Some of you seem to really enjoy making sport of this. You defame this nuns, all nuns, the Catholic church and all Christians.
Yet, if I were to say that a ____________ ( fill in desired race, or group) hit me over the head, and stole all my money, and that I hated all ____________ , you would quickly, oh, so quickly, and self-righteously, point out that I was the fool for judging a group by a single person.
Treat others the way you wish to be treated.

Nope, just pregnant nuns.

Concerns about forum members self righteousness . . . interesting on so many levels. :cool:

About the same as people make sport of people who believe the earth is flat?

You have to have a little flexability when it comes to organized religion. Religion is one thing. Organised structured religion can be a much different kettle of fish. I actually almost see them as two separate entities.

I for example have never had any issue with what someone believes individually as Christians. At the same time there are multipal issues with most organized religion. A lot of them and their internal policies fly in the face of what they claim to represent and expound.

I for example will not make fun of peoples beliefs. I also will not in general treat organized religion in exactly the same fashion. Organization is the key word here. Behaviors and policies under the various banners or at least many of them raise serious questions.

The difference between religious and spirtual is huge.

Do you believe that the behavior of the Vatican over the past ...... OH. 100 years or so might have anything to do with their fall from grace?

If you want to be superstitious, have it it. It is your right regardless of what I think about it. I will support your right even if I disagree with it much like I will support the rights of the Klan to have a parade float even if I think their ideas are dumb. However, most times, religion tends to try to push itself into the public sectors and make rules trying to force others to behave in a moral way. Not saying that there are no other groups doing that but we are talking of religion. Perhaps if they had not tried to get political influence and force others to lead their lives following the code they chose, IOW, tying to make others live their moral code regardless of whether they want to or not, they might not be made the butt of jokes.

I think most religions have a natural evolution towards cultural hegemony which includes political control. I can't think of a good example to the contrary of a successful religion which didn't intend to infuse law and politics with its metaphysics and values. Can anyone else? For instance, the only countries in the world which completely ban abortions are Catholic countries. I don't see how that can be an accident. I think that's why religions tend to be in conflict with each other and why religion and secularity are at odds. The idea of 'private' religion is a modern invention, probably largely a result of the business classes wanting to keep religion out of their affairs.

Quakers.

From Wikipedia:

"William Penn, a favorite of King Charles II in 1682 received ownership of Pennsylvania, which he tried to make a "holy experiment," by a union of temporal and spiritual matters. Pennsylvania made guarantees of religious freedom, and kept them, attracting many Quakers and others. Quakers took political control but were bitterly split on the funding of military operations or defenses; finally they relinquished political power."

Mennonites?

No.
 

The Quaker Oats Box.

Nothin' says lovin'
Like something from the oven