Comments for PHNix Network Advocate http://mamador.wordpress.com Advocacy, Action, Alternative News and Opinion Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:22:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU Comment on Planned Parenthood’s Racist Abortions by Jenny http://mamador.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/planned-parenthoods-racist-abortions/#comment-144 Jenny Sat, 17 May 2008 17:30:04 +0000 http://mamador.wordpress.com/?p=52#comment-144 wow. that's not right. wow. that’s not right.

]]> Comment on The ‘Overpopulation’ Scapegoat by The ‘Overpopulation’ Scapegoat « PHNix Network Advocate « The Black Cordelias http://mamador.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/the-overpopulation-scapegoat/#comment-141 The ‘Overpopulation’ Scapegoat « PHNix Network Advocate « The Black Cordelias Sat, 03 May 2008 12:08:55 +0000 http://mamador.wordpress.com/?p=50#comment-141 [...] ‘Overpopulation’ Scapegoat « PHNix Network Advocate The ‘Overpopulation’ Scapegoat « PHNix Network Advocate Posted by Maddog in Uncategorized. add a [...] [...] ‘Overpopulation’ Scapegoat « PHNix Network Advocate The ‘Overpopulation’ Scapegoat « PHNix Network Advocate Posted by Maddog in Uncategorized. add a [...]

]]> Comment on A Voice In the Philippine Wilderness? by Letter read in open session to oppose the Reproductive Health Code of Olongapo City, August 1, 2007 | katoliko http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/08/28/a-voice-in-the-philippine-wilderness/#comment-80 Letter read in open session to oppose the Reproductive Health Code of Olongapo City, August 1, 2007 | katoliko Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:13:36 +0000 http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/08/28/a-voice-in-the-philippine-wilderness/#comment-80 [...] of Olongapo City for having him as their Councilor.  -Reynor  *Update* I just found another article written by our very own Manny about this good [...] [...] of Olongapo City for having him as their Councilor.  -Reynor  *Update* I just found another article written by our very own Manny about this good [...]

]]> Comment on Murder Method 1 by ngn01 http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/murder-method-1/#comment-79 ngn01 Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:48:12 +0000 http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/murder-method-1/#comment-79 Those are painful to see, though sadly, they're necessary to wake up the selfish and stupid. Those are painful to see, though sadly, they’re necessary to wake up the selfish and stupid.

]]> Comment on Betraying the Little Ones by waltzingaustralia http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/betraying-the-little-ones/#comment-68 waltzingaustralia Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:33:57 +0000 http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/betraying-the-little-ones/#comment-68 It's not really any surprise, is it. Amnesty International has always pretty much ignored situations important to Christians, such as the murder of large Christian populations. If one is concerned about human rights, support Open Doors With Brother Andrew or Voice of the Martyrs. Because killing babies is bad, but so is killing adults, especially if your only reason for killing them is that they're Christians. So I sincerely hope people leave AI behind and throw their weight behnd the groups who are really concerned with life -- all life. It’s not really any surprise, is it. Amnesty International has always pretty much ignored situations important to Christians, such as the murder of large Christian populations. If one is concerned about human rights, support Open Doors With Brother Andrew or Voice of the Martyrs. Because killing babies is bad, but so is killing adults, especially if your only reason for killing them is that they’re Christians.

So I sincerely hope people leave AI behind and throw their weight behnd the groups who are really concerned with life — all life.

]]> Comment on Misunderstanding Separation of Church and State by fredflash http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/misunderstanding-separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-67 fredflash Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:45:07 +0000 http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/misunderstanding-separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-67 Most people here in the U. S. who advocate "separation of church and state" don't use the phrase to mean "that religion should have nothing to do with the affairs of men." Instead, they use the phrase to mean that civil government has no authority over religion, or as James Madison put it, "religion [ the duty we owe to our Creator] be wholly exempt from the cognizance of civil authority." Those who favor civil power over religion, or a union of church and state, often accuse those who favor religion being totally free from civil influence, of wanting to "exclude religion from the public square", "stamp out the public expression of Christianity" or "remove God from public life." They seem to believe that civil government has as much claim to jurisdiction over religion as God does. They apparently believe that after the Strict Separationists get rid of all government established religion, their next goal will be to destroy religion established by God. The type of Separation of Religion and Government advocated by Madison and Jefferson was founded on the assumption that that God had absolute and exclusive authority over the establishment of a man's duties to his God. The government had no authority whatsoever over religion. As it was put in the creed of of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, "the civil magistrate...hath no power over things purely spiritual." Most people here in the U. S. who advocate “separation of church and state” don’t use the phrase to mean “that religion should have nothing to do with the affairs of men.” Instead, they use the phrase to mean that civil government has no authority over religion, or as James Madison put it, “religion [ the duty we owe to our Creator] be wholly exempt from the cognizance of civil authority.”

Those who favor civil power over religion, or a union of church and state, often accuse those who favor religion being totally free from civil influence, of wanting to “exclude religion from the public square”, “stamp out the public expression of Christianity” or “remove God from public life.” They seem to believe that civil government has as much claim to jurisdiction over religion as God does. They apparently believe that after the Strict Separationists get rid of all government established religion, their next goal will be to destroy religion established by God.

The type of Separation of Religion and Government advocated by Madison and Jefferson was founded on the assumption that that God had absolute and exclusive authority over the establishment of a man’s duties to his God. The government had no authority whatsoever over religion. As it was put in the creed of of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, “the civil magistrate…hath no power over things purely spiritual.”

]]> Comment on Misunderstanding Separation of Church and State by reckless2k2 http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/misunderstanding-separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-66 reckless2k2 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:55:12 +0000 http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/misunderstanding-separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-66 This is good powerful stuff Manny. I couldn't agree with you more and have said the same things when the word "separation" has been used regarding such subjects. I can see you and I share the same views on many things. I find it interesting that the many that use such wording as "separation of church and state" when referring to the 1st amendment don't even know that wording doesn't exist in the document. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .... "OR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" The society was not meant to be secular at all. The intent was for government to not establish a religion for the land and start hanging people that didn't practice that religion like in England. Hence the reason for that being the opening line. If people understood their history, they would understand the amendment. This is good powerful stuff Manny. I couldn’t agree with you more and have said the same things when the word “separation” has been used regarding such subjects. I can see you and I share the same views on many things. I find it interesting that the many that use such wording as “separation of church and state” when referring to the 1st amendment don’t even know that wording doesn’t exist in the document.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….

“OR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”

The society was not meant to be secular at all. The intent was for government to not establish a religion for the land and start hanging people that didn’t practice that religion like in England. Hence the reason for that being the opening line. If people understood their history, they would understand the amendment.

]]> Comment on Misunderstanding Separation of Church and State by Manny http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/misunderstanding-separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-64 Manny Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:00:38 +0000 http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/misunderstanding-separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-64 <strong>Answer to question 1:</strong> It is unreasonable to conclude that the interpretation commonly used by those who wish to silence the Church -- an interpretation far more radical than Jefferson's -- is in any way faithful to the text or the intentions of the authors of the U.S. or Philippine Constitutions. The texts and supporting documents cited (including Jefferson's letter) are clear: there is no mandate keeping religion out of the affairs of men. That's why the U.S. Supreme Court is moving away from such radical interpretations as I noted in the article. You might also note that not all of the authors of the U.S. Constitution subscribe to Jefferson's wall analogy, much less the more radical interpretations of it. <strong>Answer to question 2:</strong> I don't see how this question is related to the topic, since I haven't advocated for the establishment of a state religion. But since the question was asked... I would react the same way if someone (perhaps falsely claiming to do so in the name of the Church) managed to get a law making it a criminal offense for anyone to miss Mass on Sundays. Such a law would run counter to the interests of the Faith and would be tantamount to the establishment of a state religion. The Church wouldn't want that here and neither would I. The bottom line is that there is no legal or historical reason to believe that Faith should be kept out of public debate. In fact, that is where Faith belongs. That is not interference just as Christ's involvement in the affairs of men was not interference. Answer to question 1:

It is unreasonable to conclude that the interpretation commonly used by those who wish to silence the Church — an interpretation far more radical than Jefferson’s — is in any way faithful to the text or the intentions of the authors of the U.S. or Philippine Constitutions. The texts and supporting documents cited (including Jefferson’s letter) are clear: there is no mandate keeping religion out of the affairs of men. That’s why the U.S. Supreme Court is moving away from such radical interpretations as I noted in the article. You might also note that not all of the authors of the U.S. Constitution subscribe to Jefferson’s wall analogy, much less the more radical interpretations of it.

Answer to question 2:

I don’t see how this question is related to the topic, since I haven’t advocated for the establishment of a state religion. But since the question was asked…

I would react the same way if someone (perhaps falsely claiming to do so in the name of the Church) managed to get a law making it a criminal offense for anyone to miss Mass on Sundays. Such a law would run counter to the interests of the Faith and would be tantamount to the establishment of a state religion. The Church wouldn’t want that here and neither would I.

The bottom line is that there is no legal or historical reason to believe that Faith should be kept out of public debate. In fact, that is where Faith belongs. That is not interference just as Christ’s involvement in the affairs of men was not interference.

]]> Comment on Misunderstanding Separation of Church and State by Manny http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/misunderstanding-separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-63 Manny Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:53:34 +0000 http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/misunderstanding-separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-63 On the contrary, Christ infuriated the political/religious authorities. His faith did not "interfere", but it involved Him in the "affairs of men", as it should have. And those whose toes He stepped on would be the ones whining about such "interference" if the concept of "separation" were in vogue then. On the contrary, Christ infuriated the political/religious authorities. His faith did not “interfere”, but it involved Him in the “affairs of men”, as it should have. And those whose toes He stepped on would be the ones whining about such “interference” if the concept of “separation” were in vogue then.

]]> Comment on Misunderstanding Separation of Church and State by starview http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/misunderstanding-separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-62 starview Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:21:01 +0000 http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/misunderstanding-separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-62 'Christ Himself expressed His faith at all times. He didn’t hide behind any sentimental notions of “keeping one’s faith a private matter” or political correctness. We should not do any less.' Jesus did not interfere with politics either. ‘Christ Himself expressed His faith at all times. He didn’t hide behind any sentimental notions of “keeping one’s faith a private matter” or political correctness. We should not do any less.’

Jesus did not interfere with politics either.

]]>