"The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights issued a statement Thursday about Bachmann’s denomination, saying it’s “regrettable that there are still strains of anti-Catholicism in some Protestant circles.”
“But we find no evidence of any bigotry on the part of Rep. Michele Bachmann,” the statement continued. "Indeed, she has condemned anti-Catholicism. Just as President Barack Obama is not responsible for the views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rep. Bachmann must be judged on the basis of her own record."
Do you guys really want to go down this road of attacking religion? Because it’s really playing with fire.
So a reasonable viewpoint is that Bachmann is no more responsible for her church than Obama was for his. The trouble is, you can score plenty of political points with unreasonable viewpoints, as was done in 2008 against Obama using Reverend Wright as a Scary Dark Bogeyman. Turnabout is fair play in 2012. So what are you threatening with “do you really want to go down this road”? Don’t tell me you’re going to tell us Obama is a secret Muslim!
My point would be whether or not the Republican voters (particularly the social conservatives) think it’s an issue with Bachman like they did with Obama. Or is it okay when their party does it?
Oh, no, I firmly believe he’s an atheist who only showed up at Wright’s circus because the dumb idiots who go there were a good organizing base. But of course, he can’t HONESTLY say that he thinks it’s all a bunch of bronze age superstition.
But I don’t think most Catholics are going to fall for it when you try it.
You’re the ones who block school choice.
You’re the ones who support McAbortions.
You’re the ones trying to shove gay marriage down their throats.
If you are devout enough to really take your Catholicism seriously (something I stopped doing in 1983), then you are going to see this for what it is, “Let’s you and him fight.”
Keep in mind, ALL protestant sects reject the authority of Ratzinger and company. And a lot of Catholics, do, too. So yeah, saying that your sect of Lutheranism thinks the papacy is the anti-Christ is a bit silly, absolutely.
I think going to a church where the minister calls America a genocidal racist nation, that doesn’t play as well.
Catholics are a pretty good bellweather for the nation as a whole, actually: They have about the same Democrat/Republican split as everyone else. Yes, there are significant issues on which the Catholic church disagrees with the Democrats, but there are also significant issues on which they disagree with the Republicans, so even for someone who agrees with all of the Church’s teachings, it comes down to a question of priorities. And of course most Catholics disagree with the Church on some topic or another.
America has a genocidal past - ask a Native American. America has a racist past, and too racist a present. Ask any minority member. I’m white, but also Jewish and I’ve seen bigotry in my lifetime. Heck, my neighbors across the street could not have been leagally married in Virginia until 1967. You may be able to forget our history, but people who suffered to make our present better cannot afford to do so. Even ministers. Even ministers who are former Marines.
They are probably a bellweather becasue they are the largest, and therefore the most diverse.
Of course, what I am seeing within my own family (who are nearly all still practicing Catholics) is that a lot of them who thought Obama was okay in 2008 are really souring on him in 2011.
Okay, this liberal white guilt thing might play well in your circles, but most white folks in this country are getting a little sick of it.
Let’s not forget, after he found out that throwing Grandma under the bus didn’t work, he distanced himself from Wright PDQ. But if he wants to go after Bachmann’s religion or Romney’s religion, heck, we can replay that hit.
All true, but politicians running for national office cannot afford to be associated with them as they publicly remember. That is as much a reality as is the history of the Trail of Tears.
True, and Obama did distance himself from Rev. Wright. The point of this thread, if I may speak for the OP, is what’s sauce for the gander in 2008 is sauce for the goose in '11/'12. IMO a lot of what keeps “regular folks” out of politics as a career is that you are held responsible/given crap for not only everything you ever said and done (in or out of context), but also for what anyone in any way associated with you ever said or did (in or out of context).
Unless you’re a Republican. You can do anything you want, because whatever your supporters learn about, they dismiss as “the liberal media.” Even if it’s just a video clip of you saying something stupid.
Actually, I’m a little surprised. She’s crazy as the MN state bird, but she seemed to generally embrace her positions when called on them.
So I’d be inclined to think that she probably isn’t much into the anti-Christ part of that Lutheran sects teachings.
As an aside - grew up Catholic in a small MN town. Only people with our surname in town, Dad was the only attorney in town. Younger brother Tom was dating a Wisconsin synod Lutheran girl - Carol. Standard HS dating - both had dinner at each home, so parents all aware.
One day Carol’s dad comes into our dad’s office for something - Tom was there, either visting or maybe doing some copying or filing. He said you could see the lightbulb turn on in GF dad’s head - Tom’s father is Catholic, hence Tom is Catholic. He forbid Carol to date the heathen.
They snuck around (with our parent’s blessing (and I think her mom’s also (at least a blind eye there)) - but the stress wasn’t worth it in the end.
That was my first exposure to religous intolerance - knew that historically people hadn’t liked Catholics, but thought that was all in the past.
I really, really hate agreeing with RR. But he’s right. Bachmann deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one, just as Obama did.
If we’re going to criticize, let’s do it using points that are valid, non-hypocritical, and more likely to persuade undecided voters. It’s not like there’s a shortage of these…
The only stuff I feel guilty about is stuff I personally did. And that’s the only thing ANY of us should feel guilty about.
never owned a slave.
Never oppressed an immigrant.
never stole a Native american’s land.
in fact, in two of those arrangements, my ancestors were on the shitty ends of those sticks.
And now you liberals come back and tell me because these things are in our collective history of having happened while we built the greatest country ever, we should all feel guilty about it.
I’m not asking you to feel guilty. After all you say you’re no longer Catholic, and I assume you’re not Jewish
I am asking you to recognize some of the negatives in our shared history, and the consequential reactions in the communities who were victimized by that history. Why might the African-American have residual anger at our society? Perhaps because they had only the legal rights of dirt until recently, and that in too many ways they are still being treated that way. I am not African-American, and nobody in my family owned slaves (as it was not possible for Russian peasants who came over in the 1880s to do so). I see society’s ills through a lens of economics rather than race. But I recognize that given their history members of the African-American community might feel diferently. Heck if any random person could diminish me and my accomplishments by calling me a kike (equivalent if I were African-American and were called the N word), I’d see the world though a racial lens as well.
