13 Catholics voted to defeat the Blunt amendment

How did Catholics vote?

A summary:

Today, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 51 – 48, defeated the effort led by Senator Roy Blunt (Missouri) to pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act as an amendment to pending legislation. Thirteen Catholic Senators joined the majority.

The amendment, offered by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-MO, rolled back Barack Obama’s invasive Health and Human Services mandate that employers insure contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs with no co-pay. While the health care reform law exempts churches, it would force religious institutions such as hospitals and universities to underwrite products that violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

“By consenting to the disastrous HHS mandate, the U.S. Senate has taken the unprecedented step to deny our religious liberties instead of defending the Constitution,” said Matt Smith, president of Catholic Advocate. “It is disappointing to witness a group of senators misled on this issue at the expense of one of our key founding principles.”

The following is a list of how the 24 Catholic Senators voted on the Blunt amendment:

Senator Mark Begich (Alaska, D) – Opposed
Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska, R) – Supported
Senator Marco Rubio (Florida, R) – Supported
Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa, D) – Opposed
Senator James Risch (Idaho, R) – Supported
Senator Richard Durbin (Illinois, D) – Opposed
Senator Mary Landrieu (Louisiana, D) – Opposed
Senator David Vitter (Louisiana, R) – Supported
Senator John Kerry (Massachusetts, D) – Opposed
Senator Barbara Mikulski (Maryland, D) – Opposed
Senator Susan Collins (Maine, R) – Supported
Senator Claire McCaskill (Missouri, D) – Opposed
Senator John Hoeven (North Dakota, R) – Supported
Senator Mike Johanns (Nebraska, R) – Supported
Senator Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire, R) – Supported
Senator Robert Menendez (New Jersey, D) – Opposed
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (New York, D) – Opposed
Senator Bob Casey Jr. (Pennsylvania, D) – Supported
Senator Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania, R) – Supported
Senator Jack Reed (Rhode Island, D) – Opposed
Senator Pat Leahy (Vermont, D) – Opposed
Senator Maria Cantwell (Washington, D) – Opposed
Senator Patty Murray (Washington, D) – Opposed
Senator Joe Manchin III (West Virginia, D) – Supported

Comments

  1. Catholic Democrats –> are truly awful people.

  2. Would that they only would, in the words of Congressman West, get the heck out of America.

  3. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    Jasper …

    I have to nip this in the bud.

    Please adhere to the rules for posting, write respectfully and with charity, or don’t bother. Sweeping generalizations are unhelpful and only serve to bait people and invite a similar response. You know where that leads.

    Dcn. G

  4. Fr. Deacon Daniel says:

    Perhaps it is high time that their respective bishops take their cues from the late Joseph Francis Rummel, of blessed memory.

  5. Thank God for my senator, Joe Manchin. He’s stood up to the president and acted like a Catholic Senator should act. He’s in my prayers and he’s earned a fervent supporter.

  6. ron chandonia says:

    A look at the letters after the names simply confirms the reality that for Americans generally, and particularly for politicians, toeing the party line is far more important than religious affiliation when it comes to decision-making in the public arena. This strikes me as just another example of how far we are from the position our bishops take on partisanship in Faithful Citizenship: ““When necessary, our participation should help transform the party to which we belong; we should not let the party transform us in such a way that we neglect or deny fundamental moral truths.”

    Maybe it goes without saying, but I do think it needs to be kept in mind: The Democrats are guilty on this one, but the Republicans are just as guilty on plenty of other issues.

  7. Edit me if I cross over the line. You have got to be either a contortionist if you’re a Catholic to support Democrats or self hating. Truely saddening.

  8. Sen. Mikulski can say she was raised a Catholic all she wants (and I have only heard her say that during campaign time). However, she is a well known supporter of unlimited access to of abortion and gay marriage.

  9. Yes, you are correct. It is important for all Roman Catholics to note which party supports the Church’s First Amendment rights and which one does not.

  10. ron chandonia says:

    Just as it is important to note which one supports comprehensive immigration reform and which does not.

  11. The origin of this article is “Lifesite News,” which is hardly an impartial organization. The way this article is written says that this vote was basically a vote against religious liberty. That’s ridiculous and simplistic. For instance, Democrats said that under the amendment, employers could have cited moral objections to cutting off coverage of immunizations, prenatal care for children of unmarried parents and other standard procedures. They felt it was way too broad. Perhaps they’re wrong, but it’s not simply a vote against religious liberty.

    What’s happened here is what’s happened with the Pro-Life movement, and the Church is making, in my opinion, a terrible mistake, as it pits itself against the Administration (read: Democrats.) It is aligning with one political party against another…it’s no longer an issue, but a political football, one in which conservative Republicans are seen as the good guys and liberal Democrats are the bad guys…just watch these posts to see if I’m off base. As a result, many will see the Church as nothing more than an organization like the NRA, the Tea Party, etc…people who agree politically in those area will cheer, others will fume and tune the Bishops out.

    I pointed out in another post, and would like to do again, prior to this ruling by the Obama administration, 28 states had in place similar laws, including California and NY, and only 8 of them exempted Catholic Hospitals and Universities. The world did not end; solutions were found. Were those Bishops who existed under those laws just being complicit in this denial of religious liberty, were they ignorant, or what? Suddenly, during an election year, it’s become THE issue. It bothers me, and I wonder about real agendas.

  12. Senator Casey, My senator, is up for re-election this year and he’s been getting LOTS of heat from constituents over this issue. He votes with the leadership on virtually everything, but occasionally he votes as a Catholic (I suspect it’s when he needs a fig leaf). I don’t think for a minute that he’s vote for the amendment were it not for his upcoming re-election. He voted for Obamacare.

    His father was prevented from speaking at a democratic national convention over his firm pro-life stand. I guess junior learned the lesson.

  13. Fr. Deacon Daniel says:

    I’m failing to see the moral equivalency here, especially when one considers the fact that one involves supporting the chemically induced death of the innocent and most vulnerable.

  14. Richard M says:

    Keep sewing on that seamless garment, Ron.

    At any event, this primary season has made it clear that Republicans are not of one mind on immigration reform.

  15. Richard M says:

    Hello Scout,

    For some reason this claim keeps getting made. But it’s not true. None of the states with allegedly similar laws have includes the full panoply of provisions of the new HHS rule. And *none* of them affected self-insuring entities, which many Catholic hospitals and schools happen to be. Unfortunately, they won’t be able to use that escape hatch under the new HHS rule – not even with the “accommodation” Obama has offered to modify it with.

    If Catholic Democrats though that the Blunt Amendment was really too broad – I don’t see these claims as being valid, but assume that they might be – they had the opportunity – they still have the opportunity – to offer an alternative amendment which would better restore the status quo for employers with religious or moral objections. If any of them have done so, I haven’t seen it.

  16. The bishops have repeatedly asked the Obama administration to compromise or at least sit down and talk. So far the administration has refused. Another way out of the impasse would be for the administration to talk with the bishops. If the bishops refuse to engage in talks, then maybe they are Republican pawns. Right now though it is the administration that is refusing to talk. Right now it looks like the Democrats, not the bishops, are using this for a political football.

  17. ron chandonia says:

    I was merely pointing out what Faithful Citizenship tries to drive home to Catholics in this country: we are called to transform political life, not to be transformed by it, to transcend partisanship rather than to become enmeshed in it. Threads like this make it all too clear how little that point has gotten across.

  18. Republicans support the crime of jaywalking and Democrats are against it. See, Republicans are bad too….

  19. This is just history repeating itself. Just like the Roman Empire, people have had to make a decision to whom they are going to serve, the Roman Emperor, or the Lord. The same thing is beginning to happen in America (or has been happening and it is just getting worse).
    Ask most Catholics if they are Catholic who happen to be American, or if they are American who happen to be Catholic.
    Most people would probably identify as Americans who just happen to be Catholic rather than the former.
    That means that they are formed by American/modern/secular ideals first, and Catholic ideals secondarily.
    I have to be honest, I think that most people in America would identify themselves at that first. Christianity fell under the same problems under Roman rule.
    We cannot serve two masters. We are already at the point in which there is only a remnant left. The rest are slipping away into something that is not authentic Christian Catholicism.
    We can and should be proud Americans. But we are first and foremost, Catholic, and our citizenship is the in the Body of Christ. What good is our faith if we do not live it authentically as our Lord did?

  20. Of course the Democtats who voted support did so only after clearly seeing that the bill would fail. Doesn’t hurt the party, and gives them a better voting record. I will be impressed when he and others vote the right way when their vote causes the party to lose.

    Since Cardinal Dolan had placed his hope on the Congress after seeing President Obama and his administration has little concern for Religious Liberty, it will be interesting to watch and see the next move by the USCCB and their President Cardinal Dolan. The fire is lit and if allowed to stand, will spread to the tanker filled with fuel containing what is left of the remaining liberties. When this happened before, Bonhoeffer tried to get ministers to unite and even some of his closest friends saw it only as a scirmish. Many said it was not Hitler because he was reasonble, only those below him and if only they could meet, Hitler would surely reign them in. By the time they tried to unite realizing that this was an attack on all freedom, it was too late. Martin Niemöller was one of those hoping to find common ground with those who wanted religion dead in Germany. He refused to support Bonhoeffer. Later, after all was lost, he wrote this poem we all need to think about today. This is not about the Catholics or birth control pills, no matter how many times the left repeats the lie.

    First they came for the Communists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Communist
    Then they came for the Socialists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Socialist
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a trade unionist
    Then they came for the Jews
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Jew
    Then they came for me
    And there was no one left
    To speak out for me

  21. Fr. Deacon Daniel says:

    “..we are called to transform political life, not to be transformed by it, to transcend partisanship rather than to become enmeshed in it. Threads like this make it all too clear how little that point has gotten across.”

    I agree, but to transform political life, key distinctions need to be made, upheld and defended. I agree with the seamless garment concept insofar as it attempts to demonstrate the interconnectedness of the Church’s moral vision and teaching on the dignity of the human person. But the analogy gets stretched too far, if you will, if it is used to somehow construct an argument in favor of the moral equivalency of the abortion and the immigration issues. The Catholic theological tradition has always stressed the importance of properly discerning the relative gravity of particular moral concerns.

    Alas, some have abused the analogy of the “seamless garment” to treat the abortion and contraception issue as though it was simply one among many issues and concerns, all equally important. It is this view that is the real distortion of Catholic teaching. The ethical principle which dictates that it is always wrong to directly and intentionally take the life of an innocent human being, is far more fundamental than concerns about border crossings or labor laws. I’m not saying they are not related, I’m just saying they are not the moral equivalent of one another.

    So to bring up the so-called “failure” of Catholic Republicans on the immigration issue in this context does not demonstrate a balanced assessment of this recent action of the “13.” These 13 Catholic souls have participated in a far graver and far more reprehensible evil – one worthy of ecclesiastical censure, IMHO. And while the vote appeared to fall mostly along party lines, it cannot simply be reduced to a question of party or partisanship, save for the fact that only one of the political parties in question still upholds traditional moral teaching in this regard while the other is opposed to this teaching.

    May God let us see the day when pro-life Democrats are elected.

  22. Katherine says:

    It is truly disingenuous to say that this amendment would protect religious freedom, especially coming from Catholics, who everyday deny the religious freedoms of non-Catholics who have no choice other than being treated in Catholic hospitals.

    It is nothing but abuse of power on behalf of the Catholic Bishops. It is time for them to evolve with the rest of us and become truly pro-life, and sincerely respect life from a higher and broader perspective. This means respecting the cycle of life and death.

    I have seen firsthand how Catholic’s narrow policies hurt others. As my Mother’s healthcare proxy, I had to painfully watch a feeding tube forced into her because she could not swallow or speak, going against her Advanced Directive. She had to suffer for a year and a half before she passed away. I am still suffering because I was not able to insure that her Advanced Directive was followed.

  23. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …” Is the exercise of religion concerned about exercising it with your members or exercising it upon non-members of your religion? We need to look at the history of Prohibition in this country. There were, and still are, denominations that banded the use alcohol for its members. What happened when these denominations imposed this restriction on the whole population? Is the Church imposing its restriction on non-member employees concerning birth control? This is an employer and employee relationship not a governing body (the hierarchical) on its members. Are we not confusing an employer relationship with the relationship to its church members. No one is suggesting that the Church cannot exercise its doctrine on its members.

  24. Ron, When it comes to intrinsic evil stands, which party is most often in the wrong? What the document failed to do was make that distinction very clear by muddling it with issues that are while important, do not support the holocaust of 54 million people or attack the basic core of what has been defined as a family going back well before our founding as a country. The left lists poverty, but what that really means is big government ineffective programs that have not reduced poverty since they started, but increased it making the poor slaves of big governemtn. they list death penalty, but I have yet to see a democrat run on ending the death penalty. Both in fact have about the same position and while the church has come out against the death penalty, as far as I know has not labeled it in and of itself an intrinsic evil. War is another one thrown out but the Democrats in office started WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, attacks on Kosovo, supported overwhelmingly the Gulf war I, the attack on Afghanistan, and the attack on Iraq, and the current president supported the attack on Libya, increased troop strength in Afghanitan, and increase drone attacks in Pakistan. If this is an anti war party, then I must be missing something. Race issues. Do not in my lifetime remember a Republican supporting Jim Crow laws or fighting against civil rights laws, but sure do remember a long list of Democrat racist attacks going back all the way to the founding of the democratic party. Bull Connors was not a Republican.

    Interested to see where the Republicans come close, especially if you take into consideration the complete support of clearly labeled intrinisic evil with abortion and support of gay union/marriage.

  25. I have not seen the democrats stand up and say we want to provide amnesty to all the illegal immigrants in this country. I also note that not a single move was made when the Democrats had the white house and HUGE majorities in both houses of congress. Should have been easy to get that through in their two years of total control. Remember that they enough votes in the Senate to shove Obamacare through.

    When was the last time that a Republican president had this many votes to control the agenda in total? Some one want to guess? In the last 25 years. In the last 50 years. In the last 100 years? So tired of people who look for excuses for the democrats and throw out “immigration reform” under the code word comprehensive meaning those here who broke our laws and not facing up to the fact that they had the power to do it. Same is true of the Dream Act.

    Yet they bash Republican who have faced what Obama has now with the opposite party in charge of the house as did Reagan for all 8 years, Bush I for all his four years, and Bush II for half his term in office, for not doing what they promised. They point to justices put in by the Republicans who ended up not being for life, but fail to point out many Catholic Democrats blocked judges like Bork and others who were clearly pro life.

    Give a Republican President the same votes as Obama had for two years in both houses of Congress and then you can judge the Republican Party.

  26. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    Katherine…

    While I don’t know the specifics of your case, it might be useful for all concerned to look at Catholic teaching on end-of-life decisions. The catechism states:

    2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

    2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

    Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

    2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

    2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

    There’s a more thorough overview at this link.

    Dcn. G.

  27. “I have seen firsthand how Catholic’s narrow policies hurt others. ”
    Oh please, let’s not be dramatic.

  28. Scout or anyone else, how do you explain the language the Democrats voted against in overwhelming numbers was almost word for word the same language in the Hillary Clinton healthcare takeover back in 1994.

    The Blunt amendment reads:

    “Nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall be construed to require an individual or institutional health care provider, or authorize a health plan to require a provider, to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

    The 1994 Hillarycare language which won 100% Democratic acceptant was:

    “Nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent any employer from contributing to the purchase of a standard benefits package which excludes coverage of abortion or other services, if the employer objects to such services on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction”

    There goes that vast right wing conspiracy nut Hilary Clinton trying to take womens rights away. And guess what, the USCCB was in support of this bill. It was required to give Catholic Democrats cover on the religious liberty issue and insure religious institutions were not forced to do what ObamaCare is trying to do.

  29. His vote came after the Democrats were sure the bill would fail. It is a common tactic to try to allow those who claim to be pro life to build up their record to run pro life. The vote that counts is when their vote is on the side of the opposite party and their party loses. I think votes should be measured in a separate catagory for both parties when something like this happens. Kind of like having your cake and eating it to. The fact that he voted for ObamaCare is proof enough of his Catholic pro life views. Remember, the Catholic Bishops majority has been pushing for national healthcare since 1919 and because the abortion wing of the party refused to state in the bill that abortion and other intrinsic evils were not going to be funded, they refused to support it. The fig leaf executive order fooled no one just like the “accomodation” fooled only those who desperately wanted another fig leaf.

  30. Bill McGeveran says:

    Setting aide political arguments about the role of government in general, I in any case don’t think the Obama mandate should be so far reaching as to deny rights of conscience in this matter; the senators, and especially Catholics ones, should have voted for the Blunt Amendment. But it’s not like as if the Nazis are coming to get us (any more than the amendment is taking us back to the Dark Ages). And it’s a losing battle. Most people, including most Catholics, do not themselves oppose contraception. Democrats and many Republicans are not going to be worried about insurance that includes coverage of services that most people do not find objectionable, especially since so many others think this coverage is vital. I’d say the battle over the exception for religious institutions is more promising, but even there I doubt there is all that much support for the bishops. When they get excited about they sound a bit querulous and, to many, obsessed as usual with narrow issues of sexual morality. I do think it is a violation of religious freedom to force religious institutions to provide and pay for insurance that covers contraception. But under the Obama compromise, they are not exactly doing that. What exactly are the bounds of religious freedom? I think the extent of exceptions for religious institutions is a constitutional issue. The bishops might have done better to adopt a less combative tone, and praise the accommodation while indicating they still had some concerns and were looking into joining in legal action to have the religious freedom issue settled by the courts.

  31. Katherine,

    Assuming that your mother’s case was a misapplication of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare, I want to address your larger point of people being victimized by the Church when a Catholic Hospital is all they have available.

    Typically the complaint is about what Catholics hospitals will NOT do: Abortions, sterilizations, birth control, etc.

    In these instances it must be understood that physicians and hospital administrations are not organic vending machines where one inserts one’s money, pulls a lever, and receives the desired product or service. Medical professionals are human beings who also have rights. The fight before us today is whether medical professionals will retain any personal liberty, or whether they will become property of the state. If the latter, then they will be compelled to perform whatever new policy is directed their way, including abortions, sterilizations, euthanasia, etc.

    There will come a day when this nation, savaged by amoral governmental healthcare dictates, will look to Catholic healthcare, if it still exists, and desire that level of dignity and respect, that level of professionalism as the last vestige of Hippocratic medicine. It will be “Lumen Gentium” in the truest sense of “Light to the Nations”.

    Don’t knock it Katherine. If you live long enough, you’ll be begging for it.

  32. Katherine:

    Are you the same one who runs the Catholics for Obama blog?

  33. That is in fact what made America unique. The government was formed acknowledging that the seperate but essentil religious pillar was needed to hold up the roof of the democratic republic they built. By the very language of the very first article in the first amendment on rights the government was to leave the other pillar alone for they saw its presence as essential to all the other pillars in the government of checks and balances. If one reads the founding documents, the writings of the founders in their original accurate complete form, you will see a very consistent message on the importance of religous liberty and the wall they were building around any attempt by government to mess with it in any way. The courts ruled this way all the way from founding up until 1947 Everson where the court ruled that instead of the way the wording and all precedents to that time upheld, instead the wall was around religious liberty to protect government from it and allowing the government to form the state religion we have today which is a secular godless religion that makes the government the one to determine all rights, not the creator. That my friend is fact. With that, the atheist went on a rampage to remove God from every place they could find it continuing to this day. Like every evil government in history that wants total power over the people, they have to destroy religious influence in any way. The founders clearly said that the government they were creating had to have this protected religious freedom to in fact have an influence on all branches of government. They have done a good job by teaching the lie to a couple generations of children. Only those who study history, something no longer taught in schools as it has morphed into social studies built by the secularist godless folks, or those who were schooled before the changes took full impact know the truth.

    And all of those godless states fail. America was great because of this clear understanding by the founders and by the congress, executive, and courts holding firm to their oaths to keep governments hand off our religious liberty.

  34. While I realize that public excommunication is not something done willy nilly, I believe this is a serious enough issue that every Catholic who voted against should be publicly excommunicated, along with Pelois and Seballius.

    Time to call a spade a spade, stop the confusion among the poorly catechized, and either be Catholic or “not”.

  35. Paul Stokell says:

    @RomCath, that’s nothing. Go read the Letters section of the most recent issue of America (reacting to a different topic) if you want full-blown drama, Hammond B organ and all.

  36. Deacon, I think Katherine’s point is that she does not believe a Catholic Hospital has the right to force this belief on those in their care. She seems to see it as an invasion of rights. This of course would mean she agrees it would be OK to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, support euthasia wherever it is approved as legal, or whatever else the government god determines is not the right of the people.

    Katherine, you could also be living with the opposite memory. You could have watched that decision to withhold nurishment (food and water) and watched your mom die of starvation. This is a very horrible way to die often extending for weeks. You know that she is starving and by lack of food and water, her body is shutting down in a way we would not approve to the worst serial killer of all time. It would be called cruel and unusual punishment.

    Feeding tubes deliver food to many people who cannot eat or drink. If you had a child with problems that required them to be fed in this way, would you believe denying food delivered in this was was evil and do you think parents should have the right to make that choice? They are not electrical means to keep a heart beating or lungs working, but food.

    I think it is not only moral and ethical for Catholic hospitals to refuse to murder people in this way, even if they request it, but believe that no hospital should be in this what most would see as a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Would you support Catholic hospitals being forced to provide abortion, euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide? When you take away their religious liberty, it is indeed a slippery slope.

  37. How did we get to prohibition? How did we get to the repeal of prohibition?

    We got there by a method built into the Constitution without removal of religious liberty. It is called the amendment process and requires those who want to change the Constitution to make their case to the point a large majority of congress pass it and then send it to the states where again a large majority need to ratify it. This allows those with religious views of all types including all the different denominations from Catholic and Lutheran to Secular and atheist to make their case and get involved. It leads to a national debate where the people who have to live with the laws get a chance to speak, not a dictate by the central government, exactly the evil the founders wanted to avoid. It also enhances the tenth amendment because the bar is very high so that to force New Yorkers and those in California and Ohio and Iowa to follow it, there had to be massive support. If not, Ohio can have laws different based on what values the people in that state versus New York and all still be united as Americans.

    The process also allows the people to see how things work and repeal them when mistakes are made again needing the huge majority. Now, the states have very different laws about alcohol and it has worked quite well. And if something is very much something you do not like and important, you can often find a state that allows what you want and still be an american.

    When we instead turn to government and say OK, you dictate to everyone everywhere because we have made you god over all, you build growing hatred and anger between Americans. It usually comes with setting aside religious liberty which is at the core of our beliefs and values again different from state to state or faith to faith. Freedom also means that the state cannot come into a place and force a gay person to become Catholic and follow their beliefs or lose their job. But it must protect the Catholic Church from saying gay marriage is wrong.

  38. Not judging, just wondering: why identify as Catholic when one so publicly and blatantly disavows the Church’s teachings? Are self identified Catholics who chose such positions really part of the Body of Christ? Is it because they’re crade Catholics and just take the Faith for granted?

  39. cradle typo

  40. You offer the same argument made by reasonable and honest people in Germany including many brilliant theologians. The Nazi’s did not on day one in office order the creation of death camps to kill Jews by the millions. They introduced small measures that demonized different groups of people and then suppressed them or later made them disappear. What harm is there in making them wear a star or making sure we know who owns a shop so we don’t support those kind of people. Only in going back to watch how one act after another slowly turns up the heat until the frog or our liberty is dead.

    It was hard for Germans to accept because in some things, the government was making many lives better. They were willing to give away freedom, especially if it was the other guys freedom, because they had a better job or a little more money, or healthcare benefits promised without pain except to the other guy. So as much as anyone hates comparisons with other governments, we should learn history for there is very little now being used that was not tried before, often with great success.

  41. we are called to transform political life

    Good point, Ron. Now how do we do that when we’re driven from the public square?

  42. Richard Johnson says:

    “Give a Republican President the same votes as Obama had for two years in both houses of Congress and then you can judge the Republican Party.”

    Then please explain why, when the GOP controlled both Houses of Congress in the 90s, they didn’t even bother to move the Human Life Amendment from subcommittee? Yes, it may well have failed on a floor vote, but that didn’t stop them from pushing numerous fiscal (tax) related measures through to the floor only to have them fail (and then be used as campaign fodder).

  43. Dcn. Greg,

    Two items,
    Thank you for your quick response to ‘Jasper’ in the first post.
    I think that was a nice reminder and I found it raised the bar and dialogue on this topic. I only wish bishops would engage in dialogue with the Catholic community, like when I find reasoned dialogue on this blog. I was informed and educated today.

    I look forward to this issue unfolding. I thank the elected representatives for their service, even if I disagree with their votes. They have to answer to their constituents for their votes, not religious leaders. And that’s the way it should be.

  44. Lawrence Cunningham says:

    Could we all get a grip here. Leaving aside the larger issue about mandates, can we ask if the Blunt amendment was a good one? To cite an example: would supporters find it ok if someone who ran an organization but was a Jehovah Witness could opt out of providing blood transfusions for employees? Would a Christian Scientist led company be free to opt out of all medical care except that provided by a CS Reader? I am not a moral theologian or a canonist but it seems to me that too much of this discussion is generating more heat than light and on these issues I say, as Goethe did on his deathbed, “More light!”

  45. Tom in Lazybrook says:

    So long as we are on the subject of persecution.

    You are of course aware, that four Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church just endorsed legislation designed to throw all Gay men into prison for up to 14 years for the ‘crime’ of existing. The endorsement of the proposed law by the entire Nigerian Roman Catholic Bishops Conference (on their webpage no less) was covered heavily in the Nigerian mass media (and certainly available to the Vatican). The Roman Catholic endorsed law mandates the jailing of any straight person attending any religious ceremony where a same sex celebration is conducted (so much for religous freedom).
    The Roman Catholic Bishop of Belize just endorsed (in the Belizian mass media) legislation to criminalize all Gay persons.
    The Vatican monitors the media. I’m sure they are aware of the political endorsement of extreme persecution of Gays and even straight religious groups.
    Forgive me for not thinking that requiring employers to pay for basic health care is the most pressing persecution issue involving the Catholic Church.

  46. Tom in Lazybrook says:

    And is denying health care for the poor not intrinsically evil? When Republican Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona (a non-catholic) pulled all state funding for transplants (hey, we need those tax cuts, right?) exposuing 30 Arizonans to death (3 died), I noted that the supposed ‘Catholic’ Hospitals did not step up to offer to treat those impacted. Why didn’t Catholic Healthcare West not stand up for life then? We know the answer. And where was the pro-life Church?

  47. Tom in Lazybrook says:

    Mark,

    How would you term the Roman Catholic Church’s direct endorsement of a bill that would throwing Gay persons in prison for up to 14 years for the ‘crime’ of freedom of expression, assembly, petition, protest, privacy, RELIGION, speech, association, press in light of the Nigerian Roman Catholic Church’s public endorsement of such legislation pending in Nigeria? How would that rate on incremental “Nuremburg” Law scale compared to the simple argument that state funded hospitals and private (non-theological) employers must provide basic healthcare?

  48. Richard Johnson says:

    Having faced exactly that issue, Mark, when my own mother passed in 2004, I think I can offer a very meaningful rebuttal to your remarks.

    After my father died in 1999 (at a Catholic hospital), my mother insisted on going to a lawyer and having several very specific documents drawn up for the time of her passing. These included a medical power of attorney and living will with very specific instructions regarding what should and should not be provided at the end of her life.

    Five years later she suffered a massive stroke (something our family has a genetic propensity towards), which damaged a large portion of her brain. She found herself in the same Catholic hospital as my father was in five years earlier. Following her instructions (as very clearly outlined in the legal documents she prepared) I instructed the hospital to remove food and hydration from her so she could pass quietly into the Lord’s hands.

    Say what you want about a hypothetical situation, Mark, but until you have actually faced such a crisis I truly think you have little room to lecture Katherine. I am thankful that the physicians at that hospital were more merciful than many of the folks posting here, else my mother would have been bound at the end of a feeding tube and IV needle for an untold number of days, brain dead and waiting for her body to follow so she could have peace.

  49. I am unclear as to why one would remain in the Catholic hospital if they were not pleased with the treatment or not getting the treatment they desired??????

  50. naturgesetz says:

    “To cite an example: would supporters find it ok if someone who ran an organization but was a Jehovah Witness could opt out of providing blood transfusions for employees? Would a Christian Scientist led company be free to opt out of all medical care except that provided by a CS Reader?”

    Why not? Employees are still free to a.) pay for transfusions out of pocket, b.) buy their own insurance (which might be prohibitively expensive in the case of the CS employer), or c.) seek employment elsewhere. The Christian Scientist employer might find it very hard to attract employees other than Christian Scientists, but that’s okay.

  51. The problem with excommunication or even counseling of these renegade Catholic politicians is that most Catholic priests are Democrats themselves as evidenced by posts on this blog and historical voting patterns.

    I don’t see them actually trying to admonish Catholics they look up to and support.

    I don’t see any evidence that the US Catholic church will hold politician’s feet to the proverbial fire in the coming days of Catholic hospital, charity, college, church closings as result of Obamacare.

  52. justamouse says:

    My senator is SO getting a letter. >:-(

  53. “A nationwide mail survey of Catholic priests is analyzed with respect to their political behavior in the presidential election of 2000. Priests exhibit a slight tendency to self-identify as political liberals, and a strong tendency to identify with the Democratic Party.”

    Source: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
    Vol. 42, No. 4 (Dec., 2003), pp. 591-604

  54. Keith Needham says:

    So, is the Catholic church going to invoke church discipline on the disobedient? It sems to me that this is a kin to religious treason.

  55. FrMichael says:

    LC, I am all for your proposal. The constitutional freedom of religion takes priority over the non-constitutional privileges the ACA wants to provide: employer-supplied chemical abortions, sterilizations, contraception, blood transfusions, and other procedures that offend a particular religion.

    In other words, the US Constitution trumps the decision of a Cabinet Secretary. Civics 101.

  56. FrMichael says:

    As a California priest, I would affirm the article’s results by my own observation: priests are somewhat more likely to be Democrat than Republican.

  57. deacon john m. bresnahan says:

    As a man whose father was a Democratic city comitteeman for 50 years and whose grandmother was a major appointee to the CCC by FDR–I know they, if still alive would be aghast at the Democrats in the Senate steadfastly refusing to protect the conscience rights of Catholics.
    Will we be breaking some federal law if we now start referring to the Democratic Party as the anti-Catholic or anti-Christian party from the pulpit??? For that is what that long list of Senate D’s says truthfully, loud and clear.

  58. Katherine says:

    Thank you Richard. That is exactly what happened in our situation. My father had Alzheimer’s and was taken to the only hospital in a relatively small town in Oklahoma, which is a Catholic hospital, after having a small heart attack. He could not swallow and declined a feeding tube and we brought him home with hospice care and he died quite peacefully a week later. Soon afterward, my Mom executed her living will and advanced directive. Five years later she ended up in the same hospital after she suffered a severe stroke, but sadly, she was forced to undergo the insertion of the feeding tube, and did not have the peaceful end that my father had. She suffered for another year and 1/2.

    Richard, you mention the word “merciful” and I appreciate that, because what I witnessed at the hospital was far from merciful. To me it looked like an institution and a physician who were intent on blindly adhering to a doctrine and protocol that is narrow and ideological that falls short of being merciful. Sadly, they no longer see the forest for the trees. My mother’s wishes for death with dignity were denied, however you twist it.

    For those of you who bemoan the alternative of “starving to death,” calling it “cruel and unusual punishment,” you need to understand that that is the natural way people die when they are at the end of a long life, and has been since the beginning of time. It is not painful. The body starts to shut down. It no longer needs or craves food or water. In fact, at this point food and water creates more pain. Have you considered the possibility that the inability to swallow and eat is God’s way of saying it is time? Why do we see death as the enemy? It is part of the life cycle, and essentially is the final healing. By prolonging life at all costs, with whatever technology we have available, we are not honoring God. To the contrary, we are dishonoring God by human interference.

  59. No, the “Catholic Bishops, along with all the other major religions in the country supported legislation that sanctions imprisonment for persons who contract, aid or abet gay marriage is said to be in line with our(Nigerian) ‘values and culture’.”

    That is far more than existing. They are attacking the very definition of marriage which is the law of the country in line with their values and culture. If the Catholic Bishops in that country did not support a bill trying to prevent this attack on marriage, they would be in dissent of Church teaching.

    We have DOMA in this country to prevent one state from being forced to recognize these attacks on family allowed in another state. Very few religions support gay marriage and it being forced nationally. If gays want to see this made a part of the constitution, they have the right to bring an amendment to the Constititution and get it passed by Congress and ratified. Using the courts by distorting the constitution is not the way anything should be done for change.

  60. Richard, answer my question. When did the Republicans have the white house and the majorities in both houses that Obama had in his first two years? In the 90′s they had Clinton in the white house waiting with a veto that would require a super majority to override. When Bush I was in the white house, the democrats held the House by a large majority.

    So I will try again..When was the last time the Republican had what Obama had in his first two years with the same majorities in both houses? Richard, do you understand how this country works and what is required to move any meaningful legislation? Now try answering the question.

  61. When did the Republican deny healthcare for the poor? During the Obamacare fiasco, the Republicans tried to work with the democrats to actually fix many of the problems with the healthcare system. When a person is poor, they have access by law to healtcare. I do not remember seeing the poor lying in the gutters dying in this country. They can go to the hospital and have to be treated and the cost is written off. We also have a safety net with medicaid for the poor and medicare for seniors.

    What will happen with what Obama and his party forced on the people, now viewed negatively by about 60% of Americans, takes more freedom away from the American people. It is a tax on those making under the $250,000 Obama said would pay no new taxes during his campaign as seen in their argument to the supreme court where they clearly argue this mandate is a tax. It has led to this contitutional attack on religious liberty. And we are just starting to uncover the bag of worms inside this bill.

    As to Arizona, it like most states by law have to balance their budget. 30 percent of state’s fiscal 2011 budget is reserved for Medicaid, up from 18 percent in fiscal 2007. The state is struggling to meet federal mandates and some of the transplant program was cut because it wasn’t covered under federal guidelines. Arizona has huge buget problems as we know because the federal government will not do their job and protect its border and when Arizona acted to try to stem the tide of those breaking the laws of the USA, they were sued by the Obama team along with 3 other states. The overreach by the federal government is killing the states and this is even filtering down to the cities.

    There is an end when 50% of the people are on government payments of some kind and about 50% pay zero income tax. How one can call the 50% paying the taxes as not paying their fair share when the other half pays zero is mind boggling and frankly the height of arrogance. It would be like someone taking you and your entire family out for a nice free meal and them throwing a fit because they can’t have the highest priced desert on the menu and the best bottle of wine.

  62. First of all Richard, the mom in my example was indeed my mother who had a stroke and she was not in a Catholic hospital. She had made the same living will with the advice of her attorney. My brother had the medical power of attorney and chose to abide by her “wishes.” The doctors told us she would not live more than a day. She lived two weeks and watching this was pure hell.

    I do not know why you could not have brought her home with hospice care. We certainly had that option with both my mom and dad. What limited you to keeping her in the hospital? We brought my dad home and he lived with us for almost 4 months with his feeding tube in place and he died a peaceful death without being starved to death.

    Not sure why this truth is so offensive to Katherine, but it is what is happening. Could they kill by starvation a convicted serial killer?

    Lets face it, the death of loved ones is not going to be easy no matter how it is handled. I think we have hospice and that is a good thing to help us through these times. Wasn’t there a hospice facility that the patient could be transferred to that did not have religious convictions that this is murder and they will not be a part of killing the patient by withholding food and water?

    I must be missing something here. Was that not allowed by some law? Did the hospital force you to stay there?

  63. What we are seeing here demonstrates that this argument is not about birth control, but everything else the government will decide the Catholic Hospitals have to do in the future. We have to have religious freedom enshrined in the first amendment and need to stand strong.

  64. I find this comment interesting. A very good friend of mine at mass this morning who is a devout Catholic has joined several Democrat political arms using the name Catholic whose mission is to distort and devide Catholics. She has been getting emails recruiting people to write letters to newspapers, comment on Catholic blogs, and call in to talk shows and they are provided specific talking points and arguments. Interesting that if they agree to get involved they are paid for their work with some fairly nice chunk of change. She is following through to get more detail. Not saying this breaks the law that I am aware of, but it sure shows the intent to distort and or attack Catholic teaching. The interesting part is when she joined, she told them upfront she was not a Catholic and they advised this was not a problem as long as she was willing to pose as one.

    This seems to be focused in states with the most outspoken Bishops on the HHS mandate or if the target has a wide audience. Again, it is aimed at undermining the Bishop position or Catholic teaching. She had contacted several people we know to see the best way to deal with this including the USCCB.

  65. Tom, I see this same comment posted so I will answer it as above.

    From what I have heard on the issue in Nigeria

    Catholic Bishops, along with all the other major religions in the country supported legislation that sanctions imprisonment for persons who contract, aid or abet gay marriage is said to be in line with our(Nigerian) ‘values and culture’.”

    Do you have a direct link to the exact wording of the proposed law showing it is not about prohibiting gay marriage?

    But this entire debate is not about the laws in Nigeria, but the attack on religious freedom guaranteed in our own Constitution. I would imagine we could travel the world and find various laws in various countries and they have zip to do with out laws in our countries. I have no idea what the laws are in Nigeria on religious freedom. I know what they became in every state where we allowed the government to dictate godless secual religion as the state religion and it has never been good for freedom.

  66. On your other statement that this is somehow forcing hospitals to provide “basic healthcare” that is frankly the Obama talking points. It is not basic healthcare. What they are asking for is not aimed at a disease or illness. They are asking for the destruction and prevention of life to be mandated against the long standing religious beliefs of the Catholic Church. What disease is this they are going after here? pregnancy? That is not an illness or disease that I am aware of. It is a personal choice that the Bishops are not objecting to or asking the state to drop from all non Catholic coverages. The USCCB would be forcing their view on others if they were in fact saying all insurance across the country cannot include birth control, sterilzation, and abortifacients because they are against our religious belief. That is not happening. Those who work for Catholic organizations have to follow the moral beliefs of our organizations. Our ability to have religious liberty was upheld 9-0 in Hosanna-Tabor. How does that not crush your argument here where you seem to say religous organizations have no religious liberty protection around employees.

  67. I will reply as I did above. Why is the Blunt amendment different from that supported by the entire Democrat congress in the Hilarycare proposal of 1994. It is almost identical. I note none of those defending the Obama attack on religious liberty want to answer why the democrats have gone 180 degrees on this religious liberty right issue. Have they gone this radical in their attack on Catholics and religious liberty in this short time frame?

    The Blunt amendment with little democrat support reads:

    “Nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall be construed to require an individual or institutional health care provider, or authorize a health plan to require a provider, to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

    The 1994 Hillarycare language which won massive Democratic acceptance was:

    “Nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent any employer from contributing to the purchase of a standard benefits package which excludes coverage of abortion or other services, if the employer objects to such services on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction”

    Come on people, take the challenge and try to defend this hypocrisy?

  68. I find this amazing. How one can dedicate their life to the Catholic Church and support the party that has killed 54 million babies is something I can’t understand. Even if one makes a point it is part of their DNA going back before Roe intrinsic evil, you have the Democratic party up until they finally caved in 1965 fighting every attempt at civil rights legislation. If you go back further, you have FDR refusing to support the anti lynching bill because it would go against the democratic terror arm the KKK. And the Democratic big government programs to fight the war on poverty have created havoc and done nothing to lower the poverty rate in this country. Kind of like the war on drugs. The federal secular government really has nothing that can truly impact change because you have to bring in the other pillar of faith to change people hearts and souls. They simply throw money at it and that has never done anything of value. At the same time, these programs have massively distorted and ruined the healthcare system in this country in regard to funding and defensive medicine and at the same time put us in a position where we are forced to borrow from the Chinese while running up massive debt for our grandkids. The big elephant in the room is entitlement spending all of which have been established by the Democrats. They have a horrible track record if one is a pacifist as they have led us into almost every major conflict over the past 100 years. The Democrats developed and are the only party to drop atomic bombs on cities. Democrat President Wilson created the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) as a branch of the U.S. Army during WWI. Twenty-four years later, in 1942, Under Democrat FDR, the CWS would begin performing mustard gas and lewisite experiments on over 4,000 members of the armed forces and also used our military for testing of the atomic bombs continued by Truman and finally banned by Eisenhower. And do we need to mention that every time we saw a freedom rider getting beat to fight for basic civil rights, those ordering and doing the beating, water hosing, and dog attacks were solid Democrats?

    So why a majority of Catholic priest would support this party, is beyond my understanding. It is a history from its start as wrong on every intrinsic evil in the countries history.

  69. friscoeddie says:

    So you say a pro-life Catholic like Casey is a fake. The bishops said the same thing to pro-life Dem Congressman Bart Stupak so he said ‘take the job and shove it’. Well get ready for 5 more years of Obama and 8 more with Michelle Obama or Biden . Next chance for the Obama distorters will be 2024.

  70. Our priest said exactly that in his homily this morning. No one can ever again say that the Democratic party is friendly toward religious liberty or the Catholic Church. He joked that only this party could do something like unite the entire USCCB in a way that has not happend since its founding. His homily ended with a solid standing ovation. by the way, this mass brought a full house to pray for our country and our Catholic Bishops. Two of our Dominicans teach at the local seminary and after mass, both seemed to say this is going to change some of the teaching at the seminary to prepare them for the coming attacks from the government.

  71. friscoeddie says:

    My medical directive says I don’t want any procedure you cannot have in villages in third world country

  72. Barbara P says:

    Mark you know very well that with the filibuster rule most votes require a supermajority in the Senate. Although that rule has been used by both parties but it’s the Republicans that have relied on it as a way of blocking or delaying every piece of major legislation during this Administration. So with all due respect your arguments are.

  73. Barbara P says:

    Forgot the last word–disengenuous!

  74. Bill Kelly says:

    IF – we had term limits the weak willed and spineless politicians “might” be inclined to vote the way their faith directs. They are too worried about getting relected, staying with the Party etc. It is so sad.

  75. Tom in Lazybrook says:

    So, tax cuts are more important than life? Apparently so, to some. The states wouldn’t have the fiscal problems if they hadn’t reduced taxes on the wealthy time and time again over the last 30 years. Some of the tax cuts were justified. But we’ve gone too far.

    And I’m sorry, If one is going to argue that the Catholic Church hospitals are really ‘charities’ and that the church is so pro-life that it will shut down hospitals rather than provide contraception, then I find it very hard to believe that the church in Arizona would let 3 people die needlessly because they refused to step up for life when the state denied care.

  76. Tom in Lazybrook says:

    Because in many places, you don’t have a choice. Remember many “Catholic” Hospitals have Certificates of Need, which prevent other hospitals from competing with them.

  77. Tom in Lazybrook says:

    Here’s your link…yes I chose a link from a gay rights group, because it has the full text of the bill…http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/12/05/39367 Feel free to simply go to google and type in “anti-Gay law Nigeria” in the search field to find any number of links from whichever source you find convincing.

    So per the Catholic Church (the whole Catholic Church) has the policy of saying that throwing persons in prison for 14 years for existing is a ‘cultural perspective’. Or banning religious ceremonies is okay with the Roman Catholic Church if they are unpopular? In one respect, this is worse than the ‘Concordat of Rome’ because at least during the Concordat, the Church didn’t directly endorse the human rights abuses, it just remained neutral.

    When the Nigerian Senate passed this legislation (led by a Catholic Sen. Mark) the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria publically endorsed the law without calling for amendments in the national press and on their own website.

  78. Tom in Lazybrook says:

    How can one ‘seek employment elsewhere’ when these ‘Catholic’ hospitals enjoy protection from competition.

  79. you have the Democratic party up until they finally caved in 1965 fighting every attempt at civil rights legislation.

    Mark, that’s grossly misleading. The division was by region and not by party. Up until the middle of the 20th century, the South was close to a one-party system, with Democrats, as a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction, being the one party. There was an uneasy alliance between the pro-labor, pro-immigrant, and significantly Catholic Northern Democrats and the Dixiecrats that started dissolving when Truman took steps to promote civil rights, at which time Dixiecrats began the migration to the Republican party that was complete by the time of Reagan. The vote percentages for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, one year prior to the date that you cite, were as follows:
    (pro-Civil Rights totals first)
    In the House:
    Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
    Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
    Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
    Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
    In the Senate:
    Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
    Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
    Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)

    So, obviously, of the four party/region cohorts, Northern Democrats were most solidly pro-Civil Rights. To get the bill passed in the Senate, the bill had to be weakened to gain the support of Republican swing votes.

    Even before that time, the 85th Congress (1957-59), which had a Democratic majority in both houses, had passed a civil rights act largely focused on voting rights.
    Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

  80. friscoeddie says:

    George , bishops don’t own the Catholic hospitals and colleges. So they will not close. The bishops have closed 1000 parishes and about the same number of parochial schools which the bishops do own All were closed and ‘religious liberty’ and Obama had nothing to do with it.. get real..

  81. friscoeddie says:

    Nixon turned all those people beating civil rights workers into Rebuplican and they have remained so since 1968.

  82. Barbara, please answer the question

    When was the last time that a Republican president had this many votes to control the agenda in total? Some one want to guess? In the last 25 years. In the last 50 years. In the last 100 years?

    It is the point being made if you can understand clear english. I am well aware of the filibuster. How did Obamacare get through during the first two years?

    With those same margins in two years, why no Dream Act or comprehensive immigration reform?

    You talking about the filibuster does not answer the question. Give Republican President the margins Obama enjoyed in both houses of congress and allow them to have free reign on two supreme court nominations during that time frame and ability to pass bills with no democratic votes and then judge how they did compared to their promises. Obama made a lot of promises and with those majorities and used it for the socialist agenda and attacks on religious freedom. We can only pray Obamacare is thrown out entirely by the supreme court or that republicans get huge majorites and throw obama out or the country is in very big trobule and unemployment over 8% become permanent for years.

  83. Tom, I know laws matter little to the democrats any more than the Constitution. If life matters, then your quoting 3 deaths if accurate is laughable to condemn the republicans when the democrats have the blood of 54 million innocent babies on their hands and are adding 4,000 a day.

    I tried to give you a clear answer on other matters but you have your radical leftist talking points simple matter is

    State Law demands balanced budget.

    Federal goverment not even trying under obama to stop flow of illegals and killing state budgets
    Federal mandates constantly flowing out are killing state budgets
    Federalgovernment did not have medicaid coverage for for transplants covered . If state allow it, it comes at massive expense to the state.

    That is why the governor once again tried to explain how government works to Obama on the tarmac without success.

    You take one idiotic argument and try to tie another one just as dumb to prove a point that result is beyond dumb with great success.

  84. Friscoe, you never can seem to take a point and come up with a logical conclusion or response.

    Did their votes come when it was certain that the amendment would fail…yep, even acknowledged on leftist sites.

    I will say they are pro life when their vote supports life causing the democrat abortion supporting party to lose big time.

    As to Obama and more to follow, if Obama wins America is finished in 4 years if it last that long. Everyone thought Carter was the worst of all time but Obama has him looking like Reagan.

  85. Tom, how about hospitals that are not catholic. What protection is there against competition? If all the people who are not Catholic have not put up a hospital in their area that is not Catholic, why does the Catholic hospital have to violate their conscience. Get off their butts and build an alternative. Seems like if they allow Catholics to uphold their religious liberty, there should be a good market for another to come in offering all these essential womens right services.

  86. Tom, you said the info was on a Catholic website. Now you list a gay activist site filled with lies and hatred of the Catholic Church.

    I don’t go to gay activist sites because they advocate gravely disorder behavior against the teaching of my faith.

  87. Our parish priest–Espanola, NM– made it a point at Friday mass that the Bishop’s letter did NOT mean we had to vote against Dems……Most priests that have I have heard comment on politics over the years take the liberal line. They like the idea of the free lunch and most have never been in the position of paying the taxes that provide it. “We’re for the poor” is an attractive argument that Dems make and priest buy into it. And yes, I’m a member of the vast right wing conspiracy and a Catholic true-believer…..
    Bottom line is that we should look in the mirror when we criticize Catholic elected officials. How did they get there?

  88. sjay, you say “at which time Dixiecrats began the migration to the Republican party that was complete by the time of Reagan.”

    How many Dixiecrats became Republicans? Do you have the facts on this?

    Of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three ever became republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind, Jr.

    No others in the Dixie joined the Republican Party.

    In regard to the so called Southern Strategy, those who were directly involved have written that many in the south had strong religious beliefs and also were strong on defense. Because of the direction the democrats, going toward a secular state religion, there was a great opportunity based on Republican long term committment to fight for values important to religious voters and those who wanted a strong defense. This was the souther strategy and had nothing to do with race issues. There was no recruiting for the likes of

    “Bull” Connor,
    Lester Maddox,
    George Wallace,
    Senator Robert Byrd,
    Senator Ernest Hollings,
    Albert Gore Sr,
    Hill and Sparkman of Alabama,
    Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas,
    Holland and Smathers of Florida,
    Russell and Talmadge of Georgia,
    Ellender and Long of Louisiana,
    Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
    Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
    Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
    Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
    H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia

    All of these people remained democrats their entire career. All opposed the civil rights act of 1964 along with those of 1957 and 59. Republicans voted for the bill with 81% in the senate and 80% in the House for a bill introduced and written by a democratic president and with solid majorities in both houses of congress. That is extraordinary by any measure and I challenge you to find anything close to this with any bill introduced by a Republican president with large majorites in both house republican as well. Keep in mind that politically, it would have been best to leave the democratic committee driven civil rights bill being filibustered by democratic senators. The NAACP sent thanks to the Republican Party in acknowledging that without their overwhelming support it had no chance of stopping democrat filibuster or success in the vote.

    I will wait for your list of those segregationist dixiecrats that “migration to the Republican party that was complete by the time of Reagan” I do not call three people a major migration. I can find no record of these three filibustering civil rights legislation in the future as Republicans.

    The democrats have done a good job of selling this lie and I await your research to show me where any of this is wrong. You talk about the solid democratic South as a “close to a one-party system, with Democrats, as a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction,” but do not acknowledge that this was exactly as I described it from its founding as a slave party, taking us to civil war party, KKK terror arm of the party, beating, burning lynching all the way through to LBJ. All of this was democrats and few of them were accepted into the republican party.

    Those are hard facts. I congratulate the democrats on selling the big lie and would like to kick the Republicans in the tail end for allowing it to happen.

    And the same party within 10 years of this 1964 civil rights act had transformed into the party of abortion and soon to gay marriage. It was during this tranistion that the movement of Democrat religious moved solidly to the Repbublicans. It was many who could not quit the democratic party, but who hated what it had become as the party of death and gays and weak defense who stayed democrats but supported Reagan.

  89. That is so stupid Friscoe hardly worth commenting on. Who ran in 68 against nixon? super lefty Humphrey after a massive amount of civil disturbance and lawless behavior capped by the 68 democratic convention. Nixon won with the southern folks who loved their faith and strong defense. So where tid democrat racist go in 68? Wallace third party bid got that vote in total.

    Nixon by the way had a very good civil rights record and was acknowledged as so by a reluctant Nixon hating media. Not saying Nixon was a fan of blacks by any measure, but he was practical and also had a fixation on how history would look at him compared to JFK.

Leave a Comment


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X