Ron takes the Post of Day with some questions for Santorum
Grafic by Dan
Note from Dan: No sense in letting the gem below get buried on the Monday open thread. The regular here known as Ron makes some great points about the Catholic Church and Catholic GOP presidential candidate (and apparent front-runner) Rick Santorum. Thanks, Ron!
Top Ten Catholic Teachings Santorum Rejects while Obsessing about Birth Control
The right wing Republican politicians who have been denouncing the requirement that female employees have access to birth control as part of their health benefits as an attack on religious freedom completely ignore the church teachings they don’t agree with. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are both Catholics, and wear their faith on their sleeves, but they are hypocritical in picking and choosing when they wish to listen to the bishops.
1. So for instance, Pope John Paul II was against anyone going to war against Iraq I think you’ll find that Rick Santorum managed to ignore that Catholic teaching.
2.The Conference of Catholic Bishops requires that health care be provided to all Americans. I.e., Rick Santorum’s opposition to universal health care is a betrayal of the Catholic faith he is always trumpeting.
3. The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty for criminals in almost all situations. (Santorum largely supports executions.)
4. The US Conference of Bishops has urged that the federal minimum wage be increased, for the working poor. Santorum in the Senate repeatedly voted against the minimum wage.
5. The bishops want welfare for all needy families, saying “We reiterate our call for a minimum national welfare benefit that will permit children and their parents to live in dignity. A decent society will not balance its budget on the backs of poor children.” Santorum is a critic of welfare.
6. The US bishops say that “the basic rights of workers must be respected–the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions…”. Santorum, who used to be supportive of unions in the 1990s, has now, predictably, turned against them.
7. Catholic bishops demand the withdrawal of Israel from Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. Rick Santorum denies that there are any Palestinians, so I guess he doesn’t agree with the bishops on that one.
8. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops ripped into Arizona’s law on treatment of immigrants, Cardinal Roger Mahony characterized Arizona’s S.B. 1070 as “the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law,” saying it is based on “totally flawed reasoning: that immigrants come to our country to rob, plunder, and consume public resources.” He even suggested that the law is a harbinger of an American Nazism! Santorum attacks ‘anchor babies’ or the provision of any services to children of illegal immigrants born and brought up in the US.
9. The Bishops have urged that illegal immigrants not be treated as criminals and that their contribution to this country be recognized.
10. The US Conference of Bishops has denounced, as has the Pope, the Bush idea of ‘preventive war’, and has come out against an attack on Iran in the absence of a real and present threat of an Iranian assault on the US. In contrast, Santorum wants to play Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove and ride the rocket down on Isfahan himself.
February 14, 2012 - 10:00 AM
Already answered in the other thread. Bishops can have opinions on some matters like anybody else, but the pro-life and artificial birth control positions are official for the church, unlike varying views on how immigration laws should be enforced on whether government funds should be used for this or that program. There is plenty of disagreement on how the poor should be helped.
Rick is of the school of thought that private resources should be used to achieve these same goals, and that Caesar should get only what belongs to Caesar.
Gee, that was an easy one for a Catholic to answer. For fake ‘Catholics?’ Apparently not so much.
Unfortunately, I don’t think these comments by Ron really apply. I’m not a catholic (or any other denomination for that matter), so I’ll start with a question: In order to be a “Catholic” do you have to pledge allegiance to the catholic church and its leaders? I can’t imagine that any person that goes to a church agrees with 100% of the teachings of that church/leadership council. I’m pretty sure every church is going to come out against abortion, so all of the libs on this board that are christian/members of churches should also be against. If not, you all probably reconcile that you have a disagreement with this pillar of your church, but still believe and are a member. So in that vain, you too are just as much a hypocrite as Ron implies that Santorum and Newt are. At the end of the day we all reconcile our faith and pick and choose which teachings we want to fully buy into and which ones we can sort of overlook.
Politician is hypocritical. Film at 11.
Woo hoo, good one Ron. I always worry about politicians Republican and Democrat that use religion to support their argument.
If they morally oppose handing out birth control in church funded health care facilities, can i morally oppose paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Nope. Hypocrites!
I just want to thank you for being frequently the lone voice of reason around here, Mr. Casey. I cannot tell you how discouraged I am by local craziness, or to be more generous, short-sightedness.
Ron has just explained why Rick Santorum will never be President and IMO will never be the nominee. He is not playing with a full deck and Catholics are some of the most politically aware people in the main and they will simply not support him. What galls many of the Suzie’s of the world is that those who truly follow Jesus and believe in the Bible teachings as a whole, are by far, more liberal than those who follow the parts they like and the teachings they ascribe to, like Suzie, Santorum, Gingrich and Romney.
Now that they have reconciled on the contraceptive issue to a great degree, the real journey begins and Catholics will not abandon Obama. That is my prediction and I am on the record. Unlike some anonymous fool who pretends to “bet” and never accepts any but her rigged system.
Instead of wondering which Republican candidate has the best possibility of beating Obama, this election year’s field of candidates leaves me constantly wondering which one will lose larger to Obama.
They keep digging themselves a bigger hole.
The Republicans had a great chance to take back the White House this year with all the backlash from the far right, if only they’d put forth a truly viable candidate.
Truly the worst selection ever put forth by the GOP.
I bet Pawlenty wishes he’d stayed in the race now.
It seems Santorum has very absolute feelings regarding contraception which perhaps are formed in part by his Catholicism. Of course that is his right to adhere to that principle. However, given his lack of consistency with his Church’s stance on the other issues Ron pointed out, it comes across to me as disingenuous at best and should lead others to wonder about the true nature of his “religiosity”. It is apparent to me that contraception is more his issue and he is conveniently using the Catholic Church’s stance on it to validate his stance. Given that over 90% of American Catholic women use some sort of birth control, maybe he should direct his efforts to change the practices of the members of his own church. Or maybe it is a reflection of how out of touch he is with his fellow Catholics. Clearly as Ron pointed out he does not use the Catholic church to validate his other stances on welfare, war with Iran, minimum wage, immigration etc. and that comes across to me as hypocritical.
I understand how some people can be opposed to abortion. But I firmly believe in a person’s right, a person’s choice, a couple’s (married or unmarried) choice to use contraception. I know that is not the point here, but I know darn well if this man could, he would try his hardest to ban contraception and that to me is detestable for many reasons.
Good post Ron, thanks.
What galls many of the Suzie’s of the world is that those who truly follow Jesus and believe in the Bible teachings as a whole, are by far, more liberal than those who follow the parts they like and the teachings they ascribe to, like Suzie, Santorum, Gingrich and Romney.
Sure. That explains why most liberals are anti-religion and why nearly all atheists are liberal.
If they morally oppose handing out birth control in church funded health care facilities, can i morally oppose paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Nope. Hypocrites!
As far as I know, none of the unborn has threatened to exterminate Americans. Duh.
If Santorum gets the nomination, I will have to wonder if there are actually THAT many people who want him for a president or if the Democrats are just that good at working the Republican primaries. A lot of right-wingers voted for Obama in the primaries fearing the electability of Hillary and that blew up in their face.
Dylan, would Pawlenty be your pick? If not, who?
I agree that we didn’t have the best selection this year. That said, Ron Paul is in this niche category of his own and I don’t really consider him a GOP contender.
“Already answered in the other thread.” – Screwzie
And noone cared on that thread, either.
Excellent post, Ron. I always enjoy your comments.
“As far as I know, none of the unborn has threatened to exterminate Americans. Duh.”
The same goes for anyone in Iraq. Duh.
These numbers, reported by Public Religion Research Institute, demonstrate why Santorum isn’t even close to representing the general public, let alone the “faithful” in his stated political positions:
∆Support of Same-Sex marriage – [% that favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry]: Jews (76%),the religious unaffiliated (72%),non-Christian religiously affiliated Americans (63%) [a group that includes Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims], majority of white Catholics (56%), Hispanic Catholics (53%), white mainstream Protestants (52%).
∆“Majorities of all religious groups favor increasing minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.00 an hour.”
∆“A strong majority (60%) of Americans agree that the country would be better off if the distribution of wealth was more equal, while 39% disagree.”
∆“Solid majorities of every major religious group disagree that American Muslims ultimately want to establish Shari’a law in the U.S.”
∆“Overwhelming majorities of Americans agree that transgender people should have the same general rights and legal protections as others.”
∆“More than 8-in-10 (81%) Americans agree that legal protections for gay and lesbian people should also include transgender people.”
∆“On ‘Evolution’ a majority (57%) of Americans believe that humans and other living things have evolved over time.”
∆“A majority (55%) of Americans agree that “employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no
cost. Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.”
http://publicreligion.org/
The moment I post any facts contrary to the narrow worldview of the Rwers/TP’s, one can almost see the blinders go on, they become aggressively defensive, and immediately begin parroting the sound bites from the RW media machine, both on television and radio. It seems Republicans provided the political field with neo-cons, plutocrats, pseudo-libertarians and theocrats – Santorum is the latter, and like those “leading in the polls” that came before him, he too will crash and burn when the general population starts to pay attention.
“As far as I know, none of the unborn has threatened to exterminate Americans. Duh.”
Too bad that has absolutely zero to do with the issue at hand.
It has to do with morality, and getting a “pass” on being required to do something for the greater good because we morally object to it.
I know this bit of logic is too much for you process, but do at least try to make a coherent thought, please.
Hillary,
Your numbers might surprise his faithful, but really shouldn’t. My guess: There’s a gap with that Santorum crowd between their real feelings and their “official” feelings. You know the kind of positions one might take on something at a conservative family’s picnic. Go to his church or just about any other and take a poll on premarital sex, for example. Get ready for a another discrepancy.
Hillary, you continue to amaze me by the speed at which you provide smart, well documented posts. THANK YOU.
Poor Suzie, still trying to define the world with your limited knowledge of it. No, most liberals are not anti-religion and not nearly all atheists are liberal. That is your closed minded opinion, not fact. It is not the talking that makes you religious or Christian or any other faith, it is the walking. Telling the truth is not being “anti-religion”, it is being anti-dogma, anti-demagoguery, anti-ignorance, anti-bigotry and anti-pseudo religious. YOU burned your bridges and threw away your credibility, no one here did that to you.
#17 John Wilburn… “take a poll on premarital sex, for example. Get ready for a another discrepancy”…or poll birth control…
#18 Warren thank you, kind words.
#19 Sandi – and most ill-informed demonstrates regularly that she is anti-intellectual.
The same goes for anyone in Iraq. Duh.
Uh, yeah, pretty sure Saddam threatened the United States with violence.
∆Support of Same-Sex marriage – [% that favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry]: Jews (76%),the religious unaffiliated (72%),non-Christian religiously affiliated Americans (63%) [a group that includes Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims], majority of white Catholics (56%), Hispanic Catholics (53%), white mainstream Protestants (52%).
Still waiting for the FIRST state referendum to pass gay marriage. Even fruitcake nutso California rejected it.
Hell, since Hillary’s first point was a blatant lie, no point in going over the rest.
Suffice it to say the majority of Americans join Rick in believing spending needs controlled, 0bamacare should be repealed, human life should be respected, America should be strong, capitalism should be practiced, and illegals shouldn’t be allowed free welfare, food stamps, and health care.
Hillary, you continue to amaze me by the speed at which you provide smart, well documented posts.
Too bad they’re wrong, because she gets her crap from leftwing hate/nut sites.
The hypocritical and disingenuous Republicans decided to support the US Catholic Bishops and make a political football of women’s reproductive rights then joined in the bogus “religious freedom” meme. Now, I want to see how they tie themselves up in a knot ignoring the same Catholic Bishops on this:
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops through the Domestic Justice and Human Development Committee, has told lawmakers that extending an expiring unemployment benefits package for the long-term jobless is “a moral obligation to help protect the life and dignity of unemployed workers and their families.”
“On behalf of the Catholic bishops, I urge you to extend emergency unemployment insurance in order that jobless workers and their families, who have suffered greatly in this economic downturn, can have a basic level of financial security as they seek stable, full-time employment,” Father Blaire in a letter last week [...]” http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/feb/14/catholic-bishops-press-democrats-unemployment-insu/
Now listen to the quiet of Republican “moral outrage”. Republicans – the ‘a la carte moralists.
#23 most ill-informed. This survey is from your friends at Fox
With the Republicans predictably running around like Henny-Penny claiming the President is infringing on American’s freedom of religion, “Chairman Darrell Issa is going to have a hearing: “Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” – FOX News was furiously polling the opinions of Americans. They didn’t get the answer they wanted:
The new Obama health care law requires that employer health plans provide birth control coverage as part of preventive services for women. Catholic and other religious-affiliated hospitals and universities typically have not provided any birth control coverage for their employees, and oppose the new requirement because it violates their religious rights. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of requiring employer health plans to cover birth control for women?
Approve 61%
Disapprove 34
(Don’t know) 5
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/10/fox-news-poll-methodology-santorum-surge-obama/
So most ill-informed, how do you refute your main source of “information”? Guess they’ve gone left wing on you..hahahaha
Great post Hillary.
Unfortunately, I don’t think these comments by Ron really apply. I’m not a catholic (or any other denomination for that matter), so I’ll start with a question: In order to be a “Catholic” do you have to pledge allegiance to the catholic church and its leaders? I can’t imagine that any person that goes to a church agrees with 100% of the teachings of that church/leadership council. I’m pretty sure every church is going to come out against abortion, so all of the libs on this board that are christian/members of churches should also be against. If not, you all probably reconcile that you have a disagreement with this pillar of your church, but still believe and are a member. So in that vain, you too are just as much a hypocrite as Ron implies that Santorum and Newt are. At the end of the day we all reconcile our faith and pick and choose which teachings we want to fully buy into and which ones we can sort of overlook.
Excellent post, RightWing. And no, as a Catholic, you do not have to agree with some bishops on ancillary issues as to how best to care for the poorer among us, but you do have to agree with the church’s teachings on human life to be a practicing Catholic. Or any Christian denomination as far as that is concerned.
Notice “Catholic” Hillary decides to side with one priest on how to handle a side issue, but disagrees with the church on the sanctity of human life.
Hillary, the blog would appreciate if you completely stay away from the subject of what the Catholic Church teaches or doesn’t teach, since you are not affiliated with the Church in any way.
@12 It’s just a damn shame that I won’t be able to vote for Rick Santorum in the GOP primary in Virginia. Guess Ron Paul will have to do.
BTW, nice post Ron.
I imagine most students in Ron’s school would support Santorum over 0bama. It’s a shame he’s in here working against the interests of his students.
“Hillary, the blog would appreciate if you completely stay away from the subject of what the Catholic Church teaches or doesn’t teach, since you are not affiliated with the Church in any way.”
Screwzie, the blog would appreciate it if you did not so presumptuously attempt to speak for the blog. It’s not your place.
I hereby grant permission for Hillary to write about the Catholic Church, women’s rights, global warming, boxers v. briefs v. boxer-briefs, raising pygmy goats, or any other thing she darn well wants to write about.
I love that any possible response toward the hypocrisy of moral exception is totally glossed over and ignored
Scott: 1, Hypocrite, 0. (It’s more like 100:0 at this point, but i only just started counting.)
We can take a vote any moment to find out if you have the authority to speak for this blog. I think even your twisted mind knows the answer. If you would shut up and go away, we would all be happier people and the blog a better place. We can vote on that one too, any time you like.
Hillary, 13 Suns, Contrasuzie and Miriam are excellent additions to this blog. They bring substance and some balance to your twisted one ring circus. Yes, you drive people away, and I hope they come back, but that is more like proof you’re the mark of the beast than a gainful conquest you should brag about.
Balance?!
Sandi, would you really enjoy this blog more without Jack, Jason, Dave Hicks, and I on gun threads? Or without UnLost, Pistol Pete, or Suzie on religion threads? What would you do with your bulldozer? The real balance is not the addition of few people whom you agree with but are calmer, it’s the people on opposite sides of the issue. I’m glad we have Jason, he is the Sandi balance, on gun threads anyway.
I love that any possible response toward the hypocrisy of moral exception is totally glossed over and ignored
We’ve already addressed it and moved on. No way you can make the case that destroying babies through the use of abortifacients is somehow for the “greater good”.
Hillary, 13 Suns, Contrasuzie and Miriam are excellent additions to this blog.
Let’s see. At least two of these are fictional. And they just spout the same unsubstantiated leftwing pap you do.
Excellent post, RightWing. And no, as a Catholic, you do not have to agree with some bishops on ancillary issues as to how best to care for the poorer among us, but you do have to agree with the church’s teachings on human life to be a practicing Catholic. Or any Christian denomination as far as that is concerned.
Comment by Suzie — February 14, 2012 @ 9:41 pm
Suzie indicates clearly in the comment above the attitude Rick Santorum and other Catholics display in positions they take on a host of issues. In short, if the Council of American Bishops position on the minimum wage or other social justice issues conflicts with their view, Santorum & Suzie Q for example, they don’t have to pay attention to it. On the other hand they oppose “killing” and unborn fetus (as do I), but have few qualms about the death penalty. It’s an interesting corner into which they paint themselves. I hope they wait till the paint dries before trying to get out of the corner.
In short, if the Council of American Bishops position on the minimum wage or other social justice issues conflicts with their view, Santorum & Suzie Q for example, they don’t have to pay attention to it. On the other hand they oppose “killing” and unborn fetus (as do I), but have few qualms about the death penalty.
I don’t know why leftwingers can’t understand the difference between personal opinions of bishops and views of the church that Catholics have to hold to be in good standing. You can tell them over and over, but it doesn’t help.
And again, Ron has said in the past he supports abortion rights, which means he does NOT oppose abortion.
@Sandi, thanks for the vote of confidence.
I have always, consistently spoken up for the diversity on this blog. I very much embrace the differing view points and have been swayed on a several issues as a result. What I don’t support is when anyone (right, left, in the middle) goes too far. It just isn’t necessary.
And because I’ve always admitted to not being “fair”, I will continue to define what “goes too far” entirely by my own standards. Go me!
[--"Suzie says:
Hillary, 13 Suns, Contrasuzie and Miriam are excellent additions to this blog.
Let’s see. At least two of these are fictional. And they just spout the same unsubstantiated leftwing pap you do."--]
Miss Suzie,
Put up or shut up. I can prove I am who I say I am. You cannot prove I am not.
You are an emotionally unstable person. Seriously. A 50+ year old woman who uses a photo of a young floozy as her profile picture is not playing with a full deck. (Funny thing is, she wasn’t even a VT cheerleader.)
But please do not use a picture of your real self. I’m afraid that looking directly at it will have a Medusa effect on people.
Remember that just because Susie Q says it doesn’t make it true.
#27 most ill-informed posted, “no, as a Catholic, you do not have to agree with some bishops on ancillary issues as to how best to care for the poorer among us, but you do have to agree with the church’s teachings on human life to be a practicing Catholic. Or any Christian denomination as far as that is concerned.”
You have given all indications on this blog that you do not follow the important Catholic tenets on the poor – “Catechism of the Catholic Church”: “The Church’s love for the poor…is a part of her constant tradition. This love is inspired by the Gospel of the Beatitudes, of the poverty of Jesus and of his concern for the poor. Love for the poor is even one of the motives for the duty of working so as to “be able to give to those in need.” #2444
or the premise of the Catholic Charities Relief that you pretend to be a part of:
From the website of CRS Regional Director :
Maureen McCullough, Regional Director
Five Radnor Corporate Center, Suite 501
100 Matson Ford Road
Radnor, PA 19087
“Officials with Catholic Charities and Relief agencies have asked people to remember both the needs of the poor at home and those facing humanitarian disasters overseas.”
You are evidently a cafeteria Catholic – pick and choose what you want to believe, and leave the rest behind.
#28 “would appreciate if you completely stay away” – I bet you would as I am one of the antidotes to your pathological ignorance and misinformation “condition.”
We’ve already addressed it and moved on. No way you can make the case that destroying babies through the use of abortifacients is somehow for the greater good.”
No. You changed the subject. I posed a theoretical question about “opting out” of something that the government is doing because of a moral qualifier.
This is what the Gov’t is allowing catholic hospitals to do. Well, why not extend moral qualifiers to war? Many people (I’d imagine more people than who oppose giving out birth control in a catholic hospital) morally oppose war. Why can’t we have an exemption on funding it with our taxes?
I think its a hypocritical stance, and you have no counter for it, so you make up some non-sequitur about threatening the lives of Americans. It has NOTHING to do with the “moral exception.”
You may have moved on, but that’s only because you can’t form a defensible opinion on the subject, because you know you’re a hypocrite when it comes to this. I’m not going to stoop lower and call you names like Troll or whatever else, because I don’t have to. I made a point in the argument and you have yet to make a targeted response. Sorry. Prove you’re not a hypocrite and say its ok to opt-out of paying for a war if you’re morally opposed, or say that contraception should be made available for the greater good.
P.S. Birth Control is not an “abortifacient.” It’s a contraceptive. It prevents conception. The former would reverse conception. It’s a Big Difference, though that’s not conducive to your argument either, so I don’t expect you’ll recognize the truth behind it. Also, its a proven fact that nations with available birth control and education are more prosperous than ones where both are unavailable.
We are all hypocrites at some time or the other. Real intelligence or enlightenment, if you will, comes when you step away from your own hypocrisy, learn from an opposing point of view, and evolve.
I think its a hypocritical stance, and you have no counter for it, so you make up some non-sequitur about threatening the lives of Americans. It has NOTHING to do with the “moral exception.”
I did counter, but since you missed it, I’ll say it again. The abortion of thousands or even millions of human beings through abortifacients is 100% indefensible, whereas retaliation against a central figure in middle east terrorism, Iraq, a country which had threatened us and which was not far away from developing nuclear weaponry– is certainly defensible.
And most if not all internally-taken forms of birth control are abortifacients since they prevent the fertilized egg from attaching onto the uterine wall.
And what’s the ‘reverse conception’ supposed to mean. Is that the sterilized term for “kill”?
Officials with Catholic Charities and Relief agencies have asked people to remember both the needs of the poor at home and those facing humanitarian disasters overseas.
You are evidently a cafeteria Catholic – pick and choose what you want to believe, and leave the rest behind.
So you think I focus on abortion and ignore poor people?
I feel pretty confident the Catholic Charities folks we met in Zimbabwe last October think we’ve made a pretty good start in helping some desperately poor people. And with our own resources.
You don’t understand this for two reasons: Number one, you’ve never seen what a truly desperately poor starving person looks like; and two, your version of “helping the poor” has nothing to do with using your own time or resources. It has to do with volunteering other people’s money to be thrown at people who aren’t remotely poor by third-world standards.
I love when people lecture me about the poor. That’s right in my wheelhouse.
Remember that just because Susie Q says it doesn’t make it true.
Ron,
Are you saying I misrepresented your position on abortion? Have you not said you think it’s acceptable if others have them?
“. . .whereas retaliation against a central figure in middle east terrorism, Iraq, a country which had threatened us and which was not far away from developing nuclear weaponry– is certainly defensible.”
Those are utter lies.
Your “defensible” argument holds little to no water in a debate on “moral exception”. Especially when we’re not talking about abortive practices. we’re talking about contraceptives.
#46 most ill-informed…Catholic Relief Services make it a point to say “the needs of the poor at home ” which you appear at every chance to revile. Your Cafeteria Catholicism makes my head spin – and my stomach turn.
I am sure you felt for the Zimbabwe “poor” – did you stay in their village with them or high tail it back to the hotel? Did you eat what they ate, live like they live?…or did you do all your “charity” only to return to the comfort of your air conditioned bedroom? Live with the poor for more than a vacation stay, and you might have credibility. and by the way
it would do you well to recite the following every evening…
Matthew 6:1-34
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others.
How many times do we all have to hear about your cafeteria charity work…pick and choose whom you think is worthy and than remind everyone of it.
“your version of “helping the poor” has nothing to do with using your own time or resources.” You have no idea what I have done, and unlike you, I don’t need to desperately seek others’ approval by boasting and whining about spending your own “resources”. Sufficient to say, from the age of 17, I have volunteered, and never felt the need to brag about it.
I am sure you felt for the Zimbabwe “poor” – did you stay in their village with them or high tail it back to the hotel? Did you eat what they ate, live like they live?…or did you do all your “charity” only to return to the comfort of your air conditioned bedroom? Live with the poor for more than a vacation stay, and you might have credibility. and by the way
it would do you well to recite the following every evening…
Hon, I recounted our trip when we returned in late October. Feel free to page back in the blog’s archives and read it. I explained what we saw in pretty vivid terms so that people like you whose image of poor people consists of a living room full of obese young men watching a plasma TV on a weekday afternoon would understand. Those people don’t need my help, hon. Not when I can help 50 Africans for every “poor” American I was formerly spending money on.
———–
Sufficient to say, from the age of 17, I have volunteered, and never felt the need to brag about it.
You just did. LMAO. “I tell you most solemnly, you have had your reward”. Don’t you read what you write? No. Hypocrites don’t do that.
Anyone gullible enough to believe suz was in Zimbabwe last October is gonna’ be really pissed off when they find out that the Easter bunny, Penthouse forum, and pro wrestling are all equally as authentic as this pathetic lie is.
Catholic charities did not sponsor any trips to Zimbabwe last October; how much more desperate can trollette get than lying about a charity?