Bush aides say Kerry 'wrong for Catholics'
Something we have been stating for awhile.
posted by David at 9:00 AM
Track with co.mments
Rate this post:
Monday, September 27, 2004
Catholics for Bush Yahoo! Group
New Post
New Post
Previous Posts
- Disease and abortion, equal weight? Not!
- Kneel-cons Unite!
- Seminary professors speak up
- U.S. Health Plans Include One With Catholic Tenets
- THE ARIAN HERESY REVISITED: Now is the Time
- Bush Reappoints Archbishop Chaput to Panel
- Judge In Norma McCorvey Case Blasts Roe v. Wade Ab...
- New Study Proves Virginity Pledges Work
- The Bible's Teaching Against Abortion
- Tort Reform and Thomas More: Lessons from a Christ...
8 Comments:
Pastor Dick,
You may have something there about the harshing on the whole sin/sinner thing- it's aight! The problem is that this lame website keeps harshing on Kerry as some kinda demon-like figure, and Bush is like this super-groovy life-hugging dude. I think some may say that some things on this website might be a lie. Alot of commentors seem to point out what they consider lies, but like the energizer bunny, the website just keeps goin on an on with them. Is lying bad?
Lies? Lots of commenters pointing them out? Lame website? Kerry, a demon-like figure?
Just to set things straight.
I challenge "Anonymous" to point to my "lies". When he does I will back up these claims with facts and other evidence. Just because you don't like the truth does not make it a lie.
I think "Anonymous" here is "Anonymous" in most posts. I doubt that it is "alot" of commentors.
I wonder why "Anonymous" is always posting comments denouncing Catholics who support Bush. Maybe it is the same reasons Catholics for "Choice", John Carroll, Ono Ekeh and other Catholics for Kerry see the writing on the wall, that their guy probably will not win in November?
I have never characterized Senator Kerry as a "demon". Those are "Anonymous'" words. Senator Kerry, like myself is a sinner, but he gives such scandal to other Catholics that he's dissention must be pointed out. I pray for him often and ask Our Lord to change his heart.
>>I challenge "Anonymous" to point to my "lies". When he does I will back up these claims with facts and other evidence. Just because you don't like the truth does not make it a lie.
Look here:
http://catholicsforbush.blogspot.com/2004/09/care-for-gods-creation.html#comments
I called you out when you tried to pass Bush off as an environmental president. Your version of 'truth' is contrary to what our governmental agency that regulates what's 'environmental' tells us(former EPA head):
http://www.whitehouse.org/ask/cwhitman.asp
Hehe, I guess the EPA head just didn't know what she was talking about or something. Oh well, she's gone now, and all is good, right? Just because you don't like what our government tells us, don't try to deceive your readers by leaving out the laws that Bush passed that look downright anti-environmental. Many governmetal officials complained publically DURING Bush's presidency because he tends to favor Corporate interests over the environment.
Now, would you consider your characterization of Bush a lie, or merely an intentional deception? Or perhaps you disagree with the EPA altogether and continue to think that Bush's record indicates good stewardship of the earth?
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/9647155.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0720-01.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june03/bush_5-21.html
http://govt-aff.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&Affiliation=C&PressRelease_id=468&Month=3&Year=2002
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2004.asp
If you haven't already discovered, the whitehouse.org link was obviously a spoof website. Do your own google search for: EPA Whitman, and get your own biased slant from many different sources. They seem to all seem think there was some amount of controversy in her decision to leave:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/8121/8121notw1.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/21/whitman.resigns/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0228-05.htm
Spoof site? You mean sorta like the sources that this website continually uses to attempt to prove its case that Bush is SUCH the envronmental president? Give me a break. I guess one DOES have to use deception sometimes to prove one's case. But is that right?
Someone above claims,
"I called you out when you tried to pass Bush off as an environmental president. Your version of 'truth' is contrary to what our governmental agency that regulates what's 'environmental' tells us"
I never stated in that post that President Bush is an "environmental president". I laid out what I knew of the president's record on the environment and how I believe it works within the guidelines laid out in Faithful Citizenship. I am accused of lying. Where? The commentor above provides links of others opinions on the president's environmental record. How do they prove I lied?
I ended that post with this statement,
"Some may argue that the president's proposals and actions here do not go far enough. I ask, how far does Catholic social doctrine say "the state" must go? The president's views here operate within the framework of Catholic social teachings on the environment. These teachings remind us we must "show our respect" for God's creation. How we do that is left up to us. We can debate how far to go, but to suggest the president's policies contravene these teachings is to fail to understand them."
I stand by the post as an honest analysis of President Bush's environmental record using the framework of the Church's social teachings on the environment. It's one thing to disagree with this analysis and quite another to call it a lie.
YOUR STATEMENT:
I have taken four key points from Faithful Citizenship to show how President Bush meets the standards of caring for God creation as laid out by the Church.
How do you define lie? Should we go by a standard dictionary definition?
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Well, let's see- you wanna go point by point so that we can get at the the falsehoods and deceptions? How bout we just cover the 1st key point you cover.
Your 1st point:
Our stewardship of the Earth is a form of participation in God's act of creating and sustaining the world
The first thing point out is the Clear Skies legislation:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Z24ookZQpqAJ:www.psr.org/documents/psr_doc_0/program_3/Clear_Skies_joint_PR_10_30_2003.pdf+clear+skies+legislation+epa&hl=en
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=371
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03april/april03corp3.html
http://epw.senate.gov/108th/Jeffords_040803.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/09/ma_496_01.html
http://healthandenergy.com/clear_skies.htm
Let the reader determine if the Clear Skies act was intended to clear up skies to help the environment, or to actually roll back planned improvements to appease corporate interests. Do I disagree with your analysis? Sure, but so did the head of the EPA; that's why she quit. But then you knew that already. Why would you print something that you knew painted a much rosier picture of the environmental record of this administration? Some may say that's a deception.
He couldn't win that one David, so he ran away to another sand box. hahahah
Post a Comment
<< Home