Skip to comments.It’s started:“This is a big moment for Catholic voters to step back from their party affiliation.”
Posted on 08/10/2012 8:10:04 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
Americas Catholics were once among the Democrats largest voting blocs. This year that advantage is gone as Catholics are poised to turn against them.
In May when Pope Benedict assigned Bishop William E. Lori to be the new spiritual leader of the Diocese of Baltimore, Americas oldest diocese, he was sending a message directly to Barack Obama and his Democrats especially elected Catholic Democrats.
Bishop Lori chairs the U.S. Conference of Bishops Ad Hoc Committee For Religious Liberty, which was formed specifically by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the organizations head, to oppose Gay marriage and combat Obamacares mandates aimed at forcing Catholic employers to include contraception and abortion in their workers healthcare packages.
Upon being named to his new post, Bishop Lori said he planned to confront Marylands putatively Catholic Governor Martin OMalley about his support for Gay marriage.
The church has clearly and consistently taught the greatness of marriage between one man and one woman. Certainly, I will continue that teaching as a bishop and will be working on this issue as the referendum unfolds, Lori said at the time.
This past week, speaking to the national convention of the Knights of Columbus, Americas leading Catholic laymans organization, Bishop Lori could not have been clearer when he said, This is a big moment for Catholic voters to step back from their party affiliation.
Speaking directly to Catholic voters the Bishop advises, The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances? If thats the case, a Catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldnt be voting for such a person.
Vatican threat of unprecedented gravity to the Catholic Churchs liberty and public moral witness.
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Ping for later
Others need to get out of the shadows....
....And vote for the renewal and preservation of our God-given liberties...
It goes for referendum in November but it doesn't look good.
its started a while ago and as a practicing Catholic i am seeing and hearing about more and more angry homilys on the altar....i just hope my fellow Catholics who foolishly vote for pro-abortionists finally wake up....
I don’t think religion should have anything to do with politics.
You don't believe that people should be free to vote for politicians who align themselves with their personal religious beliefs? Is that what you're saying?
Voting RAT should be a transgression that requires confession.
Beliefs belong in church, and church-driven politics is one of the greatest threats to life - and liberty - known to man.
Don’t believe that poll for a moment. I suspect it was strongly fudged because there is going to be a referendum about marriage in Maryland in November.
30% of Maryland’s population is black, whose opposition to gay marriage is around 60-70% or more. So to get poll results like this, they would likely need 80% of white voters to be in favor. Not likely.
> “Beliefs belong in church, and church-driven politics is
> one of the greatest threats to life - and liberty - known
> to man.”
This is true only when a church tries to force its beliefs on others. When others try to force their beliefs on a church, which is the case this time, the church’s struggle against that is to preserve their life and liberty.
Politics is about religion.
Communal organizations KNOWN to use force to impose communal "beliefs" on others ... would include most religions and all communist governments.
To some extent, yes; but religion should be universally divorced from politics.
Our forefathers called for a separation of church and state, and here we are on this forum, arguing for and against that separation.
The more I hear about Lori the more impressed I am. I like this guy and he’s just what the Church needs right now.
Let the excommunications begin, hehehehe!
Ridiculous and ignorant, politics and government has always been about man's most basic force and inner system.
You may as well say that motherhood should not involve love, but only the mechanics and maintenance of health and functioning of the organism.
The non-religious Americans vote liberal, the religious vote conservative, which group to you vote with?
No the religious people of America created the greatest nation in history, and created a government based on their religion and religious principles which would govern as a non-religious administrative body, manned and elected by mostly the faithful.
Your anti-religious view is what has driven us into the ground over the last 60 years as the left has minimized and driven out Christianity from politics and government as an anti-liberal/totalitarian influence that must be exorcised to win power over the people.
The Hart poll cues its respondents by reminding them that "the state legislature recently approved a law allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry in Maryland" before asking whether they approve or not. "Cuing" is a method to put a subtle finger on the polling scale, but more sophisticated, unbiased pollsters don't do so.
I'm guessing this vote will go the way all other similar votes have gone.
Actually, the forefathers simply did not want the state to declare which church (religion) should be mandated, they never called for "separation of church and state". That phrase was taken out of context by the Supreme Court when they made up the relatively new idea that we call separation of church and state.
Most of the founders would be shocked by that court decision and turn of phrase, the vast majority of them had no problems with religious beliefs in the public square.
Not just communist governments. Otto Von Bismarck imposed his Kulturkampf against the Catholics. The KKK also was markedly anti-Catholic in the 1920s. The French revolution turned strongly to Catholic oppression, and Voltaire is still held up for his anti-religious beliefs.
There is a new movie, For Greater Glory, about the Cristeros War (1926-1929), of the religious people of Mexico against their officially atheist government.
While a long time ago, the Catholic church did indeed oppress others, the last example being in Ireland, they have been getting serious oppression from governments and anti-Catholic organizations before and since.
In balance and all fairness, what people do among themselves, and in the marketplace with those who want their products and services, should not have the religious or anti-religious values of others forced on them, nor should they be forced to pay taxes directly used against their beliefs.
Our forefathers went on to make separation of church and state clear in the words ...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
If your Lord and Saviour doesn't accompany you into the voting booth, you aren't much of a Christian.
Atheistic government has proven to be the greatest threat to life, liberty and property in the history of mankind. Beginning with the benighted and bloody French Revolution, and continuing unto today's American Abortion Regime, atheistic government has cut an unparalleled swath of death, destruction, and misery. Nothing else, not even mohammedanism, comes close.
A half truth is worse than an outright fabrication. Your post is a half truth.
The words "separation of "church and state" were coined by a 20th century liberal supreme court justice, stolen from an obscure phrase in an obscure letter from Thomas Jefferson.
The discussion of this clause was never considered by the founders as the supreme court ruled.
Sorry, you can look it up if you wish, but that is the simple truth.
I think your emphasis is wrong in that phrase. The term "respecting" in that context means "with respect to" or "pertaining to" or "with regards to".
I think the emphasis for that phrase implies:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Wrong!!! You've twisted some words (using the word "mandating" to replace the word "respecting") used in the First Amendment to fit your argument.
What would you call that?
How do you read "separation of church and state" in that phrase? I showed you clearly how it's written (establishing=mandating, as they did in Europe at that time), you're just pretending you're right and you're not. The phrase was never used until the supreme court stepped in with their 20th century decision, it was never used by the founders.
Go ahead, look it up. You'll never find that phrase until the supreme court used it centuries after the founders were all dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.