HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Bill de Blasio under fire...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 08:38 AM

Bill de Blasio under fire for omitting Catholic clergy from 60-member transition team

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/de-blasio-fire-omitting-catholics-transition-team-article-1.1525589

Despite including two rabbis, two Christian ministers and an imam on the 'diverse' team, the mayor-elect does not have any Catholics helping him choose his cabinet and policy options as he prepares to enter City Hall.

...

Making the slight even more glaring, the team — which de Blasio has repeatedly called “diverse” — includes five spiritual leaders from other major religions.

De Blasio appointed two rabbis, two Christian ministers, and an imam to the team, which will help him choose a cabinet and policy priorities for his term.

The absence of leaders from the world’s largest Christian denomination — the religion practiced by more than half the city — sparked an uproar among some Catholics.


Why do ANY religious leaders need to be on a transition team for a secular political office?

111 replies, 3313 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 111 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bill de Blasio under fire for omitting Catholic clergy from 60-member transition team (Original post)
trotsky Nov 2013 OP
Act_of_Reparation Nov 2013 #1
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #8
Act_of_Reparation Nov 2013 #9
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #10
Act_of_Reparation Nov 2013 #22
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #23
skepticscott Nov 2013 #88
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #89
whathehell Nov 2013 #76
Act_of_Reparation Nov 2013 #78
Goblinmonger Nov 2013 #14
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #15
skepticscott Nov 2013 #35
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #36
skepticscott Nov 2013 #37
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #42
skepticscott Nov 2013 #43
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #44
skepticscott Nov 2013 #45
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #46
skepticscott Nov 2013 #47
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #48
rug Nov 2013 #49
skepticscott Nov 2013 #50
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #55
skepticscott Nov 2013 #57
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #58
okasha Nov 2013 #53
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #56
eomer Nov 2013 #52
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #54
Act_of_Reparation Nov 2013 #59
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #60
trotsky Nov 2013 #62
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #63
rug Nov 2013 #61
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #64
eomer Nov 2013 #77
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #80
eomer Nov 2013 #85
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #91
trotsky Nov 2013 #96
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #97
trotsky Nov 2013 #99
rug Nov 2013 #18
Goblinmonger Nov 2013 #19
rug Nov 2013 #21
Lordquinton Nov 2013 #30
rug Nov 2013 #31
Lordquinton Nov 2013 #32
rug Nov 2013 #33
Goblinmonger Nov 2013 #39
rug Nov 2013 #40
Goblinmonger Nov 2013 #38
rug Nov 2013 #41
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #65
rug Nov 2013 #68
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #71
BeyondGeography Nov 2013 #51
last1standing Nov 2013 #26
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #29
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #66
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #67
trotsky Nov 2013 #82
skepticscott Nov 2013 #87
rug Nov 2013 #2
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #7
Humanist_Activist Nov 2013 #11
rug Nov 2013 #12
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #17
Humanist_Activist Nov 2013 #24
hrmjustin Nov 2013 #25
Goblinmonger Nov 2013 #13
rug Nov 2013 #16
okasha Nov 2013 #20
last1standing Nov 2013 #27
rug Nov 2013 #28
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #3
trotsky Nov 2013 #4
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #5
trotsky Nov 2013 #6
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #69
skepticscott Nov 2013 #72
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #75
trotsky Nov 2013 #79
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #81
trotsky Nov 2013 #83
skepticscott Nov 2013 #86
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #90
Iggo Nov 2013 #92
Goblinmonger Nov 2013 #94
skepticscott Nov 2013 #95
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #98
skepticscott Nov 2013 #100
trotsky Nov 2013 #102
cleanhippie Nov 2013 #107
skepticscott Nov 2013 #110
cleanhippie Nov 2013 #106
cleanhippie Nov 2013 #104
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #73
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #74
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #84
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #93
trotsky Nov 2013 #103
skepticscott Nov 2013 #109
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #105
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2013 #34
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #70
MADem Nov 2013 #101
SummerSnow Nov 2013 #108
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2013 #111

Response to trotsky (Original post)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 08:45 AM

1. Christian privilege, in a nutshell

Taking away the cushy position they've enjoyed-but-in-no-way-deserved for nearly a century? HOW DARE HE!

Oh, well. Maybe we'll get another Bill Donohue interview out of it. Those always make me laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 12:04 PM

8. This is a city full of Catholics. I think he can add a RC priest.

BTWZ I proudly voted for de Blasio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 12:26 PM

9. That's right, the city is full of Catholics...

...and they think that entitles them to advise de Blasio on filling his cabinet. It does not. End of story.

As New York's dominant religious demographic, Roman Catholics already have de Blasio's undivided attention, especially if he wants to run for reelection. At least with the Rabbis, Imams, and Pastors, he's seeking out input from religious minorities whose voices are not as readily heard over the bluster of majoritarian sentiment--I don't necessarily agree they should have been included in this specific assembly, but I agree with the logic of minority representation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 01:04 PM

10. There are plenty of progressive prieststo put on the team. this was a mistake.

I Would also say eastern religion clergy should be represented as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 06:26 PM

22. It doesn't matter if they are progressives or bokononists

The question remains as to why the leader of a secular institution should feel obligated to seek counsel from religious leaders when forming his cabinet. Assuredly there are more qualified advisors out there.

And make no mistake, if de Blasio had picked progressive priests, Donohue would still be blubbering about it. He's just that kind of guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 06:28 PM

23. They are not obligated. Donahue is a joke that wants an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:37 PM

88. I'm sure you'd like to dismiss him

and pretend that millions of Catholics don't think like he does... but you can't do that and still live in the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #88)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:40 PM

89. I know thete are people whpo agree with him but he is a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:11 AM

76. Guess what?

There's no reason they're not at least as "entitled" as the rabbis, the Imam, and the pastors. End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #76)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 08:03 AM

78. I've already indicated as much

None of them entitled to membership at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:29 PM

14. It's a city full of atheists, too.

Don't see them on there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:31 PM

15. I agree. There should be represented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:30 AM

35. Why should atheists be deliberately represented?

Do you you have a logical justification for that, or is it just trying to appear conciliatory, or a general hand-waving for "diversity"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:16 AM

36. Beccause they are apart of my city and they should be represented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #36)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:20 AM

37. The Russian mob is part of your city

Should they be represented? Should shoe salesmen be represented? What are your logical criteria for who belongs on a transition team and who doesn't? Do you have any? Or, as suggested, are you just paying lip service to "diversity"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 05:04 PM

42. I said they should be included because I believe they should be.

Religious communities are major part of this city and have a voice here. I want non-believers to have a voice too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #42)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 06:37 PM

43. Basing political decisions on "faith" and "belief"

is a really lousy idea, wouldn't you agree? You've certainly pretended to argue that way on other occasions. But I asked if you had any logical criteria for who to include on a transition team. I think even you would agree that your personal "belief" does not remotely qualify, so I have to wonder why you would consider that an answer to the question I posed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #43)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 06:40 PM

44. Pretended? The things you say.

As mayor of this city he will have to rely greatly on religious leaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #44)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 06:55 PM

45. And why will he have to rely equally greatly on atheist leaders?

It's your claim that atheists should be equally represented on the transition team that is in question here. I maintain again that you made that statement in an ultimately insincere attempt to appear conciliatory, or kneeling at the foolish altar of diversity for diversity's sake, rather than because of any logical criteria for the selection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #45)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 06:58 PM

46. ok well judge me all you want. Leave me out of it.

I believe in fair play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 07:20 PM

47. I'd be happy to leave you out of everything

But you insist on injecting ill-considered opinions into the discussion, and in responding endlessly to the corrections of those errors. If you are being honest about wanting to be left out, you're free to leave yourself out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #47)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 07:23 PM

48. Oh Lord help me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #48)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 07:53 PM

49. Lol!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:10 AM

50. Let us know when His help arrives, willya?

but I'm guessing even you won't be holding your breath waiting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #50)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:49 PM

55. oh he did help me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #55)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 05:16 PM

57. Wow, you really didn't mean it

when you said "leave me out of it" did you?

And what would you think of a politician who said that the "Lord" was helping him do his job? As opposed to one who said that Xenu was helping him do his job?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #57)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 05:33 PM

58. Are you asking me how I wo6ld handle my mayor calling on a different God?

Just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:36 AM

53. Lol. It's one of those

"God give me patience, and I need it right now" situations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #53)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:49 PM

56. Yeah something like that. lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #44)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:05 AM

52. I wouldn't want my mayor to rely at all on religious leaders.

I look at this in the context of the faith-based initiatives that were started at the federal level during Bush II and continued by Obama. I'm opposed to a faith-based initiative in government at any level. Let government directly provide for the needs of people in its jurisdiction, don't funnel money for helping the poor or other afflicted through religious organizations.

Churches and their leaders have a vested interest in government being ineffectual. If government isn't effective at providing a safety net then the churches have the large pool of people needing help that they can take advantage of in their proselytizing activities. And then with faith-based initiatives the church is even funded by the government in those activities taking advantage of the needy. I don't think we need more people who want government to fail advising it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #52)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:48 PM

54. Any mayor in this city who does not rely on community leaders is not a good mayor.

Religious leaders are community leaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #54)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 08:43 AM

59. You aren't going to argue this away with one-sentence tropes...

The transition team isn't about building ties with community leaders, it is about selecting candidates for cabinet positions. Ideal team members, one must logically conclude, are those with a detailed knowledge of the positions, and those who are able to evaluate the qualifications of potential appointees.

Seeing as there is no Secretary of Catholicism, or Secretary of Judaism, or Secretary of Quality Footware, I fail to see why including Priests, Rabbis, or cobblers for no other reason than their demographics is a good idea. Opportunities abound for the Mayor of New York to meet with religious leaders and build community ties, none of which may permit religious leaders to directly affect government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #59)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:59 AM

60. Do you agree thatbhe has a right to pick religious leaders on his transition team?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #60)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:00 PM

62. If you're going to take that angle,

then you've just defeated your own position. You can't simultaneously claim that he can pick whoever he wants, but also whine that he should include X, Y, and Z.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #62)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:16 PM

63. I asked a question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #59)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:44 PM

61. No it isn't. It's about establishing priorities and making plans to achieve them.

Things may be different in Connecticut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:22 PM

64. As was said before

Religious leaders are significant leaders in the community. Therefore, your statement, "I wouldn't want my mayor to rely at all on religious leaders" is saying "I wouldn't want my mayor to rely at all on a significant group of community leaders", which is simply silly.

An even sillier statement is your

Churches and their leaders have a vested interest in government being ineffectual. If government isn't effective at providing a safety net then the churches have the large pool of people needing help that they can take advantage of in their proselytizing activities. And then with faith-based initiatives the church is even funded by the government in in those activities taking advantage of the needy. I don't think we need more people who want government to fail advising it.


Only someone with extremely limited experience with charitable organizations would say that. Yes, at a soup kitchen run by a Christian mission, one will be expected to pray before the meal, and one may also be expected to hear a sermon. And I know, from personal experience, just how effective the staff at the mission knows the sermon will be.

However, most religious based charitable organizations do not seek to proselytize. And it is a flat out LIE to say that they are "taking advantage of the needy", and you should apologize for the base slander. My wife spent several years on the board of Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Joliet, Illinois. Catholic Charities did not "want government to fail", if for no other reason than a fair amount of the funding came from the government. Catholic Charities runs things such as Head Start programs, which are largely state-funded (and proselytizing is strictly forbidden under the contract with the state). Well over two-thirds of adoptions in Illinois are done through either Catholic Social Services or Lutheran Social Services under contracts from the State Department of Children and Family Services; again, without any hint of proselytization.

Religious people and organizations do charitable work because we believe that we are called upon to do so. Performing charitable works are a mitzvah for Jews, a fard for Muslims and a command for Christians. In Matthew 25, Christ says that clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, tending the sick and so on are necessary for salvation. James 2 says that if we claim to have faith, but our faith is not shown by our acts, then that faith is dead. In Judaism, giving to the poor is viewed as an act of justice and righteousness, the performance of a duty, giving the poor their due. Islam has a similar concept.

No, eomer, your statement that religious charitable organizations are taking advantage of the needy and that they want government to fail are slanders of the most egregious sort. I am particularly infuriated by your statement that religious people do charitable work only for the basest of motives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #64)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:32 AM

77. You're right, I was too broad-brushed about motivations behind charity of religious groups.

I am sure there are religious groups that do charity for the right reasons. I am also certain there are religious groups that do charity for the chance to proselytize. What the percentage is of each I don't know.

Unfortunately the groups that I've encountered personally were of the type that do it to proselytize. I recently attended training for a prison visitation program of the Catholic Archdiocese in my area. It was quite surprising that the one and only thing being taught in a training class that lasted a full day was that the volunteers were to minister to the prisoners only on matters of religion. They were taught not to engage in discussion of the prisoner's personal life and the difficulties such as family relations due to being incarcerated. They were not to engage in discussion about conditions, including abusive conditions, at the facility. They were not allowed to minister to the person's human needs; they were allowed to do no other thing than proselytize!

(I say "they" in the above because the deacon doing the training and eventually everyone in the class knew I was a UU and an atheist. I was there because I thought I would learn something useful about prison visitation but did not because the approach we take in our new visitation program is the exact opposite - we ask volunteers not to engage on religion unless the prisoner specifically wants to and instead we engage on the human aspects of their incarceration. We're recruiting volunteers mostly from the community and not with any attempt to find people who are religious - in other words it is really a secular program.)

In another example, a family member wanted to volunteer for a program helping kids run by a local Baptist church. But even though she is Christian she did not meet their religious litmus tests and was not allowed to volunteer. Clearly the reason that her religious beliefs mattered to them was that they see religion as a central part of their ministering to these people in need of help.

All the instances in my personal experience are similar where clearly the program had proselytizing as a central component and motivation. As I said, I don't know what the percentage is in real life as obviously my personal experience could be a statistical outliier. So please allow me to modify my statement, with apologies, to say that I don't want religious leaders involved in government because I don't trust them to have the right motivations. Some of them do, some of them don't, and I don't see a particular need to have them involved anyway so my solution would be separation of church and state, vigorously applied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #77)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:28 AM

80. Sorry that you had such a bad experience

I can understand how you feel. However, my first point stands: You are saying that you do not want a group of community leaders because they might have bad motives, since they belong to that group.

If I were to say that I would not want Jews as part of that group because Jews have a reputation for being greedy and grasping, you would probably call that bigoted. Yet you have no problem smearing religious leaders in general with a similar brush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #80)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 05:50 PM

85. What I'm saying is that there is a movement called the faith-based initiative...

and I'm opposed to it. It creates special slots in government that are specifically for religious groups. If religious groups want to interact with government like any other NGO then that's an improvement. However, the other thing that we have in these times is a lack of transparency in our government that allows groups of all types to interact improperly with our government. I actually don't think any type of non-governmental leaders should have positions of privilege with our government. How about having government of, for, and by the people for a change?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #85)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 09:24 AM

91. Religious leaders represent no part of the people?

That's what you are now saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #91)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:36 PM

96. Should they be appointed to positions of influence in secular government...

simply BECAUSE they are religious leaders? Is that an acceptable sole qualification?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:04 PM

97. Should they be denied a part in forming the mayor's agenda because they are religious leaders?

That's what you seem to be arguing.

As I keep saying, they are leaders in the community, but you would apparently deny them a place because they are religious leaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #97)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:21 PM

99. No, this is about getting special privileges simply by being a "religious leader."

I realize why you want to reframe it as to being "denied," because that's a more tenable position.

But that's not what's happening here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:47 PM

18. How would you know?

For one thing, the members of the transition time are not at the link.

Here they are:

In addition to the two chairs of the team, Carl Weisbrod and Jennifer Jones Austin, who were previously announced, here are the names unveiled by Mr. de Blasio:
•Thelma Golden, director and chief curator, Studio Museum of Harlem
•Dr. Marta Moreno Vega, president and founder of the Caribbean Cultural Center African Diaspora Institute
•Cheryl Cohen Effron, founder, Greater NY; former president, ATC Management
•Karen Brooks Hopkins, president, Brooklyn Academy of Music
•Alexa Avilés, program officer, Scherman Foundation; co-president, Parent Teacher Association of Public School 172
•Zakiyah Ansari, advocacy director, Alliance for Quality Education
•Maxine Griffith, executive vice president and special adviser for campus planning, Office of Government and Community Affairs, Columbia University
•Kate Sinding, senior attorney, New York Urban Program, Natural Resources Defense Council
•Una Clarke, former City Council member, Brooklyn
•MaryAnne Gilmartin, president and CEO, Forest City Ratner Companies
•Bertha Lewis, president and founder, The Black Institute
•Marcia A. Smith, president, Firelight Media
•Ana Oliveira, president and CEO, the New York Women's Foundation
•Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, senior rabbi, Congregation Beit Simchat Torah
•Darren Walker, president, Ford Foundation
•Martha Baker, executive director and CEO, Nontraditional Employment for Women
•Dr. Katherine LaGuardia, assistant clinical professor, obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive science, Mount Sinai Medical Center
•Dr. Conchita M. Mendoza, chief of geriatrics, University Hospital of Brooklyn, Long Island College Hospital
•Cynthia Nixon, actress
•Arnold L. Lehman, director, Brooklyn Museum
•Oskar Eustis, artistic director, the Public Theater
•Edward (Ed) Lewis, founder, Essence Communications
•Richard Buery, Jr., president and CEO, the Children's Aid Society
•William Floyd, head of external affairs, Google
•Meyer (Sandy) Frucher, vice chairman, the NASDAQ OMX Group
•Orin Kramer, founder, Boston Provident LP
•Vincent (Vinny) Alvarez, president, NYC Central Labor Council
•Peter Madonia, COO, the Rockefeller Foundation
•Ken Sunshine, founder, Sunshine Sachs
•Harold Ickes, former White House deputy chief of staff
•Dr. Rafael Lantigua, professor of clinical medicine, New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center
•John Banks, vice president of government relations, Con Edison; Board Member, Metropolitan Transit Authority
•Douglas (Doug) Durst, chairman, the Durst Organization
•Derrick Cephas, partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges; former CEO and president, Amalgamated Bank
•Herb Sturz, co-founder, Vera Institute of Justice
•Jeremy Travis, president, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
•Rabbi Michael Miller, executive vice president and CEO, Jewish Community Relations Council
•Pastor Michael Walrond, Jr., director of Ministers Division, National Action Network; Seventh Senior Pastor, First Corinthian Baptist Church
•Udai Tambar, executive director, South Asian Youth Action
•David Jones, president and CEO, Community Service Society of New York
•Marvin Hellman, president, OHEL Children's Home and Family Services
•Rev. A.R. Bernard, founder and senior pastor, and CEO, Christian Cultural Center
•George Gresham, president, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East
•Dr. Steven Safyer, president and CEO, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
•Ken Lerer, managing director, Lerer Ventures; former chairman and co-founder, Huffington Post
•Imam Khalid Latif, executive director and chaplain, Islamic Center, New York University
•Marian Fontana, board member, Lower Manhattan Development Corp., Families Advisory Council
•Tim Armstrong, chairman and CEO, AOL.
•Kevin Ryan, founder and chairman, Gilt
•Pam Kwatra, president, Kripari Marketing; executive committee, Indian National Overseas Congress
•Elsie Saint Louis, executive director, Haitian-Americans United for Progress
•Vanessa Leung, deputy director, Coalition for Asian American Children & Families
•Paula Gavin, executive director, Fund for Public Advocacy
•Kim Sweet, executive director, Advocates for Children of New York
•Dr. Marcia Keizs, president, York College, The City University of New York
•Jukay Hsu, founder, Coalition for Queens
•Arnie Segarra, activist and longtime NYC public servant
•Elba Montalvo, founder, president and CEO, the Committee for Hispanic Children and Families
•Mindy Tarlow, executive director and CEO, Center for Employment Opportunities
•Hoong Yee Lee Krakauer, executive director, Queens Council on the Arts

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20131120/BLOGS04/131129984#


For another thing, how do you know none of them are atheists? Some, like you, may prefer to keep it secret in a professional setting. Or maybe they don't consider it significant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 04:11 PM

19. I know

that there is nobody that is the "atheist voice" like there is for every other religion on there. Why is that? Maybe those people are Catholics but that hasn't stopped the Catholics from pointing out the absence. Is it just atheists that should shut up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 04:59 PM

21. If you look closely, the people on the list are not there for their belief - or nonbelief - but

for their accomplishments and the needs of the city as a progressive Democratic administration sees them.

But don't let that stop you from feeling slighted. I'm sure that's the paramount concern here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 11:58 PM

30. I'm assuming you misclicked

and this is your response to the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:01 AM

31. Your assumption is incorrect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #31)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:18 AM

32. So your Anti Atheist bias is showing

Glad we sorted that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #32)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 07:19 AM

33. Are you calling me a bigot, quinton?

Let's sort this out right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #33)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:46 AM

39. Don't you hate when you don't get the jury results you wanted?

Hopefully he realizes this is an attempt to try get another, more friendly, jury to block him from the conversation.

I know, I know...."you" didn't alert on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:53 AM

40. Tell me about it. Isn't that what you use this forum for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #21)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:44 AM

38. Pick a side. It's really easier to have a conversation when you do.

There are people that are on the team because of religious affilitiation. I think that's bullshit but if you're going to do it in NYC, then there should be Catholics on there. There should also be atheists on there. Both for their designation. I don't think there should be any for any religious designation but if you're gong to do that then make them all represented.

As to your flip-flopping.

1. I said there aren't any atheists.
2. You gave me a long list and said "How do I know those aren't athiests."
3. I said there are likely Catholics on the list but that doesn't mean there isn't still a lack of a spot designated for Catholics.
4. Now you are saying those people are on the list not for their religious stance.

Fine. Either the religious affilitation of those people is important or it isn't. Just let me know which side of that you're on so I can respond with some hope that you won't jump to the other side of that argument in response to me.

Here's what I do know:
1. There are spots on the committee for religiously specific groups. (Which is bullshit)
2. THere are no Catholics (Also bullshit)
3. There are no athiests (Again, bullshit)

So I don't like any of that.

I have no fucking clue what you think of any of it other than you will take a stance against whatever I say. So, let me know your thoughts and I'll see if I agree with you because you're all over the place here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #38)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:58 AM

41. Let me clear this up for you.

The people on that list have an impact on the city.

Some of them have an impact due to the social benefit of their religious activities.

Grasp that.

Now tell me why there are no overt atheists on the list. Or is that "antiatheist"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #41)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 05:07 PM

65. How does he know there are no atheists on the list?

Or is he just doing the "They are being mean to atheists" whine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #65)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 05:14 PM

68. I expect he means representatives of atheist organizations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #68)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 06:21 PM

71. OK, that makes sense

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:42 AM

51. What a glorious hodgepodge...I'm sure they're all very focused on the transition

A well-coordinated machine. Or maybe just a sprawling, meaningless muddle.

I vote the latter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 08:54 PM

26. He could but he didn't.

if he begins his first term by bowing to the will of hate-filled homophobes like Donahoe, he'll likely never see a second. First rule of successful politics: Dance with thems that brung ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to last1standing (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 09:25 PM

29. 75% of the voters brought him there. I agree Donahue is a bigot and a jerk, and he does

not represent th Catholics of this city.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 05:11 PM

66. Yeah, Bill Donahue really represents no one except himself.

There is a Catholic joke that the "Catholic League" consists of Bill Donohue and a mimeograph machine.

He chases after slights, real or (more often) imagined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #66)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 05:13 PM

67. Yeah he is a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #66)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:37 AM

82. That's a pretty lame joke.

The Catholic League is the "the largest Catholic advocacy organization in America." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_League_%28U.S.%29) They have a 16-member board of directors and a large board of advisors. Cardinals Tim Dolan, Edwin O’Brien, and Sean O'Malley have spoken favorably of the organization and its work. (http://www.catholicleague.org/about-us/)

The Catholic League enjoys far more support from the church and its leadership than "Nuns on the bus" or any other group like that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #82)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:35 PM

87. Guess we should ignore the Catholic League "at our peril"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Original post)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 08:58 AM

2. Why should ANY religious leader speak on civil rights in a secular setting?



Why should ANY imam be heard on NYPD surveillance?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/nypd-muslim-surveillance_n_2855303.html

Why should ANY religious leader be heard on fair wages?

http://www.iwj.org/locations/new-york

Why should ANY religious leader be heard on the vulnerable homeless?

http://www.nycreligion.info/?p=6230

Divisive, counterproductive post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 12:02 PM

7. Thank you rug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:20 PM

11. Wouldn't all of those be better served by the leaders of secular political/activist groups?

I don't understand your post, do you not like separation of church and state? In addition, do other cities have this practice? Because it sounds absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:27 PM

12. Better? Not necessarily. It depends on who it is and what is said.

You sound like you do not like diverse voices in a diverse society.

As far as NYC goes, there has always been a transition team bringing in voices from all over this enormous city. They are all unpaid volunteers. DeBlasio is casting a wide net to make sure all constituencies have a voice, especially those who are focused on the underserved. That's what progressives do.

Frankly, in the face of the reality of NYC, this complaint about religious leaders being heard in a transition of administrations is, kindly, churlish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:45 PM

17. Are you saying religious leaders and people can not lead movements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 07:46 PM

24. No, I'm saying our public officials shouldn't give them special consideration because...

they are leaders of religious organizations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 07:50 PM

25. I can agree with that. I doubt de Blasio will.

He will touch base with religious leaders in this city often. That is just being a good mayor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:29 PM

13. MLK was the mayor of DC?

Didn't know that?

Or are you saying he was on a transition team for the DC mayor?
Didn't know that either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:35 PM

16. Coyness is not your most flattering attribute.

I see you didn't read any of the links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 04:15 PM

20. In most if not all cities of any size,

religious non-profit organizations partner or collaborate with governmental offices on human service projects. A large number of those NPO's are Catholic--good enough reason to include a representative of the RCC on a committee whose purview will include those activities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 08:59 PM

27. The difference is between "can" and "must."

Religious can be very helpful and supportive or they can use you for there own advancement. Donahoe is pushing for the latter.

Regardless, De Blasio already has several religious people helping him in the transition, must he have representatives from EVERY religion? If so, I demand Deists be represented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to last1standing (Reply #27)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 09:18 PM

28. Donohue's an ass. DeBlasio is consulting with those he thinks will best help him run the city.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Original post)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 09:03 AM

3. Why are there ANY spirit-worshipers on any transition team?

What can they add? It seems to me the purpose of a transition team is to plan government services such that they are not interrupted. What does any of that have to do with imaginary friends?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 09:13 AM

4. Despite the questionable (at best!) need for religious leaders on a transition team,

we see here an additional problem of them being included: someone's ALWAYS going to be pissed that they aren't represented (or represented adequately). Say he adds a priest. Well how come there are 2 rabbis but only one priest? OK, add a second priest. Hey, what about Hindus? Where does it end? What about non-believers? Do they have a representative on the team?

I'd wager that more problems are created than solved by this practice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 09:17 AM

5. What the hell is a 60-person transition team anyway?

You need people working with each major agency to make a smooth transition of leadership. That is essentially a bureaucratic function, not a political one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 09:23 AM

6. "That is essentially a bureaucratic function, not a political one."

I completely agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 05:18 PM

69. Apparently, you believe that believers are ipso factp idiots.

I almost called you a bigot, but calling atheists bigoted is frowned on DU (although, I can say from personal experience, that calling a believer a "drooling mouthed, bigoted moron" is perfectly acceptable)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #69)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 06:36 PM

72. You could SAY that

But whether you could actually back it up and show that it's true is another matter. So go ahead…point everyone reading this to where a believer on DU was called a "drooling mouthed, bigoted moron" with nothing coming of it.

My money's on can't. My money's on this being another invented quote from you. But prove me wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #72)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:06 AM

75. No problemo

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=100028

And, as you see, the poster Heddi was crowing that "It's nice to see that the jury got this one right" on my being called a "drooling mouthed, bigoted moron".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #75)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:26 AM

79. BWAH HA HA HA

Bookmarked!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #79)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:32 AM

81. I notice that you did not apologize for implying that I lied.

But then, why should I expect you to be gracious? I was accused of being a "drooling mouthed, bigoted moron" because I said that some DU atheists were arseholes. Yet here you are, almost falling over in your eagerness to show that I was right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #81)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:39 AM

83. Want to read this subthread a little more closely...

and see if you want really to direct that at me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #75)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 06:07 PM

86. Wow..too funny

Based on the jury's comments, their giving a pass to someone calling you a "drooling mouthed bigoted moron" had nothing to do with bigotry or prejudice against believers in general, or even because YOU happen to be a believer (assuming you are). In fact, if it had been any other believer on DU, they probably would have come down 6-0 to hide that post. That they came down 5-1 in favor of the person calling you a "drooling mouthed, bigoted moron" should tell you something personal was going on. Whether you'll take the message to heart is another matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #86)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 09:22 AM

90. I see

Personal animosity is an acceptable excuse for calling someone a "drooling mouthed bigoted moron"

Nice to see that you admit that you approve of double standards. It makes you an example of what would generally be described as an oxymoron, an honest hypocrite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #90)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:13 AM

92. Now that you've posted four or five times in this thread, I can't separate it from your screen name.

Thanks a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #90)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:51 PM

94. I think those jury results fall under the

"if it walks like a duck" scenario. But it's good that you brought that up for others to see your antics. Thought you were done with posting here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #90)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:02 PM

95. If I'd said anything like that, your post might make sense

but I didn't. I said nothing about "personal animosity" and I didn't say that anything was "acceptable". I pointed out that your claim of that "calling a believer a 'drooling mouthed, bigoted moron' is perfectly acceptable" rings pretty hollow, since the reason that a jury accepted it without hiding had nothing whatsoever to do with your being a "believer". That jury apparently felt that appellation suited you perfectly and that you personally deserved it, belief notwithstanding, in spite of site rules.

And the only double standard here is yours. You're the one that thinks it's perfectly acceptable to call people "arseholes" and "bigots" here as long as you think that's what they are, but when someone calls you a mean name because they think that's what YOU are, you get all whiny and start playing the poor, persecuted "believer". And kudos the to juror who pointed that out to you. Pot…meet kettle..goose..gander.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #95)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:11 PM

98. Sure seemed to me you were saying that.

And, on re-reading what you wrote, I see no reason to change my opinion.

I have been slapped down for calling bigoted atheists on their bigotry. Yes, you atheists don't like it when you spout bigotry and I have the audacity to say, "You are making bigoted statements". Yet when I am called a bigot, this is declared perfectly OK. Unlike you, I am standing up for a single standard: If I am damned for calling someone a bigot -- because this is deemed a personal attack -- then when I am called a bigot, the person making the personal attack on me should be treated the same way I was.

Your whine about pots and kettles, geese and ganders simply goes to show that you are being hypocritical. You don't want to be called a bigot, but you see nothing wrong with me being called a bigot. The double standard is all on your side, not mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #98)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:42 PM

100. Nice try

But nowhere did I say that I thought that post was "acceptable". I simply pointed out to you why a jury found it acceptable, since you seemed (and still seem) not to be getting that.

You, on the other hand, have tried to have it both ways, and then complained about it. And complained. And complained. And everyone here sees it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to trotsky (Reply #102)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:55 PM

107. Bwahahahaha! Epic Skinner smack down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #102)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 01:25 PM

110. Apparently his own words

have shamed him into silence. And his reference to atheists as "whiny little babies" is particularly ironic in light of that post, and his running to the admins to complain about the deep injustices being done to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #98)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:54 PM

106. Your whine is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #90)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:52 PM

104. Your whine is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #69)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 09:39 PM

73. believing in spiorits is not a skill needed for government transition.

If a spirit-believer happened to also be an expert at garbage collection, or public safety, then I think it would make sense to include then for their expertise. But to establish the transition team with quotas of people solely on the basis that they have an irrational belief system doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

In that case, why not require a certain number of people who are Rolling Stones fans, and a certain number of people that have unibrows, and a certain number of people who can name all the Presidents backwards? These criteria just aren't relevant to anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #73)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 06:53 AM

74. What I read you as saying is that believers have nothing to add

Because they are believers. Now, if I misread you, I apologize. But you must admit that your post -- and your follow-up post -- are not exactly exemplars of open-mindedness. Saying that "spirit worshipers" have "imaginary friends" and are thus "irrational" is not the way to win friends and influence people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #74)

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:40 AM

84. Belief in the supernatural is irrelevant to the orderly transition of government

Now, if the Mayor sees a need for community outreach to placate the various religious tribes, maybe he needs an initiative there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #84)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:20 PM

93. In other words, you agree with me that you believe the Mayor should shun certain groups

Because YOU disapprove of them. A remarkably parochial idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #93)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:51 PM

103. Or in other words, what you're saying...

is that you want a theocracy in the United States run by the Catholic church? A remarkably medieval idea.

(Two can play that game, FA.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #103)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 10:02 PM

109. Notice how our friend

only seems to be able to make an argument by mis-stating or misrepresenting what someone else has said? Over and over on this thread, the same tired tactic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #93)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:53 PM

105. No. There is somply no reason to include groups because of their religious beliefs any more than

you would include the top cheerleaders from each high school, representatives from the MG Midget fan club or any other group that has no bearing on the smooth transition of government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 07:41 AM

34. Catholic priests in Britain stay away from political positions

Even after retirement, the Archbishop of Westminster eventually decided not to accept a seat in the House of Lords:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor turns down peerage following Catholic row

He was poised to become the first Roman Catholic bishop in the Upper House since the Reformation, as part of a drive by the Prime Minister to appoint senior leaders of all the main faiths to sit alongside Church of England bishops.
...
He told this newspaper that he declined the honour after consulting with the Vatican. In secret meetings of senior clerics held to canvass opinion, concerns had been expressed over the implications of the cardinal accepting the offer.
...
Some of the bishops who were consulted were against the move on the grounds that it could compromise the Church's freedom to be an impartial and critical voice. Others argued that canon law forbids clergy from taking any office that might involve the exercise of political power.
...
There was disagreement over whether the law was applicable, but had it been deemed so, a special dispensation from Pope Benedict XVI would have been needed to allow the cardinal to enter the Lords.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6736484/Cardinal-Cormac-Murphy-OConnor-turns-down-peerage-following-Catholic-row.html


And that was after he had retired from the position of archbishop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #34)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 05:40 PM

70. In 1974, Pope John Paul II told Robert Drinan, SJ not to seek re-election to the US Congress

As the Code of Canon Law, Canon 285 §3 says "Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power." Drinan, as a good Jesuit, obeyed. Of course, at exactly the same time, JPII was interfering in Polish politics for all he was worth. But, of course, that's different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:44 PM

101. I'm guessing he doesn't want to hear from the crew that aren't taking

their boss's words to heart quite yet.

A lot of the US Catholic leadership is still kind of "anti-Francis" in that they aren't embracing his attitudes about what is REALLY important.

A lot of people need to either retire or die before that organization will get correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 05:23 PM

108. just keep religion out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Original post)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 05:20 PM

111. It’s Time to Play ‘Bill de Blasio or the Pope?’

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread