Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up'

Status
Not open for further replies.
F_Marturana said:
Desecration of an altar is serious. The disrespect of a dead child is serious.
Click to expand...
Supporting the killing of a million children a year is even more serious. It really is the shedding of crocodile tears for Democrats to be all over Fr. Pavone in this matter.
 
Last edited:
I believe he is under investigation.

I’m not judging his soul. I’m disagreeing that he should be considered the epitome of prolife advocacy. I can believe what he did was very wrong.
 
Did I do that?

Sacrilege of the sacred has always been a serious sin.

We can’t do that, especially to do good.

2120 Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.
 
F_Marturana said:
I believe he is under investigation.

I’m not judging his soul. I’m disagreeing that he should be considered the epitome of prolife advocacy. I can believe what he did was very wrong.
Click to expand...
Likewise, many pro-life organizations and leaders praise the actions of Trump for the pro-life movement. However, your initial remark was a put down of Trump and if we all thought like that to the point of not voting for him, none of these accomplishments would be being made.

One need only to consult the pro-life news websites like Life News and so on, maybe even straight-up Catholic news websites to see, the approval for Trump’s actions. Yet, you started with a put down. So, if we all thought that way, we might not be seeing any of these pro-life accomplishments being made.

Like allowing States to defund Planned Parenthood without being taken to court. States may defund on their own.

Such as defunding International planned parenthood and this has been expanded too.

Too much to write per the various accomplishments, one must research it for themselves.

Yes, he signed some budget to avoid a government shutdown, the 2 Republican female Senators will vote for planned parenthood, so that is a logjam and a stalemate.

One must examine their conscience as well if they are putting down others who by most analysis is doing very good for the pro-life movement, in nominating judges and so on.
 
Father Pavone’s actions seem to pale against those advocating or on the pro-choice side, I’m not going to be confused about who the foe is for my own little selfish argument to put the president and Father Pavone down.
 
abucs said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I’m not changing my definitions. If there were western territory Democrats who wanted slavery, I’ll bet they had recently moved there from the South and to them , slavery was a traditional value, even if it wasn’t a traditional value to western territory folks generally.
Click to expand...
Right and to change the traditional values of the western territories in order to introduce slavery…
Click to expand...
Even if those Democrats were residing in the western territories moved there from the South where it was their traditional value. It may have been new to those territories, but it was not new to them, that’s what counts. If a conservative moves somewhere where his traditional values are not honored, he may still try to promote those values. In doing so, he is acting like a conservative.
Democrats in the north favoured the allowance of slavery…(despite the Democratic minority)…
Click to expand...
Then those Democrats were not acting like conservatives. As you point out, they were a minority.
These were Republicans who forced their better culture on the Democrats of the south. I don’t like war but if you had to give an example of when it was justified, this was it. The Republicans should be praised and their underlying philosophy has not changed, to their credit.
Click to expand...
I do praise the 18th century Republicans for what they did. And of course anti-slavery is now accepted by both parties. But I doubt that you can ascribe this act in the 18th century to an underlying philosophy that not changed over the years. The only thing that has remained the same is the name.
 
Never said it was good. I only said it’s hypocritical for supporters of abortion politicians to condemn Fr. Pavone, as the support of abortion is far worse.

As near as I can tell, though, what people are saying Pavone did does not fit within the description of your catechism citation.
 
An altar becomes sacred when used to consecrate the Eucharist. That is its only purpose.
 
Victoria33 said:
Likewise, many pro-life organizations and leaders praise the actions of Trump for the pro-life movement. However, your initial remark was a put down of Trump and if we all thought like that to the point of not voting for him, none of these accomplishments would be being made.
Click to expand...
Yes. And I’m sure virtually everyone who voted for Clinton knew they were voting for an abortion supporter when they did it.
 
He hasn’t been disciplined yet, so, I’m not sure if we know that. Maybe he did it through naivete. As RR says above, I think I will be concerned about the pro-choice side than going after ones on the pro-life side whom the church has not passed judgment on yet.
 
It’s not its only purpose, though it certainly is the main purpose. But regardless, you’re judging the soul of Father Pavone. To be sacrilegious, one has to intend it. I think he made a major misjudgment if it was a real altar. But I have no reason to accuse him of deliberate sacrilege.
F_Marturana said:
He’s a priest.

He should know what sacrilege is.
Click to expand...
But he wouldn’t necessarily know and accept your judgment of him.
 
I will concern myself with the real foe, the pro-choice side. You put down who is widely regarded as one of our most pro-life presidents, who has made 2 nominations to the Supreme Court, thought to be pro-life, who has aided the return of religious liberty to Americans along with allowing States like Texas to defund Planned Parenthood without being sued.

You must have a number of posts on this matter, none of which appear to be pro-life respectfully.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Even if those Democrats were residing in the western territories moved there from the South where it was their traditional value. It may have been new to those territories, but it was not new to them, that’s what counts. If a conservative moves somewhere where his traditional values are not honored, he may still try to promote those values. In doing so, he is acting like a conservative.
Click to expand...
Right, two things, firstly that you are wanting to look at people supporting slavery in the western territories as exclusively migrants from the south. That is you are forcing history into a little box and only considering reality as the little box you have built. What about the people who don’t fit into your self declared box? What about Democrats from the north who were a minority in a Republican dominated culture of freedom? What about people who were of the western territories accepting different philosophies in accordance with their own morals and interest? No they were all migrants from the south wanting to ‘conserve’ their values. (God help us).

So people in the 1960’s fighting against the Vietnam war were really conservatives because they came out of a university system where their traditional culture at the university was anti - war. Do you see how this is really self serving rubbish?

Lets agree with your self declared little box that all people in the western territories were migrants from the south bringing 'their traditional culture with them. We come to the second point.

What you have then (given your definitions) is a fight between two conservative groups. One wanting to preserve their values of slavery and one wanting to preserve their values of freedom. Yet you only want to call one of them conservative because you have the bias against the term conservative. You are back to having to admit your labels make no distinction. You have the Republican conservatives fighting slavery with respect to their traditional culture and the Democrat conservatives fighting for slavery in accordance with their traditional values.

It makes little sense to try and define people by change and resistance to change.One obvious objection is that if change is successful suddenly the support of these previous progressive values quickly become support for conservatism because they are the new values.

Hitler wanted to completely throw out German Christian culture and introduce his third Reich. Similar to other self declared socialists of Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao etc who wanted to throw out their traditional countries values and bring in their new socialist utopian values.

They were all progressives then?

Yet in those countries where the socialist madness lasted for a a few decades suddenly they become conservatives because they were successful in moving their Progressive culture to the centre of society. where it became the new values.

Your definitions make no sense and the twisting of logic and history is only so that you can justify in your head that the philosophy actually heroically fighting against slavery was really the philosophy defending it.

I’m sorry Leaf, that is literally insane.
 
Last edited:
There were at least a dozen other republican candidates at the beginning of the election. Trump didn’t even mention abortion at his acceptance speech at the convention.

Every other candidate had prolife pasts.

He said that women should have to go to illegal places to get abortions and be jailed, that even Kellyanne spoke out against it. She then accepted the job to campaign for him.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-super-pac-donald-trump-ads-2016-1

“Donald Trump is not a conservative because he’s extreme on abortion," the narrator in the latter ad declared.

Trump has since changed his position and notes, when asked about the 1999 interview, that former President Ronald Reagan was also once a Democrat.

But Kellyanne Conway, president of Keep the Promise I, the pro-Cruz super PAC, said in a statement that supporting partial-birth abortion should be disqualifying even if a candidate changes his or her position”
 
He portrayed it as an altar, and portrayed it as a dead baby. The baby was naked.

Not dressed. Not cleaned. Not prepared for burial. Not in a coffin.
 
Both nominations have stated that Roe is settled law. Are they lying?
 
Since you are the judge of souls, send him to hell, then.

I didn’t see it. I don’t know what the “altar” was or whether he portrayed it as one. If he did what you say he did, it was a severe misjudgment on his part. Whether it was a sacrilege on his part or not is determined by his intent, which I do not know. Probably would also depend on how it was understood by viewers. But I didn’t see it, so I can’t say for sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top