You wrote:
“This would be a gross abbreviation of the relationship that glosses over the sordid details.”
There are no sordid details in his conversion. His relationship (and even his affair) with his Callista are not the heart of his conversion by any means.
“See, you just wrapped the Gingrich scandal (how he and his present wife were involved previous to their marriage) in Catholicism to cloak it from accountability - just like Gingrich did.”
No, I merely discussed his conversion - and his wife played a role in that. The fact that you can’t (apparently) see a man’s reconciliation with the Church but rather only the sinful mistakes he has made shows prejudice on your part and not reason or fairness. I was right from the beginning.
“That is a cynical use of your religion escape political accountability.”
Nope. You still have not showed a single scrap of evidence for your point of view. Nothing at all. Why is that?
“This really is some fancy footwork- just like Gingrich.”
No, it looks like a genuine conversion experience for Newt. And it looks like prejudice from others.
“No, it looks like a genuine conversion experience for Newt. And it looks like prejudice from others.”
You just told me that you didn’t say I was prejudiced over Newt’s Catholic Conversion, now you say I am. Make up your mind. I know I’ve got you a bit rattled, but this is getting ridiculous.
I wonder if you would also support making allowances to have Newt elected Pope, seeing as how nothing seems to faze your lofty opinion of him. (I’m sure you’ll see the humor in this statement, as I am just kidding)