Kerry Disrespects Catholic Church on Easter

[GWB]

The Story (http://www.tribnet.com/24hour/politics/story/1279173p-8383550c.html)

The Story from the Jayson Blair Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/politics/campaign/11CND-KERRY.html?ex=1082347200&en=c56856b13a4c4595&ei=50 06&partner=ALTAVISTA1)

The question is not which position is right or wrong, the question is:

Should Kerry respect the rights of the Church to have Standards?

Should he thumb his nose at them?

W

[ThaSaltCracka]

What Kerry thinks and does represent how many Catholics in America think. I love how most people think of Catholics as tight, moralistic conservatives. I think Catholics, especially modern Catholics in America, are very open minded progressive thinking people. The recent molestation scandal in America has made many Catholics skeptical about the leadership of the American Catholic church.

Also for those of you on here who think religious people are fanatics who follow the specific doctrine of their faith, John Kerry is a perfect example of of someone who doesn't.... and there are millions of people just like him in America.

[Ray Zee]

you are right about modern catholics. but the church is still a sick institution that preys on its members who still cling to the hope of salvation or something or other from them.
bush is the scary one who trys to live in the past and foist his views on the world.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
you are right about modern catholics. but the church is still a sick institution that preys on its members who still cling to the hope of salvation or something or other from them.
bush is the scary one who trys to live in the past and foist his views on the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

After this post and yesterday's "Good and Evil" post it seems that you have a big problem with the Catholic Church. What gives?

No one is forcing you to deal with the Catholic Church, what makes you an expert on it?

Do you really blame the whole Church for every evil thing done by an employee or associate?

If a sexual predator is an atheist, we don't paint all atheists responsible for him. If he works for GM, we don't blame GM for producing criminals.

In what way is the Catholic Church a sick institution?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
but the church is still a sick institution that preys on its members who still cling to the hope of salvation or something or other from them.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Church is so sick, that just yesterday the demented and manipulative Pope was calling for an end to violence in Iraq and the rest of the middle east.

Listen, you and several other posters on here focusing on all the negatives that are in religion. I am not here to deny that those exists, but I will say that those negatives represent a very small portion of Christians today.

There are people in the Catholic church and community who oppose abortion. The have every right in the fuckin world to have that opinion. I do agree that they also don't have the right to force that opinion on others. But you seem to conclude that the church has a strangle grip on its parishners around the world, and that simply isn't true. There are HUGE differences between the cardinals and bishops in the Vatican and the cardinals and bishops around the world. There are various cultural and socioeconimic reasons for these differences. Do you think that a Bishop or priest in Brazil is preaching the same thing as a priest in France or England or the Phillipines or Butte Montana?
The only common denominator is thr core beliefs in God and the sacramants.

I am constantly seeing people paint the Catholic faith with a broad brush, assuming we are all sovreigns of the Pope. We all must follow what the pope says or else. Thats bullshit! Parishners listen to their priests first and foremost, and I can tell you the Priests have a much better understanding of their followers than the Pope does.

[MMMMMM]

The Catholic Church has profited greatly from its members over the centuries and has amassed enormous wealth.

I will tell you one thing that disturbs me, though I cannot claim myself to be better.

When I see the Pope, or Bishops, arrayed in gold brocades; when I think of the wealth the Church has amassed; when I think of the Church embroiled in lawsuits, trying to hold onto its wealth, even against rightful claims: I think of the Gospels, and of the conversation between Jesus and the rich man.

From the Gospel of Mark, Chapter X:

13 And they brought yong children to him, that he should touch them, and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.

14 But when Jesus saw it, hee was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto mee, and forbid them not: for such is the kingdome of God.

15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdome of God as a little childe, he shall not enter therein.

16 And hee took them up in his armes, and put his handes on them, and blessed them.

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good master, what shall I doe, that I may inherit eternall life?

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is no man good, but one, that is, God.

19 Thou knowest the commandments, Doe not commit adulterie, Doe not kill, Doe not steale, Doe not beare false wtnesse, Defraud not, Honour thy father, and mother.

20 And hee answered, and said unto him, Master, all these things have I observed from my youth.

21 Then Jesus beholding him, loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: Goe thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poore, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, take up the crosse and follow me.

22 And hee was sad at that saying, and went away grieved : for hee had great possessions.

23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God?

24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth againe, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches, to enter into the kingdom of God?

25 It is easier for a camel to goe through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?

27 And Jesus looking upon them, saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God : for with God all things are possible.


And so, GWB: When I see the institution and possessions of the Catholic Church, I cannot help but think that the Church is more like unto the rich man, rather than the disciples, who left everything they had, in order to follow Jesus. Why does the Pope wear a jeweled gold crown? Why are so many arrayed in gold brocade? Why does the Church lay up untold millions, instead of giving that money to the poor, and dress instead in plain clothes, and follow Jesus' example and his teachings?

Again I'm not saying I am any better, and no offense meant, but I think those making a career or life's work of expounding the teachings of Jesus might themselves follow his examples and teachings as well.

Also something else disturbs me about the Church: Jesus is supposed to be head of the Church--not the Pope or anyone else. If they are true Christians then let them be Christians, with only Jesus as their Lord. And have we not seen recently the evils and corruption attendant with giving men authority in the Church? The hierarchy should not exist; there should be no chain of command: for a true Christian, only Jesus should have authority in the Church.

The institution of the Catholic Church can choose between selling all that it has (or at least most of its great laid away riches), and giving to the poor, and taking up its cross and following Jesus; or it can continue being a rich man, unwilling to relinquish its hold on wealth and power, unwilling to give everything to the spirit and the teachings of Jesus, and not truly entering into the kingdom of God--for God is a spirit.

[Ray Zee]

i respect everyones right to have their own beliefs whether i agree or not. i have some strange ones at that. what i do not condone is the organization that is corrupted. the individuals are fine. the church has commited criminal acts by concealing child molesting. and many of its priests have gotten away with it or just been slapped on the wrist in stead of going to prison. this is not acceptable in my book. it has nothing to do with an individuals practice of religion.

for your example if employees of gm were commiting crimes by doing something to the cars that ultimately killed or hurt people then concealed it, i would jump on their butts the same way. they would then be criminals as well.
i remember the exploding gas tanks and the cover up that ford did. with the idea that they would lose less money on a few lawsuits for the deaths than the cost of recalling and fixing the cars. those top dogs should still be rotting in jail instead of sitting on millions.

and i dont blame the church for what some employees did, i blame them for what they did as they found out what was happening.

[craig r]

i would def. agree with you on a lot of catholics becoming progressive in the u.s. when i marched in boston against the war, there were so many catholics there (of course there are so many catholics in boston). and in latin america catholics are usually on the left (before they are shot...ala Romero) as well. and i definetely understand where you are coming from. i am jewish (don't practice or believe it) and if the topic of israel ever comes up around me, my friends will sometimes not tell me their thoughts on it. but, if they think because i am jewish i am zionist or support that state (or any state for that matter) then they are making a sweeping generalization about all jews (in fact there are many jews who are very active against the state of israel; i.e. act as human shields, etc...).

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
and i dont blame the church for what some employees did, i blame them for what they did as they found out what was happening.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you. If the Pope wasn't as old as he is, I don't think you would have seen the same results though.
IMO, that is what is wrong with the Catholic Church. They need new younger Pope, one with some energy and passion.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Again I'm not saying I am any better, and no offense meant, but I think those making a career or life's work of expounding the teachings of Jesus might themselves follow his examples and teachings as well.


[/ QUOTE ]
99.9% of Catholic priests never live a life like the Pope. Many preach in poor communities, living in a house next to the church they preach in. I agree that clearly the Pope, cardinals and bishops live in somewhat luxury, but again, most priests do not.

BTW, look a little closer at some of the Baptists, Methodists, and Evanglical preachers down south if you want to see those "doing Gods work" living in immense luxury. Or look at the Mormom church and many of their business endeavors.

Much of the wealth associated with the Catholic church is old money from land owned in Europe. Almost all of the money now comes from church donations. But I do agree with you that there is something disgusting about the wealth associated with the Church and the Vatican.

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus is supposed to be head of the Church--not the Pope or anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
No the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. Jesus is the main focus of the Christian faith.

[ QUOTE ]
The hierarchy should not exist; there should be no chain of command: for a true Christian, only Jesus should have authority in the Church.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this was the case, there wouldn't be any main leader in the faith. Thus there would probably be regional priests pushing an agenda they want, skewing the works of Christ, as well as the text of the bible. This reminds me of somewhere........

[Cyrus]

Good things :

- Strongly pro-environment.

- Recommends moderate capitalism instead of complete obeyance to IMF, WB and destructive turbocapitalism.

- Solid charity work.

Bad things :

- Against population control.

- Against sex education.

- Will not clear up house, until crap hits fan.

- Sanctifies people too easily. (A lot of those people are certifiable loonies, such as the masochistic European women of the last two centuries.)

[MMMMMM]

M: "Jesus is supposed to be head of the Church--not the Pope or anyone else."

TheSaltCracka: "No the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. Jesus is the main focus of the Christian faith."


Jesus speaks of building His Church

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rocke I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevaile against it.



God gave Jesus to be head of the Church

Ephesians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feete, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church,



All churches in the Christian faith are to be under Jesus, first and foremost...Jesus' words have more religious authority than the Pope's words...Catholicism is a subset of Christianity, and one that has fallen to some degree (as have most or all) from truly following Jesus' words and teachings.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
The hierarchy should not exist; there should be no chain of command: for a true Christian, only Jesus should have authority in the Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the reasons different demoninations exist, because people think differently about organization. Some denominations are named after their organizational structure (Congregational - the local congregations have the control). The point is, you have a choice. If one believes in a universal church - then Catholic is your choice. You obviously have chosen another choice - that is your right. Please don't impose your choice on everyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the Pope wear a jeweled gold crown? Why are so many arrayed in gold brocade? Why does the Church lay up untold millions, instead of giving that money to the poor, and dress instead in plain clothes, and follow Jesus' example and his teachings?


[/ QUOTE ]
Catholics are probably the biggest charity source in the world. Every time those lawyers grab a chunk of the Church's money - it is the charity recipients that suffer. The money comes from parishiners, it should go to their charities, not the lawyers. Normal honest people are digging into their pockets to cover legal judgements - more suffering has been the result - the lawyers should be ashamed of hurting parishiners and charity recipients.

The criminals (pedophiles} should be punished, but not society - and the Catholic Church is a big positive force in society.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Every time those lawyers grab a chunk of the Church's money - it is the charity recipients that suffer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right, greedy lawyers are to blame.

People abused by priests should have no legal recourse. Even if they do have legal recourse, their lawyers shouldn't be paid. Even if we do allow the lawyers to be paid, they should be paid an hourly rate --- no contingencies. Of course, no contingencies would, for all practical purposes, mean no lawsuits. No lawsuits would mean no legal recourse.

So the question is: Should victims of abuse have legal recourse against the priests and the church that abused them and covered up the abuse?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
No lawsuits would mean no legal recourse.



[/ QUOTE ]
We have criminal courts, we use them, and we send the guilty folks away. How does suing the deep pockets help anybody?

It isn't a legal lottery - Get abused and become a multi-millionaire! /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Obviously I have no objection to compensation for actual damages, it is the big lottery-like payouts that hurt society.

[elwoodblues]

Maybe I should have added the words: FOR THE VICTIM.

Criminal prosecustion is recourse FOR SOCIETY. Victims of sexual abuse deserve recourse on an individual basis. Paying only ACTUAL damages doesn't cut it. Depending on who you ask, "actual damages" don't include pain and suffering and they certainly don't include punitive damages.

Punitive damages should be an option when specific requirements are met. In order to affect positive change, the posibility of punitive/exemplary damages need to be included into the mix. Without being faced the possibility of punitive damages large organizations will make a cost/benefit analysis and, often, make dangerous/unsafe/unhealthy decisions because the actual damages wouldn't be great enough to justify the change.

The McDonalds' Coffee case is often used to show why punitive damages are bad. However, without being faced with punitive damages, McDonalds (for years) kept their coffee at temperatures they knew could/would cause significant burns. They made a cost benefit analysis saying that the benefit of people slowly drinking their coffee (because it is so hot you can't drink it fast) and therefore spending more time (and presumably more money) in the restaurant was worth more than the burns they would cause. They were aware of several instances of significant burning and did nothing to change their policy. When all was said and done, what did the jury award for punitive damages? Two days of coffee sales.

The Catholic Church made the decision to cover things up because it was easier than facing the tough decisions. If they are faced with significant financial ramifications of covering things up, they won't make that same decision in the future (or else it will cost them significantly).

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously I have no objection to compensation for actual damages, it is the big lottery-like payouts that hurt society.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you consider these to hurt society (http://www.corporations.org/welfare/) or is it OK for big business to claim welfare and then sack its staff or buy a few new pot plants for it's Cayman address.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The McDonalds' Coffee case is often used to show why punitive damages are bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the judge reduced the original award considerably, forget what it actually was. My understanding is that the woman really wanted her medical bills paid and wasn't interested in a big judgement against McDonalds.

McDonald's Callousness Was Real Issue, Jurors Say, In Case of Burned Woman

How Hot Do You Like It?

by Andrea Gerlin
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
September 1, 1994
The Wall Street Journal
(© 1994, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.)

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.


After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees.


It should have been a warning.


But McDonald's lawyers went on to dismiss several opportunities to settle out of court, apparently convinced that no jury would punish a company for serving coffee the way customers like it. After all, its coffee's temperature helps explain why McDonald's sells a billion cups a year.

But now - days after a jury here awarded $2.9 million to an 81-year-old woman scalded by McDonald's coffee - some observers say the defense was naïve. "I drink McDonald's coffee because it's hot, the hottest coffee around," says Robert Gregg, a Dallas defense attorney who consumes it during morning drives to the office. "But I've predicted for years that someone's going to win a suit, because I've spilled it on myself. And unlike the coffee I make at home, it's really hot. I mean, man, it hurts."


McDonald's, known for its fastidious control over franchisees, requires that its coffee be prepared at very high temperatures, based on recommendations of coffee consultants and industry groups that say hot temperatures are necessary to fully extract the flavor during brewing.

Before trial, McDonald's gave the opposing lawyer its operations and training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste. Sine the verdict, McDonald's has declined to offer any comment, as have their attorneys. It is unclear if the company, whose coffee cups warn drinkers that the contents are hot, plans to change its preparation procedures.


Coffee temperature is suddenly a hot topic in the industry. The Specialty Coffee Association of America has put coffee safety on the agenda of its quarterly board meeting this month. And a spokesman for Dunkin' Donuts Inc., which sells about 500 million cups of coffee a year, says the company is looking at the verdict to see if it needs to make any changes to the way it makes coffee.


Others call it a tempest in a coffeepot. A spokesman for the National Coffee Association says McDonald's coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. And a spokesman for Mr. Coffee Inc., the coffee-machine maker, says that if customer complaints are any indication, industry settings may be too low - some customers like it hotter. A spokeswoman for Starbucks Coffee Co. adds, "Coffee is traditionally a hot beverage and is served hot and I would hope that this is an isolated incident."


Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink."
Public opinion is squarely on the side of McDonald's. Polls have shown a large majority of Americans - including many who typically support the little guy - to be outraged at the verdict. And radio talk-show hosts around the country have lambasted the plaintiff, her attorneys and the jurors on air. Declining to be interviewed for this story, one juror explained that he already had received angry calls from citizens around the country.


It's a reaction that many of the jurors could have understood - before they heard the evidence. At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."


At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.


What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.


Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.


Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic figure - an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800.


Then there was the matter of Mrs. Liebeck's attorney. While recuperating from her injuries in the Santa Fe home of her daughter, Mrs. Liebeck happened to meet a pair of Texas transplants familiar with a Houston attorney who had handled a 1986 hot-coffee lawsuit against McDonald's. His name was Reed Morgan, and ever since he had deeply believed that McDonald's coffee is too hot.


For that case, involving a Houston woman with third-degree burns, Mr. Morgan had the temperature of coffee taken at 18 restaurants such as Dairy Queen, Wendy's and Dunkin' Donuts, and at 20 McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's, his investigator found, accounted for nine of the 12 hottest readings. Also for that case, Mr. Morgan deposed Christopher Appleton, a McDonald's quality assurance manager, who said "he was aware of this risk…and had no plans to turn down the heat," according to Mr. Morgan. McDonald's settled that case for $27,500.


Now, plotting Mrs. Liebeck's case, Mr. Morgan planned to introduce photographs of his previous client's injuries and those of a California woman who suffered second- and third-degree burns after a McDonald's employee spilled hot coffee into her vehicle in 1990, a case that was settled out of court for $230,000.


Tracy McGee of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, the lawyers for McDonald's, strenuously objected. "First-person accounts by sundry women whose nether regions have been scorched by McDonald's coffee might well be worthy of Oprah," she wrote in a motion to state court Judge Robert Scott. "But they have no place in a court of law." Judge Scott did not allow the photographs nor the women's testimony into evidence, but said Mr. Morgan could mention the cases.


As the trial date approached, McDonald's declined to settle. At one point, Mr. Morgan says he offered to drop the case for $300,000, and was willing to accept half that amount.

But McDonald's didn't bite.


Only days before the trial, Judge Scott ordered both sides to attend a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation.


Instead, McDonald's continued denying any liability for Mrs. Liebeck's burns. The company suggested that she may have contributed to her injuries by holding the cup between her legs and not removing her clothing immediately. And it also argued that "Mrs. Liebeck's age may have caused her injuries to have been worse than they might have been in a younger individual," since older skin is thinner and more vulnerable to injury.


The trial lasted seven sometimes mind-numbing days. Experts dueled over the temperature at which coffee causes burns. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third-degree burns, so it didn't matter whether Mc Donald's coffee was hotter. But a doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees.


The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, "There are more serious dangers in restaurants."


Mr. Elliott, the juror, says he began to realize that the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people."
Next for the defense came P. Robert Knaff, a human-factors engineer who earned $15,000 in fees from the case and who, several jurors said later, didn't help McDonald's either. Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually.


To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns didn't matter because they were rare. "There was a person behind every number and I don't think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that," says juror Betty Farnham.
When the panel reached the jury room, it swiftly arrived at the conclusion that McDonald's was liable. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham. "They were not taking care of their consumers."
Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.


The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million.

McDonald's has since asked the judge for a new trial. Judge Scott has asked both sides to meet with a mediator to discuss settling the case before he rules on McDonald's request. The judge also has the authority to disregard the jury's finding or decrease the amount of damages.


One day after the verdict, a local reporter tested the coffee at the McDonald's that had served Mrs. Liebeck and found it to be a comparatively cool 158 degrees. But industry officials say they doubt that this signals any companywide change. After all, in a series of focus groups last year, customers who buy McDonald's coffee at least weekly say that "morning coffee has minimal taste requirements, but must be hot," to the point of steaming.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.
ADDITIONAL NOTE - Prior to the Liebeck case, the prestigious Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

OUR COMMENT - Any common consumer product which can cause third-degree burns (the worst kind) in two to seven seconds is seriously dangerous. Who could have imagined this risk from a cup of coffee? But, McDonald's had ample evidence of it.

These hyper-heated beverages should be eliminated from the marketplace. The Liebeck jury can be commended for its courage in sending this message to the food service industry. Remember, these horrific burns could have happened to you or your family members and friends.

[ThaSaltCracka]

let me clear this up.
The church Jesus is referring to is a faith and following of God on earth, it doesn't refer to a structure or a building.
The Pope is the head of a particular branch of Christianity. Now if you think that type of hierachy shouldn't exist thats fine, but I see more good from someone like the Pope then bad.
1. There is a solid base and viewpoint in the vast majority of the Catholic church.
2. It allows the Church to be incredibly organized, thus allowing for greater charitable good.
3. Their is stability in the church.
4. It allows for another world leader to have a powerful voice in conflicts around the world, all the while not being biased torwards anyone.

Now there are some negatives though, and I think they are similar to negatives associated with large companies.
1. Slow to change
2. Waste or corruption
3. too much bueracracy

[ QUOTE ]
Catholicism is a subset of Christianity, and one that has fallen to some degree (as have most or all) from truly following Jesus' words and teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]
?????????
Catholicism is probably the one faith that follows the teachings of Christ the most. I am not sure why you think that...

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Sanctifies people too easily.

[/ QUOTE ]
right....... finding three proven miracles with witness accounts is like shooting fish in a barrel. Generally the process is incredibly slow and takes close to a hundred years.

[Cyrus]

"[Catholic Church] sanctifies people too easily. ...
right...... Finding three proven miracles with witness accounts is like shooting fish in a barrel. Generally the process is incredibly slow and takes close to a hundred years."

I don't know if you are being sarcastic but in case you are, here's a stat for you : You know about the status of Martyrs, don't you? It's the level before Sainthood, sorta like the waiting room. OK? Well, there are currently more South Korean martyrs in the Catholic Church than there are South Korean troops in Iraq.

Isn't that something?

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

Let me make this point first: YOU ARE AN IDIOT

First of all someone has to be nominated to be considered to be a saint. Once you are nominated you are then beatified and givin the title blessed <insert name here> once it has been proven that you have performed atleast one miracle.
You are then considered a saint if it has been proven that you have performed 3 miracles. Martyrdom has absolutely nothing to do with that.

It takes incredibly long for anyone to be given the title of saint. The Catholic school I went to was a Christian brothers school. The founder of that society lived in Ireland, over 200 years ago, he just achieved the title of blessed.

It is utterly aparent to me that you know nothing about Catholics or Christianity, so please don't speak like you do.

[Cyrus]

"Let me make this point first: YOU ARE AN IDIOT."

Can't I just be MISINFORMED? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

I happen to believe that Jesus Christ is, most probably, not a historical figure. Nonetheless, I'm open to persuasive arguments (and mostly sources) to the contrary.

"You are given the title blessed once it has been proven that you have performed atleast one miracle."

But you just said you doubt that physical miracles have been performed by Jesus Christ himself! How can you lend more credence to miracles being performed by lesser persons, such as those "blessed" ones?

I think, on the other hand, that if we must have Saints, it would be better to have them on the basis of their life's actual work, rather than miracles. (If miracles is the way to go, there's a player in our table who would have been a Saint a long time ago!)

"It takes [an] incredibly long [time] for anyone to be given the title of saint."

Perhaps you are right. Although, you have to admit that the rate of 1-3 saints a year is a little too much, as Religions go! In the current issue of "The Catholic Almanac" there are 103 Korean martyrs, 96 Vietnamese martyrs, 122 left over from the Spanish Civil War (with another batch of 45 in their wake), and a hundred-plus who have been hanging around since the French Revolution. And for the canonised, the "Almanac" lists 9 full saints for 2002 alone! (Check out some snippets of the book here (http://www.osv.com/catholicalmanac/).)

"You know nothing about Catholics or Christianity, so please don't speak like you do."

Well, if I am indeed ignorant, you are doing a very poor job, I must say, of proselytizing me towards the Truth!..

Meantime, here are some books about anorexia nervosa, sucking pus, never/ever washing up, self mutilation, delusionary visions and other ways through which some girls have found their way into Catholic Sainthood:

"The Voices of Gemma Galgani: The Life and Afterlife of a Modern Saint" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226041964/qid=1081933939/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0355543-5175100?v=glance&s=books)

"Disease of Virgins: Green Sickness, Chlorosis, and the Problems of Puberty" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415226627/qid=1081934258/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0355543-5175100?v=glance&s=books)

"Holy Anorexia" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226042057/qid=1081935017/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0355543-5175100?v=glance&s=books)

Take care.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me make this point first: YOU ARE AN IDIOT

[/ QUOTE ]

You give Cyrus way too much credit /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
But you just said you doubt that physical miracles have been performed by Jesus Christ himself!

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt that they were done as the bible says they were. There is always some truth to a story, and I think Jesus most definitely did some amazing things in his short life on earth. A miracle doesn't have to be something like walking on water, a miracle can be something like healing someones wounds miraculously. I think people today do things which seem like miracles. Things like falling 4 stories and walking away from it, people recovering from horrific accidents, people overcoming enourmous obstacles either by themselves or with the help of someone.
This is a key point many people do not grasp. They say some of the things Jesus did weren't scientificly possible, well you know what some of the stuff was.

[ QUOTE ]
I think, on the other hand, that if we must have Saints, it would be better to have them on the basis of their life's actual work, rather than miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]
They do, simply performing three miracles isn't good enough to be considered a saint, you do have to have lived a good life, helping the poor and sick.

[ QUOTE ]
Although, you have to admit that the rate of 1-3 saints a year is a little too much, as Religions go!

[/ QUOTE ]
When you consider how long the church has been around, that number doesn't seem too far off. You notice that most of the people being cannonized lived hundreds of years ago.

BTW, I looked at the books you listed. I do not see how they pertain to anything we are talking about.

[Cyrus]

"I think Jesus most definitely did some amazing things in his short life on earth."

Yes, if you are referring to his teachings (or how his teachings were formulated by his disciples), I think that's the important part, the teachings. When we are all dead and gone, only the deeds will remain behind.

I am saying that to indicate that to me, the question whether Jesus was truly a historical figure or not, is of academic, secondary importance. Although asking it seems to rub people the wrong way... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

"[People] say some of the things Jesus did weren't scientifically possible, well you know what some of the stuff was."

The fancy stuff we do (e.g. our new suit, the book's binding, Jesus' miracles) are just to draw attention to the content, if there is any. They are , too, of secondary importance. And Jesus' teachings most certainly have content and merit.

But most of the people look only at the miracles and the fancy stuff.

"I looked at the books you listed. I do not see how they pertain to anything we are talking about."

They have to do with the folly of many of Church's disciples, the ones who are unloading their deep personal problems there (e.g. I'm starving for Jesus), with heavy, repressed erotic undertones for the women. And they have to do with how foolishly (and easily) the Church canonizes some people. All those women actually needed treatment rather than canonisation.

But in the absence of a shrink, a place in the canon. Fair enough, I guess.

BTW, thanks for steering the discourse towards a civilised tone again. /images/graemlins/cool.gif (But you can call me an idiot again any time you feel like it. My treat.)

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, if you are referring to his teachings (or how his teachings were formulated by his disciples), I think that's the important part, the teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]
without a doubt

[ QUOTE ]
The fancy stuff we do (e.g. our new suit, the book's binding, Jesus' miracles) are just to draw attention to the content, if there is any. They are , too, of secondary importance. And Jesus' teachings most certainly have content and merit.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would also agree, but remember some of his miracles involve helping someone who was paralyzed walk, healing lepers, even bringing Lazarus(supposedly) back to life. My point is these all involve something which is possible. However his other miracles, especially the one pertaining to the loafs of bread and fish have more more of a symbolic value to them, and I doubt those happened the way the bible says they did.

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that to indicate that to me, the question whether Jesus was truly a historical figure or not, is of academic, secondary importance. Although asking it seems to rub people the wrong way...

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll get back to you on this, currently at work so I can't spend time doing research.
so.....
[ QUOTE ]
They have to do with the folly of many of Church's disciples, the ones who are unloading their deep personal problems there (e.g. I'm starving for Jesus), with heavy, repressed erotic undertones for the women. And they have to do with how foolishly (and easily) the Church canonizes some people. All those women actually needed treatment rather than canonisation.


[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, I am skeptical as to whether the authors of these books are unbiased, but moving on. When Jesus was alive I am sure many people thought he was crazy. Even today if you say you talk to God or Jesus you are deemed wacko aswell, the problem is, who really knows?? That is the essence of faith, and I realize this is starting the discussion down a different road, so maybe I will put the brakes on this.

[jokerswild]

No presidential candidate openly attacks a rivals religion.
Please take your anti-psychotic medication, and tell the orderly your real name.

[Cyrus]

"Some of [Jesus'] miracles involve helping someone who was paralysed walk, healing lepers, even bringing Lazarus(supposedly) back to life. My point is these all involve something which is possible."

Although no crass materialist me, I am highly suspicious if not outright dismissive of such "miracles", be they performed by the Bible's Son of God or by a TV Reverend.

Psychosomatic phenomena are real and exploitable, to a certain extent, and, no doubt, people two millennia ago could be roused to ecstatic reactions. But raising from the dead? Only if there was no dead in the first place. Making the blind see? Only if there was no blind in the first place. Etcetera.

Admirable deeds all, yes, but IMHO most improbable. And, as I said, distracting from the real issue, the teachings. Distracting to those who want to go into this with their eyes open and their minds free, that is.

[MMMMMM]

I read somewhere that a study was done, on the Red Sea where the waters had been reportedly parted: something to the effect that the sand bar or underwater landscape was much higher way back then, and if the wind blew at a certain speed from a certain direction the waters would indeed have parted due to the physics involved. Well hmmm.

An elderly man I am acquainted with was going blind a couple years ago from macular degeneration. He was already using a white cane and wearing dark glasses and his visual world was fast shrinking and darkening; he had become approximately legally blind I believe, and he was learning to use a seeing eye dog. If he looked at my face directly he could not see my face but he could acquire a vague peripheral image of my hands at my sides. He then had the good fortune to become one of the first 5 people in the world to get a new treatment, not yet approved by the FDA, at Leahy Clinic. The treatment involved injections directly into the eye. He now sees much much better and can even read with a magnifying lens. He doesn't need the cane, dark glasses or seeing eye dog either.

Skeptical, yes; but I wish I'd been there and had a chance to converse with Jesus, and possibly see one of the amazing things if indeed they ever occurred.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Although no crass materialist me, I am highly suspicious if not outright dismissive of such "miracles", be they performed by the Bible's Son of God or by a TV Reverend.

Psychosomatic phenomena are real and exploitable, to a certain extent, and, no doubt, people two millennia ago could be roused to ecstatic reactions. But raising from the dead? Only if there was no dead in the first place. Making the blind see? Only if there was no blind in the first place. Etcetera.

Admirable deeds all, yes, but IMHO most improbable. And, as I said, distracting from the real issue, the teachings. Distracting to those who want to go into this with their eyes open and their minds free, that is.


[/ QUOTE ]
The point of being a Christian is that you firmly believe in Jesus, his teachings, and that he is the son of God. If you have a problem with any of that, then you are most likely to be skepitcal of any of the miracles he performed. However if you think he is the Son of God, then one of the main reasons you think that is because of the miracles he performed. No offense, but I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. I say this because it seems apparent you not only don't believe Jesus existed but you also don't believe he did any of the miracles attributed to him. But thats what Christians believe, and thats the essence of faith. To write that off as being the thought or belief of uneducated people is not only offensive but untrue as well.

I can clearly see your point that there is little scientific evidence or basis to prove that Jesus did what is claimed he did, but I also firmly think that to truely believe he was the son of God, then that shouldn't matter.

Really think about why people are Christians.

again I agree with you here:
[ QUOTE ]
distracting from the real issue, the teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Skeptical, yes; but I wish I'd been there and had a chance to converse with Jesus, and possibly see one of the amazing things if indeed they ever occurred.


[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunate indeed, and I don't know how anyone can say with 100% certainty that the amazing deeds did or didn't occur.

[Losing all]

I'll never understand the people that seem to hate god. I can't bring myself to believe in some fake wizard in the sky pulling all the strings, yet I don't get a kick out of putting it down every chance I get.

[lunchmeat]

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get a kick out of putting [god] down every chance I get.

[/ QUOTE ]

and that's why you refer to god as "some fake wizard in the sky pulling all the strings."

[Cyrus]

"It seems apparent you don't believe Jesus existed [and] you also don't believe he did any of the miracles attributed to him."

Correct.

In the sense, of course, that the miracles were actual miracles and not sleights of hand. Steve Forte for example is not performing miracles. They just seem that way, until you hit the slow-mo button. (And even then...)

"But thats what Christians believe, and thats the essence of faith."

There are degrees of faith in the literal storytelling of the Testaments. It is my position that the greater the belief in the literal interpretation, i.e. the Resurrection, the Miracles, the smaller the amount of free and independent thought process that led to a voluntary acceptance of the Christian teachings. Which, we agreed, are the most important part of Christianity.

"To write that off as being the thought or belief of uneducated people is not only offensive but untrue as well."

Well, a lot of otherwise intelligent and/or educated people suspend rationality when it comes to their religious beliefs, and that includes belief in the Resurrection, the Miracles, etc. This doesn't make them any less intelligent or less educated. It would perhaps surprise you to know that the vast majority of people lack systematic criteria in decision making and thought processes. We have only recently accepted, both economists and psychologists, that this "discrepancy" is actually part of human nature. It is not to be laughed at, or to get angry at, or to get desperate about, it is just there to be understood.

"I feel like I am talking to a brick wall."

It is this brick wall's contention that the less axioms (=arbitrary and indemonstrable starting points) we accept in our lives, the better off we are. This brick wall remains sceptical, without rejoicing in that fact nor expecting any illumination -- from Jesus or other illuminati.

And I must say it would be no fun knowing all the answers, including the after-life's, now wouldn't it?

Thanks for the discourse.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I am constantly seeing people paint the Catholic faith with a broad brush, assuming we are all sovreigns of the Pope. We all must follow what the pope says or else. There are people in the Catholic church and community who oppose abortion. We all must follow what the pope says or else. Thats bullshit! They have every right in the fuckin world to have that opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then they are not catholic. One main criteria for catholics is that the pope is infallable. No questions asked. Please feel free to write the church with your views and see if they will grant you excommunication. And no, im not kidding. According to the 'head' of the catholic church, the vatican, you do not get to pick and choose. If you do not oppose abortion, you are not catholic. Period. In the old days, you were killed for these beliefs.

Unless your talking about other christian denominations other than the catholic church, you're wrong.

However, the church is never below suspending some stuff to further their own political agenda/aspiprations. Like serving Kerry cummunion. This is a form of public special treatment. Even in the article the church is having problems with it. Why are they hesitating with it?

btw...calling people idiots and morons for presenting other views/possibilities isn't a very christian trait. Or maybe it is. Many times it just comes across as a form of denial of possibilities. Nothing in the bible has been proven factual. Only possible.

To answer a question posed above, "Why are people christians?"

One big reason....Fear

cheers...

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
If a sexual predator is an atheist, we don't paint all atheists responsible for him. If he works for GM, we don't blame GM for producing criminals.


[/ QUOTE ]

If they are an athiest, they are in jail. GM doesnt move them to another manufacturing plant and try to hide and protect them.

[ QUOTE ]
No one is forcing you to deal with the Catholic Church

[/ QUOTE ]

The religious right wing is doing a good job of this.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
If the Pope wasn't as old as he is, I don't think you would have seen the same results though.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think these crimes were restricted to only this popes tenure. Not to mention, it wasnt just the pope that concealed it. The cardinals/bishops and archbishops were also very involved with it.

Read the fr. Mcgreal story (local yet national story) for just how badly they screwed up and dragged their feet and denied wrongdoing. They still are a very sick institution.

b

[bernie]

It should also be noted that the catholic church, in the face of many lawsuits, pulled all financial support from many parishes caught up in the scandal. Which ended up bankrupting many parishes. But thereby, protecting their own wealth from the lawsuits. Another form of denying any wrongdoing.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Catholicism is probably the one faith that follows the teachings of Christ the most

[/ QUOTE ]

The history of catholicism and the vatican does not support this statement.

b