Posted on 09/13/2012 8:28:28 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
....religious-minded Americans also have to reconcile conflicting stances on political views within the church itself.
For example, both Mormon and Catholic doctrines preach anti-abortion and traditional family values that align with the Republican way. At the same time, church leaders also publicly adopted a Democrat-esque, humane approach to immigration enforcement, inccluding a path to citizenship.
[SNIP]
The conversation also is about immigration and church officials' views that politicians should adopt a more tolerant view of the presence of immigrants.
The softer stance stems from a growing number of undocumented immigrants converting to Mormonism — an estimated 70 percent of Latino Mormons are undocumented. In the Catholic Church, where membership is steadily declining, immigrants are offsetting those losses.
A 2012 poll by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization, revealed that 69 percent of foreign-born Latinos identify themselves as Catholic. To maintain membership, religious leaders must tread lightly near these issues.
[SNIP]
Today, about 25 percent of Arizona residents, about 950,000, call themselves Catholic. And the diocese has no problem throwing its weight around.
Olmsted wrote a letter in January to Phoenix-area Catholics blasting portions of "Obamacare," the Affordable Care Act requiring all employers' insurance policies to cover contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.
Priests read the letter at Catholic masses across the Valley.
[SNIP]
The church also easily navigated the Arizona Legislature, where Representative Debbie Lesko, a Republican, sponsored a measure that essentially protected churches and religiously affiliated employers from having to include birth control and related services in their insurance plans.
And yet, members are not always in lockstep with the church.
Despite the bishops' consternation over birth control mandates, 82 percent of Catholics believe that birth control is morally acceptable, compared to 90 percent of non-Catholics, according to a Gallup poll conducted in May.
(Excerpt) Read more at phoenixnewtimes.com ...
“The law Romney signed did not mention abortion coverage. It [abortion] was included by the state exchange, which created plans that mirror private insurance nationwide. And a court decision two decades earlier mandated that the cost of the abortions be included.”
You quote the despised and mocked Reagan biographer, Cannon, what is it you were trying to say by using his false, anti-Reagan words?
Guys, you don’t need to argue about the past, a couple of weeks ago, Mitt Romney renounced the Republican party pro-life platform, and returned to being openly pro-abortion.
The Reagan you worship is a product of talk radio, he never existed in real life. Reagan made all sort of compromises while President. He was a man and a politician, not perfect.
In fact in late 1980s your sort of “Conservative” purists were busy accusing Reagan of selling out the Conservative movement.
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-09-06/news/mn-6253_1_arms-control
From Sept 1987
Deserting’ His Position
“Many who wouldn't publicly criticize Reagan now are doing it,” conservative activist Richard A. Viguerie said. “They're concerned about abortion, pornography, busing and economic issues, but at the core of the criticism is anti-communism. Across the board he seems to be deserting his anti-communist position he has had for the last 30 years.”
From the earliest days of Reagan's presidency, some right-wing activists have never been entirely satisfied with the Administration's ideological zeal, particularly on foreign policy and so-called “social issues.” In the past, Reagan's vast popularity inhibited open complaints, but now—as he approaches the last year of his final term weakened by the Iran-contra affair—these critics are becoming outspoken.
I’m sorry you both find the truth so disturbing. Very well I will leave you both to cling to your emotion based bubble worlds.
That is an interesting post, it has nothing to do with me or anyone on this thread, but you started and finished your own conversation, by merely using some stranger of the LA Times writing staff, from a quarter century ago, to represent my own response or my own personal view.
You attack me with your own words, then use your own words as my response to your attack.
You did reveal that you think that Ronald Reagan “ is a product of talk radio, he never existed in real life”.
Personally he changed my life, I even went back into the military because of him, you can’t imagine how much he meant to millions of us, that was before conservative radio existed of course.
There you are doing that same thing that you do on thread after thread, leave a nasty response as you are leaving, as though you are responding to one sent to you, but you use post number 1 as the address, and use the names of those that you want to insult, for the ping.
Didn’t JR get on you a day or two ago for some of this kind of thing?
I’m sorry but your screaming your emotion based opinion louder doesn’t change your fictional world view to fact.
Why are you posting to post number 1 instead of my posts?
Thanks. I’m trying to convince MN Johnnie that Romney is a dirty rotton traitor, and we do not advance the cause of conservativism by assisting him or his campaign.
I’m sorry your feelings are hurt but as I pointed out to you. Just screaming a emotion based rant over and over doesn’t change the inconvenient facts. I am sorry you find it so utterly impossible to cope with basic truth.
No screaming or emotion based opinion or fictions.
If you know a lot about Mitt Romney and his character, then can you tell us if at this moment (today, right now), is Mitt pro-life, or pro-abortion?
Does Mitt support the GOP party platform on abortion?
“The law Romney signed did not mention abortion coverage. It [abortion] was included by the state exchange, which created plans that mirror private insurance nationwide. And a court decision two decades earlier mandated that the cost of the abortions be included.”
Why then did Romney not take steps to protect the religious liberty of the Catholic church and Catholics residing in Massachusetts given these developments?
If his plan cut a path for the insurance coverage and public funding of abortion - is that not a terribly flawed plan? Why pass a bill that would grant that enormous power to the state exchanges to make these binding decisions in the first place?
Go read the article I linked to. You are seriously embarrassing yourself here. I’m sorry the truth hurts. But you need to learn to deal with the facts, not just cling to your emotion based opinions.
Go read the article I linked.
It is utterly impossible to have a rational discussion with people like yourself that utterly refuses to learn even a single fact that challenges your emotion based opinions.
All you are accomplishing here is making yourselves look incredible childish and ignorant.
Instead of desperately flailing around for some absurd nonsense to divert off topic, address the facts.
So you simply refuse to interact or address any posts, or refute any facts?
Or even to quit using false post pings to hide your tracks?
Your answer is the correct one. How many pro-life Presidents have we had since R v. W? Yet this is still the Law of the Land. Abortion will remain legal as long as Americans want it to be, and about 70% of American voters support abortion in some way or another (about 40% support the Democrat "abortion anytime, anywhere" platform while a mere 20% support the "no abortion for any reason" platform championed by candidates such as Akin and Santorum).
The truth is there's many Republican voters who support RIH (rape, incest, health) abortions and then others who claim to be pro-life until their 14-year old daughter gets knocked up by some gang-banger. And then, in their hearts, they're happy the option exists.
“address the facts.”
The fact is that Romneycare opened the door for the expansion of and public funding of abortion in Massachusetts.
You, yourself have just said that this was the case. Your rebuttal shifts the blame away from Romney. But the state officials would not have had the power to do this thing without Romneycare. Romneycare was the essential tool in the box that they needed to accomplish these things.
What do you hope to accomplish through voting for Romney, MNJohnnie?
Your statements are totally divorced from all contact from reality. You are, to put it kindly, utterly deranged.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm
Republican Party on Abortion
Support human life amendment; oppose abortion funding
Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012
What does something like that mean?
We weren't actually living during Reagan, voting for Reagan, serving under Reagan, we hadn't been watching and listening to Reagan for decades before he was president?
What does a strange statement like that mean?
Reagan isn't real, or good in your eyes?
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.