2016 Presidential Horse Race

[BGIF]

Old fables, with ambiguous interpretations, are indeed outdated, causing their original purpose to be misconstrued, and are used to reinforce good (and bad) decisions and beliefs.

Also, when you have multiple "religions", each claiming to be correct (and none can be proven/disproven), no one is going to "give in".

Because we no longer live in an isolated world, in which cultures didn't readily overlap, we are now stuck with stubborn, misconstruding individuals, that are causing cultural mayhem.

Unlike the few, stubborn, misconstruing individuals, that have caused cultural problems throughout the history of mankind?

Heute Deutschland, morgen Die Welt!

There were a handful of Nazi's in 1920. There was still over 8 million on VE Day but like the Muslim faith it never included everyone. still some 60 million died. Caesar, Calipate's I, II, III, ... through the nth, Napoleon, etc, etc, our way or a grave.


We can paraphrase today to Heute Kalifat, morgen Die Welt.

In Arabic (which I can't spell) that's been a consistent objective since The Phophet rode sword in hand across the desert spreading The Word to those left living.


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Whether they're a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindi, Agnostic, or Athiest.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Nowhere in the catechism does it say that only Catholics can find salvation.



If you're Catholic, then yes, you're bound to accept its doctrines as true. For the record, we trust in God's mercy that non-Christians of good will also find salvation, but it's a mystery to us.



I'm sorry you experienced that. Rest assured that's not the Church's teaching.



Catholic doctrine is as true today as it was when Jesus founded the Church 2k+ years ago. You had the misfortune of being catechized by an ignorant priest.

My uncle is Hindi, he believes in multiple gods, and doesn't acknowledge one omnipotent God.

This is a violation of the Ten Commandments. To violate the commandments, results in mortal sin, mortal sins result in hell.

Or, did my Catholic School lie to me for 8 years?

 

[NorthDakota]

Unlike the few, stubborn, misconstruing individuals, that have caused cultural problems throughout the history of mankind?

Heute Deutschland, morgen Die Welt!

There were a handful of Nazi's in 1920. There was still over 8 million on VE Day but like the Muslim faith it never included everyone. still some 60 million died. Caesar, Calipate's I, II, III, ... through the nth, Napoleon, etc, etc, our way or a grave.


We can paraphrase today to Heute Kalifat, morgen Die Welt.

In Arabic (which I can't spell) that's been a consistent objective since The Phophet rode sword in hand across the desert spreading The Word to those left living.

Rare occasion that German class pays off.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So, did the Catholic Church not make a mistake by initiating the Crusades? If so, then I stand corrected.

Was Pope Francis mistaken when he called for military action against ISIS to halt the ongoing Christian genocide in the Middle East? Urban II's call for the first crusade was no different. North Africa and the Middle East had been Christian territory for 300 years before Muhammad founded Islam and began conquering and enslaving the surrounding Christian and Jewish tribes.

The kings and armies that heeded Urban's call were, as one should expect, a mixed bag, and some of them did some very unChristian things. But that doesn't undermine the casus belli any more than when one of our own soldiers breaks the law and dishonors himself.

Here's some light reading to get you up to date.

For me to deny my churches history, would be the real travesty. I look at the churches past as a learning opportunity. An especially great learning opportunity for other religions as well, so they don't have to share similar mistakes.

No one has suggested that the Crusades (there were a lot of them, spread out over hundreds of years) were uniformly justified and morally executed. It's a complicated issue. But it's a really inapt comparison for the point you're trying to make.

 

[IrishLax]

So, did the Catholic Church not make a mistake by initiating the Crusades? If so, then I stand corrected.

For me to deny my churches history, would be the real travesty. I look at the churches past as a learning opportunity. An especially great learning opportunity for other religions as well, so they don't have to share similar mistakes.

EDIT: NVM, Whiskey beat me to it.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Was Pope Francis mistaken when he called for military action against ISIS to halt the ongoing Christian genocide in the Middle East? Urban II's call for the first crusade was no different. North Africa and the Middle East had been Christian territory for 300 years before Muhammad founded Islam and began conquering and enslaving the surrounding Christian and Jewish tribes.

The kings and armies that heeded Urban's call were, as one should expect, a mixed bag, and some of them did some very unChristian things. But that doesn't undermine the casus belli any more than when one of our own soldiers breaks the law and dishonors himself.

Here's some light reading to get you up to date.



No one has suggested that the Crusades (there were a lot of them, spread out over hundreds of years) were uniformly justified and morally executed. It's a complicated issue. But it's a really inapt comparison for the point you're trying to make.

I'm not comparing the Crusades to Jihad 1:1, that's absolutely absurd. I'm very well of the differences, dates/societal differences aside.

I'm simply stating, our church has made a mistake before (using religious beliefs to justify killing), and radical Muslims shouldn't make one now.

Please don't take me out to be one of those, "the Crusades were the worst thing ever", type of person.

I was just using an example of a dark period in the Catholic Church.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Can non-Catholics be saved, according to the Roman Catholic Church?

I actually have no clue, if you know what you're talking about, or if you're just "confidently" talking your way around my arguments to try and prove your broken statements.

Did you actually read what you linked to me? Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio are both quite clear that the Holy Spirit is active outside of the Catholic Church, that other religions point to the same Truth as Catholic (though less perfectly), and that non-Christians who sincerely seek the Good and practice self-abnegation can find salvation.

The assumption prior to Vatican II was that if one was offered the Gospel and persisted in heresy, that must be due to a deliberate rejection of the Truth. Since then, there's been a realization that non-Christians may persist in error for lots of innocent reasons, which has lead to lots of productive ecumenism.

My uncle is Hindi, he believes in multiple gods, and doesn't acknowledge one omnipotent God.

This is a violation of the Ten Commandments. To violate the commandments, results in mortal sin, mortal sins result in hell.

Or, did my Catholic School lie to me for 8 years?

For that to be sin, your uncle would have to believe the Ten Commandments to be true, but to consciously reject them for some selfish reason. He presumably does not believe that, so his polytheistic beliefs are not sinful.

Yes, it appears you've been poorly catechized. I wish your case were the exception, but it seems to be the rule in the American Church.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Did you actually read what you linked to me? Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio are both quite clear that the Holy Spirit is active outside of the Catholic Church, that other religions point to the same Truth as Catholic (though less perfectly), and that non-Christians who sincerely seek the Good and practice self-abnegation can find salvation.

The assumption prior to Vatican II was that if one was offered the Gospel and persisted in heresy, that must be due to a deliberate rejection of the Truth. Since then, there's been a realization that non-Christians may persist in error for lots of innocent reasons, which has lead to lots of productive ecumenism.



For that to be sin, your uncle would have to believe the Ten Commandments to be true, but to consciously reject them for some selfish reason. He presumably does not believe that, so his polytheistic beliefs are not sinful.

Yes, it appears you've been poorly catechized. I wish your case were the exception, but it seems to be the rule in the American Church.

It seems there's a lot of misunderstanding, and open interpretation within the Catholic Church then.

Also, impressive that you know more than a priest.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'm not comparing the Crusades to Jihad 1:1, that's absolutely absurd. I'm very well of the differences, dates/societal differences aside.

I'm simply stating, our church has made a mistake before (using religious beliefs to justify killing), and radical Muslims shouldn't make one now.

Are you a pacifist? Surely you don't believe that violence is never justified...

Please don't take me out to be one of those, "the Crusades were the worst thing ever", type of person.

I was just using an example of a dark period in the Catholic Church.

It was a dark period, but not for the reason you're implying. Had the Christian forces not prevailed during the Battle of Lepanto, it's likely that Islam would have wiped Christianity from the face of the earth.

The Catholic Church teaches just war doctrine, which holds that violence is justified when faced with a grave evil. The Muslim conquest of huge swathes of Christian territory, followed by enslavement and persecution for the Christians who lived there, qualified as a grave evil. The Crusades began, at least initially, as a just cause, and Pope Urban II was not in error for calling it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It seems there's a lot of misunderstanding, and open interpretation within the Catholic Church then.

Catholicism has struggled against heresies and wicked ideologies since its founding; and over the last several hundred years, liberalism has been getting the best of it in many parts of the world. The deposit of faith is still in tact, but you're correct that there's a lot of confusion. If you're actually interested in learning about the faith you were born into, I'd be happy to recommend some books for you.

[Edit: The last sentence comes across as patronizing, but that was not my intent. I went to Catholic schools from Kindergarten through law school, and most of what I know about Catholicism I had to seek out myself. Not a ringing endorsement of our schools.]

Also, impressive that you know more than a priest.

Assuming this is sarcasm, there's nothing impressive about it. You can verify any of this with some quick Google searches. From Lumen Gentium:

"The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize."

The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."

As I mentioned above, the pre-Vatican II language regarding the salvation of non-Christians was based on some inflexible assumptions about why people reject the Gospel. Post-Vatican II encyclicals have clarified the issue tremendously.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Catholicism has struggled against heresies and wicked ideologies since its founding; and over the last several hundred years, liberalism has been getting the best of it in many parts of the world. The deposit of faith is still in tact, but you're correct that there's a lot of confusion. If you're actually interested in learning about the faith you were born into, I'd be happy to recommend some books for you.

[Edit: The last sentence comes across as patronizing, but that was not my intent. I went to Catholic schools from Kindergarten through law school, and most of what I know about Catholicism I had to seek out myself. Not a ringing endorsement of our schools.]



Assuming this is sarcasm, there's nothing impressive about it. You can verify any of this with some quick Google searches. From Lumen Gentium:



As I mentioned above, the pre-Vatican II language regarding the salvation of non-Christians was based on some inflexible assumptions about why people reject the Gospel. Post-Vatican II encyclicals have clarified the issue tremendously.

My last sentence was sarcastic, but not directed towards you.

It was meant to be a jab at the fact that a self-educated parishioner has more understanding of the religion (including the basics, like this) than a priest.

These type of things make me wonder about the qualifications of other religious leaders as well.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Are you a pacifist? Surely you don't believe that violence is never justified...



It was a dark period, but not for the reason you're implying. Had the Christian forces not prevailed during the Battle of Lepanto, it's likely that Islam would have wiped Christianity from the face of the earth.

The Catholic Church teaches just war doctrine, which holds that violence is justified when faced with a grave evil. The Muslim conquest of huge swathes of Christian territory, followed by enslavement and persecution for the Christians who lived there, qualified as a grave evil. The Crusades began, at least initially, as a just cause, and Pope Urban II was not in error for calling it.

Not a pacifist, in all respects. But when it comes to the "War On ____" Era, I do tend to shy away from violence and other destabilizing actions.

I believe a full-scale "War on Terror", is "unwinnable". Therefore, what is there to gain? We tried to eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and we failed. And, we also destabilized the establishment in the area, allowing for ISIS to become big dogs in the area.

So, yes, I'm hesitant on how to retaliate with ISIS, because I don't want to get ourselves into another Iraq/Afghanistan situation.

I would like to try a new approach.

Alright, I'm sorry if I stirred some people up, wasn't my intentions. I have to finish some work before heading out for the day (West coast issues...), so I'll catch you guys later.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Not a pacifist, in all respects. But when it comes to the "War On ____" Era, I do tend to shy away from violence and other destabilizing actions.

I believe a full-scale "War on Terror", is "unwinnable". Therefore, what is there to gain? We tried to eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and we failed. And, we also destabilized the establishment in the area, allowing for ISIS to become big dogs in the area.

So, yes, I'm hesitant on how to retaliate with ISIS, because I don't want to get ourselves into another Iraq/Afghanistan situation.

I would like to try a new approach.

That's totally defensible. Few, if any, of our recent military adventures in the ME would qualify as just wars.

Alright, I'm sorry if I stirred some people up, wasn't my intentions. I have to finish some work before heading out for the day (West coast issues...), so I'll catch you guys later.

Sorry if I came on a little strong.

 

[Legacy]

Why Mormons Don't Like Donald Trump - The Atlantic

Thanks for the link. Some quotes that struck me.

Mormons—like modern-day Muslims—have a long history of being rejected by their fellow Americans because of their beliefs. Throughout the 19th century, followers of Joseph Smith were repeatedly expelled from lands by people who saw them as strange, foreign invaders, with some opponents even declaring them non-white. Angry, anti-Mormon mobs eventually murdered Smith during his short-lived campaign for president, and longstanding tensions between his flock and the U.S. government led to violent clashes and short-lived wars in pockets of the American West. So intense was the American rejection of Mormonism that the U.S. secretary of state once recommended that President Rutherford B. Hayes act to limit Mormon immigration into the country, a moment Utah Governor Gary Herbert saw as eerily reminiscent of Trump’s call to ban all Muslims from entering the United States last December.

“Utah exists today because foreign countries refused to grant the wishes of a misguided president and his secretary of state,” Herbert wrote in a Facebook post responding to Trump’s proposal. “I am the governor of a state that was settled by religious exiles who withstood persecution after persecution, including an extermination order from another state's governor. In Utah, the First Amendment still matters. That will not change so long as I remain governor.”

 

[GoIrish41]

Talk about a mistake of biblical proportions ...

Donald Trump Won't Rule Out Using Nuclear Weapons Against ISIS - Fortune

 

[woolybug25]

Talk about a mistake of biblical proportions ...

Donald Trump Won't Rule Out Using Nuclear Weapons Against ISIS - Fortune

It's almost like he's trying to find where the line is.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's almost like he's trying to find where the line is.

I'm astonished that people are voting for this guy, but I have concluded that this will probably drive up his numbers. I don't like what this says about my country. This dude is a menace driven by ignorant macho ego, and he has millions feeding it daily. Who knows what he is capable of doing?

Also a little troubling that he uses "respect" as a replacement for "fear." And even if he wouldn't really use them (he would because he's an unsophisticated dumbass) this will not help convince countries to halt their nuke programs and make the world a safer place.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Talk about a mistake of biblical proportions ...

Donald Trump Won't Rule Out Using Nuclear Weapons Against ISIS - Fortune

And some people want to move to Canada, as if that will protect them from a nuclear war...

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

But on a serious note, Donald is definitely going for a "fear of Lord" approach, in his America.

And that's batshit.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

It's almost like he's trying to find where the line is.

It's like he keeps taking step after step, pauses, looks around, and says "Really? Still not there? Let's try this... ".

 

[irishfan]

Trump is leading. He says something zany, the media goes crazy, and then his competition can't get any traction in the media. He dominates headlines...when was the last time Cruz/Kasich said or did anything noteworthy? I'm sure they've been speaking about Brussels, but they only get about 10% of the coverage. It's like this with any event or debate. Trump repeats this strategy every few days...it's almost like he knows how to control the media.

Seriously, the whole election right now revolves around what he says. It's absurd/genius.

 

[Rack Em]

Talk about a mistake of biblical proportions ...

Donald Trump Won't Rule Out Using Nuclear Weapons Against ISIS - Fortune

It's almost like he's trying to find where the line is.

It's like he keeps taking step after step, pauses, looks around, and says "Really? Still not there? Let's try this... ".

Gents, he'll backtrack and come down a little bit in a few days after the media has had sufficient time to air his name constantly. He'll then get his name back out in the press again, creating a constant buzz, and you three will come back here and talk about that. Then he'll say something outlandish again and the cycle will continue.

I'm not saying he's a rational person, but he is a master at getting people to talk about him. He sucks the air out of the room and the internet on purpose.

I'll wait here until you guys get your tightie whities in a bundle again over the Don.

 

[Rack Em]

Trump is leading. He says something zany, the media goes crazy, and then his competition can't get any traction in the media. He dominates headlines...when was the last time Cruz/Kasich said or did anything noteworthy? I'm sure they've been speaking about Brussels, but they only get about 10% of the coverage. Trump repeats this every few days...it's almost like he knows how to control the media.

Seriously, the whole election right now revolves around what he says. It's absurd/genius.

Beat me to it.

 

[GoIrish41]

Gents, he'll backtrack and come down a little bit in a few days after the media has had sufficient time to air his name constantly. He'll then get his name back out in the press again, creating a constant buzz, and you three will come back here and talk about that. Then he'll say something outlandish again and the cycle will continue.

I'm not saying he's a rational person, but he is a master at getting people to talk about him. He sucks the air out of the room and the internet on purpose.

I'll wait here until you guys get your tightie whities in a bundle again over the Don.

Man, you give this guy a lot of credit. And I hope you are right. But I find him to be a dolt, so I'm not buying his media genius. I think he is the real Archie Bunker and that there is nothing sophisticated about him.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Gents, he'll backtrack and come down a little bit in a few days after the media has had sufficient time to air his name constantly. He'll then get his name back out in the press again, creating a constant buzz, and you three will come back here and talk about that. Then he'll say something outlandish again and the cycle will continue.

I'm not saying he's a rational person, but he is a master at getting people to talk about him. He sucks the air out of the room and the internet on purpose.

I'll wait here until you guys get your tightie whities in a bundle again over the Don.

Yes, our completely unprincipled, ratings-driven media keeps wringing their hands and asking, "How can this be happening?" as they shower him with coverage that's worth far more than millions of PAC dollars.

 

[irishfan]

Trump is leading. He says something zany, the media goes crazy, and then his competition can't get any traction in the media. He dominates headlines...when was the last time Cruz/Kasich said or did anything noteworthy? I'm sure they've been speaking about Brussels, but they only get about 10% of the coverage. It's like this with any event or debate. Trump repeats this strategy every few days...it's almost like he knows how to control the media.

Seriously, the whole election right now revolves around what he says. It's absurd/genius.

Beat me to it.

It's part of his "genius." He does hot takes galore and says things no one else would dare to. All it takes IMO is agreeing with one or two of his more "wild" ideas and you're close to being won over. You throw in his more reasonable sounding policies and all of a sudden you think Trump isn't that bad and that his worst ideas will never be carried out anyway. I doubt most Trump supporters (at least among the people who aren't blindly in love with him) agree with a majority of what he says, but I think his support is pretty explainable especially given the weak field he competed against.

I mean I've seen polls showing that 55% of people agree with his temporary ban on Muslims. And that is probably the most outrageous and controversial thing he has said. I doubt he's picking up any new voters by saying that he'd be open to nuking ISIS, but I'm sure saying something like how the US should pull out of NATO or how the Gulf States should do their part with the refugee crisis is making people stop and actually think about paying more serious attention to him.

 

[Buster Bluth]

It was a dark period, but not for the reason you're implying. Had the Christian forces not prevailed during the Battle of Lepanto, it's likely that Islam would have wiped Christianity from the face of the earth.

That is quite the stretch. There is no way that the Ottomans could occupy Western Europe. Maybe they take Vienna, Po Valley, all of Italy even...there is no way they could occupy France or Spain. Or cross the English Channel and get to England. Or find it worthwhile to occupy Russia. Or cross the oceans and occupy their various nascent colonies.

 

[Legacy]

In defense of Muslims's gun rights

In defense of Muslims's gun rights

Obama Wants to Strip Muslims of Gun Rights, Slams Everyone Else as Bigots

Homeland Security’s no-fly list is a proxy Muslim Registry. Considering the domestic threat we face, this makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is depriving Muslim-Americans of their civil right to own a firearm simply because the government finds them suspicious.

We don’t do that in this country. It is un-American. Due process is the cornerstone of our democracy and I can think of nothing more fascist than allowing our federal government, especially one that reports to this petty and lawless president, the power to unilaterally strip an American of their rights with the stroke of a pen.

The American citizens on the no-fly list are obviously not enough of a threat to be indicted, so why then would we treat them or any American as a guilty party based only on suspicion?

What gall, though, Obama has to on one hand propose a lawless Second Amendment internment camp aimed primarily at Muslims while imperiously talking down to the everyday American people as though we’re the bigots.

 

[woolybug25]

That is quite the stretch. There is no way that the Ottomans could occupy Western Europe. Maybe they take Vienna, Po Valley, all of Italy even...there is no way they could occupy France or Spain. Or cross the English Channel and get to England. Or find it worthwhile to occupy Russia. Or cross the oceans and occupy their various nascent colonies.

That Hitler feller isn't going to do all of the real crazy things he talks about. But something has to be done about those greedy Jews. He's got a point about them Jews. I don't think he's actually gonna round em up, he'll backtrack and his real solution will still help the rest of us make money. Right now, they are making it too hard for us regular ol Germans.

I just like that he's gonna build new roads, beautiful roads, the best roads anyone can make. We'll even get "the people's car". How great is that gonna be?

Make Germany Great Again

 

[Buster Bluth]

That Hitler feller isn't going to do all of the real crazy things he talks about. But something has to be done about those greedy Jews. He's got a point about them Jews. I don't think he's actually gonna round em up, he'll backtrack and his real solution will still help the rest of us make money. Right now, they are making it too hard for us regular ol Germans.

I just like that he's gonna build new roads, beautiful roads, the best roads anyone can make. We'll even get "the people's car". How great is that gonna be?

Make Germany Great Again

Did I miss something?