Stacey Dash defends herself on Twitter after posting 'vote for Romney' message

[Lapey]

We are not Christ. He commissioned no laity to divide. Those who would divide are inviting others to go astray, yet without any authority. Christ will divide with His justice, as He divided believer and non believer.

You do not understand His teachings if this is what you believe. His teachings, which through the Church He implores us to teach in themselve, will divide. Now you are correct in saying He wants unity, but He knows reality. Too many of us humans want to be in charge as Lucifer wanted.

He commissioned all of us to go and make disciples of all nations. So on that simply point you make you are simply wrong. The division does not come from us or the teachings, but from the “hardness” of our hearts. There is one Truth and He is Jesus. Preach His message always, in season and out; do that and division will happen, not because of Him but in spite of Him.

Oh, and we are not Christ!

 

[TimeEntrance]

White racists in the Republican party, I’m sure there are some…

I would say more than “some” and more like a good many or a lot. But I can’t really quantify what a “good many” or “a lot” is.

But I would say - as anecdotal as it may be - from my experience in Wisconsin the more well-to-do “suburbanites” in the surrounding counties of Milwaukee County tend have a greater number of racist Republicans (some of who might be agnostics or atheists) than the much less well-off, rural or small town Republicans.

I’m thinking of the small Wisconsin town of Tomah (population size approx. 5,000) compared to the well-to-do “suburb” of Brookfield in Waukesha County right outside Milwaukee County. The former has some very salt of the earth and charitable Republicans. In fact I’m not the only racial minority (e.g., black, Mexican) to note that the white people in Tomah treat black and Mexican people better than the whites in big cities like Chicago, Houston, or Milwaukee. Actually, they treat black people better than the black people in Milwaukee treat other black people. But this is in a small town where people leave their doors unlocked, and neighbors lift up neighbors, where even strangers are often kind to another stranger down and out.

Brookfield is another matter. They view themselves as the overlords of Milwaukee City and don’t want people from “Milwaukee” (code word for blacks) coming into their town. However, they don’t mind commuting into Milwaukee City to work and draw income from the higher paying executive and professional jobs.

just like there was the longest serving senator in the Democratic party who ran his own KKK Klan . There are bad elements in both parties , that is not a reason to throw up your hands and not vote. Presidents appoint Supreme court judges that can effect your life among other things…

The Democrats in the North (not the past Dixiecrats of the South) still have white racist people in certain professions. Namely, in the construction unions. And I’ve worked among some of them more than once. To be fair, they are ethical, hardworking, in their own way, but they subscribe to the concept of the superiority of white people. But that has essentially become a very small percentage of the Democratic Party that has opened itself up to so many other demographics.

Personal racism in my opinion is more tolerable in that it may not negatively impact you financially or your racial group economically more broadly.

Institutional racism is much more harmful in my opinion. And the policies of gentrification going on throughout many metropolitans of the United States is fueled in part - maybe not in whole - by racism. Compound that with the jobs that have been lost in cities like Milwaukee (now predominately racial minorities in among the generations below Gen X.) and all the billions of dollars of development and jobs being created in suburbs of surrounding counties.

Detroit and Gary, Indiana are examples in my view. Those black populations were as a whole much better off during the 1960’s. The same is true in Milwaukee which during the 1960’s had the highest percentage of employed blacks in the United States.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Cool that Paul Ryan phoned Stacey Dash

 

[markomalley]

I’d never heard of Stacey Dash until this all lit up. I think those that get their political opinions from celebrities should check themselves. What I found interesting here was the REACTION to her endorsement. A friend of mine (pro-Obama) recently sent me a Daily Kos article stating those that oppose Obama are subliminal racists…I sent him the responses to Ms. Dash and asked which was more racist.

I would actually be curious to hear which they said was more racist. I’m honestly not sure which they would claim would be worse.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You do not understand His teachings if this is what you believe. His teachings, which through the Church He implores us to teach in themselve, will divide. Now you are correct in saying He wants unity, but He knows reality. Too many of us humans want to be in charge as Lucifer wanted.

He commissioned all of us to go and make disciples of all nations. So on that simply point you make you are simply wrong. The division does not come from us or the teachings, but from the “hardness” of our hearts. There is one Truth and He is Jesus. Preach His message always, in season and out; do that and division will happen, not because of Him but in spite of Him.

Oh, and we are not Christ!

Making disciples of all nations is inclusive and not exclusive, in that it brings others into the body of Christ and does not find wrongs in members to desire them out.

When reading commissions in the scriptures, we need to read who the audience was. There were times He spoke to the multitudes and other times He spoke ONLY to His Apostles, and none of them were self appointed. Christ’s reality is not left up to just anyone on earth, especially the laity. There is an authoritative Church, in which God set the hierarchy. Yes, the laity has their place in the hierarchy, but it’s at the bottom of the chain of command. We don’t decide who should leave His Church, which is the body of Christ.

This division being ‘preached’ is a division of partisanship. That is strictly secular and of this world. That is not a justifiable cause for one to harden their hearts, and it is the cause of this division. Christ taught to love our enemies, and to do good unto them. We are not discussing enemies, but members of the body of Christ that there is a worldly disagreement among.

Show me any teaching of Christ that teaches the Church not to go after His lost sheep, even a single one of them. He doesn’t. He teaches us to judge not, and to forgive as we want to be forgiven. He teaches against being self righteous and against division. To decide how the body of Christ should be divided is saying, ‘they are not as worthy as I am, and never will be.’

When we accept it is ours to divide, using Christ, we set ourselves up to be judge and there is only one judge, who will judge us all.

Let’s look at His authoritative Church, can you show me where it teaches the laity to divide the body of Christ?

 

[Lapey]

Making disciples of all nations is inclusive and not exclusive, in that it brings others into the body of Christ and does not find wrongs in members to desire them out.

When reading commissions in the scriptures, we need to read who the audience was. There were times He spoke to the multitudes and other times He spoke ONLY to His Apostles, and none of them were self appointed. Christ’s reality is not left up to just anyone on earth, especially the laity. There is an authoritative Church, in which God set the hierarchy. Yes, the laity has their place in the hierarchy, but it’s at the bottom of the chain of command. We don’t decide who should leave His Church, which is the body of Christ.

This division being ‘preached’ is a division of partisanship. That is strictly secular and of this world. That is not a justifiable cause for one to harden their hearts, and it is the cause of this division. Christ taught to love our enemies, and to do good unto them. We are not discussing enemies, but members of the body of Christ that there is a worldly disagreement among.

Show me any teaching of Christ that teaches the Church not to go after His lost sheep, even a single one of them. He doesn’t. He teaches us to judge not, and to forgive as we want to be forgiven. He teaches against being self righteous and against division. To decide how the body of Christ should be divided is saying, ‘they are not as worthy as I am, and never will be.’

When we accept it is ours to divide, using Christ, we set ourselves up to be judge and there is only one judge, who will judge us all.

Let’s look at His authoritative Church, can you show me where it teaches the laity to divide the body of Christ?

You speak in such general and nice words, not a compliment by the way. You have not read nor taken the time to read my words. People do not preach division, people who do not want to hear and comply with Truth decide to leave.

The reason many leave is they have been left to wallow in their sin, they have not been held to account for it, at least not yet. Jesus did not tell the “woman at the well” to be a nice person and treat people good; He told her to go and sin no more.

What do you think it means in the Gospel where Jesus says he leaves the 99 to go get the one who is lost? You can find that in John 6. Only 12 stayed, he didn’t call the others back to say, “that’s not what I meant, you misunderstand, please come back.” No, He let them leave, and many went back to their old ways.

I preached at three Masses this weekend and was probably one of the toughest homilies I’ve ever preached, because I preached on the “hardness of our hearts” which allows us to disobey God’s Church. I preached the truth about all the easy topics, true meaning of marriage, abortion, contraception ABC, divorce, with a particular emphasis on birth control use and abortion as these are tied together completely.

Not a one negative comment, mostly very humble thank yours. Even had a couple of women in child bearing years private message me on face book to thank me for telling them what they were doing was wrong, and that they have never heard it from the pulpit before.

This is what people need, not nice, they need truth; if we Catholics do not give Truth we will be of no use but to be trampled under foot. Some will reject the Truth, one man walked out during my homily. Should I have stopped telling the truth to go get him and make him feel better about his sin? God will provide that opportunity for me to talk with him, but I will not stray from the truth, that would do no good.

If you take truth as something that is divisive, so did Jesus, not because He wanted division, but because He knew hard hearted people would not want to change. We must allow Him to change our stony hearts to fleshy ones. Changing the Truth will not change hearts, only He is Truth, and Truth lives on!

The black community devours whoever goes against the common message. The common message is the democrat party. This young lady is very brave to publically go against the grain. We need to pray for her, and people like her speaking against the grain because of truth.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You speak in such general and nice words, not a compliment by the way. You have not read nor taken the time to read my words. People do not preach division, people who do not want to hear and comply with Truth decide to leave.

In this instance, people are dividing because of politics. The ‘truth’, small ‘t’, is not His truth, but a supposed truth of man over secular matters.

The reason many leave is they have been left to wallow in their sin, they have not been held to account for it, at least not yet. Jesus did not tell the “woman at the well” to be a nice person and treat people good; He told her to go and sin no more.

What do you think it means in the Gospel where Jesus says he leaves the 99 to go get the one who is lost? You can find that in John 6. Only 12 stayed, he didn’t call the others back to say, “that’s not what I meant, you misunderstand, please come back.” No, He let them leave, and many went back to their old ways.

I have not denied His right to divide according to His authority. I have, however, asked you to provide where the laity gets authority to divide. We are not Christ and do not have His authority to divide.

I preached at three Masses this weekend and was probably one of the toughest homilies I’ve ever preached, because I preached on the “hardness of our hearts” which allows us to disobey God’s Church. I preached the truth about all the easy topics, true meaning of marriage, abortion, contraception ABC, divorce, with a particular emphasis on birth control use and abortion as these are tied together completely.

Not a one negative comment, mostly very humble thank yours. Even had a couple of women in child bearing years private message me on face book to thank me for telling them what they were doing was wrong, and that they have never heard it from the pulpit before.

This is what people need, not nice, they need truth; if we Catholics do not give Truth we will be of no use but to be trampled under foot. Some will reject the Truth, one man walked out during my homily. Should I have stopped telling the truth to go get him and make him feel better about his sin? God will provide that opportunity for me to talk with him, but I will not stray from the truth, that would do no good.

If you take truth as something that is divisive, so did Jesus, not because He wanted division, but because He knew hard hearted people would not want to change. We must allow Him to change our stony hearts to fleshy ones. Changing the Truth will not change hearts, only He is Truth, and Truth lives on!

The black community devours whoever goes against the common message. The common message is the democrat party. This young lady is very brave to publically go against the grain. We need to pray for her, and people like her speaking against the grain because of truth.

Show me plain and simple where the Church teaches to divide based on politics, or race for that matter. You take an example and apply it to all democrats as a common message. Is that what we’re to do? Recently a republican referred to slavery as ‘blessing in disguise’. Can this be applied to all republicans, or to republicans in general? No, and I would never take that leap in the interests of politics.

This is the ‘truth’ that is dividing, and you refer to as His.

Again, show me where the authoritative Church teaches that men must divide, or should divide.

The subjects you used in your homilies were Church teachings. Politics is not so defined as one is evil and this is good by the Church.

 

[johnnyjones]

Racism is not restricted to a particular political party. A past grand wizard was democrat; however, in 1989, he found the republican party more closely matched his views. Does this implicate the entire party? No. Just as a longest serving senator in the democratic party does not represent an entire party. This is despite some insinuations that would rather prove otherwise.

Since Roe vs. Wade, the majority of supreme court justices were appointed by republicans. In fact, even with the two appointments by the current administration, the majority of serving justices were appointed by republicans. It’s hard to make the ‘one more justice’ argument have value knowing this.

You seem to be foaming at the mouth ready to type the next couple of words without even reading a post.

What does my post say? “There are bad elements in both parties.” Read it over if you have to.

 

[Lapey]

In this instance, people are dividing because of politics. The ‘truth’, small ‘t’, is not His truth, but a supposed truth of man over secular matters.

I have not denied His right to divide according to His authority. I have, however, asked you to provide where the laity gets authority to divide. We are not Christ and do not have His authority to divide.

Show me plain and simple where the Church teaches to divide based on politics, or race for that matter. You take an example and apply it to all democrats as a common message. Is that what we’re to do? Recently a republican referred to slavery as ‘blessing in disguise’. Can this be applied to all republicans, or to republicans in general? No, and I would never take that leap in the interests of politics.

This is the ‘truth’ that is dividing, and you refer to as His.

Again, show me where the authoritative Church teaches that men must divide, or should divide.

The subjects you used in your homilies were Church teachings. Politics is not so defined as one is evil and this is good by the Church.

You seem to dismiss any talk of topics like these hot button items as politics. Issues ae Chuch matters, and matters of truth that cannot be seperated. This is why we are so divided.

 

[jilly4ski]

That’s all a gross oversimplification in my opinion. For one, I voted for George Bush Jr. and abortion remained legal and abortion remains legal. Not to mention he brought a holocaust to the Iraqi civilization. I don’t know the exact figures on the number of Iraqi men that have been killed in the combined U.S. wars on Iraq but I’ll hazard a guess it tops over 100,000. I suspect the number of child deaths and even miscarriages resulting from those frightening, high technologically explosive wars were pretty many too.

That administration wanted to nuclearize outer-space too - in a belligerent violation of an internationally signed treaty stating not to arm outer-space as it is the patrimony of all humanity.

Voting for a anti-abortion but pro-nuclear apocalyptic candidate is no profound choice or moral righteousness.

Democracy in the United States is largely an illusion anyways. The whole show is engineered and rigged. I suspect that democracy can only be kept pure if a population never exceeds a certain size. What size that I don’t know but I suspect it’s far smaller than 300 million people. In a more pure democracy we are all acquaintances of the candidates and of those that are elected representatives. Neither Romney nor Obama knows I exist. However they rose they dis so through powerful circles so far removed from mine that I might as well be living in Pakistan.

And it does not logically follow that rape, murder, or abortion has to be outlawed otherwise I either make a person commit those evils or I fail to stop them from committing those evils if I don’t vote. That does not logically follow.

I would argue that a minority voting to change Sodom will not cause Sodom to change. Sodom itself - the majority (in their hearts and minds) have to change.

This is a gross oversimplification of how our government works. George W. Bush did sign a partial birth abortion ban, an appointed judges who are likely to overturn Roe v. Wade if it comes up in their tenure. Neither the president nor the congress can ban abortion now that Roe is in place, the SC first has to overturn Roe.

 

[Flapinux]

Are you saying the double standard is that someone who supported the Democratic ticket for president would be attacked on this webpage?

If that is the case, I would first hope that good Christian people don’t simply attack others for having a different opinion, but I would expect others on the forum to respectfully challenge the basis for that support in this case.

At the Democratic convention this year-- when the Democratic Party took the word “God” out of and put taxpayer funded abortion into their official party platform, I would expect everyone of right conscience to reject that party or at least expect to explain why they are unwilling to do so (especially when posting that opinion on an obviously religious forum).

Actually, anyone with the right conscious should support that. The reason the wall between church & state exists is to prevent government from corrupting religion & to prevent a state-enforced religion to have legal authority over those with different beliefs. Read this & see what you think about keeping vigilant here: icujp.org/pdf/06.12.06_churchState_rohde.pdf

 

[qui_est_ce]

You speak in such general and nice words, not a compliment by the way. You have not read nor taken the time to read my words. People do not preach division, people who do not want to hear and comply with Truth decide to leave.

The reason many leave is they have been left to wallow in their sin, they have not been held to account for it, at least not yet. Jesus did not tell the “woman at the well” to be a nice person and treat people good; He told her to go and sin no more.

What do you think it means in the Gospel where Jesus says he leaves the 99 to go get the one who is lost? You can find that in John 6. Only 12 stayed, he didn’t call the others back to say, “that’s not what I meant, you misunderstand, please come back.” No, He let them leave, and many went back to their old ways.

I preached at three Masses this weekend and was probably one of the toughest homilies I’ve ever preached, because I preached on the “hardness of our hearts” which allows us to disobey God’s Church. I preached the truth about all the easy topics, true meaning of marriage, abortion, contraception ABC, divorce, with a particular emphasis on birth control use and abortion as these are tied together completely.

Not a one negative comment, mostly very humble thank yours. Even had a couple of women in child bearing years private message me on face book to thank me for telling them what they were doing was wrong, and that they have never heard it from the pulpit before.

This is what people need, not nice, they need truth; if we Catholics do not give Truth we will be of no use but to be trampled under foot. Some will reject the Truth, one man walked out during my homily. Should I have stopped telling the truth to go get him and make him feel better about his sin? God will provide that opportunity for me to talk with him, but I will not stray from the truth, that would do no good.

If you take truth as something that is divisive, so did Jesus, not because He wanted division, but because He knew hard hearted people would not want to change. We must allow Him to change our stony hearts to fleshy ones. Changing the Truth will not change hearts, only He is Truth, and Truth lives on!

The black community devours whoever goes against the common message. The common message is the democrat party. This young lady is very brave to publically go against the grain. We need to pray for her, and people like her speaking against the grain because of truth.

Bless you Deacon! Our priest preached the very hard homily as well. It came straight from the Holy Spirit and Scripture. You could have heard a pin drop. I wanted to applaud him at the end.

 

[austenbosten]

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You seem to be foaming at the mouth ready to type the next couple of words without even reading a post.

What does my post say? “There are bad elements in both parties.” Read it over if you have to.

There’s no foaming here, sorry if you take it that way.

I saw that you post said both parties and noticed you only attributed a KKK member to the democratic party, so I provided an example from the other party.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You seem to dismiss any talk of topics like these hot button items as politics. Issues ae Chuch matters, and matters of truth that cannot be seperated. This is why we are so divided.

I see the division more from partisans views.

 

[estesbob]

I see the division more from partisans views.

I see the division more from those who adhere to the teachings of the Church and those who don’t.

 

[Lapey]

I see the division more from partisans views.

I understand this and agree in a way, but remember when a person preaches the Gospel, and holds true to the teachings and division comes; that is not partisanship it is preaching truth. Jesus preached the Gospel, not partisanship.

I’ve said this many times here, we have to learn that topics like abortion and the like need to be addressed completely in line with Church doctrine without a D or an R or partisanship; same goes for the listener.

In other words, I I as a member of the clergy preach a homily on these topics, please don’t lump me into the “he’s a partisan” argument, that’s not fair. Just like this young lady who spoke her piece and has been trounced because of it, sad. The attackers are the partisans.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I see the division more from those who adhere to the teachings of the Church and those who don’t.

That’s according to your opinion. You said earlier that I misstated Church teachings and I asked for examples, but haven’t seen those yet. Maybe you can point it out the next time I provide a source and misstate it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I understand this and agree in a way, but remember when a person preaches the Gospel, and holds true to the teachings and division comes; that is not partisanship it is preaching truth. Jesus preached the Gospel, not partisanship.

I’ve said this many times here, we have to learn that topics like abortion and the like need to be addressed completely in line with Church doctrine without a D or an R or partisanship; same goes for the listener.

In other words, I I as a member of the clergy preach a homily on these topics, please don’t lump me into the “he’s a partisan” argument, that’s not fair. Just like this young lady who spoke her piece and has been trounced because of it, sad. The attackers are the partisans.

We can agree; however, coming through this thread it seems fairly evident that the division is politics. It’s clear when we see an entire party associated with a wrong that has been done. There are wrongful attacks from both sides, and these kind of actions are not ‘common’ for a single side.

God is not political and neither is the Church.

 

[estesbob]

We can agree; however, coming through this thread it seems fairly evident that the division is politics. It’s clear when we see an entire party associated with a wrong that has been done. There are wrongful attacks from both sides, and these kind of actions are not ‘common’ for a single side.

God is not political and neither is the Church.

The division is political only to the extent one of the political parties has completely wedded themselves to the culture of death.The divisions come about when members of this political party try and claim that one can be catholic and support its presidential candidate.