Supreme court nominees

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kmcicco2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
And still we both have the liberty to express our understandings of Catholicity.
Click to expand...
You have the liberty to say whatever you wish. You do not have the authority to define Catholicism.
Click to expand...
I have every authority to state what I believe the definition of Catholicism is. That authority comes in my inherent right to free speech and religious free exercise.
 
Ender said:
The Anita Hill case is a perfect example: an accusation brought without a shred of corroborating evidence. At least Hill went before the committee. We’ll find out later today if Ford even goes that far.
Click to expand...
Or if she even exists. Has anyone seen her? She can’t be a public figure.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
I have every authority to state what I believe the definition of Catholicism is
Click to expand...
You have every liberty to state what you think, but your thinking is not authoritative.
Click to expand...
And your thinking that my thinking is not authoritative is not authoritative.
So, we are two anonymous posters stating our views. Whether or not we think each other’s views are authoritative is quite irrelevant.

Many progressives hold certain authoritative Catholic /Christian teachings in contempt. That’s not me stating Catholicity with authority of my own. It’s just stating the obvious.
 
JonNC said:
And your thinking that my thinking is not authoritative is not authoritative.
Click to expand...
My thinking is aligned with the reality of the structure of the Catholic Church. You have no authority to define what theological beliefs one has to profess, or moral perspective one has to affirm, or actions one has to take outside of what is established for all by the Church. if you were to speak out of alignment, then you are wrong. If you were to speak in alignment, then the authority behind the statement is not yours, but the authority of the Church.
 
Again, I have taken the position of “wait & see”, whereas some here have already drawn judgment, which I refuse to do. Therefore, I don’t have a problem with my conscience on this.
 
dvdjs said:
My thinking is aligned with the reality of the structure of the Catholic Church. You have no authority to define what theological beliefs one has to profess, or moral perspective one has to affirm, or actions one has to take outside of what is established for all by the Church. if you were to speak out of alignment, then you are wrong. If you were to speak in alignment, then the authority behind the statement is not yours, but the authority of the Church.
Click to expand...
But the Democrat party which is being defended certainly is not in alignment with the Church and upholds real evils as said by the Church. Oh, well, I guess that doesn’t count.
 
Victoria33 said:
But the Democrat party which is being defended
Click to expand...
Charges have been leveled on Kavanaugh threads against individual Catholics. That is inappropriate.
There has also been a charge of the Democratic Party being anti-Catholic. That charge is nonsesnical.
 
Last edited:
No need to be insulting.

Actually, I see that Lipinski only has a 66% prolife voting record as rated by NRLC. Even so, apparently he’s too prolife for his party, which refuses to support him.

Sen. Donnelly has a better record, but still not 100%

The only Dem in congress with a 100% prolife voting record is Colin Peterson of Minnesota.

Lots of Repubs do, of course.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Actually, I see that Lipinski only has a 66% prolife voting record as rated by NRLC. Even so, apparently he’s too prolife for his party, which refuses to support him.
Sen. Donnelly has a better record, but still not 100%
The only Dem in congress with a 100% prolife voting record is Colin Peterson of Minnesota.
Click to expand...
I am glad that you have improved your awareness of prolife Democrats in Congress.

And, as we have discussed already in two other threads, you are dead wrong about the party not supporting Lipinski.
 
Last edited:
By one person, yes. So I think we can now say “With the sole exception of congressman Colin Peterson, no Dems in congress are prolife”
dvdjs said:
I am glad that you have improved your awareness of prolife Democrats in Congress.
Click to expand...
 
Well then stay away from
Illinois where a Republican governor just signed a bill that provides free abortions. And won the primary.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Actually, I see that Lipinski only has a 66% prolife voting record as rated by NRLC. Even so, apparently he’s too prolife for his party, which refuses to support him.
Click to expand...
Have you compared that record with some of the Republicans in the state?
 
The Dems are antinCatholic,Christian,life and everything that we as Americans valie and hold dear.To defend them and even identify with them in the slightest way ,as a Carholic is very very concerning
 
Last edited:
Jeanne_S said:
The Dems are antinCatholic,Christian,life and everything that we as Americans valie and hold dear.To defend them and even identify with them in the slightest way ,as a Carholic is very very concerning
Click to expand...
That is quite a claim. But then, you must be very very concerned about at least half, and probably a solid majority of of Catholics. What does that tell you?
 
Last edited:
That at least half or a solid portion of Catholics are sorely misguided that’s what I think
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top