Hold on, I'm linking to a religious peroration:
Now, I wasn't a fan, and still am not. I am an unreconstructed atheist feminist gay-allied liberal and am fairly hardcore anti-pedophile enabler, so I and the Cardinal don't check off too many boxes in common. I agree as to the greatness of the United States in providing opportunities and admiration for the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and share in his concern--to an extent--for those languishing on distant shores to breathe free and who face torture and even death at the hands of tyrannical regimes.
And yet I could not help but notice the heavy hand with which remembrance was sprinkled on those "not yet born" and the mention of "Nature's Law"--and with that one is reminded that Cardinal Dolan is, after all, the fellow who believes that his fellow Catholics are somehow persecuted, if, as employers, the insurance companies with which they do business are compelled to offer birth control coverage without co-pay to employees (even if they experience no compunction to use or directly provide such coverage themselves). One may note, also, if one recalls, that his ideas regarding marriage equality are not merely typical of his generation and faith, but occasionally shockingly expressed. And yet one might simultaneously wonder where his concern was for "Nature's Law" when those who would harm the least of us--were given money to go away quietly and rape babies elsewhere.
It were better a millstone were wrapped around one's neck, I think, than one ever were associated with paying off the carnal abusers of children, but I am a godless feminist gay-allied liberal. I'm funny that way. And I like to think that I belong to a party which is also not pro-rape and is anti-bigotry, which leads to to the funny old question: Who invited this guy?
Well, it happens, he invited himself and was originally told, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Which I think was how he rather would have had it. After all, Democrats were the bad people who were making institutions be tolerant of gays and (yuck!) female-bodied people in ways they weren't used to. And that was insulting his religion and himself, and you know--persecooties! Papal bull-yi-ing.
But for some reason, the DNC had him--and I get it, and actually, approve.
Now, hear me out, because my reasons are troll-ish and unfair. Actually, they are feminist, atheist and gay-allied, but that hardly matters compared to what just happened--
So we had Sandra Fluke giving a speech in prime time and Kathleen Sebelius, a pro-choice Catholic,
featured at the convention.
We had Barney Frank and that impressive young man, Zach Wahls,
speak on the same day as the Cardinal, after three days where a number of speakers gave at least a shout-out to the support of marriage equality, that was made a part of the Democratic platform, or to the end of DADT.
So the short of truly small-c catholic POV of Cardinal Dolan was already refuted by pretty much everything that went before, and he was an after-thought--allowed to have his turn, but I would say, not really able to turn back the curve of Democratic Party history toward justice.
He was just an asymptotic deviation on that curve. If he intended to show that Democrats were bigots against religion--well, no:
Sr. Simone Campbell is just as at home with the Democrats as Elizabeth Warren, who cited one of my favorite scriptures, from Matthew. There was no real failure to acknowledge religion or spirituality, no war on religion, after all.
Dolan didn't get what he wanted--I think if the DNC turned him down, he'd have simply pissed and moaned and built his case that Obama et als really did hate religion. But as it is, there's no question where the party stands (but if he wanted to stand with us--we'd respect his religion).
(Just not his bigotry.)
Which makes it especially sad that this is what serial liar Paul Ryan is going to add to his already-mendacious stump speech.
I do believe "Do not bear false witness" is part of the Decalogue, isn't it?