Comments on: Bill Donohue is Back, Showing His True Colors

By: Jane

Jane — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:41:16 +0000

I like to refer to him as Dr. Bill with the [redacted] salary — while our churches and schools are closing, a man who pretends to stop anti-catholicism spends all his time measuring Christmas Displays and threatening Walmart employees on their Christmas Greetings. Then especially every four years he is the republical Schill for the year.

Mr. Donahue mourned the loss of Gerry Falwell, defended Mssrs. Dobson and Hagee on sevaral occasions, considers the actions of Bob Jones University,closed and accepts the veiled apology of any anti catholic Evangelist as ok and a closed issue, yet not a peep on the passing of a real tribute to Catholicism, Family, Faith and Journalism, Tim Russert.

What is about real family values, Catholicism, Charity and Love for others that intimidates the ones that pretend to represent the catholic Church so much??? Like Pat Buchanan Bill Donahue was unable AND UNWILLING to print or say anything good about Mr. Russert pertaining to his faith and charity.

Over the last eight years, and even longer, Dr. Bill and his brigade of Baffoons has done more to harm the status of the Catholic Church by bringing our faith into politics than any priest scandal has done. WATCH -If Dr. Bill the Bafoon gets to much heat regarding the politicizing of our faith by him and his self appointed deacons who want to run the church like the Evangelicals they admire, you will hear him again mention the Priest scandal.

Fired up by talk hosts who claim black churches should loose their exemption, when will Dr. Bill loose his exemption. He is an awful man.

By: Jillian G.

Jillian G. — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:04:52 +0000

Donohue is a total joke. He represents only Republicatholics who support CL and contribute to this hack’s six figure income so he can make a fool of himself and, by extension, the Church. And yes, the question of the hour is: Why DOES this hack still have a tax-exempt organization????

By: abiodun

abiodun — Thu, 08 May 2008 12:49:23 +0000

It always amazes me that some people on the so-called “religious right” cannot seem to understand that politicians of all shades are only interested in demagoguing isuses to obtain your votes and money! It is not about faith.
And why does Donohue still have a tax-exempt organization?

By: Michael J. Iafrate

Michael J. Iafrate — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:25:04 +0000

Faithful Citizenship includes torture among the issues which represent direct attacks on human life: '64. Our 1998 statement Living the Gospel of Life declares, “Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others” (no. 5). Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed. Cloning and destruction of human embryos for research or even for potential cures are always wrong. The purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is not an act of mercy, but an unjustifiable assault on human life. Genocide, torture, and the direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants in war or terrorist attacks are always wrong.'

By: TeutonicTim

TeutonicTim — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:11:20 +0000

Hmm… Michael J. dodging the question, AGAIN.

We should oppose intrinsically acts, just as we should oppose war in general.

I’m not being smug about a damn thing. MM constantly harps on people opposed to certain intrinsic evils, while oozing over others who make intrinsic evils – of greater evil – part of their policy. You come in to hold his hand, which is why I asked you the question (and that you dodged again of course)

Katherine – I suppose the answer will be different from the 1 person than from the 99 people…

By: Katherine

Katherine — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:50:21 +0000

TeutonicTim, please provide conclusive proof that 99 sheep are more important than one sheep.

By: Michael J. Iafrate

Michael J. Iafrate — Wed, 07 May 2008 04:17:48 +0000

Why do you want proof of that? Why can’t you simply agree that Catholics should oppose all intrinsically evil acts? Or do you simply need to feel smug about the fact that you tend to approve of some intrinsically evil acts? You’re out to lunch.

By: TeutonicTim

TeutonicTim — Tue, 06 May 2008 23:41:07 +0000

Michael J. Provide conclusive proof that all intrinsically evil acts are considered equal.

If you can do so, I will shut up.

By: Sherry

Sherry — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:15:35 +0000

McCain on the other hand has proven to be a flip flopper of the first order. He voted against the tax cuts before he voted for them. He’s horrid on veterans rights, hasn’t a clue on economic issues, and makes it clear that Old Mac thinks he deserves to be president and is willing to do just about anything to get the job. I would rather vote for a chimpanzee than McCain. I’m voting against the insane Republican party, period.

By: Michael J. Iafrate

Michael J. Iafrate — Tue, 06 May 2008 04:45:15 +0000

If intrinsically evil acts are not equal, then why would it be wrong to focus on the really bad ones first?

This gets more and more amusing as we go along… You’re suggesting that there are “really bad” intrinsically evil acts as opposed to “not so bad” intrinsically evil acts?

The rest of your comments, like most of your comments, are not worth much attention.

By: TeutonicTim

TeutonicTim — Tue, 06 May 2008 03:52:08 +0000

Seriously Michael J., voting for someone merely because of the color of their skin has to be one of the most shallow excuses I’ve ever heard for voting a particular way.

By: TeutonicTim

TeutonicTim — Tue, 06 May 2008 03:50:58 +0000

I think you should ask yourself: “How did it feel to vote for one of the least qualified candidates for president of the united states?”