[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]at least they're not his own citizens. Oh so It's all OK then, well the Pope isn't a US citizen so I don't see what your problem is He also insulted the Bishops and the Knight's who are US citizens. Not to mention to insult the Pope is to insult all 1 billion Catholics, including the 60 Million Catholics who are US Citizens.[QUOTE="braindead_hero"]And the last US administration we're amazing at not offending anyone, just the middle east, europe, china and pretty much the rest of the worldbraindead_hero
JoeRatz16's forum posts
[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]How is that a fair comparison at all? You are reading into the tagline of the article too much. The man appointed has a severe problem with the Catholic Churches sentiments towards gay marriage, since he, himself, is a homosexual. What is the problem beyond that? That is fine for him to disagree with the Catholic Church's belief on what constitutes marriage, but he should respectfully disagree rather than stooping so low as to launch Personal Insults against the Pope, the Bishops and the Knight's. And besides, he's not Catholic, so what should the Church's teachings matter to him?so then if the President appointed a racist or someone who thinks women should only stay home, would you be defending him them?
spazzx625
Maybe the Pope should appoint an Obama-basher as a Bishop or Cardinal.
And the last US administration we're amazing at not offending anyone, just the middle east, europe, china and pretty much the rest of the worldbraindead_heroat least they're not his own citizens.
so then if the President appointed a racist or someone who thinks women should only stay home, would you be defending him them?
[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]Separation of Church in state doesn't mean the state should be disrespectful to the Church in fact it means the state should be neutral to the Church and criticism of the Church by government officials violates that neutrality. But if you really want Separation of Church and state Obama shouldn't even have a Council for faith-based groups. Pretty sure it's set up so the government doesn't pass bills favoring one religion over the other... not to suppress free speech. private citizens have free speech, government representative give up that right to some degree. If government doesn't favor one religion, government should also not criticize and malign one religion, government should be representative.[QUOTE="bsman00"] Wait woah what happen to seperation of church and state.. or does that apply to the goverment?
zakkro
I do not have a problem with this.duxupso then you think people who represent the government should go around insulting people, even insulting their own citizens. It is amazing how much some people let this Obama idiot get away with.
Wait woah what happen to seperation of church and state.. or does that apply to the goverment? Separation of Church in state doesn't mean the state should be disrespectful to the Church in fact it means the state should be neutral to the Church and criticism of the Church by government officials violates that neutrality. But if you really want Separation of Church and state Obama shouldn't even have a Council for faith-based groups.[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]
Just when I thought this fool couldn't get much worse, Now Obama appoints Harry Knox a gay-ideologue who called His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and the Bishops "discredited leaders" and called the Knights of Columbus "footsoldiers in a discredited army of oppression" as a member of his Council on Faith-based and Community Partnerships.
Aside from other concerns (ie. people who represent the government should not malign and insult people the way Knox has), don't you think it tarnishes the Council's credibility and ruins it's ability to work with people of faith, if one of its members insults the Pope?
Perhaps for appointing Knox, Obama is the real "discredited leader"
bsman00
Just when I thought this fool couldn't get much worse, Now Obama appoints Harry Knox a gay-ideologue who called His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and the Bishops "discredited leaders" and called the Knights of Columbus "footsoldiers in a discredited army of oppression" as a member of his Council on Faith-based and Community Partnerships.
Aside from other concerns (ie. people who represent the government should not malign and insult people the way Knox has), don't you think it tarnishes the Council's credibility and ruins it's ability to work with people of faith, if one of its members insults the Pope?
Perhaps for appointing Knox, Obama is the real "discredited leader"
I'd make a comment that the shower water is a lot colder than it appears.Wilfred_Owenwhat if she says "oh really, than why do I see steam coming out of it?".
Log in to comment