That didn't take long
I'm running late, so I'll make this quick. The Argus Leader this morning is reporting that the new bishop isn't wasting any time on getting involved in SD politics:
Read it all here.
Bishop Paul Swain came out swinging Thursday. Within an hour of being
ordained a Roman Catholic bishop and installed as the eighth leader of the
Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, he had spoken out on two issues on the Nov. 7
ballot.
"I'm proud to say that the first vote I will cast as a South Dakotan will
be yes for Referred Law 6," Swain said, to applause and a standing
ovation.
Referred Law 6 is the abortion ban, which was passed by the state
Legislature earlier this year and will be decided by voters. It outlaws all
abortions except those done to save a pregnant woman's life.
"This law is not perfect legislation, but it will better respect and
protect the vulnerable," Swain said.He also said he would vote yes on
Constitutional Amendment C. Approval of Amendment C would amend the South Dakota
Constitution to recognize marriages between only a man and a woman.
Swain said he was not judging or demeaning anyone by doing so but
preserving the common good and encouraging family life.
Read it all here.
Comments
Just a thought.
Seperation of Church and State huh??
When are people going to realize that the church doesn't care about political correctness or what's in vogue. It believes what it believes and is unafraid to say so.
Has it stumbled over the past 2000 years? Absolutely. The spanish inquisition, empire building, and the priest molestation scandals are not positive points for the church.
But as it reaffirms itself to it's mission of bringing God's teachings to the people, it will endure to derision of the secularists and those who worship "pop culture" instead of the lord.
Oh yeah, there's no coercive effect there, when the bishop tells you how he's voting. No coercive effect at all.
Atheism is a religeon/church. I will seperate myself from government as soon as all you atheists seperate yourselves from government as well.
Didn't our Founding Fathers warn us about the problems so many are inviting into government?
The other side does it too so we all need to just "Get over it. It's a fact of life."
Is that really your best thought on this issue? Al Gore does it, so the Bishop can too. Is it possible that both both Al Gore and the Bishop are wrong?
Wait on second thought, I think I like your philosophy....Abortions are a fact of life...just get over it. Being gay is fact of life....just get over it. You are wrong and I am right...just get over it.
Do you think that group of Sioux Falls pastors who publicly spoke out against the bill are aetheists?
And even if the bishop didn't specifically tell his flock how to vote, it had the same effect.
He certainly wasn't making the statement because it was news.
If you are not an atheist, why did you answer a post addressing atheists ? hahaha, get over it !
What is offensive is someone's ignorant assumption that people who oppose that radical abortion ban are aetheists.
President Bush has stated that he believes there should be exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother.
Sen. Thune said he preferred that there be exceptions.
Do you think they are aetheists too?
I guess you can insult me since you have no facts or better philosophies to share. I didnt insult anyone with my atheist post.
I am glad you are not an atheist, you would embarras them as well as your church friends.
I call the "seperation of church n state" folks, atheists. Why silence the church's? Dont we criticize the "church" for not opposing the nazi's ? how about the church's of the south not condemming slavery ? Or do we want the church's backing, just when we agree with it ? It seems hypocritical to cry foul when the church condems abortion, gay marriage, and gambling and for not condeming the nazis and slavery
Has it stumbled over the past 2000 years? Absolutely. The spanish inquisition, empire building, and the priest molestation scandals are not positive points for the church.
Add this attempt to force Catholic doctrine on non-catholics to the list.
Seriously, if you oppose gay marrage or an abortion don't get one but leave the rest of us alone.
Why is politics about War. Do you want to go to war just because we can brainwash all of our citizens into thinking there is a reason (read WMD, terrorist) or get our facts straight.
Those who are on the religous right only think one way, fear of GOD and what HE (they think god is a he) will do to you. What about us? We're screwing up the rest of the planet.
Why did our founding fathers seek to separate chuch and state? Mmmm...think england, rome...They were smarter than most people who run this country now.
Let's move on from this and continue to support our rights as women and men, citizens of the US, the Constitution and everything else the republicans choose not to support (I call that evil). SO it is the republicans that will go to HELL, not the dems.
what bugger of a country this is...vote blue because it is YOU!
Organic skin and body care products.
Chemicals that are in your stuff now: carcinogens
See the resources:
http://www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org/Pages/CosmeticCompanies.html
http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep2/findings/index.php?content=majorfindings
Seems that tiny little life gets lost in all the argument and discussion back and forth, and we need to get back to that. Vote YES for LIFE!
On the other hand, many modern ethicists (notably Philippa Foot and Alasdair MacIntyre), both within and outside of the Catholic Church, have recently commented on the possible use of Aquinas's virtue ethics as a way of avoiding utilitarianism or Kantian deontology. Through the work of 20th century philosophers such as Roman Catholic convert Elizabeth Anscombe (especially in her book Intention), Aquinas's principle of double effect specifically and his theory of intentional activity generally have been influential.
Modern readers might also find the method frequently used to reconcile Christian and Aristotelian doctrine rather strenuous. In some cases, the conflict is resolved by showing that a certain term actually has two meanings: the Christian doctrin
(end of quoted material) Source below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
"Just wars" come to us compliments of St. Augustine.
Do we really want to try to run modern secular democracies after the model of "saints" attempting to justify a special place for the church?
There is nothing dishonorable about being athiest, but agnostic seems to be a better position since it lacks the aspects of "faith" required to take supernaturalism seriously or to be certain of the non-existence of a supernatural deity.
It is time politicians and voters became very wary of church officials and politicians claiming to be the right hand of God. Accepting the idea of a supernatural diety gives these special pleaders an aura of authority unwarranted by anything provable.
I will be satisfied with his leadership if he devotes at least as much time to speaking about feeding the hungry, prividing medical care to the sick, and taking care of the poor.
There are more issues than just abortion and same-sex marriage.
Ah yes, I forgot about that. I forgot that the Catholic Church was the "chosen" church. Of course you are the real Christian leaders. Of course you can continue to pray everyday that the rest of us non-Catholics see the light and convert and be saved!
Of course I realize that if the "Christian Right" were just all good Catholics that this world would be in much better shape!
Yes, you are the leaders, the chosen ones. I just hope that someday I see the light!
What this boils down to for most of the pro-aborts is that they don't a have big stick here in SoDak that can speak with a microphone as large as Swain.
How many of the sep/church/state folks would have complained about Martin Luther King and his statements regarding the city of Montgomery during the bus boycotts?
I want to hear one intellectually honest liberal tell me on this blog that they would have ran MLK out of the Dexter Street church for blasting the state of Alabama and the city of Montgomery about their policies.
On the night of December 5, 1955, elated at the day's success in emptying the buses, boycotters assemble at the Holt Street Baptist Church and vote to keep the protest going. A main speaker is a new minister in town, 26-year-old Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Because he has no history with the town leaders, other ministers, including Ralph Abernathy and Fred Shuttlesworth, persuade King to lead the Montgomery Improvement Association and the boycott. King delivers an inspiring speech, saying, "If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong."
Powerful words...if we are wrong the constitution is wrong. Just like the constitution was wrong about Plessy v. Ferguson, it's also wrong about Roe v. Wade.
Bishop Swain more power to you. Keep speaking truth to power!
"I call the "seperation of church n state" folks, atheists."
That's funny. I call them "founding fathers."
They were ALL ABOUT people practising their Christain faith in the government. George Washington even wrote that if you didn't "fear God you shouldn't be a judge!"
The ONLY thing that the founding fathers addressed was that the USA would not establish a government church, paid for and administered from the government, like what had been in England.
The IRS guidelines about what churches can and cannot do didn't come in until Johnson--a d*** Democrat got in.
Churches, leaders, and Pastors have a responsibility to inform their congregations about how they will vote and to lead their people to do what is right according to the tenents of their beliefs!
There is NOTHING illegal or wrong about it! At least not according to the Founding Fathers!
has had for almost 2000 years! It is obvious by some of the angry
posts that those most angry know the least about the church! Just enough to complain about it!
If you arent Catholic please rest
assured that we arent trying to
convert you!!! We certainly arent
trying to "save" you!! Catholics
seldom talk of being saved oh
ignorant one!!!!!!
I think our founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew what was happening.
I will stop walking, talking and voting like a christian. As soon as all you atheists stop walking, talking and voting like atheists.
Atheism is a religeon/church. I will seperate myself from government as soon as all you atheists seperate yourselves from government as well.
The founding fathers said many things that have been re-interpretetd, like "keep n bear arms" meant one thing back then, means another today...
free speech was defined differently back then also,,,now it is "burn the flag",,,,,
seperation of church and state meant something entirely different to our founding fathers as well, they didnt mean it like you do.
Churchs used to take care of the poor, the sick, and educated our children, then the government stepped in and said,, step back, we will handle that from now on. Problem is, the governmant has failed misserably on all fronts. They cant take care of the sick, they dont take care of the poor, and their attempt to educate our children has failed even worse.
My idea of seperation of church and state is--- the state needs to get out of the churchs business. The Church (Gods people) need to take back the duties that God commanded the church to do, like, take care of the sick, poor, and educate our children. The idea of teaching children did not come from a government official, hospitals did not originate from a government. Taking care of the poor was not originally the role of government,,,,WAS IT ??
What a great place liberalism has brought us to, failure after failure, after failure. Good luck on your efforts to fix societys problems.
"In colonial times, abortion before 'quickening' -- the first perceptible fetal movement, usually around the fourth month of pregnancy -- was legal. Early American medical literature includes frequent references to methods of abortion."
Keeping in mind that abortion was legal in colonial times, upon what do you base your statements? Please cite your documentation, if in fact you have any.
Again, since Bishop Swain is pro-life, he must certainly be in favor of MEDICAL MARIJUANA & Initiated Measure 4.
And the Bishop will still not care about what anyone says. The church believes what the church believes, and they could care less about politics.
That's what this comes down to isn't? Bishop Swain got media and the other side didn't.
So now is Bishop Swain somehow not allowed to "go to the media?" Is he not allowed his 1st amendment rights because he is a priest?
What the hell are you people all about? Silencing the opposition and trying to destroy their character...while taking rights away and oppressing the values vote?
That is EXACTLY what they are all about!
When Roman Catholic clergy preach their message to their parishioners, they are imparting what they believe is God's word. They can even encourage their members to publicly proseltize that message, and it would still be considered part of their jobs as clergy.
But when Catholic clergy use their positions to publicly try to influence voters, any claim that the church doesn't care about politics flies out the window.
Now do you get it?
PP, amazing demnonstration of blind faith or being oblivious to facts.
Mixing church and state is dangerous to both. The United States was at least formed partially by people who fled here to escape theocracy. Based on the number of churches peppering the state, I think that separation has been very helpful to religion.
But, if religions want to start mixing it up, there are more than a few people willing to join the fight and that will not be good for churches and religions.
The Bishop's answered prayers may bring more pain than he might ever guess.
How long do you have to be a resident of SD to vote here? Can you vote here if registered to vote in another state?
the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a right afforded to priests and pastors too.
why can't a priest or pastor attempt to influence your vote?
A priest has his beliefs and when he espouses them you are free to turn away and not listen.
But don't make specious arguments that they are not allowed to influence voters.
What about in non election years when preist talk about giving to the poor? That's influencing voters. What about not hurting others? That's influencing voters. What about a whole host of issues that priests talk about?
If you don't like it don't listen.
The problems start when the issue is something which different religions do not completely agree on.
The Catholic church has always opposed abortion. I don't know of any churches that endorse abortion, but many churches believe there are instances when the mother's well-being should be the main consideration.
When one church pushes an issue that affects the entire populace, and the other churches do not agree with that stand, it creates resentment.
For instance, people of the Jewish religion believe in circumcism. Many or most other people have their male babies circumcised too, but let's pretend for the moment that only Jewish boys are circumcised.
Then - and remember this is only an example - let's pretend that the Jews decided that all male babies of every race and religion should be circumcized.
They present evidence that it would be better for society if all babies are circumcized. So the legislature buys that argument and passes a law that all male babies must, by law, be circumcized.
Now let's say Catholics don't agree that the government should force them to circumcize their boy babies. They say the Jewish people are forcing this on everyone because this is what their religion believes.
How would you feel about them forcing something upon you which you and your religion are not in total agreement with?
Again, this is just an example and not a very good one at that, but I hope it gets the point across.
It's moral, it's about preserving life. Plain and simple. Just think about that.
You are an idiot. The post is about the role of the church in politics. the bishop made at least two comments. One about abortion. The second about the gay marriage ban. Please tell us all what banning gay marriage has to do with the preservation of life? You and all the evangelical wackos need to stop forcing cramming YOUR religion on the rest of us. Why is YOUR religion right and mine wrong?
Recent books apparently indicate that the Bush administration has cynically manipulated the Christian right. The GOP word moves down from the top and the same kind of exploitation of religious belief occurs out here in the boondocks.
Church position on abortion has not been totally consistent through the ages indicating perhaps there are chinks in the armor of infallibility.
http://www.linacre.org/embryo.html
The religious wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ought to make Americans,religious or otherwise, to desire greater separation of church and state instead of greater integration of the two.
Just heard of a local Catholic trying to hide from "father" in the grocery store because she knew he would be harranging her about her vote on Issue Six and she did not want her grandaughters to be at the mercy of any male physically stronger than her granddaughters.
The Church telling people to vote this way or that way is not quite the same as Joe Blow leaning across the bar and saying, "Hey, what about that vote on six?"
There is nothing in the Bible that specifically deals with abortion. Each side can find Bible verses that support their positions, but there is nothing that says "Thou shalt not commit abortions."
(And don't tell me Thou Shalt Not Kill applies to that because the Bible also does not specifically say that an embryo or fetus has life until it is born. That, too, is left to interpretation.)
There is nothing in the Bible that specifically says that an embryo carries the same importance as a human. In fact, the only verse (Exodus 21:22-25) that leans towards that indicates that embryos and fetuses were not considered as important as the woman who was carrying it.
Because the Bible does not specifically spell it out, different religions differ on how to interpret what the Bible says that might be construed as reference toward abortion.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM - WE DO NOT ALL AGREE ON THIS. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A PROBLEM. YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT. WE DO NOT AGREE.
GET IT?
Anon 5:24 sure doesn't know her Bible very well does she??
At one time in US history we classified black people as 3/5ths person--so that they weren't quite equal.
So what is a 7 day old "snowflake" baby? Is it person--worthy of respect and valued as life? or property--can be experimented on, exterminated at will, not worthy of respect?
Or do we assign them something like a 3/5th personhood??
I challenge you to find anywhere in the Bible where it specifically or literally refers to abortion and where it specifically or literally states that an unborn child has the same value as someone who has been born.
Note that I use the words specifically or literally. I don't mean someone's interpretation of certain verses - I think we've already heard all of those - but something that specifically or literally says that.
Be sure to include the book, chapter and verses.
We will be waiting for your answer.
I thought the only time bishops had problems was when they were accused of sexual abuse.