I had thought churches paid some property taxes but it seems I am mistaken. I just looked it up and found out a lot of non-profits qualify to be exempted from property taxes. Non-profits that are churches (though certain parts may still be taxes, say if they have housing on the church grounds), schools & education, child care, "community resources" (what?), "Character building", scientific research, meeting halls...the list just goes on and on.

Things that aren't included are orgs like condo associations, fraternal orgs (though parts maybe such as a Union Hall with a training center that qualifies as education)

Former Banker, get with the program - you're not supposed to focus on the fact that Planned Parenthood also gets an exemption.

That's not properly anti-Judeo-Christian, and therefor not hip.

You have to focus on those awful Catholic institutions - like the last hospitals and only decent schools in many impoverished neighborhoods.

Freeloaders!

fyi. your answer to the question about why priests can't marry is sort of correct. the rule came about in the middle ages when people routinely donated their land/wealth to the church in order to gain spiritual points. the priests/pope were confused as to who should inherit this property - the priests' children, or the church itself? they could not resolve this, so they decided that priests couldn't marry. note that it doesn't say priests can't have children - bastards did not inherit. therefore no problem with having them.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. And yes Planned parenthood and the Y get these exemptions as well. There are many nonreligious (or started out as religious but aren't anymore)orgs that get this benefits.

I thought the libertarian philosophy was fewer taxes and more freedom. But lets just be honest.. Some of you guys want the churches taxed into non existence. Its the plan. Its also why I am a little l libertarian.

And anyone who thinks the Catholic church, and lets be truthful when we say the church it means the catholic church, is just rolling in dough has no idea what they are talking about. Look at the aid given to the rest of the world. Look who gives the most of it. All that money that goes into the collection plate goes somewhere. And that somewhere isn't under some priests pillow.

"The Catholic Church is the only 'the church'" Lenny Bruce.

If you own property you should pay taxes on it.

Whether or not the local governemnt is charging too high a tax rate is a different discussion entirely

All that money that goes into the collection plate goes somewhere. And that somewhere isn't under some priests pillow

No, it goes to the gold plated ass repository that the pope sits on

How's that separation of church and state working for you now?

I do not think you want the Catholic Church active in politics, and you cannot have it both ways.

The biggest issue with property taxes is *universities*. There are counties and municipalities where more than half the land area is tax-exempt because it is owned by one or more universities.

In addition to the vast sums that are spent on academia in the form of direct shadow payments and tuition fees, add the shadow payments via tax exemptions.

MarkD, how does a church paying taxes for the services they benefit from equate to them being active in politics and cause the breakdown in the separation of church and state?

Jospehine, do you really think the Catholic church redistributes all that money to the needy and sees no profit from it? How do you think the CC has acquired all the property it currently has? Oh and how do you think they've paid off all those settlements to people who were molested by priests?

Fees and taxes for the churches and other non-profits? Oh, I suppose I can get on board with this, as long as the fees and taxes are applied fairly and equally. This would be a heck of a time to find out that some churches and non-profits are more equal than others.

What would the impact be? It's an additional operating expense for everyone, of course. Some of the larger organizations would be able to handle it one way or the other. It might be kind of tough on the small organizations, just as it would be for small businesses. As far as churches go, I could see some smaller ones maybe combining to make larger ones for greater efficiency -- it's easier to operate and pay taxes on one building than it is for two.

Let's hope Clearwater, Florida catches on and makes some revenue off the holdings of the "Church" of Scientology, who have pretty much taken over the town and I heartily wish them gone.

As for why the Catholic Church won't allow priests to marry, Amy, you gave the reason. Priests without wives and children have no one to leave their wealth and property, which the Church happily snaps up like Pac-Man scarfing down dots.

One of the objections that I have to this teaching of celibacy is that it conflicts with the Bible. Paul, while both he and Jesus hinted that celibacy was the greater good and that marriage was for those who could not rise to the demand of never getting laid again (yes, the double entendre was intended), plainly stated that those who would be a bishop should be the "husband of one wife." This was probably an admonition against polygamy in the context it was stated, but it still makes it plain that marriage for bishops was perfectly fine.

Catholic priests can be married, however. They just can't marry. If a married Episcopal priest decides to convert to Catholicism, for instance, he is allowed to retain his wife and children.

The irreligious, power mad Popes of the middle ages and prior were notorious swingers, and their offspring were euphemistically called their "nephews." I've read a bit of the more scandalous conduct of earlier popes and find it absolutely fascinating. Certifiable loons would rise to what was then the most powerful office in the world. Stephen VI was undoubtedly the most lunatic of all, as evidenced by the infamous Cadaver Synod. My personal favorite was Celestine V, truly a good and pious man, albeit a bit of a chump. Such a shame he was duped out of his office.

Another objection I have to Catholicism is the practice of praying to saints. In the case of the Virgin Mary, she seems to eclipse God himself. It suggests that God is this wrathful temperamental despot, and we need his "mother" to calm him down, least we all be consumed.

Saints have different offices, like the Graeco-Roman deities. Anthony, for instance, is the patron of the lost. If you lose something, you pray to St. Anthony. My mother does this. When she loses something (which the venerable lady does with increasing frequency), she says, "Anthony, Anthony, come around. Something is lost and needs to be found."

She claims this always works. I simply shake my head and pray to St. Jude for my mother. (St. Jude being the patron saint of hopeless causes.)

Patrick, the Mary stuff seems to be a really big deal in the Philippines, where my wife grew up. Visiting some of my wife's friends there, we saw a five foot tall statue of the Blessed Virgin in their living room, all decked out in royal regalia. Apparently, the statue was rotated from household to household. I didn't see it last time we were there. Oh, and just about every other Jeepney you see will have the Virgin Mary painted on it.

You know, I'm fine with churches and nonprofits paying taxes...but did you really have to make the "wee little mouths" comment? The Catholic Church feeds more wee little mouths...and not so wee mouths, too...through charity than any other entity.

Also, the crap about how much land the Church holds is not a justification for why they should be taxed. A pentecostal church entirely contained in one ramshackle building ought to be taxed, too, shouldn't it? And an advocacy center or no-kill shelter with one or two locations as well right? Don't they all benefit from the roads, infrastructure? Going on and on about how much the RCC owns just smacks of the class-warfare BS that's so infuriating when it's applied to corporations or rich individuals. Taxes aren't about controlling greed or "obscene" wealth or any other such thing. If you think the RCC is greedy, that the amount of money they have is "obscene", fine, but it's got nothing to do with whether they should contribute to the community or state where they operate.

Patrick, priests have no property, so the Church isn't greedily snapping it up upon their deaths by keeping them from having a family. Priests take a vow of poverty, live in church property their whole lives. They're on call all the time, called out to do last rites or otherwise serve someone in crisis. The Church doesn't like the idea of a man who has previously committed himself to poverty and service having the expense and commitment of a wife and children. Can you blame us? People who don't make enough money to support a family and who are committed to a life without much time for one should go out of their way to not have one. Granted, they do make exceptions, but the sacrifice that the wife and children of a man who converts and enters the priesthood (it's never allowed for men who were Catholic when they married, only men who converted as adults, which is a fairly small group) is truly exceptional and it MUST be a decision that the wife supports.

Your understanding of the veneration of Mary and the saints is too far off to even address very much. Catholics believe in intercessory prayer...essentially that people (all the saints and Mary are, um, people) can pray for each other. If your mother is praying to St. Anthony because she thinks he will move her car keys to a place where she can find them, she's doing it wrong. Basically we learn about the saints because we want to be like them, and we pray to them asking for intercessory prayer...they are NOT a lucky chant to be summoned and it's a pity that some people (Catholic and otherwise) have gotten the idea that that's what the saints are.

If you own property you should pay taxes on it.

Why? Real estate: the only "property" you don't actually own.

Also: property taxes, the most hideously unfair taxation possible. Some citizens (homeowners) get an exemption. Others (renters), pay full fare.

So much for "equal protection under the law". Maybe it's hiding out with the 4th Amendment, which really should be called the 4th Suggestion.

Let's draw a distinction between the Coral Ridge Baptist Church and the rinky-dink little church out in the sticks that only dips into the collection plate to pay the utility bill and patch up the roof occasionally. We all know that private-sector charities generally spend aid money more effectively then the government does. I don't have a problem with churches paying property taxes, since the property is money that the church has spent on itself. But it's a slippery slope... do we want the government effectively pre-empting church charity work with income taxes? And if churches do get hit with income taxes, then there is no longer any Constitutional pretense to prohibit them from engaging in partisan politics.

Also: property taxes, the most hideously unfair taxation possible. Some citizens (homeowners) get an exemption. Others (renters), pay full fare.

If you own a house -- trust me you pay property taxes -- usually it is paid out of your escrow tax if you have a mortgage.

If you are a renter -- the money is paid by the property owner -- hopefully the property owner has gauged enough money into the rental amount to cover it. We had a local trailer park shut down and renters evicted because the property owner didn't pay taxes.

Of course the Church, and not the individual priests, are getting richer; Catholics worldwide are still paying their tithes. It's like if all the employees of a corporation agreed not to take a salary, just a small allowance and a tiny apartment attached to the office...the COMPANY would of course have gained an awful lot...that wouldn't change the fact that the employees (in this case, priests and nuns) are actually still in poverty.

And a lot of the expensive property the church owns is used to serve; the Church isn't flipping houses, here...when they "enrich themselves" they are making themselves more able to serve in the long run. If they sold all their property right now, bought lots of food...what exactly would they do in ten years when there are still poor people, still crazy people, still sick people? They buy a property, and on it they put a school, a place like Seton Home, a soup kitchen, a hospital, a daycare, a retreat, a church, a convent...the ramshackle pentecostal church I mentioned before doesn't have the "obscene" wealth of the Catholic Church...but that makes them LESS able to serve, not more.

Really, any organization that does an awful lot does have to own an awful lot. It's fine to be give up your earthly possessions and just be poor, but if you want to actually HELP poor people not be poor anymore, you've got to either align yourself with someone who's got earthly goods and get that guy to share them, or you've got to earn your own earthly goods and share those. Come on, we're all capitalists, here, aren't we? We all know how money actually works, right?

I vote we end all property tax and have a consumption tax instead.

Actually my fantasy is a voluntary tax where you vote on what needs to be built and can volunteer your time to lay concrete or pay a cash amount. Would make a person think about demanding that new park over there that everyone gets to use but the 4 rich people in town have to pay for..

My fantasy land also includes fewer cops and a nation where the military didn't have to be in every other country out there. Save some money that way..

Jenny,

When I lost my son at 20 weeks the church donated the funeral plot, the casket and the funeral services.. I paid them not one dime. And I am not the only one.. One of the ladies at my church lost her hubby. She was old and poor. Thy did the very same for her and everyone brought food. So yes the church spends that vast wealth, that comes out of the pockets of her tithers and no one else's, to help people live. IT also goes to dead. Might seem like a waste to some but it helped me. The idea of my little 1lbs son being burned as medical waste at the hospital terrified me.. I actually screamed at the nurses twice to not burn my son..

More than that. I now how a place to grieve Sean. Find a non catholic church that can or will do all of that..

Let all the people who want "amnesty" for illegal immigrants pay for their schooling, jailing, and health care costs***

exactly. You want it done get off your ass and do it yourself..

Not lobby the government to do it..

There's no vast, rich, central organization of Jews....

Gah. What's your point? There are Jewish charities and temples, and the Jewish charities own property. With that property, the Jewish charities and temples serve the poor, teach their faith, provide counseling, whatever. The Catholic Church owns property, and with that property they serve the poor, teach their faith, provide counseling, whatever. No, there isn't a centralized head of all the Jewish orgs, the way the Catholics have. Thus, the Jewish orgs (and the Baptists and the food-not-bombs people and other good but smaller organizations) don't feed as many mouths, teach as many children, house as many transients, etc. as the Catholic Church. If you don't own a property, or own the means to pay rent on a property, it's awful hard to grow food on it or set up a shelter on it. The Catholic Church owns more, and does more and does it more efficiently than the other organizations. You disagree with how they do it, and see some areas in which they could cut back and do things cheaper. Great. Send an email. Or support charities that you think do it with less overhead.

Think about it. The ASPCA owns a lot more property than the River City Friends of Animals shelter that's near me. RCFA is great, and I'll always support them, but ASPCA can do more because they own more. When RCFA owns more (you know, like when they raise enough money to buy another property) they'll be able to do more. Please quit acting like owning property and helping others is mutually exclusive.

@Josephine, I'm so sorry to hear about your son. I had a similar experience with the Catholic Church and it was really stunning how they came through with not a word of theology (I was a snot and came right out and said I was Baptist and didn't go for that Catholic stuff when approached by nuns in habit) or judgment (I was 17, unmarried and pregnant) just "What can we do to help you?" It was four years later before I even thought of converting but that experience stuck with me.

@Amy, of course the rest of the world shouldn't pay for good works if they choose not to. I'm not happy paying for Planned Parenthood myself, so I'm perfectly willing to increase my tithe to the Church so that they can pay taxes right along with PP. But the "obscene wealth" argument about the RCC irks me to no end. It irks me about Wal-Mart, too, and any other entity that owns a lot and does a lot. It's especially irksome coming from someone who is such a capitalist and wouldn't stand for someone calling Steve Jobs' or Bill Gates' wealth "obscene" and using that a justification to tax.

I'm willing to discuss churches and other non-profits paying property taxes.

What I'm NOT hip to is claiming that something is not a tax but a "fee." Sorry - if the government is collecting it and I have no choice but to pay it, it's a TAX.

The priest then told him "Well, then your wife's a prostitute and your children are bastards."

Seriously.

No, not seriously. You heard a story. We've all heard stories. That doesn't make them true. Surely you realize that.

Of course, if that story, word for word, is true, that particular priest said something reprehensible and should be condemned. But it seems about as likely as the "stories" that appear in my email box periodically about the dangers of canola oil. (Have you seen that one? It's hilarious.)

Wow, it looks like your friend surely did meet up with one jerk of a priest.

But...he went in and wanted to partake of something that Catholics take VERY seriously, the Sacrament of Reconciliation, because "he had time on his hands"? Like, instead of picking up a magazine and sitting in a coffee shop for a while or something, he just went in to a Church he wasn't interested in participating in and wanted to do a sacred rite? That's a little weird and I can see the priest being annoyed...shouldn't have said that, but it's pretty rude to treat something sacred as a time-killer, too.

Besides, if your friend were anticipating such a reaction, he wouldn't have gone, right? So that means that probably every other interaction he'd had with Catholic priests was very different from that asshole-ish one, I would think. But, meh. Assholes are everywhere. Some wear collars, some wear mohawks, some wear suits and ties. That's life.

I totally agree my faith choices shouldn't cost you anything. I am opposed to property tax period. I would be happy if our elected officials had to beg us for every dime they got.. I would rather catholic schools getting funding from the govenment stopped. I hate it. If you believe in God put your money where your mouth is. Live or die by what he provides. I would really much rather everyone was out of everyone elses business and if you have to pay taxes to support my church then it becomes your business to speak out against whatever they teach that you disagree with, which is a lot considering you're and atheist.

Same with me. If I have to pitch in my property tax for your kids school then its my business what they do there. Or for universal healthcare.. Then the actions of chubbies and homosexuals and dumbasses everywhere become my business. If I have to pay for you what you are doing becomes my problem. And let me be honest I am just not interested enough to manage your crap. I would rather all this stuff to be privatized and we all just stay the hell out of each others business. Much easier that way.

'Think of how many more wee mouths they could feed if the money went to the wee mouths instead of to enriching the church.'

If the Church sold everything to feed this month's wee mouths, next month some people would then complain that the Church was ignoring the poor. If all one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

'... some suspect the word "virgin" was a mistranslation of the Hebrew "maiden."'

It's a translation of the Greek "parthenos" from the Septuagint, a widely known pre-Christian translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The concept was there before Christ.

'Regarding the Catholic Church, I heard a great story this weekend...'

I don't want to throw the BS flag outright, but I would advise to take this story with a big grain of salt. Most likely his recollection does not match what was said. Less likely, it is possible they got into a row because he didn't like what the priest said, and intemperate (and inaccurate) words that should not have been said were said.

Substituting a non-Catholic service instead of Mass has nothing to do with the status of one's marriage. The only way it could is if you're talking about the wedding itself.

Marriage is a Catholic sacrament; it's a public act in the scope of the whole Church. As such, even though the only parties to the sacrament technically are the man and the woman, the "form" of the sacrament is that Catholics are expected to marry with the Church's knowledge.

Marrying Presbyterians is done all the time with the Church's blessing, but the vows have to be Catholic vows -- what is important to the Church is that there be no "roll your own" definition of what marriage is. For a Catholic to sidestep these bounds is, in the Church's consideration, to intend not to enter into the sacrament of marriage -- hence the sacrament never occurs! The couple are then married civilly but not in the eyes of the Church. And that is probably what the priest said (unless he was outright senile).

Jenny Had A Chance: Patrick, priests have no property, so the Church isn't greedily snapping it up upon their deaths by keeping them from having a family.

They used to. That's why the whole celibacy tradition got started.

Jenny Had A Chance: Priests take a vow of poverty, live in church property their whole lives. They're on call all the time, called out to do last rites or otherwise serve someone in crisis. The Church doesn't like the idea of a man who has previously committed himself to poverty and service having the expense and commitment of a wife and children. Can you blame us?

Yes, I can. Imposing celibacy on someone is just plain dumb. If someone aspires to it, more power to them, but you can't force someone to be ready for it. As for not having a time for a family, what happened to the biblical idea that a man's wife was supposed to be "an help meet for man"? Why couldn't a priest have a wife who is also dedicated to the cause? Seems to me that this could be a very helpful arrangement.

And once again, imposing celibacy upon anyone is not biblical. It is for those who can accept it.

Jenny Had A Chance: If your mother is praying to St. Anthony because she thinks he will move her car keys to a place where she can find them, she's doing it wrong.

Actually, I think Mom believes that doing her little chant will cause her to remember where the lost item is, not that St. Anthony will move it for her.

The whole concept of intercessory prayer (which is also not biblical) is nothing more than spirituality cloaked in religious vestments. There's nothing more to praying to St. Anthony than sitting around a table holding hands with Gypsy Esmerelda calling up the ghost of dead uncle Stewie.

St. Anthony is in no position to intercede for you. He's dead and can't hear you.

Imposing celibacy on someone is just plain dumb...you can't force someone to be ready for it.

That's absolutely correct. But...the Church doesn't impose celibacy on anyone, doesn't force anyone to be ready for it. Men who feel called by God to the priesthood are asked to spend years in seminary prayerfully considering whether the priesthood, with its celibacy, is for him. Women who feel called to the religious life have the same deal...years of prayerful consideration as a postulate, a novice, and so on before they take their vows. No one is forced to be a priest, nun, or consecrated virgin and in fact quite a few are turned away from that life.

What happened to the wife being "an helpmeet"?

Well, there's being a helpmeet---like, helping your husband with his farm, his business, keeping the homefires burning--- and then there's raising a family essentially alone, in a cramped apartment meant for one man or in another place altogether because the presbytery is bursting at the seams. That helpmeet thing is supposed to go both ways, and priests are supposed to be so devoted to the Church and the people he's called to serve that there's not much left over for his own marriage...and that's among other concerns. As far as the Church is concerned,a priest could not be reasonably expected, in most cases, to give appropriate attention to all the parishioners who call him Father and to the children for whom it is literally true. Other churches think they've got that problem figured out, and good for them...but I wouldn't have wanted to trade places with the children or wives of Baptist ministers I knew growing up.

Besides, one has to take into consideration the concept of vocation that Catholics follow. Marriage isn't just a relationship status or a way of life for everyone; Catholics are instructed to view marriage itself as a calling the same way that the priesthood is a calling or medicine is a calling.

Once again, imposing celibacy is not Biblical. It is for those who can accept it.

Well, yes. No argument from me. See above. When the Vatican starts killing off people who choose not to be celibate, I'll agree that they're forcing people to be celibate. As it is, there are rules in place regarding celibacy...if you disagree with those rules, hey, don't be a priest or a nun, or don't be Catholic if you feel that strongly about it. We can go round and round about what's "Biblical"...if you believe in sola scriptura you're not going to get very far with someone who doesn't, so I think it's fair to say that reasonable people can disagree, here.

Regarding your mother's chant to St. Anthony...look, we all know that what she's doing there is just superstition, no different from throwing salt over her shoulder. I feel quite certain that no priest or nun ever told her to do that or hinted that it's even close to the sort of intercessory prayer that Catholics do practice. There is plenty written by very learned men and women about whether it's theologically sound to pray to saints...if you feel that St. Anthony is in no position to intercede, well, congratulations...you're not Catholic! Simply put, Catholics (and most Christians, for that matter) believe that we aren't just "dead and can't hear you" after physical death; we believe that there is eternal life after death. Just because St. Anthony's earthly body is dead doesn't mean that he isn't somewhere...and Catholics tend to think that that "somewhere" is pretty close to God! Why wouldn't he be able to pray for us?

But, really, this is theology. If you don't believe in intercessory prayer of the saints, that's fine...I just don't want everyone to have the misconception that "Anthony, Anthony come around..." is accepted Catholic doctrine. There are plenty of myths, misconceptions and outright lies floating around about the RCC and so I try to address them where I see them.

"turn around don't drown" is posted at any number of low water crossings across the country not just in Houston. Having lived there 7 years, I can say yes, they have a LOT of roads that flood in heavy rain-they built the city on the fucking swamp. I don't see why the catholic church-or anyone except those who live in houston-should have to pay for their folly, any more than I think I should have to pay for the idiots that live in fire/mudslide/earthquake areas in Cali.

So the fact that he tries to blatantly twist facts to suit in his first paragraph stopped me from reading the rest but I'm sure it was just as crappy and sensationalist as the first sentence. Bah.

Not taxing houses of worship is based on the fact that higher taxes can be imposed on some churches than on others (disguised as flood zones, usage fees, etc.), making the favored (untaxed) religion the de facto official religion.

Someone else in this thread said "the power to tax is the power to destroy." That about sums it why taxing churches was considered verboten.

Another objection I have to Catholicism is the practice of praying to saints. In the case of the Virgin Mary, she seems to eclipse God himself. It suggests that God is this wrathful temperamental despot, and we need his "mother" to calm him down, [lest] we all be consumed.

One doesn't "pray" to saints (or to the Virgin Mary) - as if they were lesser gods in a polytheistic pagan pantheon. One asks saints to intercede with God on one's behalf.

In the early days, this was probably done as a way to ease the pagan's conversion from polytheistic religions to monotheism.

It's also a bone of contention between (and within) Islam and Christianity. The veneration of saints in Christianity (and some Islamic sects) is seen as heretical worship of multiple gods.

That's the reasoning behind the oft-repeated mantra of Islam, "there is only one God and Mohammed is His prophet." It reminds believers that Mohammed is not to be worshipped. In the same vein, images of Mohammed were considered graven because they could lead to or indicate Mohammed-worship.

Conan: One doesn't "pray" to saints (or to the Virgin Mary) - as if they were lesser gods in a polytheistic pagan pantheon. One asks saints to intercede with God on one's behalf.

Conan, I usually deem you wise, but in this case, you have contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences...get thee to a dictionary and look up the word "pray."

Okay, fine...we do pray to saints. But, to pray = to ask. When a Catholic prays to St. Anthony properly it's not that different than when he or she "prays" to his/her next-door neighbor. That is to say, when I "pray" to St. Anthony or St. Jane Frances de Chantal or St. Jude, I'm not doing it in a way that is worshipful...I'm simply asking someone I admire and respect to pray (to God) for me.

A prayer to St. Jude: "Please pray for me, I've been told this cancer is terminal and it's hopeless"

A prayer to my sister Ashley or my neighbor Bonnie: "Please pray for me, I've been told this cancer is terminal and it's hopeless"

The difference is Bonnie and Ashley can hear you. Sts. Anthony and Jude don't have corporeal forms. As such, no eardrums, cochlea, auditory nerves or brains. The acoustic vibrations that you form with your lungs, larynx, tongue and lips could not possibly mean anything to them.

Simply put, they're dead. You're not.

More to the point, why can't you pray to God yourself? What is the point of a middleman?

Jesus never prayed to saints, nor told anyone to pray to his mother. Where in the Bible do you see anyone benefiting themselves in any way by praying to a dead person?

The only instance I can think of in which someone appealed to a dead person was Saul to Samuel (if we are to believe that this was the actual Samuel). But Saul had fallen from God's favor and is not someone to look to as an example. Apparently, God had it in for Saul because he didn't exterminate the Amalekites as completely as God wanted.

And moreover, Saul's appeal to Samuel didn't help him any. The only thing Saul got from Samuel was word that his fate was sealed.

Jenny Had A Chance: Well, there's being a helpmeet---like, helping your husband with his farm, his business, keeping the homefires burning--- and then there's raising a family essentially alone, in a cramped apartment meant for one man or in another place altogether because the presbytery is bursting at the seams.

Ah, so that's the problem...it's not about pursuing the highest good. The Catholic Church is just cheap.

"in a cramped apartment"...

Yeah, sure, pick one sentence out of it. The greatest good, as the Church sees it, involves a Father who is quite different from a father (note the small f). Nevermind the vow of poverty, the sacrifice, the fact that fatherhood is a vocation wildly different from the priesthood...if you want children to have an involved father, not someone they have to share with the entire parish, or if you believe that the qualities that make a good Father aren't necessarily the same qualities of a good father and husband, you're just cheap. Right. If you're really interested in why priests are currently celibate, I can link you to some wonderful apologists sites. It's CLEARLY not to keep priests' children from inheriting, as priests have no property! If you're just being a pill, knock it off, and let's agree to disagree, here.

As to whether St. Anthony's current lack of an earthly body means he can't "hear" me...again, this is a theological disagreement. I assume from your constant mention of the Bible and screeching about what is Biblical, that you're a Christian of some sort and believe that people who are saved by grace go to Heaven, where God is, and where God, certainly, hears our prayers. Why you assume that in their state of being in Heaven, the saints can't hear or pray but can clearly do other things, among them worship God, I don't know. I don't remember a verse in the Bible that says they can't pray for those of us on Earth, and David makes mention of prayer to all those in Heaven in the Psalms.

"Why can't you pray to God yourself?"

Then again, maybe you're not a Christian. Of course we pray to God ourselves, but that's not everything. Intercessory prayer not involving saints is pretty common all through the Bible. Abraham, Job, Ezekiel all mention intercessory prayer. The Old Testament Levitical priesthood practiced intercessory prayer and Jesus is the ultimate intercessor...He goes between sinful man and God, acting as the "middleman" on whom we base ALL intercessory prayer!

Bottom line: Celibate clergy is not a biblical injunction. In fact, specifically says that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. Period. End of discussion. You can advocate for this idea all you want, but it is clearly against biblical teaching.

Bottom line: Praying to the dead is not in the Bible. In fact, the Bible expressly forbids contact with the spirits of the dead. If you believe you can appeal to the dead to intercede for you, more power to you. But don't call yourself a Christian. You're not. Not even close.

And don't even get me started on the other stuff Catholics have decided to thumb their nose at, like addressing priests as Father, when Jesus said "call no man father on earth."

I did not vote for Barbara Boxer....

Nor did I. And I loved your description of her as "our elected hairdo." That pretty aptly sums up her career and contribution to elected government.

Remember, call her Senator, not ma'am. She's earned it.

Amy: Patrick, you're on fire here -- great to read!

Thanks, darlin'.

I try to make a point of not deciding for other people whether or not they can call themselves Christian. None of us Christians are perfect, so we don't really have the right to decide for others that we're Christian-er than thou.

But when Jenny decided to say, "Then again, maybe you're not a Christian..." that's when I decided the gloves are off and the claws are out. I wasn't planning on this getting ugly, but I sure am now.

Yes, intercessory prayer is in the Bible, but the intercessors all have one thing in common: they're actually alive at the time when they're asked to intercede! Praying to the dead is not in the Bible. And the only reference to any trafficking with the deceased is to tell us, in no uncertain terms, that it's forbidden! (It's also lunacy, but never mind.)

Catholic Joke: Michaelangelo was on some scaffolding, painting the ceiling of the Cistine chapel when this woman comes in and kneels down at the altar and begins to pray.

Michaelangelo decides to have some fun and looks over the ledge of his scaffolding and says (in an Italian accent): "I'm-a Je-e-esus."

Michaelangelo ducks out of sight as the woman looks around from side to side, startled. Then she resumes her prayers.

Michaelangelo then looks over the edge of the scaffolding, sees the woman in prayer and says, "I'm-a Je-e-esus."

Again, as Michaelangelo ducks out of sight, trying to keep his mischievous snickers from being heard, the woman starts, looks around her, but again sees nothing. Then she resumes her prayers.

For the third time, Michaelangelo sticks his head over the edge of his scaffolding, sees the woman deep in prayer, and says again, "I'm-a Je-e-esus..."

Without looking up, the woman shouts, "Shut up! I'm-a talkin' to yo' Mama!"

Conan: Remember, call her Senator, not ma'am. She's earned it.

How true! And also, don't address any high-ranking military brass by the ranks that they've worked hard to earn. At least not in front of her.

I see bigoted people.

1. Our God is the god of the living, not of the dead. At least as far back as the second century AD Christians asked the saints to intercede for them; they did so long before the canon of books belonging in the Bible was assembled. There are prayers etched upon tombs in the catacombs to prove it. Now, I suppose it's possible that Pope Patrick, through some private knowledge, knows the faith better than the people who learned it directly at the feet of the Apostles, but it's unlikely. Hold fast to the traditions you have learned, whether by word or epistle.

2. I grew up Southern Baptist and went to a Presbyterian grade school. I don't remember a single kid calling his/her father George or Bill or Steve; without exception, they were Daddy or Dad or Papa or even Father on occasion. Guess that rule only applies to Catholics.

Oh calm down. I honestly did not know from Patrick's posts whether he was a Christian genuinely taking issue with teachings that go against his particular flavor of Christianity or someone who read the Bible in college or childhood and just likes to argue. Or both. I've NEVER heard any sort of Christian before today ask why one would need a "middleman", not when I was growing up in the Southern Baptist faith, not when with a dear friend who went to the Church of Christ, and certainly not in Catholic circles...all of those seem to pretty well agree that we DO need a middleman, even though they disagree about who (aside from Jesus) is an appropriate middleman. The entire Christian faith is based on intercession for pity's sake, so I think I can be forgiven for thinking that someone who thinks ALL middlemen are silly is maybe not a Christian.

Questions about intercessory prayer are totally valid and I had serious concerns about when I converted. I spent two years in prayer and research about it, though, and my mind was never changed by a blog comment so I don't expect to change yours. If you don't believe in it, don't practice it. But don't put it out there that "Anthony, Anthony come around" is an example of what good Catholics consider "praying to the saints" or tell bigoted jokes and expect people to take you seriously.

And dude...St. Paul also wasn't himself married and yet, there he was, in the ministry. It's also clear in 1 Corinthians and in Matthew that there some are called to celibacy for the greater good and VERY clear in 1 Corinthians that St. Paul was saying that unmarried men were better suited for ministry because married men (and married women) would put their own spouses and families ahead of their religious obligations. Again, if you don't agree with it, don't practice it. But, come on, "the gloves are off"? Surely we can disagree about doctrine and discipline of religion without any gloves to start with...

"Reminds me of that guy at the party who had a priest tell him his wife was a prostitute and his children were bastards because he wasn't married in the Catholic Church"

Not because he was going to the Presbyterian church instead of to Mass, this time? Or different friends? Or just one of those stories?

Ah. So they argued and a priest lost his cool and said some mean things one time. Yeah, that's terrible.

No, of course it's not okay...but it's not an indictment of the whole religion if one guy acts like a jerk and says rude things. It's especially not an indictment of the whole faith if what we're going on is one side of a conversation...especially when that one side belongs to a guy who was already being pretty rude himself by treating the Sacrament or Reconciliation as just something to do when you have time on your hands, not the sacred ritual that you would think he understands the priest to consider it.

But, I do disagree that if a religion is about being good it wouldn't care where you go to worship. I care, and Patrick cares, and everyone cares where people (especially people who want to participate in something sacred) go to church because not all churches are the same. A radical mosque is not the same as Ebenezer Baptist, which is not the same as St. Patrick's Cathedral which is not the same as a Jewish temple. They teach different things. Sometimes radically different things. For example, some churches teach that intercessory prayer is A-OK and some teach that it's a vile sin. If I went into Patrick's church and said I was just killing some time before I went to go say a prayer to St. Jude, and wanted to partake of their Lord's Supper (or Communion, or some other sacred rite of the church that Patrick attends) they might not say I was a prostitute or that my children are bastards (and the priest in your friend's story shouldn't have either) but they probably would care quite a bit. They would care because they want their traditions to be treated respectfully, and because they would believe that I have the wrong info, am not pleasing God and thus am in danger of eternal damnation. Religion is about being good and being right with God. Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, we ALL care about where you go to church because we all think the other ones are giving out the wrong info and leading people to live in ways that are not pleasing to God.

Now, granted, I'd rather see someone going to a Presbyterian church than no church at all...but if you're Catholic and want to participate in an important Catholic rite, it's a little much to expect a priest to "not care" that you actually spend your time in a church that teaches something quite different from what the Catholic Church teaches and sidestep the marriage traditions of the Catholic Church!

They were hateful little assholes, who probably had hateful asshole parents. That's horrible that they did that to you. Were they actually Catholic? Or Baptist? Or just unaffiliated hateful assholes?

I NEVER got such a thing from a Southern Baptist or Catholic Church in my life. The Romans killed Jesus, anyway, and we're kind of okay with that fact because, you know, He was sent to die on the cross for our sins. That's the whole point. It's what I was taught as a Baptist child and what my kids are taught now as Catholics, that when Jesus was crucified, it was the fulfillment of the Word, not a crime committed by anyone.

Now, I understand that some fringe Evangelical groups hold anti-Jewish views...but they generally hate Catholics, too, so there's that.

I wonder if they will apply the drainage tax next to schools? Government buildings? Parks? Interesting to consider who will pay.

Craig: Our God is the god of the living, not of the dead.

Exactly! Therefore God is hearing the prayers of the living, not the dead.

Craig: At least as far back as the second century AD Christians asked the saints to intercede for them;

Even if that were true, they did so with no authentication, save their own. Perhaps you could point me to the place where Jesus, Paul, Luke, Peter, John or any of the other New Testament writers asked the dead to pray for them, rather than simply praying for themselves?

I mean, citing these unnamed sources about those who supposedly learned Christianity directly at the feet of the apostles themselves is impressive and all...but you know, when you have some of the words of some of the apostles themselves...all of whom prayed directly to God for themselves, began their epistles with invocations directly to God, not to some saint, and Jesus praying directly to God instead of his mother, and never asked a dead person to get involved...I'm afraid that doesn't quite cut it, you know?

But you know, keep playing the "bigoted" card. Just because someone doesn't agree with your practices and has some knowledge of Scripture to back up what he's saying, that of course means he's an anti-Catholic bigot.

Never mind that someone of the Catholic faith crying "bigotry" is downright laughable with even a cursory glance at the church's own history of anti-paganism, anti-Islamism and anti-Semitism. "Nobody expects the Inquisition!"

Also highly hypocritical when you consider the heretics who actually held the church's highest office.

I never aspired to be Pope, Craig, but even if I did, I'd probably be a damned sight better than, say, John XXII and his delightful practice of burning Fransiscan monks, for having the unspeakable gall to suggest that Jesus and the Apostles lived in poverty.

(Vows of poverty, by the way, are also not sanctioned by the Bible, but at this point, who's counting?)

Or perhaps the next John? XXIII? Deposed for piracy, murder, sodomy, rape and incest...

John XII, whose crimes were even worse. Stephen VI and Sergius III, who separately dug up the corpse of Forasmus and put it on trial. (I hope it was an open air courtroom. I imagine he did't smell too good.)

If the Catholic Church had practiced any consistency in anti-heretical stances, Boniface VIII would have been burned at the stake, not canonized. "A man has as much hope of survival after death as that roast fowl on the dining table..."

The Catholics' practice of appointing saints from various offices doesn't come from the Apostles. It comes from the Church's charming practice of riding roughshod over the pagans, sometimes building their churches right on the sites of the pagan temples (ordered by Pope Gregory I) and modifying their religion to assimilate the pagans. "Our Lord" and "Our Lady" were pagan deities. Catholics simply replaced pagan deities with Jesus and the Virgin Mary...thus beginning the ancient tradition of undue emphasis on Jesus's mother which continues today.

Innocent VIII's papal bull (which gained wide circulation thanks to the invention of the printing press with movable type) and the "Witches' Hammer" written by a pair of German monks led to the extermination of accused witches, estimates placing the number from as low to 50,000 to as high as 9 million, 75% of whom were women...and probably not witches at all. They simply committed the "heresy" of owning property which they inherited from their husbands. (Never mind that the rights of women to inherit property actually does have biblical sanction, specifically Numbers 36.)

But yes, let's cry poor persecuted Catholic...which is, hands down, the bloodiest sect in all of Christendom...also a noble tradition that continues to this day.

I agree that churches should have to pay taxes just like every other property owner. If you ask me, anyone who asks you to put money in a plate at the end of a service is running a business. I remember (when I was a small child) asking my grandma once after services and the collection plate handed out, "Why did you pay that guy? He was boring!!!" I know here in my area, churches are springing up everywhere, and lo and behold, on the same property is the pastor and his family's home. Does he have to pay taxes on that at least, or is it grandfathered in as church property and also considered exempt? My boyfriend and I were just discussing this the other day and said it looks to us like freeloaders are using Jesus as a mooching tool.

and Jesus is the ultimate intercessor...He goes between sinful man and God, acting as the "middleman" on whom we base ALL intercessory prayer!

Posted by: Jenny Had A Chance

Depends on your brand of chritianity, some christians beleive Jesus is god

Incedentally Jenny did you know at one point the cathloic church declared Jesus had no soul and was not devine?

Amy: and told me the Jews killed Jesus

You'd think, after 2000 years, you could invoke a statute of limitations for the offense.

lujlp: "Incedentally Jenny did you know at one point the cathloic church declared Jesus had no soul and was not devine?"

Citation please?

From the Nicene Creed (circa 325 A.D.):

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

If you are talking about something that the Catholic Church declared before then, I call Bullshit! There is no question of his divinity here (although his soul is not mentioned).

The Creed was an important statement. There were many "heresies" around at the time and the Church adopted the Creed to establish what it believed to be true. So, yes, there were people who thought he was completely divine, completely human, half-human, half-god, etc.

The Creed put an end to that. Of course, the Creed was not sanctioned in Biblical terms, as Patrick might wish. But, the Catholic Church has not bound itself to a literal and exclusive understanding of the Bible. They have actually developed a theology out of the teachings in the Bible.

-Jut

Amy, I was chased around and called any number of nasty names, by a lot of kids, some of whom were jewish. Did they learn that from synagogue? Or, are kids maybe just mean? Our house was egged, and we're not jewish. Should I still blame catholics for that?

I'm genuinely curious as to what denomination Patrick observes. In what Christian church do they teach that the dead are just dead, not that those saved through grace are alive eternally in Heaven? The most-quoted bit of Scripture is John 3:16--- For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life.

Now, whether people on Earth ought to ask for intercessory prayer from people in Heaven is another matter entirely and I respect completely that some Christians feel differently about the matter. The only reason I even brought the subject up is because Patrick was misrepresenting my Church either out of ignorance or spite, by claiming his mother's superstitious jump-rope chant was an example of how Catholics are taught to pray to the saints, and by claiming that the saints have "different offices, like Greco-Roman demigods". They don't. When a saint is declared a patron of this or that, it just means that he/she had a particular connection to that thing/profession/group of people in his/her life, and it helps us remember them. There are no offices in Heaven.

What the theological arguments come down to is basically this---Sola Scriptura. I don't believe that the Lord stopped recognizing the traditions revealed from Christ Himself to the Apostles, that He stopped revealing His Word to the faithful, when the Bible was assembled a few centuries after Christ. And I have a REALLY hard time swallowing that belief when the Protestants and Evangelicals who do believe in sola Scriptura use a Bible which the Protestant reformers already changed, by subtracting books! It was all apparently to be taken as the Literal Word of God...except that? Really? Besides, sola Scriptura is itself un-Biblical; find me the passage that calls for it.

lujp: No, the Catholic Church didn't claim that. Some heretics claimed that and the Church assembled the Nicene Creed to clarify the matter.

Oh, and about the "bigoted card".

No one called you a bigot until you declared that the gloves were off and started telling bigoted jokes.

I didn't say that my mother's silly chant (wherever she got it from) was how Catholics do it. It sounds more like a spell than a prayer. I was attempting to make fun of it when I said I shake my head and pray to St. Jude for her every time she does that. (St. Jude, being the patron of hopeless causes...) It was a joke, since we know I don't believe I don't believe in praying to dead people.

My mother is 85 years old. She's has dementia and she's a bit silly in her old age, and I indulge her because she was a single parent, and I am the youngest of 11 children. So, I think she's earned the right to believe in silly things. But I don't think and never said that Catholics have a bunch of rhymes to direct to the appropriate saint depending upon their particular issue...

Although I think the Rosary is somewhat borderline...Glory Be, Hail Mary, Our Father, repetition, repetition...didn't Jesus warn us against using vain repetition in prayer?

Would you feel better if I told an atheist joke?

It seem this atheist was walking through the woods one day and encountered a huge grizzly bear. He turned to flee, but the bear spotted him and pursued him, eventually trapping him at the edge of a high cliff.

Suddenly, the clouds parted and this brilliant light shines through the opening. And the voice of God spoke to the atheist.

"State your wish and it will be granted."

The atheist, after thinking quickly, replied, "God, I haven't believed in You my entire life. It would hypocritical of me to ask You to deliver me now...but perhaps...You could make the bear a Christian...?"

"Granted!" the voice thundered and the light vanished.

The bear then knelt down and said, "Dear Father, bless this food which I now partake..."

And I didn't tell a bigoted joke, not "bigoted jokes" until somebody told me I wasn't a Christian. But you have since explained your comment.

As for my beliefs about the dead, some denominations do believe that when a person dies, they are dead until the Judgement Day. Not me, but I know some Christians that do. But when a person dies, for all intents and purposes, they are dead...to us. Communication between them and me is impossible since we are on separate planes of existence. They have no more cognizance of me than I have of them...which is to say none.

And I view the idea that we can appeal to saints to intercede to God for us as spiritualism. Why should I believe that a person can adopt a prayerful stance and suddenly ask for help from St. Jude, who is going to hear, talk to God for us, and even answer back in the form of inspiration...or direct communication in some sources are to be believed...all the while believing that Gypsy Esmeralda -- who intones that we are gathered here in this magic circle to summon the ghost of dead Uncle Stewie -- is a fraud?

I have a better idea. I'll be consistent and say that anyone who thinks they can communicate with the dead is either delusional or a fraud.

I'll also trust that God isn't so Almighty absent-minded that he needs a tap on the shoulder to remind Him that Adam had children, that he's fully capable of hearing me and doesn't need St. Jude bothering Him on my behalf.

I have never understood this supposed need we have for dead people to petition God for us. Is He so remote to us? Hard of hearing? Are we so incomprehensible to Him that we need translators? Is He not smart enough to understand what we want/need? Perhaps He's too Almighty busy to answer us, so the Saints have to speak to us. The Bible says that God knows what we need before we ask him...which is why Jesus gave us the Lord's Prayer, which covers everything you will ever need.

What is the limitation that you're imposing on God that we need someone else (a dead person who never even knew I would one day exist, no less, since he died millenia before I was even born) to talk to Him for us?

And regarding the bigoted card, I wouldn't accuse you personally of being bigoted, but I think we see more than enough examples of bigotry from Catholics, the Orthodox and Catholic Serbs come to mind, for me to advise you and the rest of Catholicism to police your own before I start listening to any sob stories about how persecuted Catholics are. And let's not forget the history that Catholics have toward protestants...like Henry VIII's oldest daughter Mary I, for instance. She wasn't called Bloody Mary for nothing, you know. Roasted Protestant anyone?

Ah, the good old Catholic Church. I remember when I was in Catholic school, and they refused to allow me to graduate from the 8th grade until my father paid the $50 fee he "owed" the church from tithing. He had to pay his weekly fee in an envelope, by check, and they kept track of it all. He was a janitor at the school, and he went down there to talk it over, and they "settled" for $25. Out of the kindness of their hearts, I'm sure.

And then there was my mother's first marriage, when the priest threatened to excommunicate her for marrying her husband in a civil ceremony in Italy before returning to the US to marry him here in a religious ceremony. He was a citizen of Italy and needed the paperwork for his citizenship here. I'm sure they had her best interests at heart.

As did the priest who threatened to kick one of the ushers in my sister's wedding out mid-ceremony. His crime was being too deaf to hear how loud he was talking. He settled for the petty vengeance of refusing all the ushers communion.

Three different churches, so this is not one poorly run church.

My experiences of Catholicism have been less about the people being tended to and more about the people being dicked over.

My personal grievance with Catholicism aside, if they are using services, they should pay for them.

"I hope you will be benefitted by your churchgoing. Where the habit does not Christianize, it generally civilizes. That is reason enough for supporting churches, if there were no higher." - Rutherford B. Hayes

...[Catholicism] is, hands down, the bloodiest sect in all of Christendom....

I don't know...the Protestants worked extremely hard to catch up. And don't forget the Orthodox churches, some of whom have a pretty bloody history themselves.

...like Henry VIII's oldest daughter Mary I, for instance. She wasn't called Bloody Mary for nothing, you know. Roasted Protestant anyone?

Her sister worked pretty hard to even the score. And Mary was just following her father's example. The Tudors were a bloodthirsty lot, whether Catholic or Protestant. Read The Tudors by G. J. Meyer for an interesting roundup of England's notorious and short-lived dynasty.

It comes from the Church's charming practice of riding roughshod over the pagans, sometimes building their churches right on the sites of the pagan temples (ordered by Pope Gregory I)....

This was not something on which the Catholics had a monopoly.

Islam built mosques on the sites of churches with every conquest. The Haggia Sophia in Istanbul has been an Orthodox church, a Roman Catholic church, and a mosque. The Dome of the Rock (al Aqsa mosque) was built on the ruins of a somewhat famous Jewish temple.

The Calvinists simply took over Catholic churches in the Netherlands after the 1568 rebellion.

...and told me the Jews killed Jesus....

"Jesus was then put on trial by Jewish authorities to determine whether his guilt, in their eyes, justified handing him over to the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate with their request that the Roman Empire put Jesus to death on popular demand from the people." - Wikipedia ("Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus")

Like the later Inquisition, the Sanhedrin [at least under the Romans] did not have the legal authority to carry out sentences of death and handed convicted persons over to the secular authorities for execution.

It has been argued that the machinations of the Saducees behind the scenes swayed the Sanhedrin to vote to have Jesus put to death. The Saducees disagreed with Jesus on several things, including the concept of resurrection and the immortality of the human soul. The growing popularity of Jesus and his teachings was a direct threat to Saducee political power.

Oh, my, I can really go back and police a bunch of inbred royals from a few centuries ago. I'll get right on that. Really, you're talking about a time when ALL the religions smacked the crap out of each other, and when a good deal of the evangelical sects who've been bigoted (against everybody, pretty much) in the last century didn't even exist. It's not like Henry himself didn't slaughter a few Catholics on his own, not like the Catholic/Orthodox fighting at the schism was one-sided.

"If you lose something, you pray to St. Anthony. My mother does this..." and then you describe how she does it. Whether you understand that's not how to do it, I don't know, but you did certainly present that crap, and the notion that saints have offices, as your understanding of Catholic doctrine, and all I aimed to do was correct that misinformation. I'm glad to see that you don't believe that Catholics do what you appeared to say in your first comment that they do.

I didn't tell anyone that they're not Christian when they claim to be. I did not know for sure whether you were actually claiming a Christian faith or whether you were the sort of non-Christian who tries to prove someone he's debating wrong with Bible quotes...when gay marriage comes up, there's always someone who says something along the lines of "I'm not a Christian but I know opposing gay marriage isn't Biblical because ________" Sometimes it's something as easily refuted as "because it also says eating shellfish is an abomination, and Christians do that!" sometimes it's a little more mature. Plenty of people aren't Christians of any sort but hold a special irritation against Catholics and use whatever knowledge they have about any sort of Christianity to debate Catholics. My brother does this crap; he learned some half-truths about Catholicism and misremembered a lot of truths about the Baptist faith from when we were growing up as Baptists and he employs them whenever he feels like talking about religion...but he's still an atheist. You never claimed to be any sort of a Christian until I asked whether you were; all you did was regurgitate arguments that both Christians and non-Christians use, plus added in one (no middlemen, at all) that I've never heard any Christian use. And again, I didn't say "You're not Christian. Not even close" like you did. Suffice it to say, though, I do think that someone who doesn't believe in ANY intercession (including the intercession of Christ) is by definition, not a Christian.

"I trust that God can hear me and doesn't need St. Jude tapping on his shoulder"

Really? Do you pray for your sick friends and neighbors? Or do you figure that He can hear your friend's own prayer and doesn't need your intercession? Of course He doesn't NEED our intercession, but He asks for it, clearly, several times throughout the Bible. Again, there are arguments against appeals to the saints, and I get that; I don't call anyone delusional if they disagree with me about whether or not it's right or even possible for humans on earth to get prayers to saints in Heaven. But that, "God can hear my own prayers, and doesn't need intercession" I don't get. We are told specifically in the Bible to pray without ceasing, one for another, and that intercessory prayers of the righteous are highly valuable.

Regarding vain repetition...it was clear that "vain repetition" is when you are repeating yourself to be heard by those around you.

The "Our Father" is just a different name for The Lord's prayer, I don't know what your beef is there.

"As for my beliefs about the dead, some denominations do believe that the dead are dead until Judgment Day. I don't, but some do..."

Well, who? What denominations believe this, and what denomination do you agree with? That's why I asked, I'm genuinely curious as to what your church teaches and how long they've taught it. One thing I hold dear about the Orthodox and Catholic faiths is that some of the things we're so often attacked on (like the appeals to saints, the fact that Communion is the actual Body and Blood) we can easily point to the fact that we've held these things to be true since the early Church and to me, that's the logical trump card. The Apostles actually did this or that, as far as we can tell; it wasn't a new interpretation that come up in the last three hundred years or so. So it matters to me what church teaches this notion, and how long they've taught it.

Conan: Her sister worked pretty hard to even the score.

You're joking, right? Elizabeth reigned for 45 years and failed to match the body count that Bloody Mary managed in only five years. The best thing Bloody Mary did in her reign was make it short and die five years after her coronation.

Also, the dismissive statement that Elizabeth tried to even the score not only overlooks the math involved, but the motivations. Mary I, as England's second (or first, depending on how you regard Lady Jane Grey) Queen Regnant, with her father's temper and her mother's faith, was out to eradicate Protestantism and return England to the Pope.

Elizabeth was a zealous guardian of her power and position, one of the reasons she never married...the other probably being a decidedly distorted view of romantic love...thanks to her father...and her ex-half-brother-in-law, who tried to lead the Armada to overthrow her. Little did he realize that Elizabeth was leading a very charmed life. He never stood a chance.

Jenny, regarding Catholicism, I'm perfectly content to allow people to believe whatever they wish. But I cannot reconcile the idea of interceding saints with the Bible's clear injunctions against spirituality. If you can, fine, but regarding that, we'll have to agree to disagree.

And Catholics don't have the monopoly on beliefs that I can make no sense of. Mormons, for instance, have never been able to successfully explain to me how they believe they can sanctify a human marriage so that a couple can remain married in the after life, when Jesus plainly stated that no one is married in the afterlife, that we "neither marry nor are given in marriage."

Ugh. I wasn't going to mention transubstantiation. Too unpalatable to even think of.

But since you brought it up, I don't believe in communion either. I don't believe it applies to us. Regarding the cup, for instance, this would be the same cup that Jesus prayed would pass from him, specifically the martyrdom that awaited him.

Remember the account when James and John (or James' and John's mother) asked that they might sit on Jesus's right hand and left hand in the Kingdom? Jesus pointed out quickly that they didn't know what they were asking. And asked them if they could drink of his cup...yes, that same cup that he prayed would pass from him in Gethsemane. They said they could, and Jesus said they would indeed drink of that cup...a prophesy that proved to be true, since James was beheaded and John was thrown into boiling oil.

I don't believe it is for us to partake of this cup. No one's asking me to get on a cross or be martyred for Christianity...so why drink of his cup? That was clearly for the Apostles, who shared in his three year ministry and carried on in his name after the ascension, not for us.

I know here in my area, churches are springing up everywhere, and lo and behold, on the same property is the pastor and his family's home. Does he have to pay taxes on that at least, or is it grandfathered in as church property and also considered exempt?

From the little research I did, the part where the family lives would not be eligible to be property tax exempt. And if they are like the ones that are around here where they meet in the family room, that is also not eligible because it is also used as a family room. Basically to be eligible to be tax exempt the property has to only be used by eligible non-profits for eligible activities. For example, if a church where to rent a meeting room to a for-profit counciller for one night, the church would not be eligible for that year (or at least that room would not).

The specific rules probably vary from place to place.

I'm dying now, Patrick. PLEASE fill me in on which Christian denomination doesn't practice communion at all. Please. I know you're not a Mormon, any of the mainline Protestants (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist) or any branch of Evangelical (Baptist, Church of Christ, Assembly of God, Pentecostal) that I've ever met or Unitarian if you don't believe in any intercessory prayer (you didn't answer repeated questions about whether you pray for your living friends and neighbors) or any form of communion. Jesus says clearly in His Last Supper "This do in remembrance of me," and frankly, whether we're ever asked to get up on a cross and be martyred, all Christians are supposed to be ready for that; in fact Christians in Iraq have been martyred this very year! So I'm not getting why you think James' and John's fates should have anything to do with believing in communion. We are all supposed to be apostles, and we all carry on His name (um, Christians!) and were all instructed to eat of His Body and Drink of His Blood, THAT's why you would drink of that cup...and the New Testament epistles are FULL of teachings on how we (again, we're talking about people who were learning from the epistles well after Christ's ascension) should prepare ourselves to accept communion and under what conditions we shouldn't. That's not even Catholic stuff; the most fundamentalist, literalist Evangelicals take that to heart.

I seriously don't mean any disrespect but, dude...

Do you really go to a Christian church, led by some sort of ordained clergy, someone who has actually spent years studying theology? Not "Are you a Christian?" because obviously that's between you and God, but are you a churched Christian? Does anyone with a lot of theological study under his/her belt agree with you? And how do you reconcile non-belief in communion, either symbolic or literal, with the multiple specific mentions of it in the Bible?

Or are you just either one of these that claims Christianity can be reasonably observed by one layperson's independent study and prayer?

That's not how original sin works...you're just born and already you're an inherently flawed human being with the capacity to sin, and a victim of the fall of man. You're still a beautiful and precious child, fearfully and wonderfully made, not a piece of crap.

I never said any denomination doesn't believe in communion. I said I personally don't.

But I know of some that don't. Unity Church of Christianity, where my mother goes, doesn't believe in communion.

Nor do all churches believe in ordination...Ordination, by the way, is yet another concept without biblical sanction...but gat this point, who's counting? Yet, you have just implied that only churches that have ordained clergy are the only true Chistian churches.

Jenny, quite frankly, I think the admonitions toward other denominations is a little self-righteous, especially in light of the things you believe in that have no support in the Bible, and some of it is expressly forbidden by the Bible. I wouldn't take legal advice from a scofflaw.

Paul advises you to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." I really don't think it's your place or mine to go around telling people how they should worship.

Mormons, for instance, so I'm told, have taken it upon themselves to do everyone's "temple work" for them, whether we like it or not. I wouldn't presume to perform some bizarre religious ritual for anyone else, least of all someone who didn't believe in the ritual. (And I have no idea by what is meant by "temple work.")

Regarding your questions about if I pray for others, I must have missed the question. Of course I do.

Unfortunately, I am not comfortable revealing my denomination or even giving any hints about it. You're leaving me with the distinctly uncomfortable feeling that you have a rigid set of guidelines as to what constitutes a Christian...most of it without any biblical authority. I've run into such people before. Discussion with them is pointless. And "I'll pray for you" rolls off their tongues like it means, "...and the horse you rode in on."

So, send me to hell if you must. I've been sent there so many times, I could probably get the next trip solely with my frequent flyer miles.

TSA works the flights to hell, by the way. They should. Where did you think they came from?

I'm not actually admonishing other denominations. I'm not even laying out which practices I dislike, or find unpalatable, the way you are. I started out defending my own faith and I'd like to learn about yours, or your mother's (BTW, I thought she was Catholic when she was praying to St. Anthony? Did she convert but keep a superstition from her childhood?) out of genuine curiosity. But you know, I guess it's not cool to be open-minded and want to learn.

Really, I just like theology and like figuring out how religion fits in people's lives and in cultures. I'm addicted to blogs about religion, from an atheist, a non-denominational Evangelical and a few Catholics. I've read an awful lot about larger denominations and have never come across one until today that doesn't believe in communion at all and I think it's interesting and will probably google the Unity Church when I have the chance. I don't know why you're so uncomfortable telling me which faith in particular you practice; the worst I can do is tell you you're wrong and I've not done that yet---only that I disagree with you. But whatever.

It's strange though. I think my faith is important, that my life is better for it, and so I tell everyone who indicates they'd like to listen about my faith. I genuinely feel like I've come into great knowledge and want to share that with people, by dispelling misconceptions about my faith and explaining it and inviting people to read books and blogs about Catholicism that I got a lot out of and to come to Mass with me or go to Mass in their area...I think that's part of the missionary zeal that is clearly Biblical. I don't care if their minds start out closed---if someone wants to know about my faith, I think God wants me to share it. So I really don't get why you won't share info about this denomination that you think has it right when you so clearly think I've got it wrong.

It's like if someone came up to Amy with their lowfat crackers in hand and said "My word you look hot. I'm eating these lowfat crackers, I think that's the way to get thin like you, what do you think?" Amy'd probably go "Ah, here's a person who's got the wrong info!" and say "Oh, no, put those stupid crackers down and eat a salami! Here's the book I follow"

Yeah, those newborns do an awful lot of sinning, the little bastards.

Oh, and by the way, Amy, regarding that concept of original sin that you find so distasteful? Guess what!

(Eh, who's counting at this point?)

That's not how original sin works...you're just born and already you're an inherently flawed human being with the capacity to sin, and a victim of the fall of man. You're still a beautiful and precious child, fearfully and wonderfully made, not a piece of crap.

But you dont get into heaven should you die before baptism

And fyi 'hersey' is what happens when your idea doesnt have the majority support of the opposing idea. Oddly enough the charge of hersey always seemed to fall on the ideas of those who showed up late to the ecumenical councils, odd isnt it?

a prophesy that proved to be true, since James was beheaded and John was thrown into boiling oil.

Given the bible was written decades later it isnt that hard to make 'prophecy" come true

Mormons, for instance, so I'm told, have taken it upon themselves to do everyone's "temple work" for them, whether we like it or not. I wouldn't presume to perform some bizarre religious ritual for anyone else, least of all someone who didn't believe in the ritual. (And I have no idea by what is meant by "temple work.")

Baptisms for the dead via proxy into the 'correct' faith. Various preisthood blessings. 'Sealing' cerimones designed to bind fammiles and loved ones souls into familly units that survive into the afterlife.

Jenny, it's not merely you, now that I think about it. In fact, it's probably not even you. I'm a regular on this blog, and I have my share of enemies. Anything you disclose here can and will be used against you. Giving personal information here is asking for trouble.

and I have my share of enemies. Anything you disclose here can and will be used against you. Giving personal information here is asking for trouble.

Posted by: Patrick

That right Jen, Patricks a marked man, once we locate his home address were going to kill him, cause like, we're internet 'enemies' and thats how we roll

Or it could be we're just a bunch of intellectual jackels tearing apart the weak minded comments everyone (except me) occasionally throws up

Actually, Pope Benedict released a statement, I think shortly after he became Pope, clarifying that we simply don't know whether unbaptized infants go to Heaven. We think they do. We live in hope. The confusion comes because while St. Augustine was figuring things out, he came up with the concept of a not-unpleasant place, but still not Heaven, and wondered if unbaptized infants might go there. Limbo. But no one was ever sure on the matter.

Really, there is a doctrine called Baptism by Desire, and that's the basis of a lot of hope. Baptism by Desire holds that someone who avoids major sin, lives his/her life the best way he/she knows how, and cannot possibly be held responsible for his or her not being baptized is still able to go to Heaven. While all of us are born with the capacity to sin, it's fair to say that infants haven't yet exercised that, and they certainly can't be held responsible for whether they're baptized.

And heresy. Look, there's official doctrine that the leaders of the Catholic Church, people who've dedicated their adult lives to the constant study of theology and prayer, agree on and then there's stuff that one guy who grew up Catholic or even a large group of Catholics believe contrary to doctrine. Quoting heretics' beliefs (like that Jesus is not divine) as "The Catholic Church once said _______" is basically like ignoring the official statements of NASA and instead quoting a few weird guys who work there---"NASA once said that there is totally, definitely intelligent life on Mars right now". Or ignoring the professor and quoting a few students. No, we don't hold that Jesus is divine because the guy making the opposition argument was late and they just voted without him; our most educated and dedicated theologians have studied the matter and determined that this is the truth.

Patrick...wow. I know I'm not here that much, but, seriously? It's a blog! How on earth is anyone using something against you? The worst they can do is say you're wrong. You seriously think you have a way of life, a church, that is pleasing to God and you won't share it with someone who asks because other blog commenters might...say stuff? Or are you thinking that Amy's readers are psychos who can look you up based on your very common first name and your denomination? Unless you hold church services in your living room, I don't think you have to worry.

But, okay. I think no matter what the subject of a debate is, people who aren't willing to provide sources and back up their arguments shouldn't participate and especially shouldn't start out by crapping on someone else's Church.

Jen, how seriously would you take someone who belived that if you didnt start worshiping Thor your soul would be tortured forever by frost giants outside the gates of Asgard?

And would you take them more seriously if they told you that millenia ago a few hunndred bishops of thor got together and debated various ideological stances various action held in an atempt to unite the different sects, but some sects and sect leaders were given various exemptions becuse of their political power in regions with larger armies.??

Do you ever wonder how an all powerful god capable of anything, with a history of granting men massive mystical powers to pove they were his emmissaries cant seem to get his followers to agree on anything?

And just because various councils decided "this is what we think it means" doesnt erase that facts of hat was being taught before such councils.

ANd regarding papal infalibilty, when exactly did native americans gain souls?

Luj, if there were records of Thor existing, working miracles, predicting and then fulfilling his death and resurrection, then continuing to work miracles long after his death, I might take such a person quite seriously.

Really, though, I'm not out to convince you of God's existence right now. If you're an atheist I respect that. All I've really done here, with you and Patrick is try to clear up the misconceptions. It's important to me to distinguish between what some Catholics said (and, yes, some Catholics have denied the divinity of Jesus or maintained that "Anthony, Anthony come around..." is a proper prayer) and what the Church actually says, just like it's important to distinguish between what one guy at NASA or Wal-Mart or wherever says and their official statements.

Native Americans are human beings who have always had souls...If they didn't have souls, why would there have been missions set up in the New World, to convert them? What Pope ever said that Native Americans didn't have souls?

Elizabeth reigned for 45 years and failed to match the body count that Bloody Mary managed in only five years.

Elizabeth had better PR...and she was a useful propaganda tool. Her memory was revived (and polished) during the Napoleonic Wars, when England found itself on the brink of invasion. The Victorians further burnished the Elizabethan legend, adapting it to gild their imperialism. And, when England again faced invasion in 1940, Elizabeth became a romantic symbol of English defiance. The less-than-pleasant aspects of her reign were glossed over or ignored by historians of the day.

Mary's brutality and body count got more gruesome with each telling until she was the devil incarnate to Protestants.

Mary was a Catholic ruler in what was, by then, a strongly anti-papist country (thanks to her father and brother's sometimes brutal suppression of Catholicism). She ordered (or consented to) the execution of several high-profile Protestants, which got her the name, Bloody Mary.

Then again, she was only carrying on the family legacy. In his break with Rome, her father executed several high profile Catholics, including Utopia author, Thomas More.

Mary's portrayal as a cartoon tyrant in Foxe's Martyrs didn't help her reputation. Foxe's book was an affirmation of the Protestant Reformation and, as such, was strongly anti-Catholic. Martyrs was very popular with English Puritans and was widely accepted as completely truthful even into Victorian times. Today, there is an ongoing debate about the selectivity with which Foxe presented his material.

And, finally, Mary's legacy was definitely not enhanced when, a few years after her death, her Catholic former husband sent an invasion fleet to conquer England.

Jen until the decree of Paul the third that indians had souls nd were human beings they were treated by many of catholocisms various groups as though they had none and werent.

And the threats of excommuntication were annulled within a year due to political pressure.

How is it the god of all bows to the whims of one king?

I will say though I do admire the fact that you know so much about your religion, most of the preists of your faith I have debated with didnt have 1/10th the knowledge of your faiths history that you do

So, some Catholics in the 1400s didn't recognize the humanity of people who didn't look like them...just like most people of that time, since it was fairly uncommon to meet someone with different-colored skin in that time...and eventually Pope Paul made a definitive statement so that there would be no doubt. No Pope ever declared that Indians didn't have souls, so it still doesn't say ANYTHING about papal infalibilty.

And, thanks for the compliment!

Luj: ANd regarding papal infalibilty, when exactly did native americans gain souls

The pope is regarded as infallible only when he speaks "ex cathedra."

You missed my point, not just individual catholics but priests, bishop, friars, cardinals, as in church leadership.

And my point on papal infalibi;ity was until Paul III's edict that indians had souls and therefore could not be enslaved overroade previous edicts allowing for their enslavment

Also Thor is an immortal god and therefore never can die and there are records of him fulfilling prophices.

You ready to convert yet?

And then there is the Spider Queen Lloth, who demands her followers sacrifice their third born sons in homage to her power, I have a number of book citing the horrible fate that families suffered after angering her.

The Catholics (if you're sure they were Catholic) in your neighborhood in 1972 were acting as assholes, not as Catholics. The wiki page you yourself linked shows that the Church began explicitly teaching against anti-semitism and really against all assault and vandalism loooooong before the little assholes assaulted you.

Assholes come in every color and persuasion and are bigoted against every color and persuasion. Only when a religion doesn't condemn or teach against being an asshole or a terrorist (looking at you, Islam) do you get to hold the whole religion accountable. My little sister was standing in front of the Baptist church where she goes to youth choir, waiting for my mom, and a group of kids from her school, who are of no religion drove by in a car, threw trash and yelled some crap about "stupid fundies". Does that mean that kids who don't go to church are all taught to hate kids who do? Of course not; it means that either the kids are assholes with hateful asshole parents or that the kids are assholes with normal parents who would be horrified to find out. Or it means that (shocker) sometimes human beings pick on whoever is different, whether that difference is racial, religious, sexual preference, political. People pick on the odd one out. They shouldn't, and of course anyone in the business of teaching morality (churches, schools, parents) should teach against it...but it's happened since the beginning of time and probably won't stop anytime soon.

Conan, your post reads like one very long, "Because I said so." I don't suppose you have any sources for this supposed information that Mary's body count was embellished...or what her actual body count was...or how Elizabeth's was so downplayed.

Elizabeth had better P.R.? Probably true. You also leave out the dramatic flair that Elizabeth could so effortlessly command (for instance, her dramatic arrest into the Tower of London that moved onlookers to tears) that Mary was profoundly lacking. Considering how much the people adored Katharine of Aragon (Mary's mother, who was also Catholic), and that Mary owed to her mother the popular support with which she was able to oust the very Protestant Lady Jane Grey and seat her Catholic ass on the throne, you simply cannot say with any accuracy that Mary's Catholicism was to blame for her downturn in popularity. It didn't hurt her going in. It was a five-year reign full of bad decisions, not the least of which was marrying Phillip, while her xenophobic subjects chafed at the idea of being ruled by a Frenchman.

Luj, there was never a papal edict that Indians had no souls. Thus, no challenge there to papal infalibilty. It doesn't matter that Pope Paul overrode the bad rulings of cardinals and bishops---that's kind of the point, in fact. There was confusion among PEOPLE, unfortunately, about the humanity of the Indians (who probably weren't too convinced that the Europeans were all that human, either) and the Pope cleared it up.

Think of the cardinals and bishops as lower courts, here, not equal to the Pope, and it should make more sense to you. Lower courts make bad rulings and eventually it gets to the highest authority. That's the ruling that should stick.

And again...when Pope Paul had to make that ruling, Catholics weren't being any less enlightened than anyone else of the time. Columbus did horrible things, because he was conquering land for Spain, not because he was Catholic. The various other races and religions of the time, animists and primitive religions and oh, look, Islam again, all thought of the "other" as less than human and did horrible things. Islam still thinks of everyone else as less than human and does horrible things, but that's another story...

Just realized I'm not being totally clear...

It's never been considered that ALL Church leaders and their teachings are infallible. The Pope himself is not infallible. He makes mistakes, he sins, he's still a human being. When very special circumstances are met, some of his *teachings* are infallible, and that's it.

Conan, your post reads like one very long, "Because I said so." I don't suppose you have any sources for this supposed information that Mary's body count was embellished...or what her actual body count was...or how Elizabeth's was so downplayed.

Try these books:

Porter, Linda - The Myth of "Bloody Mary" - A Biography of Queen Mary I of England

Meyer, GJ - The Tudors - The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty

Or this article from Wikipedia:

While historians disagree how many were put to death during Mary's brief reign, several notable clerics were executed: Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury; Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London; and the reformers John Rogers and Hugh Latimer. Mary was prominently featured and vilified in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, published by John Foxe in 1563, six years after Mary's death. Subsequent editions of the book remained popular with Protestants throughout the following centuries, and helped shape perceptions of her as a bloodthirsty tyrant.

Or this from a site dedicated to Tudor history:

A nickname such as "Bloody Mary" would indicate that she had been the cause of thousands of deaths. In fact [there were] only 287 Protestant executions during her reign. In comparison her father, King Henry VIII, had been responsible for 57,000 deaths including men such as Sir Thomas More. So why was Queen Mary Tudor known as "Bloody Mary?"

The method of execution of many of the Protestants was execution by burning. This was the favored execution method of the Catholic Spanish Inquisition. Mary Tudor married King Phillip II of Spain. The English people were terrified that the Inquisition would be introduced into England. After her death England returned to the Protestant religion under Queen Elizabeth I.

The reign of Queen Elizabeth I also saw the attempted invasion by the Spanish Armada. Under these circumstances the name of the Catholic Mary Tudor, wife of the hated Spanish King, was totally blackened. Queen Mary Tudor was given the name "Bloody Mary." And this is how she is still referred to in England.

Jenny: The Catholics (if you're sure they were Catholic) in your neighborhood in 1972 were acting as assholes, not as Catholics. The wiki page you yourself linked shows that the Church began explicitly teaching against anti-semitism

Too easy, Jenny.

It always boggles my mind when the killings of Paul Hill, for instance, are dismissed by Christians, insisting that he's not really a Christian...yet these same Christians scream bloody murder over the "Ground Zero Mosque" (which is neither a mosque, nor at Ground Zero), because the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were Muslims.

Too many of us Christians give ourselves the right to disown our deviants but demand that Muslims own theirs.

Conan, fine start, but where's Elizabeth's body count. I will like to see if she truly killed more Catholics than her half-sister killed Protestants...remembering that Elizabeth reigned for 45 years while her incompetent sister reigned only for five.

Um, what does Paul Hill have to do with a pair of 8-year-olds being raised by bigots?

Do some Christian sects, as recently as 1972, teach hatred and even violence? Sure, and maybe Paul Hill's church is one of them. To be fair, though, I don't know much about Paul Hill aside from that he killed abortion doctors. Or maybe just one doctor? I don't know, I didn't follow the case and in any event he wasn't Catholic. I'm pretty sure he was in one of those fringe evangelical sects that hates pretty much everybody, right? I do know that the Catholic Church does not teach hatred or violence. Period. I know that if these children who assaulted Amy's family in 1972 were Catholic they committed a vile sin as far as ANY Catholic authority is concerned. By contrast, Islamic authorities praised the attacks carried out by Muslim terrorists. If you can find a recognized Catholic authority in the US at any point in the 20th century who applauded assaults and vandalism against Jews, I'll eat my hat.

As far as whether a general prejudice against Jews and other minorities was held by many Catholics in 1972...well, racial and religious hatred was pretty common among most everybody in the early twentieth century. The general culture in America (which has never had a Catholic majority) was prejudiced against Jews during the time when the parents of those hateful kids were growing up. The Catholic parish priest and other parishoners in the area may have indeed contributed to these kids' hatred, if they were Catholic, but the Church would've also taught (or at least tried to teach) turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor, and other virtues.

Bottom line---you're never going to find any way of life that doesn't have assholes and bigots who hate the people who don't belong in their stupid little box.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/220257-Vatican-Christmas-Shocker-Pope-says-child-rape-isn-t-that-bad-was-normal-back-in-his-day

Vatican Christmas Shocker! Pope says child rape isn't that bad, was normal back in his day

This was a fun little story too

http://ih8religion.tumblr.com/page/5

Start with a cage containing five monkeys.

Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water.

After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

.... After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that’s the way it’s always been done round here.