John Kerry is going to LOSE!

on Sep 06, 2004

BTW Gideon, this just in. The Democrats have "already" tried screaming "separation of church and state" over this! And they were very politely "shut down"!

47

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 06, 2004

BTW Gideon, this just in. The Democrats have "already" tried screaming "separation of church and state" over this! And they were very politely "shut down"!

drmiler,

The fact that you ignore the FACTS for your political bias, shows that you are rather ignorant and not worthy of my time to debate. Good day sir

48

drmiler

on Sep 06, 2004

Reply #47 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/6/2004 10:52:45 AM

BTW Gideon, this just in. The Democrats have "already" tried screaming "separation of church and state" over this! And they were very politely "shut down"!

drmiler,

The fact that you ignore the FACTS for your political bias, shows that you are rather ignorant and not worthy of my time to debate. Good day sir

Could you please explain to me just "how" I'm ignoring the "facts"?

Here's a "fact" for ya!
The benediction at the rally was given by retired bishop Rene Gracitas of Corpus Christi, Texas, who also was invited to give the invocation following Vice President Cheney's speech on Wednesday night. He told NewsMax that he believes he was invited "because in the middle of August I issued a statement in which I said that no Catholic could vote for John Kerry with a clear conscience."

"No Catholic could ever vote for John Kerry because he is 100 percent pro-abortion whereas President Bush is not," he told NewsMax just before Bush's speech.

And here's another one for you from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

Catholic Bishops discuss integrity, permissible election activities
Monday, September 06, 2004

By Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Faith and politics are at issue in separate documents issued by the Catholic dioceses of Pittsburgh and Greensburg.

In Greensburg, Bishop Lawrence Brandt's first pastoral letter, "Integrity and the Political Arena," uses strong language against Catholic legislators who support abortion rights, but it backs the U.S. bishops' position that it is up to such legislators to voluntarily refrain from the Eucharist. A pamphlet from the Diocese of Pittsburgh reiterates church and Internal Revenue Service guidelines about what election-oriented activities are permitted or forbidden on church property.

Brandt reaches the same conclusion about dissenting legislators that Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl did in a May speech that the bishops' conference later echoed. But where Wuerl allowed that poor Catholic grounding and media obfuscation may have left some Catholic legislators confused about why the church opposes abortion, Brandt found little room for excuse. To pretend to be a good Catholic while erasing fetuses from the human race calls into question legislators' integrity and, therefore, their fitness for office, Brandt wrote.

"In view of the well-articulated, well-publicized, and consistent position of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, and on the basis of dialogues which may have taken place concerning public officials' advocating questionable positions from the point of view of Catholic Church teaching, it is difficult to imagine that Catholic public officials or aspirants for public office could be ignorant of the fact that voting in favor of abortion legislation is gravely wrong and is a rejection of a core doctrinal holding of the Catholic Church concerning the sanctity of human life from the moment of fertilization," Brandt wrote.

Nevertheless, "I think the decision about the reception of Holy Communion should be put where it belongs -- on the person contemplating receiving Holy Communion. It should not be imposed on the bishop, on the priest, on the deacon, nor on the Eucharistic minister. That is 'passing the buck!'" he wrote.

In Pittsburgh, where Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry, a vocal abortion rights advocate, has received communion at his wife's home parish of St. Scholastica in Aspinwall, some anti-abortion advocates picketed Wuerl's office. But the feedback that Brandt has received has been primarily positive, said Angie Burrows, a spokeswoman for the diocese.

"The most important issue for him, as the title of the letter suggests, is integrity," she said. "You can't espouse certain religious beliefs and then publicly act inconsistently with those beliefs."

The Diocese of Pittsburgh reissued its "Political Action Guidelines for Campaigning Activity at Parishes and Schools." The brochure emphasizes that while parishes and schools should apply Catholic values to public issues, partisan activity for candidates is forbidden.

Church organizations can register voters in a nonpartisan drive but cannot arrange for groups to work for a particular candidate. Distribution of any candidate survey "that evidences a bias toward certain issues" also is forbidden.

A parish may host a forum in which all candidates for an office discuss the issues, but it may not invite only selected candidates to address members, said Susan Rauscher, diocesan secretary for pastoral and social concerns.

Church property may not be used for purposes that contradict Catholic teaching. And a person whose conduct, voting record or public comments are contrary to church teaching should not be given awards, the brochure said.

Asked whether a legislator who favored abortion rights could speak at a parish on topics unrelated to abortion, Rauscher said that would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

"It would go through a review process. It gets a little gray. Some of the things that can weigh into it include whether or not they are in the middle of a political campaign, what information they were bringing and their expertise," she said.

The diocese reissues these guidelines about two months before every election, Rauscher said.

And GOOD DAY to you also!

49

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 06, 2004

Could you please explain to me just "how" I'm ignoring the "facts"?

With pleasure.

Do you consider the IRS webpage a legitimate source of info, or is it part of the vast leftwing conspiracy?

Link

50

kingbee

on Sep 06, 2004

In view of the well-articulated, well-publicized, and consistent position of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years

that's patent nonsense too (not cuz of the calendar confusion either) abortion was only considered incidentally sinful--in that termination of pregnancy destroyed evidence of immoral sexual activity--for quite some time (like several hundred + years)

51

drmiler

on Sep 06, 2004

Reply #49 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/6/2004 11:15:26 AM

Could you please explain to me just "how" I'm ignoring the "facts"?

With pleasure.

Do you consider the IRS webpage a legitimate source of info, or is it part of the vast leftwing conspiracy?

Link

Just like you seem to be ignoring the "facts" that I've posted! Go reread you other blog!

52

ShoZan

on Sep 06, 2004

Despite a Retired Bishop talking about Bush and Kerry, which the Church could use as a reason for his opinions not reflecting the views of the Church.

"No Catholic could ever vote for John Kerry because he is 100 percent pro-abortion whereas President Bush is not,"

No to mention the phrase itself could be argued that it still does not entirely reflect a Pro Candidate Atmosphere, because he doesn't say vote for Bush, and it would have to be argued in court, etc, but the Church when if it comes to the worse will stick with the first argument, and we all know that argument works for everything.

Will Catholic Church's Criticism of Kerry Jeopardize Tax Exemption?[LINK] this one is about a Bishop from Colorado

Though so you don't think I lean to the left to much, here's a problem from supporting the left on the Catholic Church

Catholic Group to Ask IRS to Revoke Tax-Exempt Status of Florida Church[LINK], this is one where Democrats turned a Sunday Mass into a Sunday Rally.

Actually if you search for "Catholic Church Tax Exempt" you can come across a lot of articles that have to deal with the Catholic Church and Tax Exempt Status, so it's not the first time for the Catholic Church, after all it's employees are still human, as for the minister and tax exempt status, my Philosophy teacher can't say anything on Political Views in class, because it would jeopardize his church's tax exempt status, but what will happen if a Church lose's it tax exempt status, would the Church be taxed outright, and what would be the effects of such an action, looks like another Catch 22 on both sides.

53

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 06, 2004

I have ignored no facts. I challenged the veracity of this statement:

To all of you hopefuls out there, "Abandon hope all ye who enter here"! I live in PA which is "one" of the swing states. The Catholics in PA (practising catholics anyway) have been asked NOT to vote for John Kerry (by the dioces because of his stand on abortion.

The fact is, they were NOT asked by the diocese, as you assert

#2) They would need a "legal" reason to do so. And that my friend, as they say does NOT exsist! They have done "nothing" illegal to warrent such an action.

And here is where it started. You asserted they had no legal reason for taking action

B*llS**t!!! Thay have endorsed NO candidate! They just said don't vote for this one. What they didn't say and you obviously didn't catch was, vote for "this" candidate. So "once again" I repeat, they have done NOTHING illegal! I'm sure glad "you" ain't my lawyer!

I caught everything, and responded in kind.

But again as I said before that ain't going to happen. They can ill aford to anger that large of a block of voters weather what they're doing is wrong or not.

The fact is, if the diocese were violating the law and the IRS DIDN'T act, then they would be facing numerous lawsuits from the many churches whose tax status they have revoked for lesser violations of the law. They would have every authority to act, as they have been VERY CLEAR about these limits to all pastors for a number of years (incidentally, this is why I refuse to seek 501c3 status).

The Diocese of Pittsburgh reissued its "Political Action Guidelines for Campaigning Activity at Parishes and Schools." The brochure emphasizes that while parishes and schools should apply Catholic values to public issues, partisan activity for candidates is forbidden.

And in this, you actually AFFIRM my argument by stating that they've clarified the guidelines for their parishes.

I ignored no facts. Frankly, I STOOD on the facts, while YOU ignored them. The fact is, one of the major assertions of the original post is wrong (as for the flap about the medals, I don't know military procedure and will defer the response on that to those who do).

Just as a sidenote, dr.:the conservative view has generally been very politely represented here. I would encourage you, if you are going to defend your views, to please try to do so with the decorum that many of the conservative posters have exhibited. I would also encourage you, if you don't believe the facts someone presented, to politiely challenge them rather than calling them a liar outright. It makes it easier for you if you have to concede.

54

Deaniac

on Sep 06, 2004

"And just start blabbing on about how he is searching for his precious, hehehe mmmm Smeigol Dean / Gollum Dean, so far Dean would have been a better challenge for Bush than Kerry, cause Dean's got spunk.

What doomed Kerry is that he had no great political record to speak of, so they relied on his vietnam record, which a military record no matter how great, do not a president make.
"

If Dean was the candidate, Bush would be buried. Kerry is to calm. Dean would've blasted Bush so many times, Bush would've been buried in these insults...

"They don't have a birth certificate, they aren't a citizen of America, etc. I could go on for hours."

I wouldn't allow an abortion in the ninth month. Obviously, that is ridiculous.Most abortions are held between the 1st and 3rd months of pregnancies.

55

Texas Wahine

on Sep 06, 2004

Friendly Public Service Announcement:

* using quotations indicates that you are using a word to mean something other than the common accepted definition; often indicates sarcasm surrounding the word in quotations

Correct Example: I really loved the "food" they served at camp.
In this example, I am using quotations to demonstrate that I felt that what was served was not actually food, but rather something else such as dog turds.

Incorrect Example: I ordered a delicious "pizza" for supper one night at camp.
In this example, my quotations are unneccessary because I am using the word pizza to mean pizza.

Using bold lettering or italics are good ways to show that you are placing emphasis on a given word.

* when quoting a comment by another blogger as a reference for a comment you are about to make in response, it is not neccessary to quote their entire comment as well as their comment number, date, time, etc.

Correct Example:

I would also encourage you, if you don't believe the facts someone presented, to politiely challenge them rather than calling them a liar outright. It makes it easier for you if you have to concede.

While I agree with you on this point, Gideon, I can personally attest to the fact that being a pompous jerk can be much more gratifying.

Incorrect Example:

Reply #54 By: Deaniac - 9/6/2004 11:50:51 AM
"And just start blabbing on about how he is searching for his precious, hehehe mmmm Smeigol Dean / Gollum Dean, so far Dean would have been a better challenge for Bush than Kerry, cause Dean's got spunk.

What doomed Kerry is that he had no great political record to speak of, so they relied on his vietnam record, which a military record no matter how great, do not a president make.
"

If Dean was the candidate, Bush would be buried. Kerry is to calm. Dean would've blasted Bush so many times, Bush would've been buried in these insults...

"They don't have a birth certificate, they aren't a citizen of America, etc. I could go on for hours."

I wouldn't allow an abortion in the ninth month. Obviously, that is ridiculous.Most abortions are held between the 1st and 3rd months of pregnancies.

*Insert generic condescending, belligerent comment here*

This concludes our Friendly Public Service Announcement, brought to you by Insanely Uncoordinated Girl and the letter B.

56

sandy2

on Sep 06, 2004

I see that this forum has turned to abortion once again. In case some of you missed the news flash, John Kerry is Catholic. I think the cahtolic voters want a catholic president.
drmiller, you are ignorant. Don't argue with Gideon when you are wrong and you know you are wrong and the whole world knows you are wrong.

57

ShoZan

on Sep 07, 2004

I think the cahtolic voters want a catholic president.

But, I have noticed from being partially Catholic, and looking at the general Catholic population, despite Kerry being Catholic, only the far left liberal catholics and those who are catholic but like to be dissidents of the Church's views on certain things will vote for Kerry, the rest are too disgusted with his Pro-Abortion stance to even think of voting for him, if the Pope and others are coming down on Pro-Choice catholics, do you think the majority of followers, will just get up and say "No Pope, we support Kerry because he is Catholic even though he supports Pro-Choice", personally I think he could have nailed the entire Catholic church except for the few numbers that would have made up the Pro-Choice column, if he came out and said he was Pro-Life. As for people and their religions, either follow all of the Church's teachings for better or for worse, OR go find a new religion, I mean it's that simple, Religion is not like Politics, you can't pick and choose what you want to believe, you believe all or none at all, if you pick and choose than it's time for a new religion.

Also remember John F. Kennedy was supported by the Church (I think) way before the law got changed on Abortion, so obviously he was Pro-Life (unless he made a statement otherwise)

Now before I hear complaints on why I say partial Catholic, and how can I go on this if I say I am a partial Catholic, etc. I am not Catholic in pure sense, I say partial because I was born and raised Catholic, but am no longer Catholic. I am a Gnostic, no, not Agnostic, but gnostic, there is a difference, and not about to delve so deep into it we get so far off-topic that it ain't right, if you want to know about Gnostics do some research. I will eventually talk all about my personal views on Gnosticism when I get around to writing about it in one of the 'Get to know ShoZan' articles I need to write.

Still seeing more stuff that would fall under the catergory of "excessive party spirit" than actual looking into what both sides are, poor George Washington, I can hear his wooden chompers splintering from him gritting his teeth so hard.

58

drmiler

on Sep 07, 2004

Quote from NewsMax.com

"Sunday, Sept. 5, 2004 10:38 a.m. EDT
Polls Show Swiftvets Scored Direct Hit

Media wags will say it was the successful GOP convention that catapulted President Bush to a double-digit lead over John Kerry in Time magazine and Newsweek polls released this weekend.

But insiders know that even before Republicans gathered in New York to re-nominate Bush, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had turned George Bush into a front-runner for the first time since John Kerry locked up the nomination in January.

Story Continues Below

The proof that the Swifvets had scored a direct hit against the SS Kerry came Thursday night when the top Democrat staged an emergency rally to accuse Dick Cheney of dodging Vietnam and complain that George Bush had "attacked my fitness to serve as commander in chief."
But it wasn't Bush or Cheney who challenged Kerry's fitness to lead. It was the Swiftees, whose book "Unfit for Command" now sits atop the New York Times best-seller list for the second week in a row.

For the mainstream press, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth didn't appear on the radar screen until late July, when the group began running TV ads in key battleground states attacking Kerry's Vietnam story.

But way back in April, when no one had heard of the Swiftees, NewsMax readers knew that the men who served with Kerry in Vietnam were preparing the bombshell revelations that would turn the 2004 presidential campaign upside down.

Specific details on the gathering firestorm actually surfaced on talk radio on April 4, when NewsMax contributor and WABC radio host Steve Malzberg interviewed B.G. Burkett, author of the definitive book on false Vietnam War claims, "Stolen Valor."

Under the headline "Navy Commanders to Cast Doubt on Kerry's War Record," NewsMax had the first print account of the bombshell to come:

Several Navy officers who supervised Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry when he commanded a Swift Boat in Vietnam are preparing to publicly question his war record – including the circumstances under which he was awarded three Purple Hearts – a noted Vietnam War historian revealed on Sunday.

Burkett, whose book, "Stolen Valor," is considered to be the definitive history of falsified Vietnam War claims, told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg that Kerry's former commanders would allege that the top Democrat's Purple Hearts were awarded for "self-reported injuries that were virtually nonexistent."

"He never got a day of treatment, he never spent a day in a medical facility," Burkett said. "These were all self-reported wounds, which you're going to hear from some Swift Boat guys in the future as to the nature of those wounds."

Burkett said he had personally spoken to the Navy commanders who were preparing to go public about Kerry's decorations.

"You're going to get quite a showing [of those speaking out]," Burkett told Malzberg. "I don't know [the number] yet. They're trying to get it to be unanimous of every Swift Boat guy who ever served."

As to the timetable for the upcoming revelations, Burkett said that Kerry's superior officers "were still discussing that."

Burkett's book was the first to expose Kerry's false claims made in the early 1970s about U.S. war atrocities, as well as Kerry's claim – later found to be untrue – that he trashed his war medals.

"You've got some major rallys being planned against John Kerry by Vietnam veterans on the [National] Mall, at the convention – this type of thing," he said. "And we're going to make America aware of John Kerry's military record."

Less than a month later, on April 26 – and a full week before the Swiftees staged their debut press conference in Washington, D.C., to announce their group's plans – Malzberg interviewed the group's spokesman John O'Neill.

Again, NewsMax was first with exclusive coverage of one of O'Neill's first 2004 media appearances under the headline "Kerry Boatmate: Vietnam Troubles Just Beginning":

Sen. John Kerry's Monday morning meltdown on "Good Morning America" may be just the beginning of his troubles, according to one of his Vietnam boatmates, who is warning that more of the men who served alongside the Massachusetts Democrat are preparing to go public with their accounts.

Texas lawyer John O'Neill, who served on Kerry's Swift Boat after he left Vietnam just four months into his tour, told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg on Sunday: "I was in exactly the same unit. There were many people who were there simultaneously with him who are all about to speak."

O'Neill gained brief fame in 1971 when he debated Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show" and forced him to admit he never personally witnessed the war crimes he'd been accusing U.S. troops of committing.

Though he's been contacted by Kerry's opponents every time the Massachusetts Democrat has run for office in the 33 years since, O'Neill has refused to speak out.

Until now. Referring to reports this week in the Boston Globe questioning whether Kerry may have exaggerated his combat record, O'Neill told Malzberg: "This is just the first opening. They'll be many different people. But I'd prefer to let the people who were actually there speak directly."

O'Neill cited a Jan. 29, 1969, firefight that Kerry claims on his campaign Web site he and his boatmates were in.

"But according to the Boston Globe," said the Swift Boat veteran: "Kerry was not even on the boat that night. The guy that was really on the boat was a fellow officer of ours named Ted Peck. He remembers well that fight because he was terribly wounded in three places."

"There was no Kerry anywhere around," O'Neill said. "And yet it appears on his Web site as some pitched battle that Kerry was involved in."

Noting that the Democratic presidential candidate has made his Vietnam war experience the centerpiece of every campaign for office, O'Neill complained, "It's [Kerry's] self-promotion that infuriates most of the people from his unit, who actually know what he did."

"He would be a terrible commander in chief of U.S. forces in the world at a time of crisis," the Kerry boatmate warned.

Even before Burkett and O'Neill spoke out, the Liberty Broadcasting Network's Geoff Metcalf had the inside track on plans within the Vietnam veterans community to challenge Kerry's war record.

Way back on March 15, Metcalf reported for NewsMax:

Republicans may be scared spitless to criticize a "decorated war hero," but thousands of "decorated war heroes" with significantly greater service, scars, experience and insights hate the pampered prince’s guts ... and they are not only willing but also anxious to articulate their myriad concerns. . .

There is a growing group of Vietnam vets who are openly challenging the derring-do of Kerry in combat. These guys, not content to pick at the scabs politicians don’t dare acknowledge, are intent on ripping the scabs off. . . .
end quote"