Skip to comments.Is Pope Francis a fraud? (That didn't take long)
Posted on 03/17/2013 9:59:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Its easy maybe too easy for people with progressive political views to dismiss the Roman Catholic Church as a vile anachronism, a nightmarish patriarchy of aging pedophiles, woman-haters, homophobes and/or closet cases that can offer nothing of value to the contemporary world. When it comes to the church hierarchy, and especially the Roman Curia, the corrupt and labyrinthine Vatican bureaucracy that makes the Soviet-era Kremlin look like a model of transparency, that point of view seems more than justified.
But the church is not just the hierarchy, and as the spectacle of the last several days has demonstrated, there are millions or billions of people around the world Catholics and non-Catholics alike who wish the newly elected Pope Francis well and yearn to see in him the possibility of hope and renewal for this ancient, powerful and heavily tarnished institution that claims direct succession from the apostles of Jesus. As the first Latin American pope and the first Jesuit pope, Francis represents a break with tradition in several ways. Both the name he has chosen and his personal modesty and humility are meant to recall St. Francis of Assisi, one of the most adored figures in the Christian tradition, and no doubt also St. Francis de Sales, a 17th-century mystic, author and ascetic known for his devotion to the poor.
But the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio emerges from a Jesuit order that has been largely purged of its independent-minded or left-leaning intellectuals, and his reputation at home in Latin America is decidedly mixed. While Francis seems to be an appealing personality in some ways albeit one with a shadowy relationship with the former military dictatorship in Argentina, along with a record on gay rights that borders on hate speech.....
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
No, it isn’t my place to walk you through kindergarten, or follow you through a game playing routine.
When someone here, on a thread like this, indicates that they don’t even know how Catholics vote, it doesn’t usually mean that they honestly need to learn the figures for the first time in their life.
Only one. But it takes a long time, costs a lot of money, and the light bulb has to want to change.
Do you need someone to show you for the first time, how Catholics vote, or are you already aware of the Catholic vote?
I said ALL I didn’t say just Catholic. You can’t ciote a source then i will giv e it all the consideration it deserves, Not one D@MN bit. Liberals throw out numbers Conservatives cite sources.
What number that I posted are you finding fault with?
I simply asked for sources to verify them, if you don’t want to or can’t cite a source that is fine i have told you my position. The fact that you are stalling instead of citing tells me quite a bit.
What have you "cited"? Anything? Should that tell everyone "a lot"?
The other poster has, more than any freeper around, previously brought the sort of statistics which he is discussing. Did you know that? It went on for weeks after the last election. Thread after thread the subject matter would arise. Did you really miss all of that?
What number that I posted are you finding fault with?
Do you really need someone to post the Catholic vote for say, Obama? You don’t know that the Catholic vote went for Obama in both elections? What “number” specifically?
Yes we know that Protestants vote overwhelmingly for democrats thank you.
I know individual American Catholics who work hard for life, I just don't see the RCC giving them much backup. Was Pelosi cherished when she visited Frances? All the opportunities to discipline these people. I just don't understand the point of it when we get to see the likes of Ted Kennedy and Katherine Sibelius coddled by popes and bishops.
And where is the citation for that? You make the claim, do as you would have another do perhaps?
"We know" no such things. The only way the above statment could be made to work would need define "protestants" as any and everyone not RC, or to define them as only their most liberal wings, while also in either instance lumping in the athiest left, whom are not "protestant" at all.
That sort of thing, would be subject to special pleadings sort of thing (making the argument specious) much as the statistics which show RC'er's voting Dem Party more consistently than not, is argued against by Trad Cats with a "those people are not really [Roman] Catholic denial/justification.
For those of us paying attention, we've seen all that ground well enough covered on these pages before.
Otherwise, the much vilified "christian right wing" has not been dominated by Rc'ers, but more like Baptists and other bible-based fundamentalist sorts.
Who knows why you would post such nonsense.
The democrats have only won the Protestant vote in 1932, 1936, and 1964. If Protestants decided elections, then America would never elect democrat presidents.
Wow. What a cop-out. But I guess it is the only fig leaf left to you (y'all), which would be why you wear it...
Why I am using the exact same citations that I asked ansell2 for. You can read them in all those posts upthread. Oh that's right he never did supply them.
Who knows why you would post such nonsense. I very politely asked you to supply references for your claims. I requested in post #54 You have thrown out a lot of numbers, I am not saying they are wrong, but I want to see your source.
I was mainly interested in the Protestant numbers but you got all P!$$Y in posts 58 and 61.
In education and research people want to see references and citations. In criminal cases juries want to see evidence. I am simply asking for your sources. In my experience there are only two reasons why people refuse to supply documentation: 1) No such documentation exists.
2) The documentation doesn't say exactly what they claim it does.
The ball is in your court.
Shhhhh the adults are trying to have a conversation. Go outside and play and we will let you know when you can come in.
You gave the impression that your first quote in that post was from me, it wasn’t, you were quoting another poster.
What number that I posted are you finding fault with? I keep asking you for a specific but you won’t give one.
Why would pro lifers fight to pretend that Catholics are not the back bone of the religious left voters? Does anyone care that the pro-abortion democrats can count on the Catholic vote in almost every election and that the left is counting on it to deliver up America and to once and for all defeat Christian America, that Texas is next on the plate for the Catholic vote to take out, which means the end of pro-life chances in presidential politics?
Since collectively the Protestant vote is pro-life and republican, and has only voted democrat 3 times, twice in the 1930s and once in the 1960s, we know that the Protestant vote vote collectively is still voting for life and conservatism, regardless of how individual denominations vote.
The largest Christian denomination is Catholic and they vote majority pro-abortion, the second largest is Southern baptist and they vote 80% or more pro-life, when all Protestants of all stripes, black, Episcopalian and everything are collectively counted after EVERY election, it still totals up to collectively going republican.
Since we are importing Catholic voters by the millions we know that life and marriage and conservatism is doomed in America, do Catholic Hispanics become more conservative and pro-life when they become Protestants? of course, but that wont happen frequently enough to save us.
Do you care about defeating abortion and homosexuality and liberalism in politics, do you think that it helps or hurts for conservatives to learn how Catholics vote as they weigh immigration and efforts to reach out and win support for conservatism?
Why would anyone want to conceal such a thing anyway, not only conceal, but pretend the total opposite, continue spreading a permanent myth. That is an anti-life agenda.
I am sorry protestants are just to intellectually dishonest to deal with. I am going to do something more productive such as bang my head against the wall. Feel free to have the last word
Why not just just tell me what number that I posted that you are finding fault with?
If you are honest and want a source to verify it, why not try that, I can’t read your mind though.
Well, actually your posts are transparent enough that reading your mind is easy in regards to this topic of Catholics and voting for abortion.
Exactly the sort of condescension one would expect from one who declares their church or denomination to be without spot or flaw in spite of glaring evidence to the contrary. Careful now... The Pharisees thought precisely the same thing.