FFRF Raises Enough Money to Run Full-Page New York Times Ad

I can’t wait. I eagerly await all the negative (“negative”) press it will get.

Luring, I should have written.

Ex-Catholic here, I can’t wait to see it. 
 
I have to say though, that what led me out of the Catholic Church was their emphasis on placing their authority above all else, even when reason and discernment of an individual’s conscience clashed with what they demanded. That later lead into a questioning of god in general, so I’m atheist now and couldn’t care less. But it was the initial thought, the idea that no matter what new information I learned about something, I had to discard it because they were right because they were the ‘authority’ began to sound dangerous and immoral.

And they want their authority to be absolute, put into government, over everyone. I can’t think of a worse idea.

I really like the original letter better than this, because it does a better job of conveying that you shouldn’t just leave because you disagree with things the church has done, but because by staying, by going to mass, by giving money in the collection, you are supporting and enabling the evils the church does. 

I’m going to be the voice of dissent here. I don’t like this ad. I find it too belligerent and I think it plays right into the hands of those who want to have ads like the plain “Atheists” bus panel pulled.

 “And they want their authority to be absolute, put into government, over everyone. I can’t think of a worse idea.”

Man, what parish was that?

It’s called the Dark Ages, which ended when governments and other institutions grew strong enough to throw off the church’s dead weight. Ending the church’s ability to dictate everything didn’t end its desire to do so. Witness Rick Santorum boasting of plans to turn his own religious prejudices into law.

“The Roman Catholic Church is doing very little to influence others to its way of thinking.  It certainly is not trying to influence those actually in the pews … 
The idea that Catholic priests are preaching against ‘sin’ or contraception, or anything at all for that matter is simply an idea that is divorced from reality.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Congratulations. Really. That is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard, even from you.

You have just denied that the Catholic Church actually functions as a church.

 Okay then, please list and name the parish churches in which you heard homilies that contradict what I wrote.

The fact is, what I wrote is very accurate and based in my over 16 years attending Catholic mass in churches all over the United States. 

Your response simply validates the idea that you are a bigoted hack who actually believes the blathershite you spew about the church.

But, one of the many facts that remain is, you don’t know jack about this subject.

Denied that the Catholic Church actually functions as a church?  That’s pretty much the case at the diocesan level and at the parish level.

You should be happy.

Yeah, I do tend to believe the things I say, based on personal experience. I am not and never have been Catholic, but I’ve been to numerous Catholic services with others. I also tend to keep up with the public pronouncements of major Catholic figures.

I take your evaluation of diocesan and parish-level affairs to merely demonstrate that the majority of working priests are not raving fanatics like yourself.

You’re such a predictable Junior Pharisee. If the Pope began eating live babies in public tomorrow, your response would be: First, deny it’s occurring; second, denounce anyone who notices as a bigot; third, claim that only evil atheists wouldn’t eat babies, because every good person does it and always has; and fourth, convince yourself that you’d never tacitly acknowledged the situation and once again deny it was occurring. Lather, rinse, repeat.

By attempting to make a law to allow any employer to opt out of government mandated insurance they object to:

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/03/01/blunt_amendment_senate_vote_contraception_debate_vs_religious_freedom_.html

You’re slipping. You missed a stage.

 The Blunt amendment was a clear attempt to give the Catholic church legal reasons to deny contraception to their employees as a result of recent federal rulings.   It was in the news a bit – but apparently you missed all that.

Contrary to your post, it about the people having the freedom to choose what is best and right for them, not their employer, their government,  or an outdated backward-thinking theological entity.

Nothing in the Blunt amendment would have, or even could have denied contraception to anyone.  It was a clear attempt to reassert every church’s legal right to abstain from purchasing contraceptives.

That would have denied contraceptives to no one – but apparently you missed all that.

Typical bizzaro world liberal thinking: If you don’t pay for what I want, then you are oppressing me!

And you guys claim to be the rational ones.

Besides, every large city and major college has many health centers that literally have punch bowls full of condoms free for the taking.

It’s not enough that free contraception abounds in the country, the bizarro liberal mind must insist that Catholics pay for it.

This is not about access to contraception, this isn’t even about forcing the Catholic Church to do something it doesn’t want to do (though that is a part of it).

This is about extending the power of the federal government at the national level such that it can decree what we must buy.

As a minority I would think atheists would shiver at the thought of giving the federal government such power.

I’m reminded of this from “Man for All Seasons”…

William Roper:  So,
now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More:  Yes! What would you do?
Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper:  Yes, I’d cut down every
law in England
to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the
Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being
flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws,
not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you
really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes,
I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

As I suspected.

Feeling oppressed?  Good!  It’s about time. Don’t like it do you?

I think you might have to brush up on reading comprehension. So, do tell me what is the Catholic Church’s stance on condoms? Especially in a HIV ravaged continent as Africa?
Again, when it condems the use of contraception and therefore indirectly aids (pardon the “pun”) in the spread of the virus, how can you sit there and defend it?
But, going by some of your answers to some of the other posts here, it appears that you live in another reality than the rest of us.

 Why don’t you explain how the Church’s policies about condoms in Africa, whatever those policies might be, is an example of the Catholic Church forcing its doctrines on all Americans.

Even if the Church’s behavior in Africa is 10 times worse than you claim, it has nothing to do with the fact that the claim that the Catholic Church is forcing its doctrine on all Americans is LUNACY.

Speaking of Africa and condoms.  Has the Church prevented anyone from buying condoms?  Has the Church prevented anyone from importing condoms?  From manufacturing condoms?  From using condoms?

No.

The Church says you shouldn’t use condoms.

But then it also says you shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage.

So liberals freak out and say the Church is evil, because apparently in the liberal’s mind, Africa is full of people who ignore the pope’s teaching on sex outside of marriage, but then say, “Wait a minute,  I can’t use a condom while having sex outside of marriage because the pope says it’s wrong!”

Really?   Really?

The liberal mind is a sink hole of confusion (and hatred, don’t forget the liberal hatred).

 Great projection as misdirection there.

Whatever.

The question is, can you or can you not tell me how condoms (or the lack thereof) in Africa equates with the Catholic Church “inflicting” its doctrines on all Americans?

You say you don’t know why you even try.  I have yet to see you try.

The claim was made…
“However the issue at hand is a clear infliction of Catholic Church doctrine on all US citizens.”

I responded…

“Exactly HOW is the Catholic Church inflicting Catholic doctrine on all US citizens?”

And you come back with Africa and condoms.  Okay, whatever.

You say you don’t know what you even try.  I don’t know why you think you even have.

This is a separate thread… Again, reading comprehension. Use a dictionary to look it up if necessary.

You can’t even figure out that I haven’t made that claim, but you keep referring to it…
Why should I defend a claim made in another thread?
I’ve taken your general stance that apparently the Catholic Church cannot make any missteps and that they’re not forcing anything on anyone (not just in the U.S.) and made a counterargument showing your a clear instance where their doctrine is exceedingly harmful to people.Sure, you can say that “Well, they aren’t really FORCING anyone to follow what their clergy is telling them” – but it would  be an argument utterly devoid of knowledge of how very religious people in the real world think and operate, especially in a part of the world where access to information and education isn’t at the same level as in the industrialized Western world.

 I guess I just think Africans are smarter than you think they are.  But then, I’m not the bigot here.

Crap, I replied to the Troll again. Sorry AnalogousGumdropDecoder!

Looks like money can be raised quickly for some things. What would it take to get a comparable yet rational 700 type club on TV? FFRF TV!

”
Okay then, please list and name the parish churches in which you heard homilies that contradict what I wrote.”

ans: St Ludmila’s–Cedar Rapids, Iowa- every freaking January 22(?) the anniversary of Roe V. Wade  all day all night rosary vigil broken up with a mass and the “every sperm is sacred” homily.

I love the fact that they use a Benson cartoon. Steve Benson is a Pulitzer prize winning cartoonist at the Arizona Republic (Aka. Arizona Repulsive). He comes from one of the most prominent and powerful Mormon families in Arizona and was raised in a very conservative family but is now an atheist and a liberal, and one of the few voices of sanity at a very right-wing newspaper that is usually a mouthpiece for teabirther rethuglicanism. Unfortunately the paper is gradually easing him out and replacing his cartoons with crudely drawn cartoons from some right-wing hack named Ramirez.

You have 16 years experience as a catholic? Too bad. I’ve had 10 more years of catholic experience on you.
I’m from a family whose parents had 14 kids. Why? Because they took to heart the catholic churches rule that birth control is bad bad bad.My family switched parishes several times in my adolescence, but it didn’t matter how which catholic parish we attended because my parents always managed to find one that made sure to emphasize how wrong it is to have altar girls, and birth control, and because sacred tradition is that men are priests that is the way that is holy and right. I’ve went to youth group where the youth leaders and priests would lecture on sex and contraception, about how condoms don’t really prevent HIV because hiv can go through the condoms. And the pill will make girls gain weight and feel depressed and no matter what don’t have sex anyway, because the church knows that god said so. But just in case you’re thinking of it, don’t use contraception! Because we said so!Hell I’ve attended NFP classes because you HAVE  to when you get married in the Catholic church, and we heard very clearly, the instructors state that the catholic church does not condone contraception, and actually said that oral sex and mutual masturbation were okay as long as it “finishes with sex”. You think the “every sperm is sacred” line is not true? You have not taken a catholic led NFP class. It was made very clear that if the man pulls out, or uses a condom or ejaculates in a mouth or anus, it is considered trying to circumvent God’s plan for sex and children. Sex is only okay if you are “open to having kids”. Otherwise you should abstain.

You know that the church has its own definition of when a couple has a new baby. It’s not when they are holding a newborn, nope, not even when the woman’s body is pregnant. It’s when the sperm and egg meet, before implantation which is when the woman’s body begins the pregnancy, that they say there is a new baby. Because they believe every fertilized egg is a person, they will inject themselves into the political environment to lobby towards making any kind of contraception illegal. Where do you think personhood laws come from? This is injecting their religion into our society!

You are saying that liberal catholics won’t pay any attention to this because they don’t hear this stuff from their church… I am saying, I spent a few years hanging onto Catholicism as a liberal. I changed to the liberal churches, I tried to find the clergy that were interested in bettering the world. What I found was that no matter what church I went to, the diocese will still send you stuff in the mail about the terrible things that people are doing that we have to fix in the world(abortion, contraception, family planning services in Africa) and oh hey by the way we need money. Not to mention, you would have to be living under a rock to not know about the bishops hissy fit over contraception coverage by now.

The catholic religion exists as an ultimate authority handed down by god and led through an un-broken line of men. That is their schtick. At one time(yeah in the middle ages), they were able to rule directly from the papal seat. Here and now in modern America, they would need someone in the political system putting their “morals” into law. Hence you have a conference of bishops lobbying against birth control. You have Rick Santorum who says that separation of Church and State makes him want to vomit. When the catholic church gets a lackey like him into the presidential nominees, how can you doubt their intentions?

On one is prevented from access to contraception in America.  Just because someone wants access doesn’t mean the boss must provide it.  At least for the next few weeks while America is still a free country.

Is there no one here concerned about the power of the state being turned on minorities like atheists?

No one?

I know you fear Santorum and the Church.  But while you fret about that conspiracy theory, very real power over private citizens is taking place.  And the atheists here are fine with it because for them it’s a two-fer: Condoms all around for everyone! & We are sticking it to the Church.

This is a sad event for everyone’s liberty.  Made sadder still that it is being cheered on by those who can least afford it.

 Okay, priests and nuns told you abortion was bad.  Duly noted.

Still, while your example may not be a lone outlier, in the Church today all examples like yours are outliers.

 What I don’t understand is the inability of some, many (you?) to recognize the distinction between the government’s use of tax revenues, and the government telling you what you must purchase with the money you have.

Do you, or do you not, see that distinction?

Should the U.S. federal government at the national level force individuals to directly purchase anything?

Are you okay with the idea that whomever happens to hold power can dictate to you what you must buy?

Would you like it if a Santorum administration required you to purchase bibles, with funds out of your pocket, for school kids, or prisoners, or your family members?

Would that be okay in your eyes because you reflect that taxes are used for things you don’t care for?

Wow. Over 50 thousand dollars raised! For an ad shoving your point of view down our (& I am speaking here as a regular reader of the Times–I’m hopelessly addicted to their crossword puzzle) throats. I can’t help but wonder what that money could have done towards–I don’t know–actually helping people in your communities, but you folks have your priorities, and I have mine. The ad will appear, there’ll be a minor ripple in the debate, & the hungry will remain hungry.  Selah.

To be more clear, then: By supporting laws (such as euthanasia and abortion bans and marriage equality) that would then be imposed on non-Catholics.

So?  Is a law automatically an instance of Catholicism foisting itself on all U.S. citizens if the law doesn’t contradict Catholic teaching?

To use your examples and what I infer you to mean, Catholics cannot be a part of the political process unless they only advocate laws that contradict the doctrine of their faith.

You do realize don’t you, that opposition to the Culture of Death issues does not require Catholic faith, or any religious faith for that matter?

In the 30 seconds it took you to shove your point of view down our (I am speaking here as a regular reader of comments) throats, couldn’t you have done something productive? Because communication obviously never amounts to anything. Your comment appears, you leave, there’s a minor ripple in the discussion, & your hungry brain remains hungry.

Try this:

Entity A purchases insurance B which pays for item C.
This is the same as Entity A purchasing item C, for the same reason as when…
Entity X pays taxes to government Y which pays for item Z is the same as entity X paying for item Z.

The different is that it is NOT “directly” purchasing in one case, and it IS “directly” purchasing in the other. I would argue that this is a meaningless distinction.

In other words, if buying insurance forces someone to “directly” purchase contraceptives, government-mandated insurance “indirectly” allocates a government tax and expense.