...a small amount of money to the Catholic League every year.
Catholic League hits Kerry on abortion
"Kerry's dichotomy," Donohue said, "was advanced by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 in the Dred Scott decision."
"In that ruling, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote that members of 'the Negro race' were 'not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the government.' Similarly, he concluded that 'it is too plain for argument, that they have never been regarded as part of the people or citizens of the state."
Whoa - that is intense.
The link doesn't seem to be working...
Fixed. Now you can get your link on.
Thanks. Donohue is right, of course. As a friend says, "Robert E. Lee was pro-choice on slavery."
The reason I don't give money to the Catholic League every year is because yes, they're hitting Sen. Kerry hard on this, but they're not hitting the GOP for inviting almost all pro-choice Republicans to speak at the Republican National Convention.
As usual, the Catholic League reveals its bitter partisanship and support for the Republican Party by refusing to denounce the Republicans for the same reasons it denounces the Democrats.
What Donahue is showing, Nathan, is that the democratic party, once the champion of slaveholder rights, is now the champion of a woman's absolute right to an abortion....it's the same party........there is NO question that the republican party for all its blatant weaknesses (like hiding the conservative wing at convention time) is unquestionably the party that will lead us to victory over Roe.....in light of that fact your criticism of WIlliam Donahue pales.
Ok so life begins at conception, says Kerry....but NOT personhood....personhood begins at birth. So I guess life ends at biological death but personhood ends when the money runs out?
Nathan,
Kerry, the dem nominee, is Catholic. Last time I checked, Catholicism isn't part of the GOP platform (or the platform of any other political party in America, major or otherwise). Now if one of the pro-abort Catholic GOP speakers were running for president, and the Catholic League were silent, you would have a good point. As it is, I think you criticism says more about your biases than about those of Donohue.
Did you know that in 1928 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women were not 'persons'? -- Also see our post at CKW: "Senator Kerry may be human . . . but is he a person?"
The real issue here is the the League's argument can be applied to anyone who is "personally opposed but pro-choice." Donohue hits where he needs to, this year it happens to be a "catholic" presidential candidate who's theology is more Unitarian than anything else.
I think it was Wm. T. Sherman who wrote in his diary of his support of "the natural subjugation of the negro." The War of N------n Agression wasn't about slavery. Your friend is oversimplifying.
Neither major political party will "lead us to victory over Roe." That requires leadership. Both parties are sorely lacking. Neither gives a hoot about anything but winning elections. Governing the nation? Just fills time between campaigns. Am I cynical? You bet. But with reason. In each of the presidential terms since 1973, 4 to 5 million babies have been butchered, regardless of whether the occupant of the oval office (or a majority of Congress) carried a "D" or an "R" after his name. A real pro-life hero cannot be nominated by either of these parties. Give it up.
OK...and let's also bring back slavery...seems to work in the Sudan.
Just because victory isn't within sight doesn't mean we should give up. It took a long time to end slavery, to end segregation, and to end other legal evils.
To say that the both Republicans and Democrats lack leadership on this issue is highly deceptive. The Democrats do have leadership on the issue; it's just on the side of murder. The Republican party as a whole might not be aggressive as we'd like, and might be willing to sell out the pro-life movement where they can get away with it (which is why we need to make clear we'll stay home/vote blank/vote third-party if they do), but most do seek both to change the judicial climate, or at least keep it from getting worse, and to limit abortion where the edicts of judicial activists allow.
Whenever a great evil in a society is confronted, it takes both a change in culture and a change in government to beat back the evil.
Peter -- Yes, the Democratic Party was once the champion of slaveholders' rights, and then the Republican Party became the champion of opposition to civil rights. It still remains opposed to civil rights. So both parties are guilty of the oppression of blacks, as you well know, and as Mr. Donohue certainly does, so let's not go there.
TPFKAC -- Many of the pro-choice speakers at the Republican National Convention are Catholic. They're not running for President, but I think the Catholic League needs to ask the Republican Party why it's giving pro-choice Catholics a platform just like they asked why the Democrats were giving pro-choicers a platform by linking to Catholics For a Free Choice on the DNC website. But the Catholic League will not do this, because William Donohue wants to advance the Republican agenda. He's made it blatantly clear.
By the way, Donohue was attacking the Democrats long before a pro-choice Catholic was running as their presidential candidate. This is certainly not new.
JS -- No, Donohue is not hitting all "personally opposed," he is hitting John Kerry -- as post clearly states. I have never seen a statement from the Catholic League against pro-choice Republican Catholics. I have never seen statements against Gov. Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani, etc. Can you legitimately defend the fact that the Catholic League only attacks pro-choice Democratic Catholics?
Nathan, as you're currently doing your "Catholic Light gadfly" tour,
The Republicans oppose which "civil rights," exactly? And which Republicans were responsible for "the oppression of blacks"? I want names. Because I can give you names like Byrd, Faubus, Gore, Fulbright, Connor, Wallace, etc., all of whom were Democrats opposed to desegregation in the 1960s. Not opposed to particular pieces of legislation, but opposed to the whole darn thing.
I cannot personally defend the Catholic League because I have not seen all of their statements. However, in general, there's a big difference between pro-abortion Catholic Democrats and Republicans: the former trumpet their support for abortion, but the latter tend to at least act ashamed about it and only mention it if they're asked.
See the main blog for my Convention Bet!
The Republicans oppose which "civil rights," exactly? And which Republicans were responsible for "the oppression of blacks"? I want names. Because I can give you names like Byrd, Faubus, Gore, Fulbright, Connor, Wallace, etc., all of whom were Democrats opposed to desegregation in the 1960s. Not opposed to particular pieces of legislation, but opposed to the whole darn thing.
Proportionately more Republicans in both houses of congress supported the Civil Rights act of 1964 than did the Democrats. If memory serves, the Democrats couldn't have passed it (that year) without Republican support, despite having overwhelming majorities in both houses of congress. But perhaps Nathan means that Republicans haven't been supportive of Affirmative Action, by and large, in which case he'd be correct. I don't consider opposing counter-discrimination to be a racial injustice, though.
Even if you think affirmative action is okay, in no way can it be considered a "civil right," unless you think it's a fundamental right to be treated differently based on the color of your skin. I thought the opposite was the case, actually.
"they asked why the Democrats were giving pro-choicers a platform by linking to Catholics For a Free Choice on the DNC website". No. They complained because the only identifiably "Catholic" link was to an organization that is Catholic in name only.