Open Bigotry in Congress

[Grundy]

I was pretty disgusted with these comments below regarding the first Muslim elected from a letter sent out by VA Rep of Congress, Virgil Goode.

Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

The Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, “As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.” Thank you again for your email and thoughts.

I guess we are used to the far right nuts speaking this kind of garbage but this is an elected official saying that we must stop Muslims from emigrating to the US or else we in trouble. WTF!

This is plain old bigotry out in the open. We are not at war with Muslims or Islam, right?


I am half-expecting him to introduce a new bill outlawing worship of non-JudeoChristian dogma.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002189.php

[PoxTheSmall]

Isn't it ironic how this guy claims to be for our country and christianity, while both the bible and our nation are both supposed to embrace diversity? It begs the question, where does this bigotry come from? Is it a trend or is this what the church is teaching, now? Is this how we are as a people?

[Grundy]

It is fear borne out of ignorance.

[Bedpost]

Obviously this guy is just like the muslims that think we are the devil. He apparently needs to read the bible if he actually wants to claim he swore on it.

Hopefully he doesn't get re-elected as he's clearly an idiot.

[Jammer]

I submit that if the 5th district of Virginia suddenly had a large portion of the population convert to Islam, his tune would change pretty quickly. I have no doubt that this dude might be quite the bigot, but I'd wager he's politically motivated more than anything else. I'm familiar enough with the 5th district of VA to know that he probably wouldn't last long in his office if he didn't say this kind of garbage.

It's kind of like if I ran for office in Cary, NC, I would need to talk about how much I love Yankees. :rolly:

Jammer

[Aelfwine]

Isn't it ironic how this guy claims to be for our country and christianity, while both the bible and our nation are both supposed to embrace diversity?

The bible embraces diversity? Since when? Remember this is a book that says if you do not believe that Christ is your savior you are going to hell. That would seem to include Muslims...

[Post]

Hold on, so you're stating he did this with the intention of solidifying his job?

[Post]

"The bible embraces diversity? Since when? Remember this is a book that says if you do not believe that Christ is your savior you are going to hell. That would seem to include Muslims..."

Christ also stated to love care for, and not judge those, even if they were going to hell.

[Aelfwine]

"The bible embraces diversity? Since when? Remember this is a book that says if you do not believe that Christ is your savior you are going to hell. That would seem to include Muslims..."

Christ also stated to love care for, and not judge those, even if they were going to hell.

Thats one part of the bible. There is more to the bible then the Gospels. And even Jesus preached fire and brimstone rhetoric, even if people tend not to remember those parts.

But regardless, there are not many organized religions that embrace diversity. This is nothing new.

[Post]

I would like to see a passage cited where Jesus encouraged mistreatment of a person by another for their differences in ideals and opinion. I'll take your word that he may have stated someone may go to hell or whatever for doing bad things, but as far as how to treat your fellow man while here on earth?

[Allison]

It's kind of like if I ran for office in Cary, NC, I would need to talk about how much I love Yankees. :rolly:

Jammer

But you do, don't you?? Grundy's always saying how you two have a special love. That's not true?

[Murrie]

scientology embraces all!

[PoxTheSmall]

Yeah, I think most of Christ's teachings were peaceful, for the most part, even that less well known verse where Christ returned from the grave to take revenge on those who'd wronged him...

[Solomente]

Obviously this guy is just like the muslims that think we are the devil.

Good point, Bedpost! Unfortunately that fact seems to elude 99% of the people in this country, despite how blatantly obvious it is.

[PoxTheSmall]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/20/lawmaker.koran/index.html

[Aelfwine]

I would like to see a passage cited where Jesus encouraged mistreatment of a person by another for their differences in ideals and opinion.

He overturned the tables of the moneychanges who were operating at Herod's Temple and accused them of turning the Temple into a "Den of Robbers". Not exactly very understanding of the ideals of the moneychangers and the Jewish elders who would of consented to this practice.

[Rooster]

Dude, Aelf... go read the Bible.. You're way off base. On so many levels I wont even bother to correct you here.

[Post]

"Not exactly very understanding of the ideals of the moneychangers and the Jewish elders who would of consented to this practice."

They were exploiting the poor. Having little tolerance for intolerance, isn't intolerance within itself. Furthermore, that's your evidence the Bible doesn't embrace diversity? Despite Jesus forgiving those who killed him, believing everyone can get into Heaven, loving those who don't love you back, but because he got pissed off at some people screwing over the poor, it doesn't embrace diversity?

Edit: for that matter, the interpretation of the story is meant to show an overturning of the elitist and cultist version of religious ceremony. You know, the thing that I - and probably you - get annoyed within a lot of the religion these days. Assuming that you wish that these evangelical and exploiting religious businesses were to be overturned as well as me, does that make us not very embracing of diversity as well?

[Noleader]

It's kind of like if I ran for office in Cary, NC, I would need to talk about how much I love Yankees. :rolly:


I find that offensive you redneck :rolly:

[Rooster]

"Not exactly very understanding of the ideals of the moneychangers and the Jewish elders who would of consented to this practice."

They were exploiting the poor. Having little tolerance for intolerance, isn't intolerance within itself. Furthermore, that's your evidence the Bible doesn't embrace diversity? Despite Jesus forgiving those who killed him, believing everyone can get into Heaven, loving those who don't love you back, but because he got pissed off at some people screwing over the poor, it doesn't embrace diversity?

Edit: for that matter, the interpretation of the story is meant to show an overturning of the elitist and cultist version of religious ceremony. You know, the thing that I - and probably you - get annoyed within a lot of the religion these days. Assuming that you wish that these evangelical and exploiting religious businesses were to be overturned as well as me, does that make us not very embracing of diversity as well?The 'nation' of Israel (the Hebrews) had very strict rules on Ursury (money-lending)... and they were doing it not only on their sabbath, but IN a synagogue. It was like a triple-whammy. And the local rabbi were letting it happen.

It would be akin to you seeing someone get picked on and bullied (or worse, given the laws back then). The right thing to do is to step in and stop it.

[Mulletious]

mel gibson says jews are evil as are mayans...

all praise the word of mel gibson!!
....

[Aelfwine]

Dude, Aelf... go read the Bible.. You're way off base. On so many levels I wont even bother to correct you here.

If your so smart then you would point out where I am wrong. But as usual you act like a so called "left wing bomb thrower" and don't back up what you say. Way to add to the debate.

And just to explain, I was being sort of ridiculous there, and should of added a smiley face or something. But I stand by the statement that Christianity and organized religion as a whole is not very open to ideals that differ from theirs. Sort of like republicans.

[Bedpost]

Sorry Aelf, but I have to disagree with you here about Jesus not being accepting of diversity, and that little bit that you posted where he over turned the tax collectors tables is evidence?

Like Hep said, being upset with those that are taking advantage of people is not anywhere close to being someone that's not accepting diversity.

Jesus certainly never did any teachings saying. This group of people are bad and are going to hell. He was always saying do unto others as you'd like have done to you.

[Aelfwine]

It was a bad example. I was just being ridiculous and it did not come through so that is my fault.

But again, Jesus is just one part of the Bible. Just because Jesus does not say this group or that group is going to hell does not mean the Bible does not say it and most Christians believe it....

[Bedpost]

It was a bad example. I was just being ridiculous and it did not come through so that is my fault.

But again, Jesus is just one part of the Bible. Just because Jesus does not say this group or that group is going to hell does not mean the Bible does not say it and most Christians believe it....

The fact that many christians believe it does not mean that is the intent though either. Misinterpretations are a bad thing. All those people that preach fire and brimstone if you don't repent your sins and are going to hell I think are just as full of crap as you do.

Hell is not meant to be a deterant for doing things wrong.... If someone is doing something with the thought, man I hope this keeps me out of hell... they're doing it for the wrong reasons and aren't going the right direction anyway.

None of Jesus's teachings are meant to be about fear, it's about the desire of wanting to do the right thing for your fellow person.

The people that twist it and say if you don't join our religion you're going to hell are a bunch of wackos

[Aelfwine]

A bunch of wackos who read the the whole Bible and not just the Gospels. They believe it because it is in the book. Are they misinterpreting some of it? Sure. But thats the danger in holy books. Its impossible to read and not interpret 100 different ways.

[Bedpost]

A bunch of wackos who read the the whole Bible and not just the Gospels. They believe it because it is in the book. Are they misinterpreting some of it? Sure. But thats the danger in holy books. Its impossible to read and not interpret 100 different ways.

Anyone who reads the bible and takes away from it that if someone doesn't become a christian now and repent that they are going to hell is not reading it properly.

Yes you want to encourage people to do the right things and be nice to others. It's even better if they do actually learn about Christ and how he can help you. But no where should they ever take from it that it means everyone who's not a christian is going to hell and will live there for eternity

[Aelfwine]

I disagree. I think its Christians who do not believe that kind of thing are the ones misreading it. There are many Christians these days who sort of cherry pick what they believe and what they do not from the Bible.

Most Christians through history have believed that people who are not baptized go to hell. Thats why abortion is so objectionable. Those babies are damned....

[Bedpost]

I disagree. I think its Christians who do not believe that kind of thing are the ones misreading it. There are many Christians these days who sort of cherry pick what they believe and what they do not from the Bible.

Most Christians through history have believed that people who are not baptized go to hell. Thats why abortion is so objectionable. Those babies are damned....

No abortion is so objectionable because they believe that it's murder. Something about the 10 commandments and thou shalt not kill or something like that.

most christians throughout history have been surrounded by other christians or were at war if they weren't

Just because it's only muslims now that appear to want war, doesn't mean in the past that christians were just as fanatical about their religion. The crusades are a pretty good example of that.

Christianity should NEVER be about segregation or about being able to point to someone and say YOU are going to hell!.

[PoxTheSmall]

This is a bit of a segue, but I heard last night that more people have died in religious wars than in all other wars combined.

[Bedpost]

the people that are religious that believe they are better then people that are not religous are a problem... Religious people don't have less divorces they don't have less marital problem. They are all people, that's a problem with a lot of religious people. They feel that they need to "FIX" those who aren't. Which puts non-religious people off even more

[Aelfwine]

Christianity should NEVER be about segregation or about being able to point to someone and say YOU are going to hell!.

You sir, are a better man then most christians :cheese:

[Bedpost]

Many Catholics in particular have no clue about just how corrupt the catholic organization has been throughout history. Heck they used to make it so that unless you were at a certain level you couldn't go to mass. That obviously was a stupid way to teach things as well.

makes alot of sense doesn't it. Lets take a tithing to give the poor, but we don't want there to be any chance to be seen with them or have to talk to them...

There's a lot of things about catholics that they should be embarressed about, but I would venture to guess that the majority of those that go around preaching about you must repent blah blah blah. Don't know crap about the actual history of their religion.

Just like those that say they are bombing things in the name of Allah obviously don't know what their religion is supposed to be about either.

[Post]

"But I stand by the statement that Christianity and organized religion as a whole is not very open to ideals that differ from theirs."

Well, yeah, I think most of us here agree with that. IMO, there's a big disparity between what the New Testament says to do, and what (typical) Christians do these days. A shining example is the Iraqi War, and our president acting as if Jesus supported it. The WWJD answer of "Should we go to war?" is never, ever, ever "Yes!"

[Aelfwine]

Well, yeah, I think most of us here agree with that.

Then there should be no surprise when a member of congress, of which probably 95% or more proclaim to be Christians, come off as bigots.

[Post]

"This is a bit of a segue, but I heard last night that more people have died in religious wars than in all other wars combined."

I read something profound a few months ago on slashdot of all places. To paraphrase, he said that if you're going to allow religion to accept the responsibility of the deaths carried out in the name of it, then you have to give it the credit for people it "saves" as well. St. Mary's food bank, other charities, and even stuff that people have done who are also religious, such as Mother Theresa. If you're going to do that, then I'd say religion in modern countries actually saves more people than it kills (directly, anyway).

Of course, if you're unwilling to give credit to religion for these benefits, and state that it's just the outlet of people doing this stuff and not the cause, then it's not fair the attribute religion to people who kill in the name of it, either. And this stuff works both ways: if you give credit to religion for the good in people, you have to attribute the evil in people to it when they're doing things in the name of religion as well.

[Noleader]

Wow no one picked up on the redneck comment... I feel ignored. You are correct about the wars thing Pox. More people have killed, and died, in the name of religion then anything else in this world.

[PoxTheSmall]

Extremely good point, Hep. I'd never thought of it that way, in the past. While we do definately see a lot of negative aspects in spurts around the world, there is a CONSTANT stream of good results from the church that occurs constantly and neverendingly.

[Noleader]

Nothing good comes from 'the church.' The only good in this world is from the people. To often 'the church' is just a means to corrupt those good people.

[Post]

If you're not going to credit the church for those good things, then it's unfair to blame the church for the bad things.

[Noleader]

Don't get me wrong I have nothing but respect for relgion, even the more far reaching ones, because I think anything that helps make people better people is good. My only concern is when you credit the church with the good is you place more importance on the church structure then the people that worship and actually make things happen. The church is nothing more then a building, and as jesus made clear it is not about the building just the people.

[Noleader]

If you're not going to credit the church for those good things, then it's unfair to blame the church for the bad things.

No it is not unfair... When did Mother Teresa say that it was the Pope that inspired her to help the needy? How many of those groups you credit the church with are sponsored by the Vatican?

Now answer me this: How many of the crusades where sponsored by the Vatican, or called into arms by the Pope. How many Italians died or fell victim to the Vatican so the Pope could retain rule of Italy?

The Church has done no good in this world other then pass down good teachings from God and Jesus. The people that take part in religion do good.

[Post]

"When did Mother Teresa say that it was the Pope that inspired her to help the needy? How many of those groups you credit the church with are sponsored by the Vatican?"

So you're stating that Mother Theresa's upbringing in a life of Christianity didn't inspire her to help the needy? You're stating these groups such as St Mary's wasn't inspired by their Christian teachings? If that stuff were true, we'd see at least as many of these type of things for non-religion based groups as well. We don't.

"The Church has done no good in this world other then pass down good teachings from God and Jesus."

And it doesn't deserve credit for that? ALL of these scenarios involve people being told the way they act is the way of Christianity, and that is what they attributed it to. It is unfair to act as if they made a personal choice that had nothing to do with Christianity when it's a good thing, but Christianity was what was in control when they did bad things.

[Noleader]

So you're stating that Mother Theresa's upbringing in a life of Christianity didn't inspire her to help the needy? You're stating these groups such as St Mary's wasn't inspired by their Christian teachings? If that stuff were true, we'd see at least as many of these type of things for non-religion based groups as well. We don't.

You are basically agreeing with me... Except you decided to change one word to make your argument harder to repute. I never said anything about Christianity... I NEVER once said the teachings (Christianity) did not influence those good deeds. I said The Church did not do those things. I have long left the naive world in which Christianity and The Church are one thing.

And it doesn't deserve credit for that? ALL of these scenarios involve people being told the way they act is the way of Christianity, and that is what they attributed it to. It is unfair to act as if they made a personal choice that had nothing to do with Christianity when it's a good thing, but Christianity was what was in control when they did bad things.

Again you are lumping The Church and Christianity into the same group. When I speak of relgion I break both of those out.

Just because a lawyer tells me that someone I knew left me money on their passing does not mean I credit the lawyer for the cash. Yes, granted, he might have been needed in the process but I credit the person that left me the money with the gift.

God and Jesus laid down the direction for people to follow... Just because the church spread said message does not mean they deserve credit for it.

Did the church of old do good and bad? Yes... But the examples of good that article listed are far to recent to be credited to a church.

And just for the record The Church does not tell you the proper way to act... God does.

[Figtoria]

But you do, don't you?? Grundy's always saying how you two have a special love. That's not true?

pics

[Post]

"I NEVER once said the teachings (Christianity) did not influence those good deeds."

My bad. I don't consider the church being anything other than a vehicle of intentions, and not a causation of them, though. Blaming it on the church is taking away blame from who are truly responsible - those who use it to encourage their bidding.

[Rooster]

A church is a way for a group of like-minded religious people do to collectively what individuals cannot. Organizing charities (food drives, etc), or helping those less fortunate (late on some bills, etc.) are just two off the top of my head examples.

To say that a church cannot do something good is ignorant or just blind.

[Solomente]

If your so smart then you would point out where I am wrong. But as usual you act like a so called "left wing bomb thrower" and don't back up what you say.

:stupid:

ROFL! Did he just call Rooster left wing?

[Rooster]

Point in case. Aelf's out of his mind. :)

(course, I knew what he meant... but .. what Aelf REALLY doesn't get is... he really is so far off base, it's honestly not worth my time to bother and correct - really)

[Noleader]

A church is a way for a group of like-minded religious people do to collectively what individuals cannot. Organizing charities (food drives, etc), or helping those less fortunate (late on some bills, etc.) are just two off the top of my head examples.

To say that a church cannot do something good is ignorant or just blind.

A church is just want you said it is Roo and again I was never debating the merit of the membership... What I am talking about is the management/power structure within The Church.

Again when I speak of 'The Church' I am talking about all the people that sit at the Vatican, not the folks at your local church. I really wish people would read what I am typing and not just think I am attacking their local congregation.

[Noleader]

My bad. I don't consider the church being anything other than a vehicle of intentions, and not a causation of them, though. Blaming it on the church is taking away blame from who are truly responsible - those who use it to encourage their bidding.

There is no doubt in that... The blame rests with those that do the action, or request it done, but in most case throughout history the negative actions were at the Vatican's request. The positive actions tend to come from the local groups. In my relgion the Vatican is the head of The Church so defacto The Church is to blame.

Edit: To answer the question that might pop up in someones mind... The reason I still consider myself Catholic has more to do with upbringing then anything else.

[Aelfwine]

Point in case. Aelf's out of his mind. :)

(course, I knew what he meant... but .. what Aelf REALLY doesn't get is... he really is so far off base, it's honestly not worth my time to bother and correct - really)

Its a debate board. If you have a issue with what I say back up you position or don't reply at all. You really come off as a arrogant SOB when you do hit and run posts. Reminds me of Swifty.

[Aelfwine]

To answer the question that might pop up in someones mind... The reason I still consider myself Catholic has more to do with upbringing then anything else.

When I see these poles that say 80% of Americans are Christian it makes you wonder if a good portion of these people consider they are Christians for the same reason you do. Not because they really believe, but because they were raised in that tradition.

[Noleader]

When I see these poles that say 80% of Americans are Christian it makes you wonder if a good portion of these people consider they are Christians for the same reason you do. Not because they really believe, but because they were raised in that tradition.

I believe in Christianity, and to a good degree the Catholic spin of it. I just have lots of issues with the governmental aspects of my religion and as such find myself at ends with the same religion.

[Bedpost]

I had a problem with it when the catholic church tried to have that priest in Boston for molestation charges not be brought up on criminal charges and said let us handle it. that really ticked me off. I don't think I've still gotten over that one for me being a catholic.

I just can't comprehend how they actually even had the thought of saying that none the less actually saying it publicly.

With that, it makes me wonder how many other things they are hiding in the churches that they know are going on that are wrong.

I still consider myself a catholic, but I have a lot of problems with how things are run.

[Aelfwine]

Although I consider myself agnostic, I understand what your saying. After the pedophilia scandal I find it hard to believe that anyone can have faith in the Catholic institution. And that is just the latest fiasco in a 2000 year history filled with bad decisions.

Religion on a personal level can be a good thing. Organized religion is really just fodder for the masses.

But what do we know? We are either crazy or ignorant :cheese:

[Bedpost]

The catholic church as an organization has been the most corrupt organization ever really. There aren't very many times throughout it's history that something pretty bad hasn't gone on during it.

Whether it's money, molestation, shuning of lower classes, causing wars, causing major problems in governments, etc...

The thing is that all organizations have problems like this when you have people running them. The catholic "organization" is too big and powerful. Even for people that have good intentions. power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So looking at it as an organization isn't fair to those that are catholics and all the millions of people that do good by others in the name of catholicism. Still need to give credit to both sides, it's just unfortunate that there has been so much negative stuff throught the history though.

our government is a fine example of problems with too much power. Everything in our government now is about being re-elected. Nothing that any poitician does is to help advance his community or whatever unless it's going to help them get re-elected. Or if they are leaving someone of the same political party

[Aelfwine]

So looking at it as an organization isn't fair to those that are catholics and all the millions of people that do good by others in the name of catholicism.

It isn't? Catholic faith states that the pope is god's representative on earth and what he says holds true in heaven, correct? If that is the case, and the Pope is the head of this corrupt organization (as you put it), how do you look at it any other way.

Now there are plenty of people who call themselves Catholics that disagree with the pope all the time, but is that really being a good Catholic?

[Post]

To him? Maybe (even probably) not. But to the majority of people who consider themselves Catholic, and more importantly, disagreeing with the Pope when his opinions aren't closely aligned to the teachings of Jesus? Absolutely.

[Noleader]

Now there are plenty of people who call themselves Catholics that disagree with the pope all the time, but is that really being a good Catholic?

The pope is not appointed by God... well with the exception of Saint Peter (first Pope) that was actually told by Jesus to keep it going once he died. As such the pope is appointed by man and thus it is not truely God's repersentation on Earth.

On a different note I implore anyone that wants to see the true church to go to the Vatican... After you been there you wonder why the hell the church always begs for money when they are sitting on many riches of the world. After I went to the Vatican I had nothing but disguest for the church.

I think the icing on the cake for me was when I father was deported to Italy... He landed in Rome without a cent in his pocket (US Government will not transport money with inmates that is offered by their family). Once there he was told by the Italian government that he should visit a Catholic church and ask them for assistance. Doing as told he went to the church and explained what had happened. All he asked of them was fare to get to the town he was born or help acquiring proper ID (US Government will not allow a deported person the ability to take ID, or passport with them) so we could wire him funds. The church told him to get lost and try to talk to some old lady that lived 5 miles away that helps deported people every once and a while.

He walked the 5 miles just to find the lady in question was not home and would not be home for the next few days. Out of shear luck the person that answered her door felt my dads plight and assisted him with fare to get back to his birth town (35 Euro). Once he got back to his town he got his ID card thanks to family and we were then able to wire him money.

The short of it is the church turned away a member in need, one that did not have a unreasonable request. Since then I have nothing but contempt for the Church and have not attended any kind of service from that date forward.

[Aelfwine]

From wikipedia:

The Dogmatic Constitution's third chapter, "On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff," states that (s.1) "the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a worldwide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all Christian people," that (s.2) "by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a preeminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that the jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate" and that "clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."

[Noleader]

That in no way says the Pope is picked by God or is Gods repersentive on Earth... All it says is he is the end all be all of the Church on Earth.

[Noleader]

To clearify my last statement... If the Pope said it was my duty as a Catholic to kill all non-Catholics, by your definition as a good Catholic I would be bound to follow his will and start the killing. I think you can be a good Catholic and disagree with the Pope.

But then again I think being Catholic is not about the Church but the beliefs you have.

[Aelfwine]

That in no way says the Pope is picked by God or is Gods repersentive on Earth... All it says is he is the end all be all of the Church on Earth.

It says that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and that the Roman Pontiff is his successor.

The definition of Vicar is "one serving as a substitute or agent". That means the pope is Christ's (aka God) agent on earth.

[Noleader]

It says that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and that the Roman Pontiff is his successor.

The definition of Vicar is "one serving as a substitute or agent". That means the pope is Christ's (aka God) agent on earth.

Peter is/was Jesus's agent (defacto God's agent) on earth... Just being a successor to him as Pope does not mean the new Pope is God's agent. Jesus picked peter to do the job... Jesus does not pick his successor and as such they lose that title.

The position as Pope continues on but that by no means concludes that every Pope is Christ's agent, merely that Saint Peter was Christ's agent and first Pope.

[Aelfwine]

It seems to me that you just do not believe in Catholic Dogma. And thats fine, there have been many Catholics that have come to that conclusion as well. They either become lapsed catholics or they split off from the Catholic church like Luther did.

It really doesn't matter to me since I think its all a load of crap anyways. I just find it interesting.

[Rooster]

A church is just want you said it is Roo and again I was never debating the merit of the membership... What I am talking about is the management/power structure within The Church.

Again when I speak of 'The Church' I am talking about all the people that sit at the Vatican, not the folks at your local church. I really wish people would read what I am typing and not just think I am attacking their local congregation.
Then you need to be more clear in your communication. If you're talking about the religious heads of the Catholic church, then say so. I know you're smart, so for you NOT to distinguish between St Stephen's church in Your Town USA and the bishops/Pope of the Catholic church would indicate to me that you're intentionally being vague.

[Noleader]

I shall try to make it more clear from now on. I did not intend to be vague, I tend to forget when I communicate over the internet that without body language and the ability to ask questions mid-stream meaning can get lost.