“the Pope commanding HIS followers”? I don’t know about you but in my church the only person we follow is Christ.

calirighty on March 14, 2007 at 4:56 PM

I had a baptist minister who did this to me for a while too.

It’s ok. Blindly following is the first step.

See? I can judge you too. Now we’re equal.

It’s cool.

The Pope is not telling people how to vote or what laws to enact. He’s telling you how you should live you life and treat your fellow man, which is something every Pope has done throughout history.

As I told my priest, we do have many Catholic outlets for them in Mexico, there is no need for them to be rewarded(condoning their illegal actions) for placing themselves before(cutting in line) another one of God’s children…

Pam on March 14, 2007 at 8:04 PM

Common sense, Pam. Works for me. I’ll have to remember to use it on my own priest. ;) You can be just as Catholic in Mexico as in America.

So Lawrence, which part of my intro was insulting. The being a vet, raised catholic or no use for organized religion?

rayvet on March 14, 2007 at 11:43 AM

I quote you again:

As a veterinarian that was raised Catholic (I have no use for organized religion at this point in my life thank you), …

rayvet on March 14, 2007 at 8:20 AM

The fact that you have no use for organized religion has nothing to do with your position on this topic. This is nothing more than injecting into the conversation a subtle spit in the eye of those of us who do have use for it. Arguing that it isn’t a slight doesn’t make it so. Arguing that I’m not smart enough to know the difference is just being condescending on your part.

So, your pro-abortion argument really isn’t that “unborn children” would cause poverty or hardships for the unwed teen mother like you said here:

Wouldn’t there be less poverty if there were more abortions? . . . there are plenty of times when terminating a pregnancy should be encouraged, especially in the case of underage, unmarried girls. If a teenage girl has a baby out of wedlock, her chances of being poor for the rest of her life are dramatically increased, right?

And it’s not that these unwanted “unborn children” actually “damage” our society as you argued here:

What’s important is the damage to society wrought by the birth of unwanted children.

Or, that our society (and teenage girls) should not have to live with the consequences of a “bad decision” as you argued here:

This child is very likely to grow up to be a criminal and welfare recipient. Why should society bear the costs of the bad choices of teenage girls?

But rather, your argument is that “unborn children” have no rights because they are the “property” of their mothers:

I don’t believe unborn children have rights – they are the property of the mother.

And, if the Supreme Court decides that “unborn children” actually have constitutional rights once they make it through the second-trimester, then you would be against abortion for those “unborn children” who make it into the third tri-mester? I mean, because your REAL argument is all about whether inalienable rights apply or not, right?

On the contrary, I’m opposed to the death penalty. In my view, an incarcerated adult has certain inalienable rights in the U.S . . . I don’t believe unborn children have rights – they are the property of the mother. At birth, all the rights of U.S. citizenship commence. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I think “birth” is a good place to draw it.

You are aware, I assume, that the holding in Roe v. Wade was that after a fetus became “viable” the government had a compelling interest in protecting the life of that unborn child (that even an unborn child had “rights” at that point), right?

So, if in the next year the Supreme Court decides that advancements in medical science have made a fetus who makes it past the first tre-mester “viable” and that such unborn children have “rights”, then you would be all for outlawing abortion after the first tre-mester because that “line” would have been drawn there?

And, of course, you probably wouldn’t have had a problem with slavery, considering that slaves were deemed (by our courts!) to be the “property” of their owners and without any rights?

Maybe you should try another argument?

So, if I don’t follow everything the church says and believes, I’m not 100% Catholic? By that logic, my family (who’s been Catholic as far as documented history can go) should’ve hidden Nazis during WW2. That wasn’t the liberal American Church, that was the Vatican.

Ooh, or how about when the Vatican many years ago, sold bulls, forgiving the person for his/her sins?

Oh, and by the same logic, we should also be welcoming to illegals, as they are just people looking for a better life.

Amerpundit, et. al.:
If you are looking for answers to legitimate questions regarding Catholicism, by all means, ask away. There are plenty of intelligent people here to answer them. If, however, you have only insults and attempts at one-liner “gotcha!” questions, expect that others will find it uncivil, repulsive, petty, and thoughtless.

Clearly, the point to take from this news is that, as someone already mentioned, Papa Bene is asking “Catholic” politicians to put ‘em on the glass. It is not Rome or the Vatican trying to establish a global Caliphate.

So Pelosi can be publicly for abortion so long as she’s also privately for it? That can’t be what he means.

You’re right, Allah. In a way at least. These comments from the Pope are essentially a call back to the things Catholics believe in (I’m kind of with you on what he literally said. I think it’s kind of to-may-to to-mah-to because as far as I can tell, there is no functional difference). If Pelosi continues to introduce and support legislation that goes against Catholic beliefs but still claims to be Catholic, she should be recognized as unintelligent, unfaithful, or a liar and fraud.

Dude. You can’t really be serious (I’m afraid that you are.)

We’re to abort children likely to be impoverished to avoid that “burden” on society?

I don’t know where to start.

There’s the notion there that we could, by your utilitarian logic, simply do away with any member of society who doesn’t meet some arbitrary standard of benefit to the society.

There’s the incredibly reletivistic notion of what constitutes poverty.

How about the breathtaking notion that–and this is granting you the world by not addressing the horrific nature of abortion in the first place–the poor ought to be given their own voice in whether they get to exist or not?

Or the statistical waste of those who would have succeeded against the odds, who were sacrificed because their odds were low (again, I’m accepting the vile assertion that aborting them is acceptable.)

A modest proposal you make, indeed.

I’m sorry, but if you believe that, you’re hopeless. Only the most militant pro-choicers out there think abortions are socially responsible. Normal, everyday people look at them as tragic at best, and murder at worst. You can marginalize yourself out of this conversation by saying those things, but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Your social darwinist views of people who have abortions is fundamentally at odds with treating people with dignity. You may claim that an incarcerated adult has inalienable rights, but you seem to have no moral foundation for saying WHY they have those rights. If one were to take your other statements at face value, it’s easy to imagine you in favor of different rights for different types of people: elites having more rights than the poor, for instance. In no place in your condemning posts on the responsibility of abortion is there anywhere close to a gleam of mercy for those who have abortions, or for the dead child, or for the fact that Western Europe is aborting itself into cultural suicide right now (allowing Muslims with many children to take over). Your policies are suicidal.

This child is very likely to grow up to be a criminal and welfare recipient.

Only if the parent or parents do NOT instill some self-respect and good values into the child.

Wow, then I would assume you are in favor of the death penalty for all felonies?

On the contrary, I’m opposed to the death penalty. In my view, an incarcerated adult has certain inalienable rights in the U.S., and we can debate about just how those rights should be curtailed or expanded or what have you. For example, I also don’t think we should take away the right to vote from felons.

I don’t believe unborn children have rights – they are the property of the mother. At birth, all the rights of U.S. citizenship commence. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I think “birth” is a good place to draw it.

The Pope is not American, so he care’s nothing of our nations survival. I’m not German, so I could care less if Germany stays around.

That proves nothing.

But seriously. When I get into my catholic T Tank and overrun your house, and enslave your kids into my mass, I’ll stomach your train of thought. All you’ve done Ameripundit (Which is a misnomer in my opinion), is slander my faith and my pope, the Vicar of Christ. Am I going to suicide bomb you?? No. Am I going to beat you and lynch you? No. I’m not even going to call you a nasty name, though I really want to. I just want you to explain why the Pope commanding his followers to be followers or not follows justifys your slander.

The Pope hasn’t killed anyone. Please be responsible with your words, if nothing more than a favor to me.

If not, well, I disagree.

Fatal on March 14, 2007 at 12:58 PM

That’s what SuperMax prisons were made for.
Your logic is flawed, IMHO. Obviously there are varying degrees of crime. But isn’t someone who’s in prison for assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder bound under these definitions?
The long and short of it is we have the capacity as a society to keep the worst of the worst divided from the rest of the population. So according to the Catholic quote I read, execution is unnecessary.

It finaly answers that age old question….

Is the Pope Catholic?

/sarcams off

I meant to quote Romeo13 above and agree with him. This must have been still on my clipboard. Sheesh!! I hate computers!!

Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq’s capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we’ve had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam’s latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam’s actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations — Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman — warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq’s own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq’s cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM’s chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party’s other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM’s ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM’s effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM’s questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, “Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

“In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq’s prohibited weapons program.”

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam’s deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community — led by the United States — has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday — make no mistake — he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team — including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser — I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam’s capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler’s report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq’s a month’s head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion — resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq’s neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm’s way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we’re acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

These words were spoken by Bill Clinton, 12-16-98.

Finally, a voice of reason….

Thank you

The state, however, should encourage socially responsible behavior.

Self-control is the ultimate socially responsible behavior. Pushing abortion and birth control removes the need for self-control, responsibility, accountability and PROMOTES promiscuity.

Why should society bear the costs of the bad choices of teenage girls?

Wow, then I would assume you are in favor of the death penalty for all felonies? Or maybe all crimes? Or heck, why even require a crime, just a “bad choice” should be enough! I mean, after all, why should society have to bear the costs of people who make bad choices?

The hell with the child, her ability to continue to run wild and contribute absolutely nothing to society (except her own special little brand of chaos and misery) is what’s really important here.

What’s important is the damage to society wrought by the birth of unwanted children. This child is very likely to grow up to be a criminal and welfare recipient. Why should society bear the costs of the bad choices of teenage girls? We should be honest with ourselves that unwed pregnancies lead to poverty, especially in minority communities. Abortion is one solution to this problems. We should be grown ups and stop acting like the option shouldn’t be on the table.

As for the political angle – if you think that God will punish people for having an abortion, leave that to God. The state, however, should encourage socially responsible behavior. Abortions are socially responsible.

To really comply, it would have to be incarceration for life in solitary confinement, otherwise you are exposing other possibly redeemable prisoners to the dangers posed by the agressor. Now, since solitary confinement for life has been deemed to violate the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, that leaves the death penalty as a viable recourse. Scalia is still right.

Not to mention the guards, Fatal. The guards as well as the other prisoners are “the public” too. Plus, the general public is eventually going to be re-endangered by any “lifers” who later get paroled, when their crime is a distant memory.