The E. U.

[Balthazor]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 22 2004, 11:31 PM'] Bad. Very BAd!!!!!!

Unite under the Cross, or don't unite at all.

[/quote]
So you are saying organization or form of government that is not directly affiliated with the church is bad? Am I reading this right? Are you saying that he United States is bad? You must be because their is a little thing called the Establishment clause that keeps this country from being formally "united under the cross" or aunder any religion.

[conservativecatholic]

The EU is morally wrong and evil. The EU serves as an organization to purge all Europe of its Christian heritage. The EU also serves as an economic and miltary adversary to the US. One of these days, the US will not be the only world power.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 23 2004, 03:04 AM'] Can't be too bad, the Pope told Poland to join. [/quote]
The most illogical argument I have ever heard.

I am sick and tired of people saying: the Pope did this or that, so it's great/not too bad.

Go to Assisi and tell me PAGAN WORSHIP that went on at the "intercommunion" blasphemous whatever it was is just fine, since the Pope supported it. I mean, seriously, give me a break.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Nov 24 2004, 03:48 PM'] So you are saying organization or form of government that is not directly affiliated with the church is bad? Am I reading this right? Are you saying that he United States is bad? You must be because their is a little thing called the Establishment clause that keeps this country from being formally "united under the cross" or aunder any religion. [/quote]
I don't know if he is saying that, but I do.

[Balthazor]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 24 2004, 03:19 PM'] The most illogical argument I have ever heard.

I am sick and tired of people saying: the Pope did this or that, so it's great/not too bad.

Go to Assisi and tell me PAGAN WORSHIP that went on at the "intercommunion" blasphemous whatever it was is just fine, since the Pope supported it. I mean, seriously, give me a break. [/quote]
And here I wondered why you were "phishY"

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Nov 24 2004, 04:36 PM'] And here I wondered why you were "phishY" [/quote]
How is that "phishy". That is a stupid and completely illogical argument. So, if Alexander VI were still the Pope, not only would having illegitimat children be fine, it would be fine even if one was a CLERIC, and even if he were a BISHOP, and BISHOP OF ROME at that...

As I said, completely illogical.

[Balthazor]

goodness gracious dearie....you don't have to yell
And in the future I would appreciate if you would not call me stupid.
Thanks

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Nov 24 2004, 05:16 PM']
And in the future I would appreciate if you would not call me stupid.
[/quote]
He said the argument was stupid. Not you.

[quote]ppsx... I have no idea what you are saying with let's be consistant.
Please elaborate.[/quote]

Let me say it differently. Your post seems to assume that the US is a good thing and that doing some bad stuff, like the US does, is not grounds for rejecting the thing outright, otherwise, if we are consistant, we have to reject the US as well. Therefore, I stated that I have no problem being consistant on this point: Dissolve the EU, the UN and the USA (bring back the Confederacy).

[quote]So you are saying organization or form of government that is not directly affiliated with the church is bad?[/quote]

You would have to define your terms, especially "directly affiliated".

[quote]Am I reading this right? Are you saying that he United States is bad?[/quote]

Define "bad".  And so what if I am?  It is certainly not an article of our Faith that I hold the American ideal to be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[quote]You must be because their is a little thing called the Establishment clause that keeps this country from being formally "united under the cross" or aunder any religion. [/quote]

First, this sentance doesn't make much sense.

Second (guessing at what I think you were trying to say) you need to look into what the establishment clause does and does not say.

Third, regardless of any of that, the Church is higher than the country. I do not have to like that clause or believe it is a good thing, just because the Constitution says so.

Edited November 24, 2004 by popestpiusx

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Nov 24 2004, 05:16 PM'] goodness gracious dearie....you don't have to yell
And in the future I would appreciate if you would not call me stupid.
Thanks [/quote]
1. I wasn't yelling, but CAPS is easier than clicking the "b" "i" or "u" or putting in tags... if I could just hit Ctrl + b/i/u such as in Word and some other forums, I would do that, but I don't think it's worth the trouble unless I'm trying to make an important point.

2. As PSPX said, I never said you were stupid but that the argument was. I could say.

[Balthazor]

It wasn't an arguement....just an observation, wasn't meant to be a slam on his faith or a question of his loyalty to the church.
Catholic Crusader if I have offended you I am sorry I did not mean to.

Back to the TOPIC:
Thanks for the Clarification PPSX I can see where you are coming from now with the consistancy comment.
I thought you might be in favor of a confederacy in which case your arguement made sense, but I did not know for sure if this was the case.


Also I am in full agreement with you that the Church should have priority over the state in your life, at least in my life it does.


As for your comment on the Establishment clause I admit my posts can be cryptic sometimes..... but I do know the Bill of Rights quite well.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establisment of relgion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof;......

I don't think I need to go furthur on this, it is pretty self explanatory. What I was referring to is that we do not and can not have a state religion.*

*according to Amendment 1 Edited November 24, 2004 by Balthazor

[popestpiusx]

The key here is to properly define "Establishment of Religion". In order to properly define it we must look at how the Framers would have understood that term. How do we do that? The best way is to see how that term was used in 18th Century British Law. That is the legal system the Framers knew and used when writing the Constitution. The best resourse for this is Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Also, we can look at early Supreme Court cases on the subject. We can look at what the practice of the states was on this particular issue. We can also look to the notes from the deliberations between the framers or any legal commentaries from the time.

It is clear, then, that an establishment of religion is a specific religion established (not founded) by, supported financially by, and whose tenets are officially held by and enforced by the state.

The point is that the first amendment is keeping the federal government from messing with state religions. The fed. gov. cannot have an established church, but the individual states can (and many did).

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 25 2004, 09:30 PM'] The key here is to properly define "Establishment of Religion". In order to properly define it we must look at how the Framers would have understood that term. How do we do that? The best way is to see how that term was used in 18th Century British Law. That is the legal system the Framers knew and used when writing the Constitution. The best resourse for this is Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Also, we can look at early Supreme Court cases on the subject. We can look at what the practice of the states was on this particular issue. We can also look to the notes from the deliberations between the framers or any legal commentaries from the time.

It is clear, then, that an establishment of religion is a specific religion established (not founded) by, supported financially by, and whose tenets are officially held by and enforced by the state.

The point is that the first amendment is keeping the federal government from messing with state religions. The fed. gov. cannot have an established church, but the individual states can (and many did). [/quote]
But none of them were ever Catholicism, and it is not possible to justify ever having a State that does not proclaim Catholicism, especially if it is such a one that proclaims error.

[popestpiusx]

Louisiana, if I am not mistaken was a Catholic state for a short time. But this is irrelevant. We are talking about the govenmental structure, not how it was applied, which has been an unmitigated disaster and is getting worse.

[Guest Aluigi]

CatholicCrusader-- use [b]alt[/b] "b/i/u".

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]But none of them were ever Catholicism, and it is not possible to justify ever having a State that does not proclaim Catholicism, especially if it is such a one that proclaims error.
[/quote]

Maryland was founded as a Catholic colony it was the Puritians from New England who can down and militarly took over.

[popestpiusx]

It was never a Catholic state though. From the time of the Constitution and after, the state religion was officially episcopalian.

Edited November 26, 2004 by popestpiusx

[Don John of Austria]

Oh I know.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Nov 24 2004, 10:15 PM'] The EU is morally wrong and evil. The EU serves as an organization to purge all Europe of its Christian heritage. The EU also serves as an economic and miltary adversary to the US. One of these days, the US will not be the only world power. [/quote]
Not since the new countries joined up and backed up the U.K. and Italy.