Saintmichaeldefendthem1

I'm more concerned about other Western human rights values being undermined in other countries. One hallmark right is the right to free expression, not only in the United States, but in every Westernized nation. But in the UK, there is a woman who is facing felony charges because she dared to say that killing Bin Laden was a good thing and she could face up to 3 years incarceration. There are those in America like the late (and good riddance!) Ted Kennedy who try to pass "hate crimes" legislation that accomplishes the same thing. The gun rights advocates argument that when the freedom to keep and bear arms is infringed, then all our other rights are soon to follow....seems to be playing out on the European stage and also in Canada, where speech is similarly sequestered. Drawing a connection between harsh gun laws and the diminishing of other freedoms may seem specious until the examples of this phenomenon start piling up.

I don't have the exact figures, but I know and will readily concede that gun deaths are fewer in countries that have stricter gun control laws. For this reason, gun control advocates prefer to use gun violence statistics instead of violence in general to make their point. It's a sleight of hand, but using gun violence statistics alone paints a very misleading picture.

I agree. I once borrowed a movie from a friend but then lost it. I bought her a gift certificate to a movie store for $30, far more than the cost of the movie. But it was well worth it to protect our friendship.

That's some sage advice.

I love that quote from Hamlet. One more thing I might mention is that the difficulties that arose during Sarah's catering are likely because Sarah set about this in a lackadaisical manner. After all, this wasn't a "real" customer, just a friend she's helping out. If this were a paid service from the start, Sarah might have set about it differently focusing on assiduous preparation and flawless execution like she does with all her paying customers. Just another thought.

Senario: A young couple, Janice and Brett, are about to get married and are planning a wedding. Janice has a friend, Sarah, who owns a small catering business. When Janice announced her engagement and upcoming wedding to Sarah, Sarah, in all the excitement, said that her business would cater Janice and Bretts' wedding free of charge. Janice gladly accepted this offer. On the wedding day, Sarah and her employee Maria suffered several setbacks in setting up the catering which is a nice way to say, it was a disaster. It was a trying ordeal for Sarah and Maria to try to get back on track, and Sarah became very frustrated because in the back of her mind, she was aware that while her costs were going up, there would be no compensation for it. She regretted being so rash as to offer her service free and soberly remembered that a small business such as hers could easily sink with just a few setbacks like this one. Instead of this agreement building her friendship with Janice, it served as a hinderance. The Moral Issue: Many people's idea of friendship is to have friends "hook them up" with free or highly discounted services from their area of profession. Friendships are like bank accounts where we are either making deposits or withdrawls. Deposits build up friendships and increase their longevity. Withdrawls, if there are too many in succession, weaken friendships and eventually end them. In Janice's case, she was caught up in the excitement and was not thinking clearly, much like Sarah. She didn't consider what a toll this would take on Sarah's small business and failed to take the more mature path of rejecting Sarah's overly generous offer and announcing that she and Brett would pay full price for Sarah's services and that she would show friendship by preferring Sarah's service over that of her competitors, not by trying to get something free. Jesus reminds us that a laborer is worthy of his hire and that is great advice, even within the trusting confines of a friendship. The Fix: Though Sarah was in no position to say anything because, after all, she offered this, Janice was. Janice realized her mistake and took Brett aside and explained it tearfully. Brett suggested that they pitch in and help Sarah and Maria. As guests arrived, they too were immediately given tasks to perform and they were more than glad to help out in a trying situation like this. After the wedding, Janice asked Sarah for the bill. Sarah protested but Janice would not take no for an answer. She now saw that their long term friendship was at stake and insisted on compensating Sarah in full for her service. A lesson was learned.

Osama Bin Laden's last word: "Durka?"

A person executed by firing squad feels the impact like a bat hitting them in the middle of their chest. Then within seconds the blood drains from the head and unconsciousness ensues. It is quick, but it isn't painless. If we have technology available to us to make death more painless than stoning or firing squad, it's our moral obligation to use it. This is the other side of the debate, the deterrence effect of capital punishment. It's here that I think opponents strain the proverbial gnat while swallowing the proverbial camel. When capital punishment is used regularly it has a decisive impact on on murder rates as seen in Texas while George Bush was governor. Opponents superimpose on capital punishment an impossible requirement that it can't be exercised until we have a flawless system while ignoring the manifest benefit that our current system has in preventing the death of many innocent people.

Greetings, fellow Catholic! I'm sorry to say we disagree on this issue. Contrary to popular opinion among Catholics, it's not Church teaching to forbid capital punishment. The overwhelming majority of Catholics opposing capital punishment is a matter of popular sentiment rather than doctrine. Even so, I understand and respect the many Catholics including bishops and cardinals who oppose capital punishment. I believe they do so out of a sense of moral conviction. It is also with moral conviction of equal profundity that I support capital punishment and believe it to be the best way to defend life. On a separate issue directed to anyone interested, I don't believe in the electric chair because I believe it's our duty to deliver a murderer to the judgement seat of the Almighty in the most painless manner available to us. I don't entertain the notion that if the victim suffered a cruel and lingering death that the perpetrator should suffer likewise. It's humbling for us to realize that we are imperfect dispensers of justice and so we defer full judgement to the Judge of all mankind who alone determines the fate of men. Executions should be painless as possible and any balance of justice will be carried out in the age to come.

The Innocence Project is mostly a sham. Their tactic is to try to cast enough reasonable doubt on a conviction to get a retrial. More often than not, the accused is not entirely exhonorated in the sense that it's clear he's not guilty of the crime. Rather, the element of reasonable doubt is introduced to make the prior conviction less certain. The overturning of many of these convictions follows the appearance of doubt rather than a slam dunk determination of innocence. With that said, of course the justice system is not perfect and it's likely that there are people in prison right now that shouldn't be. To follow your logic is to stop incarcerating people at all for fear that someone could be falsely incarcerated. For some reason, God left the pursuit of justice to man even with our glaring shortcomings. Punishments range all the way up to capital punishment...even though the possibility remains of an innocent person being executed. My point was to contrast the primitive methods available to determine guilt or innocence when God first instituted capital punishment with Noah immediately following the flood to our modern day CSI capabilities and evolved court system that affords the accused a vigorous defense. If man was to be entrusted with this form of punishment back in Noah's day, how much more today when we have greatly reduced the chance of false convictions? My idea of barbaric is a society that values life so little that it's legal to snuff out the lives of the unborn and when henious murders take place, we fall short of responding with the most severe sanction available to us. In doing so, we make abundantly clear that life is not precious and the wrongful taking of life not deserving of an equally grave response. Barbaric is the American Left that values the lives of unscrupled murderers but discards the lives of the most innocent among us. How utterly perverse!

I'm part of a minority of Catholics that believe capital punishment for capital crimes is not only justifiable, but works to affirm the sanctity of human life. That said, public executions? Absolutely not! During the French Revolution, beheadings were done as a public spectacle, a show that became in itself a machine that needed to be fed a consistant supply of victims. Children watched the whole macabre ordeal with morbid fascination, speculating on how long the head remained alive after severed from the torso. French society was sickened right to the soul because of this practice much like Roman society was sickened by the gladiator events. I do believe in viewing rooms or CCTV for family and those having a justifiable interest in seeing justice brought to fruition. In regard to innocent persons, you note correctly that the Bible condones capital punishment and that in a day when court systems didn't rigorously protect the rights of the defendent, science was primitive, and crime scene investigations didn't occur. God, in his wisdom, commanded capital punishment in a time when determining guilt or innocence was far more difficult and relied more on witness accounts than forensic evidence. It's a sad fact that there were almost certainly a percentage of people executed who were innocent. Today, while it's still possible for this to happen, the chances of that happening, at least here in America, are remote. Many people who point to the new rash of people being exhonorated by re-examination of DNA evidence miss an important point. In many of those cases, the new evidence only introduced a reasonable doubt, enough to get a conviction overturned. What this means in real terms is that people are being exhonorated by DNA evidence (or lack) who are likely to be guilty of the crime in spite. Even so, my suggestion is not to scrap capital punishment, but rather to work relentlessly to improve our justice system to make mistakes even more unlikely.

Do you remember when Dan Rather reported that the UK had overtaken the US in every violent crime except murder? He caused quite an uproar, but the statistics didn't lie and Dan Rather was vindicated even by UK media outlets. What was true then is even worse now. In the 2 years following the 1997 handgun ban, gun related crimes rose 40% and from April to November 2001, gun robberies rose a whopping 53%. Violent crime, which had already risen 91% from 1991-1995 had more than doubled between 1997 and 2001. In 53% of home burglaries, the occupant was home, compared to 13% in the us because burglars fear armed homeowners. Banning guns has also not spared the UK from mass shootings such as the one in 1997 where nine people, as young as 11, lost their lives. In this respect, the UK is no different than the US in that armed criminals, bent on massecre, target gun-free zones. Aside from gun related violence which was not remedied by strict bans, violent crimes continue unabated using knives, quadrupled by comparison to gun related deaths proving again that gun bans did not make the UK safer, far from it. It was oddly hilarious in watching the movie "Millions" that the police assured new residents that they would eventually be burglared. Upon further research, this is a common reality in the UK. By latest statistics, 26% of UK citizens have been victimized by violent crime including robbery, rape, and murder. In Australia, things are even worse with 30% falling prey to violence. The fact that the US didn't even make the top 10 list of crime victimization rates among industrialized nations is telling. Statistics prove time and time again that the industrialized with the strictest gun control laws are overall more violent than the United States. And even within US borders, the demographics show precipitious drops in violent crimes in areas where gun control is relaxed. sources Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason Magazine BBC News - Analysis: UK gun crime figures Britain, Australia Top U.S. In Violent Crime

I'm through responding to this thread. I've made my point clear that the Catholic Church does not permit affiliation with the Freemasons and anyone who is a Freemason by definition is not Catholic. I'm sorry saintish wants to turn this into a hate thread about the Catholic Church. Don't bother responding. This discussion is over.

True. As in "effect a change."

The eight popes who have condemned Freemasonry since its inception: Clement XII, In Eminenti, 28 April 1738 This constitution was the first public written attack by the papacy against Masonry. In In Eminenti the principal objections to Freemasonry given were: that it was open to men of all religions; that there were oaths taken; that Masons denied clerical authority, and that Masons met in secret.4 Pope Clement forbade Masonic membership by Catholics and directed the "Inquisitors of Heretical Depravity" to take action against Catholics who became Masons or assisted Freemasonry in any way. He ordered excommunication as punishment for those who defied his ban. Benedict XIV, Providas, 18 May 1751 This constitution confirmed In Eminenti and condemned Freemasonry on the grounds of its naturalism, demand for oaths, secrecy, religious indifferentism, possible threat to the church and state. It specifically forbids Roman Catholics from seeking membership in any Masonic group.5 Pius VII, Ecclesiam A Jesu Christo, 13 September 1821 The constitution Ecclesiam specifies excommunication for Freemasons and gives as reason for the censure the oath bound secrecy of the society and their conspiracies against the church and state. It also links Freemasonry with the Society of the Carbonari, known as the "Charcoal Burners", who at that time were active in Italy and were believed to be a revolutionary group.6 Leo XII, Quo Gravioria Mala, 13 March 1825 This constitution restated the Roman Catholic Church's objection to Freemasonry as a secret society, with oath-bound secrecy, which conspires against church and state.7 Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati, 24 May 1829 This encyclical is considered by some Roman Catholic authorities to be an anti-Masonic polemic.8 It warned against a secret society whose "cunning purpose is to...lead the students along the path of Baal." It called for Catholics to "...eradicate those secret societies of factious men who, completely opposed to God and to princes, are wholly dedicated to bringing about the fall of the Church, the destruction of kingdoms, and disorder in the whole world."9 It also makes reference to the anti-Masonic pronouncements of previous popes. Litteris Altero, 25 March 1830 This apostolic letter reiterated earlier papal condemnations of Freemasonry. It specifically condemns the influence of Freemasonry in education.10 Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 15 August 1832 This was an encyclical on liberalism and religious indifferentism. Religious indifferentism is defined as "... the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained." This encyclical does not mention Masonry, but religious indifferentism is one of the charges often leveled against Freemasonry in papal pronouncements.11 Some Roman Catholic authorities identify this pronouncement as anti-Masonic.12 Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, 9 November 1846 This encyclical calls for Roman Catholics to fight against heresy. It decries those who put human reason above faith, and who believe in human progress. Strangely, it also attacks secret "sects" and "crafty" Bible societies who "force on people of all kinds, even the uneducated, gifts of the Bible." This encyclical also calls "perverse" religious indifferentism.13 While not mentioning Masonry directly, it criticizes those it does not identify for those same faults that the previous papal pronouncements imputed to Freemasonry, and is regarded as an anti-Masonic pronouncement by some Catholic sources. source: Roman Catholic Church law regarding Freemasonry

You really should read what you're responding to. I said that the Masons have enchartered (made part of their platform) the destruction of the Catholic Church. The anti-catholicism vitriol of Masons has been laid thick since the 18th centuries with comments such as:"The papacy has been for a thousand years the torturer and curse of humanity, the most shameless imposture, in its pretense to spiritual power of all ages." Freemason General Albert Pike (1891) The Masons also took over the governments of France and Portugal in 1877 and 1910 respectively and openly persecuted Catholics. Contempt for the papacy is a hallmark of Freemasonry. Freemasons are required to swear an oath to a quasi-religious organization, something utterly incompatible with one's allegience to the Catholic Church. Whatever Masons you know, they cannot be at the same time Catholic in accordance with Catholic law. Once their involvement with the Masons comes to light, they will be excommunicated. I pray they are swiftly discovered.

I want to be a scab. That's right. I want to wait until union people go on strike and then I'll swoop in and take their plush job from under them.

Not only is membership in the Freemasons forbidden, but that also extends to the Odd Fellows, the Knights of Pythias, the Orangemen, the Sons of Temperence, oh, and the Communist Party. It's commonly mistaken that the Catholic Church had dropped the penalty of excommunication because of the revised code (canon 1374) in which the language was changed. To clear up any misunderstanding, a statement was published in November 1983 clarifying that the penalty was still in force. Excommunication for membership in the Freemasons has not been rescinded. Though today, the Freemasons are more of a social club, historically they have enchartered the complete destruction of the Catholic Church According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: The incompatibility with the Christian gospel and the historical violence committed against the Catholic Church not only by Freemasons but also by the other aforementioned orders is the chief reason that faithful Catholics are STRICTLY FORBIDDEN from joining. The one and only Catholic in this forum has spoken.

Um, no, there are no Catholic masons, especially priests and bishops. Catholics aren't free to pick and choose which teachings to follow. The Church forbids membership or affiliation with Masons and all faithful Catholics observe that.

I wouldn't be caught dead with such a thing. The Catholic Church expressly forbids membership or association with the Masonic order. I am curious as to whether the LDS feel likewise.

This question seems to be aimed at those outside the LDS church (like me). My first encounter with anti-LDS literature was a pamplet entitled, "Is the Mormon my brother?" that I found among many other pamplets in the First Church of the Nazarine I grew up in. Since then, I've encountered a lot more on the subject with temperments ranging from doubtful to outright hostile. The main thrust of the evangelical argument, aside from contesting the historical accounts of Joseph Smith and the BoM, seems to be that Mormons are not, or may not, be saved because they believe in a different Jesus and a different gospel in accordance to this passage: Conveniently enough, their Jesus and gospel are the correct ones. What drew me to the Catholic Church over the years was the absence of hate and condemnation by comparison to our evangelical brethren who seem all too eager to prescreen people's eternal fate as a favor to God. The Catholic Church taught me to see God as merciful and rather than looking for any excuse to send people to hell, God reaches out to save as many as possible to take them home to heaven. This idea that God would condemn those who follow Jesus but not the "right" Jesus based on errors in doctrine is estranged from God's true and loving character. Rather than looking for an excuse to condemn, God is looking for any mitigating evidence to save as many as possible. This is an inclination that many evangelicals fail to grasp. There are some things about the LDS that I strongly contest and always will, among them, the Book of Mormon and the outlandish claims of Joseph Smith. But I see none of that as important in the grander scheme. Let evangelicals pick at doctrines and history. I am more impressed by the faith, values, and community of the LDS. Their model of charity is one to be esteemed. I have no doubt in my mind that the LDS follow and serve the same Jesus I do. I don't look for reasons to exclude others and I've learned to expell the often hateful viewpoints of my evangelical upbringing. And doing so, I feel I know God better than ever before.

It's estimated that guns are used 2 million times a year in America to fend off violent crime. In 98% of those instances, the mere presence of a firearm was enough to deter a criminal act. Guns are the great equalizer enabling even 80 year olds to successfully defend themselves and their property. Moreover, in states where 2nd Ammendment rights to keep and carry arms is respected, instances of the most violent category of crimes, murder, robbery, rape, etc are dramatically reduced by comparison to their highly restrictive counterparts. It would do you well to read the book More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott which gives an unassailable body of statistics that demonstrate compellingly the benefit of lawful gun ownership.

Anyone buying a gun goes through a federal background check and, contrary to popular opinion, there is no "gun show loophole." Most guns that end up on the black market are stolen. Tell me, how many more restrictions need to be put on law abiding citizens? Where is the line?

It seems to me that notifying Church leadership via hotline should precede calling the police. I don't think this is a matter of trying to contain and cover up a scandal, but rather a matter of the leadership being informed so as to brace for the community and media fallout. It would also seem fair that the leadership is owed a chance to confirm the validity of the claim before throwing themselves to the lions over a misunderstanding. This seems reasonable.

It's one of the things I greatly admire about the LDS church as well. A study was done comparing the charity habits of conservatives vs liberals. It concluded that conservatives give more to charity by 30%. A few points can be gleaned from this: 1. Conservatives put their money where their mouth is. They preach a society that can sustain itself and care for the less fortunate without government intrusion and they put it into practice. 2. Liberals seem to put more faith in government as an agency of aid even in spite of the fact that welfare programs, housing projects, and other entitlements have proven to be dismal failures that help few while spreading poverty and keeping millions mired in it. 3. Faith truly does produce an ameliorable society. Liberals tend to think of religion as promoting the idea of "social justice" whereby government attempts to alleviate the ills of society whereas conservatives see religion as an inspiration to personally help out his fellow man, reaching into his own pockets instead of someone elses. The conservative use of religion produces manifest benefit to society markedly more so than those who are "helped" by government programs. With their emphasis on charity, is it any wonder that the LDS have thrived as a society whereas other communities beholden to government programs, such as Indian reservations, languish in squalid poverty?