Rev. Brian Dulli told his congregation not to vote for the liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz in Tuesday's consequential Supreme Court election
I wouldn't take any member of the clergy's advice on anything. The Catholic clergy in particular is overwhelmingly of an authoritarian mind-set, and they never met a right-wing dictator they didn't love. Walking away from the Catholic church over half a century ago was one of the very best things I ever did.
I’m voting for Protasiewicz, easy choice.
Yes, she is the pro-choice candidate, which is imperative in Wisconsin right now because the alternative is a complete and total ban on abortion that will kill women. She also supports many other positions that should not be controversial, like voting rights and basic human decency.
Add to that Kelly was involved in the alternative electors scheme and took part in the insurrection at the level of other politicians (whether he rioted at the capitol I do not know for sure, but the more dangerous part of the insurrection is where he was involved).
The ads against Protasiewicz are going back to past cases where she supposedly didn’t give jail time without going into details about the case except that they were scary. Protasiewicz mentions her pro-choice stance but is not really pushing it as her only platform as the priest is claiming.
Here’s a little something to give you an idea about what we’re dealing with here.
I have other more local fascists to vote away tomorrow too. The author of that opinion piece against my library for one and his little minions. Apparently we also have a school board candidate that can’t control himself during an half hour swim lesson with his children (Who also has called for book bans over LGBT themes but won’t speak in public). Tomorrow is a big day.
So ... a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, which is utterly opposed to women's reproductive rights, says effectively 𝑒𝑥 𝑐𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑑𝑟𝑎 that his parishioners should not vote for the candidate for Supreme Court who is publicly pro-choice. Cue Gomer Pyle saying, "Surprise, surprise." What he probably doesn't know is that the IRS has been more fully funded with the advent of the Biden administration, and it just might be possible that some notice has been taken by that organization to statements such as the one made by Rev. Dulli.
All that said, I have to take this piece with at least a grain (if not a pound!) of salt. I'm not certain I can recall the last time that a religious 501(c)(3) organization was EVER called to task about politicking from the pulpit. Frankly, so many evangelical bible-thumpers do it that I've lost count.
Still ... it'd be awfully good to see, wouldn't it?
“Murder” is a legal term. It is the unlawful taking of a human life. A *legal * abortion is therefore not murder.
"do not vote for HER in the Supreme Court race on April 4."
"Dulli only indirectly alluded"
2 candidates, one man, one woman. I don't see how it can be considered indirectly.
Priests and pastors want forced birth to widen the pool of children they can sexually abuse.
It's actually simply wrong to claim voting for anything that would in some way allow for abortions to be legal goes against the Catholic faith. As I keep harping on all the time, because it needs constant harping, is that:
NO religion gets to define what is and isn't true or a fact.
NO religion get's to define what is and isn't moral.
You can still be a good catholic, even in this priests narrow view of what that means, and vote pro-choice if you see it as supporting religious freedom for everyone, that the only way to ensure others won't be able to force their religious views on you is to make sure NO ONE can force their views on anyone else, and THAT means you can't vote for anyone that will do that. If you're happy to vote for someone because they will try to force religious views you agree with on everyone, you sure as hell can't complain if someone with different religious views gets elected and proceeds to force those views on you.
No wonder yesterday is called Face Palm Sunday.
I’m my house it is anyway.
OT: More Texas-style separation of church and state: https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2023/04/texas-to-take-up-bill-requiring-ten-commandments-in-every-classroom/
No comment on guns.
No comment on the ongoing molestation.
No comment on the coverups.
Pedophile enabler (at least) says whut?
Ah, yes. Here we are again, discussing something churches seem to have more problems than they should: playing by the rules.
Laws are written for everyone. Not everyone who isn't Christian, everyone. When a church can't play by the simple laws written by humanity, I wind up asking myself why I should think they'll listen to anything their god says is a rule. Okay, sure, people aren't perfect, and maybe it's a bit much to really expect that standard, but some of the laws churches routinely break are simple common sense standards. It doesn't help when some churches expect to be able to break the very laws they want strictly enforced on non Christians.
Please, IRS, start enforcing the law that says 501(c)(3) organizations cannot direct members on how to vote. It's blazingly clear they have no intention of stopping on their own, and they should not be allowed to form an unstoppable voting monolith. Stripping their tax-exempt status is the very least of the consequences I'd like to see, but it would be a start.
Anecdote from a relative who was a doctor back in the 70s- it was not unusual, in the years after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, to see pairs of nuns show up in clinics, minus their habits, under assumed names. Everybody knew who they were; they were frequently teachers or assistants at the local catholic school. It was also no secret what they were there for- more often than not, on the word of the local Padre- and, true to RCC form, it seems the optics of having to deal with a pregnant nun won out over the Church's position on abortion. Oh, and it was usually one of the older nuns escorting one of the younger, to make sure she went through with it.
Wanna place bets on what Padre Dullard here would do if one of the penguins in 𝘩𝘪𝘴 parish got knocked up?
Anti-Child Porn Crusader And Florida Sunday School Teacher Arrested While Downloading Child Porn
According to her biography, she was raised in an RC family on the South Side of Milwaukee. This shows that not all Wisconsin Catholics follow the party line of pedophiles.
In Wisconsin, we've been inundated with commercials saying that a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice needs to be impartial, to follow the law and precedents, and to not have her or his mind made up before a case is actually heard. Those are admirable principles, and in fact that’s the way the court USED to operate before its current right-wing cabal engineered the ouster of Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson in 2015. Regrettably, it’s been relentlessly partisan ever since.
The sick irony of those hypocritical commercials is that they’re on behalf of a candidate who’s the exact antithesis of those noble ideals, a situation which would be laffable if it weren’t so tragic. Daniel Kelly, a graduate of Christian Broadcasting University Law School, previously served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but not because he was elected to the position. In 2016 he was appointed by then-Governor Scott Walker to fill a vacancy, but he was rejected by the voters when he ran for his own seat in 2020. Now he’s trying for a comeback, this time with backing not from the departed Walker but from tens of millions of dollars in out-of-state dark money. But both Walker and those mystery funders want him on the court for precisely the same reason: they know, in advance, EXACTLY how he’s going to vote.
He’s a reliable rubber stamp FOR voter suppression, the super-rich, gerrymandering, and anything the gerrymandered Republican legislature wants and AGAINST judicial ethics codes, state-agency expertise, open government, religious neutrality, and the rights of workers and women.
After Donald Trump lost Wisconsin in the 2020 presidential election, a group of Republican conspirators put together a slate of fake electors to go to Washington DC and try to claim that Trump, rather than Joe Biden, won Wisconsin. This outrageous attempt to subvert the will of the people needed legal advice, and guess who they got it from. Yup, old reliably hyper-partisan Dan Kelly. His work on behalf of a slate of fake electors alone should disqualify him from ever again holding a position of public trust. Really, it WOULD have made him the most disgraceful ex-justice in Wisconsin if his fellow election denier, also-defeated former justice Michael Gableman, hadn’t set the bar even lower by squandering millions of taxpayer dollars “investigating” non-existent electoral fraud at the behest of the gerrymandered legislature.
Come April 4, the last person any fan of judicial impartiality should be voting for is Dan Kelly.