|
Post by cathyc on Jul 24, 2024 13:33:38 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. Several overreactions from you in one go. I said that your comment about Harris being on Biden's coat-tails was condescending and not one I'd heard made about any male VP pick. I'm sure it was you that brought up the issue of her race just so you you make the untruthful suggestion that you'd been called a racist. Lots of VP candidate nominations have had previous disagreements with their running-mate. Biden did with Obama, Kennedy with Johnson. It is allowed, you know - especia;lly as, in this case, Harris was correct. Questioning a nominee for a judicial appointment about their views on issues that might well be presented to them is in no way 'anti Catholic bigotry'. I think some of the recent comments by George Galloway which he claims are based on his religious beliefs are an utter disgrace. Is that a case of 'anti Catholic bigotry'?
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jul 24, 2024 14:26:04 GMT
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. By gum, I have seen some convoluted arguments in my time, but this is a classic. You accuse me of lying - no, to ask someone whether they have supported this principles of a Catholic organisation to which they belong, and set that up as a reason why this might be an obstacle to their appointment to a judicial post, is to show prejudice. You earlier pointed out that, as attorney-general, "she backed a 2015 state law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to offer abortion referrals", as if this was a neutral act - it wasn't, it was imposing a particular act upon organisations which undermined the very reason for their existence. By its very nature, it was illiberal. Your rather determined intent to impugn me as a liar and guilty of mortal sin is somewhat baffling, as it doesn't, even if you were correct, fulfil the criteria (serious matter, full knowledge, deliberate consent). To damn me to hell, which is what you are suggesting, because I disagree with you and don't accept your view, is the most remarkable over-reaction I have come across. Not to worry, I won't take it to heart as, if I were truly a bigot, I wouldn't still be suggesting support for VP Harris over the real bigot-in-chief, Donald J Trump.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jul 24, 2024 14:33:44 GMT
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. Several overreactions from you in one go. I said that your comment about Harris being on Biden's coat-tails was condescending and not one I'd heard made about any male VP pick. I'm sure it was you that brought up the issue of her race just so you you make the untruthful suggestion that you'd been called a racist. Lots of VP candidate nominations have had previous disagreements with their running-mate. Biden did with Obama, Kennedy with Johnson. It is allowed, you know - especia;lly as, in this case, Harris was correct. Questioning a nominee for a judicial appointment about their views on issues that might well be presented to them is in no way 'anti Catholic bigotry'. I think some of the recent comments by George Galloway which he claims are based on his religious beliefs are an utter disgrace. Is that a case of 'anti Catholic bigotry'? riccimarsh made the allusion to race, I accidentally conflated both your points, for which I apologise. However, the idea that I would have made it up to "make the untruthful suggestion that you'd been called a racist" is also untrue.
|
|
|
Post by cathyc on Jul 24, 2024 14:46:28 GMT
Several overreactions from you in one go. I said that your comment about Harris being on Biden's coat-tails was condescending and not one I'd heard made about any male VP pick. I'm sure it was you that brought up the issue of her race just so you you make the untruthful suggestion that you'd been called a racist. Lots of VP candidate nominations have had previous disagreements with their running-mate. Biden did with Obama, Kennedy with Johnson. It is allowed, you know - especia;lly as, in this case, Harris was correct. Questioning a nominee for a judicial appointment about their views on issues that might well be presented to them is in no way 'anti Catholic bigotry'. I think some of the recent comments by George Galloway which he claims are based on his religious beliefs are an utter disgrace. Is that a case of 'anti Catholic bigotry'? riccimarsh made the allusion to race, I accidentally conflated both your points, for which I apologise. However, the idea that I would have made it up to "make the untruthful suggestion that you'd been called a racist" is also untrue. Explanation accepted.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jul 24, 2024 14:48:12 GMT
riccimarsh made the allusion to race, I accidentally conflated both your points, for which I apologise. However, the idea that I would have made it up to "make the untruthful suggestion that you'd been called a racist" is also untrue. Explanation accepted. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Jul 24, 2024 14:54:00 GMT
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. By gum, I have seen some convoluted arguments in my time, but this is a classic. You accuse me of lying - no, to ask someone whether they have supported this principles of a Catholic organisation to which they belong, and set that up as a reason why this might be an obstacle to their appointment to a judicial post, is to show prejudice. You earlier pointed out that, as attorney-general, "she backed a 2015 state law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to offer abortion referrals", as if this was a neutral act - it wasn't, it was imposing a particular act upon organisations which undermined the very reason for their existence. By its very nature, it was illiberal. Your rather determined intent to impugn me as a liar and guilty of mortal sin is somewhat baffling, as it doesn't, even if you were correct, fulfil the criteria (serious matter, full knowledge, deliberate consent). To damn me to hell, which is what you are suggesting, because I disagree with you and don't accept your view, is the most remarkable over-reaction I have come across. Not to worry, I won't take it to heart as, if I were truly a bigot, I wouldn't still be suggesting support for VP Harris over the real bigot-in-chief, Donald J Trump. 1. Did you actually read what she asked? She asked if he knew about those principles. And she asked separately if he as an individual advocated against women's rights. Once again you are transparently distorting what she said. This is, effectively lying about her words. 2. We could argue over whether it is illiberal or not, to give an individual choice - but that's not the field you or the organisations chose; those words were - as I pointed out - used to categorise Harris as an anti-Catholic. Your response would indicate that that is ground that has been surrendered. 3. Hey, you're the Catholic, you tell me - you've made a horrible claim about a person without evidence, and made stuff up to try and support your claim - doesn't that sound like lying? And isn't that sinful? 4. It's immaterial whether or not you're saying you'll support her - calling her a bigot without evidence (and remember, you said you had evidence) is a heinous accusation. I've pursued this today because I find it utterly shocking that you would do this. I began by thinking you were merely repeating something you'd heard, but apparently not.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,131
|
Post by mboy on Jul 24, 2024 15:32:48 GMT
OMG frame this exchange and make it this forum's banner
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 24, 2024 15:48:10 GMT
If she is elected in November the Vice President will become the third President with the surname Harrison. And if Donald Trump is elected in November it will be a third term for a President with the surname Truman.
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jul 24, 2024 21:04:01 GMT
Hostage to fortune.
I expect Harris to win by an innings and plenty because she is the only candidate who is not manifestly unfit for office. I was not aware of her anti Catholicism, but it speaks well of her on an otherwise thin resume
As with many political women, her joyous enthusiasm for abortion troubles me. I honestly managed to live for fifty-five years without realising that abortion was aspirational. It was Irish women that awakened me
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jul 24, 2024 21:06:14 GMT
Hostage to fortune.
I expect Harris to win by an innings and plenty because she is the only candidate who is not manifestly unfit for office. I was not aware of her anti Catholicism, but it speaks well of her on an otherwise thin resume
As with many political women, her joyous enthusiasm for abortion troubles me. I honestly managed to live for fifty-five years without realising that abortion was aspirational. It was Irish women that awakened me
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jul 24, 2024 21:06:36 GMT
Hostage to fortune.
I expect Harris to win by an innings and plenty because she is the only candidate who is not manifestly unfit for office. I was not aware of her anti Catholicism, but it speaks well of her on an otherwise thin resume
As with many political women, her joyous enthusiasm for abortion troubles me. I honestly managed to live for fifty-five years without realising that abortion was aspirational. It was Irish women that awakened me
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jul 24, 2024 21:07:34 GMT
Hostage to fortune.
I expect Harris to win by an innings and plenty because she is the only candidate who is not manifestly unfit for office. I was not aware of her anti Catholicism, but it speaks well of her on an otherwise thin resume
As with many political women, her joyous enthusiasm for abortion troubles me. I honestly managed to live for fifty-five years without realising that abortion was aspirational. It was Irish women that awakened me
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jul 24, 2024 21:13:49 GMT
Hostage to fortune.
I expect Harris to win by an innings and plenty because she is the only candidate who is not manifestly unfit for office. I was not aware of her anti Catholicism, but it speaks well of her on an otherwise thin resume
As with many political women, her joyous enthusiasm for abortion troubles me. I honestly managed to live for fifty-five years without realising that abortion was aspirational. It was Irish women that awakened me
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,131
|
Post by mboy on Jul 24, 2024 21:25:20 GMT
So this is the first test for Harris. While she and many other Democrats were engaging in a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli protest, other pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli protesters were burning American flags around the corner:
The public will see all this, and their conclusions will be quick and simple: these are also Democrats, and Harris is with them. Does she have the courage to speak out here? Or does she hand Trump his first open goal? Does she want the comfort zone, or does she want to win?
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jul 24, 2024 21:42:04 GMT
Hostage to fortune. I expect Harris to win by an innings and plenty because she is the only candidate who is not manifestly unfit for office. I was not aware of her anti Catholicism, but it speaks well of her on an otherwise thin resume As with many political women, her joyous enthusiasm for abortion troubles me. I honestly managed to live for fifty-five years without realising that abortion was aspirational. It was Irish women that awakened me I’m sorry I didn’t quite catch that!
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Jul 25, 2024 0:05:05 GMT
Hostage to fortune. I expect Harris to win by an innings and plenty because she is the only candidate who is not manifestly unfit for office. I was not aware of her anti Catholicism, but it speaks well of her on an otherwise thin resume As with many political women, her joyous enthusiasm for abortion troubles me. I honestly managed to live for fifty-five years without realising that abortion was aspirational. It was Irish women that awakened me Enough already!!
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Jul 25, 2024 0:10:15 GMT
OMG frame this exchange and make it this forum's banner I too offer any and all apologies since I was part of the allegations/confusion. First round on me next time. Much love to all.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 25, 2024 7:02:06 GMT
Hostage to fortune. I expect Harris to win by an innings and plenty because she is the only candidate who is not manifestly unfit for office. I was not aware of her anti Catholicism, but it speaks well of her on an otherwise thin resume As with many political women, her joyous enthusiasm for abortion troubles me. I honestly managed to live for fifty-five years without realising that abortion was aspirational. It was Irish women that awakened me But she is an anti-Roman Catholic black woman and will not get the votes of large demographics Redneck, Rust Belt males, RCs, the Right, Core Republicans and sundry others. I see it as being close at best for her. I still lean to a Trump narrow victory but with fewer votes than for Harris.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,131
|
Post by mboy on Jul 25, 2024 7:11:55 GMT
So this is the first test for Harris. While she and many other Democrats were engaging in a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli protest, other pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli protesters were burning American flags around the corner: The public will see all this, and their conclusions will be quick and simple: these are also Democrats, and Harris is with them. Does she have the courage to speak out here? Or does she hand Trump his first open goal? Does she want the comfort zone, or does she want to win? While the BBC reports all this disgraceful behaviour fairly faithfully, the Guardian leaves it to the GuardianUSA to report, which means - as expected - that the report is a sanitised and censored "lie by omission" account. It excluded all references to the violence of the protestors, the stealing and burning of US flags, and all the pro-Hamas and pro-terrorist graffiti and signs. The Guardian's USA branch is one of the most dishonest and duplicitous mainstream Western news organisations on the planet, with a decade-long record of manipulation, distortions, omissions, and outright lies (it's completely different staff to the GuardianUK, and now makes more money than the UK branch). This is an important factor to consider for those calling for censorship of 'misinformation' because of course they never mean of their own preferred narratives. www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/24/netanyahu-congress-protests-security
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,961
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 25, 2024 7:35:11 GMT
Yawn...the usual suspects, slavishly pro-Israel, complain about the GuardianUSA. Good for the Guardian.
|
|