At Least He’s Consistent

In the 2004 election, St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke publicly declared that communion should not be granted to John Kerry. I thought is was an appalling thing to do. For an archbishop to insert himself into the presidential race was unseemly. And his stance was hypocritical. True, Kerry is pro-choice, but the Church and the Pope had also blasted the Iraq war as immoral for the same reasons (loss of human life) and the archbishop didn’t seem too concerned about that.

In the 2008 election cycle, I am vaguely pleased to see that he is being consistent. He also says that he would deny communion to Guliani, for the same reason. I don’t think I’ve seen any coverage of this anywhere, and it’s still an obnoxious thing for a religious figure to do, but at least he’s consistent.

Written by in: Default |


  • moleboy says:

    Seems to me that, given these statements, the church should lose its tax-exempt status.
    But, really, given who Obama has decided to cuddle up with, this is small fries

  • Muttrox says:

    Who’s Obama decided to cuddle up with? I don’t follow him much…

  • moleboy says:

    this bastard:


    Thing is, if he (McClurkin) just felt that homosexuality was a sin, I’d be fine with that. Thats his religious beliefs. Whatever.
    But when you call homosexuals the equivilent of drug addicts, and claim that they are out to kill your children, that they are simply savages without morals..well, then we start to have issues.
    If it weer ANY other group but gays, Obama would chop off his own hand before being anywhere near this guy.

    I guess I find the whole thing a little ironic. McClurkin is basically calling gays niggers.

    Who knows…maybe Obama will go after the NAMBLA vote next.

  • moleboy says:

    Given this, and Edwards weak-ass, and very disturbing, excuse for not being in support of gay marriage, I’m rapidly running out of candidates.

  • Muttrox says:

    Oh, that guy. Yeah, that’s pretty bad alright! Speaking of tax-exempt, did you read this?

  • moleboy says:

    good article.
    I found two bits very disturbing:

    1. “All three Democratic candidates are speaking very personally, in evangelical language, about their own faith. What does Clinton pray about? “It depends upon the time of day,” she said. Edwards says he cannot name his greatest sin: “I sin every single day.” Obama talks about his introduction to “someone named Jesus Christ” and about being “an instrument of God.””

    At the wedding reception, my friend Steve, Mike, and my brother (who I may have mentioned has converted to christianity) were talking about the democratic candidates. I said I couldn’t vote for Edwards because his “religious views” would not allow him to support gay marriage. My brother asked:”What if his religious views caused him to do things you support”, my answer was that you can’t trust them. Religion, being inherently irrational, you can’t assume that because he is on your side on issues A,B and C, that he’ll be there for issue D, no matter how in line it is with A B and C. Which parts of the bible does Mr. Edwards follow?
    The candidates here are either pandering, or untrustable.
    With luck, its only the former (how sad is that…)

    2. “Obama sounds too much like Osama,” said Kayla Nickel of Westlink. “When he says his name, I am like, ‘I am not voting for a Muslim!’ ”
    Oh Kayla, how easily you destroy my faith in people, yet again.
    I wonder, does she not by Castrol because it sounds too much like Castro?

  • Muttrox says:

    Wow, that’s harsh. Religion may be irrational, but that doesn’t mean it’s unpredictable or inconsistent.

    So who do you vote for then? It seems like your standards will keep you of approving of anyone.

  • moleboy says:

    Given that all the candidates are claiming to follow Jesus…
    Does anyone follow ALL the rules?
    No. Why? Because some of the rules are frickin’ nuts, and some are just very inconvenient. Others are open to interpretation.

    Look at abortion, its unbelievably important to protect the unborn, but (as has been noted many times), apparently less important to help take care of the born.

    If you and I were playing a game, and I just started to ignore some of the rules, and only let you know that rule could be ignored after the fact, you’d say I was either cheating (untrustworthy) or unpredictable (untrustable).

    People pick and choose what bits they want from whatever text/church they have. They decide what is literal, and what is, for example, metaphor. They decide what is very important (the very few lines where homosexuality is a sin) and isn’t (the repeated edicts by jesus to help the poor and needy).
    (if I recall correctly, most of the bits about homosexuality are taken from the old testament…what makes those little bits important, but not the gazillion laws in Leviticus?)

  • moleboy says:

    as for who do I vote for…
    I vote for the person who believes in the seperation of church and state. The person who says “Yes, my religion believes homosexuality is a sin, however it is not the government’s place to enforce these kinds of rules, anymore than it would be reasonable for the government to enforce the sabbath”

    Mr. Edwards, having said that he can’t support gay marriage because of his religion, is saying that he doesn’t believe in this seperation.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Theme: TheBuckmaker. Kredit, selber bauen