The lawyer for Kentucky clerk Kim Davis has stated that she met with Pope Francis during the pontiff’s visit to Washington D.C. last week and received encouragement from him in the meeting. It is a surprising disclosure, if true, but Attorney Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel insists that the Pope spoke to Davis and her husband in English and said “Thank you for your courage” and told her to “stay strong.”
The Vatican is mum on the alleged meeting or who was present on September 24 at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington. That was the same day that he had spoken to Congress.
That adds an interesting political wrinkle for Democrats who generally love (as do I) this Pope for his views on climate change, poverty, and other issues. The Pope however also spoke against abortion and does not support same-sex marriage. If he also supports Davis, it can create some difficult issues with the party line on the Clerk. After all, as we discussed today, you have one Democrat who reveres the Pope so much that he is actually dispensing the Pope’s drinking water to family from the glass used during his speech before Congress.
Of course, there is no reason why either Republicans and Democrats cannot still oppose the position of Davis even if (and that is still an “if”) the Pope supports her position. After all, many support the right to choose even when they are personally against abortion and remain practicing Catholics. Yet, it is intriguing that this is one of the people that the Pope would choose to meet if the account is correct.
I am surprised if the Vatican agreed to this meeting. Even the people on rope lines are often screened for the Pope though he is known to plunge into crowds. If this was a truly arranged “meeting,” it is pretty significant that Davis would be selected for such a meeting and encouragement. Politicians like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz have been criticized for their support of Davis, who asserts the right to impose her religious views of the legitimacy of a marriage before performing her purely ministerial functions. Reporters have been trying to get the Vatican to confirm whether the Pope has added his voice of support.
Of course, the Vatican could spin the meeting as support for someone following her faith rather than endorsing her legal position. Nevertheless, the alleged meeting may be the most surprising in this even-filled Papal visit.
Nick – “OMG! I just read your source, Public Policy Polling???? LOL!”
Lol!
Annie,
Who needs to know about the Hyde Amendment when ignorance rules the day?
OMG! I just read your source, Public Policy Polling???? LOL!
stevegroen said, “We’re all the same.” That is the smoking gun. Liberals think we should all be the same. But, any intelligent person recognizes we are all different. To deny science in the crazy quest to say “we’re all the same” is beyond belief. Science proves via DNA, fingerprints, etc. that we are all different. We all have different strengths, weaknesses, INTELLIGENCE, height, need I continue?
The great John Wooden said, “Treating everyone the same is by definition unfair. We can all agree we are all different[except for socialists anyway]. So treating everyone the same is wrong. We must treat everyone fairly, not the same.”
Nick writes, “stevegroen said, ‘We’re all the same.’ That is the smoking gun. Liberals think we should all be the same. But, any intelligent person recognizes we are all different. To deny science in the crazy quest to say “we’re all the same” is beyond belief. Science proves via DNA, fingerprints, etc. that we are all different. We all have different strengths, weaknesses, INTELLIGENCE, height, need I continue? . . . The great John Wooden said, ‘Treating everyone the same is by definition unfair. We can all agree we are all different[except for socialists anyway]. So treating everyone the same is wrong. We must treat everyone fairly, not the same.'”
Nick, thanks for playing along. Yes, you’ll need to continue by explaining why those differences warrant unequal treatment under the law. (And ‘that’s the way it’s always been’ isn’t good enough.) Wooden was clearly wrong – he’s free to create distinctions, but government isn’t. What’s more, the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause are not about fairness (though I’d like them to be that, too); in a nutshell, they’re about reasonable notice, substantive rights, and equal treatment of people by government.
We certainly have physiological differences, and we have environmental factors which make us different in many ways, but the fact is that LAW should protect human beings alike, without preference, no matter their stripe. Be as different as you want, but don’t make laws that discriminate against certain groups of people simply because of those differences. And that’s what I meant by “We’re all the same.”
stevegroen wrote: “We certainly have physiological differences, and we have environmental factors which make us different in many ways, but the fact is that LAW should protect human beings alike, without preference, no matter their stripe. Be as different as you want, but don’t make laws that discriminate against certain groups of people simply because of those differences. And that’s what I meant by “We’re all the same.” ”
If all you mean is that the law should be blind and apply to everyone equally, then I would agree with you. But that is not what you mean.
Marriage is an excellent example. Traditional marriage is an institution created because reproduction requires the male and female to come together in coitus. Now come the egalitarians claiming that the differences between male and female have nothing to do with marriage. So they destroy the definition of traditional marriage in the name of so-called equality? What kind of equality is it? Is it equality of the law applying equally to everybody? No. We had that with traditional marriage. Gays have gotten married to members of the opposite sex for millennia in order to have children and raise families. It is an equality of status. They want to have the government sanction same sex unions in a way that elevates it to the same social status as the institution of marriage. It is merely a ploy to force society to look upon sexual hedonism as sacred. It is no different than trying to make pornography as socially acceptable and admired as the institution of marriage.
The truth is that the egalitarian philosophy has led to laws being applied in an unequal fashion. With Obamacare, trying to get everyone to participate in buying health insurance, the law must carve out exceptions for religious organizations like the Christian Science religion. The same law does NOT apply equally to all. With gay marriage, we have the same thing. We have exceptions carved out for the clergy with promises that they will not have to marry gay couples. That is not the equal application of the law. If it is immoral for a judge to deny officiating a gay marriage, then it is just as immoral for a member of the clergy to abstain from doing it. That would be the equal application of the law. But instead we have all this duplicity going on, with nobody logically applying the laws equally, all so they can advance their so-called cause of equality.
I fully support the idea of laws applying equally to all regardless of economic and social status. What I disagree with is pretending that males and females are all equal, that the races are all equal, that same sex unions and opposite sex unions are equal, etc. etc. Every anti-discrimination law on the books leads to inequality because it identifies a special class of people who are treated more special under the law than others. In other words, instead of having the law apply equally to all, it treats a group perceived to be disadvantaged in some way as special and deserving of special accommodations.
I have shot and edited surveillance video for over 30 years. I wonder what T. Hall’s credentials are? LOL!
Sure, you can try to deny this all you want, but there they are.
The questions remains, are you in favor of the sale of baby parts or not?
If so, say it loud and proud.
Don’t try and weasel about it.
KCF, Don’t even bother w/ these dolts. I shoot surveillance video and edit it. I sometimes have over 25-30 hours of raw video. You have to edit it for people to be able to watch it. There is virtually NO video you see on TV news that is not edited. Virtually EVERYTHING we watch in any venue is edited. They think editing is a bad thing because they are not very bright, dishonest, or a hybrid. They give Oscars for EDITING for chrissake! When I present edited video in court I always have the unedited raw footage w/ me for anyone to compare and contrast. There can be deceptive editing, you know like fatso Michael Moore does in all his propaganda. ALL OF THE RAW FOOTAGE on these videotapes HAVE BEEN RELEASED. I watched the raw footage and I am an expert on surveillance video. The editing was righteous, These liberal ranting are dishonest lie, KCF. Just caught philly BSing, and now we got more. Just call them on it, like we have, and then ignore their idiotic, vapid comments.
Go to FactCheck.org and stop lying.
It is amazing how you will cling to falsehoods and fairytales
Experts? What experts?
Because I can still find the entire full length unedited videos on YouTube right now, by googling “planned parenthood videos unedited”.
Amazing!
philly, LOL! You reacted just like I thought you would. Liberals hate it when they lose. Pulling more “facts”? out of your as..err hat. LOL. I will always fact check you now. Where did those new “stats” come from?? My source was Gallup, the most trusted. It’s OK philly, I have caught people BSing who were MUCH smarter than you. It’s what I do for a living. Just man up and we can let this go.
Again
Experts have testified that the videos were heavily edited. The full videos have not been released as yet, they’re still being held as evidence in a trial in California.
You’ve impugned your argument with falsehoods
Prove they are doctored. The entire videos have been release.
You’re being a fraud.
How do you assess whether a child is “wanted”?
What proof do you have of it?
What if a child, once born, is “unwanted”?
What proof is there that sociopathy has anything whatsoever to do with the state of “wantedness”?
Citations, please.
What proof that idiocy is a function of “wantedness”?
Citations, please.
But I think you are just lying for fun.
Fleming: your reading of history is as flawed as your credulity in those doctored videos. none of those political systems were egalitarian in practice or design.
I’m certain that a debate concerning Planned Parenthood, the organization, is possible, but not on the basis of these bogus videos you cling to. The very mention of them proves fatal to your argument As the Nazis and the commies learned, telling lies to advance means you’re condemned automatically.
Stop you’re immoral behavior.
Paul,
That’s such an interesting notion, that non aborted fetuses would have my back.
Multiple studies have confirmed that one of the best indicators that one will be successful in life is being a wanted child. Wanted children are the result of good family planning. Wanted children are less likely to be criminals, or sociopaths, or idiots. I’ll take a posse of wanted children over a posse of “mommies little punishment” babies any day.
Even more of a mystery is the utter joy some women seem to get in clamoring for the death of as many fetuses as can be killed, and their rapture describing the money they’ll make off the sale of fetal parts.
They spoke of contracts for baby brains and organs while sipping wine and eating salad, as if negotiating the purchase of a cord of wood.
And here, Max and Annie and others cheer that same behavior.
Unbelievable, but true.
Egalitarianism always ends up in mass murder and /or totalitarianism.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Cuba, Nazi Germany, and others.
How you can support such evil means and ends is a mystery.
KC writes, “Egalitarianism always ends up in mass murder and /or totalitarianism. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Cuba, Nazi Germany, and others. How you can support such evil means and ends is a mystery.”
You’re on the ‘We’re not all alike’ hayride I gather.
I’ll clear up your mystery. Hoover’s repugnant lack of spending on the impoverished during the Great Depression was a far cry more evil than FDR’s work programs. There was no totalitarianism involved in FDR’s efforts. Hoover took more care of the budget than he did his own countrymen.
Honestly, where you get “mass murder and/or totalitarianism” from egalitarianism is the stuff of the People’s Temple, Jonestown, and Kool-Aid. Get real.
stevegroen – couple of things about Hoover. 1) charity work was handled in the community, not by the government prior to Roosevelt 2) Hoover offered to have a short bank holiday to cool things down but Roosevelt said no. Then when Roosevelt got in office he did exactly what Hoover had intended.
Just to get on to Roosevelt: 1) members of the CCC only worked in 6-month shifts. Although they might be rehired. 2) he set up a training system for the military long before there was the idea of a war. 3) most of his initial programs were found unConstitutional by the SC. And had we lost the war Roosevelt could have rightly been hung as a war criminal using the same criteria as used at Nuremberg.
Sweeet…I just acquired it….I have the Life of Father Kino, narrated by ABP Fulton Sheen and starring Richard Egan as the Jesuit Missionary in Baja California…great film about a very holy, and wise Priest, who labored with great love and joy, whilst evangelizing the pagans of the southwest and Mexico
Let’s make it so that all taxpayers get to vote on where their money gets spent. Do away with this piece of excrement Hyde amendment and let’s go for the real deal.
Let’s vote on the farm bill, line by line.
Let’s vote the military budget.
Let’s vote on Congressional salaries.
Let’s vote on what health insurance coverage Larry gets through Medicare.
I don’t care if my tax dollars go to fund abortions. I would like them to stop using my taxes to pay for land mines and depleted uranium shells.
Y’all good with that?
Oh, and ps to Nick, the Republican support for interracial marriage in Mississippi came in at 49% with 17% “unsure”. So, there’s that.
phillyT – every person they abort is one less person to protect your a** when it all goes to hell.