John Edwards Tolerates Anti-catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To show how bad this really is, go to www.catholicleague.org then go to the news release titled: John Edwards Hires Two Anti-Catholics. Read all of it. This cannot be simply dismissed! This is so disturbing. It is being discussed in the Secular News thread.🙂
 
There’s no political downside for Edwards.

Democrats already don’t care a fig about the religious vote; the base is mostly anti-Christian anyway, so it won’t hurt him in the primaries.

In the general election, in the unlikely event he actually wins the nomination, he’ll still win the bulk of the Catholic vote because liberal politics trumps Church teaching.
 
hoosiertoo said:
In the general election, in the unlikely event he actually wins the nomination, he’ll still win the bulk of the Catholic vote because liberal politics trumps Church teaching.
Click to expand...
That thought makes me sick to my stomach and also this:banghead:
 
Are there any Democrats that are running for president that are opposed to murdering babies?

How can anyone vote for an advocate of murdering babies and face Jesus?

Do Catholics that support the murderers of babies and vote for them excommunicate themselves?
 
Don’t worry about Edwards…he said taxes need to be raised. He’s definitely already knocked himself out.
 
So far, there are no Democratic candidates that are worth looking at. On the Republican side, there are a couple, but they are not considered front runners.
 
At last Bill Donohue finds a worthy target for his bluster. Let’s hope he is able to keep this issue alive.
 
Fun Fact:

The political fall-out over anti-Catholicism decided the Presidential Elections of 1884. After Republican Candidate William Blaine refused to repudiate anti-Catholic remarks made by his supporters, immigrant Catholics double-rallied around Grover Cleveland.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Are there any Democrats that are running for president that are opposed to murdering babies?

How can anyone vote for an advocate of murdering babies and face Jesus?

Do Catholics that support the murderers of babies and vote for them excommunicate themselves?
Click to expand...
Ratzinger (when he was cardinal) said something like it was permissible to vote for a pro-choice candidate as long as (1) it was not the reason for voting for him/her and (2) there was some proportionate reason for doing so, i.e. the other candidate advocates something just as evil or more evil than abortion.

Thats not how the media presented his comments. They just said that “Ratzinger gives the thumbs up to pro-choice candidates”–misrepresenting his position.

I don’t think issues such as health care or the economy are proportionate reasons. Genocide or slavery would be more like a proportionate evil to abortion–something that is a deliberate attack on innocent human life and offends the dignity of the human person.

Its a shame that abortion has to be a republican/democrat thing. Well when you have two candidates and one advocates killing innocent human beings while still in the womb, what choice do I have?

It will be something if Guilani (pro-choice) wins the Republic nomination. Then you will have two pro-choice candidates. I would probably vote for a 3rd party pro-life candidate, considering this election a loss and sending a message to the republicans that they cant have a pro-choice nominee.

As far as the OP goes, the Edwards thing is a disgrace. If those bloggers had said anything about Jews or Muslims, they would have been fired. What they actually said was completely vile. This is just another example of how a double-standard exists when it comes to anti-Catholicism.
 
yugnok said:
. . .
It will be something if Guilani (pro-choice) wins the Republic nomination. Then you will have two pro-choice candidates. I would probably vote for a 3rd party pro-life candidate, considering this election a loss and sending a message to the republicans that they cant have a pro-choice nominee.
. . …
Click to expand...
1 Samuel 13:7-15
Saul, however, held out at Gilgal, although all his followers were seized with fear.8 He waited seven days–the time Samuel had determined. When Samuel did not arrive at Gilgal, the men began to slip away from Saul.9 He then said, “Bring me the holocaust and peace offerings,” and he offered up the holocaust.10 He had just finished this offering when Samuel arrived. Saul went out to greet him,11 and Samuel asked him, “What have you done?” Saul replied: "When I saw that the men were slipping away from me, since you had not come by the specified time, and with the Philistines assembled at Michmash,12 I said to myself, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not yet sought the LORD’S blessing.’ So in my anxiety I offered up the holocaust."13 Samuel’s response was: “You have been foolish! Had you kept the command the LORD your God gave you, the LORD would now establish your kingship in Israel as lasting;14 but as things are, your kingdom shall not endure. The LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and has appointed him commander of his people, because you broke the LORD’S command.”
Click to expand...
God asks us to be faithful. He’ll take care of the victory.
 
WanderAimlessly said:
So far, there are no Democratic candidates that are worth looking at. On the Republican side, there are a couple, but they are not considered front runners.
Click to expand...
Nobody’s a front runner right now. It’s way to early to speaking seriously of who’s a front runner, especially given the media lovefest about the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
In view of the recent interviews with Archbishops Wuerl and Niederauer re Nancy Perlosi’s stand on abortion, I doubt that any candidate is going to worry much about offending Catholics. They can always promise to dialogue sometime.
 
Either Guilani, Clinton or Obama will be the next president–all support abortion–our nation will one day be judged for following Satan.

Lord have mercy on us!
 
It appears that one of the bloggers was at it again today. The following is an excerpt from the Catholic Leagues website:

One of the two women who got John Edwards into hot water by making vulgar anti-Christian comments has struck again. Yesterday, Amanda Marcotte reviewed a movie, “Children of Men,” on the blogsite Pandagon.

“The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal,” she said, “where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels.”
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Either Guilani, Clinton or Obama will be the next president–all support abortion–our nation will one day be judged for following Satan.
Click to expand...
Not a one of the people you’ve named will get the nomination from either party. The Republican Party will not nominate an openly pro-abortion candidate. Barack Obama is little more than the political equivalent of a fad. Senator Clinton has way too much baggage, what with her being an integral part of the most corrupt presidential administration in U.S. history.

The serious contenders for the presidency have yet to announce their candidancies.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
One down, one to go 👍
Campaign Blogger for John Edwards Quits After Outage Over ‘Anti-Catholic’ Comments

Tuesday , February 13, 2007
RALEIGH, N.C. — One of the chief campaign bloggers for Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards quit Monday after conservative critics raised questions about her history of provocative online messages.
Click to expand...
Amanda Marcotte posted on her personal blog, Pandagon, that the criticism “was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign.” Marcotte said she resigned from her position Monday, and that her resignation was accepted by the campaign.

Full Story
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top