Posted on 04/18/2003 1:26:29 PM PDT by Polycarp
Interesting. Other than his Senate website, the only other campaign type site I found was http://www.dashpac.com/home/about/index.cfm
But there's no hits on this site identifying Daschle as a Catholic either.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 17, 2003
Statement of Senator Tom Daschle
WASHINGTON, DC – "I have been a Catholic all my life, and I will remain one. Every American's religious convictions are deeply personal, and I am not going to participate in a debate that is intended to politicize anyone's religious beliefs, especially during Holy Week. I have had the benefit of Bishop Carlson's guidance on many public and private issues, and that relationship will continue. However, I will not discuss our private conversations in the media."
Guess he was out sick the day they covered excommunication in religion class.
Keep in mind who has been the "bishop" of the Kennedys for nearly a generation. That's right - Cardinal Bernard Law. Where have you heard that name before?
Bingo. The Cardinal of Pedophilia.
That's one of the most nonsensical claims that I've seen in print. Who is to pick and chose it's "claimed members"? Some bigot?
Yeah, I know, label me a Catholic bigot
No, I won't label you a "Catholic bigot". You're just a run of the mill bigot.
From Recovering the Art of Christian Polemics By David Mills
Is This Christ-like?
Here the average American Christian starts squirming in his chair. Is this Christ-like? he will ask. Presumably Cerinthus and Marcion meant well. And even if they didn't, you don't convert someone by calling him the enemy of truth or the firstborn of Satan in public. Is this the way to talk to people for whom Jesus died?
In this case, I think, the early Christians had a much better idea of what is Christ-like than does the average modern Christian. Jesus was (and is) not "nice." He would not be a safe guest to invite to a suburban dinner party. He was not always affirming and inclusive, and He was unpredictably direct.
His love for mankind did not stop Him from speaking bluntly to the men He loved, and speaking in a way that sounds brutal to our ears, and probably did to theirs as well. Take the famous example of His talk with the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23: First, He called them "white-washed tombs." They were, He said, beautiful on the outside but inside full of rotting bodies and "all uncleanness." If He were speaking today, He might compare them to one of those old stone sewage treatment plants, built in a neo-Gothic style to look like a church or a castle. He would tell them, in public, "You may look like Chartres Cathedral on the outside, but on the inside you're full of excrement."
Second, He called them "serpents, [the] brood of vipers." In our terms, He was calling them "poisonous little vermin." In that culture, the term had the same emotional impact as calling someone a "Nazi" today. For one thing, calling them serpents tied them to the first recorded serpent, the one who tempted Eve in the Garden. He was saying that these exceedingly religious men were in fact doing the devil's work.
He said this to their faces, and in front of others. You can find in the Gospels several other examples of Jesus' speaking to hostile listeners in the same way. But - this is the crucial point - He was not speaking this way to insult them. He was speaking this way to get their attention and make them see the truth, so that they would change their lives and turn to Him. If they were insulted, as they usually seem to have been (and I would have been too), that only proves that they did not know who was speaking to them. Whatever God says to you, it is, by definition, not insulting.
The scribes and Pharisees were men He would die for in just a few months. But He would also tell them the truth about themselves, in language they could not ignore, and force them to a decision to repent and follow Him, or not. No one, I trust, would have told Jesus that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Ask me if any Catholic cares about your impertinent and erroneous opinions.
Do you think that Bishop Carlson should tolerate Daschle any further given his track record on manning the tenches in favor of 45 million acts of baby slaughter and counting?
How do you know that no one in the hierarchy has "gently" taken Daschle to task privately? If someone did, would it be any of your business as a non-Roman non-Catholic?
How many acts of despicable lavender molestation of children were performed by priests and how many covered up by bishops? Not that even one instance is tolerable. Do you think 45 million babies sliced, diced and converted to bloody hamburger is not a matter of legitimate concern or that Daschle should not be called to account? And Ted the Swimmer and Ketchup Boy and Mikulski and Patrick Leahy and Christopher Dodd and Patty Murray and Dickie Durbin and Tom Harkin and a number of other sorry excuses for Catholics?
Why is it hypocrisy for Bishop Carlson to act against Daschle? Bishop Carlson seems unlikely to have been involved either in sexual misbehavior of his own or covering such misbehavior by others. Do you have some specific information to share on Bishop Carlson together with respectable links or are you just running your bigoted opinions without foundation?
Hence, we will label you for what you are unless and until you can show us your evidence as to Bishop Carlson. Catholics do not deny that there are serious problems in this Church as to the disgusting misbehavior of our liberals in the ranks of AmChurch bishops.
If you want to make a case against William Cardinal Keeler or Roger Cardinal Mahoney or the late and unlamented Joseph Cardinal Bernardin or the raving lavender AND coverup artist who disgraced the Milwaukee Archdiocese for so many years, Archbishop Rembert Weakland or all too many others, we will gladly join you and thereby give you credibility as one who posts the truth and does so not just because you disagree with our Faith. If you make unjustified character attacks on the good bishops like Carlson we will react every time and your credibility will be right up there with Jack Chick Comics.
If whatever your own personal interpretation of Scripture leads you to believe happens to be closer to the religious views of Jimmy Swaggert or Jim Bakker than to Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz or Bishop Carlson and the former two have been embarassed by personal scandals as Bishop Bruskewitz and Bishop Carlson have not, that proves nothing about who was right and who was wrong theologically. As a Catholic, I will not sink to the level of trying to discredit Swaggert and Bakker by their sins. You sin and I sin and they sin. So did Judas, Peter and Thomas. So what!
Truth is not determined by such criteria and you ought to think more of your own faith than to pretend that it does.
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.