Posted on 07/03/2003 2:27:18 PM PDT by nickcarraway
How far back are you going? As far as I know Ray Flynn has been viciously attacked by opponents as being strongly pro-life for many years now. In any case, I'll take a convert to the pro-life side anyday. That isn't a bad thing.
So what? He was a religious conservative who got skewered by the liberals. FYI, Episcopalians call themelves "Catholics" too.
Tonight, UNSPUN with AnnaZ and Guest Hostess DIOTIMA!
A RadioFR CALL IN ONLY Show!!!!
”RED, WHITE and YOU!”
What does July 4th mean to YOU!
Call in and tell us!
1-866-RADIOFR
Click HERE to LISTEN LIVE while you FReep!
Click HERE for the RadioFR Chat Room!
Miss a show? Click HERE for the RadioFR Archives!
The point group working with Schumer in blocking these nominations is PFAW--a group created for the express purpose of driving Christians out of the public square and out of elected office. Eventually Christians will be forced to stop being so tolerant and polite about what is being done to them and who is doing it.
Human nature is such that the political views of each and every Supreme Court justice cloud his or her interpretation of the law. I think it is worse with the Democratic justices, who unahamedly cite European court rulings when our own precedents are not to their liking. However, even the GOP judges usually (certainly not always) manage to find that correct interpretation of the law is in accord with the outcome they prefer.
I've always found that disturbing, and sad. Certainly looking at his personal life, he didn't seem to care much about the values of his faith.
Happy Independence Day everybody!
LOL! The Dems are the leading voices in the de-Christianization of America. Here's what doesn't make much sense. Catholic Dems like Flynn would claim they personally don't accept the pro-abortion policies of their party but must remain Dems because of liberal social justice and economic issues. Why they could not be pro-life Republicans who personally don't accept the conservative economic policies of that party remains a mystery perhaps they should explain. Since when did economics mandate compromising with the slaughter of the unborn?
The priority ought to be to end abortion first and debate social security, minimum wage, and welfare later. This enslavement of intellectually-challenged urban ethnics to the pro-abortion party is not exactly a pristine example of sound Catholic moral reasoning. It's fine if Flynn's grandpa was hoodwinked into thinking FDR was Santa Claus like that other lightweight Doris Kearns, but, really, he needs to get with the program. Whether Dem socialism is mandated by Catholic social teaching is debatable as well.
There are six of them already there - the six that decided there is a Constitutional right to sodomy so that homosexuals won't be "demeaned". That's clouded to the point of utter darkness.
Dems engage in a lot of anti-Catholic and anti-Christian posturing. Most support abortion and deride pro-life Catholics. Most oppose school choice, but not infrequently send their own to private schools. They support the alternative lifestyle agendas, and villify Catholics and other religious conservatives who support traditional family values. When an offensive art exhibit featured the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung, liberals supported the art exhibit. Liberal Catholics who are Dems go against church teaching and support abortion, including the grotesque and barbaric partial-birth abortion and embryonic stem-cell harvesting. However, when election time comes they wheel out their Irish, Italian, or Polish Catholic credentials and milk their working class and suburban followers for votes. And they are glad to accept honors and honorary degrees from Catholic colleges and universities while thumbing their noses at church moral teachings. The history of Catholic involvement with the anti-Catholic and anti-Christian Democratic Party is one of the more bizarre episodes in American social history.
There is, however, nothing preventing Cardinal Hickey, Keeler, and the new Bishop of Boston from informing the Kennedys of their irregular positions on pro-life issues. They could do so now, today. Why do you suppose they do not?
He sure did.
Happy Independence Day to you as well, NY.
There is no such thing as neutrality. Only a computer or machine could be neutral, as every human has consciousness, which is defined by thoughts, desires, feelings, will - all individual, and all colored by one's world view. Some people are closer to seeing reality than others. The evil smart people (you mention Clinton - though I don't know how smart he really is) are called in Sanskrit "mayaya pahritajnana" - their knowledge is stolen by illusion. They may be very "smart" or intellectual, may have high IQ's - but because of their arrogance and desire to emulate the Supreme, they actually can't see reality at all. They are living in their own hell. The unfortunate thing is they want everyone else to live in it too.
Ray left out part of the Know Nothing story, the compulsory attendance laws of the mid-1800s that consigned Irish immigrants to Protestant "public" schools. It was the ignoble beginning of government education.
There is, however, nothing preventing Cardinal Hickey, Keeler, and the new Bishop of Boston from informing the Kennedys of their irregular positions on pro-life issues. They could do so now, today. Why do you suppose they do not?
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.