Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tampa_Dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ComputerGeek25 said:
I agree that the future looks bleak.

Abortion may be the law of the land, but maybe it can be severely limited.
Click to expand...
I do not know if it is bleak. I like what Peter Kreeft once said. All it would take for us to change our culture is more Saints. Hard and wicked societies have reversed their course in the past through the work of one.
 
The Bishop’s Letter was not anti-Obama in any way. It was Pro-Life and Pro-Catholic.

Not once does he tell anyone how to vote. He simply lays out the facts and context of the situation American Catholics find themselves in.

The truth has a certain ring to it and the good Bishop’s statement has really struck a chord of vitriol among the Left’s media outlets. For an example of this diabolic vitriol, just go read the comment section of* Think Progress*’ reporting (thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/01/1120731/catholic-bishop-who-compared-obama-to-hitler-orders-anti-obama-letter-read-from-pulpit/?mobile=nc) of the Bishop’s Letter.

*Think Progress *starts out with the falsehood:

“On Wednesday, he came within a hair of ordering every priest under his supervision to campaign for Mitt Romney.”

And then they finish their article by directly challenging the teaching of Christ’s Church on contraception:

“Jenky’s opposition to birth control all puts him wildly out of step with his flock. 82 percent of Catholics say birth control is “morally acceptable,” and 54 percent of Catholics believe religiously affiliated organizations should be required to offer health plans to their employees that include contraception coverage.”
 
rlg94086 said:
Um…9/2/12? 2 months ago? Seems like it would count as “during this election.” 😛
Click to expand...
It is generally accepted that the true “election” begins after labor day, which was Sept 3, 2012 of this year; however, if labeling me a troll helps you feel better, by all means, indulge yourself.

I am sorry if I find the group’s abject rejection of mathematics and science to be insufferable. Romney was, and is, a bad candidate. He had lots of issues in the primary, and he will lose on Tuesday.
 
Nimzovik said:
Bolding mine:

Oh yes? And when Politics crosses the line into evil - what *then? *

I echo the sentiment of ‘Silent no more’ on these* life and death* issues.** Ideally** - especially from the Pulpit. The State is to not interfere with the Church. However the Church is (or perhaps, rather, should be) the moral compass of the people and correspondingly, the Government. Heavens knows the Atheists certainly inflict their faith on Religous people via the Government.:cool:
Click to expand...
Nimzovik said:
Methinks the Bishops would indeed advocate for the Democrats- **if **the Democrats would advocate for Pro life. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You’re really cutting to the heart of the matter with these posts here, which is why I’m not surprised that he completely ignored them. It’s amazing to me this implicit belief that morals are morals except when it comes to politics which “doesn’t count” for some reason and everything labeled political is just beyond reproach merely by virtue of being afforded that label.
 
AlaskaMan said:
Barring a complete miracle, Romney is going to lose this election’s electoral college. I am a scientist and have done statistics and modeling my entire career. I am a math geek and watch the polls intently and follow the best modeling and modelers out there. Romney really has no path to 270. He has NEVER polled ahead of Obama in Nevada. He won’t win it. He has also polled behind Obama in Ohio and Iowa about 90% of the time. He is not winning either.

Rasmussen polls (which tend to be most of Romney’s favorable polls) are notorious for over sampling older people, who tend to vote GOP. This is because Rass uses robocalling and calls only hard line phones (no cell-phone only phones). He also does a fair amount of polling Friday and Saturday evenings – again, when young democratic leaning folks tend to be out. These work good during midterm elections (where Rass tends to poll really accurately), when younger and less motivated people stay home, but he tends to do poorly in Presidential elections. Gallup’s polls have gone the way of John Zogby, and I no longer consider them a reputable organization.

Look to Quinnipiac U. for the most consistently accurate polling (as noted by Reuters, Washington Post, and others) over time.
Click to expand...
If Rasmussen polls are unreliable because they are notorious for oversampling older people who you say tend to vote GOP then how do you explain why Seniors are scared because of Paul Ryan and his voucher plan. Seniors are scared about social security and affordable health care. These are issues that on the surface that the Democrats can exploit and get lots of Seniors.

Wasn’t there a campaign event where Paul Ryan was speaking to AARP and he got booed?
 
AlaskaMan said:
No, EVERYONE’s mathematics…
Click to expand...
ReaClear looks to show a dead heat. Your other links are a joke! NY Times? Get real. We will see next Wednesday how your…uh…math…stacks up.

Y’all come back now…hear?
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread is wandering. Please return to the topic of the Bishop’s letter.
 
AlaskaMan said:
That is not correct and you should not put such conjecture out there. Please note that Quinnipiac does **NOT **and NEVER has “adjusted” their polls for demographics. They have always simply reported the data as collected. He admitted that he did not believe the numbers from the Florida poll in September (i.e. an outlier), but that he reported them anyway.

Just a note, statistically speaking, at a p-value of .05 (statistically significant) one in every 20 polls is an outlier. Crazy that everyone went cuckoo bananas on the pollster over this result.

However, note that it was one poll for Florida taken one time, and herein lies the issue with pollsters. I evaluate trend lines, since looking at a poll in a vacuum is an exercise in futility. This is why I am quite confident Romney is toast. He MUST win Ohio. He is not going to do it. He will not win PA, WI, or MN. That would be GOP Nirvana, but it is not happening this cycle.

Michael Medved is a radio talk show host. He has a law degree. He is not a scientist (though his dad was), nor is he a statistician.

Recent polling does not support this. The latest Ohio polling shows Obama winning independents by over 10%.

I would think not, and such statements just show the lack of empirical thinking clouded by partisan yearnings.

That last statement really does not make sense. I am not sure what you are trying to say. However, the point is, it is statistically likely that Romney loses the electoral college. That facts are what they are. I could be surprised. It happens. People win the lottery sometimes.

And on edit, while I understand the anti-Obama sentiment, I do not understand the Romney approval here. Mormons are most definitely NOT Christians despite what they claim. One only has to look at their core beliefs to understand that they do not worship the God of Abraham.
Click to expand...
So, do you think that Obama’s minister of two decades, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, worships the God of Abraham? Regardless of his purported Christian roots, I believe Obama merely gives lip service to being a Christian. While I certainly believe he is not a Muslim, I think he is a secular humanist. To quote a bumper sticker: “I would rather vote for a Mormon than a Moron”.
 
Mickey said:
ReaClear looks to show a dead heat. Your other links are a joke! NY Times? Get real. We will see next Wednesday how your…uh…math…stacks up.

Y’all come back now…hear?
Click to expand...
And that sir, is your problem. You look at the site, and you do not even see what the polls are showing. RCP most certainly does NOT show a dead heat. It shows an Obama lead in Nevada, Iowa, and Ohio which is consistent with other sites. Romney likely loses the electoral college.
 
Tampa_Dave said:
I think he is a secular humanist. To quote a bumper sticker: “I would rather vote for a Mormon than a Moron”.
Click to expand...
I would agree, Obama is likely secular, perhaps agnostic, maybe even an atheist. I know some muslims, a few fairly well, I do not think Obama is muslim.

Mitt is a mormon bishop. I lived in mormon country for many years. I have no particular affection for them. They are a closed society.

If you must know, I will be voting for a 3rd party candidate. Neither of these two are acceptable to me for many reasons.
 
AlaskaMan said:
And that sir, is your problem.
Click to expand...
I believe the slanted sites that you show are a joke.

Now if you want to talk about fuzzy math as it relates to polls…start another thread somewhere. Otherwise, the moderator has requested that we return to the topic.
 
Et_Cetera said:
I think it shows a real lack of concern for the impoverished to read something like this. It is dangerously militant and undermines the free will of people in the congregation.
Click to expand...
It’s an example of why I personally could never worship there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top