“You are right on target,” Dolan said, addressing that the church’s position on banning contraception is unpopular with large sections of the American public. “It’s a tough battle because of that, and our opponents are very shrewd because they have chosen an issue that they know we are not very popular on and that is why, Bill, we have to be vigorous in insisting that this is not about contraception — it’s about religion freedom. And I don’t want to judge people, but I think there would be a drift in the administration that this is a good issue and if we can divide the Catholic community (because it’s already divided) and if one can caricature the bishops as being hopelessly out of touch — these bullies who are trying to achieve judicially and legislatively what they’ve been unable to achieve because their moral integrity was compromised recently. There is the force out there trying to caricature us, alright? But we can’t back down from this fight because it’s about religion freedom — it’s close to the heart of the democratic enterprise what we know and love and the United States of America is all about.”Dolan dismissed the notion that there is a wall between church and state, saying that it isn’t the church itself that wants to be a force in American politics, but its members.



  1. Dolan is mendacious. He is deliberately seeking to harm people. And he’s extremely, extremely smart–so very dangerous.

  2. Remember, the word “but” following an opening statement means one can strongly assume the “but” cancels out the opening statement. Therefore, in the sentence “And I don’t want to judge people, but…”, yes he does.

  3. [I’m guessing *you* in Bangkok, Anon.]

    we have to be vigorous in insisting that this is not about…

    Ever notice how when a phrase like this is used, it’s almost always “about” what the speaker says it’s NOT about?

    [E.g., “The Anglican Covenant isn’t about homosexuality” “Our One Man/One Woman Marriage Amendment isn’t about banning gay marriage” “Defending the all-male priesthood isn’t about {icky! icky!} women” “‘States Rights’ wasn’t about keeping negroes in their place” etc, etc, ad nauseum]