Catholic League: Warren Buffett is Anti-Catholic
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an aspect of Warren Buffett’s finances not ordinarily discussed:
Warren Buffett’s comment that the rich should pay higher taxes, now enshrined by President Barack Obama as the “Buffett Rule,” is drawing much applause. What is not being discussed is the billionaire’s support for anti-Catholicism. First some background information.
Over several decades, Buffett has spent a fortune funding radical abortion organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood; he has lavishly given money to train a new generation of abortion physicians; he has spent millions to help RU-486 (the abortion-inducing drug) to win FDA approval; and he gave his pro-abortion, population-control friends at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation nearly $31 billion in 2006 for more of the same. There’s nothing anti-Catholic about any of this, but when he intentionally seeks to subvert Catholicism by dishonestly funding pro-abortion organizations that have hijacked the Catholic name, that’s another story.
To be specific, Buffett has given hundreds of millions over the years to anti-Catholic front groups like Catholics for Choice (formerly Catholics for a Free Choice) and its sister organization in Latin America, Catholics for the Right to Decide. In 2010, the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation alone gave $759,822 to the former, and almost $1.7 million to the latter. These letter-head organizations wouldn’t exist if they depended on donations from members—they don’t have any—they exist because of the likes of Warren Buffett.
If Buffett, or someone like him, were to throw millions upon millions funding Jews for Jesus, what would the Jewish community call him? Now you know why Warren Buffett has earned the tag anti-Catholic.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Jesus and the church both believe if you are not with me, you are against me. Anyone who is not a believing catholic is against catholics in their eyes.
Everything I do, I do it for you.
Religion.... Protector and Promoter of Perverts, Pedophiles and Psychopaths.
The catholic church is nothing but a criminal boy screwing club and has been for over 500 yrs.
Religious believers.... Zealots of Ignorance.
Those that can't or won't defend themselves can only be slaves.
So, Warren Buffett is anti-Catholic - maybe I'm missing something, but, so what? Doesn't he have the right to be anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant or antidisestablishmentarianist or whatever he wants to be? He's not going around advocating for the "genocide" (pardon the inaccurate use of the term) of Catholics, is he?
> Buffett has spent a fortune funding radical abortion organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood
Is a radical abortion some new procedure we haven't heard about yet? Since when is it radical to provide someone low-cost access to something someone comes looking for and they have a legal right to? Just because you don't fall on the same side of a single-issue argument as the catholic church doesn't mean you are against Catholics or the Catholic church in general - this is Donohue trying to make the himself and the cause of the Catholic church look put upon, vastly more popular, and more relevant than they are by way of associating themselves in the same story with a man who is far more popular, relevant, and generous than the church of child rape.
> and he gave his pro-abortion, population-control friends at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation nearly $31 billion in 2006 for more of the same.
Oh yeah, those abortion-friendly fiends over at the gates foundation who have spent billions of dollars on providing polio vaccines to the world's poor, paid for research programs to eliminate death from Malaria, and is working with groups all over the world to help feed the starving and help them to become more self-sufficient.
So, Donohue is going to paint organizations that help people and and Buffett, who is giving away to effective charities such as these the bulk of his entire fortune, as evil and bad - while supporting an organization led buy an old man covered in jewels who sits on a gold throne whilst preaching giving away all of your possessions to help the poor and unfortunate? Only one of these guys needs to be surrounded by bulletproof glass everywhere he goes, and it's not any of the ones actually doing any good in the world.
The reason that priests can't marry is that if they did, they'd have heirs. If they had heirs, all of their worldly possessions wouldn't revert back to the church upon their death.
NARAL and Planned Parent Hood are not radical organizations. However, most conservative Christians are radical, and the churches they belong to (that we all fund with our tax dollars), organizations that they belong to (that we all fund with our taxes) and the many religious groups they beling to. Oh yes, I am aware many of our taxes can be used for non-profits like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, but as you see, as with ACORN, those on the "right" are able to crush all non-conservative Christian organizations, because they are the real radicals, with more power, who are except from many of the laws all others have to follow, all the while they try to and get laws creating classes or castes of people, and...always whine about being the victims of the majority of the USA and always stating they are the majority and we are a Christian nation. Im not trying to start a fight, but could you please explain to me how one group expects another group to follow different laws, have less power and get less or no money from the rest of us tax payers?
Idiotic commentary like this is why the Catholic League has almost no influence on issues in America anymore. Bravo, Bill Donahue.
Warren Buffet wrongly supposes that women own their bodies when all right thinking people know they belong to the Pope. >.<
No,we suppose life begins at conception.
You also suppose that snakes and donkeys can talk. You definitely have a lack of credibility.
You totally removed ALL context from those two instances- in the first, the snake was possessed by Lucifer, and, in the second, it was allowed by the Angel of the LORD (which may or may not have been the LORD Himself).