John Edwards Tolerates Anti-catholicism

[mdgspencer]

In fact it can be suicidal for a candidate to offend the Catholic vote. Catholics are a sizeable proportion of the population, and some elections are close. If ten or twenty million people (only part of the Catholic population) vote against you only because of such a thing, the person could be wiped out in the election because of it. For this reason, I am surprised that this candidate is proceeding in this way. Needlessly offending so many voters is self-destructive.

 

[KatieD]

Can you imagine if these comments were made about any other group? The press would be going nuts - we have heard very little about this in most of the media. Not surprising.

 

[lucybeebee]

I wonder if these “progressive” bloggers realize that the vast majority of blacks in this country are Christian (in the “Mere Christianity” sense) and there are at least 2 million black Catholics. This is particularly important, given the fact that black churches, both Catholic and Protestant, are key in get out the votes campaigns. The older, churchgoing demographic is also the most likely to vote. The message I’m getting from the Democrats is, “We don’t even have to earn your vote (i.e., the black vote), so we’re just going to insult your religion because we know you’d never vote Republican.” I wonder if they would do such a thing if, say, Francis Cardinal Arinze had been pope rather than Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Probably, since they would seen Cardinal Arinze as just another one of those “backward Africans” who has yet to be enlightened by Western decadence.

 

[Chickamauga]

I wonder if these “progressive” bloggers realize that the vast majority of blacks in this country are Christian (in the “Mere Christianity” sense) and there are at least 2 million black Catholics. This is particularly important, given the fact that black churches, both Catholic and Protestant, are key in get out the votes campaigns. The older, churchgoing demographic is also the most likely to vote. The message I’m getting from the Democrats is, “We don’t even have to earn your vote (i.e., the black vote), so we’re just going to insult your religion because we know you’d never vote Republican.” I wonder if they would do such a thing if, say, Francis Cardinal Arinze had been pope rather than Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Probably, since they would seen Cardinal Arinze as just another one of those “backward Africans” who has yet to be enlightened by Western decadence.

You raise an interesing and very important point and it leads me to ask a question: How many Catholics are there in the world total and of these how many are “non-western,” e.i., non-white? I suspect that the majority of the world’s Catholics are people of color. “Progressives” who would normally speak in respectful tones about “minority” races and their interests seem to spend an innordinate amount of time and energy bashing Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular which has millions of non-white followers. Are they trying to tell us that all these people with whom they feel empathy are either stupid or being duped by Christian Catholicism? If so then there indeed is a subtle racism behind the anti-Catholic bleetings of the so-called “progressives.”

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Most Catholics are ashamed of their Catholicism–that’s why they vote for candidates and parties that advocate abortion and homosexual marriage.

Those candidates wouldn’t win if Catholics would just vote Catholic!

The protestant religious right isn’t electing those people to office–Catholics are!

 

[rascal_one]

In fact it can be suicidal for a candidate to offend the Catholic vote. Catholics are a sizeable proportion of the population, and some elections are close. If ten or twenty million people (only part of the Catholic population) vote against you only because of such a thing, the person could be wiped out in the election because of it. For this reason, I am surprised that this candidate is proceeding in this way. Needlessly offending so many voters is self-destructive.

I disagree - Catholics are derided all the time without consequence. Edwards knows that. Catholics are not high up on the hierachy of minorites - gays and illegals are much higher up on the totem pole - just as Hardaway…

 

[Riley259]

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.

The secular progressives are out of control and they have been even more enboldened by the recent Democratic takeover of Congress. Hang on, it’s going to be a rough ride for awhile.

 

[Whalljim]

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

sigh. Any reasonable amount of research by the press would show that up. The fact that they don’t do it makes me seriously question the other things that they bring to light.

"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."

I usually end up voting Republican due to life issues. I have voted Democrat in the past, when they are pro-life. I don’t have anything against the Dems per se, but rather their stances on things.

So if Rudy ends up being the Nominee, I’ll likely vote 3rd party. I won’t vote for him in the primary. I won’t mention a Dem possibility because the Dems aren’t going to nominate a pro-life candidate.