Without breaking down the wall between evangelicals and Catholics in politics, so that evangelicals have unthinkingly accepted that conservative Catholics should be just as easily accepted as evangelicals, there would have been no Romney campaign. And Romney won’t be the end of it. The party leaders (even “rulers”) would mostly like to see the GOP become fiscally conservative and morally moderate and secular humanist, and Christianity be something kept to oneself.
And we aren’t talking about past SC justices, but the present. But since you seem to suggest that Catholics were turned to because Protestants were unreliable, see above. And there also hasn’t been an evangelical in decades. And, like how Roberts and Kennedy have come out with the liberals on key rulings, the people in power seek to pick those who cooperate with their agendas. Souter was no accident. The Protestant deceivers came about in a specific era when the country was doing an about-face on God and morals, and if the GOP had picked Cont’d
“Without breaking down the wall between evangelicals and Catholics in politics, so that evangelicals have unthinkingly accepted that conservative Catholics should be just as easily accepted as evangelicals, there would have been no Romney campaign.”
I did not even know that there was a “wall between Evangelicals and Catholics”. And of course, you think there is a good side and a bad side of this supposed “wall”.
And of course, you think Catholics are always on the bad side.
If you hate Catholics, just say so. I have been trying, politely and respectfully, to show you that Catholics have been the ones who stood up for principles. That doesn’t seem to matter to you.
And where do you get off blaming Catholics for Romney? Romney is a Mormon.