Pope Francis removes american cardinal for being against gay, divorced couples - Polidicks

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/EdjShAI.jpg[/IMG] US cardinal Burke, president of the supreme court of the Holy See, was removed by pope Francis after his public declarations where he stated "The Church is without a leader", criticizing the behaviour of the pope towards homosexual and divorced couples. Burke was also known for rejecting the pope's critic of capitalism. Italian source: [URL="http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2014/11/09/news/la_scure_di_bergoglio_sui_conservatori_via_il_cardinale_contrario_all_apertura_ai_divorziati-100111586/"]http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2014/11/09/news/la_scure_di_bergoglio_sui_conservatori_via_il_cardinale_contrario_all_apertura_ai_divorziati-100111586/[/URL] NYT: [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/world/europe/pope-demotes-us-cardinal-critical-of-his-reform-agenda.html?_r=0"]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/world/europe/pope-demotes-us-cardinal-critical-of-his-reform-agenda.html?_r=0[/URL]

I hope he lasts a while, he's a good pope. And he doesn't look like a sith lord, always a plus. [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/geeBo.jpg[/thumb]

Aren't these guys supposed to believe the pope is the very connection between (and representative of) God and the church? Every time I read of insubordination within the church I'm baffled.

[QUOTE=Chief Martini;46446723]Aren't these guys supposed to believe the pope is the very connection between (and representative of) God and the church? Every time I read of insubordination within the church I'm baffled.[/QUOTE] People also think Jesus is like "love thy neighbor" and "treat others as you would want to be treated" but that doesnt mean jack when those darn homo's just want equal rights

[QUOTE=Sir M;46446805]People also think Jesus is like "love thy neighbor" and "treat others as you would want to be treated" but that doesnt mean jack when those darn homo's just want equal rights[/QUOTE] It's a little more complicated than that.

Francis for best pope in history.

One of religious men who truly deserve to be canonised as saint after death.

shows pope francis can talk the talk [I]and[/I] walk the walk

[QUOTE=Thom12255;46446819]It's a little more complicated than that.[/QUOTE] When they want it to be

Bible also recommends not doing missionary with dudes. [I]"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."[/I] Clearly stating that missionary with guys is hella awkward because of dicks flopping everywhere and getting in the way, and thus, you should prolly do it doggystyle or something.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46447726]No, no it's not. There is no qualifier in the statement "love thy neighbor as thyself". Notice how it doesn't say "unless they're gay" or "unless they're liberals" or "unless they disagree with you". It CLEARLY states, love thy neighbor as thyself, REGARDLESS of what you think, or how much you disagree with someone, or how "sinful" they are, you are to love them.[/QUOTE] but it does say "as thyself" so i guess the self loathers get the go-ahead

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;46448101]but it does say "as thyself" so i guess the self loathers get the go-ahead[/QUOTE] To be fair the bible is effectively the first self help manual I guess, you're supposed to love yourself through its teachings and thus be capable of loving everyone. Except for all the people the bible tells you not to love, but other than those guys, love all dem peeps.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46447726]No, no it's not. There is no qualifier in the statement "love thy neighbor as thyself". Notice how it doesn't say "unless they're gay" or "unless they're liberals" or "unless they disagree with you". It CLEARLY states, love thy neighbor as thyself, REGARDLESS of what you think, or how much you disagree with someone, or how "sinful" they are, you are to love them.[/QUOTE] The problem with what you are saying is the Christian understanding of love is apparently not what you define it as, the Bible goes quite in-depth to justify why theology is the way it is. It's not because Christians can't read as you seem to be implying. If God does not approve of Gay relations then how can a Christian believe it is loving to say Gay relations are to be accepted as right in the Church, seeing as though the first duty of a Christian is to love God above all else.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46448311]Some people can't grasp the concept of "hate the sin, not the sinner". It isn't our place to judge ANYONE, that's reserved for god. As such, you're not supposed to hate ANYONE. You can hate their actions, but don't hate that person. Even if that person was a massive asshole, the name of the game is to forgive them, not hate them. Essentially: Some people can't separate someones actions from someones life.[/QUOTE] I agree with you, however in regards to the first post I responded too, denying Marriage equality within the Church for theological reasons is not hate. [editline]9th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;46448311] Essentially: Some people can't separate someones actions from someones life.[/QUOTE] What is the difference between actions and life?

[QUOTE=Thom12255;46448322]I agree with you, however in regards to the first post I responded too, denying Marriage equality within the Church for theological reasons is not hate. [editline]9th November 2014[/editline] What is the difference between actions and life?[/QUOTE] denying marriage equality in the church =\= denying marriage equality in the state, which a good amount of people want to do for religious reasons

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;46448351]denying marriage equality in the church =\= denying marriage equality in the state, which a good amount of people want to do for religious reasons[/QUOTE] One of the reasons I find it astonishing that there's no separation of church and state in the U.S. Religion shouldn't have a say on political matters.

[QUOTE=_Axel;46448362]One of the reasons I find it astonishing that there's no separation of church and state in the U.S. Religion shouldn't have a say on political matters.[/QUOTE] By Religion do you mean beliefs influencing personal views or organisations acting as a whole to pursue objectives?

[QUOTE=_Axel;46448362]One of the reasons I find it astonishing that there's no separation of church and state in the U.S. Religion shouldn't have a say on political matters.[/QUOTE] De jure there is De facto "I shall legislate against environmentally friendly laws because the Bible says the Earth will not be destroyed before the Second Coming"

[QUOTE=Thom12255;46448384]By Religion do you mean beliefs influencing personal views or organisations acting as a whole to pursue objectives?[/QUOTE] I mostly mean using religious arguments in debates such as this one and have it considered as being valid or even relevant to the issue. If you did the same thing in a secular country, you'd get ignored or even laughed at. And otherwise the whole intertwine character of religion and politics, like having to swear on the Bible when on trial, for example. It just feels weird for things as important as civil rights and laws to be treated alongside or sometimes even according to religion. [editline]9th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=EcksDee;46448457]De jure there is.[/QUOTE] Having the president touch the bible when entering office would imply otherwise though. Are they really officially separated?

[QUOTE=_Axel;46448467] Having the president touch the bible when entering office would imply otherwise though. Are they really officially separated?[/QUOTE] That's just personal choice. The constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" If they made it a law that you had to put your hand on the Bible, then it would be infringing. If an atheist president were to be elected (not gonna happen in like 200 years) then they could go like "Yeah no"

[QUOTE=Riller;46447941]Bible also recommends not doing missionary with dudes. [I]"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."[/I] Clearly stating that missionary with guys is hella awkward because of dicks flopping everywhere and getting in the way, and thus, you should prolly do it doggystyle or something.[/QUOTE] It clearly says "lie" as in not telling the truth Bible is just putting the bro code into effect

[QUOTE=EcksDee;46448514]That's just personal choice. The constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" If they made it a law that you had to put your hand on the Bible, then it would be infringing. If an atheist president were to be elected (not gonna happen in like 200 years) then they could go like "Yeah no"[/QUOTE] Just a note on this, that's not what that ammendment is interpreted to mean. Endorsing a religion as being "of the state" is illegal, however religious practices on behalf of the the state are viewed as constitutional so long as they are inclusive rather than exclusive. This is why for instance our money says "In God We Trust" and courthouses have hokey sayings over their doors like "God is Watching." They are not infringing on anyone's religious beliefs but are merely the endorsement of a religious belief. There are plenty of legal codes that require laying hands on a holy book or making a prayer as part of a ceremony, but don't specify which holy book or which prayer. Atheism is not dealt with by the constitution, however legal precedent recognizes Athiest as a religious orientation if the practitioner declares themselves to be a serious believer thereof. That's why in cases where Atheists are elected to positions and local legal codes require the "recognition of a divine supreme being," those codes are struck down as violating the US Constitution because while they had not formerly been infringing on any religious beliefs, they then infringe upon the Atheist belief that there is no divine supreme being. If an Atheist president were elected, it is likely that that president would be required to swear on [I]something[/I] even if it were not a bible. Like I don't know. An encyclopedia, or a copy of [I]Wired.[/I]

I'd like to imagine that the pope just cracked his knuckles and physically threw the guy out of the building. He was a bouncer after all.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46448751]I'd like to imagine that the pope just cracked his knuckles and physically threw the guy out of the building. He was a bouncer after all.[/QUOTE] I'm picturing it happening like in Fresh Prince whenever Uncle Phil threw Jazz out.