Bill Maher the Catholic Church is a religous cult (1 Viewer)

[silvergold]

This is the point. The Catholic church does so many good things I can hardly name them here, but support of schools and hospitals would be first on my list. For each one of the child molesters, there's a thousand priests who engage in visiting the elderly, helping the poor, tending to the sick, and trying to improve conditions everywhere.

1) Mussolini made the trains run on time. Does that make him good?2) Great, the Catholic church supports schools....Catholic schools....where they brainwash more young minds and turn them into "believers". Sounds like a truly selfless act.

Are you really comparing the Catholic Church to Il Duce? Seriously? OK, I'm gonna state this one more time. The Catholic Church had a terrible scandal which they foolishly tried to cover up. But this is a far cry from saying that child molestation is part and parcel of Catholic beliefs. By comparing the church to cults who do committ such actions ritualistically, Maher is insulting not just the leadership but the entire nature of the Church, and this seems to me unfounded and insulting.

The interesting thing here is that we were just having a debate yesterday on this site about the death penalty for child molestations. If that went through, could you imagine putting 100's if not 1000's of catholic priests on death row.....now that would be something.For some reason when it's a priest its more forgivable. When it's the seedy guy with a bear who hasn't showered in weeks its not in our neighbourhood.

When in reality, it's worse for the priest to do it, since he is in a position of trust & authority.

Very, very true.

 

[Godsbrother]

I don't care what he says. He always seemed like an a hole.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Man, I'm getting beat up here something like 20-1, and I am hardly the best defender of the Catholic church, not being a believer...

Perhaps some Catholics would like to speak up here and state whether they consider calling the church a cult is offensive?

I'm not a Catholic, but if somebody called my church (UMC) a cult, it would not offend me in the slightest. I would just assume that the speaker was being stupid and I'd let it go.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary lists five different definitions of the word "cult."1. Formal religious veneration

2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents;

3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents;

4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator;

5. Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book).

The Random House Unabridged Dictionary's eight definitions of "cult" are:

1. A particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies;

2. An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers;

3. The object of such devotion;

4. A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc;

5. Group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols;

6. A religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader;

7. The members of such a religion or sect;

8. Any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

Webster's New World College Dictionary defines "cult" as:

1a. a system of religious worship or ritual

1b. a quasi-religious group, often living in a colony, with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views, practices or beliefs

2a. devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle or lifestyle, especially when regarded as a fad [the cult of nudism]

2b. the object of such attachment

3. a group of followers, sect

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Man, I'm getting beat up here something like 20-1, and I am hardly the best defender of the Catholic church, not being a believer...

Perhaps some Catholics would like to speak up here and state whether they consider calling the church a cult is offensive?

I'm not a Catholic, but if somebody called my church (UMC) a cult, it would not offend me in the slightest. I would just assume that the speaker was being stupid and I'd let it go.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary lists five different definitions of the word "cult."1. Formal religious veneration

2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents;

3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents;

4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator;

5. Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book).

The Random House Unabridged Dictionary's eight definitions of "cult" are:

1. A particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies;

2. An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers;

3. The object of such devotion;

4. A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc;

5. Group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols;

6. A religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader;

7. The members of such a religion or sect;

8. Any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

Webster's New World College Dictionary defines "cult" as:

1a. a system of religious worship or ritual

1b. a quasi-religious group, often living in a colony, with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views, practices or beliefs

2a. devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle or lifestyle, especially when regarded as a fad [the cult of nudism]

2b. the object of such attachment

3. a group of followers, sect

Dictionary definitions don't really help much in this particular case. In ordinary English, the word "cult" carries an unmistakably negative connotation. It's always meant as a pejorative. By all means, if somebody wants to argue that Catholicism is bad, or that religion is bad in general, that's fine. We have threads like that all the time in the FFA. The point is that making that case requires some argumentation, not just childish name-calling.

 

[RBM]

Man, I'm getting beat up here something like 20-1, and I am hardly the best defender of the Catholic church, not being a believer...Perhaps some Catholics would like to speak up here and state whether they consider calling the church a cult is offensive?

I'm Catholic.Don't care what other people think about it. Sorry, tim.

Same here

 

[Sweet J]

but he used to be a Nazi

When the - when the current Pope was in his previous Vatican job as John Paul's **** Cheney - he wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the statute of limitations ran out. And that's the Church's attitude: "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/index.html

I'm curious as to whether these two things are correct. Any insight?

 

[timschochet]

but he used to be a Nazi

When the - when the current Pope was in his previous Vatican job as John Paul's **** Cheney - he wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the statute of limitations ran out. And that's the Church's attitude: "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/index.html

I'm curious as to whether these two things are correct. Any insight?

Per WIkipedia:First question:

Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth — membership being legally required after December 1939[6] (though 10-20% did disobey the rule)[7] — but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings.[8] His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith.[citation needed] In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was killed by the Nazi regime in its campaign of eugenics.[9] In 1943 while still in seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft corps. Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the War in summer 1945. He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.

Second question:

Ratzinger's 2001 letter “Crimen Sollicitationis” which clarified the confidentiality of internal Church investigations into accusations made against priests of certain crimes, including sexual abuse, became a target of controversy during the sex abuse scandal.[14] While bishops hold the secrecy pertained only internally, and did not preclude investigation by civil law enforcement, the letter was often seen as promoting a coverup.[

 

[IvanKaramazov]

but he used to be a Nazi

When the - when the current Pope was in his previous Vatican job as John Paul's **** Cheney - he wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the statute of limitations ran out. And that's the Church's attitude: "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/index.html

I'm curious as to whether these two things are correct. Any insight?

He was a member of Hitler Youth when he was a kid, but that wasn't a voluntary decision on his part; I think he was more or less forced to join. (Edit: Or, in other words, what timschochet said). It's a cheap shot for Maher to bring it up, but that's just Maher being Maher. I can't speak to the second point.

 

[analog_hiss]

but he used to be a Nazi

When the - when the current Pope was in his previous Vatican job as John Paul's **** Cheney - he wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the statute of limitations ran out. And that's the Church's attitude: "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/index.html

I'm curious as to whether these two things are correct. Any insight?

Not sure of the Nazi part, but here's a background article re: sex abuse: Obstruction of justice?

 

[Sweet J]

The primary distinction between any given organized religion and a cult is the number of members and the amount of respect afforded by outside society. At the same time, religion can play a distinctly powerful and positive role in peoples' lives. People are funny.

This is the point. The Catholic church does so many good things I can hardly name them here, but support of schools and hospitals would be first on my list. For each one of the child molesters, there's a thousand priests who engage in visiting the elderly, helping the poor, tending to the sick, and trying to improve conditions everywhere. Yet a guy like Maher focuses on the bad and makes a sweeping statement which is offensive to millions of people. I do like Maher, but this really cannot be defended, IMO.

This is a very slippery "the ends justify the means" analysis. Once you start to say, "well, this person does so 1000 units of good each day, so it is ok that he does 10 units of bad," then things go to poop pretty damn quickly. When you start to ignore bad actions because of the perceived good actions of a person or organization, then you've already lost.For instance, we know that a number of children have been molested (raped) by the heads of their church. We know that important, high ranking members of the Catholic Church, have been complicit. So, my question to you is, how many have to be molested, with the complicit approval of high ranking church members (for example, the Bishop would hear about a "bad" priest, and instead of dealing with the situation appropriately, he just transfers the priest to another congregation), before we should "focus" on the bad?? 10 kids? 100 kids? 100,000 kids? If 100,000 kids were molested over the course of 10 years (with complicit approval from Church Officials), we would all be up in arms and demand something be done. But you are now suggesting that we don't focus on the issue because a small number of kids were hurt.

 

[Kirby]

It's definitely an overgrown cult. I'm having to jump through hoops to be a Godfather in a few weeks because they don't have me listed as an active member(putting money in the basket).

 

[timschochet]

Just to clarify again: I don't even like the Catholic church very much. I don't like this pope. And I love Bill Maher and never miss his show.

I just think these particular comments were over the top, that's all. The church is not a cult. I don't care how many semantic tricks you want to play here, it's still not a cult.

A couple of Catholics have come on this thread and stated they don't really care what others think of their religion; good for them. But I still would argue that the vast majority of Catholics would find such language insulting.

My other point is that he would be in big trouble if he had called Islam a cult. Yes he has ripped on Islam in the past, but calling it a cult is something different. I don't believe he'd do it, and if he did, marked for death, IMO.

 

[timschochet]

The primary distinction between any given organized religion and a cult is the number of members and the amount of respect afforded by outside society. At the same time, religion can play a distinctly powerful and positive role in peoples' lives. People are funny.

This is the point. The Catholic church does so many good things I can hardly name them here, but support of schools and hospitals would be first on my list. For each one of the child molesters, there's a thousand priests who engage in visiting the elderly, helping the poor, tending to the sick, and trying to improve conditions everywhere. Yet a guy like Maher focuses on the bad and makes a sweeping statement which is offensive to millions of people. I do like Maher, but this really cannot be defended, IMO.

This is a very slippery "the ends justify the means" analysis. Once you start to say, "well, this person does so 1000 units of good each day, so it is ok that he does 10 units of bad," then things go to poop pretty damn quickly. When you start to ignore bad actions because of the perceived good actions of a person or organization, then you've already lost.For instance, we know that a number of children have been molested (raped) by the heads of their church. We know that important, high ranking members of the Catholic Church, have been complicit. So, my question to you is, how many have to be molested, with the complicit approval of high ranking church members (for example, the Bishop would hear about a "bad" priest, and instead of dealing with the situation appropriately, he just transfers the priest to another congregation), before we should "focus" on the bad?? 10 kids? 100 kids? 100,000 kids? If 100,000 kids were molested over the course of 10 years (with complicit approval from Church Officials), we would all be up in arms and demand something be done. But you are now suggesting that we don't focus on the issue because a small number of kids were hurt.

No, you're responding to an argument I never made. I don't believe the end justifies the means. My argument is that there are thousands of priests that have nothing to do with child molestation, that abhor it, and do good works. To label all Catholics as part of this mess is unfair. I never said we shouldn't focus on this issue; we absolutely should. But we should not stereotype as a result of it.

 

[timschochet]

The primary distinction between any given organized religion and a cult is the number of members and the amount of respect afforded by outside society. At the same time, religion can play a distinctly powerful and positive role in peoples' lives. People are funny.

This is the point. The Catholic church does so many good things I can hardly name them here, but support of schools and hospitals would be first on my list. For each one of the child molesters, there's a thousand priests who engage in visiting the elderly, helping the poor, tending to the sick, and trying to improve conditions everywhere. Yet a guy like Maher focuses on the bad and makes a sweeping statement which is offensive to millions of people. I do like Maher, but this really cannot be defended, IMO.

This is a very slippery "the ends justify the means" analysis. Once you start to say, "well, this person does so 1000 units of good each day, so it is ok that he does 10 units of bad," then things go to poop pretty damn quickly. When you start to ignore bad actions because of the perceived good actions of a person or organization, then you've already lost.For instance, we know that a number of children have been molested (raped) by the heads of their church. We know that important, high ranking members of the Catholic Church, have been complicit. So, my question to you is, how many have to be molested, with the complicit approval of high ranking church members (for example, the Bishop would hear about a "bad" priest, and instead of dealing with the situation appropriately, he just transfers the priest to another congregation), before we should "focus" on the bad?? 10 kids? 100 kids? 100,000 kids? If 100,000 kids were molested over the course of 10 years (with complicit approval from Church Officials), we would all be up in arms and demand something be done. But you are now suggesting that we don't focus on the issue because a small number of kids were hurt.

No, you're responding to an argument I never made. I don't believe the end justifies the means. My argument is that there are thousands of priests that have nothing to do with child molestation, that abhor it, and do good works. To label all Catholics as part of this mess is unfair. I never said we shouldn't focus on this issue; we absolutely should. But we should not stereotype as a result of it.

An anology that I would draw would be to illegal immigrants. Guys like Bill O Reilly are always drawing our attention to violent crimes committed by illegals and then making the inference that all illegals are terrible criminals who should be deported. The fact that most illegal immigrants, once they get here, are hard working law abiding citizens is ignored.

 

[Sweet J]

The primary distinction between any given organized religion and a cult is the number of members and the amount of respect afforded by outside society. At the same time, religion can play a distinctly powerful and positive role in peoples' lives. People are funny.

This is the point. The Catholic church does so many good things I can hardly name them here, but support of schools and hospitals would be first on my list. For each one of the child molesters, there's a thousand priests who engage in visiting the elderly, helping the poor, tending to the sick, and trying to improve conditions everywhere. Yet a guy like Maher focuses on the bad and makes a sweeping statement which is offensive to millions of people. I do like Maher, but this really cannot be defended, IMO.

This is a very slippery "the ends justify the means" analysis. Once you start to say, "well, this person does so 1000 units of good each day, so it is ok that he does 10 units of bad," then things go to poop pretty damn quickly. When you start to ignore bad actions because of the perceived good actions of a person or organization, then you've already lost.For instance, we know that a number of children have been molested (raped) by the heads of their church. We know that important, high ranking members of the Catholic Church, have been complicit. So, my question to you is, how many have to be molested, with the complicit approval of high ranking church members (for example, the Bishop would hear about a "bad" priest, and instead of dealing with the situation appropriately, he just transfers the priest to another congregation), before we should "focus" on the bad?? 10 kids? 100 kids? 100,000 kids? If 100,000 kids were molested over the course of 10 years (with complicit approval from Church Officials), we would all be up in arms and demand something be done. But you are now suggesting that we don't focus on the issue because a small number of kids were hurt.

No, you're responding to an argument I never made. I don't believe the end justifies the means. My argument is that there are thousands of priests that have nothing to do with child molestation, that abhor it, and do good works. To label all Catholics as part of this mess is unfair. I never said we shouldn't focus on this issue; we absolutely should. But we should not stereotype as a result of it.

An anology that I would draw would be to illegal immigrants. Guys like Bill O Reilly are always drawing our attention to violent crimes committed by illegals and then making the inference that all illegals are terrible criminals who should be deported. The fact that most illegal immigrants, once they get here, are hard working law abiding citizens is ignored.

Look, that's just not a good analogy. Mahr is not saying that "all Catholics are terrible people." Or pediphiles, or whatever. He is saying that the Catholic Church is a corrupt organization, and its actions need to be examined. If, indeed, there are people within the Catholic Church who's actions are encouraging pedophelia, than it is irresponsible to infer that people shouldn't be "focusing on the bad."

 

[vandyt]

Well, his point his obvious, but he is factually incorrect. From Wikipedia:

Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. In common or populist usage, "cult" has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees,[1] but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups.[2] For this reason, most, if not all, non-fan groups that are called cults reject this label.

Italics mine. The Catholic Church, being the largest Christian denomination in the world, can under no circumstances be described as "outside the mainstream."

Dude.It's called sattire.

And he is 100% on point. The Catholic church has done absolutely NOTHING about thousands of child molestation cases...it's despicable.

He's not even an atheist.

Yes he is.

Apatheist and atheist are two different things.

 

[quickhands]

As a member of the RCC. I am not upset by his comments. When an organization like the RCC allows this kind of filth to go on, you become fair game. And anything said about it needs to be born. This is what you get when people that the organization has put in place of trust a pedophile. Then repeatedly moves him again and again to hide what he has done.

And why? Because of the internal politics of the RCC.

Its disgusting and we are getting our comeuppance.

They will all be dealt with.

 

[Hov34]

Man, I'm getting beat up here something like 20-1, and I am hardly the best defender of the Catholic church, not being a believer...Perhaps some Catholics would like to speak up here and state whether they consider calling the church a cult is offensive?

I'm Catholic.Don't care what other people think about it. Sorry, tim.

Same here

Tom Cruise agrees as well.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The primary distinction between any given organized religion and a cult is the number of members and the amount of respect afforded by outside society. At the same time, religion can play a distinctly powerful and positive role in peoples' lives. People are funny.

This is the point. The Catholic church does so many good things I can hardly name them here, but support of schools and hospitals would be first on my list. For each one of the child molesters, there's a thousand priests who engage in visiting the elderly, helping the poor, tending to the sick, and trying to improve conditions everywhere. Yet a guy like Maher focuses on the bad and makes a sweeping statement which is offensive to millions of people. I do like Maher, but this really cannot be defended, IMO.

This is a very slippery "the ends justify the means" analysis. Once you start to say, "well, this person does so 1000 units of good each day, so it is ok that he does 10 units of bad," then things go to poop pretty damn quickly. When you start to ignore bad actions because of the perceived good actions of a person or organization, then you've already lost.For instance, we know that a number of children have been molested (raped) by the heads of their church. We know that important, high ranking members of the Catholic Church, have been complicit. So, my question to you is, how many have to be molested, with the complicit approval of high ranking church members (for example, the Bishop would hear about a "bad" priest, and instead of dealing with the situation appropriately, he just transfers the priest to another congregation), before we should "focus" on the bad?? 10 kids? 100 kids? 100,000 kids? If 100,000 kids were molested over the course of 10 years (with complicit approval from Church Officials), we would all be up in arms and demand something be done. But you are now suggesting that we don't focus on the issue because a small number of kids were hurt.

No, you're responding to an argument I never made. I don't believe the end justifies the means. My argument is that there are thousands of priests that have nothing to do with child molestation, that abhor it, and do good works. To label all Catholics as part of this mess is unfair. I never said we shouldn't focus on this issue; we absolutely should. But we should not stereotype as a result of it.

An anology that I would draw would be to illegal immigrants. Guys like Bill O Reilly are always drawing our attention to violent crimes committed by illegals and then making the inference that all illegals are terrible criminals who should be deported. The fact that most illegal immigrants, once they get here, are hard working law abiding citizens is ignored.

Not by my definition of citizen. Also, as to law abiding, I don't think so. It takes active ongoing fraud to remain in most cases. The lifestyle tends to but them at constant low level violations of all traffic laws and many tax laws. they may be decent, peaceful, and hardworking residents, but they are not law abiding citizens.

 

[RBM]

Man, I'm getting beat up here something like 20-1, and I am hardly the best defender of the Catholic church, not being a believer...Perhaps some Catholics would like to speak up here and state whether they consider calling the church a cult is offensive?

I'm Catholic.Don't care what other people think about it. Sorry, tim.

Same here

Tom Cruise agrees as well.

He isnt Catholic

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Just to clarify again: I don't even like the Catholic church very much. I don't like this pope. And I love Bill Maher and never miss his show. I just think these particular comments were over the top, that's all. The church is not a cult. I don't care how many semantic tricks you want to play here, it's still not a cult.A couple of Catholics have come on this thread and stated they don't really care what others think of their religion; good for them. But I still would argue that the vast majority of Catholics would find such language insulting.My other point is that he would be in big trouble if he had called Islam a cult. Yes he has ripped on Islam in the past, but calling it a cult is something different. I don't believe he'd do it, and if he did, marked for death, IMO.

It's shtick. Do you seriously expect Maher to avoid going "over the top"? You're getting slammed for defending the Catholic church. You're debating something nobody cares about (whether or not Bill Maher called it a cult). You're jousting at windmills.

 

[pollardsvision]

frankly, i'm shocked that a comedian would ever say anything that might offend people

I don't think Maher is a comedian.

the 1st sentence of his bio from billmauer.com:"Bill Maher is one of the most politically astute comedians in America today."these days, roles are very intertwined and some may not look at him that way, but at the heart of it all, maher's job is to get ratings, to make people laugh and get a reaction. his career as a "political journalist" began on comedy central. we like to get our news and social commentary from comedians these days, but they are still comedians.

 

[poopdawg]

The primary distinction between any given organized religion and a cult is the number of members and the amount of respect afforded by outside society. At the same time, religion can play a distinctly powerful and positive role in peoples' lives. People are funny.

This is the point. The Catholic church does so many good things I can hardly name them here, but support of schools and hospitals would be first on my list. For each one of the child molesters, there's a thousand priests who engage in visiting the elderly, helping the poor, tending to the sick, and trying to improve conditions everywhere. Yet a guy like Maher focuses on the bad and makes a sweeping statement which is offensive to millions of people. I do like Maher, but this really cannot be defended, IMO.

This is a very slippery "the ends justify the means" analysis. Once you start to say, "well, this person does so 1000 units of good each day, so it is ok that he does 10 units of bad," then things go to poop pretty damn quickly. When you start to ignore bad actions because of the perceived good actions of a person or organization, then you've already lost.For instance, we know that a number of children have been molested (raped) by the heads of their church. We know that important, high ranking members of the Catholic Church, have been complicit. So, my question to you is, how many have to be molested, with the complicit approval of high ranking church members (for example, the Bishop would hear about a "bad" priest, and instead of dealing with the situation appropriately, he just transfers the priest to another congregation), before we should "focus" on the bad?? 10 kids? 100 kids? 100,000 kids? If 100,000 kids were molested over the course of 10 years (with complicit approval from Church Officials), we would all be up in arms and demand something be done. But you are now suggesting that we don't focus on the issue because a small number of kids were hurt.

No, you're responding to an argument I never made. I don't believe the end justifies the means. My argument is that there are thousands of priests that have nothing to do with child molestation, that abhor it, and do good works. To label all Catholics as part of this mess is unfair. I never said we shouldn't focus on this issue; we absolutely should. But we should not stereotype as a result of it.

An anology that I would draw would be to illegal immigrants. Guys like Bill O Reilly are always drawing our attention to violent crimes committed by illegals and then making the inference that all illegals are terrible criminals who should be deported. The fact that most illegal immigrants, once they get here, are hard working law abiding citizens is ignored.

Sorry to get off topic, but this bothers me. The very fact that they are in this country makes it illegal, whether you agree with it or not. So, they are hardly law-abiding, and by definition, they are anything but a citizen of this country. I dont mind immigration, but do it legally like everyone else.

 

[cstu]

Seriously, how are there still Catholics?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Seriously, how are there still Catholics?

why do you think they banned birth control?