I am Catholic but the Church has many huge problems right now. Abusers need to be held accountable and need to be investigated. This Pope should resign.
They should just lose tax free status unless all leadership resigns. This was a huge problem before this pope and it will be after this pope if the church doesn't make huge changes. The 2 changes that would make this issue go away fastest?
1) Allow female priests 2) allow priests to marry
Would get a lot different person entering the priesthood...raise the game.
I agree with the tax status. Not sold on the other two. Our last main Priest was actually married. I’d be more open to that than #1.
What the fuck?
Women offer more than men do in many circumstances. You want “equality” in everything? All you do is ruin what makes women unique and special.
I am Catholic but the Church has many huge problems right now. Abusers need to be held accountable and need to be investigated. This Pope should resign.
They should just lose tax free status unless all leadership resigns. This was a huge problem before this pope and it will be after this pope if the church doesn't make huge changes. The 2 changes that would make this issue go away fastest?
1) Allow female priests 2) allow priests to marry
Would get a lot different person entering the priesthood...raise the game.
I agree with the tax status. Not sold on the other two. Our last main Priest was actually married. I’d be more open to that than #1.
What the fuck?
Women offer more than men do in many circumstances. You want “equality” in everything? All you do is ruin what makes women unique and special.
so what, exactly, are the qualifications of a priest where men excel over women? IN ALL CASES, no less?
maybe because they wouldn't molest little kids. I guess that's something.
Now people are coming out saying that they remember discussion of Kavanuagh attacking her soon after it happened.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
As far as I am concerned the reasons, in no particular order, that he should not be approved are....
1. Catholic conservative 2. Pro life 3. Believes the president is above the law 4. Just don't trust him
This is the one. This is the one that should scare everyone. This is the one that should have traditional conservatives crying foul and voting against him. At best, his view has "evolved" to the dangerous stance that the president simply can't get in trouble, which is akin to an elected king. More likely, he feels this way when a Republican is president, given his involvement with the Clinton investigations.
We fled a king. And from that moment on until January 2017, we prided ourselves on limiting the power of one elected leader and having checks and balances. This guy is one of many steps toward the toppling of that ideal.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
As far as I am concerned the reasons, in no particular order, that he should not be approved are....
1. Catholic conservative 2. Pro life 3. Believes the president is above the law 4. Just don't trust him
2, 3 and 4 are fair points if they are important to you. Why is it okay to discriminate against religion though?
His beliefs are dictated by the pope and the bible. Maybe I should have said religious conservative
So do you have an issue with someone being in office because they are religious? Or do you just not agree with the stance most religions organizations have. Other than abortion, what issues do you have with religion in politics that are currently a topic?
separation of church and state. simple as that.
So separation of church and state to you means politicians can't/shouldn't be active in a religion?
As far as I am concerned the reasons, in no particular order, that he should not be approved are....
1. Catholic conservative 2. Pro life 3. Believes the president is above the law 4. Just don't trust him
2, 3 and 4 are fair points if they are important to you. Why is it okay to discriminate against religion though?
His beliefs are dictated by the pope and the bible. Maybe I should have said religious conservative
So do you have an issue with someone being in office because they are religious? Or do you just not agree with the stance most religions organizations have. Other than abortion, what issues do you have with religion in politics that are currently a topic?
separation of church and state. simple as that.
So separation of church and state to you means politicians can't/shouldn't be active in a religion?
HFD is going to answer that for himself.... But come on, you don't really think that's what he meant, do you? I don't think anyone has ever thought that, have they?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
As far as I am concerned the reasons, in no particular order, that he should not be approved are....
1. Catholic conservative 2. Pro life 3. Believes the president is above the law 4. Just don't trust him
2, 3 and 4 are fair points if they are important to you. Why is it okay to discriminate against religion though?
His beliefs are dictated by the pope and the bible. Maybe I should have said religious conservative
So do you have an issue with someone being in office because they are religious? Or do you just not agree with the stance most religions organizations have. Other than abortion, what issues do you have with religion in politics that are currently a topic?
separation of church and state. simple as that.
So separation of church and state to you means politicians can't/shouldn't be active in a religion?
of course they can. but they can't base their decisions on the bible.
As far as I am concerned the reasons, in no particular order, that he should not be approved are....
1. Catholic conservative 2. Pro life 3. Believes the president is above the law 4. Just don't trust him
2, 3 and 4 are fair points if they are important to you. Why is it okay to discriminate against religion though?
His beliefs are dictated by the pope and the bible. Maybe I should have said religious conservative
So do you have an issue with someone being in office because they are religious? Or do you just not agree with the stance most religions organizations have. Other than abortion, what issues do you have with religion in politics that are currently a topic?
separation of church and state. simple as that.
So separation of church and state to you means politicians can't/shouldn't be active in a religion?
HFD is going to answer that for himself.... But come on, you don't really think that's what he meant, do you? I don't think anyone has ever thought that, have they?
It's a good question. Everyone has bias of some sort, whether openly obvious, or quietly private. It all depends on if the voter agrees with what impact those memberships mean for the type of issues they support. You can swap religion for Masons, Elks, NRA, Green Peace, Audobon Society, Rotary Club, etc. Membership in each one of those groups means you may never support a certain agenda that could benefit someone else. Religion is just the most obvious and controversial one because people like to "thank god" for their achievements and it irks those who see it differently.
As far as I am concerned the reasons, in no particular order, that he should not be approved are....
1. Catholic conservative 2. Pro life 3. Believes the president is above the law 4. Just don't trust him
2, 3 and 4 are fair points if they are important to you. Why is it okay to discriminate against religion though?
His beliefs are dictated by the pope and the bible. Maybe I should have said religious conservative
So do you have an issue with someone being in office because they are religious? Or do you just not agree with the stance most religions organizations have. Other than abortion, what issues do you have with religion in politics that are currently a topic?
separation of church and state. simple as that.
So separation of church and state to you means politicians can't/shouldn't be active in a religion?
HFD is going to answer that for himself.... But come on, you don't really think that's what he meant, do you? I don't think anyone has ever thought that, have they?
It's a good question. Everyone has bias of some sort, whether openly obvious, or quietly private. It all depends on if the voter agrees with what impact those memberships mean for the type of issues they support. You can swap religion for Masons, Elks, NRA, Green Peace, Audobon Society, Rotary Club, etc. Membership in each one of those groups means you may never support a certain agenda that could benefit someone else. Religion is just the most obvious and controversial one because people like to "thank god" for their achievements and it irks those who see it differently.
I don't think religious beliefs are interchangeable with any of those things at all. Those things are all rooted in specific political or social or economic causes/platforms. Religion is something completely different, and if we're talking about the separation of Church and State, which we were, all of those other things are irrelevant to the conversation.
My point was actually that I've never seen anyone ever suggest that politicians have to have no religion to be fit for office.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
As far as I am concerned the reasons, in no particular order, that he should not be approved are....
1. Catholic conservative 2. Pro life 3. Believes the president is above the law 4. Just don't trust him
2, 3 and 4 are fair points if they are important to you. Why is it okay to discriminate against religion though?
His beliefs are dictated by the pope and the bible. Maybe I should have said religious conservative
So do you have an issue with someone being in office because they are religious? Or do you just not agree with the stance most religions organizations have. Other than abortion, what issues do you have with religion in politics that are currently a topic?
separation of church and state. simple as that.
So separation of church and state to you means politicians can't/shouldn't be active in a religion?
HFD is going to answer that for himself.... But come on, you don't really think that's what he meant, do you? I don't think anyone has ever thought that, have they?
It's a good question. Everyone has bias of some sort, whether openly obvious, or quietly private. It all depends on if the voter agrees with what impact those memberships mean for the type of issues they support. You can swap religion for Masons, Elks, NRA, Green Peace, Audobon Society, Rotary Club, etc. Membership in each one of those groups means you may never support a certain agenda that could benefit someone else. Religion is just the most obvious and controversial one because people like to "thank god" for their achievements and it irks those who see it differently.
but religion stands alone among almost all other groups in that members of the more fundamentalist beliefs tend to oppress those they are sworn to protect when tasked with a profession such as this.
Elizabeth warren is freakin crazy. She is basically saying if you partied as a kid in high school or college then you can’t be a successful person.
She should stick to the sexual assault issue and stay away from drinking with friends and jokes about doing stupid stuff.
Did she say that? I think she said she can't imagine America wanting someone like that on the supreme court. Being successful and being a supreme Court justice should have two very different bars of what's deemed appropriate behavior.
She’s an idiot either way. She shoulda focused on the sexual assault and not kids drinking in college!!!! The shock of it all!! Who does that????
Then, on Tuesday, an apparently truncated video clip of Judge Kavanaugh giving another speech emerged. Referring to his high school in 2015, he again modified the frequently used cliché: “What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.”
He added: “That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, tweeted the video of Judge Kavanaugh making the quip and said: “I can’t imagine any parent accepting this view. Is this really what America wants in its next Supreme Court Justice?”
She's not referring to the drinking; she's referring to the "what happens at Georgetown Prep....." statement, which typically is equivalent to "we'll just ignore any bad behaviour from that time and pretend it never happened", like when people refer to Vegas. Was he admitting to wrongdoing during the clip? Who knows.
It just sounds like he was fishing for laughs...making a stupid joke. Wonder what every other Supreme Court judge was doing in college, let alone any politician. Making a big deal out of this is only going to result in the majority of people rolling their eyes.
Elizabeth warren is freakin crazy. She is basically saying if you partied as a kid in high school or college then you can’t be a successful person.
She should stick to the sexual assault issue and stay away from drinking with friends and jokes about doing stupid stuff.
Did she say that? I think she said she can't imagine America wanting someone like that on the supreme court. Being successful and being a supreme Court justice should have two very different bars of what's deemed appropriate behavior.
She’s an idiot either way. She shoulda focused on the sexual assault and not kids drinking in college!!!! The shock of it all!! Who does that????
Then, on Tuesday, an apparently truncated video clip of Judge Kavanaugh giving another speech emerged. Referring to his high school in 2015, he again modified the frequently used cliché: “What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.”
He added: “That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, tweeted the video of Judge Kavanaugh making the quip and said: “I can’t imagine any parent accepting this view. Is this really what America wants in its next Supreme Court Justice?”
She's not referring to the drinking; she's referring to the "what happens at Georgetown Prep....." statement, which typically is equivalent to "we'll just ignore any bad behaviour from that time and pretend it never happened", like when people refer to Vegas. Was he admitting to wrongdoing during the clip? Who knows.
It just sounds like he was fishing for laughs...making a stupid joke. Wonder what every other Supreme Court judge was doing in college, let alone any politician. Making a big deal out of this is only going to result in the majority of people rolling their eyes.
You think RBG and Sotomayor were big party animals too?
Boys will be boys, I guess. No need to worry about the past.
Elizabeth warren is freakin crazy. She is basically saying if you partied as a kid in high school or college then you can’t be a successful person.
She should stick to the sexual assault issue and stay away from drinking with friends and jokes about doing stupid stuff.
Did she say that? I think she said she can't imagine America wanting someone like that on the supreme court. Being successful and being a supreme Court justice should have two very different bars of what's deemed appropriate behavior.
She’s an idiot either way. She shoulda focused on the sexual assault and not kids drinking in college!!!! The shock of it all!! Who does that????
Then, on Tuesday, an apparently truncated video clip of Judge Kavanaugh giving another speech emerged. Referring to his high school in 2015, he again modified the frequently used cliché: “What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.”
He added: “That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, tweeted the video of Judge Kavanaugh making the quip and said: “I can’t imagine any parent accepting this view. Is this really what America wants in its next Supreme Court Justice?”
She's not referring to the drinking; she's referring to the "what happens at Georgetown Prep....." statement, which typically is equivalent to "we'll just ignore any bad behaviour from that time and pretend it never happened", like when people refer to Vegas. Was he admitting to wrongdoing during the clip? Who knows.
It just sounds like he was fishing for laughs...making a stupid joke. Wonder what every other Supreme Court judge was doing in college, let alone any politician. Making a big deal out of this is only going to result in the majority of people rolling their eyes.
Elizabeth warren is freakin crazy. She is basically saying if you partied as a kid in high school or college then you can’t be a successful person.
She should stick to the sexual assault issue and stay away from drinking with friends and jokes about doing stupid stuff.
Did she say that? I think she said she can't imagine America wanting someone like that on the supreme court. Being successful and being a supreme Court justice should have two very different bars of what's deemed appropriate behavior.
She’s an idiot either way. She shoulda focused on the sexual assault and not kids drinking in college!!!! The shock of it all!! Who does that????
Then, on Tuesday, an apparently truncated video clip of Judge Kavanaugh giving another speech emerged. Referring to his high school in 2015, he again modified the frequently used cliché: “What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.”
He added: “That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, tweeted the video of Judge Kavanaugh making the quip and said: “I can’t imagine any parent accepting this view. Is this really what America wants in its next Supreme Court Justice?”
She's not referring to the drinking; she's referring to the "what happens at Georgetown Prep....." statement, which typically is equivalent to "we'll just ignore any bad behaviour from that time and pretend it never happened", like when people refer to Vegas. Was he admitting to wrongdoing during the clip? Who knows.
It just sounds like he was fishing for laughs...making a stupid joke. Wonder what every other Supreme Court judge was doing in college, let alone any politician. Making a big deal out of this is only going to result in the majority of people rolling their eyes.
You think RBG and Sotomayor were big party animals too?
Boys will be boys, I guess. No need to worry about the past.
I’m sure RBG partied it up with the Flintstones, lol
As far as I am concerned the reasons, in no particular order, that he should not be approved are....
1. Catholic conservative 2. Pro life 3. Believes the president is above the law 4. Just don't trust him
2, 3 and 4 are fair points if they are important to you. Why is it okay to discriminate against religion though?
His beliefs are dictated by the pope and the bible. Maybe I should have said religious conservative
So do you have an issue with someone being in office because they are religious? Or do you just not agree with the stance most religions organizations have. Other than abortion, what issues do you have with religion in politics that are currently a topic?
separation of church and state. simple as that.
So separation of church and state to you means politicians can't/shouldn't be active in a religion?
HFD is going to answer that for himself.... But come on, you don't really think that's what he meant, do you? I don't think anyone has ever thought that, have they?
I wasn't truly sure. If I'm going to be specific, no I don;t think he thought religious people shouldn't be politicians, but maybe in the group that wishes they weren't. I wasn't clear, so I asked. It seemed that several thought conservatives had no business in politics, that they would be incapable of separating their political jobs from their religious beliefs. Honestly, I think it is flat out wrong to make a blanket statement like conservative Catholics should not be in office. I could understand if they added something like "A Catholic who was unable to govern without relying on religion to make every single decision." Fine, I get that concern. But just make a blanket statement that an entire group of people are unfit, I just don't agree with that. I don't see how that's any different that saying"homosexuals shouldn't be in office. They are obviously very liberal and are just going to push their liberal agenda everywhere" from saying "Conservative Cathoics just puppets of the Pope and can't be trusted to govern by separating church and state" as a blanket statement like that.
As far as I am concerned the reasons, in no particular order, that he should not be approved are....
1. Catholic conservative 2. Pro life 3. Believes the president is above the law 4. Just don't trust him
2, 3 and 4 are fair points if they are important to you. Why is it okay to discriminate against religion though?
His beliefs are dictated by the pope and the bible. Maybe I should have said religious conservative
So do you have an issue with someone being in office because they are religious? Or do you just not agree with the stance most religions organizations have. Other than abortion, what issues do you have with religion in politics that are currently a topic?
separation of church and state. simple as that.
So separation of church and state to you means politicians can't/shouldn't be active in a religion?
HFD is going to answer that for himself.... But come on, you don't really think that's what he meant, do you? I don't think anyone has ever thought that, have they?
I wasn't truly sure. If I'm going to be specific, no I don;t think he thought religious people shouldn't be politicians, but maybe in the group that wishes they weren't. I wasn't clear, so I asked. It seemed that several thought conservatives had no business in politics, that they would be incapable of separating their political jobs from their religious beliefs. Honestly, I think it is flat out wrong to make a blanket statement like conservative Catholics should not be in office. I could understand if they added something like "A Catholic who was unable to govern without relying on religion to make every single decision." Fine, I get that concern. But just make a blanket statement that an entire group of people are unfit, I just don't agree with that. I don't see how that's any different that saying"homosexuals shouldn't be in office. They are obviously very liberal and are just going to push their liberal agenda everywhere" from saying "Conservative Cathoics just puppets of the Pope and can't be trusted to govern by separating church and state" as a blanket statement like that.
I know there are some politicians who can separate their religion from their politics, and I appreciate that... it gets MUCH more rare when you're talking about evangelicals. Rare enough that it makes me extremely uncomfortable for them to be in office, but I think it's pretty damned reasonable to not want religious fanatics in government. I think even evangelicals don't want that... if the fanatic isn't Christian.
FWIW, Stephen Harper, Canada's ex-PM, who I despise, does deserve credit. He is actually an evangelical, but did a pretty good job of keeping his religion out of politics. Not a perfect job - he still stood firmly against death with dignity legislation (which we got as soon as he left office). But still, for a fanatic, he showed great restraint. Too bad he didn't do that a good a job with a bunch of other things.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
As far as I am concerned the reasons, in no particular order, that he should not be approved are....
1. Catholic conservative 2. Pro life 3. Believes the president is above the law 4. Just don't trust him
2, 3 and 4 are fair points if they are important to you. Why is it okay to discriminate against religion though?
His beliefs are dictated by the pope and the bible. Maybe I should have said religious conservative
So do you have an issue with someone being in office because they are religious? Or do you just not agree with the stance most religions organizations have. Other than abortion, what issues do you have with religion in politics that are currently a topic?
separation of church and state. simple as that.
So separation of church and state to you means politicians can't/shouldn't be active in a religion?
HFD is going to answer that for himself.... But come on, you don't really think that's what he meant, do you? I don't think anyone has ever thought that, have they?
I wasn't truly sure. If I'm going to be specific, no I don;t think he thought religious people shouldn't be politicians, but maybe in the group that wishes they weren't. I wasn't clear, so I asked. It seemed that several thought conservatives had no business in politics, that they would be incapable of separating their political jobs from their religious beliefs. Honestly, I think it is flat out wrong to make a blanket statement like conservative Catholics should not be in office. I could understand if they added something like "A Catholic who was unable to govern without relying on religion to make every single decision." Fine, I get that concern. But just make a blanket statement that an entire group of people are unfit, I just don't agree with that. I don't see how that's any different that saying"homosexuals shouldn't be in office. They are obviously very liberal and are just going to push their liberal agenda everywhere" from saying "Conservative Cathoics just puppets of the Pope and can't be trusted to govern by separating church and state" as a blanket statement like that.
I know there are some politicians who can separate their religion from their politics, and I appreciate that... it gets MUCH more rare when you're talking about evangelicals. Rare enough that it makes me extremely uncomfortable for them to be in office, but I think it's pretty damned reasonable to not want religious fanatics in government. I think even evangelicals don't want that... if the fanatic isn't Christian.
FWIW, Stephen Harper, Canada's ex-PM, who I despise, does deserve credit. He is actually an evangelical, but did a pretty good job of keeping his religion out of politics. Not a perfect job - he still stood firmly against death with dignity legislation (which we got as soon as he left office). But still, for a fanatic, he showed great restraint. Too bad he didn't do that a good a job with a bunch of other things.
There's no such thing as an evangelical above the Mason Dixon line lol
Big gambler... living on the east coast... only place to gamble prior to about 10 years ago on the east coast was Atlantic City.......... the math from there is easy
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
#tonedeaf
Cheers,
HFD
maybe because they wouldn't molest little kids. I guess that's something.
Cheers,
HFD
Adding all this really stupid criticism dilutes the message and concern regarding the alleged sexual assault.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Cheers,
HFD
We fled a king. And from that moment on until January 2017, we prided ourselves on limiting the power of one elected leader and having checks and balances. This guy is one of many steps toward the toppling of that ideal.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
Cheers,
HFD
Cheers,
HFD
Boys will be boys, I guess.
No need to worry about the past.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-debts-sheldon-whitehouse_us_5b982a36e4b0511db3e6e487
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It seemed that several thought conservatives had no business in politics, that they would be incapable of separating their political jobs from their religious beliefs.
Honestly, I think it is flat out wrong to make a blanket statement like conservative Catholics should not be in office. I could understand if they added something like "A Catholic who was unable to govern without relying on religion to make every single decision." Fine, I get that concern. But just make a blanket statement that an entire group of people are unfit, I just don't agree with that. I don't see how that's any different that saying"homosexuals shouldn't be in office. They are obviously very liberal and are just going to push their liberal agenda everywhere" from saying "Conservative Cathoics just puppets of the Pope and can't be trusted to govern by separating church and state" as a blanket statement like that.