total LDS membership per state population after Utah and California; but second to Utah as to proportion of state population who are LDS church members, said church spokesman Coke Newell. (The Catholic Church is the second largest religious denomination in Idaho with about 120,000 members.)

BRun

"Most people in Idaho are like ( Mormons)"

1.4 million people in Idaho and 370K are Mormon. Can you please tell me how that adds up to most people are Mormon. In 1980 14% of the state was Mormon( Idaho had 900k people) today 27% of the state is. So tell me again how it is not a recent thing? Whats that your mumbling try talking out the other end

Those 1980 numbers are right out of your ass... Like most things you say.. whats your source for that info... This should be good....

Fess up..... You are talking about something you know nothing about and can't back it up... Sucks to be you... I mean, you are the KING

Brun

Your entire statement is false , incorrect and an outright lie.
1980 numbers Its in the census data and the Mormon church archives look it up smart guy. If I am wrong I'll make a donation to a PP charity. How about you do the same genius?

How do I know these things? In HS and college I read everything I could find on mountain men. One in particular Jim Bridger. He had a very interesting history with the early mormons. That lead me to read all I could find about the Mormons. Once I visted salt lake and looked up my families geneology Mormon church archives are the number one source of that data. So tell me again what I do not know about the Mormons and I will just pull a book off the shelf here and answer your questions.

TAaTa now run and hide.

King.... blah blah blah blah blah.... If it comes out of your mouth that does not make it a fact. You say you have this data... Put it up here...

Your butts hanging out on this one

BRUN

"Most people in Idaho are like ( Mormons)"

1.4 million people in Idaho and 370K are Mormon

I bet it's not hanging any where near as far as your has been proven to be.

I'll put money on it and you just keep jawing.

Why bother.

You said it's so.........so it must be.

Show some pride loser... Post your data. I don't want your money thanks.. Its all stuff out of your head.... I talked to several Mormons about your " facts" today.. The 370,000 number is pretty significant, what with Catholics coming in at second with 120,000.... So are you and expert on Idaho Catholics also ??? Or do you already have enough foot in your mouth.

B Run,

This is the way it works. Someone posts a fact and you challenge it . It is then your responsibility to prove it wrong. It is not incumbent on the poster to prove himself correct when challenged. I put money on the fact that my data is correct. You need to put up or shut up. I proved your original satement completely false, off base and assinine. I do not take pride in that because a 3rd grader could of hit that ball out of the park. I could care less about the Catholics in Idaho quit changing the subject. Talk to all the Mormons you want,until you post a rebuttal it's all just fluff. Again a 3rd grader could have looked up the data by now.

Too funny... I think you have a red button on your chest about the size of a frisbie... Why push it when you can stand on it... Its O.K.. Your usually way off base anyway so your used to it... If blowhards were burgers you would be the whopper...

Still no facts from you BRun what a suprise!
then again in your world 27% is a majority. Those two brain cells must get lonely.

Welcome to CatholicsAgainstKerry.com,

http://catholicsagainstkerry.com/default.aspx

where we encourage you to vote catholic, not kerry... Thank you for visiting CAK! You are the visitor to learn the truth about Kerry!

.