Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I will state it again, my point was not to say he ever made a decision impartially.So I quess Scalia who is strongly against abortion should not be apart of any decision regarding abortion either?
Has he EVER served on a group working to change Supreme Court rulings for abortion? Did he ever belong to a specific group working ONLY for that races agenda? Both indicate prejudice and would make that persons objectivity highly in doubt in regards those matters.
Do try and keep up.
Perhaps you can cite for us any Supreme Court decision he has made that would indicate non impartiality on the subject?
In regards to Gunny's post on 'not answering the question'...bump
"The first American Red Mass was organized to promote Vatican policies."
"For the most part the Red Mass is like any other Roman Catholic Mass. A sermon is given, the message which is delivered has an overlapping political and religious theme"
What Is the Red Mass?
"Ruth Bader Ginsberg no longer attends the "Red Mass"--a Roman Catholic service for members of the legal profession in Washington--because she doesn't want to be lectured by bishops on the evils of legal abortion. "
""Before every session, there's a Red Mass," Ginsburg said. "And the justices get invitations from the cardinal to attend that. And a good number of the justices show up every year. I went one year, and I will never go again, because this sermon was outrageously anti-abortion"
Political sermons cause Ginsburg to skip annual 'Red Mass'. - Free Online Library
"Pope Benedict delivered a strong anti-abortion message to Brazilians on Wednesday at the start of his first visit to Latin America, saying that respect for life begins "from the moment of conception"
Pope speaks out against abortion in Brazil | Reuters
And I was never bashing catholics I was just stating a fact, the difference is I have no problem with Scalia being catholic or against abortion, my point is both groups are activists in this issue. You cannot say she cannot say she isn't allowed to sent in on case regarding abortion while letting Scalia sit in.
Well one would expect a 'mass' to at least support and not cut down 'Vatican policies'. With that said, I thought I'd look for 'Red Mass' homilies, as that is what the 'message' is about.
Found this:
Red Mass Homily by Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick
It's from 2005, but more or less is ecumenical as would befit the expected attendees:
Red Mass Homily by Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick
Oct 03, 2005
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, delivered the homily below at the October 2, 2005 Red Mass, which was held at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, DC.
The Red Mass is a centuries-old tradition, invoking Gods blessings and guidance in the administration of justice under the power of the Holy Spirit. In Washington, the Red Mass is held on the Sunday before the start of the Supreme Court session each year.
This year's attendees included President George W. and Laura Bush, the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John G. Roberts, other members of the Administration and Supreme Court, as well as members of the federal, state and local judiciaries.
The Mass in Washington is sponsored by the John Carroll Society, an organization for professional Catholics that sponsors spiritual, social and charitable activities. Following the Mass, the organization presented the Pro Bono Legal Service Awards to several local attorneys and an administrative assistant who have donated time and legal expertise on behalf of low-income residents of the Washington metropolitan area through the Archdiocesan Legal Network.
Cardinal McCarrick's homily:
To preach this morning in the presence of the President of the United States, our new Chief Justice and many members of the Supreme Court, the other federal, state and local courts and the distinguished members of the Bench and the Bar is a very humbling thing for me and gives me an opportunity both to thank you all for your presence and so much more for your faithfulness to your awesome responsibilities, as well as to assure you on behalf of the Catholic people in this archdiocese of our fervent prayers for you as you help to guide our beloved nation in a challenging period of its history.
Our Gospel today is a very beautiful one. We are presented with Matthews narrative of one of the great parables of Jesus. It is the parable of the vineyard and of vine growers who forgot that they were not the lords of the vineyard, but only the workers there. What an awesome lesson for all of us. We all need to learn that we are just workers in Gods world who must be always conscious of His loving Presence as He guides and sustains every moment of our lives.
The parable of the vineyard has many meanings. This was probably clear to those who heard it and maybe not as clear to us. It speaks of the Fathers goodness, of His gift of this great vineyard and His entrusting it to the workers. The vineyard must yield good wine for the health and comfort of many people and the vineyards workers are given the chance to be part of this great accomplishment. It is a lesson not just to the people of Israel to whom the Lord spoke, but to all of us, as well. The parable also speaks of the rejection of the prophets, this sad history of Gods chosen people, for so much of their history. It speaks also ultimately of rejecting Jesus Himself, the Son, the Heir who comes to call the people back to faithfulness to the Father and is driven out of the vineyard and put to death. All of us share their guilt because ultimately we are all workers in the vineyard of the Lord. God has graced each one of us with a special role to play so that we may produce good things for Him and for our neighbor and that we might promote the Kingdom where He is Lord forever and ever.
Our Gospel has its roots in another parable, that of the prophet Isaiah who lived so many years before. This was the parable described in the first reading of the Mass. Isaiah describes another vineyard, a vineyard that God cared for so well and hoped it would bring forth a great crop to provide good wine for the tables of life. Yet this vineyard fails for other reasons, both man-made and reasons of nature. Isaiah makes it clear, and Jesus follows, that the vineyard is the house of Israel and, indeed, the vineyard is all of us.
It is sometimes difficult to have a great vineyard. It depends on so many things. Some of them are climactic and depend on the soil and the water and the sun. Others are man-made for they depend on the good care and loving concern of the vine keepers themselves. For a vineyard, there are good times and bad. There are times of plenty and times of challenge.
Life is like that, too. Isaiah preaches that message, also. The vineyard is the vineyard of the Lord. The vineyard of the Lord is the house of Israel. The vineyard of the Lord is all of us. In a deeper sense, the vineyard is this world in which we live in our own country, among our own people, in our own land.
For our vineyard, too, there are good times and bad. There are days of plenty and days of challenge. In this particular moment of the history of our lives, we walk our days in a time of great challenge. Let us count the ways:
· We are at war with international terrorism.
· We are facing a difficult conflict in Iraq; thank God, less so in Afghanistan.
· We are so clearly living in a world of conflicts, as in Darfur in the Sudan, in parts of Asia and Africa, in the Holy Land.
· We worry about AIDS in Africa and here in our own neighborhoods and poverty and hunger among so many people of our world.
· We worry about the poor at home, especially those who have lost so much in the wake of the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
These are the times of challenge when the vine growers need to work together and be more aware of the responsibility they hold to bring the wine of sweetness and the wine of strength to ourselves and to all our people.
All of these troubles weigh heavily upon us. How could it be otherwise? We tend to blame each other, and the level of our discourse can sometimes become shrill and caustic and uneven. What happens in the vineyard can happen to us in our public life. We must be careful that we do not condemn the vineyard and harm to the vine growers. And yet, thanks be to God, in the last few days, we have witnessed a period of greater civility in the selection of our Chief Justice. I pray that that civility will continue because it is so important not just for good government, but for the good care of our people who look here to all of you and your colleagues for the kind of leadership that is not destructive or not too intensely partisan.
We know that we must become friends again, not agreeing on everything, of course, but striving to dialogue more gently, more positively; more careful to set the conversation within a forum of mutual respect by being willing to listen for the good points that are usually present in every reasonable discourse and so will help us learn again to build and not to tear down. During the past few weeks, many of us, myself included, have spoken about civility and the need for it in every part of our civil life, in every part of our society and not excluding the Church itself.
You are perhaps aware of the initiative that some of our senior statesmen have proposed in what is called the National Committee to Unite a Divided America. They have presented a declaration that is a call to civility in government. I find it to be of special value today. The declaration begins with the words, I quote, The coming years will demand greatness from our leaders and our citizens as we navigate through a time of domestic and international opportunities as well as challenges that threaten our security and long term prosperity. The difficulty of this task is magnified by our countrys political divisions, for today we are too much a house divided. Yet if we continue to achieve our common goals we will surely write a great chapter in Americas history.
I find those words to be optimistic, challenging and comforting, and I hope we all do. The document continues to say that, Civility does not require citizens to give up cherished beliefs or water down their convictions. Rather it requires respect, listening and dialogue when interacting with those who hold different points of view. Indeed, there is no doubt that some of the great moments in our history have occurred when people of different points of view have agreed to differ in a respectful manner and try to work together to find a place where there will be sufficient accord to build a better world.
This is my prayer this day in a very special way as we celebrate the Red Mass here at St. Matthews Cathedral. I take heart, as well, from the second reading in todays Mass. It comes from the Letter of Saint Paul to the Philippians. It begins by encouraging us to dismiss all anxiety from our minds and to present our needs to God in every form of prayer and petition. The most striking of Pauls admonitions in this reading is his good counsel that our thoughts and our words should be wholly directed to all that is true, all that deserves respect, all that is honest, pure, decent, virtuous or worthy of praise. Paul assures us as an apostle of the Lord that if we do this, if we speak and work in this way, the God of Peace will be with us.
Wouldnt it be wonderful for our country, for each one of us, if our discourse could mirror that of the apostle and help change this vineyard of ours, so filled as it always is with promise and potential, into even more a place where good works can grow like precious grapes in the sunshine of a well-watered garden in the shade of a flourishing life. When all is said and done, we need to reflect on our own lives, our own mission and our own ministry, each one of us being called in a special way to exercise the talents which he and she has been given. The 80th Psalm, which we sang together this morning, proclaims this message as it sings of the vineyard of the Lord, Give us new life and we will call upon your name. O Lord of hosts restore us. If you shine your face upon us, then we shall be saved!
As we sang this great Psalm this morning, listening hopefully, each one with care to the challenge the psalmist gives us in the name of God Most High. You and I and all of us here who have our own responsibility in this vineyard are called to come together, each in his or her own way, to put our hands to that task so that the Lord of the vineyard might be pleased with our service and He might bless it with peace and plenty for ourselves and our neighbor and for all this beloved land of ours. Amen.
The John Carroll Society also likes to put on luncheons supporting people who are Pro Life in Health Care.
Denied:1up! Software ()
And here is a guote from the homily given by the same archbishop that is refered to in the article above that he gave at the Red Mass in 2006.
"To speak out against racial discrimination, social injustice or threats to the dignity of life is not to force values upon society, but rather to call our society to its own, long-accepted, moral principles and commitment to defend basic human rights, which is the function of law"
Abortion - Pro Life - Red Mass Homily by Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl
I would also like to add McCarrick is not an archbishop anymore, one article stated it was because he was not very strict on the Pro Life issue.
Well one would expect a 'mass' to at least support and not cut down 'Vatican policies'. With that said, I thought I'd look for 'Red Mass' homilies, as that is what the 'message' is about.
Found this:
Red Mass Homily by Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick
It's from 2005, but more or less is ecumenical as would befit the expected attendees:
The John Carroll Society also likes to put on luncheons supporting people who are Pro Life in Health Care.
Denied:1up! Software ()
And here is a guote from the homily given by the same archbishop that is refered to in the article above that he gave at the Red Mass in 2006.
"To speak out against racial discrimination, social injustice or threats to the dignity of life is not to force values upon society, but rather to call our society to its own, long-accepted, moral principles and commitment to defend basic human rights, which is the function of law"
Abortion - Pro Life - Red Mass Homily by Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl
I would also like to add McCarrick is not an archbishop anymore, one article stated it was because he was not very strict on the Pro Life issue.
Luissa, why would you expect any 'Catholic' organization not to be pro-life? Why is that any more a problem than the Black Caucus in Congress? Or the NAACP? Or JDL?
What in particular is your problem with Catholics, other than they disagree with you on abortion? Well and that would be the Vatican, not 'American Catholics' in general, for they pretty much match up with American society as a whole regarding the topic.
Additional U.S. abortion data
Birth control, well they really do not go with the Vatican regarding that.
The Revolution in Birth Control Practices of U.S. Roman Catholics -- Westoff and Bumpass 179 (4068): 41 -- Science
She doesn't. Too bad you aren't well read.Luissa, why would you expect any 'Catholic' organization not to be pro-life?
The John Carroll Society also likes to put on luncheons supporting people who are Pro Life in Health Care.
Denied:1up! Software ()
And here is a guote from the homily given by the same archbishop that is refered to in the article above that he gave at the Red Mass in 2006.
"To speak out against racial discrimination, social injustice or threats to the dignity of life is not to force values upon society, but rather to call our society to its own, long-accepted, moral principles and commitment to defend basic human rights, which is the function of law"
Abortion - Pro Life - Red Mass Homily by Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl
I would also like to add McCarrick is not an archbishop anymore, one article stated it was because he was not very strict on the Pro Life issue.
Luissa, why would you expect any 'Catholic' organization not to be pro-life? Why is that any more a problem than the Black Caucus in Congress? Or the NAACP? Or JDL?
What in particular is your problem with Catholics, other than they disagree with you on abortion? Well and that would be the Vatican, not 'American Catholics' in general, for they pretty much match up with American society as a whole regarding the topic.
Additional U.S. abortion data
Birth control, well they really do not go with the Vatican regarding that.
The Revolution in Birth Control Practices of U.S. Roman Catholics -- Westoff and Bumpass 179 (4068): 41 -- Science
Please show me where I stated anything against Catholic's?
I am just stating the Scalie is apart of Pro Life group, maybe you should read the orginal OP again.
I will state it again if we allow Scalia to vote on abortion issues which he votes against every time than we should allow anyone who has supported a Pro Choice group to vote on any issues regarding abortion.
Also show me where i stated that politicians should not attend Red Mass or where I was stating I was against it?
Every single case regarding abortion is always 5-4, with Scalia siding against abortion rights every single time.
Supreme Court's Evolving Rulings on Abortion : NPR
I'm almost 100% positive Jillian was comparing your remarks to the Elders of Zion. Perhaps she'll enlighten us when she gets back.Luissa, why would you expect any 'Catholic' organization not to be pro-life? Why is that any more a problem than the Black Caucus in Congress? Or the NAACP? Or JDL?
What in particular is your problem with Catholics, other than they disagree with you on abortion? Well and that would be the Vatican, not 'American Catholics' in general, for they pretty much match up with American society as a whole regarding the topic.
Additional U.S. abortion data
Birth control, well they really do not go with the Vatican regarding that.
The Revolution in Birth Control Practices of U.S. Roman Catholics -- Westoff and Bumpass 179 (4068): 41 -- Science
Please show me where I stated anything against Catholic's?
I am just stating the Scalie is apart of Pro Life group, maybe you should read the orginal OP again.
I will state it again if we allow Scalia to vote on abortion issues which he votes against every time than we should allow anyone who has supported a Pro Choice group to vote on any issues regarding abortion.
Also show me where i stated that politicians should not attend Red Mass or where I was stating I was against it?
Every single case regarding abortion is always 5-4, with Scalia siding against abortion rights every single time.
Supreme Court's Evolving Rulings on Abortion : NPR
Well I wouldn't have expected you to throw out a basically bashing post, then say that isn't what you were doing. But, there we are. Your implications were very much along the Elders of Zion as Jillian pointed out this morning.
While I am certainly a leaning right conservative Catholic, for that group-Catholic-I'm definitely in the minority, by far. Illustrated by the Catholics serving in Congress-more are pro-choice than pro-life. Yet, Catholics are a great group to bash, thanks to the quotable Vatican, in spite of all the 'reach out' to Obama, Bush, Reagan, and all the Protestant presidents since JFK.
But that's fine, keep up the prejudice.
Ah, so you were being anti-semitic. Just checking.Jillian already did. Of course, if you were well read, no explanation would be necessary.
LOL! Either you haven't a clue or you are just a tool. Which is it?
Fact check: Did she know about the abortion briefs? - Yahoo! News
She was there and knew full well what the position of the group was, what their intent was and how they were going about ensuring that intent was backed with legal work and action.
Simple enough, if she is confirmed she should be REQUIRED to step down on any decision involving this group or abortion in general.
I'm almost 100% positive Jillian was comparing your remarks to the Elders of Zion. Perhaps she'll enlighten us when she gets back.Please show me where I stated anything against Catholic's?
I am just stating the Scalie is apart of Pro Life group, maybe you should read the orginal OP again.
I will state it again if we allow Scalia to vote on abortion issues which he votes against every time than we should allow anyone who has supported a Pro Choice group to vote on any issues regarding abortion.
Also show me where i stated that politicians should not attend Red Mass or where I was stating I was against it?
Every single case regarding abortion is always 5-4, with Scalia siding against abortion rights every single time.
Supreme Court's Evolving Rulings on Abortion : NPR
Well I wouldn't have expected you to throw out a basically bashing post, then say that isn't what you were doing. But, there we are. Your implications were very much along the Elders of Zion as Jillian pointed out this morning.
While I am certainly a leaning right conservative Catholic, for that group-Catholic-I'm definitely in the minority, by far. Illustrated by the Catholics serving in Congress-more are pro-choice than pro-life. Yet, Catholics are a great group to bash, thanks to the quotable Vatican, in spite of all the 'reach out' to Obama, Bush, Reagan, and all the Protestant presidents since JFK.
But that's fine, keep up the prejudice.
What exactly did Luissa post that was bashing Catholics?
I'm almost 100% positive Jillian was comparing your remarks to the Elders of Zion. Perhaps she'll enlighten us when she gets back.Well I wouldn't have expected you to throw out a basically bashing post, then say that isn't what you were doing. But, there we are. Your implications were very much along the Elders of Zion as Jillian pointed out this morning.
While I am certainly a leaning right conservative Catholic, for that group-Catholic-I'm definitely in the minority, by far. Illustrated by the Catholics serving in Congress-more are pro-choice than pro-life. Yet, Catholics are a great group to bash, thanks to the quotable Vatican, in spite of all the 'reach out' to Obama, Bush, Reagan, and all the Protestant presidents since JFK.
But that's fine, keep up the prejudice.
What exactly did Luissa post that was bashing Catholics?
Nope Ravi, it was related to the Muslim babies blood in matzos. LOL! You never did look it up. Damn you're not only a liar, you are purposely ignorant.
You are the one that made the matzo bread comment. Luissa posted nothing about Catholics other than proof that they are pro-life. Somehow you conflated that to mean something akin to propaganda against Jews.
RGS can see into the minds of other people and know what they know. What a talent!
It seems abortion will always be the hypocrite's moral crutch because nothing is required of the anti-choice person. When nothing is demanded of you you can preach to others easily and support laws on their personal freedom. The greatest irony remains the very same people supported an unjust and illegal war and do not support preventive measures such as condoms. But again that is because the issue is just an abstraction to salve their moral hypocrisy.
And.
'Conservative media distort Ginsburg interview to claim she "thought Roe v. Wade was a way to weed out undesirables"'
Conservative media distort Ginsburg interview to claim she "thought Roe v. Wade was a way to weed out undesirables" | Media Matters for America
'Justice Ginsburg: "Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often."'
If only the Discussion on Abortion was about the Mother's Heartbeat and Nervous System alone...
The Distinction between a Woman and a Mother is the 2nd Beating Heart and Nervous System...
That Baby's not a Genital Wart... It's a Human.
peace...
I see. Make sure that it gets born, but then deny it health care, if the family lacks money. Odd morality.
I will ask again, please show me where I bashed the catholic church? Where I said what they are doing is wrong or what they believe is wrong?Luissa, why would you expect any 'Catholic' organization not to be pro-life? Why is that any more a problem than the Black Caucus in Congress? Or the NAACP? Or JDL?
What in particular is your problem with Catholics, other than they disagree with you on abortion? Well and that would be the Vatican, not 'American Catholics' in general, for they pretty much match up with American society as a whole regarding the topic.
Additional U.S. abortion data
Birth control, well they really do not go with the Vatican regarding that.
The Revolution in Birth Control Practices of U.S. Roman Catholics -- Westoff and Bumpass 179 (4068): 41 -- Science
Please show me where I stated anything against Catholic's?
I am just stating the Scalie is apart of Pro Life group, maybe you should read the orginal OP again.
I will state it again if we allow Scalia to vote on abortion issues which he votes against every time than we should allow anyone who has supported a Pro Choice group to vote on any issues regarding abortion.
Also show me where i stated that politicians should not attend Red Mass or where I was stating I was against it?
Every single case regarding abortion is always 5-4, with Scalia siding against abortion rights every single time.
Supreme Court's Evolving Rulings on Abortion : NPR
Well I wouldn't have expected you to throw out a basically bashing post, then say that isn't what you were doing. But, there we are. Your implications were very much along the Elders of Zion as Jillian pointed out this morning.
While I am certainly a leaning right conservative Catholic, for that group-Catholic-I'm definitely in the minority, by far. Illustrated by the Catholics serving in Congress-more are pro-choice than pro-life. Yet, Catholics are a great group to bash, thanks to the quotable Vatican, in spite of all the 'reach out' to Obama, Bush, Reagan, and all the Protestant presidents since JFK.
But that's fine, keep up the prejudice.
I will ask again, please show me where I bashed the catholic church? Where I said what they are doing is wrong or what they believe is wrong?Please show me where I stated anything against Catholic's?
I am just stating the Scalie is apart of Pro Life group, maybe you should read the orginal OP again.
I will state it again if we allow Scalia to vote on abortion issues which he votes against every time than we should allow anyone who has supported a Pro Choice group to vote on any issues regarding abortion.
Also show me where i stated that politicians should not attend Red Mass or where I was stating I was against it?
Every single case regarding abortion is always 5-4, with Scalia siding against abortion rights every single time.
Supreme Court's Evolving Rulings on Abortion : NPR
Well I wouldn't have expected you to throw out a basically bashing post, then say that isn't what you were doing. But, there we are. Your implications were very much along the Elders of Zion as Jillian pointed out this morning.
While I am certainly a leaning right conservative Catholic, for that group-Catholic-I'm definitely in the minority, by far. Illustrated by the Catholics serving in Congress-more are pro-choice than pro-life. Yet, Catholics are a great group to bash, thanks to the quotable Vatican, in spite of all the 'reach out' to Obama, Bush, Reagan, and all the Protestant presidents since JFK.
But that's fine, keep up the prejudice.
All I did was post quotes and facts supporting my claim. I also stated they have a right to their beliefs and I also stated Scalia has the right to vote on issues regarding abortion and that is the only opinion I posted.
DiD i say that? RSG asked me to show an example where Scalia belonged to a group that was similiar to the one Sotomayor belonged to but was Pro Life and I did that. I also said that it didn't make him biased when it came to decisions on abortion.I will ask again, please show me where I bashed the catholic church? Where I said what they are doing is wrong or what they believe is wrong?Well I wouldn't have expected you to throw out a basically bashing post, then say that isn't what you were doing. But, there we are. Your implications were very much along the Elders of Zion as Jillian pointed out this morning.
While I am certainly a leaning right conservative Catholic, for that group-Catholic-I'm definitely in the minority, by far. Illustrated by the Catholics serving in Congress-more are pro-choice than pro-life. Yet, Catholics are a great group to bash, thanks to the quotable Vatican, in spite of all the 'reach out' to Obama, Bush, Reagan, and all the Protestant presidents since JFK.
But that's fine, keep up the prejudice.
All I did was post quotes and facts supporting my claim. I also stated they have a right to their beliefs and I also stated Scalia has the right to vote on issues regarding abortion and that is the only opinion I posted.
saying SCOTUS members are "vehicles of the vatican". substitute Israel for Vatican. How does that sentence sound now?
notice how they didn't post any quotes where I bashed catholics, kind of hard to when there are none. If they didn't want me to prove they are a Pro Life group they should have not asked me to.I'm almost 100% positive Jillian was comparing your remarks to the Elders of Zion. Perhaps she'll enlighten us when she gets back.Please show me where I stated anything against Catholic's?
I am just stating the Scalie is apart of Pro Life group, maybe you should read the orginal OP again.
I will state it again if we allow Scalia to vote on abortion issues which he votes against every time than we should allow anyone who has supported a Pro Choice group to vote on any issues regarding abortion.
Also show me where i stated that politicians should not attend Red Mass or where I was stating I was against it?
Every single case regarding abortion is always 5-4, with Scalia siding against abortion rights every single time.
Supreme Court's Evolving Rulings on Abortion : NPR
Well I wouldn't have expected you to throw out a basically bashing post, then say that isn't what you were doing. But, there we are. Your implications were very much along the Elders of Zion as Jillian pointed out this morning.
While I am certainly a leaning right conservative Catholic, for that group-Catholic-I'm definitely in the minority, by far. Illustrated by the Catholics serving in Congress-more are pro-choice than pro-life. Yet, Catholics are a great group to bash, thanks to the quotable Vatican, in spite of all the 'reach out' to Obama, Bush, Reagan, and all the Protestant presidents since JFK.
But that's fine, keep up the prejudice.
What exactly did Luissa post that was bashing Catholics?
notice how they didn't post any quotes where I bashed catholics, kind of hard to when there are none. If they didn't want me to prove they are a Pro Life group they should have not asked me to.I'm almost 100% positive Jillian was comparing your remarks to the Elders of Zion. Perhaps she'll enlighten us when she gets back.Well I wouldn't have expected you to throw out a basically bashing post, then say that isn't what you were doing. But, there we are. Your implications were very much along the Elders of Zion as Jillian pointed out this morning.
While I am certainly a leaning right conservative Catholic, for that group-Catholic-I'm definitely in the minority, by far. Illustrated by the Catholics serving in Congress-more are pro-choice than pro-life. Yet, Catholics are a great group to bash, thanks to the quotable Vatican, in spite of all the 'reach out' to Obama, Bush, Reagan, and all the Protestant presidents since JFK.
But that's fine, keep up the prejudice.
What exactly did Luissa post that was bashing Catholics?
I dunno, Luissa, I think they are still reeling from losing Palin and are off their game. I know you didn't bash Catholics. Being a non-practicing Catholic makes me sensitive to these things. 
Maybe right after you explain your interpretations of the Koran.Of course it does.I'd say it answered the question quite nicely.
And that would be because you don't understand the question, conversation, or honesty.
When are you going to explain your matzo bread comment?
Ah, so you were being anti-semitic. Just checking.Of course it does.
When are you going to explain your matzo bread comment?
Jillian already did. Of course, if you were well read, no explanation would be necessary.
