Republican convention

  • Thread starter Thread starter bellasbane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Started a thread on this a couple hours ago. Glad this ones getting some attention šŸ™‚

God bless.

-Paul
 
Dolanā€™s spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, said the cardinal told both the Republican and Democratic parties that he would accept any invitation to offer a prayer at their conventions.
Click to expand...
ā€œItā€™s not an endorsement,ā€ Zwilling said of the RNC benediction. ā€œItā€™s as a priest going to pray.ā€
Click to expand...
Interesting to see if the DNC will extend an invitation.
 
An article I read suggested this is a strategy by Cardinal Dolan to bring the HHS/religious freedom debate front and center. I imagine he wants to address the Democrats @ their convention. He invited Pres. Obama to his big party (Al Smith dinner) so will Pres. O invite the cardinal to his big party? He is not afraid of the platform for this debate.
 
MJE said:
Maybe the Rev. Al Sharpton or Rev.Jeremiah Wright will lead the Democrats in prayer? šŸ˜ƒ
Click to expand...
Perhaps a transgendered wiccan could cover enough bases for them. It might get them four or five votes. They donā€™t seem to care about more than 60,000,000 Catholics with their platform. President Obama has said many times he was not good at math.
 
I hope he mentiones in his benediction that doesnā€™t endorse Romney that Mormonism is a cult and is not christian either and that Joe Smith is almost certainly in hell with Bin Laden, Mohammed and Hitler. šŸ‘

Seriously though that would be hilarious.
ā€˜there may be reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney as president of the United States, that heā€™s a Mormon cannot be one of them.ā€™"
Click to expand...
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Not I. šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
Except he offered the invitation to both parties. Honestly, people on these threads are too conservatives verse liberals itā€™s almost disheartening.

It seems we are constantly suspicious of our Church leaders, and think of them as corrupt politicians and the modern apostles of the faith.

Can we please have more faith in our cardinals.
 
It seems we are constantly suspicious of our Church leaders, and think of them as corrupt politicians and the modern apostles of the faith.
Click to expand...
I think Dolan got burned by Obama with the whole HHS thing. But he is a very political Cardinal and there are times where that can get in the way of the faith. For example, instead of focusing on overturning the health care mandate, why not focus on catechesis so that all catholics will not use contraceptives. I think in some ways Obama is doing some good by showing how hypocritical we catholics are when the majority of catholics use contraceptives.

Maybe Obama wouldnā€™t have pushed for contraceptive coverage if we all lived our faith. Unfortuntately I havenā€™t heard it much from the pulpit.
 
Pork_Roll said:
I think Dolan got burned by Obama with the whole HHS thing. But he is a very political Cardinal and there are times where that can get in the way of the faith. For example, instead of focusing on overturning the health care mandate, why not focus on catechesis so that all catholics will not use contraceptives. I think in some ways Obama is doing some good by showing how hypocritical we catholics are when the majority of catholics use contraceptives.

Maybe Obama wouldnā€™t have pushed for contraceptive coverage if we all lived our faith. Unfortuntately I havenā€™t heard it much from the pulpit.
Click to expand...
I agree, when I first started RCIA I was shocked by how the views I formed about the Catholic Church seemed to be more Orthodox than a lot of Catholics I knew.

The lack of good catechesis and the failure to communicate the tradition of the faith to the people has turned away a lot of good people, including my father.

EDIT: But thatā€™s not to say that we shouldnā€™t have faith that our Bishops, and Cardinals. Though Dolan is highly political I think heā€™s going about ti more correctly than most.

He offered this invitation to both the democrats and the republicans, and it shows that he is trying to stay bi-partisan.
 
Good for Cardinal Dolan. I think he honestly wants both parties to hear his message and unfortunately the Democrats arenā€™t willing to listen. Honestly, if the Democrats are for all of this freedom and tolerance, let Cardinal Dolan give the blessing at your convention. Unfortunately the democrats probably think Dolan would convince Catholic Democrats to switch sides
 
Wonder if it include a proclamation of the importance of protecting the unborn, religious liberty and marriage between one man and one woman
 
He_Man said:
If my name was Todd Akin, you might have a point.

Show me where this mindset that offends you occurs outside the snippet he gave and we can talk. The reason this is a news story is because it ISNā€™T commonplace.
Click to expand...
Really? Then how come over 200 politicians voted for a bill that included the language ā€˜forcible rapeā€™? Did they not read the bill?
 
seekerz said:
Really? Then how come over 200 politicians voted for a bill that included the language ā€˜forcible rapeā€™? Did they not read the bill?
Click to expand...
What bill do you speak of? For the bill most point the finger at, that language was changed before the bill was actually voted on.

What ever happened to that bill, anyway?
 
bellasbane said:
Failing to include language that makes an exception for the life of the mother (as the Catholic Church and Paul Ryan both do) on their platform leaves the GOP open to the valid criticism that the GOP is anti-women, which I believe hurts the pro-life cause.
Click to expand...
I believe it has been massively hurt these last few days because Akinsā€™ comments are being used to paint those who oppose post-rape abortion as uncaring extremists. It bothers me that supposedly pro-life politicians now seem ashamed to say clearly and succintly that they oppose post-rape abortion.

This just underlines the need for all who claim to speak for the pro-life movement to radiate respect for women ***without ***seeking to water down the basic message of respect for unborn life in ALL circumstances. People tend not to respond positively to messages from those who do not respect them. The unfortunate name-calling, the disproportionate attention given to legal barriers over campaigns of persuasion, and the tendency to overlook causal factors which impact the decision to abortā€¦all of these are now being used to paint the movement as fixated on babies to the exclusion to the women who carry them

ā€œSo whatā€, some of my pro-life friend may say, ā€œthis is not about our popularity, this is about saving babiesā€. How can they not see that there is an inextricable link between the two?
 
scipio337 said:
What bill do you speak of? For the bill most point the finger at, that language was changed before the bill was actually voted on.

What ever happened to that bill, anyway?
Click to expand...
My mistake, the language was changed. That the original language was used to begin with and did not seem offensive to its proponents is troubling though.
 
bellasbane said:
I donā€™t see how failing to protect the lives of innocent women is in any way closer to Church teaching than failing to protect the lives of innocent children. I believe we need to affirm the rights of both.
Click to expand...
šŸ‘
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
You have to be born before you can have rights/benefits.

And to be quite honest, I tire of hearing/reading about ā€œrightsā€ of groups. How about rights as Americans?
Click to expand...
:confused: Rights as Americans? What does that mean? The Church has always held that the rights of both mother and baby must be protected. I sure hope it NEVER gets tired of saying that.
 
seekerz said:
My mistake, the language was changed. That the original language was used to begin with and did not seem offensive to its proponents is troubling though.
Click to expand...
Thatā€™s because (like Akinā€™s comment) there was no conspiracy to demean or dismiss non-violent rapes.

Some cried foul about the language, and are still crying foul after the language was changed before it was voted on in the House.

Yes, a this nefarious bill made the Hyde Amendment a permanent part of federal funding, and provide conscience protections was passed in the House.

You can read the FINAL version of the bill here:

govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3/text

Seeing that 175 Democrats voted AGAINST said bill with the updated language (but hey, 16 Democrats voted for it), and it is currently blocked from vote in the Senate, perhaps you can tell us what is so bad about the actual final version of the bill, or rationalize voting against it.

clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll292.xml

Weā€™ve seen the ā€œRepublicans arenā€™t really pro-life!ā€ charge SOOOO many times, Iā€™ve become immune to it, but even when funding limits for abortion are voted on, Democrats oppose it at every turn (and their supporters conveniently ignore).

Can you explain why?

You find the original language that wasnā€™t even voting on ā€œtroublingā€, but the fact that a vast majority of Democrats voted against the final version, and the fact that Democrats are blocking this bill in the Senate = ā€œmehā€???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top