Yep, absolutely no anger expressed in comments #2-5... /sarc

You might try understanding the meanings of words sometime by the way... "flock" for example, does not refer to the crowd, but to the church members, which, had you read the article, you would know that membership there has been dwindling faster than nearly any other area in the world. Don't worry about it though... reading comprehension isn't for everyone.

Good morning to you, too, ZIPPO. Still abrasive, I see. HAAHHAHAHHAAHAHA!!!

Has anyone else noticed how many of those commenting here indulge in character assassination, pure gossip (aka fabrication), and bald, aimless slang and obscenities? The cult that is becoming pervasive in this world if one watches Newsvine, is the Cult of the Arrogance of Ignorance, otherwise known as desperate ego-tripping.

Anti-Catholicism is becoming as virulent as Anti-Semitism and even Anti-Muslims. I think all the "anti-'s" are deplorable and I want to mention one thing from personal experience.

I was born and raised Roman Catholic by an Irish-American mother. She traveled with me all over the United states and, essentially, I went to a different Catholic school every year with one exception... two years in a public school, grades 6 and 7, when class size in the local Parochial school prevented my attending. I did go to Catholic high school all four years

I was always active in each parish's youth groups with nuns and priests our mentors. In all those years not one of the religious did anything abnormal to the kids. And believe me, gossip being what it is, we would have been the first to know.

And that went for all the parishes in the states where we lived, from New York to Florida, From Arizona to Minnesota, as well as Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Maryland.

The numbers of incidents are today exaggerated beyond belief. And if you do not think that the majority of accusers are simply joining the band-wagon for attention at the least and hope of monetary enrichment at the most, go to your neighboring parish... you do not have to be a Catholic, and see for yourselves. Don't go to argue, go to ask, even observe.

I do not believe 99% of the accusations. I know kids and their parents well, and also have five of my own. My experience with young people and their families is extensive.

When I grew up I became credentialed to teach in public high schools, including junior high, high school, and first and second year college... and did teach over 20 years in, first, a rural school district, and the other 15 years in a township of 80,000 population. I tutor now at the college level.

All that information I am supplying is to let you know how unsupported and contagious the gang mentality is. And that is what is behind this escalation of bigoted, uninformed, attacks on formal religion.

I'm not here to proselytize any religion, but I am here to try to get you to think! Anyone who has ever been a parent.. or, for that matter, a kid, knows what I am talking about. The "fairy tale" context converted to "horror stories." All in the name of unmitigated entertainment and, yes, competition ... the "my daddy can beat your daddy" syndrome.

False accusation is alive and well in the 20th and 21st centuries. Get off that band wagon before you lose all contact with real humanity and devolve into primitive mind-dead savages.

Ehhh, yeah. Say hello to Tinkerbell for me.

SecondSight1 is right. Also, I think abuse is far more common in secular venues but is rarely or so eagerly reported. The angry vulgarity of some of these posts may indicate that the persons posting need to be more introspective. "Out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks".

Second Sight1,

If you validate or state emphatically that the Papa Bull Doctrine of Discovery is nothing more than make believe and nothing factual then please talk. This Catholic Doctrine did more harm and created more deaths than any World War has done and yet the Catholic Church will NOT renounce it because they are never wrong. With this in mind if you can tell me that the Doctrine of Discovery is a good for society then take a look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself what is that you stand for. The Catholic Church has done more evil to races of people than any good it has done. There has been no religion anywhere in the world that has done more harm. If this doesn't open your eyes then you must be blind.

Intellect -- how do measure that more harm than good claim? Specifically how much harm and how much good has th Catholic church done? There have been untold billions of Catholics doing all kinds of things for centuries now. Do you really know that more harm has been done than good? I don't think so. Were all mixed bags, and so are all religions by virtue of the fact that they are practiced by imperfect people, but give me a person or religion who does good, however imperfectly, over one who tries to justify their actions purely on intellect any day. Intellect isn't all it's cracked up to be. You didn't write anything but your opinion, and that doesn't open my mind, or anyone's I would think.. All I read from you is anger and hatred toward what you don't fully understand.

Good try but no cigar. I have taken the time to read, reflect and speak on what I know to be truths all from federal repositories in order to find my own truth. Reading the actual articles of history and not someones interpretation is more enlightening.

As for anger in me, well that remains to be seen. Does it anger me that such doctrines still exist and are not revoked? Absolutely as it should any sentient thinking thing. As for harm, I do know more harm was done in North America than good unless you label co-opting, assimilation and destruction of functioning societies to mirror another society no harm or foul. Millions of people, human sentient thinking things, were massacred here on this continent who will never return in the name of God or greed. How can this be justified in any mind whether Christian, Catholic or Judaism. Here was the first Holocaust that gave rise to others. Who started this Holocaust? I think you know the answer.

And since, non-Intellect, you come off the wall with accusations totally without actual historical facts and just as important without a vestige of comparative analysis among the histories of all religions down through the ages ... otherwise one might be able to give you some credence.

More than likely, if you did an honest job of research, you would surprise yourself. Or, perhaps I give you too much credit. Brainwashing is hard to overcome.

You appear to me to have absolutely no actual knowledge of any kind of a Comparative History of the World: Societal, Religious, Political. Consider taking a course in that subject from a reputable College, or even night school at your local high school, if they teach that (lol they used to).

There isn't an iota of truth in your assertions. You are, it seems, a victim of an inconsequential cluster of petty fanatic fundamentalist groups who play with 15-17th centuries games long outdated and outmoded, having nothing to do with life on this planet today and very little at the time of those games.

(And sincere apologies to today's reputable Protestant fundamentalists. What I refer to would, I think, be well below your consideration today.)

You, non-Intellect, are, unfortunately, trying to rebel against something that was never the sort of thing you try spew out, or must I mention the witch-hunts of 1692 in Massachusetts and Rhode Island that had an inept but vicious breath of activity in that same era, which were also virulently anti-Catholic? Just like you?

Or do you suggest we should today establish hanging trees in all our villages, requiring only the point of a finger (perish the thought we have a Bill of Rights and Fair Trial here)... at whomever you dislike or resent, to be the next to have his, or her, throat stretched.

All you show to me, non-Intellect, is a very narrow input for a very broad bigotry in your nature.

Look to the last apology or admission by the Catholic Church for the abuse of the First Nation people of Canada and the amount of the settlement. I know your armor has been breeched due to your replies. Enough said on this subject.

I vote we throw him in a cell with Warren Jeffs.

Isn't going to happen!This guy lives in the Vatican.Of course you knew that.The Vatican is considered a Separate country.Guess you didn't know that.So guess what? He's got IMMUNITY FROM BEING ARRESTED.

Unless a country puts a warrant out for his arrest and he's traveling outside the Vatican?There's not a dam thing anyone can do.If they're going to arrest him, they should have a warrant out on one of his next trips.

The people I feel really bad for are the people he has BAMBOOZLED!I on the other hand can see right throught this man,and his minions.

Something about this guy is just Skewed and not Right.I have a sixth sense for these kinds of people.

Something about this guy is just Skewed and not Right.I have a sixth sense for these kinds of people.

People who know him universally say he is man of enormous intellect, great Spirituality and warmth. If was skewed wrong mentally it probably would have shown up in the last 80+ years.

Thank you Shalom for your objectivity, and yes, intelligence.

The people I feel really bad for are the people he has BAMBOOZLED!I on the other hand can see right throught this man,and his minions. Gloria, how has the Pope bamboozled people? What has he said that is untrue, how has he been deceptive? Just wondering if you have anything objective, or just what you think may have taken place. I honestly don't know myself.

Odd how people who rail most loudly against homosexuality and pedophilia within the Church these days are the ones who were never vociferously opposed to either before the revelations of abuse by priests came to light. While there is no excuse for exposing children to risk or covering up abuses, it is not at all "hypocritical" for an institution that believes that all humans sin, but that they should be forgiven, to have sinners among its clergy and try to rehabilitate, rather than expose and vilify them. It is deeply hypocritical for those that turn a blind eye to all forms of depravity to single out the Church for histrionic hatred and ridicule.

Hmmm, sounds like a Republican to me.

Oh here we go with the American politics. And Leroy Brown, how dare you call my religion a pedophile Cult.

unbelievable-3571258

Sorry bub, but anyone refering to the Catholic Church as a "pedophile cult" has history on their side. Just ask Martin Luther.

The John Jay study of Catholic church sexual abuse scandal found out: 80% of the victims were male and 75% of those victims were post pubescent--past puberty so in most cases this would not be considered pedophilia. In most cases this would be considered forced gay sex. The study is not saying that all priests with homosexual tendencies commit abuse-it may even be that only a very small percentage of homosexually attracted Priests committed abuse. It does say that that most abuse of minors in the Catholic Church was committed by Priests with gay tendencies and that may be one area to focus on to find the solution to the problem. To do otherwise is to not focus on reality because of political correctness--which may lead to more future victims of sexual abuse.

ball_buster

You might just want to rub your braincell really hard and reread my post. Your reading comprehension skills are truly subpar.

b-b you really are not persuasive, regardless your position, by name-calling. You tend to make a horse's rear end of yourself by doing that.

OK.. I have a very dumb question to ask anyone reading this thread: What in sam hill is supposed to be a "pedophile cult"? A cult of abnormal interest in others' alleged pedophilia? Or a cult of men (and women????) accused of being pedophiles.

Perhaps the "cult" definition is both/all of the above. And so I think I am not out of line to suggest even a third definition: A cult of possible closet pedophiles themselves pretending they are not.

Once again, group. This article is NOT ABOUT pedophiles, pedophilia, nor cults of any actuality. This debate is so off subject it it pitiful.

That's only partly true, shalom. The post-pubescent age of most victims means that the 'pedophile' label is misplaced, as you suggest, and some 80% or so of abuse victims were males, as you also correctly stated. But after that your post is misleading and I wonder if you actually read the original report or just a summary by a secondary source, such as the biased interpretation of church apologists like the Catholic League's Bill Donahue?

The original report did NOT attribute the disproportionate number of male victims to the sexual preferences of abusing priests. It was, they concluded, only because males were more accessible than females, i.e. fewer parents were willing to leave their minor daughters alone and unsupervised with male priests. While this may defy simplistic notions of human sexuality, sexual activity does not always fit into neat black and white categories, there's a lot of gray area there.

Donahue ignored that conclusion which was unmistakably clear in the original report. It may seem anti-scientific to dismiss the conclusion of professional researchers in favor of one's own opinion (which is potentially biased because it's the conclusion he obviously preferred), but it would at least have been intellectually honest if he simply said he disagreed with the researchers' conclusion because . . . .

Omitting that information falsely imputes scientific authority to his own simple-minded interpretation, namely, the definition of gay sex = male + male, therefore homosexuality in the priesthood is to blame for the church's sex abuse scandal. The problem is, if you don't understand the true causes how can you come up with a real solution?

Bill Donohue has a PhD in Sociology. I don't. He has the qualifications to find fault with that portion of the conclusion of that study from an academic and scientific basis. Read his reasons why at Catholicleague.org.

As I told #3 and #3.1,Ain't going to happen.The Vatican is a Separate Country, and being it's head of state, this clown has immunity and he knows it.

The only way he could be arrested is if some country he's visiting had the balls to put a warrant out for his arrest and not let him know about it.That would be the perfect trap.Guess what,they don't have the balls.He'd have to go to North Korea or Iran for that to happen.He's not going to those places anytime soon.

In the meant time he'll just prance around and mesmorize all the unsuspecting parishioners.

Bottom line if these unsuspecting parioshioners knew the truth, and accepted the truth about the man,they'd be in shock, because they couldn't handle it.

It's not the lower ecshalon of the church I'm pissed at.It's the hierarchy that were and are still in place, and just looked the other way.Those are the ones whom I want to see brought to justice.

The church has rules in place now to protect the kids.I'll bet my last dollar on that.In my state a priest in a parish, was just arrested for molesting a teenager.The kid did the right thing , called the cops, and his superiors removed the priest from duty, he was arrested and thrown in njail.That's what the church should of done years ago.

But there's still too many things out of whack,with this church,and as I said the hierarchy still being place, who were in place, when all the scandals were going on and they turned a blind eye.I want them arrested including this Phony Pope and thrown in jail.However it ain't going to happen.

Why is there a double standard here? It is against the law to aid a known criminal. Those who have participated in a cover up for a child molester need to go to jail along with the molester. I don’t care how they pray.

I believe the Catholic Church is largely to blame. They deny priests marriage and the normal sexual outlets that all healthy people need. They create the situation that puts our children at risk. It is time to step out of the dark ages and recognize the priests and nuns have needs too.

The John Jay study of Catholic church sexual abuse scandal found out: 80% of the victims were male and 75% of those victims were post pubescent--past puberty so in most cases this would not be considered pedophilia. In most cases this would be considered forced gay sex. The study is not saying that all priests with homosexual tendencies commit abuse-it may even be that only a very small percentage of homosexually attracted Priests committed abuse. It does say that that most abuse of minors in the Catholic Church was committed by Priests with gay tendencies and that may be one area to focus on to find the solution to the problem. To do otherwise is to not focus on reality because of political correctness--which may lead to more future victims of sexual abuse.

I'm just curious how you figure that these comments are from weak minded people... I mean it is a matter of documented historical fact that the catholic church and by decree, the pope himself, covered up, moved and hid pedophile priests. It's not just some allegations a bunch of atheists came up with... it has been proven to be true in court-cases and in documents from the RCC itself.

Just because people are saying things that are against the source of your faith and an affront to your happy rosy view of your church doesn't mean it is not true...

I think you may need to reconsider just who has the weak mind around here... I'll give you a hint.... go to your bathroom and look in the mirror.

You said a truism there, Warbeast.

Warbeast - Are you saying that you would hold the President of the United States responsible for any abuses carried out anywhere by any government employee? Remember, we have teachers on the government payroll that have been having sex with kids all over the country. When it's discovered, the teachers are suspended sometimes with pay, or moved to other jobs within the system where they do not come into contact with the kids until they have their day in court. Not much difference between a school supervisor moving a teacher and a bishop moving a priest. Would you penalize the man that has issued new regulations to help those that were abused to prosecute the abusers because he came up through the system? That's what the comments 2-5 are calling for and you are speaking out in support of.

It's interesting that people feel that it's an act of bigotry to denounce a religion that kills hundreds of thousands of people ever year yet at the same time feel that it's good to make the comments like 2-5 about the Catholics.

Dan, if a teacher is found of abusing a child, s/he faces legal possible arrest. There is not a systematic policy of cover-up, unlike the Catholic church, which actually simply moved pedophile priests to positions where they could find new victims!

And while the president should not beheld responsible for teachers' actions (since they are local and state employees) he and the military brass should be held responsible for widespread abuses committed by our military.

The Church believes in redemption from sin, and the bible says to forgive 70 times 7. It was wrong for the Church to expose children to risk, and this has been admitted together with a request for foregiveness and redemption. You are free to reject this request. If you do, then you should be strong minded enough to articulate you own view of how society and individuals should treat those who have done wrong (ie, sinned) and attempted to reform themselves. If you subscribe to the mean spirited and vengeful approach taken by many on this site, I do not envy the life (or afterlife) you will be making for yourself.

Hey Vinnie what's the matter?You call these people weak minded!However I think you better look in the mirror.

YOUR PROBLEM?You can't face the real truth of the matter.You're afraid if you do your world as you know it might end.

Here's a Newflassh Vinnie!IT WON'T!

common sense - nutjob - if we do not believe that the silly religion or god is real- we do not believe in the same afterlife - our way of getting there and what we think it is ( or isnt ) - do not envy me, please - my belief is you are dead wrong and believe in a fairy tale - so you passing judgement or your opinion means nothing , positively nothing

fred.... hmmm.... you just called me a "nut job", my religion "silly" a "fairy tail" and "dead wrong"... and yet claim that somehow I was "passing judgement (sic)" on you... My religion actually teaches me not to pass judgment on you... Others can read you words and mine, and decide where reason, moderation, tolerance and the quest for truth reside in this modern age!

your religions, all religions are about passing judgement - for not believing , how you should believe or worship if you will , i have never met or heard anybody agree on what certain aspects or passages in the bible mean , you judge each other for gods sakes - a good number of you denounce gays - thats not passing judgement - how about you cs , how do you feel about the gay lifestyle , but who are we to judge right - and as far as reason and truth please - i cant get passed the first page of that silly book without breaking down - the first freakin page is fiction could not, did not happen - why would i tolerate fiction as truth - you literally have to be a nut - hence the term, nut - job

fred.... everyone has to make their own personal judgments about right and wrong. It is quite clear that you have done so, and feel very free to judge others who choose Catholicism. One of the reasons that many atheists have eventually converted to Christianity, in fact, is that they could not figure out why a deep seeded belief in there being right and wrong can be found among all people during all ages. After much reading and debating and deep thinking, many have concluded that Christianity is the best intellectual explanation for this fundamental truth. You really should read Chesterton or Lewis (both reformed atheists) before you condemn your shallow and cartoonish view of all religions. Yes, there are many thuggish, judgmental idiots who call themselves Christians. Reading the comments on this posting shows quite clearly, however, that they have many equally ignorant counterparts in the unbelieving camp. Why not read the brightest and most articulate on each side before deciding where you stand?

oh...btw... My brother is gay. I love him dearly, and think his partner is one of the coolest, nicest and funniest people I know.... I pray for them daily, and hope that they pray for me too, because I suspect that their sins are not as bad as my own and truly believe, that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone!".... haven't seen too many unbelievers on this site that share this philosophy.

commonsense... I think you and I have been at odds on other issues, but the one thing I have always respected is your gift of analysis and, yes, your ability to express your thoughts well and concisely (sigh I sure need lessons on that part).

And, that said, your comments today I agree with absolutely. This is just a thank you for being you.

Thank you Second. That really means a lot to me. I love to debate, but know that I am probably wrong about many things. I just wish that more of us would demand a reasonable and respectful discussion about even the most devisive of issues. Then maybe we could all learn a little something from one another.

common sense- do you think being gay is a sin -

I think the sin probably relates to putting your desire for sexual pleasure above your sacred obligation to sacrifice your appetites when they don't promote well being in others, but truthfully, the answer to that question is "above my pay grade". I do know that my Catholic religion tells me explicitly and repeatedly not to judge others, not to throw the first stone and to forgive 70 times 7. I truly believe that the world would be a better place if everyone would follow these precepts, and we will all find out god's answers in god's time. I also believe that the death and hell that are warned about are not god's punishment for sins, but god's fatherly advice as to what one's own behaviors will lead to if ways are not changed. Look at the state the world is in today as a result of so few following these fundamental precepts.

oh ok - only because the religious rights biggest boggie man in the room forever has been the gay lifestyle when all else fails attack the gays - it used to be saying certain words on tv that were going to be the end of society - but that shipped has sailed, have you watched network tv lately - i blush what happened to that rant by the way , where are the janet jackson nipple people anyway - i know they have a new scare tactic , black man white house , you can say boobs all you want ( and much worse by the way ) , is that culture war over they surrender - my point is its all bs - they hate and will fear whatever fox news tells them too - gays , abortion ,stem cell etc - its all political - they just make you believe your going to a place called heaven.

No, really Fred, don't listen to any of what you hear on TV about religion. These days all stations just try to start nasty mud fights to get ratings. In that sense, the conservative/religious warnings about the drift of media into smut proved to be quite accurate. Please read Chesterton, Lewis (an Anglican) and the Pope and you will find that they are all highly intelligent, reasonable and compassionate people even if they have a very different view of homosexuality than you. No true Catholic wants homosexuals to be anything other than loved, just as you would always love a child who engages in self destructive behavior. You can disagree with this belief, but there is no cause for hatred on either side.

So the U.S. should tranform into a Communist state, where all rleigious people are killed or arrested?

And how does that make you a better person? I'm not very religious, but I tolerate them, I even tolerate the Jehovah's Witnesses that come door to door, I listen to their speeches, I don't mind as long as it doesn't change my opinions. If you can't tolerate religion, then move your whiny a$$ to North Korea, I'm sure you'll love it there. Even so, religion won't go away any time soon. You can'tconvert more than half of all humans to switch to atheism.

Plus, how do you know if religion is all "fairy-tales"? Science? Well, science can only observe, prove, and disprove that which is observable in the natural world with the five senses and available tools. Since any deity or afterlife or Heaven or the sorts are metaphysical, they cannot be scientifically disproven or proven. Atheism is as much of an unsupported hypothesis as any religion.

Why are people that simple disagree with someone Else's opinion always told to move to another country ? I do believe that we live in a country where we have a right to disagree with someone else.

Not my church not my problem ...unless I am on a jury and I am to legally judge you and there I stick to due process in each case.

I'm not telling him to move. I suggest him to find a new country to live in, if he hates religion that much.

then move your whiny a$$ to North Korea

That is not a suggestion, that is telling him to move, learn to read what you write

Rick, so right, religion, could also be called a cult (six of one, half a dozen of the other), is not simply a belief, it's fanaticism to the nth degree.

HELLO PEOPLE!Get your heads out of your posteriors aka asses!All the ones calling for religion to be destroyed?Your thinking is as sick as all the World's Leaders who snuffed out millions and millions of people's lives since the Roman Empire, to Adolph Hitler, Stalin, and right on up to the present day fanatics who are running these countries such as Iran and North Korea.

You logic makes NO SENSE,no sense at all.What?you want to destroy this country and the very foundations it was founded on?Well Guess what people?PART OF THAT WAS RELIGION!IF THAT DID'T HAPPEN, YOU PEOPLE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE!

By spewing off your anti religious propaganda, you people are no better than all the history and the countries I named above.

Smarten the Hell Up People,and get your heads out of your backends,and look at the REAL PRINCIPLES AND THE REAL REASONS WHY THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED.OTHER WISE YOU PEOPLE ARE NOTHING MORE THAN FAILURES.and Bitter disappointments to this Country!

All religions are cults as defined by sociological terms.

I know of no time in human history which was without religion. Human beings are going to have one, and not even the most ruthless totalitarian regime can eliminate it. History has shown this. I do, however, feel some need to specifically and respectfully address the comment by Gloria, for I find it at best somewhat misleading to those who are unaware of our nation's history. One our nation's Great Seal one may find the Latin phrase, Novus Ordo Seclorum, a phrase misinterpreted wildly by many through the years. The New Order of the World specifically referenced the concept of a Democratic Republic which constitutionally prohibits the establishment of a state religion, and is in the hands of her people. At the time this was done this was absolutely unique. Those who worked to found our nation all would have called themselves Christian, but none of them would have identified with the kind of revisionist 'fundamentalist' Christianity which seeks to establish a theocracy here (like Iran, for example, though they were speaking of England or the other monarchies whose right to rule was derived from the Roman Catholic Church). Thomas Jefferson edited his own copy of the New Testament to specifically omit any words by anyone other than Jesus (the Jefferson Bible) but it would have never occurred to him that any citizen of the United States of America should be a Christian, less they be less of an American. George Washington personally welcomed our nation’s first Synagogue. To these wise men, religion was an absolutely private matter between a human being and their own conscience and their Creator. Under no circumstances did they believe that any governmental authority should ever enter into the practice of an individual’s faith in any way whatsoever, and this was a very new idea, indeed. While our founders often reference ‘God’ they did NOT reference your God, or my God or anyone else’s God. The ONLY mention in our constitution of religion is that part which prohibits the establishment of one. The words ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christian’ never show up in either our Constitution nor our Declaration of Independence by design; they were never intended to be there. They absolutely in no manner intended that our nation be founded as a ‘Christian nation’ and the proof of this is in the documents they produced and the acts of the men in all aspects of their lives. If one should feel they disagree with the faith of another, this is their right under our system of government. It is NEVER EVER anyone’s right to demand that any one of us believe anything, or even in God at all. One may revere God and belong to no religion whatsoever. I hear a great many of my associates here in Texas mention the United States of America as a ’Christian nation’ and they believe this to be true. It is not true and never was true, and should it ever become so, then the great work which was our founding shall have been for naught.

Voice,

Thank you, you put it much more eloquently that I could have.

Voice ... superb writing and analysis. And right on, too.

I have one small... hmmm... suggestion? Please just do more paragraphing? Newspapers (and this may be wrong of them but there was a point to it) have accustomed us to paragraphs... and yes they were for column formats, but shorter paragraphs do make for easier reading. Even a slightly different take on the same point can be emphasized with a new paragraph.

You are good... and I have seen you on other issues. You are definitely worth reading all of what you comment about.

Voice of Doom post 8.8

Madison's personal beliefs about Christianity aren't as important as his believing we were a Christian nation.

"If the public homage of a people can ever be worthy the favorable regard of the Holy and Omniscient Being to whom it is addressed, it must be that in which those who join in it are guided only by their free choice, by the impulse of their hearts and the dictates of their consciences; and such a spectacle must be interesting to all Christian nations as proving that religion, that gift of Heaven for the good of man, freed from all coercive edicts, from that unhallowed connection with the powers of this world which corrupts religion into an instrument or an usurper of the policy of the state...Upon these principles and with these views the good people of the United States are invited, in conformity with the resolution aforesaid, to dedicate the day above named to the religious solemnities therein recommended."
Given at Washington, this 23d day of July, A. D. 1813.[seal.] JAMES MADISON

Here, Madison claims "these principles" are proper for Christian nations to conform to. Freedom of Conscience is what he is referring to, while comparing us with all Christian nations, to what common sense dictates, we must be a Christian nation.
Common sense asks why would Madison compare us with a Christian nation if he did not believe we were such?

Thomas Jefferson also believed the First Amendment only referred to a denomination of Christianity

"[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists." Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.

Jefferson would never have neglected the other religions if the amendment encompassed them, for it was against his sense of duty:

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson June 12, 1823

The ratifiers make it clear, the First Amendment granted freedom of conscience but the establishment clause only referred to a particular sect of Christianity., as Constitution signer Henry Abbot explains:

"Many wish to know what religion shall be established. I believe a majority of the community are Presbyterians. I am, for my part, against any exclusive establishment; but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal."Elliot's Debates, Vol. IV, pp. 191-192, July 30, 1788.

Here also is First Amendment Ratifier Samuel Johnston in the North Carolina ratifying convention:

I know but two or three States where there is the least chance of establishing any particular religion. The people of Massachusetts and Connecticut are mostly Presbyterians. In every other State, the people are divided into a great number of sects. In Rhode Island, the tenets of the Baptists, I believe prevail...I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will see there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established. July 30, 1788

A big thank you to Ken, and Second Sight .. you are so right. I was on such a tear there, that I completely forgot about paragraph structure ... your comment is well taken and fully deserved! Shalom, I see you have done your homework! I will not argue with your post, for I cannot know what was the intent other than by observing the results, which are truly unique and brilliant. I do thank you for the references and appreciate your post!

"so stop trying to beat everyone else."

"Religion is a disorder and competition is socially offensive"

Who gave you VIP rights to do something you tell others not to do?

"Who gave you VIP rights to do something you tell others not to do?"

Please be specific.

Well, I guess it is how we say it. Personally, every one of us has the "right" to speak his own opinion.

I really do not think any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights gives any of us the right to insult someone else, especially for his opinion. Aside from the fact that we can never persuade someone by calling him names... even if it is venting.. goodness... vent against the ideas, the issues, not against the person.

Don't let anonymity go to our heads. Let's not expose ourselves as being... well ... unable to express our own ideas, and that is just what name-calling does. What frustrates me no end is reading a very well-written comment.. all the way through! Good points, supported, organized. And then! ugh-lee... last sentence says something like... "And if you can't agree... you are stupid."

OK.. you got me now.. I really dislike the word "stupid." Some of you may line up to give it to me! LOL

Have you noticed, those of us who do not change nics get to know each other? We may not always agree, but we don't have to be enemies either.

Exceptionally well spoken, Second Sight. Thank you ....

" ... I am a Mason alright .. and I have ... the Second Sight "

What do you think the Pope as the head of the Catholic Church was apologizing for?

You can only apologize so many times for what someone else who was part of your organization did to to someone. You can only pay for so much therapy. There's a point where the victim needs to get over it and move on with their life. If not all they are doing is giving more of their lives away to their abuser. How long do you want to feel sorry for yourself? 30 years? 40 years? Your whole life? It's your llife, spend it as you choose.

Dan, Benedict was rewarded for his part in the 'coverup' by being given the highest position afforded his 'country'...that's rich. Your under-analysis of how devastating this 'abuse' is to a young child is woefully lacking. smh

Wow! You obviously have never read anything the Pope has written. Unlike you, he is a true intellectual with a deep sense of compassion for those who have differing beliefs. When exactly did leaders of the Church re-emerge as the witnesses to truth and understanding in our age, while the secularists have fallen to shallow and empty-headed name calling? Given his opposition, the Pope has nothing to worry about. Eventually thinking people will realize that faith and reason go hand in hand. Just look at and listen to those who have neither!

you want reason, common sense ,justice , answer one question how many young children have been sexually abused and hid behind and been protected by this "holy " cult - tens of thousands , we / i do not need to hear your rational spin of these crimes - they all should be put away forever - or are we going to let god pass final judgement , well what if one or all of the victims have lost their belief in god ( because of their abuse ) - then they never really get justice do they and that is the exact reason that reason and faith will never ever mix - all faith is an open end excuse for everything , at the end of the day you can justify anything because of it - and that is just the opposite of reality or reason -not everyone needs faith to exist thats just what the so called believers count on

wrong-on every level-but thanks for trying

veronaformer.... You are so right!!! These people, who fashion themselves as erudite intellectuals have obviously never studied the Church, history or logic. A small dose of G.K. Chesterton is in order!!!

I must concur. The "Church" validated the conquering of the people in the Americas and their mass murder if they could not be converted to Catholicism. Just look to Church of San Louis Abisbo in Cali. The quad it sits on is a mass grave not to mention the atrocities of enslavement in the West Indies.

Intellect.... Is this opposite day?.... The Church has been in existence for thousands of years, including epochs when brutality was the order of the day. Have you ever studied the practices of those native Americans who you claim that the Church "validated" conquering? Human sacrifice is only the tip of the iceberg. It is quite true that many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, including the Catholic religion (although not nearly as awful as the atrocities committed in the names of godless soviet Bolshevism, Nazism or Cambodian communism in the modern era). The fact of the matter is, however, that the light of reason was kept alive by the Church during the dark ages, and it is the Church's fundamental teaching of truth, tolerance, justice and mercy that are best aspects of modern society. Read the pope, GK Chesterton and CS Lewis before you assume all religious people are ignorant yahoos.

It is not a claim but a fact of history. Just look to Jamaica, San Salvador, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida and of course California. As for American Indians on the North American continent they did not practice human sacrifice as you claim. If you really want to take some time to learn please read the Papal Bull Doctrine of Discovery. As you will see the "Church" has never rescinded this piece of trash utterance of civilization. Now take some time to reflect why the "Church" would not rescind this great Bull and you will see the way. It validates the taking of the lands and killing of its people. If the Doctrine was to be rescinded then there would be no law to continue claim on the Americas.

So, Intellect, you truly believe that the Catholic Church has designs for dominion over the Americas?

And I guess you can give tons of examples of times in history when a technologically superior culture came in contact with a far inferior competitor and did not push the weaker aside? What about the wars between the native Americans themselves? Who killed off the Mandan? Who pushed the Apaches further and further West? How many competing tribes were swept aside by the Comanches before the Colt 44 and repeater rifle changed the equation. How many Christian settlers were brutally massacred, raped, mutilated etc by these same Comanches.

Don't get me wrong. There was (and is) much to admire about Native American societies. There was also much not to admire. The bottom line is that the Europeans committed atrocities and stole territory despite their Chriustianity and not because of it.

Quite frankly, antoni, you will find the people, or the largest majority of them, prefer neither one, especially catholocism, which by the way is a far cry from being "christian."

Neither. I much prefer being a Pagan. From what I see, there's not a whole lot of difference between any of the 4 Abrahamic religions...islam, christianity, judaism or satanism.

None embrace true moral, philosophical and personal freedom, which is understandable, as all are based off of the original slave culture of Israel.

So PirateFarmer - which brand of paganism are you into - the new version where everybody loves everybody or the original one where it's all about survival of the fittest based on nature and allows the sacrifice of your enemies?

antoni, why do you assume anyone has to choose between 'a religion'?

Clever, Dan. whew

DanH - Neither is accurate, however, I can see how sacrificial offerings came to your mind...after all, it was the Abrahamic god that first demanded the sacrifice of his most favored adherent's son, only at the last moment to yell "Psych! - Just foolin', man".

Its interesting that you consider it to be a slam to imply that I might actually believe in a spiritual path that DOES advocate love of our fellow humans. To quote Kid Rock: "I'm not 'Born Again', but if I was...I'd ask to come back with a little more love."

So, to return the question: Which christianity sect do you belong to? The one that preaches 'Love thy brother' while spewing venomous diatribes against all other religions, or the one that claims to be the "Moral" majority while supporting with your "tithes" your spiritual leaders that protect pedophiles (catholic church), bilks the congregation while cheating on their spouses (just about any televangelist)??

There's many other types of christians...even many good ones that honestly try to follow their chosen spiritual path...but I don't think you're one of the more positive types.

And it must be true...since he said so.

So how many pedophile priests has he ordered turned over to the legal authorities for prosecution, now, anyways?

No, what's hated is the fact that the official stance of the catholic church is to do...

...nothing.

Except for hiding and moving about the child molesters to avoid prosecution, offer payoffs to the victims - and if that doesn't work - threaten them with "god", and let's not forget the best one - putting the greatest protector of pedophile priests ever (their LAST pope) on the fast-track to sainthood, who will then become the patron saint of pedophiles, I guess.

That's not even touching on the subject of their involvement with Nazis, or their constant influence in politics.

So the actions of SOME people inside an organization should have some critizism and hatred for ALL of the organization?

PirateFarmer - Did you read the article? Pope apologizes, Bishops working to help people prosecute offenders?

socialist - yes why would any sane person still belong to such an organization - to make sure they save their eternal soul - well guess what they all should go to hell and- dan not enough they should go into another line of work because as far as im concerned thats all it is, a business and a job , with perks for perverts

Socialist...Yes, actually, ESPECIALLY when the bad ones are the leaders. Ever hear many comments about the Nazis that DIDN'T think it was right to kill anyone that wasn't "their kind"? If you don't condemn the actions of these pervert-priests, then you condone them. Supporting the leaders of an organization that you belong to, inherently implies that you support their actions. Whether it's a church, a political party, the Red Cross, whatever.

DanH - Your 'old man in a funny dress' can say whatever he wants...many criminals will tell a judge and jury that they're "sorry" at sentencing time. Bishops 'helping' prosecute the pervert-priests? Name one instance that it actually happened.

Name even just ONE priest that was turned over BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH to authorities, with evidence given by any bishop anywhere that would support the allegations. There's been hundreds and thousands of instances of the opposite occurring. I truly see no difference between the actions of the catholic church and the mormon sect that's been in the news recently. Remember: according to the law, anyone aiding and abetting those involved in a criminal activity are also guilty of a crime, and can be held accountable for the actions of the criminals, as well. The driver of the getaway car is just as guilty of bank robbery as the gunmen who go inside...and is accountable, as well, if anyone is killed or injured during the commission of that crime. So let's get that warrant issued for the pope, shall we?

Not all the Church is bad, that is something everyone needs to understand. Having bad leadership doesn't lead to having bad followers. Many Catholics question the actions of the Vatican at sometimes. Attendance at the Vatican and at the church has been going down recently, however, those people still identify themselves as Believers.

GoodSWocialist:

There is that.

Yes, but for decades the leaders at all levels of the Catholic Church chose to protect known pedophile priests. They placed more importance on giving job security to abusive priests (just move them to another parish) than on protecting the innocent children who became the next victims of those priests.

I do not, however, fault the members of the Catholic Church, who are generally very good and kind people. However, the actions of the church hierarchy during decades of revelations about child abuse -- that should really make members of the Catholic Church question what the leaders of their church truly value.

When are you guys going to get past this incredible fanaticism and get into research. And good sense! You want to annihilate one religion to, perhaps, bring more to whatever beliefs you might have?

Folks like you, Cal Chi, love to take a minute instance of troubled priests and escalate it into fabricated effects and numbers ad infinitum. You think there are no troubled Atheists? Rabbis? Muslims and their imams? Protestants and their Ministers? Even just plain people... like you?

Get next to it... Taking "1," and saying it means 1,000,000 because "we can ignore the zeros," is known, politely, as the Flawed Generalization. It's a basic offense of logical thinking... that of assuming few examples can be extrapolated to represent a huge whole. IT CAN'T! Never. Not. No-how!

Wise up you extremists ... what is driving you to spill out lies and untruths... You are identical to ... no worse because you should know better ... to the Witch Hunters of Salem... trying to kill innocent people by your name-calling and pathetic LACK OF BASIC LOGIC and a total lack of research into facts. Name-calling is not facts. Generalizing is NOT fact. and... boy, Assumptions are NOT facts.

Google the word "evidence." And forget "circumstantial." You aren't attorneys... and sometimes even they... well that for a different post lol.

In fact, my guess right now is that all you bigots are the unhappiest, most troubled, of any priests or faiths you denigrate... or you wouldn't be spouting off here the way you are.

Nasty, sad, shameful, and miserably unhappy, you Witch Hunters. Who are you going to hang next? Be careful it won't be yourselves.

I have noticed SecondSight1 you do a lot of name calling to those who haven't. You seem to be very defensive and call names when you become frustrated even to the point of calling people uneducated and so forth with no knowledge of who they are. I was once told by a wise man those who become defensive in a conversation are trying to hide the truth.

OK.. if I have called you uneducated and it hurt you that was wrong wrong wrong of me. If I called you uneducated, to me, I wasn't insulting you because I wanted to get you to think what you needed to do to fix whatever we disagreed about OR proved me wrong... that would be better.

I've already admitted I was a teacher. I did not mean to appear I thought being uneducated is an insult. I have known too many incredibly smart people with limited education... Education is so unimportant just to evaluate a person.

But, if a person is intelligent, they really, in today's age, must continue their education. And don't be afraid to get a job, part-time. Or, full time and go to school part-time.

I owe you an apology, Intellect... and I need to watch how I express myself. We, most of us, will make errors here... most of those I don't mind and would certainly not comment on. Oddly though, I admit, when I see someone who thinks with conviction, and he or she needs, perhaps, a challenge to express it better I might do a buttinsky. sigh guess I'm not as skilled at that as I used to be.

Has it not occurred to you that some educated people are so in the physical or life sciences and therefore not uneducated at all? Some chose theology. some literature or other social sciences. To search for the truth through science is not to be uneducated except in maybe the thought of theology. As for the study of history there are no truer words than those that are written by the authors themselves on the paper upon which they were written. Food for thought.

well if we did not have the church at least it would not being happening there

Yeah fred it'd be happening somewhere else.Here'a reminder fred.It's not the Church itself that's bad.It's the Top Ass Holes running it.

Same as the U S Government.It's not the government that's bad.It's the Top Ass Holes who are running it.

People seem to forget all that.They just look ahead instead from side to side also!Sorta Like Tunnel Vision!

its kinda more like" tunnel vision "when you place your faith in a cult that is run that way - when was the last time followers got to VOTE on what they will follow - the public officials you can boot out - a silly belief you are kinda stuck with - either you believe a guy came back from the dead or you dont - pretty simple - i think you know where i stand

And you, Bart, attempting pontification, should be in a restricted environment, 24/7.

veronafoamer, you have gotten to the essence of this debate. You are absolutely correct.

So, this pope, while bishop or big kahuna or grand poobah or whatever in Germany DIDN'T really move to other parishes (even other countries) priests that were accused of being child molesters? Those church records of priests that he moved aren't accurate? Those priests weren't accused of baby-raping? So the entire apology given by Old Pointy-Hat was, like, pointless? The entire visit by this guy was centered around something you say didn't occur. He, as most criminals are want to do, denies any wrong-doing, but he doesn't deny that it happened...just that his motives for moving these baby-rapers had nothing to do with the accusations, and just normal church business. Which, ironically, is, in fact, accurate: it is the normal business of the catholic church leaders to protect their resident pedophiles.

You have an interesting point ... convict the guilty.

Well, we would like to. But the fact is, the church has covered up the guilty, moved them to different places and suppressed the records needed to convict.

Do I blame everyone in the Catholic church? No, of course not. But I DO blame the hierarchy who participated in the coverup as much (if not more) than those who committed the crimes. And, if that should extend all the way up to the pope .. well, then it does.

And Beth, just exactly what is your evidence that the Church "covered up" the problem? You have nothing written but an assertion, and a weak one it is.

And how can you blame a hierarchy and not the Church itself? (You really know nothing about the Roman Catholic church or its history, let alone its structure.)

Crimes? The hierarchy (that means all of them) are criminals?

Are you making the statement that all those in Vatican City have committed "the crimes"? You are exponentially incorrect in that allegation to the point of absurdity.

Hate to get you back to earth. Everything in your post is incorrect, except the fact that you have feelings of and desire to "blame"... well, something or other. Since you yourself have no facts, what are your real reasons???? hmmmm?

I suggest you google the word "hearsay."

Actually, yes, they ARE criminals! Those that knowingly aid, abet, cover up, protect and/or shelter from prosecution those guilty of a crime, are, in fact, guilty of a crime, themselves.

As for having no facts: get real! Even your pope admits that there are pedophile priests. Yet, he has turned over exactly NONE to the authorities for prosecution. So, by his own admission, there are criminals within the church. As the leader that grants them shelter, he is, then, by his own insinuation, guilty of sheltering criminals from prosecution. If it wasn't the catholic church, but any non-religious organization (such as any mega-corporation), it would be obvious and acknowledged for what it is...criminal.

Face it - there is absolutely NOTHING that your church and its upper echelon can do that you won't accept as okay, since you get your morals and your concept of what is and isn't right or wrong, based on what THEY tell you. Fortunately, as mentioned elsewhere, there is a groundswell developing amongst the average catholic people that is demanding an accounting of all this, and want to clean house.

Millions of people out there, like you, who think bigotryand generalizations will save the day. What a sick world world we live in.

Aahhh... the old "He did it, too!" cry comes out at last. So very...

8-year-oldish.

If they want to make it right, start turning over some pedophile priests immediately for prosecution...including those that protected them (which is a criminal offense, in itself)...starting with the pope.

All the words of 'change' and sympathy and apologies will not take away one moment of pain and fear from their victims.

And yet many believe that there is a chance for redemption even after this life.

Amen to your statement about finding and learning about God yourself. I too believe that having a personal relationship with God in which reading and educating ones self is the best way. There is freedom in that and it creates the ability to discern what is true and what is false. I don't believe that God will judge anyone wrong who has spent their life in search of who God is. It is the effort and desire to know what is true, that he/she is a merciful, kind, compassionate, and forgiving God, and extending that to all regardless of who they are.

The sad part is that knowing these truths, why does organized religion need to be so hostile and in many cases abusive? In fact, after another news story of abuse by other christian communities, I was wondering how can the message of hope, love and redemption become so lost in organized religion. This is where the outrage begins.

But what is truly shocking is the speed which the Islam religion is advancing on their agenda at the end of times. We are living in the End Times, as you and I know it.

Really? Why is that so shocking? It is EXACTLY what Christianity did to get as far as it is now.

Islamic men on American Universities are twisting it all for American students, brainwashing them, and turning them pro Islam while taking all their Christian values away and swaying many young students into choosing the walk with the devil.

That's some severe paranoia! But then again, this too sounds familiar! Just like McCarthy in the 50's! And the Catholics in the Inquisition and Crusades. And the Nazis during the Holocaust. Get those big, bad (fill in the blanks). They might have thoughts that don't agree with us!

I find the hatred people bring on here is highly infecting and their spirit highly rotted.

Very hypocritical of you since you go on to rant against the anyone who's not a white Christian.

I've seen my darling friend's blonde blue eyes-white (used to be Christian) daughters lose all respect for their American families and join many Muslim thugs

If the "Christians" were like that ... I can certainly understand why your friend daughters took another path.

And ... @ Terry and Letmesay
Please do not take my comments as in any way directed to either of you. I felt that BOTH of you presented your beliefs and viewpoints in a very nice and respectful manner. While I may not agree with all you said, I certainly think you both said it appropriately. And, in fact Terry, it's my further opinion that annaelise somewhat subverted your comments.