right
Conservative
Posts: 18,382
|
Post by right on Jul 24, 2024 6:33:20 GMT
She challenged a judicial nominee on the grounds that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus, one of the biggest Catholic charities in the USA, as it upheld Catholic teaching. As a Democrat, you would think the fact this charity feeds, houses and funds the healthcare of more poor families than most states, she would laud them - yet, no, it was narrow ideology for her. I always assumed that the Knights of St Columbus were the Catholic conterpart of the Freemasons? At least in the US they tilt considerably more to the charitable and less to the networking aspects than Freemasons (who do quite a bit of charitable stuff themselves) But we treat people challenging nominees for being "on the square" as cranks, and we should do the same when they do this for Catholics
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Jul 24, 2024 6:35:22 GMT
Do you really think I would make such a claim without evidence? She is an ambitious woman, so would happily grasp the coattails of a winner, as she did with Joe Biden. remember, she accused him of supporting racist bussing legislation, yet serves as his VP. She challenged a judicial nominee on the grounds that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus, one of the biggest Catholic charities in the USA, as it upheld Catholic teaching. As a Democrat, you would think the fact this charity feeds, houses and funds the healthcare of more poor families than most states, she would laud them - yet, no, it was narrow ideology for her. I've just looked up the Knights of Columbus and seen that they are opposed to same-sex marriage and anti-abortion. And not just philosophically but actively involved in funding campaigns and organising legal efforts. So, plenty to like about Kamala there.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jul 24, 2024 7:00:59 GMT
Do you really think I would make such a claim without evidence? She is an ambitious woman, so would happily grasp the coattails of a winner, as she did with Joe Biden. remember, she accused him of supporting racist bussing legislation, yet serves as his VP. ”An ambitious woman who would happily grasp the coattails of a winner”. Glad to know how you perceive successful black women. Nothing to do with past success, charisma, achievement or skill. Just grasping the coattails of an older white man. Feel free to provide your evidence of anti-Catholic bigotry at any time, btw. Edit: in response to your second post; care to name the Judge you are referring to?? At what point did I mention race? A cheap jibe which is beneath you. The judge is Brian C. Buescher of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jul 24, 2024 7:05:29 GMT
She challenged a judicial nominee on the grounds that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus, one of the biggest Catholic charities in the USA, as it upheld Catholic teaching. As a Democrat, you would think the fact this charity feeds, houses and funds the healthcare of more poor families than most states, she would laud them - yet, no, it was narrow ideology for her. I always assumed that the Knights of St Columbus were the Catholic conterpart of the Freemasons? Nope, nothing like them - all membership is publicly available, any Catholic man can apply, etc.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jul 24, 2024 7:10:29 GMT
She challenged a judicial nominee on the grounds that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus, one of the biggest Catholic charities in the USA, as it upheld Catholic teaching. As a Democrat, you would think the fact this charity feeds, houses and funds the healthcare of more poor families than most states, she would laud them - yet, no, it was narrow ideology for her. I've just looked up the Knights of Columbus and seen that they are opposed to same-sex marriage and anti-abortion. And not just philosophically but actively involved in funding campaigns and organising legal efforts. So, plenty to like about Kamala there. Well, as a Catholic charity, it upholds Catholic teaching so not surprising. Membership of it shouldn't, in a secular state rooted in relgious freedom, be considered as disqualifying.
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Jul 24, 2024 7:18:00 GMT
If she is elected in November the Vice President will become the third President with the surname Harrison.
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jul 24, 2024 7:21:40 GMT
I've just looked up the Knights of Columbus and seen that they are opposed to same-sex marriage and anti-abortion. And not just philosophically but actively involved in funding campaigns and organising legal efforts. So, plenty to like about Kamala there. Well, as a Catholic charity, it upholds Catholic teaching so not surprising. Membership of it shouldn't, in a secular state rooted in relgious freedom, be considered as disqualifying. This was a judicial appointment. The legitimate challenge would be as to whether the person’s individual strong religious beliefs interfered in any way with their legal decision-making. A judge must handle a case based on the evidence, precedent and arguments not based on their own beliefs. If the individual could show how they managed that, and are otherwise well-qualified, that’s fine. Judges with strong religious (or other) affiliations ought to be tested firmly. Genuinely completely objective judges are near impossible, if not impossible, to find. But it’s an attempt worth making.
|
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 684
Member is Online
|
Post by cathyc on Jul 24, 2024 8:51:03 GMT
Ah yes, the anti-Catholic bigot who has served as VP to the profoundly Catholic President Biden. Got it. Do you really think I would make such a claim without evidence? She is an ambitious woman, so would happily grasp the coattails of a winner, as she did with Joe Biden. Remember, she accused him of supporting racist bussing legislation, yet serves as his VP. I doubt that would be said about a male VP. Did you also think that Biden grasped Obama' coattails or did he get the job as part of a fine record of public service and legislating? On the issue of desegregation Harris was right, Biden and the Church wrong. But your criticism is reserved for her in accepting a post rather than for his initial support for continuing segregation.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,131
|
Post by mboy on Jul 24, 2024 9:16:11 GMT
JD Vance very obviously grasped Trump's coattails and did not get the job as part of a fine record of public service and legislating...and nearly everyone has been saying that for a month.
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Jul 24, 2024 9:19:42 GMT
JD Vance very obviously grasped Trump's coattails and did not get the job as part of a fine record of public service and legislating...and nearly everyone has been saying that for a month. Good thing there can only be racism against black women and not against white men
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jul 24, 2024 10:11:16 GMT
Do you really think I would make such a claim without evidence? She is an ambitious woman, so would happily grasp the coattails of a winner, as she did with Joe Biden. Remember, she accused him of supporting racist bussing legislation, yet serves as his VP. I doubt that would be said about a male VP. Did you also think that Biden grasped Obama' coattails or did he get the job as part of a fine record of public service and legislating? On the issue of desegregation Harris was right, Biden and the Church wrong. But your criticism is reserved for her in accepting a post rather than for his initial support for continuing segregation. What utter and complete drivel. Don't pin your preconceptions on me - Barack Obama chose Joe Biden as it gave him some experiential heft to his team, so you could say that it was the former grasping the latter (though you would probably, on the basis of your preceding posts, claim I only said that because Obama is black). I would have beem more impressed by VP Harris's comments on bussing if she hadn't had an already prepared line of saleable items for fundraising on the basis of her well prepared, and effective, attack on the former Biden position. Your continuing suggestion that I am acting from a racist and sexist position is totally antithetical to who I am and what I believe.
|
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 684
Member is Online
|
Post by cathyc on Jul 24, 2024 10:41:54 GMT
I doubt that would be said about a male VP. Did you also think that Biden grasped Obama' coattails or did he get the job as part of a fine record of public service and legislating? On the issue of desegregation Harris was right, Biden and the Church wrong. But your criticism is reserved for her in accepting a post rather than for his initial support for continuing segregation. What utter and complete drivel. Don't pin your preconceptions on me - Barack Obama chose Joe Biden as it gave him some experiential heft to his team, so you could say that it was the former grasping the latter (though you would probably, on the basis of your preceding posts, claim I only said that because Obama is black). I would have beem more impressed by VP Harris's comments on bussing if she hadn't had an already prepared line of saleable items for fundraising on the basis of her well prepared, and effective, attack on the former Biden position. Your continuing suggestion that I am acting from a racist and sexist position is totally antithetical to who I am and what I believe. That's exactly the point. Both Biden and Harris were chosen as VP on merit and what they brought to the table and not some condescending attitude about hanging onto coat-tails. Nothing to do with Obama being black> And surely you should be more impressed about Harris' comments on desegregation solely on the grounds that she was right. On that matter and at that particular point in time, Biden and the Church were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jul 24, 2024 10:57:02 GMT
Well, as a Catholic charity, it upholds Catholic teaching so not surprising. Membership of it shouldn't, in a secular state rooted in relgious freedom, be considered as disqualifying. This was a judicial appointment. The legitimate challenge would be as to whether the person’s individual strong religious beliefs interfered in any way with their legal decision-making. A judge must handle a case based on the evidence, precedent and arguments not based on their own beliefs. If the individual could show how they managed that, and are otherwise well-qualified, that’s fine. Judges with strong religious (or other) affiliations ought to be tested firmly. Genuinely completely objective judges are near impossible, if not impossible, to find. But it’s an attempt worth making. I think I would distrust a judge who, privately, had no views whatsoever on (say) same sex marriage, or was unable to articulate a reasoned case for their position with reference to morality and philosophy. It would indicate a lack of intellectual curiosity and unwillingness to engage with moral questions, both of which are essential to the job. By definition one does not expect a judge to be non-judgemental. The requirement is the ability to apply a thorough knowledge of the law, a fair-minded examination of evidence (except where that is reserved to a jury) and ability to predict the future consequences of a judgment, while setting aside one's own personal views and wishes; and the independence to reject dogma from "authorities" (religious, political or other) who do not have legitimate authority over the law of the land. (Half of public law is about judges working out just exactly how much authority politicians have, which tends to cause apoplexy among politicians who either don't understand that at all, or don't understand the limitations of their specific authority arising from their office or from the statute law that they purport to be relying on.)
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jul 24, 2024 11:08:05 GMT
Post next month's Democratic Convention , I would not be surprised to see polls showing Harris 10% ahead - though some of that will be froth which subsequently fades away. People are getting far far far too carried away about some supposed “Harris bounce” in my opinion. It may be real and persistent, but it equally well could be a short-term effect, or maybe entirely illusory and non-existent. 10% ahead would be almost unheard of in the current polarised political climate. You may be right, but I personally doubt it. We shall see. And November is absolutely ages away. I'd agree that a 10% lead for anyone would be extraordinary. I can imagine a couple of per cent bounce being both realistic and sustainable, simply on the basis of the negativity toward Biden that I feel must have been dragging the Democrat figure down from it's "natural" position - it wouldn't necessarily represent a transfer of votes to Dem from Rep, just a shift in the "likelihood to vote" answer given by Dems to pollsters. But the other aspect (and key to Biden stepping down IMO) is that since (as all on here understand) even parity in the polls (or even a small Dem lead) leaves the Dems well behind in swing states needed for the EC vote, that in turn requires a vigorous campaign in those states; and I don't think Biden was physically up to that, and more to the point I don't think he would have able to energise the local party machines in those states who would do the actual work. Harris would appear to be potentially able to do that, but it remains to be seen whether she will.
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Jul 24, 2024 11:22:02 GMT
I've just looked up the Knights of Columbus and seen that they are opposed to same-sex marriage and anti-abortion. And not just philosophically but actively involved in funding campaigns and organising legal efforts. So, plenty to like about Kamala there. Well, as a Catholic charity, it upholds Catholic teaching so not surprising. Membership of it shouldn't, in a secular state rooted in relgious freedom, be considered as disqualifying. You began this with a really serious accusation - you called Kamala Harris 'an anti-Catholic bigot.' It needs to be examined carefully, because bigotry is a real issue that needs to be confronted and addressed. So can it be defended or rebutted? You said 'Do you really think I would make such a claim without evidence?' So what's your evidence? I'll come back to 'evidence' in general later, because a bit of googling shows that there are several lists of 'evidence' in various sources, but to your claims: Well, your immediate piece of evidence is that she 'challenged a judicial nominee on the grounds that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus.' This is immediately a retreat from the full 'anti-Catholic' claim, because while the KoC are a Catholic organisation, they don't include or represent all Catholics, witness Joe Biden, where you airily dismiss Harris' obvious friendship and closeness as being mere ambition You present the KoC in a very good light - an organisation that 'feeds, houses and funds the healthcare of more poor families than most states.' Very laudable, but it's a very partial presentation, as I with a minimum of effort was able to find out. To repeat what I found - they are vociferously anti-abortion and opposed to same-sex marriage. Presumably you knew this, but you chose to omit this - I infer because you knew this would present the LOC to a neutral observer in a less than positive light. If I was being rigorous I could call that a lie by omission. The specific case - which you have either avoided identifying or only know through hearsay - is that of Brian Buescher, whose nomination for federal office was considered in 2018. You said (I repeat) that she 'challenged a judicial nominee on the grounds that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus.' Here are the questions she asked: 1. Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization? 2. Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization? 3. Have you ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights? These do not constitute in any way to challenging him because of his membership - they are based on identifying positions based on key issues in US politics. Your statement of the case was, either through ignorance of the detall or through deliberate manipulation of the case, a lie. Isd it reasonable to question someone about these issues based solely on his membership of an organisation, or might there be other reasons? Well, Buescher had previously run for Nebraska AG. During his campaign, he explicitly said the following [1]: 'I am an avidly pro-life person. And I will not compromise on that issue.'; 'I’m in favor of banning abortion'; 'we go after abortion bit by bit.'; '“publicly and personally against all abortions'; He specifically noted that he does not believe abortion should be legal 'in cases of rape or incest and in cases of forcible rape reported to law enforcement authorities.' And on same-sex marriage [2] 'I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I do not believe homosexuality should be considered the same way race or ethnicity is considered with regard to anti-discrimination laws which currently apply to race or ethnicity' So it is quite clear that Buescher not only was a member of a group that actively campaigns on these issues, but he holds these views quite proudly - and views that go far beyond the requirements of upholding Catholic doctrine. So there is no case to be made on the sole piece of evidence you adduce. On the wider case, there are, as I said, quite a number of pieces floating around on the internet purporting to show Harris being anti-Catholic. Skimmiing several of them, they appear to all draw on the same pool of 'evidence'. For the purposes of this I'm using an article from the Washington Times [3], which seems representative. These are all quoted as anti-Catholic bias - As California attorney general, she backed a 2015 state law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to offer abortion referrals. This is not anti-Catholic, this is pro-choice - She authorized a 2015 raid on the home of pro-life activist David Daleiden over his hidden-camera probe into Planned Parenthood. This is not anti-Catholic, this is anti-harassment - In the Senate, she sponsored the 2019 Do No Harm Act, which would have overridden religious objections to providing birth control. This is not anti-Catholic, this is pro-choice. - She cosponsored the 2017 Equality Act, which would ban discrimination based on gender identity. THis is not anti-Catholic, this is anti-dscrimination In short, it appears to some Catholic organisations that having a different view to them is anti-Catholic. It seems that want they want is to impose Catholic views on non-Catholics. Your naming of Kamala Harris as an anti-Catholic bigot is at best ill-informed, and at worst, is itself overt and direct bigotry. It is based on lies, and as they are easily discoverable as lies, it calls into question how you could not know that these are lies. I would suggest you withdraw this accusation. [1] reproductivefreedomforall.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Brian-Beuscher_NARAL.pdf [2] civilrights.org/resource/oppose-the-confirmation-of-brian-buescher-to-the-u-s-district-court-for-the-district-of-nebraska/[3] www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jul/23/traditional-catholics-warn-of-kamala-harriss-recor/
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jul 24, 2024 11:55:43 GMT
Well, as a Catholic charity, it upholds Catholic teaching so not surprising. Membership of it shouldn't, in a secular state rooted in relgious freedom, be considered as disqualifying. You began this with a really serious accusation - you called Kamala Harris 'an anti-Catholic bigot.' It needs to be examined carefully, because bigotry is a real issue that needs to be confronted and addressed. So can it be defended or rebutted? You said 'Do you really think I would make such a claim without evidence?' So what's your evidence? I'll come back to 'evidence' in general later, because a bit of googling shows that there are several lists of 'evidence' in various sources, but to your claims: Well, your immediate piece of evidence is that she 'challenged a judicial nominee on the grounds that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus.' This is immediately a retreat from the full 'anti-Catholic' claim, because while the KoC are a Catholic organisation, they don't include or represent all Catholics, witness Joe Biden, where you airily dismiss Harris' obvious friendship and closeness as being mere ambition You present the KoC in a very good light - an organisation that 'feeds, houses and funds the healthcare of more poor families than most states.' Very laudable, but it's a very partial presentation, as I with a minimum of effort was able to find out. To repeat what I found - they are vociferously anti-abortion and opposed to same-sex marriage. Presumably you knew this, but you chose to omit this - I infer because you knew this would present the LOC to a neutral observer in a less than positive light. If I was being rigorous I could call that a lie by omission. The specific case - which you have either avoided identifying or only know through hearsay - is that of Brian Buescher, whose nomination for federal office was considered in 2018. You said (I repeat) that she 'challenged a judicial nominee on the grounds that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus.' Here are the questions she asked: 1. Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization? 2. Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization? 3. Have you ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights? These do not constitute in any way to challenging him because of his membership - they are based on identifying positions based on key issues in US politics. Your statement of the case was, either through ignorance of the detall or through deliberate manipulation of the case, a lie. Isd it reasonable to question someone about these issues based solely on his membership of an organisation, or might there be other reasons? Well, Buescher had previously run for Nebraska AG. During his campaign, he explicitly said the following [1]: 'I am an avidly pro-life person. And I will not compromise on that issue.'; 'I’m in favor of banning abortion'; 'we go after abortion bit by bit.'; '“publicly and personally against all abortions'; He specifically noted that he does not believe abortion should be legal 'in cases of rape or incest and in cases of forcible rape reported to law enforcement authorities.' And on same-sex marriage [2] 'I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I do not believe homosexuality should be considered the same way race or ethnicity is considered with regard to anti-discrimination laws which currently apply to race or ethnicity' So it is quite clear that Buescher not only was a member of a group that actively campaigns on these issues, but he holds these views quite proudly - and views that go far beyond the requirements of upholding Catholic doctrine. So there is no case to be made on the sole piece of evidence you adduce. On the wider case, there are, as I said, quite a number of pieces floating around on the internet purporting to show Harris being anti-Catholic. Skimmiing several of them, they appear to all draw on the same pool of 'evidence'. For the purposes of this I'm using an article from the Washington Times [3], which seems representative. These are all quoted as anti-Catholic bias - As California attorney general, she backed a 2015 state law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to offer abortion referrals. This is not anti-Catholic, this is pro-choice - She authorized a 2015 raid on the home of pro-life activist David Daleiden over his hidden-camera probe into Planned Parenthood. This is not anti-Catholic, this is anti-harassment - In the Senate, she sponsored the 2019 Do No Harm Act, which would have overridden religious objections to providing birth control. This is not anti-Catholic, this is pro-choice. - She cosponsored the 2017 Equality Act, which would ban discrimination based on gender identity. THis is not anti-Catholic, this is anti-dscrimination In short, it appears to some Catholic organisations that having a different view to them is anti-Catholic. It seems that want they want is to impose Catholic views on non-Catholics. Your naming of Kamala Harris as an anti-Catholic bigot is at best ill-informed, and at worst, is itself overt and direct bigotry. It is based on lies, and as they are easily discoverable as lies, it calls into question how you could not know that these are lies. I would suggest you withdraw this accusation. [1] reproductivefreedomforall.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Brian-Beuscher_NARAL.pdf [2] civilrights.org/resource/oppose-the-confirmation-of-brian-buescher-to-the-u-s-district-court-for-the-district-of-nebraska/[3] www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jul/23/traditional-catholics-warn-of-kamala-harriss-recor/I made the point that they upheld Catholic teaching, so how is that avoiding issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage? These are issues I have previously posted about and do not avoid - indeed, in my initial post on this subject I encourage Kamala Harris to make Jon Bel Edwards a face of her campaign (indeed, a VP pick) pointing out he is pro-life. To suggest a person's membership of a Catholic charity is somehow disqualifying for a judicial position is prejudicial. It had been suggested today that my position on VP Harris is racist and sexist, with no evidence, and is deeply insulting. I, at least, provide some evidence of my claim. You don't have to agree with me.
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Jul 24, 2024 12:08:45 GMT
You began this with a really serious accusation - you called Kamala Harris 'an anti-Catholic bigot.' It needs to be examined carefully, because bigotry is a real issue that needs to be confronted and addressed. So can it be defended or rebutted? You said 'Do you really think I would make such a claim without evidence?' So what's your evidence? I'll come back to 'evidence' in general later, because a bit of googling shows that there are several lists of 'evidence' in various sources, but to your claims: Well, your immediate piece of evidence is that she 'challenged a judicial nominee on the grounds that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus.' This is immediately a retreat from the full 'anti-Catholic' claim, because while the KoC are a Catholic organisation, they don't include or represent all Catholics, witness Joe Biden, where you airily dismiss Harris' obvious friendship and closeness as being mere ambition You present the KoC in a very good light - an organisation that 'feeds, houses and funds the healthcare of more poor families than most states.' Very laudable, but it's a very partial presentation, as I with a minimum of effort was able to find out. To repeat what I found - they are vociferously anti-abortion and opposed to same-sex marriage. Presumably you knew this, but you chose to omit this - I infer because you knew this would present the LOC to a neutral observer in a less than positive light. If I was being rigorous I could call that a lie by omission. The specific case - which you have either avoided identifying or only know through hearsay - is that of Brian Buescher, whose nomination for federal office was considered in 2018. You said (I repeat) that she 'challenged a judicial nominee on the grounds that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus.' Here are the questions she asked: 1. Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization? 2. Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization? 3. Have you ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights? These do not constitute in any way to challenging him because of his membership - they are based on identifying positions based on key issues in US politics. Your statement of the case was, either through ignorance of the detall or through deliberate manipulation of the case, a lie. Isd it reasonable to question someone about these issues based solely on his membership of an organisation, or might there be other reasons? Well, Buescher had previously run for Nebraska AG. During his campaign, he explicitly said the following [1]: 'I am an avidly pro-life person. And I will not compromise on that issue.'; 'I’m in favor of banning abortion'; 'we go after abortion bit by bit.'; '“publicly and personally against all abortions'; He specifically noted that he does not believe abortion should be legal 'in cases of rape or incest and in cases of forcible rape reported to law enforcement authorities.' And on same-sex marriage [2] 'I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I do not believe homosexuality should be considered the same way race or ethnicity is considered with regard to anti-discrimination laws which currently apply to race or ethnicity' So it is quite clear that Buescher not only was a member of a group that actively campaigns on these issues, but he holds these views quite proudly - and views that go far beyond the requirements of upholding Catholic doctrine. So there is no case to be made on the sole piece of evidence you adduce. On the wider case, there are, as I said, quite a number of pieces floating around on the internet purporting to show Harris being anti-Catholic. Skimmiing several of them, they appear to all draw on the same pool of 'evidence'. For the purposes of this I'm using an article from the Washington Times [3], which seems representative. These are all quoted as anti-Catholic bias - As California attorney general, she backed a 2015 state law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to offer abortion referrals. This is not anti-Catholic, this is pro-choice - She authorized a 2015 raid on the home of pro-life activist David Daleiden over his hidden-camera probe into Planned Parenthood. This is not anti-Catholic, this is anti-harassment - In the Senate, she sponsored the 2019 Do No Harm Act, which would have overridden religious objections to providing birth control. This is not anti-Catholic, this is pro-choice. - She cosponsored the 2017 Equality Act, which would ban discrimination based on gender identity. THis is not anti-Catholic, this is anti-dscrimination In short, it appears to some Catholic organisations that having a different view to them is anti-Catholic. It seems that want they want is to impose Catholic views on non-Catholics. Your naming of Kamala Harris as an anti-Catholic bigot is at best ill-informed, and at worst, is itself overt and direct bigotry. It is based on lies, and as they are easily discoverable as lies, it calls into question how you could not know that these are lies. I would suggest you withdraw this accusation. [1] reproductivefreedomforall.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Brian-Beuscher_NARAL.pdf [2] civilrights.org/resource/oppose-the-confirmation-of-brian-buescher-to-the-u-s-district-court-for-the-district-of-nebraska/[3] www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jul/23/traditional-catholics-warn-of-kamala-harriss-recor/I made the point that they upheld Catholic teaching, so how is that avoiding issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage? These are issues I have previously posted about and do not avoid - indeed, in my initial post on this subject I encourage Kamala Harris to make Jon Bel Edwards a face of her campaign (indeed, a VP pick) pointing out he is pro-life. To suggest a person's membership of a Catholic charity is somehow disqualifying for a judicial position is prejudicial. It had been suggested today that my position on VP Harris is racist and sexist, with no evidence, and is deeply insulting. I, at least, provide some evidence of my claim. You don't have to agree with me. I do't agree with you, But you are avoiding the point. As I have demonstated at length, her actions and statements have not been nor can in any way be described as anti-catholic. And you repeat the lie that she suggested his membership was disqualifying. Read what I quoted - she did not. I charitably assumed you were retelling at second hand, but now you have no excuse - you are directly lying, and it is a hurtful lie, which is, aiui, a mortal sin. You have not provided evidence of your claim. What you have demonstrated quite adequately, and to my surprise, is your own acceptance of bigotry.
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Jul 24, 2024 12:34:08 GMT
Reuters seems to have conducted to first poll for president listing Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee. When only Donald Trump and Harris are mentioned, Harris leaders Trump by two points. But when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is included, Harris leads Trump by four points, with Kennedy at 8%
|
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 11,589
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Jul 24, 2024 12:36:03 GMT
If she is elected in November the Vice President will become the third President with the surname Harrison. no she won’t
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jul 24, 2024 13:02:50 GMT
|
|