Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/28/07 11:25 AM, Krash17 wrote: I once read that more often than not, the candidate that wins the presidential elction is either A.) The tallest or B.) Has the best hair.

Now I may be a young whippersnapper of only 18, growing up watching Beavis and Butthead, Ren & Stimpy, and other moronic stuff like that, but I'd like to iamgine that I myself am NOT a moron. When I vote, I want to be able to make an informed decision.

So my question is this: is there a source somewhere where I can find NON-BIASED information on the candidates for an election? Serious replies only, please. I'm trying to secure the future of our nation, here :P

Thanks in advance,

-Aaron

Heh, it's always good to see a post from someone from Illini country (in a manner of speaking anyway,, now that the Chief is gone), all the more so since that is where I cast my first vote. At any rate, if you are looking for advice about getting non-biased information, I would say that a better approach would be to look for a way of minimalizing the bias that you will encounter wherever you look.

That is to say, utilize as many different forms of media as possible before making an informed decision, because all of them will have flaws or weaknesses. Read the papers and compare differences: the Wall Street Journal is a highly accredited, though very conservative newspaper. It's more liberal, though equally respected counterpart would be the New York Times. Watch news shows, listen to transcripts of what politicians say, read up on what they have actually done, check out blogs...anything you can think of. The more varied sources you have, the better is your chance at getting an accurate view of the big picture. Do your homework and then just make an educated decision as to who you feel will do the best job...

...just do not be too surprised if your choices boil down to a giant douche bag or a turd sandwhich

Second: Isn't the United States not only on Iraq, but Afghanistan as well? Why is this no longer important?

Why stop at Afghanistan, there is a reason it is called the "global" war on terror. Recent events in England (let alone the bombings in Spain, foiled plots in Italy, Palestinian/Israel ongoing conflict, etc.) should make apparent that terrorism is indeed a world-wide problem.

Third: Why are the media so sensationalist? They don't report news. They feed us what they want us to hear, or what will get us to listen. Why does Anna Nicole Smith's baby daddy get more air time than the leader of the free world?

They would not air it if nobody watched.

Fourth:This is just to add that some of this may be put out just to start the conversation. Whether I'm right or wrong these things need to be talked about. And why is Osama still out there? The CIA is supposed to have satellites that can read the date off a coin in your pocket. He's significanly larger than that. Either we're letting him go or some nearby nation is granting him asylum.

Assuming Osama is not buried in some obscure cave in Afghanistan, which may or may not be the case, he is merely the head of the beast. At the end of the day, killing him will only allow some other individual in Al Qaeda to take his place. In all probability, terrorism of any form can never truly be eradicated, only minimalized. The focus is more so to fight terrorism as a movement and or ideology, not a collection of individuals. Just as the death of Hitler has not stopped Nazis from existing (albeit in a more limited fashion), killing Osama will not end fundamentalist-islamic terrorism.

Until a global consensus can be reached and groups such as Al Qaeda dealt with as a serious problem, it is doubtful that any significant progress can be made in disbanding them.

Here Here. We have suffered too long at the hands of ebaums ubiquitous fagginess and now is the time to revolt. They have no chance to survive, make their time!

He was a man highly respected in his profession...it will be interesting to see what this new generation of news anchors turns up.

I have to agree with your confusion surrounding the afterlife (at least in a Christian conception) and quite frankly find the whole concept of Heaven and Hell absurd. Personally, I find that the very concept of "eternity" makes Heaven impossible to bear: that is to say, even if I were in a state of perpetual bliss (Heaven in a nutshell), the fact that it lasts forever would ruin its beauty.

It is the same concept that explains why when I first got Grand Theft Auto III, I was in a complete state of pure happiness, but that degenerated over time into boredom and a complete unwillingness to play the game. I imagine Heaven would be the same way in that at first, its perfection would be quite fulfilling and peaceful, but overtime it would become bothersome and upsetting.

Likewise, Hell's torment is overrated in my opinion: all those who are/were sent there could at least delight in their evil actions done on Earth. Assuming Adolf Hitler was sent to Hell, despite his torturing he could revel in the fact that decades after his death he is still talked about and has made the toothbrush moustache faux-pas. The main point is, even those in Hell can draw comfort from their earthly actions and thus I find the system flawed.

The afterlife to me (assuming it exists) is quite frightening. The only truly viable outcome I can see is death followed by an eternal blackness and unconciousness, while the carbon in my body slowly decays over centuries of time. It is an unfathombly horrible thought, which is why I generally do not dwell on it...celebrate the now.

It never ceases to amaze me how a good topic on the NG BBS, in this case, whether or not (the Christian) God is evil, can degenerate to petty bickering. Let us try to get back on topic and not argue as to each others manhood (or lack thereof) and or the veracity of thousands of year old scrolls.

i also dont think this will be to big of a threat, theyre are only 60 chinese subs in their army (kinda pathetic compared to Americas) and we would win any engagement just by shear mass

not to mention that i dont think the chinese can pull it off in the first place, our air force would knock out their carriers easily, and their current subs couldnt make it to US waters solo, not enough power

It would be ill-advised to underestimate the threat posed by a weapon such as the supersonic torpedo. As can be seen by historical precedent in the Falkland Islands war, with the sinking of the HMS Sheffield (among other ships) by a French-made Exocet missile, even the world's strongest navies are susceptible to unorthodox weaponry. http://en.wikipedia...ing_of_HMS_Sheffield

Speaking as an individual from a proud Navy family, our current fleet is well aware of the danger posed by low flying (so as to evade radar detection) missiles. The concept of a supersonic torpedo is even more frightening because absolutely no contingency exists to combat such an attack.

While it is true that a war against the PLA would likely (at least from the naval standpoint) result in our victory by shear mass and technology, it is important to note that weapons such as the Exocet missile (the Chinese have similar missiles) and or supersonic torpedo could make the cost quite grave. Since both weapons can be launched from afar by a diverse array of combat craft (both naval and airborne), they must not be underestimated.

http://www.freerepub..um/a3ae5c93822f3.htm

It would appear that our Russian breathren have developed/are developing a new high-speed torpedo that would level the playing field for other countries (*cough* China) trying to catch up to our level of Naval power.

As it stands now, America's greatest military assest now is its Navy, as no other country has an even comparably large nuclear powered fleet as we do, or the ability to stealthily launch a nuclear strike from submarines (the Russian "Typhoon" class being to lumbersome and loud to be able to sneak into a firing position anywhere close to the U.S. coastline). This new torpedo, however, could change that...

Nietzsche was a dirty German whore.

Your command of the English language is astounding: if only your artwork was half as decent as your posts, you would be a veritable modern day Picasso (a dirty Spanish whore).

Wow, didn't think I'd be able to use this so soon. In a recent edition of the "Funny Times", a mag for cartoons and, of course, political cartoons, I saw a cartoon by Tom Tomarrow, detailing two upstanding Americans talking about Guantanamo Bay, and how it wasn't that bad because it isn't as bad what the labor camps of Stalinist Russia did, and that it was OK because fewer people that the newspapers reported had actually died. At this point, Deus Ex kicks in with the "Heavy Handed Ray of Ironic Justice". I think you can figure out what happens from there.

I am glad for your interest in cartoons.

Ok, being respectful by giving people meals that fit into their religion is bullshit. Schools have to do that and it isn't exactly considered "utmost respect".

Au contraire, schools do not have to alter their lunch meals to accomodate different religions, as this is neither practical nor adviseable, a la separation of Church and State. In the area where I live, public school's offer fish sandwhiches on Fridays during Lent (Roman Catholics do not eat meat on Fridays during Lent), but do not necessarily take into consideration the needs of other faiths such as Muslims (special meat preparation) and Hindus (generally vegetarians). This link details that while some school districts make religious food accomadations, others do not: http://www.cair-net...ads/sdpm.pdf#search=

'public%20school%20take%20into%20account%2
0religious%20diet'

The fact that our Guantanamo Bay prisons do take religion into account when planning their prisoners' meals is a definite mark of respect, not just to the inmates, but to the Islamic faith at large.

Just because it isn't quite as bad as other prison camps doesn't make it OK. These people could be entirely innocent of any wrong doing as far as we know. OK, maybe not all of them, but I'm willing to bet some of them. Now, becasue they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and had the wrong accent or skin color, they are being held "with utmost respect" for an indefinate time without trial.

Make no mistake, there is nothing fun or good about any prison, the entire concept behind prisons is that they are a "necessary evil." However, comparing Guantanamo Bay to Soviet gulags or Saddam's prisons as some liberals have done (Senator Dick Durbin, for one) is completely irresponsible and wrong. Our prisons take the health and well being of the innmates very seriously, gulags and the prisons of Saddam Hussein (and other dictators) do/did not.

And it is not just "enemy combatants" who are being held. Some of the first prisoners were people in the US who were suspected of having ties to terrorists.

As for most of the innmates being in "the wrong place at the wrong time" and being "people in the US" perhaps it is you that needs to do some research, though I do admit that fighting against our troops is always a wrong place to be in.

"Most detainees were picked up by the U.S. and its allies at the height of the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan." http://www.cbc.ca/st../world/Scotus_040420

The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are in jail not because of accident, not because they happen to be brown-skinned Muslims in the wrong place at the wrong time, but because they were either fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan (and doing so while not in uniform) or otherwise supporting terrorism.

Since most of the details surrounding the prisoners are shrouded in secrecy, one must trust the President and his judgement that the men quarantined in Cuba pose(d) a genuine threat to our country. This is a bitter pill to swallow for some, but a majority of Americans voted to keep him as leader and as such, his decision stands that Guantanamo remain. As a responsible American, I trust our President to make that call in so much as no evidence turns up that would lead me to believe serious human rights violations aretaking place. (Note - sleep deprivation and or forced shaving do not constitute serious human rights violations)

We would do well as a country to stand by him in solidarity.

That's interesting. You do realize that the covenant said:

"Behold, I establish My covenant with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark. I establish My covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth." And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh." (Genesis 9:9-15 RSV)

He promised never to destroy them again with water. Everything else is pretty much fair game.

You bring up a fair point, but I would urge that you go back to my original post and read the bit about God's Covenant with Abraham. The driving concept behind that covenant is that God would unconditionally love and bless Abraham's descendants irregardless of their actions. http://www.amfi.org/abracovt.htm God thus must love his children, though they hate and kill each other and profane His name...a most difficult pill to swallow.

For the record, I only mentioned the covenant with Moses because that explains why God does not destroy his people, though they might be evil in their deeds.

By your refferences to America being a "city on a hill" and expansive diction, I can assume you are an individual possessing at least a modicum of intelligence, but your post is woefully lacking in sensibility. The United States has bent over backwards to be respectful towards the occupants of Guantanamo Bay, with reports of abuse or religious insensitivity being thinly veiled, partisan attempts at discrediting the Bush Administration.

The sixth Amendment to our Constitution states that any person accused of a crime shall be afforded the right to a trial by jury, that the accused shall remain innocent - no matter how apparent the guilt - until a court of law has proven him or her guilty. Nowhere does it say that those who are detained deserve torture, even if their skin is brown, even if they have done something so heinous as what came to pass on September 11th.

For starters, the Constitution only stipulates protection for U.S. citizens, not foreign enemy combatants and it is only by virtue of our country holding itself to a high standard of integrity that the detainees are allowed to be incarcerated until such time as the government sees fit to prosecute them for their crimes. Note, that the detainees forfeited any rights they may have had under the Geneva Convention (which does recognize the rights of foreign troops) by not wearing uniforms and or fighting under a formalized declaration of war.

Furthermore, I would challenge your definition of "torture" as it pertains to the supposedly Muslim detainees; I say supposedly Muslim because no true Muslims that I know (and I have many Muslim friends) advocate killing of "infidels" for purposes of pleasing Allah. All the same, our government graciously provides a diet that is in accordance with Muslim sensibilities and allows time for prayer for the prisoners, though this is not stipulated as a necessary action on our behalf. Even so, I think any rational person would be hardpressed to call "offending religious sensibilities" torture, as groups such as Human Rights Watch have attempted to do. http://hrw.org/engli..05/19/usdom10981.htm

Forcing German POW's to watch footage of the liberation of Holocaust concentration camps (post WW2) no doubt offended their national and or political sensibilities, but no where do I see such behavior being labelled as torture. Quite frankly, those that kill in the name of Allah are the true blasphemers and I am sure that "forced grooming," if it saves lives by getting information from terrorists, is quite sensible.

The criminal protections provided to those who stand accused of a crime are there not just for those crimes we see as petty, but for those so gruesome and gut-wrenching that it takes the strength of our supreme law to keep their rights and liberties intact. If an American were detained somewhere far away, would we not demand he receive these same rights we deny the detainees at Guantanamo Bay? Would we deny him the right to plead his case? Would we stand for his torture and simply say that government was just trying to get some information? No.

We have debated at length in this country about Iraq's situation, where gross human rights violations, crimes without trials and indefinite detentions disgust the sensibilities of Americans. How, then, can we watch as our nation, that city on a hill, commits the same acts and justifies it in the same way? We have invaded nations, toppled dictators, freed millions around the globe because of indefinite detentions, abuse, the basic eroding of freedom.

No, there is absolutely no comparison to how our country treats its prisoners, and the abuses of Iraq and similar minded dictatorships. The United States does not behead innocent civilians and or uniformed enemy troops, it does not mutilate prisoners or terrorize their families, we do not lock individuals up and throw away the key. The very fact that we have an open forum about the pro's and con's of our prison system is proof of how superior the U.S. is in dealing with captured enemies. They at least have a voice that can challenge their situation-those in the gullags or Saddam's prisons never had anyone to speak out for them for fear of reprisal.

Now how we can look under our own noses at those we deny the freedom to plead their case in a court of law and say, "There is nothing we can do for you." The United States has set a standard: liberty and justice for all. Now is not the time for this nation to ignore its own standards. Is it our aim to become those nations which we see as so abusive to the liberties of those they see as inherently guilty? We must not slide down this slippery slope. The protections of the Constitution must remain sacrosanct for all who are accused of a crime, regardless of whether or not popular opinion is the opposite. That is what our American tradition demands.

The Constitution demands that the government look out for the best interests of its citizens by virtue of the Lockian principle of the "social contract." Guantanamo Bay keeps potentially dangerous individuals from hurting Americans (or other allies) and thus is quite in line with the Constitution. Keeping America safe...that is what American tradition demands!

At 8/4/05 11:33 AM, billytheradponi wrote: I know you will all probably hate me for this, but I have to say that I believe God (you know the Christian one) after learning about him in RS (hours of bordem) I have come to believe he is evil...

No, God is dead...and we have killed him. As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, the Judeo-Christian concept of Creation is that God made man in his own image, albeit with free will. With said will, mankind has killed, raped, and enslaved each other over the years to the point where one might turn on the TV, hear of a grisly murder and not so much as blink.

The Christian concept of God further states his love for mankind (note the covenant with Abraham and the decision to never again exterminate humankind after the Flood) and thus, puts Him in a rather difficult position. He loves his creation, yet man is constantly finding better and more effective ways for oppressing his fellow man. And thus, God is dead-the pain of seeing his people destroy themselves simply being too much to bear.

Not only is the concept of chivalry outdated, it is somewhat offensive to modern-day females in the sense that it perpetuates a notion that women require special treatment on the basis of their sex. Generally, it is more awkward than endearing to open doors for women as it implies that they are somehow less suited to the action than a man.

Furthermore, though quite cliche, that oft cited axiom, "Nice guys finish last," is so true when it comes to the topic of chivalry, because being chivalrous can easily degenerate into being toolish. If anything, slam a few doors behind you next time you enter/exit a building and go for the reverse-psychology babe appeal.

It always strikes me as interesting that there is such a sudden furor these days among liberals about how ostensbily unfair/unbalanced the FOX news network is in its reporting. I applaud their devotion to fairness, but I cannot help asking myself, why have they been silent until now?

To be sure, the "roll calls" the major news networks (NBC, CBS, etc) ran in the '60's and '70's during the Vietnam war were meant solely for commemorating fallen U.S. soldiers and boosting morale by endlessly listing the names of our dead. The melodramatic music, the droning on about casualties, the day count of how long the war had been going on; clearly, all of this was an unbiased approach at depicting the war from both sides.

On this note, the FOX news network clearly must be biased because it has not engaged in such practices while covering the Iraq War and has even dared to talk about American (and Coalition) gains in the fighting. Obviously, since they balance out coverage of our losses while simultaneously talking about the damage done to enemy forces, they must have a neo-con agenda. What happened to the good 'ol days when a handful of liberal networks could monopolize television news and report on issues as they saw them without fear of reprisal because no other news agency existed to counter them.

Without a doubt, FOX news is that agency and their success in the reporting world is directly linked to the fact that they make an honest attempt at getting both sides of the story. Now obviously, no news network can be completely "fair and balanced," but of all major news networks and their cable subsidiaries, FOX is by far and away the most so. No news agency can claim to have as many talented and politically differentiating commentators with a quality of reporting that is second to none. Those who talk of supposed liberal bias need only listen to Bill O'Reilly berating SUV's or Geraldo Riviera defending Michael Jackson to realize that many non-conservative viewpoints abound on the network.

Conversely, one need only look at Phil Donahue's now defunct MSNBC cable program to realize that show's with extreme political agendas (in his case, a liberal one) are doomed to failure. Quite frankly, in the business/news world the law of "survival of the fittest" reigns supreme. FOX news does not have the top ratings of any cable news newtwork because they are subversively reporting conservative propaganda, they have it because they are the best at what they do.

At 12/23/04 07:49 PM, MustaphaMond wrote: Sorry, I'll stick with Tasers for self-defense.

If you think a taser will provide any substantial defense against a determined criminal with a firearm, then to quote Judas Priest, "You got another thing coming."

This is just a tad bit foolish, methinks, but here goes:

Republicans: Pro-life

Democrats: Pro-Choice

Republicans/Democrats: Eliminate terrorists (though with differing views on how to do so)

Those are some views of each major party, though if you just visist their respective sites you can get a complete list of their official stances.

Who is he?

Best Reg
theburningliberal

:Best Bush Basher/Whacker
:theburningliberal

Worst Reg
FUNKbrs
Biggest Spammer
FUNKbrs
Biggest Attention Whore
FUNKbrs

So sayeth Heihachi!

Heihachi just gave you some. He's a registered Republican, which makes it bad enough, but I don't want him as Chief Justice because he sided with the majority in Bush v. Gore, and effectively handed him the Presidency.

I am confused: why does siding with the majority in Bush vs. Gore (at least in Supreme Court matters) reflect a bad decision. Now, politics aside, we (the nation) were in requirement of a new president and with the recounts still going (even though most/all predicted Bush winning), a choice had to be made between Al Gore and George Bush, I say

"Any decision is better than no decision"

Thus, GW was proclaimed the rightful winner.

And given the mess Bush has made of America, I have a grudge against Thomas for that.

If you want to get mad at any of the Justices, I would complain about the moderate(s) who made such a majority decision possible. As for your grudge, I still have a grudge about the Warren Court because of "the mess...[it] made of America" so Thomas's appointment would be a fitting retribution for past liberalization.

At 8/17/04 01:00 AM, Skvnk_Hunter wrote: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's biographer claims that White House lawyers have interviewed Thomas "as a possible choice to be the next chief justice."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/002294.html

Comments?

Good. I feel Clarence Thomas, given his strong views on abortion and or affirmative action, make him an ideal candidate for the position.

I guess the "How to be a Democrat" step-list was funny, but it seems to me (a conservative) that it is the wrong group to be poking fun at.

I say this because it is really hardcore liberals that are the ones to watch (what with the facts and logic not really mattering), after all, Sen. Zell Miller (Dem. GA) is going to be speaking in favor of the current president at the RNC Convention, so not all Dems. are misguided...

At 8/10/04 12:27 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The catholic church never had too much moral or social control or influence in this country. WASP churches had all of the moral, religious and social influence.

Well, regardless of historical precedents concerning Catholic influence in the affairs of the country, there is definitely a crucial Catholic swing vote now . Thus, I wonder how the Churches (possible) disintegration will effect our upcoming presidential election. This link can better explain that matter.

http://www.catholicherald.com/articles/00articles/crisis1012.htm

At 8/9/04 11:09 PM, Someone_Random wrote: Jeez...

So everything that has ever gone wrong in America is the fault of liberals?

My god. Read your fucking textbook.

You know what pisses me off about conservatives? They strut around, receiving millions of dollars in donations and kickbacks, accusing liberals of preventing progress and encouraging stagnation, raping the rich people's checkbooks, all the while acting like their shit don't stink.

Seriously. Conservatives have a pile of shit higher than we do, and it stinks about 10 times as bad. Screwing the poor. Screwing minorities. Screwing the working class. Compromising their own beliefs in the hope of making a few more dollars for their own corporate bed buddies. Raping the pocket books of the poor, forcing them to pick up the governmental tab when they have neither the time nor the ability to do such a thing. Putting heaps and heaps of debt on future generations when they promise to take responsibility for governmental spending.

Go clean up your shit, before you start telling us to worry about ours.

Who/what are you talking about? Nobody said that everything that has ever gone wrong in America is the fault of liberals or even suggested as much on this thread. I made the point that liberals might have a negative impact on a conservative institution (and vice-versa) but nothing more, please clarify what offends you.

At 8/9/04 10:45 PM, witeshark wrote: In my view this is true; the Catholic church is almost entirely without any credibility now

That is my fear witeshark and I am willing to wager that the problem will only worsen unless the Church adopts a clear stance on major issues facing the world today (gay marriage, War in Iraq, etc.) and works harder to combat the priest abuse scandal. Only then can it return to its former role as a powerhouse moral authority in the world.

Sadly, I do not see a lot of these reforms happening soon.

At 8/9/04 09:30 PM, CrackaPlease wrote: I have studied this situation that the Catholic Church is currently facing, and I have made a conclusion.

The Catholic Church is currently in a decline due to liberals. Yes, liberals in the Church. The current pope and Pope Vatican has changed many of the policies that guided the old church --policies that used to hold the church together in times of crisis. Although some of these old policies were in need of change, other policies, such as a strong effort to try to convert members of other churches, did not to be changed.

Furthermore, there used to be one priest for every five hundred Church members back in the 1970's (Not sure about the number, but it is quite a difference compared to today's Church). Some churches are closing due to the lack of priests. Although the Church is trying to modernize, it is progressing in the wrong direction, in my view.

I think you may have a point Cracka-that the decline in the Church was facilitated by liberalism. Now I do not necessarily mean to condone liberals, but perhaps their presence in a decidely conservative institution (the Church) is causing its decline as right and left battle for control of power, especially in relation to major issues such as whether or not to support the War in Iraq.

In all honesty, the same could be said about what might happen if conservatives were put in charge of Greenpeace...the organization's respect would definitely suffer (again, for better or for worse) as I doubt right and left would see eye to eye on any environmental issues and be able to formulate clear guidlines on what ought to be done with Earth's resources.

Good point, Cracka.

At 8/9/04 09:15 PM, PretzelLogic88 wrote:

At 8/9/04 07:47 PM, heihachi wrote: Have the clerical sex abuse scandals, rising acceptance of homosexuality, and the failure to stop abortion (all hot bed Catholic issues) begun to take their toll on this organization, or are they still in a position of power?

First of all, you can't condemn an entire institution for a couple bad apples. Since your Catholic, you should no that men are not without sin, and considering that there are billions of Catholics in the world, you have to expect someone to mess up big time.

I appreciate your comments, but I think you may have taken my message out of context, that is to say, I did not condemn the entire Catholic Church, I merely wished to see if anyone perceived it to be in a crisis as I have. As for a "couple bad apples," I used to be under the same impression, that the clerical abuse scandals constituted the actions of a few sick individuals. However, it appears it is much more widespread and although I wish you were right, that the problem is fairly small in scope, that is simply not the case.

This website handles much of the clerical sex-abuse information and if you sift around, you can see that, unfortunately, the problem is quite large.

http://www.ventriglialaw.com/criminal_reporting.php

Also, since you are Catholic, you should know that the Church does not look down upon homosexuals. What they do look down upon as a sin is the performing of homosexual acts.

*and or the abetting of such acts

I never said that the Churck "look[s] down upon homosexuals." My words were that the Church has failed in its goal to stem the tide of "rising acceptance of homosexuality" [for better or for worse].

Basically, what was considered a gross and utterly sinful practice 50 years ago, is more or less common place nowadays and barely attracts notice. Thus, the Church has failed to convince the masses of the supposed evils of homosexuality ( what it deems an immoral practice) and consequently proves my point about the recent drop in Catholic prestige. If the majority supports the rights of gays to be gay, then they will not support an institution that finds homosexuality to be morally wrong.

Thirdly, how do you think that the Church will magically be able to stop something? The Church is meant to guide people, not force them into submission. As I said before, men aren't perfect, and even though the Church may give the soundest of advice, that doesn't mean that everyone will magically follow it.

No, I do not expect the Church to "magically...stop something," what I do expect the Church to do is come up with clear guidelines as to what "something[s]" are wrong so that I can either support the Church (because I agree with it) or leave it (because I do not agree with it).

As I mentioned earlier, depending on what Church you go to, the Iraq war may be wrong, at others it is right. The same can be said for many other issues such as gay marriage, gun ownership, etc. I do not want to be part of an institution that fundamentally opposses my beliefs, but at this point, with all the vagaries in the Church, I am not sure what they stand for...

I mean what is the point of a church if it no longer gives direction on how to live.

My sentiments exactly...it seems to me that the Church is gripped in a crisis because I no longer know which one to follow. In the area where I live, for example, one Catholic Church has had its followers sign a petition to the president to protest the war in Iraq. Yet, only a few miles away, another Church justifies the war as necessary to protect America and urges its parishoners to "support the troops."

Now, I am not trying to argue which Church is right and which is wrong (at least not in this thread), but it would appear to me one of America's largest moral institutions does not know what stance to take on a very important national issue. Now if the Church's purpose is (in simplest terms) to give direction on how to lead a good life, are they failing in that initiative and thus should they not be taken seriously?

At 8/9/04 08:02 PM, skvnk wrote: yes.

Could you perhaps elaborate? For me, I would say the fact that masses can be quite different between two different Churches (as oppossed to being universally similar in the old days) evidences a decline, because it is signs of a growing fragmentation among Catholics.

It is almost as if individual Churches are picking and choosing which aspects of Catholicism they wish to adhere to (whether or not to allow gays to receive communion, denying the sacraments to politicians who support abortion, etc.) and thus, depending on the political leanings of the parishoners, they can be either very left, or very right. Has anyone else noted this division?

This is absurd-why do certain individuals start entire posts by copying and pasting entire articles, not snippets for support mind you, but whole articles, and then have people respond to them?

Now, I am not saying that outside information should be completely ruled out of a debate, but using someone else's thoughts to start a post is just that-someone else's thoughts. In the future, I think more original thought processes are in order.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0807economy07.html