The problem is abortion. I’m Catholic and I know many of my co-religionists think that the GOP is THE pro life party because they oppose abortion. They think that is the only issue they are required to consider when they vote, The fact that the GOP is willing to send people to concentration camps where they are treated inhumanely and take away people’s healthcare so people will literally die, or rescinding funds appropriated for the poorest of the poor through out the world doesn’t seem to click as pro life issues. When Pope Leo speaks out against these things makes them dislike the Pope, not Trump. It’s very sad because that’s not the teachings of Jesus I’ve encountered in the Bible. And, yes, Catholics read the Bible. In fact, the Catholic Church compiled the written Bible from stories handed down from the early generations of Christians. Every Catholic daily mass has at least 3 readings from various books of the Bible and 4 on Sunday. The Catholics don’t read the Bible trope is a shot across the bow dating back to the reformation.
The GOP is not pro life. If they were, they would fund children's programs like healthcare, food subsidies and education. This they do not do. Their leadership wouldn't have dismantled USAID either. What they are are hypocrites.
I'm also a cradle Catholic and find Vance absolutely embarrassing. He went to a weekly class on the faith for a year and thinks he knows more about the Church than the Pope? Everything this administration does is the opposite of what Jesus said we should do. If Trump were actually pro-life, he would make sure that expectant mothers have everything they need in terms of medical care and other resources. Instead, he wants to remove people from Medicaid, which pays for about 40 percent of all deliveries in the US.
I agree. Abortion is a huge thing to devout Christians be they Catholic or Protestant. Too big? I think so, but that is the way it is. They see it as a sanctioned allowance of murder to be perpetrated on an unborn child by a mother who was not careful enough with her sexual activities. Oh - and that mother is usually non-white, in their eyes. You know, were that the predominant case, I'd have more problems with abortion too if done later term. But we all know it is not the predominant case. So this is yet another problem with religion versus reality. Religion versus science. Religion says the fetus receives a soul upon conception, and therefore to end that life is a greivous sin. A soul upon conception - where is the fuc_ing evidence for that? And nothing can be said to those who believe that to look at it any differently. So here we are - anyone in their eyes who supports any kind of abortion is a baby murderer, and they will go against those who are of that bent even if it means voting for a Donald Trump. This is fact. I see it everywhere including my own family.
Is the point of this article that 'Just as Obama Denounced Rev. Wright, Catholics Should Denounce Trump' as the headline says, or about the double standard 'in what is deemed acceptable at the intersection of politics and religious doctrine', as the last paragraph says? The writer doesn't seem sure.
Not only that, but the passage about Rev. Wright and Obama only shows Obama proving the reverend's point.
Take the two quotes from Rev. Wright given here at face value:
“Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything,”
OK, there is no evidence to show that 'HIV was invented by the government to use against minorities'. But there are centuries of evidence that shows the US government's cruelty and violent oppression of Black people and indigenous people in this country, among others. There is also a long history of the US government not giving one iota about the millions of people here and around the world that have died from HIV/AIDS, especially in Africa. That same goverment did not care when gay men were dying left and right when HIV/AIDs first ravaged the US either.
There is also ample evidence of the same government committing barbarous acts through experimentation on humans and of using biological warfare, going back to giving Native Americans smallpox infected blankets in the first days of European colonization, not to mention centuries of human enslavement and genocide. Rev. Wright's comments about the Tuskegee experiment is of course true, and not an isolated incident.
Then the author writes and quotes:
'Wright also insinuated that Obama participated in political rhetoric. “If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected,” he declared. “Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls.” '
It is of course 100% true that Obama, like practically all national level politicians, "participated in political rhetoric". There is nothing controversial about that charge at all.
“If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected,” is a bit vague but again, there is nothing controversial there. It is certainly far from some outrageous, slanderous falsehood.
“Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls.” is as true as it gets.
And, Obama exactly proved Wright's point, when he denounced 'the man who officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and been his pastor for 20 years.' (quoted from the link given in the article above). Obama then said "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago".
Really? Did anyone honestly believe that, then or now, given how long Obama knew Rev. Wright? That all the sudden out of nowhere, the reverend said these supposedly outrageous things Obama couldn't live with, when he was now running for President? And that he was just shocked...shocked! to hear these comments?
All this is meant as a comparison to Trump, the author writing 'The 44th president made a tough call for the sake of his campaign. Trump supporters should make a similar one for their own salvation.'
This also makes no sense. comparing a presidential candidates denouncement of his past reverend, to the denouncement of an entire movement of people of a current President who has had a lifetime of lies and racism, is apples to blowing balls.
But then at the end, the writer states "(Rev. Wright) serves as a case study in what is deemed acceptable at the intersection of politics and religious doctrine", as if the double standard is the point here.
So which is it? Should we ask MAGA to follow Obama's lead? Or is the banishing of Rev. Wright when compared to Trump's continued power an example of American's racist double standard?
The second point makes a lot more sense, but the rest of the piece, or the headline, doesn't suggest this at all.
But even then, it isn't clear what the point is...above the writer claims 'Obama chose his country over his pastor' but then he says Obama made a 'tough call for the sake of his campaign', which is obviously not the same as 'choosing your country' and also again proves Wright's point.
"“Pope Leo said things that are wrong,” Trump said when explaining why he won’t apologize to His Holiness."
This isn't surprising at all. Trump never apologizes - for anything. What did the Pope say that was wrong? He advocates for peace. Trump obviously does not. The Pope is weak on crime is a comment from Trump's usual far right field. In case he does not realize it, the Pope is not an agent of law enforcement. There is only one of these two people who is out of line. Hint: It's not the Pope.
American Catholics are not block voters. Most of the white middle-class Catholics that I know voted against Trump in every election. Be careful about painting with too broad a brush.
Hi Ann, Catholics looking to understand how we got snookered by the GOP over abortion should like substack. https://betterpolitics.substack.com/ . If you search for abortion under the archive tab, you will find several posts on abortion.
I thought Trump was the Antichrist in 2016. He is doing a great job of proving it now. I am a never Trump voter and at this point I am a never republican voter.
Jason has it right. (I'm assuming -- hoping -- there's a typo in his "apples to blowing balls.") The logic of this piece is tortured. Patterns of action are used as standards for judging completely non-analogous actions. Obama's relationship to his minister is not in any way prescriptive of a Catholic citizen's responsibility as a voter. Likewise, the argument gets lost in the twists and turns of the documentation cited. If there is a thesis struggling to be born, it seems to be that Barack Obama compares favorably to Donald Trump. There are logical proofs in support of that hypothesis. This essay doesn't employ them.
I really wish that Catholics who are against abortion could recognize that contraception does reduce unplanned pregnancies. In any event, women ought to be able to make their own decisions about out whether and when they have children.
The problem is abortion. I’m Catholic and I know many of my co-religionists think that the GOP is THE pro life party because they oppose abortion. They think that is the only issue they are required to consider when they vote, The fact that the GOP is willing to send people to concentration camps where they are treated inhumanely and take away people’s healthcare so people will literally die, or rescinding funds appropriated for the poorest of the poor through out the world doesn’t seem to click as pro life issues. When Pope Leo speaks out against these things makes them dislike the Pope, not Trump. It’s very sad because that’s not the teachings of Jesus I’ve encountered in the Bible. And, yes, Catholics read the Bible. In fact, the Catholic Church compiled the written Bible from stories handed down from the early generations of Christians. Every Catholic daily mass has at least 3 readings from various books of the Bible and 4 on Sunday. The Catholics don’t read the Bible trope is a shot across the bow dating back to the reformation.
The GOP is not pro life. If they were, they would fund children's programs like healthcare, food subsidies and education. This they do not do. Their leadership wouldn't have dismantled USAID either. What they are are hypocrites.
What they are is pro-birth. They're not concerned about what happens after that.
I'm also a cradle Catholic and find Vance absolutely embarrassing. He went to a weekly class on the faith for a year and thinks he knows more about the Church than the Pope? Everything this administration does is the opposite of what Jesus said we should do. If Trump were actually pro-life, he would make sure that expectant mothers have everything they need in terms of medical care and other resources. Instead, he wants to remove people from Medicaid, which pays for about 40 percent of all deliveries in the US.
I agree. Abortion is a huge thing to devout Christians be they Catholic or Protestant. Too big? I think so, but that is the way it is. They see it as a sanctioned allowance of murder to be perpetrated on an unborn child by a mother who was not careful enough with her sexual activities. Oh - and that mother is usually non-white, in their eyes. You know, were that the predominant case, I'd have more problems with abortion too if done later term. But we all know it is not the predominant case. So this is yet another problem with religion versus reality. Religion versus science. Religion says the fetus receives a soul upon conception, and therefore to end that life is a greivous sin. A soul upon conception - where is the fuc_ing evidence for that? And nothing can be said to those who believe that to look at it any differently. So here we are - anyone in their eyes who supports any kind of abortion is a baby murderer, and they will go against those who are of that bent even if it means voting for a Donald Trump. This is fact. I see it everywhere including my own family.
Is the point of this article that 'Just as Obama Denounced Rev. Wright, Catholics Should Denounce Trump' as the headline says, or about the double standard 'in what is deemed acceptable at the intersection of politics and religious doctrine', as the last paragraph says? The writer doesn't seem sure.
Not only that, but the passage about Rev. Wright and Obama only shows Obama proving the reverend's point.
Take the two quotes from Rev. Wright given here at face value:
“Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything,”
OK, there is no evidence to show that 'HIV was invented by the government to use against minorities'. But there are centuries of evidence that shows the US government's cruelty and violent oppression of Black people and indigenous people in this country, among others. There is also a long history of the US government not giving one iota about the millions of people here and around the world that have died from HIV/AIDS, especially in Africa. That same goverment did not care when gay men were dying left and right when HIV/AIDs first ravaged the US either.
There is also ample evidence of the same government committing barbarous acts through experimentation on humans and of using biological warfare, going back to giving Native Americans smallpox infected blankets in the first days of European colonization, not to mention centuries of human enslavement and genocide. Rev. Wright's comments about the Tuskegee experiment is of course true, and not an isolated incident.
Then the author writes and quotes:
'Wright also insinuated that Obama participated in political rhetoric. “If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected,” he declared. “Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls.” '
It is of course 100% true that Obama, like practically all national level politicians, "participated in political rhetoric". There is nothing controversial about that charge at all.
“If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected,” is a bit vague but again, there is nothing controversial there. It is certainly far from some outrageous, slanderous falsehood.
“Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls.” is as true as it gets.
And, Obama exactly proved Wright's point, when he denounced 'the man who officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and been his pastor for 20 years.' (quoted from the link given in the article above). Obama then said "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago".
Really? Did anyone honestly believe that, then or now, given how long Obama knew Rev. Wright? That all the sudden out of nowhere, the reverend said these supposedly outrageous things Obama couldn't live with, when he was now running for President? And that he was just shocked...shocked! to hear these comments?
All this is meant as a comparison to Trump, the author writing 'The 44th president made a tough call for the sake of his campaign. Trump supporters should make a similar one for their own salvation.'
This also makes no sense. comparing a presidential candidates denouncement of his past reverend, to the denouncement of an entire movement of people of a current President who has had a lifetime of lies and racism, is apples to blowing balls.
But then at the end, the writer states "(Rev. Wright) serves as a case study in what is deemed acceptable at the intersection of politics and religious doctrine", as if the double standard is the point here.
So which is it? Should we ask MAGA to follow Obama's lead? Or is the banishing of Rev. Wright when compared to Trump's continued power an example of American's racist double standard?
The second point makes a lot more sense, but the rest of the piece, or the headline, doesn't suggest this at all.
But even then, it isn't clear what the point is...above the writer claims 'Obama chose his country over his pastor' but then he says Obama made a 'tough call for the sake of his campaign', which is obviously not the same as 'choosing your country' and also again proves Wright's point.
"“Pope Leo said things that are wrong,” Trump said when explaining why he won’t apologize to His Holiness."
This isn't surprising at all. Trump never apologizes - for anything. What did the Pope say that was wrong? He advocates for peace. Trump obviously does not. The Pope is weak on crime is a comment from Trump's usual far right field. In case he does not realize it, the Pope is not an agent of law enforcement. There is only one of these two people who is out of line. Hint: It's not the Pope.
American Catholics are not block voters. Most of the white middle-class Catholics that I know voted against Trump in every election. Be careful about painting with too broad a brush.
Hi Ann, Catholics looking to understand how we got snookered by the GOP over abortion should like substack. https://betterpolitics.substack.com/ . If you search for abortion under the archive tab, you will find several posts on abortion.
I thought Trump was the Antichrist in 2016. He is doing a great job of proving it now. I am a never Trump voter and at this point I am a never republican voter.
Jason has it right. (I'm assuming -- hoping -- there's a typo in his "apples to blowing balls.") The logic of this piece is tortured. Patterns of action are used as standards for judging completely non-analogous actions. Obama's relationship to his minister is not in any way prescriptive of a Catholic citizen's responsibility as a voter. Likewise, the argument gets lost in the twists and turns of the documentation cited. If there is a thesis struggling to be born, it seems to be that Barack Obama compares favorably to Donald Trump. There are logical proofs in support of that hypothesis. This essay doesn't employ them.
I really wish that Catholics who are against abortion could recognize that contraception does reduce unplanned pregnancies. In any event, women ought to be able to make their own decisions about out whether and when they have children.