Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 20, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 283

God-given right to guns... not so God-given after all?

:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
[link]

"The Vatican praised President Barack Obama's proposals for curbing gun violence, saying they are a 'step in a right direction.'

"The Vatican's chief spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Saturday that 47 religious leaders have appealed to members of the U.S. Congress "to limit firearms that are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths."

"Lombardi renewed Vatican appeals for disarmament and encouragement for measures to fight 'the production, commerce and contraband of all types of arms,' an industry fueled by 'enormous economic and power interests'."

Well, oopsie, so much for that angle of the pro-gun argument.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconcreepye:
CreepyE Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013
The true translation is "Thou shall not murder" not kill.
The pope is not the mouth piece for God. Although I'm sure he spends an enormous amount of time interpreting the Bible. Also no one is bound to live by the Pope's decrees or there wouldn't be any one living together before marriage or homosexuals.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
How convenient of you.
Reply
:iconsaidryian:
Saidryian Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013
When you think about it, when God gave the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" you'd think that'd be a clear indication that he doesn't want people to have guns.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
You'd think, but this thread is full of people trying to tell me how the Word of God should only apply when they feel like it should apply.
Reply
:iconsaidryian:
Saidryian Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2013
<3 hahaha I know right.
Reply
:iconcenaris:
Cenaris Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Too bad a figure of religious authority issues this suggestion in an era when noone really cares about religion anymore except down in ol' bible belt land.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Who are pretty hypocritical about it.
Reply
:iconjerseycajun:
jerseycajun Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
This isn't a matter of catechetics. Lay Catholics are not in any way bound to this opinion, and are very much allowed to hold different positions on the issue.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Certainly, yet they seem to have no problems following the Pope when it comes to things like denying birth control to their employees. Convenient, isn't it?
Reply
:iconjerseycajun:
jerseycajun Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Birth control actually is a matter that's covered in the Catechism, not up for discussion amongst the laity. The earlier issue isn't comparable to this one.

Apart from that however, it's more than a bit Orwellian to hold that not buying birth control on someone else's behalf constitutes denial of access.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Actually, it isn't. Birth control isn't mentioned once in the Bible, so it's as much up for debate as gun control is. (Abortion isn't mentioned either, ironically.)

Not allowing someone to get the healthcare they need from the health insurance they're being provided for the entire purpose of getting the healthcare they need, based on forcing your beliefs on someone whose personal life is none of your business is the textbook definition of denial of access.

Why should I have to pay more money for my healthcare because of someone else's beliefs? Why shouldn't what I pay for healthcare be based on my own beliefs?
Reply
:iconjerseycajun:
jerseycajun Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
I said the Catechism, not the Bible, though the former derives the vast majority of it's substance from the latter. Catholics do not believe in the concept of Sola Scriptura (that's more of an Evangelical thing as I understand it).

It is also the business of whoever is buying the insurance if you're insisting they pay for it. They have a voice as well, because now their resources are going to be part of the deal.

If you buy health insurance yourself then you have an unquestionable right to pick a package that is tailored to your beliefs because you're the one paying for it.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
"I said the Catechism, not the Bible, though the former derives the vast majority of it's substance from the latter. Catholics do not believe in the concept of Sola Scriptura (that's more of an Evangelical thing as I understand it)."

Well, if they're basing something solely on their say so, then it's the right of the laity to either not give a fuck about their say so, or think their say so is incorrect. Only the Bible is the Word of God, everything else is something some flawed human beings thought might be true.

"It is also the business of whoever is buying the insurance if you're insisting they pay for it. They have a voice as well, because now their resources are going to be part of the deal."

Nope, they do not have any say. I should not have any obligation to pay extra for my health insurance because they mistakenly think they have any say over what healthcare I need.

I mean, you've basically said, "Well, you can pay extra due to someone else's beliefs" while not explaining why I should have to do that in the first place. How is it right someone else forces me to pay extra for the healthcare I need due to their beliefs? It should be the other way around: If they want to create an extra cost that needs to be paid due to their beliefs, they should be the one paying that extra cost, not me. My beliefs don't dictate having to pay an extra cost or change my lifestyle, so why should I give a shit about someone else's beliefs saying what I should do? They can worry about their own personal lives and not dictate mine.

Or in short: How come freedom of religion only seems to apply to people who want to force their beliefs on others and force others to pay more and/or change their lives for someone else's beliefs, and never to the people who don't want to be forced on and just want to be free to choose their own lives without being fined extra or banned from it and without saying a single word about how other people live their lives?

Especially since it's financially beneficial to an employer to pay for birth control. Going through a pregnancy and giving birth can easily cost several times or more the cost of birth control, not to mention the lost productivity when a worker has to take leave. So there's not even a legitimate practical reason whatsoever to force a worker to pay an extra cost for your benefit.
Reply
:iconjerseycajun:
jerseycajun Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
"Well, if they're basing something solely on their say so, then it's the right of the laity to either not give a fuck about their say so, or think their say so is incorrect. Only the Bible is the Word of God, everything else is something some flawed human beings thought might be true."

It's not just their say so. The Catechism cites scripture extensively to build it's contents.

But let's take a step back for a moment. Where in the Bible does it say that it is the totality of all Christian thought? There are so many specifics that aren't covered in the Bible, but society changes constantly. There has to be a way to continue to interpret and apply what is in the Bible to new developments, like the internet, for example, which also isn't mentioned in the Bible. But for Christians, that doesn't make the Internet a "Get to do everything you want" sin-free pass, while you're online.

"Nope, they do not have any say. I should not have any obligation to pay extra for my health insurance because they mistakenly think they have any say over what healthcare I need."

Pay extra than what? They're buying it for you. You're saying you have a right to claim their resources to cover your health care choices regardless of any other consideration. Why is it not equally fair for me to ask why should someone be forced to violate their conscience in order to enable an action on the part of others with which you have grave moral qualms with?

Granted we don't share the same feelings on the morality surrounding contraception, but for the sake of being able to communicate the point let's put it into a context of something hopefully we do share as believing is wrong. I assume we both agree that it would be a sin in Christianity to abuse your body through heroin addiction (which also isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible, which... doesn't make it morally licit either, an interpretation arrived at after the fact). Would you be comfortable in being compelled to pay for that person's choices, regardless of what they did with it? If it was going to something you absolutely believed was wrong?

I disagree with your choice of words as well as they make the nature of the issue completely one-sided. Calling it a fine or a restriction in a fairly open society such as the one most western civilizations operate within, is like saying that because I didn't want to pay for your pork sandwich (if I was Jewish or Muslim), I'm denying you the right to eat pork because now you have to pay for it yourself.

There are reasons for the same pill to be used for non-contraceptive, general health treatments, and I do believe exceptions can be made for those assuming they haven't already been made. But for contraceptive use, when the only reason for taking it is based on personal choice and not medical necessity, then it becomes less clear how fair it is to compel the employer to pay for it if there is a moral disagreement with the action.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
"It's not just their say so. The Catechism cites scripture extensively to build it's contents."

Except that we've already established there is zero support for birth control or abortion in the Bible, so any opposition against those things is made up whole cloth.

"Where in the Bible does it say that it is the totality of all Christian thought?"

It's the only thing you can have a halfway reasonable claim of stating as the Word of God. Everything else is what individual humans do or don't feel like doing, and hardly something you can expect anyone else to have to give a shit about if they don't want to.

"Pay extra than what?"

If I want birth control, I have to either pay more for the pills than it would cost if they were covered under my plan, or I have to pay more to get an extra healthcare plan on top of my existing plan that covers it, or I have to pay lots extra for my own healthcare plan. No matter how you look at it, the employer refusing to just give me a plan that covers everything I and my doctor decide I need, means paying extra if I need more. Even though it's the employer's beliefs that are the reason I need to pay extra, and not my own beliefs.

"They're buying it for you."

No, they're buying part of it for us. The employee still has to pay part of the costs of the insurance. Healthcare in the US is employer-subsidized, not employer-paid.

"Calling it a fine or a restriction in a fairly open society such as the one most western civilizations operate within, is like saying that because I didn't want to pay for your pork sandwich (if I was Jewish or Muslim), I'm denying you the right to eat pork because now you have to pay for it yourself."

No, it's like saying you'll cover my meals, except for one arbitrary meal you refuse to eat yourself, even though I have no problems eating it and it's my meals being paid for and not your own. So I'm being fined for your beliefs, since it's your beliefs that mean I have to pay extra to eat a meal versus getting it free/low-cost under the meal plan, not my beliefs.

Most of your post is thus irrelevant. If you don't want to use birth control, then fine. Don't use it. I'm not forcing you to. But why, in turn, should you get to force me to have to pay extra for me to choose to use birth control, based on YOUR beliefs? It's my life, not yours. If you want to force an extra cost on me due to your belief, then you can feel free to pay that extra cost yourself since it's your choice to create it and not mine. I am not responsible for your choices.

"Would you be comfortable in being compelled to pay for that person's choices, regardless of what they did with it?"

That's the entire reason I'm protesting this, since I have to pay for someone else's choices when I have to pay extra for birth control versus getting it under my existing healthcare just like all other healthcare I choose to get. I didn't choose to be opposed to birth control, my employer did. Why am I paying for their choice?

"But for contraceptive use, when the only reason for taking it is based on personal choice and not medical necessity,"

Preventing unwanted bodily changes and not suffering from dysfunctional sexual issues is the very definition of medical necessities.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconkarinta:
Karinta Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Student General Artist
森の村の丸を見る。
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
?
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Addendum to the thread: [link]

This is amazingly priceless, too. Apparently the Vatican is... calling pro-life politicians out that they need to be pro-life when it comes to guns and weapons, as well.

I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone somehow.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
words of the catholic church, your sole interpretation of what's "god-given"?

your about to start a holy war.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I'm not the one who uses them as a sole interpretation, the Religious Right is.
Reply
:iconblackrosekane89:
Blackrosekane89 Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Professional General Artist
Not all religious right are catholic.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
And yet they use them to bolster their arguments anyway... except when it's suddenly inconvenient, then magically they disagree.
Reply
:iconblackrosekane89:
Blackrosekane89 Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Professional General Artist
Only Catholics. Christians and other denominations don't go by what the pope says.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
One, Catholics are Christians.

Two, they seem to love doing it just fine when it's things like birth control and LGBT rights on the block.
Reply
:iconblackrosekane89:
Blackrosekane89 Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Professional General Artist
Catholics are Christians, but there are many other donominations that aren't catholic. (such as non donominational Christianity). Catholics are the only religious right that consider what the pope has to say.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Nope they seem to love doing it just fine when it's things like birth control and LGBT rights on the block.
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
you are now, when it suits your intrests.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
When it suits my interests of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Religious Right regards obeying the word of God in one area yet not obeying it another area, damn straight I point out they can't even follow their own rules.
Reply
:iconrobstrand:
RobStrand Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013
The Vatican?

I thought I smelt the smell of hypocrisy!
Reply
:icondebit:
Debit Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Rewind several centuries into the past. The Papacy once tried to ban the use of crossbows, but belligerents did not bother, even though they were Catholics themselves! :D
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Why does that not surprise me?
Reply
:icondebit:
Debit Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
:music: Cherry-pickin', cherry-pickin',
I can pick whatever I want! :music:

:music: Cherry-pickin', cherry-pickin',
I worship the Gun Almighty! :music:

Obviously, the medieval Catholic aristocrats have put more faith in their implements of war than the God Almighty and Virgin Mary for their security concerns.

Today's staunch gun-touting loudmouths have more faith in their man-things ... *ahem!* ... arsenal for their safety concerns than the God Almighty, let alone general well-being and striving for better human development index. Christ need not apply.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
We've made God in our own image.
Reply
:iconhopeira9:
hopeira9 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013
#1. I don't recall there ever being a right to bear arms in the bible
#2. I do not take the Pope as being the so called 'Voice of God'
Reply
:iconrobstrand:
RobStrand Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013
Psalm 144:1 "Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle"
Ephesians 6:13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.

And the Pope is more of a figure head like the King and Queen of England. Nothing significant.

The bible is one big contradiction. There are equal as many quotes that say the opposite.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
1. There's nothing said about homosexuality, birth control, or abortion either, but that doesn't stop people from invoking God.
2. I was mainly referring to the people who take religious leaders as the word of God for one reason, then turn around and say they don't count when it's an inconvenient matter.
Reply
:iconblackrosekane89:
Blackrosekane89 Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Professional General Artist
The bible does mention homosexual acts. Whether or not these passages are condemning homosexuality is debated. But saying homosexuality is never mentioned In the bible is false

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13).

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you." (Leviticus 18:22-24).

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
1. None of those are in the context of consensual safe-sex relations.
Reply
:iconblackrosekane89:
Blackrosekane89 Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Professional General Artist
You are correct about birth control though. It's never mentioned.

Abortion becomes an issue based on personal belief as to when life begins.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Not really, to abortion. The Bible allows justified killing all over the place. And often a human being wasn't really considered "human" to begin with until after birth. The few places where induced miscarriages and pregnant women are mentioned, the unborn fetus is essentially treated as property.
Reply
:iconblackrosekane89:
Blackrosekane89 Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Professional General Artist
Romans 1:26 and Leviticus 20:13 give no indication that the acts aren't consenual.

Safe sex was never an issue in the bible as safe sex hadn't been created yet. Whether or not it's safe sex is irrelevant.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Reply
:iconblackrosekane89:
Blackrosekane89 Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Professional General Artist
Yeah, I'm not going to spend my night getting into a linking war. Anyone can scrounge up websites to back up what they say. I'm not even declaring whether homosexuality is right or wrong. You said homosexuality is not mentioned and That's not true. What the passages actually mean is up to the interpreter and partially what the reader wants to see. Going back and forth on opinion and interpretation is a time waster, which why I refrained from biased links and just quoted the bible straight.

Again, I'm not even taking a stand on the issue. Merely pointing out that homosexual acts are mentioned. In what context those sexual acts are mentioned is another discussion for another day.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
"You said homosexuality is not mentioned and That's not true."

Nope. I said homosexuality is not mentioned in the context of what the Religious Right is trying to ban/prohibit. Which is a fact.

"In what context those sexual acts are mentioned is another discussion for another day."

Nope, that's the very discussion we're having.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
invoked by the same pope when talking about the same god.

Why should we even listen to the man?
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Don't ask me, ask the Religious Right.
Reply
:iconhopeira9:
hopeira9 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013
1. There is something about homosexuality, I'll have to ask my cousin where that is again :o
2. No... I don't know anything about birth control in the bible
3. abortion depends on whether you view conception as the start of life or not ('thou shalt not kill')
4. ... hypocrites. Nuff said :|
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
1. There is... but not in the sense of an actual consensual relationship with safe sex being considered bad. More when homosexuality is being used as an excuse to do Bad Shit. Rape, temple prostitution, violating hospitality, unsafe sex, etc.
2. AFAIK the only mention of birth control is Onan pulling out, and even there it wasn't so much the pulling out itself that was bad as it was him shirking his duty to get his brother's widow preggers and continue the family name. Which I guess is the same as #1 in some ways.
Reply
:iconimprovidentscion:
ImprovidentScion Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Meanwhile, the Swiss Guard will continue to protect the kingdom of Christ's Vicar on Earth with their select-fire SG 550s. This is all very reminiscent of the Second Lateran Council...
Reply
:icondebit:
Debit Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
As long as the Swiss Guards continue to get paid. :)
Reply
Add a Comment: