Straight Up with Sherri

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Bring Your Dictionary, and DON'T FORGET YOUR DUCT TAPE!


I ran across this article and just couldn't believe it! I HAD to share this. I am AMAZED at the ability of people to throw common sense out the window and grasp for new definitions in order to "justify" their ideology. How close are we to needing interpreters when both parties are speaking the same "tongue?" The most ridiculous example I could think of was the redefining of "marriage." I honestly thought this was the epitome of political manipulation. Then I read this article, and realize that I STAND CORRECTED! The author manages to twist words into their OPPOSITE, and TOTALLY MISS what the "CHURCH" is. What a GREAT example of the mental hoops people are willing to jump through instead of just being HONEST about where they stand. If you can't win the debate on ideas, just change the definitions of the words. The shell game has turned into arrogance so broad, they now challenge Webster. Really- GET THE DICTIONARY AND THE DUCT TAPE!

The Pope was not pro-life

by Mary Ann Sieghart

ALTHOUGH born, baptised and confirmed a Catholic, throughout my adult life I have worshipped at Anglican churches. Why? Because I am pro-life, pro-democracy and pro-human rights -- and the Catholic Church under John Paul II was none of those things.

I do not use "pro-life" in the way in which it has been hijacked by anti-abortionists. What I believe in is the protection of human life against the scourge of life-threatening illnesses. Who doesn't? The late Pope, for a start.

His implacable opposition to condoms led to the deaths of millions of people from Aids. How can safe sex be more morally repugnant than condemning adults to death and their children to orphanhood?

Pro-life "hijacked" by "anti-abortionsists? So scraping a HUMAN life out of a womb and throwing it into the trash is okay? Being FOR the act of SUCKING the brain out of a FULL TERM child who's head has come out of the birth canal, (and feet still inside the womb) makes one "pro-life," if they don't like people dying of AIDS? Oh, MY HEAD! NEWS FLASH MARY ANN- Pope John Paul II WAS FOR SAFE SEX! THE SAFEST KNOWN TO MAN! It is called ABSTINENCE!

As for democracy, the Pope was a magnificent force for good against communism, but a totalitarian at home. Dissent was not tolerated, at the risk of excommunication. The principle of collegiality was more or less discarded. He decreed that there was to be "no more discussion" of female ordination, and elevated this to the level of infallibility. On other aspects of Catholic doctrine, such as contraception, divorce and abortion, there could be no let-out for individual conscience. "It is prohibited -- to every one in every case -- to violate these precepts," the Pope insisted.

Mary Ann, the Pope did not make these rules, GOD DID! He just READ THE BOOK! Try it sometime. And the CHURCH is NOT a DEMOCRACY! You can't VOTE IN SIN! Hmmm, let's see....that "to death do us part thing, uh....let's scratch that. Have you seen how these women AGE? And the whole thing with men being over women, I mean c'mon really? God may be able to predict the coming and crucifixion of the Messiah- but He had NO CLUE how pesky these women were going to be about NEEDING validation by being considered THE SAME AS ADAM! And HEY, He did make sex sooooo enjoyable, that abstinence and no killing thing just, he couldn't have MEANT That stuff!" I would love to see Mary Ann's copy of the AMENDMENTS to God's word.

So the advocate of freedom was determined to stamp it out among his flock. And the advocate of human rights was prepared to denounce homosexuality as a "disorder". Meanwhile, priests were to have no right to marry -- even though married Anglican priests were welcomed into Catholic orders. And women were to have no right either to be ordained or, as lay people, to control the size of their families.

Okay, aren't you STRETCHING things a bit here? Human Rights was about denouncing homosexuality? I must have missed that memo. You might want to read up a bit. Start with 1 Tim 3:2-5, 5:17; Tit 1:9; 1 Pet 5:1-3 on the women being ordained thing. Really, it's in there. As for "controlling" the size of their families, good grief, it's called- DON'T LAY DOWN! Trust me, I know! I learned the HARD WAY!

Abortion does at least involve killing an existing foetus. But taking a pill that merely prevents a woman from ovulating can hardly be described as murder. In the developing world, the ban on birth control has led to overpopulation, hunger, poverty and needless infant death, not to speak of the effect on the mothers.

Hun, you are really missing the point. ABSTINENCE! Yes- God made the rules to PROTECT US, NOT PUNISH AND TORTURE US! "the ban on birth control has led to overpopulation, hunger, poverty and needless infant death, not to speak of the effect on the mothers." No- it is people NOT controlling themselves that leads to these things! It is poor judgment and the rebuking of God's teaching that leads to these things! Try this word, ACCOUNTABILITY!

Mourn the Pope, by all means. He was a great battler against communism and an indefatigable communicator. But his best work was done outside the Church. In the end, John Paul II was a far better world statesman than he was leader of the world's Catholics.

Thank you for permissiont to mourn. Now that you are done with your propaganda, let me introduce you to the Bible and a Dictionary. Mary Ann, meet God and Webster. I am almost tempted to start up a collection to buy you one of each. But then again, I have a funny feeling you are already familiar with both. You just don't like not having "permission" to do as you please without someone else to blame instead of accepting accountability. What exactly are you worshipping at your church?


6 Comments:

  • Hmmm, interesting logic. Going by your argument, married folks who can't afford children should just control themselves and not have sex. And that's based on the well-known verse in the Bible that condemns using the Pill....

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:48 AM  

  • You criticize the author for NOT being honest about where she stands. Perhaps you're confusing her honesty with your intolerance of an opinion contrary to your own dogmatic belief system. Your remarks show the disappointing presence of "re-hashing" (or, restating what has been said before), a characteristic that you consistently criticize "liberals" for. An example, you ask? You assume that if one is pro-choice (or opposed to the violent vehemence which the pro-life/anti-abortion movement embraces), he must AUTOMATICALLY be FOR the brutal murder of children inside their mother's womb. This is idiotic; who would be FOR this? You accuse the author of twisting words in her favor, but you have done exactly this through your tortured prose and use of negative connotations to vilify those across the spectrum from yourself. Your remarks show an extreme amount of ridicule and bitterness, both of which detract from your argument. A suggestion - a week from now, go back and read your own post. Then consider whether or not you really have any foundation upon which to criticize someone's choice of diction. Your responses to the author were not only poorly worded, but are a shining example of how we, as a nation, need to remove ideology and dogma out of important discussions, such as a historical analysis of a world leader's achievements. Just because Jesus Christ advocated abstinence and self-control of worldly desires does NOT mean that the rest of the earth's population accepts His teachings. Important world goals such as disease prevention need to be based on something a bit more concrete than a book (regardless of its religious significance) written over a 1500-year span by 40 different authors in 3 different languages. Perhaps something like medical research or scientific evidence? Anyway, feel free to flame away, shame and ridicule tactics are usually an appropriate response when one's argument has been thoroughly discredited, right?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:53 AM  

  • BBB--the Pill MAY prevent implantation if it does not succeed in preventing fertilization. This does not happen in all cases as I currently have a healthy pregnancy while taking the Pill. I also don't feel that havoc has been wreak on my body either. I understand you and your husband believe it is wrong, but others do not. And I do agree with you about the condom/AIDS issue.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:22 PM  

  • Wow all of this is too much right now. I'm actually getting a headache from the arguement. No comment at this time.

    KH 0976

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:52 PM  

  • Franco, I have read and re-read you’re your comments and just can’t get a handle on where you’re coming from on the pro-choice bit. You say its “idiotic” for Sherri to assume that if one is pro-choice they must be FOR the brutal murder of children and then ask, “who would be FOR this?” Well, it seems one has the choice of either having the pregnancy go full term (hopefully ending in a live birth) or terminating the pregnancy (death). Even if the thought process/discussion covers prevention, when prevention fails you are left with those two choices - unless adoption is factored in and I haven’t seen a push on the pro-choice side for that. So please tell me how one is pro-choice and not giving the thumbs up for murder.

    And “take ideology and dogma out of important discussions”??? Values, beliefs and opinions (religious or political) are always at the forefront of any discussion or analysis of anyone or anything. Even atheists have their beliefs and a conviction (faith) that what they believe is right. If you have none of the three, how does one shape an intelligent point or argument? Now that would be an interesting discussion (yawn). After debating, researching, analyzing, etc; your values, beliefs or opinions may change but I don’t think you can take them out of “important discussions.”

    You’re right about not all of the earth’s population accepting something just because Jesus Christ advocated it. We have the free will to accept him or deny him. The choice is ours as to which path to take. And yes, it’s an age old “book…by 40 different authors in 3 different languages.” Translating idioms and poetic language is no easy task, but since Hebrew and Greek are living languages, tracing those idioms and poetry is not nearly as difficult as it is with a dead language - Aramaic. What’s interesting, though, is that every translation of the Bible (except for those such as the New World Translation which was done in order to make the Bible to fit with cultic doctrine, therefore paying little or no attention to the original languages) conveys the same message and meaning. And that book says a lot about disease prevention, health, murder, homosexuality – all relevant today.

    I found it interesting that you used the word “concrete” trying to knock that old book; it is as real and solid today as it was ages ago and will be for years to come. Nothing against medical research or scientific evidence, we need those because they change daily, they are not concrete; they don’t tell you to put butter on a burn anymore – research has shown that’s not a good thing. Thank goodness the Pope had and other Christian ministers have their feet in concrete, standing strong with the book and are good shepherds.

    Sherri thoroughly discredited – I think not.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:44 AM  

  • Dee

    I find this extremely amusing.

    I am accused of not bein tolerant of other views- Yet I have NO passwords, etc to let others comment. I use the delete option VERY seldom.

    Also- I defend the Pope for Staying true to WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH teaches and then they assume I agree...

    Funny. I am not Catholic. I don't agree with MUCH of the Catholic teachings. However- I would never criticize the Pope for Following the Catholic teachings. I amy disagree with him- but that does not mean he lacks integrity. It also does not mean that HE needs to BEND to MY POV.

    I admire his steadfast courage to not BEND to ideology. TO be brave in the face of pressure from others. To abondon his own beliefs in order to justify doing thing against what HE believes God's will to be- would be terrible!

    But what do I know.. I can't possibly be tolerant of other views- I am RELIGIOUS ZEALOT!

    We are soooo EEEVIL!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 2:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home