Are democrat "Catholics" as religious as Evangelicals regarding their politics?

[kyzr]

The short answer is NO, especially regarding "Catholics" like Chris Matthews and Tom Daschle who are unapologetically pro-choice.
Catholic Lite for Chris Matthews - Featured Today - Catholic Online
"Yet, if Mr. Matthews wants to advance his liberal agenda, then that is his right. But he does not have the right to present himself in a public forum as a "Catholic." Public figures who profess to be Catholics have a duty to bear witness to the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church. This also holds true especially if they have positions of prominence in the media or in government..."

"...An individual's religious beliefs goes to the very core of his moral character. The attempt by liberal Catholics to separate their private and public lives by insisting that the Church's teachings will not affect their positions on hot-button social issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality shows that they do not take the basic tenets of their faith seriously. It is an attempt to bow to the fashions of our secular age, while still claiming membership in the church. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too."

So my challenge to democrat "Catholics" is to say that when the progressive liberals demand litmus tests regarding abortion, you can be pro-choice, but then you can't be Catholic. So when the progressives demonize only Evangelicals, and then let Catholics skate because they say they are pro-choice, that's incorrect. The progressives should say that "Evangelicals and Catholics" have similar "unacceptable/intolerant" views and are unwelcome as democrats.

How do you define “religious “? Going to church on Sunday’s ? No liberals don’t do that . They DO act more like Jesus than hate filled Republicans and phones gop “Christians “.

Generally true that Christians give to charity and go to church, for argument's sake call that "religious".
That said, we don't want to get robbed by extreme taxes that go to people and policies that we object to.
We're more self-reliant and don't want to reward stupid lazy people for bad behavior.

Giving to church is not giving to charity . Especially when many religions require tithing .

Agreed. Most give to both.

 

[Penelope]

Matthew 7:5

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Not sure what you're going for, but it's not what this thread is about. On another thread they were trying to beat up on Evangelicals. I was wondering why the democrat "Catholics" like Chris Matthews seem to be getting a pass from the progressives?
Shouldn't the democrats be opposing Catholics for intolerance the same as Evangelicals? Tulsi Gabbard takes offense at the grilling of Catholic nominees.
Tulsi Gabbard blasts Hawaii Democratic colleague over questioning of Catholic judicial nominee
Do Catholic votes matter to dems? Should the dems give the Catholics a pass on being pro-life? What happens when RBG "retires" and Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett from Notre Dame to the USSC?

She won't retire this year, and Trump will not win the second time. So do not worry.

 

[Penelope]

Matthew 7:5

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Not sure what you're going for, but it's not what this thread is about. On another thread they were trying to beat up on Evangelicals. I was wondering why the democrat "Catholics" like Chris Matthews seem to be getting a pass from the progressives?
Shouldn't the democrats be opposing Catholics for intolerance the same as Evangelicals? Tulsi Gabbard takes offense at the grilling of Catholic nominees.
Tulsi Gabbard blasts Hawaii Democratic colleague over questioning of Catholic judicial nominee
Do Catholic votes matter to dems? Should the dems give the Catholics a pass on being pro-life? What happens when RBG "retires" and Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett from Notre Dame to the USSC?

Quite a lot of Catholics are far left. Including the priests.

I had a Catholic aunt who was a marxist. She ran with the Berrigan brothers and hippies half her age, breaking into city halls and burning draft cards.

She once climbed over the fence at Andrews Air Force Base (where Air Force One is) to throw lamb's blood on the fighter jets there to protest Vietnam. A middle aged school teacher, for crying out loud. She and her little hippie friends were caught and arrested.

My dad got a call at 3 am from my aunt. She asked if he could come bail her out. My mom and dad are arch-conservatives. In future years, they took turns as the president of the American Conservative Union at the state level. They were personal friends with high up muckety mucks in the Reagan Administration. I once used their contacts to access someone in the Old Executive Office building.

And they were Catholics, too.

My dad slammed the phone down. Oh hell no I'm not bailing that commie out of jail!

His own sister.

Here's something you may not know. My dad told me this. The Catholic Church actually used to be quite liberal about abortion. One of the first pro-choice organizations in America was created by clergymen.

Ronald Reagan signed the first pro-choice legislation in America when he was the governor of California.

It's been a long weird trip, man.


And now we have Republicans actually cheering Trump for his adultery. Some have done so on this very forum. They don't care he's married three times, but don't bake a cake for a homo!

I fucking hate hypocrisy.

No one is "cheering" Trump for his adultery, like the pope said, "who are we to judge", he lives his life, we live ours. Trump always had beautiful women, from NFL cheerleaders, to Ivanka, to Marley, to Melania, to the rest he paid for. Luckily, none of them were interns, or we might have had a problem. He was married 3x, again, who are we to judge? None of them have anything bad to say about him that I heard.

That intern was 22 and had an affair with a married man, before Clinton. We can judge rightly , that is who we are. He is immoral. He lusts and that is adultery according to Jesus, we can surely expect our Potus the be a moral man, and he is not.

 

[22lcidw]

The short answer is NO, especially regarding "Catholics" like Chris Matthews and Tom Daschle who are unapologetically pro-choice.
Catholic Lite for Chris Matthews - Featured Today - Catholic Online
"Yet, if Mr. Matthews wants to advance his liberal agenda, then that is his right. But he does not have the right to present himself in a public forum as a "Catholic." Public figures who profess to be Catholics have a duty to bear witness to the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church. This also holds true especially if they have positions of prominence in the media or in government..."

"...An individual's religious beliefs goes to the very core of his moral character. The attempt by liberal Catholics to separate their private and public lives by insisting that the Church's teachings will not affect their positions on hot-button social issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality shows that they do not take the basic tenets of their faith seriously. It is an attempt to bow to the fashions of our secular age, while still claiming membership in the church. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too."

So my challenge to democrat "Catholics" is to say that when the progressive liberals demand litmus tests regarding abortion, you can be pro-choice, but then you can't be Catholic. So when the progressives demonize only Evangelicals, and then let Catholics skate because they say they are pro-choice, that's incorrect. The progressives should say that "Evangelicals and Catholics" have similar "unacceptable/intolerant" views and are unwelcome as democrats.

True Christians wouldn't even be involved in politics, as it is of the world.

A Christian is a follower of Christ, a person dedicated to spreading the gospel. This is what it means.

That's no congruent in politics, in which the party that one belongs to is what your life is dedicated to.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Christians did that for a couple of centuries in the beginning. It got them near exterminated. The last near half century they did the same thing with the help of their corrupted large church organizations. And under Obama the persecution started again.

 

[kyzr]

The short answer is NO, especially regarding "Catholics" like Chris Matthews and Tom Daschle who are unapologetically pro-choice.
Catholic Lite for Chris Matthews - Featured Today - Catholic Online
"Yet, if Mr. Matthews wants to advance his liberal agenda, then that is his right. But he does not have the right to present himself in a public forum as a "Catholic." Public figures who profess to be Catholics have a duty to bear witness to the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church. This also holds true especially if they have positions of prominence in the media or in government..."

"...An individual's religious beliefs goes to the very core of his moral character. The attempt by liberal Catholics to separate their private and public lives by insisting that the Church's teachings will not affect their positions on hot-button social issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality shows that they do not take the basic tenets of their faith seriously. It is an attempt to bow to the fashions of our secular age, while still claiming membership in the church. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too."

So my challenge to democrat "Catholics" is to say that when the progressive liberals demand litmus tests regarding abortion, you can be pro-choice, but then you can't be Catholic. So when the progressives demonize only Evangelicals, and then let Catholics skate because they say they are pro-choice, that's incorrect. The progressives should say that "Evangelicals and Catholics" have similar "unacceptable/intolerant" views and are unwelcome as democrats.

Yeah sorry, but politics doesn't work that way. If a Chris Matthews or a Tom Daschle ---- neither of whom are in politics ---- want to self-identify as "Catholic", they may do so, and if they choose not to identify their religious affiliations that's fine too. They're two separate things. And that's intentional.

Nice to know the Know Nothing Party and its bastard child the Klan still think they're relevant though. You keep tryin' with this "Papist" bullshit.

To quote Rump himself, never give up. If there's a wall, go through it, go around it, whatever you have to do.


Oh and by the way "Progressives" were here and gone a hundred years ago. You just missed 'em. It was back around the time your Klanners were running a smear campaign against Al Smith because he was a Catholic.

Oh and by the other way "Catholic Online", your link source? Infamous fake news dump. Fun fact: its founder is in prison right now.

1. Dashle was a politician, Pelosi is one now and is pro-choice, so she can't be a good Catholic
2. The Klan is a democrat organization seeking to overthrow Republican admins Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia
3. Once again, the Klan are democrats, but keep spewing bullshit

 

[Pogo]

The short answer is NO, especially regarding "Catholics" like Chris Matthews and Tom Daschle who are unapologetically pro-choice.
Catholic Lite for Chris Matthews - Featured Today - Catholic Online
"Yet, if Mr. Matthews wants to advance his liberal agenda, then that is his right. But he does not have the right to present himself in a public forum as a "Catholic." Public figures who profess to be Catholics have a duty to bear witness to the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church. This also holds true especially if they have positions of prominence in the media or in government..."

"...An individual's religious beliefs goes to the very core of his moral character. The attempt by liberal Catholics to separate their private and public lives by insisting that the Church's teachings will not affect their positions on hot-button social issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality shows that they do not take the basic tenets of their faith seriously. It is an attempt to bow to the fashions of our secular age, while still claiming membership in the church. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too."

So my challenge to democrat "Catholics" is to say that when the progressive liberals demand litmus tests regarding abortion, you can be pro-choice, but then you can't be Catholic. So when the progressives demonize only Evangelicals, and then let Catholics skate because they say they are pro-choice, that's incorrect. The progressives should say that "Evangelicals and Catholics" have similar "unacceptable/intolerant" views and are unwelcome as democrats.

Yeah sorry, but politics doesn't work that way. If a Chris Matthews or a Tom Daschle ---- neither of whom are in politics ---- want to self-identify as "Catholic", they may do so, and if they choose not to identify their religious affiliations that's fine too. They're two separate things. And that's intentional.

Nice to know the Know Nothing Party and its bastard child the Klan still think they're relevant though. You keep tryin' with this "Papist" bullshit.

To quote Rump himself, never give up. If there's a wall, go through it, go around it, whatever you have to do.


Oh and by the way "Progressives" were here and gone a hundred years ago. You just missed 'em. It was back around the time your Klanners were running a smear campaign against Al Smith because he was a Catholic.

Oh and by the other way "Catholic Online", your link source? Infamous fake news dump. Fun fact: its founder is in prison right now.

1. Dashle was a politician, Pelosi is one now and is pro-choice, so she can't be a good Catholic
2. The Klan is a democrat organization seeking to overthrow Republican admins Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia
3. Once again, the Klan are democrats, but keep spewing bullshit

1. Even when they are in office, a politician's religion is completely irrelevant to their job. A Senator or Representative is not put there to represent a religion, nor are they there to represent a political party. Their job is to represent their constituents. That's outside of and separate from their own personal beliefs.

2. The Klan, which hasn't officially existed since 1944, has never been a "democrat" organization or had any particular political party affiliation. I don't need your Wiki link; not only have I seen it but I wrote some of it. K? That thing was founded by six vet soldiers with no known political affiliations, lasted officially three years* and unofficially seven years and died, then re-founded by a defrocked minister who also had no political affiliations.

* matter of fact this very month represents the passing of 150 years since the original KKK was officially disbanded

3. See #2. The term "democrat" means "someone who believes in democracy". If what you're trying to say is "Democrats", as in the political party, then you'll have a grand old time explaining why a "Democrat" organization would be running Republicans like Rice Means, Owen Brewster, Ben Paulen, George Luis Baker, Ed Jackson, Clarence Morley and a slew of others against its own candidates. You'll be needing to explain D.C. Stephenson and his loyalty list all over the state of Indiana, plus you'll be delighted to essplain to the class why the KKK endorsed Coolidge in 1924 and Hoover in 1928 while running a smear campaign against Democrat Al Smith because he was a Catholic. Or why Catholics, Jews, immigrants, unions and blacks were all simultaneously constituents of that party and the Klan's targets. You know, when it actually did exist. Before it was taken down by a Democratic governor and FDR's IRS.

And if you don't believe me, take it from the Imperial Wizard James Colescott, who disbanded the Klan in 1944, blaming, quote, "******-lover" Franklin D. Roosevelt and "that Jew" Henry Morgenthau, Jr. for the downfall of the Klan.[4]. Oh and that's from Wiki too.


Mythologies are fun and all but at some point they go splat right on the page when you actually open a history book.