The American Spectator

Reader Mail

The Democrat 55

3.16.06 @ 12:01AM

SHEEP FROM GOATS
Re: Lisa Fabrizio's Selectively Faithful:

Bravo for Lisa Fabrizio's "Selectively Faithful." Before she entered Congress, Rep. Rosa DeLauro was the executive director of EMILY's List, the PAC whose raison d'etre is to see to the election of pro-abortion women. That, despite her sham document's claim to "...agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion..."

The term "lying, treacherous *****" comes inexorably to mind.
-- Francis M. Hannon, Jr.
Melrose, Massachusetts

Thanks to Lisa Fabrizio for a great column. This delusional press release would be more aptly named, "Historic Moral Relativism of Catholic Apostates." It is chilling that 33 of these signatories voted for partial-birth abortions in 2003. What Clintonesque chutzpah! Their twisted view of Roman Catholicism is identical to their opinion of the U.S. Constitution -- screw you, we'll interpret it any damn way we please.

Someone please tell battle-axe Rosa DeLauro that Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation of church and state" to clarify that the state will not make demands of any church (hint: it concerned the taxing of minority Baptist congregations from her home state). But it certainly looks like these 55 Congressional Democrats are making demands of the Roman Catholic Church through veiled threats (if you want continued tax breaks for hospitals, you'd better allow abortion on-demand) and trampling the Constitution by grossly misinterpreting Thomas Jefferson. These 55 Democrats should read the 1st Amendment. Their special definition of "separation of church and state" does not exist and is only a euphemism for imposing their secular beliefs on Americans. Why should taxpayers fund the secularists' belief in abortion simply because the secularists are a majority today? What about Jefferson's defense of minority religions (which would be today's conservative Jews and Catholics) in his Danbury letter?

I'm still laughing over the Clintonian quote, "We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties." Oh really? Using their same "logic," the imposition of Sharia Law on Americans by a few Islamofascists elected to Congress would be legal. Don't forget Democrats in the judiciary like Stephen Breyer loudly applaud the trendy, intellectual laziness of citing international law (by the way, Sharia law is international law) and belittle original intent of the Constitution.
-- Joe Weldon
Juno Beach, Florida

I always enjoy Ms. Fabrizio's thoughts. She is always provocative and, to me, interesting. She provided a link To Ms. DeLauro's Congressional website. I thought it might be interesting to share the good Congresswoman's thoughts and allow her to be aware of mine.

Unfortunately she has "decided to limit contact by not publishing an email address." I just love a public servant who doesn't want to hear from her employers. Vote this do-nothing out of office, people of Connecticut. She is supposed to work FOR you!
-- Jason Brutus Kane
Miami, Florida

I thought "Selectively Faithful" by Lisa Fabrizio was a great article. I am fed up with the liberal media and the 55 democrats portraying Catholicism as "open to interpretation." Lisa knew the facts and stated them as so and I commend her for that. I wish the bishops had done a little more than that letter though. Democrats are trying to excuse themselves from the major moral issues that are central to our faith. They in no way represent what the Catholic Church stands for and it is laughable how off the mark they really are. Thank you Lisa for telling the truth.
-- Julie Witkowski
Traverse City, Michigan

My compliments for your article. I suggest, however, that you have your sights on the wrong people. Why should you expect "ordinary people," including elected representatives, to refrain from inventing their own flavor of Catholicism, when the clergy not only fails to formally inform them of their non-Catholicism, but the clergy does their own inventing? I will not, however, try to put my two cents in with TAS, because when I did the same a few weeks ago in reply to a related Mark Gauvreau Judge article, my letter was ignored, see below.

Mark Gauvreau Judge writes, "I think we should just declare Weigel's "virtual schism" a genuine schism, and start kicking heretics to the curb." The only problem with that plan is, the kicking cannot start until "we" and "heretics" are clearly defined. And there is the rub.

Would the "heretics" be the pastor of the Catholic Church I attended for many years whose homily, reflecting on the gospel that warned of the Last Judgment, during a time when the Gingrich Revolution was proposing to privatize some functions of the federal government, warned that those who wanted to privatize might find themselves for that reason on the left hand of God?

Or would the "heretics" be the priest who succeeded the above as pastor of the same Catholic Church, whose homily declared that "the Holy Spirit was always referred to in the female gender"?

Or would the "heretics" be the bishop of my diocese who allowed the diocesan newspaper to be used for op-eds that ran the gamut from condemning this nation's desire to forcibly protect itself from those who wish it harm, to federalizing and expanding every form of taxpayer subsidized existence, to the "evils" of Wal-Mart?

Or would the "heretics" be a regular visiting priest at the Catholic Church I used to attend that declared some dozen recent figures of the political left to be latter day John the Baptists? And the pastor of the same church who refused to even acknowledge an objection to such a declaration?

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Education, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Economics, Business, Federal Budget, Social Security, Religion, Catholicism, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Hollywood, Movies, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Fascism, Conservatism, Immigration, Oil