By Diogenes ( articles ) | Apr 30, 2007
|Free eBook: Imperative for Renewal|
The Washington Post reports-- and contributes to-- a lot of muttering about the fact the 5 Supreme Court justices who composed the majority in the partial-birth abortion case are all Catholics.
Is it dangerous for public figures to bring their religious beliefs into public life? Much chin-scratching on that issue, with a scholar named Mark Silk trying to find consensus:
Speaking generally rather than to the case at hand, Silk said Americans want balance in their public officials. "We want people of faith, but we don't want them making decisions based on their faith."
Thank you, Washington Post. Now we pick up the day's New York Times, noticing the front-page photo, above the fold, of a presidential candidate speaking in a church. The candidate, the caption notes, "cast his presidential campaign in biblical terms."
"It is difficult to tell," the Times story says, "whether [the candidate's] religious and political beliefs are fused or simply run parallel."
But oddly enough, the Times story carries not a single quote from a skeptic worrying about religious influence, or a scholar questioning whether it's proper for a politician to impose his personal beliefs on the public. When Barack Obama does it, it's OK.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Apr. 03, 2010 10:54 AM ET USA
I think we need to state the truth in this matter a homosexual archbishop ignored or swept under the rug the criminal behavior of a pedophile priest under his authority for over 20 years. Now during that time no further accusations were raised concerning this priest and he was not in any active ministry. Then he suddenly starts a trial and sends a notice to the Vatican as if they had to approve that trial when he had it in his power to order a trial all along. Let's admit Weakland was a disgr
Posted by: Frodo1945 -
Mar. 27, 2010 9:38 AM ET USA
I wish one of our real Bishops would rebuke Bishop Weakland and defend the Pope. I am waiting but the silence is deafening.
Posted by: -
Mar. 26, 2010 6:36 PM ET USA
What did Pat Buchanan say about homosexuality? The love that dare not speak its name has become the vice that won't shut its mouth.
Posted by: -
Mar. 26, 2010 5:30 PM ET USA
What a poor, sad, disgusting old soul. With all the talents that the Lord lavished on him, he managed to destroy them along with harming many in his flock who trusted in his failed leadership. May he find contrition and repentance before he faces Our Lord.
Posted by: Jason C. -
Mar. 26, 2010 3:04 PM ET USA
I'm sure Archbishop Weakland was waiting by the phone for the Vatican to solve this problem for him. Funny, but I remember a lack of concern for the Vatican's solution to another problem where the archbishop was concerned (http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020228_Follow-Up_on_the_Milwaukee_Cathedral_Renovation.html).
Posted by: adamah -
Mar. 26, 2010 1:43 PM ET USA
His last name fits him. What a pathetic individual. He should lead a life of silence and penance, begging God for mercy for all the damage he has done.