That didn't take long

I'm running late, so I'll make this quick. The Argus Leader this morning is reporting that the new bishop isn't wasting any time on getting involved in SD politics:
Bishop Paul Swain came out swinging Thursday. Within an hour of being
ordained a Roman Catholic bishop and installed as the eighth leader of the
Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, he had spoken out on two issues on the Nov. 7
ballot.

"I'm proud to say that the first vote I will cast as a South Dakotan will
be yes for Referred Law 6," Swain said, to applause and a standing
ovation.

Referred Law 6 is the abortion ban, which was passed by the state
Legislature earlier this year and will be decided by voters. It outlaws all
abortions except those done to save a pregnant woman's life.

"This law is not perfect legislation, but it will better respect and
protect the vulnerable," Swain said.He also said he would vote yes on
Constitutional Amendment C. Approval of Amendment C would amend the South Dakota
Constitution to recognize marriages between only a man and a woman.

Swain said he was not judging or demeaning anyone by doing so but
preserving the common good and encouraging family life.

Read it all here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Maybe it is time the Catholic church start paying some taxes????

Just a thought.

Seperation of Church and State huh??
Anonymous said…
Was this supposed to be a surprise that a Roman Catholic bishop would oppose gay marriage and abortion?
Anonymous said…
The Church justify's their place in politics as "we can take a stand on issues", "not candidates" Sounds like they make things up as they go...sound like anything else that's going on if South Dakota lately. There sure is a lot of that going around these days. Maybe we should make the "make it up as we go" a civil right in our constitution. anyone, anyone??? Sounds like it's a pretty popular thing right now.
Anonymous said…
You don't get it, do you. He didn't tell people how to vote. He just indicated how he is going to.

When are people going to realize that the church doesn't care about political correctness or what's in vogue. It believes what it believes and is unafraid to say so.

Has it stumbled over the past 2000 years? Absolutely. The spanish inquisition, empire building, and the priest molestation scandals are not positive points for the church.

But as it reaffirms itself to it's mission of bringing God's teachings to the people, it will endure to derision of the secularists and those who worship "pop culture" instead of the lord.
Anonymous said…
Yes, but do they have to BEAT IT INTO PEOPLES HEADS!!! Make your point and leave it at that! Going on and on every week in their sermons from the pulpit IS BEING INVOLVED IN POLITICS any way you look at it!!! AND I DO GET IT!!!! I don't think the Bishop had to talk about his stand or how he is going to vote on the abortion issue on his first day ordained do you REALLY?
Anonymous said…
"You don't get it, do you. He didn't tell people how to vote. He just indicated how he is going to."

Oh yeah, there's no coercive effect there, when the bishop tells you how he's voting. No coercive effect at all.
Anonymous said…
Aw Jeez. Here we go again with the "separation of church and state" mantra when it doesn't suit the libs' position. How about the boatload of pastors holding press conferences to support or oppose HB1215? How about AlGore and others appearing at cheerleading sessions at African-American churches? Get over it. It's a fact of life.
Anonymous said…
Get real...you don't think that by the NEWLY ordained bishop telling his congregation how HE is going to vote has an effect on how others will vote...you're the one who doesn't get it!! get real
Anonymous said…
I will stop walking, talking and voting like a christian. As soon as all you atheists stop walking, talking and voting like atheists.

Atheism is a religeon/church. I will seperate myself from government as soon as all you atheists seperate yourselves from government as well.
Anonymous said…
I am NOT an ATHIEST by ANY STRETCH of the imagination. And it is really sad that because I think the church should not be so involved in politics you call me as such. I am FINE with my GOD and pretty sure he is going to be just FINE with me having my opinion on why the CHURCH should not be involved so much in politics. I never even said what my stand on the issue is, just that I disagree with the church being so involved. You thinking everyone that disagrees with the church being so politically engrosed right now is an athiest. You are ignorant. And I'm pretty sure that anyone else that is tired of being preached politics form the pulpit and wishes they could just go to church for the reason they are there being called an athiest would also take GREAT offense to your ignorant statement!!! I go to church to worship GOD not POLITICS!!
Anonymous said…
When is the Church going to support a bill declaring it to be the only true "Christian Church".

Didn't our Founding Fathers warn us about the problems so many are inviting into government?
Anonymous said…
That is supposed to be a reference to the Catholic Church. OOPS!
Anonymous said…
annonymous 9:11,

The other side does it too so we all need to just "Get over it. It's a fact of life."

Is that really your best thought on this issue? Al Gore does it, so the Bishop can too. Is it possible that both both Al Gore and the Bishop are wrong?

Wait on second thought, I think I like your philosophy....Abortions are a fact of life...just get over it. Being gay is fact of life....just get over it. You are wrong and I am right...just get over it.
Joan said…
9:21 - For you to assume that anyone who opposes HB1215 is an aetheist is both offensive and ignorant.

Do you think that group of Sioux Falls pastors who publicly spoke out against the bill are aetheists?

And even if the bishop didn't specifically tell his flock how to vote, it had the same effect.
He certainly wasn't making the statement because it was news.
Anonymous said…
anon 933

If you are not an atheist, why did you answer a post addressing atheists ? hahaha, get over it !
Anonymous said…
you're an idiot and if you can't make a better point than that ie..me responding to your ignorant athiest comment, of course I'm going to respond to a unfounded comment as such.
johnnie w. said…
If Bishop Swain is pro-life, he will also be endorsing Initiated Measure -- Medical Marijuana.
Anonymous said…
The US Supreme court has ruled that churches can address issues, but not specific candidates. No one is making up the rules as they go. I'm not Catholic , but I'm proud of the Bishop. What's wrong with any religious leader telling how he's going to vote? Or anyone else for that matter. If he had come out opposed to "6", would you be this mad about it? If not, you are hypocrites. Christians are told in the Bible to be salt and light to the world, and that is exactly what he's doing.Read it for yourselves. If you don't agree with him, then you don't have to vote that way. Why are you so offended? Too much caffeine, or too much sugar??
Joan said…
11:49 - Actually, I'm not offended in the least by Bishop Swain making that statement. If anything, I find it rather amusing since he said what everyone already knew.

What is offensive is someone's ignorant assumption that people who oppose that radical abortion ban are aetheists.

President Bush has stated that he believes there should be exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother.

Sen. Thune said he preferred that there be exceptions.

Do you think they are aetheists too?
Anonymous said…
anon 1056;

I guess you can insult me since you have no facts or better philosophies to share. I didnt insult anyone with my atheist post.

I am glad you are not an atheist, you would embarras them as well as your church friends.
Anonymous said…
joan;

I call the "seperation of church n state" folks, atheists. Why silence the church's? Dont we criticize the "church" for not opposing the nazi's ? how about the church's of the south not condemming slavery ? Or do we want the church's backing, just when we agree with it ? It seems hypocritical to cry foul when the church condems abortion, gay marriage, and gambling and for not condeming the nazis and slavery
Anonymous said…
Anon 8:52 said:
Has it stumbled over the past 2000 years? Absolutely. The spanish inquisition, empire building, and the priest molestation scandals are not positive points for the church.

Add this attempt to force Catholic doctrine on non-catholics to the list.
Seriously, if you oppose gay marrage or an abortion don't get one but leave the rest of us alone.
Anonymous said…
Why is politics about abortion. Do you want safe abortions or not?

Why is politics about War. Do you want to go to war just because we can brainwash all of our citizens into thinking there is a reason (read WMD, terrorist) or get our facts straight.

Those who are on the religous right only think one way, fear of GOD and what HE (they think god is a he) will do to you. What about us? We're screwing up the rest of the planet.

Why did our founding fathers seek to separate chuch and state? Mmmm...think england, rome...They were smarter than most people who run this country now.

Let's move on from this and continue to support our rights as women and men, citizens of the US, the Constitution and everything else the republicans choose not to support (I call that evil). SO it is the republicans that will go to HELL, not the dems.

what bugger of a country this is...vote blue because it is YOU!
Anonymous said…
www.julieroseorganics.com

Organic skin and body care products.

Chemicals that are in your stuff now: carcinogens

See the resources:
http://www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org/Pages/CosmeticCompanies.html
http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep2/findings/index.php?content=majorfindings
nonnie said…
HB is about the sanctity of life, which is what the Catholic church is also about. The Catholic church is not saying that you have to be Catholic or condemning an atheist or anything. The Catholic church is simply called to protect the sanctity of life, and it's doing just that.

Seems that tiny little life gets lost in all the argument and discussion back and forth, and we need to get back to that. Vote YES for LIFE!
Anonymous said…
I am proud to call myself a Catholic. The 20 months that the Sioux Falls Diocese had to wait for Bishop Swain was well worth it. The Catholic Church is one of a select few churches who have the moral courage and backbone to stand up for what is right. Too bad other churches are not doing the same. The Catholic Church are the real leaders on social issues facing this country.
Douglas said…
(quoted material)Some of Aquinas's ethical conclusions are at odds with the majority view in the contemporary West. For example, he held that heretics "deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death." Aquinas believed that heresy was much more severe than, for instance, money forgery, which was punishable by death in his time. Therefore, heretics deserved at least as severe a punishment (ST II:II 11:3). Aquinas also maintained woman's subjection to man "because in man the discretion of reason predominates"(ST I:92:1), which is one reason why he opposed the ordination of women (ST Supp. 39:1). Aquinas did say, however, that women were fit for the exercise of temporal power. He also held that "a parent can lawfully strike his child, and a master his slave that instruction may be enforced by correction" (ST II:II 65:2).

On the other hand, many modern ethicists (notably Philippa Foot and Alasdair MacIntyre), both within and outside of the Catholic Church, have recently commented on the possible use of Aquinas's virtue ethics as a way of avoiding utilitarianism or Kantian deontology. Through the work of 20th century philosophers such as Roman Catholic convert Elizabeth Anscombe (especially in her book Intention), Aquinas's principle of double effect specifically and his theory of intentional activity generally have been influential.

Modern readers might also find the method frequently used to reconcile Christian and Aristotelian doctrine rather strenuous. In some cases, the conflict is resolved by showing that a certain term actually has two meanings: the Christian doctrin
(end of quoted material) Source below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

"Just wars" come to us compliments of St. Augustine.

Do we really want to try to run modern secular democracies after the model of "saints" attempting to justify a special place for the church?

There is nothing dishonorable about being athiest, but agnostic seems to be a better position since it lacks the aspects of "faith" required to take supernaturalism seriously or to be certain of the non-existence of a supernatural deity.

It is time politicians and voters became very wary of church officials and politicians claiming to be the right hand of God. Accepting the idea of a supernatural diety gives these special pleaders an aura of authority unwarranted by anything provable.
Anonymous said…
I think it's fine that Bishop Swain has a position on abortion and same sex marriage. I just hope he doesn't forget the entire range of social justice issues that the Catholic Church stands for.

I will be satisfied with his leadership if he devotes at least as much time to speaking about feeding the hungry, prividing medical care to the sick, and taking care of the poor.

There are more issues than just abortion and same-sex marriage.
Anonymous said…
Post 3:09 PM: "The Catholic Church is one of a select few churches who have the moral courage and backbone to stand up for what is right. Too bad other churches are not doing the same. The Catholic Church are the real leaders on social issues facing this country."

Ah yes, I forgot about that. I forgot that the Catholic Church was the "chosen" church. Of course you are the real Christian leaders. Of course you can continue to pray everyday that the rest of us non-Catholics see the light and convert and be saved!

Of course I realize that if the "Christian Right" were just all good Catholics that this world would be in much better shape!

Yes, you are the leaders, the chosen ones. I just hope that someday I see the light!
Anonymous said…
Ah...you're pissed off because Swain got so much positive media out of it and because he's influential with voters by way of position.

What this boils down to for most of the pro-aborts is that they don't a have big stick here in SoDak that can speak with a microphone as large as Swain.

How many of the sep/church/state folks would have complained about Martin Luther King and his statements regarding the city of Montgomery during the bus boycotts?

I want to hear one intellectually honest liberal tell me on this blog that they would have ran MLK out of the Dexter Street church for blasting the state of Alabama and the city of Montgomery about their policies.
Anonymous said…
I'm an intellectually honest conservative and here's what I found out about MLK:

On the night of December 5, 1955, elated at the day's success in emptying the buses, boycotters assemble at the Holt Street Baptist Church and vote to keep the protest going. A main speaker is a new minister in town, 26-year-old Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Because he has no history with the town leaders, other ministers, including Ralph Abernathy and Fred Shuttlesworth, persuade King to lead the Montgomery Improvement Association and the boycott. King delivers an inspiring speech, saying, "If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong."

Powerful words...if we are wrong the constitution is wrong. Just like the constitution was wrong about Plessy v. Ferguson, it's also wrong about Roe v. Wade.

Bishop Swain more power to you. Keep speaking truth to power!
Anon 12:28 wrote:
"I call the "seperation of church n state" folks, atheists."

That's funny. I call them "founding fathers."
Anonymous said…
The founding Fathers wrote NOTHING about the separation of church and state. Read the constitution.

They were ALL ABOUT people practising their Christain faith in the government. George Washington even wrote that if you didn't "fear God you shouldn't be a judge!"

The ONLY thing that the founding fathers addressed was that the USA would not establish a government church, paid for and administered from the government, like what had been in England.

The IRS guidelines about what churches can and cannot do didn't come in until Johnson--a d*** Democrat got in.

Churches, leaders, and Pastors have a responsibility to inform their congregations about how they will vote and to lead their people to do what is right according to the tenents of their beliefs!

There is NOTHING illegal or wrong about it! At least not according to the Founding Fathers!
Anonymous said…
This is amazing!! Blast the Catholic Church for the position it
has had for almost 2000 years! It is obvious by some of the angry
posts that those most angry know the least about the church! Just enough to complain about it!
If you arent Catholic please rest
assured that we arent trying to
convert you!!! We certainly arent
trying to "save" you!! Catholics
seldom talk of being saved oh
ignorant one!!!!!!
Anonymous said…
The Roman Catholic church might not be trying to save all non-Catholics, but it is trying to impose its beliefs upon us through legislation. Trying to do that appears to be a step toward establishing a government-sponsored church.

I think our founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew what was happening.
Anonymous said…
plainsfemenist;

I will stop walking, talking and voting like a christian. As soon as all you atheists stop walking, talking and voting like atheists.

Atheism is a religeon/church. I will seperate myself from government as soon as all you atheists seperate yourselves from government as well.

The founding fathers said many things that have been re-interpretetd, like "keep n bear arms" meant one thing back then, means another today...

free speech was defined differently back then also,,,now it is "burn the flag",,,,,

seperation of church and state meant something entirely different to our founding fathers as well, they didnt mean it like you do.

Churchs used to take care of the poor, the sick, and educated our children, then the government stepped in and said,, step back, we will handle that from now on. Problem is, the governmant has failed misserably on all fronts. They cant take care of the sick, they dont take care of the poor, and their attempt to educate our children has failed even worse.

My idea of seperation of church and state is--- the state needs to get out of the churchs business. The Church (Gods people) need to take back the duties that God commanded the church to do, like, take care of the sick, poor, and educate our children. The idea of teaching children did not come from a government official, hospitals did not originate from a government. Taking care of the poor was not originally the role of government,,,,WAS IT ??

What a great place liberalism has brought us to, failure after failure, after failure. Good luck on your efforts to fix societys problems.
Anonymous said…
You're right about one thing. The Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew that 48 million American babies had been dismembered in the name of "choice." They would be spinning in their graves if they knew how many women are being killed or maimed in the name of "safe" "health care." They would be spinning in their graves if they knew that good people are sitting idly and silently by while the heart of the nation is being torn apart at the hands of people who have no regard for innocent life.
Anonymous said…
I am not Catholic, but the bold statement and stand on moral principle by the new bishop (made on his first day on the job) has caused me to reconsider. Bravo.
Anonymous said…
10:50 - From stateline.org -
"In colonial times, abortion before 'quickening' -- the first perceptible fetal movement, usually around the fourth month of pregnancy -- was legal. Early American medical literature includes frequent references to methods of abortion."

Keeping in mind that abortion was legal in colonial times, upon what do you base your statements? Please cite your documentation, if in fact you have any.
Anonymous said…
11:01 - What is bold about a bishop speaking out on the stand that his church holds and always has held? It would be bold for him to disagree with his church, but it's business as usual when they state the obvious.
johnnie w. said…
The abortion posts surely brings out the loonies PP.

Again, since Bishop Swain is pro-life, he must certainly be in favor of MEDICAL MARIJUANA & Initiated Measure 4.
PP said…
I'd just make the point that those of you complaining about his positions now are going to be cheering when he comes out against the Death penalty.

And the Bishop will still not care about what anyone says. The church believes what the church believes, and they could care less about politics.
Anonymous said…
pp - If they could care less about politics, why are they making these public statements about political issues? There surely must be ways to reach their members without playing to the media.
Anonymous said…
"There surely must be ways to reach their members without playing to the media."

That's what this comes down to isn't? Bishop Swain got media and the other side didn't.

So now is Bishop Swain somehow not allowed to "go to the media?" Is he not allowed his 1st amendment rights because he is a priest?

What the hell are you people all about? Silencing the opposition and trying to destroy their character...while taking rights away and oppressing the values vote?
Anonymous said…
YUP!
That is EXACTLY what they are all about!
Anonymous said…
9:50 - Bishop Swain has every right to go to the media and attempt to use his position to influence voters. But when that happens, it is obvious that the church does care about politics, which is contrary to what pp claims.

When Roman Catholic clergy preach their message to their parishioners, they are imparting what they believe is God's word. They can even encourage their members to publicly proseltize that message, and it would still be considered part of their jobs as clergy.

But when Catholic clergy use their positions to publicly try to influence voters, any claim that the church doesn't care about politics flies out the window.

Now do you get it?
Douglas said…
"And the Bishop will still not care about what anyone says. The church believes what the church believes, and they could care less about politics."

PP, amazing demnonstration of blind faith or being oblivious to facts.

Mixing church and state is dangerous to both. The United States was at least formed partially by people who fled here to escape theocracy. Based on the number of churches peppering the state, I think that separation has been very helpful to religion.

But, if religions want to start mixing it up, there are more than a few people willing to join the fight and that will not be good for churches and religions.

The Bishop's answered prayers may bring more pain than he might ever guess.

How long do you have to be a resident of SD to vote here? Can you vote here if registered to vote in another state?
Anonymous said…
douglas:

the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a right afforded to priests and pastors too.
Anonymous said…
11:06:

why can't a priest or pastor attempt to influence your vote?

A priest has his beliefs and when he espouses them you are free to turn away and not listen.

But don't make specious arguments that they are not allowed to influence voters.

What about in non election years when preist talk about giving to the poor? That's influencing voters. What about not hurting others? That's influencing voters. What about a whole host of issues that priests talk about?

If you don't like it don't listen.
Anonymous said…
Priests and pastors have first amendment rights, just like the rest of us. If they want to attempt to influence voters, fine. But don't say they aren't interested in politics then. Because when the issue is being voted on in an upcoming election, it IS politics, pure and simple.

The problems start when the issue is something which different religions do not completely agree on.
The Catholic church has always opposed abortion. I don't know of any churches that endorse abortion, but many churches believe there are instances when the mother's well-being should be the main consideration.

When one church pushes an issue that affects the entire populace, and the other churches do not agree with that stand, it creates resentment.

For instance, people of the Jewish religion believe in circumcism. Many or most other people have their male babies circumcised too, but let's pretend for the moment that only Jewish boys are circumcised.
Then - and remember this is only an example - let's pretend that the Jews decided that all male babies of every race and religion should be circumcized.
They present evidence that it would be better for society if all babies are circumcized. So the legislature buys that argument and passes a law that all male babies must, by law, be circumcized.
Now let's say Catholics don't agree that the government should force them to circumcize their boy babies. They say the Jewish people are forcing this on everyone because this is what their religion believes.
How would you feel about them forcing something upon you which you and your religion are not in total agreement with?

Again, this is just an example and not a very good one at that, but I hope it gets the point across.
nonnie said…
I've read all these posts above, and there aren't many posts with the word "life" in it. This is what this debate is about. Preserving life. It's not a religion, it's not a "my church is better than your church" thing, it's not political.

It's moral, it's about preserving life. Plain and simple. Just think about that.
Anonymous said…
nonnie,
You are an idiot. The post is about the role of the church in politics. the bishop made at least two comments. One about abortion. The second about the gay marriage ban. Please tell us all what banning gay marriage has to do with the preservation of life? You and all the evangelical wackos need to stop forcing cramming YOUR religion on the rest of us. Why is YOUR religion right and mine wrong?
Douglas said…
This election issue is not about life. It is about preservation of political power by any means possible. The GOP "southern strategy" was designed to separate southern whites from the Democratic Party. The GOP "northern strategy" is designed to separate Catholics from the Democratic Party which has traditionally been their ally in economic and rights issues.

Recent books apparently indicate that the Bush administration has cynically manipulated the Christian right. The GOP word moves down from the top and the same kind of exploitation of religious belief occurs out here in the boondocks.

Church position on abortion has not been totally consistent through the ages indicating perhaps there are chinks in the armor of infallibility.
http://www.linacre.org/embryo.html

The religious wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ought to make Americans,religious or otherwise, to desire greater separation of church and state instead of greater integration of the two.

Just heard of a local Catholic trying to hide from "father" in the grocery store because she knew he would be harranging her about her vote on Issue Six and she did not want her grandaughters to be at the mercy of any male physically stronger than her granddaughters.

The Church telling people to vote this way or that way is not quite the same as Joe Blow leaning across the bar and saying, "Hey, what about that vote on six?"
Anonymous said…
Nonnie, You missed the whole point, didn't you? The importance of the life of an embryo or fetus when compared to the well-being of the woman or girl is what religions do not agree about.

There is nothing in the Bible that specifically deals with abortion. Each side can find Bible verses that support their positions, but there is nothing that says "Thou shalt not commit abortions."

(And don't tell me Thou Shalt Not Kill applies to that because the Bible also does not specifically say that an embryo or fetus has life until it is born. That, too, is left to interpretation.)

There is nothing in the Bible that specifically says that an embryo carries the same importance as a human. In fact, the only verse (Exodus 21:22-25) that leans towards that indicates that embryos and fetuses were not considered as important as the woman who was carrying it.

Because the Bible does not specifically spell it out, different religions differ on how to interpret what the Bible says that might be construed as reference toward abortion.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM - WE DO NOT ALL AGREE ON THIS. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A PROBLEM. YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT. WE DO NOT AGREE.
GET IT?
Anonymous said…
so Pat how long was the longest thread on your sight so far?? In the 50s some where wasn't it??

Anon 5:24 sure doesn't know her Bible very well does she??
Anonymous said…
Hang in there Bishop!
nonnie said…
4:57. While we might not agree, at least I'm not calling anyone an idiot. And most of the negative comments regarding the Bishop were regarding his stance on abortion. Thus my comments on life. It is still an issue regarding life, the sanctity of life, and whether people consider life worth protecting at all stages.
Mom said…
It is interesting that in all the codified laws EVERYTHING is either classified as person or property.

At one time in US history we classified black people as 3/5ths person--so that they weren't quite equal.

So what is a 7 day old "snowflake" baby? Is it person--worthy of respect and valued as life? or property--can be experimented on, exterminated at will, not worthy of respect?

Or do we assign them something like a 3/5th personhood??
Anonymous said…
8:34 - One of the problems between religions is that some people are arrogant enough to believe that anyone who disagrees with them could not possibly be informed enough to know about what they are talking. It appears that you fall into that category.

I challenge you to find anywhere in the Bible where it specifically or literally refers to abortion and where it specifically or literally states that an unborn child has the same value as someone who has been born.

Note that I use the words specifically or literally. I don't mean someone's interpretation of certain verses - I think we've already heard all of those - but something that specifically or literally says that.

Be sure to include the book, chapter and verses.

We will be waiting for your answer.
Anonymous said…
8:39 - Hang in there, Bishop? Why?

I thought the only time bishops had problems was when they were accused of sexual abuse.
PP said…
Actually, I think it was in the 80's
Anonymous said…
What's the big deal? If SD Catholics paid any attention to the bishop or even the pope for that matter there would be two million of them in our fair state.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th