Great voice.

Or was she just a good person?

As was A Philip Randolph.

Why do you ask?

Does this strong personal opposition make her a bad person?

I'm just pointing out that her "social action" included opposition to birth control and abortion.

Everyone should know the facts, don't you agree?

And many people oppose abortion. Her position is in line with RCC teaching.

She was also a pacifist. Not all Democrats are pacifists.

And if so, you have a right to a different opinion.

She was a pacifist, and opposed to taking life, so her position is consistent.

Abortion is NOT "taking life."

That is a fucking disgusting anti-choice talking point and to see you promote it on a progressive site is repulsive.

that he believes a woman who has had an abortion has taken a life, and that she has done A Bad Thing.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218247789#post18

He puts out so much objectionable content it's hard to keep track of it all, I guess.

Read the excerpt that you posted.

I am pro-choice and pro-life. My position that it is wrong is a personal position. Others must make that choice for themselves.

You have some funny ideas, Gil. I put your own words up there for everyone to see.

Mariana even provided a link for anyone to go and investigate.

Add this to the long, long list of reasons why no one takes you seriously.

for something, but my position is more nuanced.

Abortion is NOT "taking life."

If it is, then YOUR GOD is "taking life" every time a woman spontaneously aborts, which would make him/her/it history's most prolific abortionist by multiple orders of magnitude so how about you keep your judgmental nose in your own goddamned religious bullshit and stop trying to shame women by claiming they are "taking life" if they choose abortion?

This really disgusts me. You should be ashamed.

Contraception takes no lives, and abortion ends a pregnancy before birth. Not everyone agrees that it is the taking of a life. I reject her positions on both. How about you? Are you opposed to contraception? Abortion? Both? One, but not the other?

Do tell.

For the good work she did, I praise her. For her opinion on a woman's right to choose, I do not. Again, what the RCC decides to do about her is completely irrelevant to anything. She is dead, and does no more with regard to any of it.

their own bodies. It is a truly repulsive and repressive position.

I just don't.

Fuck that noise.

Thanks for your pacifism, Dorothy, but you can shove your misogynistic theology where the sun don't shine.

Being a good person isn't enough for sainthood.

Not any of the good works she might have done?

Fascinating. Not surprising. But fascinating.

Please let me know exactly what you mean by it. I am uncertain.

If I've misinterpreted your meaning, the onus to clarify is on you.

I don't care whether she is recognized, sainted, or anything else. She did good work. We have a Dorothy Day center for the homeless here in the Twin Cities. I very much disagree, however, with her position on contraception and abortion. I don't know if she ever prevented an abortion nor whether she stopped anyone from using contraception. If so, then I condemn her for doing those things.

Her being a Catholic, I think, had not much to do with her character, frankly. Now, she's dead and can do neither good nor harm. What the RCC does about her is irrelevant.

but I am also pro-choice. My view, and that of my wife, is that each person must decide for themselves.

OK...

but he feels the need to make sure we know exactly what he thinks of women who make a choice he doesn't like.

They never have to decide. They just cause pregnancies.

Men's opinions about the subject carry no weight whatsoever really.

but some sure feel comfortable openly judging women who make a decision they think is the wrong one. Even some supposedly progressive men feel righteous in doing that.

I have never caused a pregnancy. That's my choice. Even if I hadn't made that decision, though, I would never cause one that wasn't mutually wanted.

Even when I was 16 years old, I knew what caused pregnancies. It takes two people.

But you feel perhaps that you have the right to state my views for me.

There's no need for me to "reframe" them. On this particular issue, you've made your views very clear indeed.

The info in this book led to The War on Poverty's programs--medicare, medicaid, food stamps.

A fascinating later book by him is The Politics at God's Funeral.

Then I checked the internet.

I remember the massive attention The Other Anerica got.

Like many saidz at the time--You're just NOW discovering there are poor people in the US?!?!

Like by 62 everyone (ie, middle class and up) had forgotten James Agee's 1941 book Let Us Now Praise Famous Men* with its picyures of starving American children. Or (positive spin) they thought that was then, during the Great Depression. Things like that aren't happening today in 'the greatest country on earth, the leader of the free world, etc, etc.

I remember that the info in the book apparently came as a great surprise to a lot of peoplr.

BTW, his book The Politics at God's Funeral is really good.

*I think I first heard of/saw the pictures in this book when people were discussing The Other America.

Agee's son went with his mother and her 2nd husband to live in East Germany after WWII. Her husband was apparently idealistic and like many thought that the communists were going to create a new, progressive Germany. Agee's son wote a fascinating book about his life there with his mother and step-father and their
growing disillusionment with their adopted country.

The book is Twelve years: An American Boyhood in East Germany.

And poor people do not contribute to politicians.

Perhaps the woman did good deeds. Perhaps she did a lot of good deeds. She still supported the RCC and all its regressive teachings and ideologies.

We sit here on DU every day and say that people who still support Trump and the GOP cannot truly be good people because they support such evil people. That even if they believed in Trump's message during the election there is ample evidence now that proves they were wrong.

The same standard should go for Ms. Day and anyone else. She supported an evil institution. A men's club that oppresses women and anyone different than them. With Trump we're two years into his reign. With the Roman Catholic Church we're well over a millennia and a half (I subtract the first 300-400 years before the Council of Nicaea). We know the history of the institution and how it has treated, and still treats, people.

Need I mention the RCC's handling of pedophile priests to make my point?

In case you're wondering, I think Mother Teresa was not really a good person either.

Thank you.

Whenever they are getting a lot of bad press about the evil shit they are doing, they trot out a "saint" to try to change the conversation. It gives their apologists some ammunition.

So the part about the RCC cover up hardly relates.


As to her faith, she obviously saw the good and might well have accepted and understood that the bad must be changed.

She only had to look the other way with regard to the misogyny, the holy wars, the inquisition, the RCC wiping out entire cultures in ancient times.

In modern times there is the pervasive, physical and mental abuse of children in Catholic schools that goes back decades and decades. The fact the RCC signed an agreement a pact with the Nazis rather than vehemently oppose them.

No one in her lifetime, based on such things, could have possibly seen the fact the RCC is a criminal organization whose only purpose, for quite a number of centuries, has been to perpetuate itself and not much else. Pretty much the same as today's Trump Organization.

I do not share it.

to play the Sainthood Game?

And what you ask is covered in the article.

no miracles yet. I am sure they will find find them. They always do. Even for Saints that didn't exist.

When you write the rules for the game, are the only players in the game, are the referees, and judges in the game, you seldom have to worry about the accuracy or veracity of the calls in the game.

The whole idea of miracles is preposterous anyway. Belief in supernatural acts is just not reasonable in this century. Or the last one either.

And the level of "miracle' has gone from raising the dead to back pain relief.