PDA

View Full Version : Alan Keyes arrested in Notre Dame protest



Space Gravy
05-09-2009, 10:27 AM
Alan Keyes arrested in Notre Dame protest

SOUTH BEND, Ind., May 8 (UPI) -- Alan Keyes, who lost to Barack Obama in a U.S. Senate race, was arrested Friday protesting President Obama's invitation to speak at Notre Dame in Indiana.

Keyes and 20 others were charged with trespassing, Dennis Brown, a spokesman for the Catholic university, said. Brown said the university has a long-standing policy that only student-led demonstrations are allowed on campus with approval from the office of student affairs.

Notre Dame invited Obama to deliver the commencement address and receive an honorary degree May 17, causing an uproar because of his support of abortion rights. Many of the protesters Friday pushed baby strollers covered in fake blood.

Operation Rescue described the demonstration as peaceful.

"Notre Dame arrests Christians who defend babies, and honors a man who kills them," Randall Terry, the group's founder, said. "This is an open wound in the Church. The question is this: Will a Catholic Bishop step up and demand this betrayal of the Faith be brought to a halt?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/08/Alan-Keyes-arrested-in-Notre-Dame-protest/UPI-73971241836028/

linda22003
05-09-2009, 11:05 AM
Well, that's what he went there to do.

hazlnut
05-09-2009, 02:34 PM
What's the Pope saying about all this? Mama mia! No he's German, so... scheisse!!!

Odysseus
05-09-2009, 08:51 PM
What's the Pope saying about all this? Mama mia! No he's German, so... scheisse!!!

Frankly, I hope that the pope does weigh in on this. It's a Catholic university, so having the most pro-abortion president in history as a commencement speaker is going to be controversial to those Catholics who actually, you know, believe in their faith. The PC dolts who extended this invitiation have invited excommunication and dismissal. I don't expect it to happen, but I can dream...

wilbur
05-09-2009, 10:31 PM
Can't these "dissenters" protesting and complaining muster up enough decency to at least support the office of the presid- oh wait, a D is office - EVERYONE DISSENT!!

SarasotaRepub
05-09-2009, 10:35 PM
Can't these "dissenters" protesting and complaining muster up enough decency to at least support the office of the presid- oh wait, a D is office - EVERYONE DISSENT!!


LOL!!!! :D

hazlnut
05-10-2009, 12:37 AM
Frankly, I hope that the pope does weigh in on this. It's a Catholic university, so having the most pro-abortion president in history as a commencement speaker is going to be controversial to those Catholics who actually, you know, believe in their faith. The PC dolts who extended this invitiation have invited excommunication and dismissal. I don't expect it to happen, but I can dream...

The Pope will never say anything--I was being facetious.

This is a handful of rouge Bishops trying to embarrass the president and push their agenda. Not saying their agenda is wrong--but these people are trying to get a major university to takes sides against a sitting president. IMO, they are really just embarrassing the Church.

Obama won the Catholic vote. A majority of Catholics may agree with this loud minority's view but certainly not their method. There is a time and place to make your position known and this is not it.

Lars1701a
05-10-2009, 09:52 AM
The Pope will never say anything--I was being facetious.

This is a handful of rouge Bishops trying to embarrass the president and push their agenda. Not saying their agenda is wrong--but these people are trying to get a major university to takes sides against a sitting president. IMO, they are really just embarrassing the Church.

Obama won the Catholic vote. A majority of Catholics may agree with this loud minority's view but certainly not their method. There is a time and place to make your position known and this is not it.

I will never understand a Catholic voting for a pro-abortion Prez, its kinda of like how a vast majority of jews voted for the magic negro when he all but came out and said he would sell Israel down the river.

The must be cafeteria Catholics.

Space Gravy
05-10-2009, 10:20 AM
I will never understand a Catholic voting for a pro-abortion Prez, its kinda of like how a vast majority of jews voted for the magic negro when he all but came out and said he would sell Israel down the river.

The must be cafeteria Catholics.

A lot of people aren't one issue voters.

Rockntractor
05-10-2009, 10:29 AM
A lot of people aren't one issue voters.
Abortion was a defining issue that held more weight than others. I think people are becoming more and more brainwashed by tv.

Lars1701a
05-10-2009, 10:42 AM
A lot of people aren't one issue voters.

Its a pretty big issue not to mention MN's stance on stem cell research, using tax dollars for abortion around the world.

Its not they are one issue voters its that they are not really practicing catholics, like the afore mentioned jews who voted for a man that would let Israel go swishing down the toilet so as not to piss off the muzzies.

wilbur
05-10-2009, 11:05 AM
I will never understand a Catholic voting for a pro-abortion Prez, its kinda of like how a vast majority of jews voted for the magic negro when he all but came out and said he would sell Israel down the river.

The must be cafeteria Catholics.

They must have actually read their Bible.. and discovered that there is no such passage which reads, "Thou shalt not abort".

Rockntractor
05-10-2009, 11:37 AM
They must have actually read their Bible.. and discovered that there is no such passage which reads, "Thou shalt not abort".
Oh Wilbur. Don't play stupid. A lot of people Might think though shalt not kill miight apply here!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/legend72W.jpg?t=1241969614

wilbur
05-10-2009, 11:48 AM
Oh Wilbur. Don't play stupid. A lot of people Might think though shalt not kill miight apply here!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/legend72W.jpg?t=1241969614

A lot certainly do... and a lot of others certainly don't.

Rockntractor
05-10-2009, 11:55 AM
A lot certainly do... and a lot of others certainly don't.
But we are supposed to accept your interpretation of the bible. Does being an athiest make you more credible?
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/wilbur02.jpg?t=1241970874

wilbur
05-10-2009, 12:53 PM
But we are supposed to accept your interpretation of the bible.

My interpretation isnt the issue (any view that holds the Bible to be more than a man-made collection of stories is wrong, in my view).. but since the Bible is silent on the biology of human reproduction, it shouldn't be surprising that there are Catholics and Christians who see no wrong in some forms of abortion... and they are probably just as devout and faithful as any other.



Does being an athiest make you more credible?

Not necessarily, but it certainly helps.

linda22003
05-10-2009, 12:53 PM
Abortion was a defining issue that held more weight than others.

When was that? I don't think I've ever seen it higher than about #5 on lists of issues important to voters. Economic conditions and wars are going to beat out things like abortion every time.

lacarnut
05-10-2009, 01:57 PM
When was that? I don't think I've ever seen it higher than about #5 on lists of issues important to voters. Economic conditions and wars are going to beat out things like abortion every time.

That does not make it less of an issue to millions of voters does it? FYI, I think 75% of the voters are dumb as a rock. They automatically vote by party affiliation and personality rather than on issues.

linda22003
05-10-2009, 05:04 PM
That does not make it less of an issue to millions of voters does it? FYI, I think 75% of the voters are dumb as a rock. They automatically vote by party affiliation and personality rather than on issues.

It might not make it less of an issue to some voters, but that's not enough to affect the outcome of most elections. I think most people have decided this is "settled law".

Space Gravy
05-10-2009, 06:08 PM
When was that? I don't think I've ever seen it higher than about #5 on lists of issues important to voters. Economic conditions and wars are going to beat out things like abortion every time.

Exactly. That's why we frequently change the party in charge.

Does anyone seriously think McCain's position is why he lost?

hazlnut
05-10-2009, 06:44 PM
Exactly. That's why we frequently change the party in charge.

Does anyone seriously think McCain's position is why he lost?

No, Sarah Palin's position, however...:D:o

lacarnut
05-10-2009, 06:55 PM
No, Sarah Palin's position, however...:D:o

No, McCain could have had the Man on the Moon on his ticket as VP and he would have still lost. If not for Palin, McCain would have gotten slaughtered.

Liberals, Rino's and the liberal press are frightened to death of her because she does not represent the DC establishment.

hazlnut
05-10-2009, 07:07 PM
Liberals, Rino's and the liberal press are frightened to death of her because she does not represent the DC establishment.

You mean, the best and the brightest? :p

I'm no fan of the 'establishment, but IMO, she's... (this is tiresome, you know my opinion and I know yours.) The more great candidates the GOP can field the better. That's my bottom line.

My prediction: She'll self-destruct way before 2012 and the GOP won't have to push her under the bus to keep her out of the primaries.

CorwinK
05-10-2009, 08:16 PM
IMO i dont believe abortion should take such a national prominence, this is definately something that can be handled at the state level. However...seeing as the catholic faith sees abortion as immoral i do find it somewhat of a slap in the face to the faith's followers and leadership for an obviously catholic university to have such an avidly pro-abortion person make any sort of speach at the institution.

on the other hand, who are we to say who is allowed to speak at one place or not? And why are so many non-catholics, non-notre dame alumni/students wrapped up in it? If you dont like the fact that hes making a speach somewhere...dont watch it. hell, I dont watch these little PR stunts anyway...they are of trivial importance. we already know hes not going to say anything that isnt prompted for him, hes not going to field any controversial questions, and hes not going to un-do everything hes screwed up in the last 100ish days so what does it matter anyway?

lacarnut
05-10-2009, 09:28 PM
You mean, the best and the brightest? :p



If you think that's the best and brightest (Liberals and RINO"s), we are fucked.

Odysseus
05-10-2009, 10:56 PM
Can't these "dissenters" protesting and complaining muster up enough decency to at least support the office of the presid- oh wait, a D is office - EVERYONE DISSENT!!
Hmmmm... I seem to recall a number of liberals telling us that dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Of course, that was when an R was in office, and the dissent consisted of doing things like leaking classified information, giving aid and comfort to an enemy during wartime and constantly making specious connections between Republicans and Nazis. Frankly, I have no problem with dissent during either administration, but I do have a problem when it crosses the line to treason.

The Pope will never say anything--I was being facetious.
This is a handful of rouge Bishops trying to embarrass the president and push their agenda. Not saying their agenda is wrong--but these people are trying to get a major university to takes sides against a sitting president. IMO, they are really just embarrassing the Church.

Obama won the Catholic vote. A majority of Catholics may agree with this loud minority's view but certainly not their method. There is a time and place to make your position known and this is not it.
"Rouge" bishops? A little eyeliner, maybe...
How is it that the bishops who are standing by their church's doctine are the rogues and not the ones who are trying to rewrite it without approval from the Vatican? I mean, I'm not Catholic, but I do get the idea of a chain of command, and that the church has a hierarchy that tops off at the Pope. What excuse to pro-choice Catholics have?


My interpretation isnt the issue (any view that holds the Bible to be more than a man-made collection of stories is wrong, in my view).. but since the Bible is silent on the biology of human reproduction, it shouldn't be surprising that there are Catholics and Christians who see no wrong in some forms of abortion... and they are probably just as devout and faithful as any other.
Hate to tell you this, but the Catholic church's position is pretty much set on this one. Now, I suppose that one can go through the motions of Catholicism, go to mass, confess sins, etc., but if you really have that fundamental difference with your church and state it publicly, then the correct term for that is Protestant.

You mean, the best and the brightest? :p
On what planet are Liberals, Rino's and the liberal press the best and the brightest (outside of their own opinion, I mean)?


My prediction: She'll self-destruct way before 2012 and the GOP won't have to push her under the bus to keep her out of the primaries.
I'm betting that she'll be the nominee in 2012. Since I also predicted that Obama would be the Democratic nominee two years ago, I'm pretty happy with my track record. Basically, the Democrats always line up behind either a complete rookie (i.e, someone who is going for their first attempt at the nomination) or the heir apparent (either an incumbent or the previous veep). Go back to every election since 1960. The rookies were JFK, McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton and Kerry. The heirs apparent were LBJ, Humphrey, Carter (in 1980), Mondale, Clinton (in 1996) and Gore. No Democrat has ever tried for the nomination twice and gotten it on the second attempt since 1960. The last one to do it was Adlai Stevenson in 1956. Republicans, OTOH, almost always line up behind the also-ran from the previous election cycle. The exceptions were Goldwater and Bush 43. Nixon ran in 1960 as Ike's veep, and again in 1968 and 1972. Ford was Nixon's veep, and his veep candidate was Bob Dole. Reagan ran a primary challenge to Ford in 1976 before getting the nomination in 1980. His veep, who also ran against him in 1980, was Bush 41, who got the nomination in 1988 against Dole, among others. Dole got the nomination in 1996, and W got it in 2000 after beating McCain, who was nobody's first choice in 2008, but still managed to get the nomination. Once is a fluke. Twice is coincidence. Eight times? That's a lock.

Water Closet
05-10-2009, 11:01 PM
...
I'm betting that she'll be the nominee in 2012. ...

God, please, please. And when she gets crushed, will it be because America doesn't like extremely conservative social positions (I'm assuming she will be a bit better prepared on the issues by then) or because the evil liberal media conspired against her?

hazlnut
05-10-2009, 11:37 PM
"Rouge" bishops? A little eyeliner, maybe...
How is it that the bishops who are standing by their church's doctine are the rogues and not the ones who are trying to rewrite it without approval from the Vatican? I mean, I'm not Catholic, but I do get the idea of a chain of command, and that the church has a hierarchy that tops off at the Pope. What excuse to pro-choice Catholics have?


Hate to tell you this, but the Catholic church's position is pretty much set on this one. Now, I suppose that one can go through the motions of Catholicism, go to mass, confess sins, etc., but if you really have that fundamental difference with your church and state it publicly, then the correct term for that is Protestant.

Like you said, you're not Catholic, so you're really talking out of your ass on this one.

Catholics, typically, don't go around ramming their views down peoples throats like evangelicals. Abortion and many issues are brought up in homilies during mass, but protests and press releases... this is new. When they take political action, it's done in a thoughtful and respectful way. This is disgraceful, IMO.

Catholics focus on what they can do to help their community. Save the world by staring at home. Teaching others by becoming living examples of the faith. The Catholic charity I've worked with does a great deal to help underage girls carry to term and find adoptive parents. But this charity doesn't go out looking for girls or pressuring girls into anything. Maybe certain dioceses are leaning more toward an evangelical approach to promoting and selling their faith. That would be too bad.

Unlike Bob Jones University, there is no religious requirement for attending Notre Dame--the academic requirements are quite rigorous however, which makes this shameful attempt to embarrass the university and the President even more disturbing. Once again, conservatives are being represented by the loud minority and not the educated and intelligent majority.

There is no conflict between the University and the President. They are honored to have him and he is honored to speak at the graduation.

hazlnut
05-11-2009, 06:50 AM
Keyes was among a group of 26 protesters, some of them pushing baby carriages with dolls covered in fake blood, who entered the campus and were greeted by Notre Dame police, said university spokesman Dennis Brown. LINK (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/alan-keyes-among-21-arrested-at-notre-dame-in-obama-protest.html)

You've gotta be kidding me. If these people are calling themselves Catholics they should be excommunicated for bad taste and stupidity.:confused::mad:

wilbur
05-11-2009, 10:07 AM
Hmmmm... I seem to recall a number of liberals telling us that dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Of course, that was when an R was in office, and the dissent consisted of doing things like leaking classified information, giving aid and comfort to an enemy during wartime and constantly making specious connections between Republicans and Nazis.

Could be... but I don't speak for, nor represent liberals.. However, that still does nothing to explain or justify the sudden disappearance of the respect for the office of the presidency that many conservatives have been fuming about for 8 years.



Hate to tell you this, but the Catholic church's position is pretty much set on this one. Now, I suppose that one can go through the motions of Catholicism, go to mass, confess sins, etc., but if you really have that fundamental difference with your church and state it publicly, then the correct term for that is Protestant.


There wouldnt be many Catholics left if this were true.. and the church knows it. The modern westerner has no taste for such a monarchy. That there exists a perfect hierarchy with wizened old fools in pointy hats and robes disseminating alleged wisdom to their flock from the top down may be the lie those old fools tell themselves to feel relevant... but the reality is much different.

noonwitch
05-11-2009, 10:10 AM
I think Keyes was looking to get arrested and get his martyrdom.


He would have had more media attention if he had waited until next week, when the actual ceremony and speech are scheduled. Of course, then he would have been dealing with the secret service, not just the ND campus cops or South Bend police. But the media would have been there in full force, capturing it all for the news.

lacarnut
05-11-2009, 11:05 AM
God, please, please. And when she gets crushed, will it be because America doesn't like extremely conservative social positions (I'm assuming she will be a bit better prepared on the issues by then) or because the evil liberal media conspired against her?

There is a reason why so many Repubs have abondaned the party and that is because they have become too much like Democrats on spending, expanding government, drugs, immigration, abortion, etc. A RINO can not beat Obama. McCain proved that. He is a wimp like Bush, and a DC insider; Obama offered change and that is why he won. R and D are beginning to see that the O's change is not what they want.

If she gets the nomination, there will be a clear choice rather than a me too candidate. I am not surprised that you hate her for her moral positions. What does surprise me is that you would rather have Obama who is going to raise the shit out of your Federal Income Taxes, draw down the military, make the area that you live in less safe, etc, etc. opposed to someone that would do just the opposite. The majority of voters believe in God and don't want to legalize drugs, gay marriage or prostitution. Even in a liberal state like CA, gay marriage was shot down. So, you are the one that has the extreme social positions.

Odysseus
05-11-2009, 12:21 PM
God, please, please. And when she gets crushed, will it be because America doesn't like extremely conservative social positions (I'm assuming she will be a bit better prepared on the issues by then) or because the evil liberal media conspired against her?
She was quite well-prepared this last go-round, but you'd never know it from the media coverage. Most of the gaffes that were attributed to her (like the line about seeing Russia from her house) were actually bits from Tina Fey's SNL sketches, but were played up as if she'd said them.

Like you said, you're not Catholic, so you're really talking out of your ass on this one.
Funny thing about that. During a high school history class, the teacher was discussing one of the religious wars of the Renaissance (I seem to recall mention of the Defenestration of Prague, so it may have been the Thirty Years War, but it's been a while), and he asked us what AD referred to. Out of thirty kids in the class, including a number of Latinos, Italians and Irish, at least a few of whom must have been Catholic, I was the only one who knew that it wasAnno Domini, and what it meant (quite a few of them thought that AD meant "After Death"). I don't have to be a Catholic to understand the doctrine. As I said, I'm quite familiar with chain of command issues, and I understand how doctrine is created and disseminated. My point, which you have not addressed, is why is it that the bishops who are protesting are rogues and not the bishops who are violating the canon church law


Catholics, typically, don't go around ramming their views down peoples throats like evangelicals. Abortion and many issues are brought up in homilies during mass, but protests and press releases... this is new. When they take political action, it's done in a thoughtful and respectful way. This is disgraceful, IMO.
What makes you think that they're not doing it in a thoughtful and respectful way? What they are doing is exercising their First Amendment right to both free speech and the free exercise of their religion. It's not like they're planning on disrupting the event, which would be wrong, although given that activist groups routinely go into churches and disrupt the services, I can't say that I'd blame them if they reacted in kind.


Catholics focus on what they can do to help their community. Save the world by staring at home. Teaching others by becoming living examples of the faith. The Catholic charity I've worked with does a great deal to help underage girls carry to term and find adoptive parents. But this charity doesn't go out looking for girls or pressuring girls into anything. Maybe certain dioceses are leaning more toward an evangelical approach to promoting and selling their faith. That would be too bad.


So, all of those missionaries who founded the settlements in California (you know, San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles), not to mention those Catholics who worked in China (and still do) and the rest of the communist bloc, where they opposed the tyranny of those states, were an ahistorical aberration? And why would it be bad if they returned to that tradition? Do you think that Catholic doctrine isn't worthy of being prosletyzed? I know that it's not PC to say anything good about the Crusades, but would the the world have been better off under Islam? Are the Catholic missionaries in Africa doing good work or do you have a problem with them providing the gospels along with food and medicine?


Unlike Bob Jones University, there is no religious requirement for attending Notre Dame--the academic requirements are quite rigorous however, which makes this shameful attempt to embarrass the university and the President even more disturbing. Once again, conservatives are being represented by the loud minority and not the educated and intelligent majority.
From Notre Dame's website:

The University of Notre Dame, founded in 1842 by Rev. Edward F. Sorin, C.S.C., of the Congregation of Holy Cross, is an independent, national Catholic university located in Notre Dame, Ind., adjacent to the city of South Bend and approximately 90 miles east of Chicago.
Now, not being Catholic and all, I might not understand that a school that calls itself a Catholic university might just, in fact, be... you know, Catholic? That doesn't mean that they don't accept non-Catholics, but I would think that the education that you'd get there would be at least influenced by Catholic doctrine, since the school was founded by a Catholic priest, endowed by the same and appears to be affiliated with, or possibly owned by, the Catholic church. But, again, what do I know? But you do seem to be long on invective ("shameful," "disturbing," "loud") and short on actual analysis. But, what else would I expect from a self-proclaimed member of the "educated and intelligent majority?" :rolleyes:

There is no conflict between the University and the President. They are honored to have him and he is honored to speak at the graduation.
There is clearly a conflict between large swathes of those who attend and work for the university, not to mention the church that founded it and with which it is affiliated, if not owned outright, and the PC administrators who invited a president that opposes everything that the school claims to stand for. Why do they not have the right to register their displeasure? Is dissent only acceptable when Republicans are in the White House? Please. explain to me how this is outrageous and disgusting, but the antics of the antiwar left, which routinely use violence and the threat of violence to intimidate speakers on campus, is okay? Why is it okay for campus radicals to shout down conservative speakers, threaten them and get them booted from campus with the aid of craven administrators, but it's not okay for Catholics to non-violently express their feelings about a keynote speaker that they find objectionable?

LINK (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/alan-keyes-among-21-arrested-at-notre-dame-in-obama-protest.html)

You've gotta be kidding me. If these people are calling themselves Catholics they should be excommunicated for bad taste and stupidity.:confused::mad:
Yeah, really. Who do they think they are, protesting with fake blood? They didn't even vomit it up like any self-respecting antiwar protester would have done.

Could be... but I don't speak for, nor represent liberals.. However, that still does nothing to explain or justify the sudden disappearance of the respect for the office of the presidency that many conservatives have been fuming about for 8 years.
Okay, let's compare the two for a moment. Have we seen comparisons between Obama and Hitler at violent anti-administration rallies? Have we seen the press leaking national security documents that are meant to undermine national antiterrorism policy (it doesn't count when the administration releases them to undermine it)? Have we seen Hollywood producing assassination fantasies about the president? Have we seen prominent members of the opposition party making false and outrageous accusations against the administration? How does the tepid, snarky conservative dissent against Obama compare with the violent, enraged and outrageous conduct of the left against Bush? It's one thing to disagree with policy, and another to viciously demonize the opposition.



There wouldnt be many Catholics left if this were true.. and the church knows it. The modern westerner has no taste for such a monarchy. That there exists a perfect hierarchy with wizened old fools in pointy hats and robes disseminating alleged wisdom to their flock from the top down may be the lie those old fools tell themselves to feel relevant... but the reality is much different.
The modern westerner has no taste for monarchy? Have you seen a White House press conference lately?
As for your allegations that the church hierarchy doesn't run the church, have you got any evidence beyond your wishful thinking to back that up? Seriously, neither of us is a Catholic (and I'm pretty sure that Hazlnut isn't one either, or that if he is, he takes it about as seriously as I take my Judaism, which is not at all). What are you basing your assumption that most Catholics don't share the teachings of the church that they belong to?

wilbur
05-11-2009, 12:32 PM
Okay, let's compare the two for a moment. Have we seen comparisons between Obama and Hitler at violent anti-administration rallies? Have we seen the press leaking national security documents that are meant to undermine national antiterrorism policy (it doesn't count when the administration releases them to undermine it)? Have we seen Hollywood producing assassination fantasies about the president? Have we seen prominent members of the opposition party making false and outrageous accusations against the administration? How does the tepid, snarky conservative dissent against Obama compare with the violent, enraged and outrageous conduct of the left against Bush? It's one thing to disagree with policy, and another to viciously demonize the opposition.


Has it sunk in yet, that how the left behaves was completely irrelevant to my point?




The modern westerner has no taste for monarchy? Have you seen a White House press conference lately?
As for your allegations that the church hierarchy doesn't run the church, have you got any evidence beyond your wishful thinking to back that up? Seriously, neither of us is a Catholic (and I'm pretty sure that Hazlnut isn't one either, or that if he is, he takes it about as seriously as I take my Judaism, which is not at all). What are you basing your assumption that most Catholics don't share the teachings of the church that they belong to?

Actually, I am Catholic... one thats obviously departed, but born and raised, nonetheless. In my experience growing up in the church, there were few in it who respect Rome the way Rome thinks it is respected... with the exception of clergymen.

noonwitch
05-11-2009, 12:52 PM
[QUOTE=Odysseus;135590]
Funny thing about that. During a high school history class, the teacher was discussing one of the religious wars of the Renaissance (I seem to recall mention of the Defenestration of Prague, so it may have been the Thirty Years War, but it's been a while), and he asked us what AD referred to. Out of thirty kids in the class, including a number of Latinos, Italians and Irish, at least a few of whom must have been Catholic, I was the only one who knew that it wasAnno Domini, and what it meant (quite a few of them thought that AD meant "After Death"). I don't have to be a Catholic to understand the doctrine. As I said, I'm quite familiar with chain of command issues, and I understand how doctrine is created and disseminated. My point, which you have not addressed, is why is it that the bishops who are protesting are rogues and not the bishops who are violating the canon church law
[QUOTE]



I'm one of those kids who thought AD meant "after death", referring to after the death of Jesus. I was corrected in high school, after asking a teacher how the years between Jesus' birth and death are counted.

Prior to high school, I hadn't really studied much ancient history. BC and AD were mostly something I knew about from Sunday School. Sunday School teachers are not necessarily prepared for their positions by studying anything outside of their Bible and the teacher's guides-when I taught Sunday School as a high school student, I went out and found my own guides because the church was offering nothing at that point. My class was 2nd graders, mostly boys. All they wanted to know was if the Bible talked about dinosaurs.

Lager
05-11-2009, 12:52 PM
God, please, please. And when she gets crushed, will it be because America doesn't like extremely conservative social positions (I'm assuming she will be a bit better prepared on the issues by then) or because the evil liberal media conspired against her?

"Extremely Conservative" social positions. That is quite funny. As opposed to what? Well thought out, reasonable and currently faddish social positions?

hazlnut
05-11-2009, 12:55 PM
What makes you think that they're not doing it in a thoughtful and respectful way?

The fake blood on the baby dolls being pushed across campus...???:rolleyes:



From Notre Dame's website:

The University of Notre Dame, founded in 1842 by Rev. Edward F. Sorin, C.S.C., of the Congregation of Holy Cross, is an independent, national Catholic university located in Notre Dame, Ind., adjacent to the city of South Bend and approximately 90 miles east of Chicago.
Now, not being Catholic and all, I might not understand that a school that calls itself a Catholic university might just, in fact, be... you know, Catholic? That doesn't mean that they don't accept non-Catholics, but I would think that the education that you'd get there would be at least influenced by Catholic doctrine, since the school was founded by a Catholic priest, endowed by the same and appears to be affiliated with, or possibly owned by, the Catholic church. But, again, what do I know? But you do seem to be long on invective ("shameful," "disturbing," "loud") and short on actual analysis. But, what else would I expect from a self-proclaimed member of the "educated and intelligent majority?" :rolleyes:

Bully for you, you can google Notre Dame!!:rolleyes:

It's not a seminary school. It's a major university that teaches a wide range of secular subjects. Admissions to Notre Dame is based on one thing: academic achievement, GPA, SAT... They may ask about faith on a form, but you certainly don't have to be catholic to attend. Guess what, they don't teach Creationism. (maybe in a Psychology class)

My point is that modern Catholics have been able to honor their faith while not engaging is this type religious fanaticism. It's always a few priests or bishops that have to go off and do something stupid.


There is clearly a conflict between large swathes of those who attend and work for the university, not to mention the church that founded it and with which it is affiliated,

Stop, now you're making shit up... Large swathes??:rolleyes: I've heard very little from anyone directly associated with the university. I'm sure you've got lot of super duper links at the ready. Save 'em. I know too many people who actually went to Notre Dame or attend Catholic mass regularly and are embarrassed by this whole deal.


Yeah, really. Who do they think they are, protesting with fake blood? They didn't even vomit it up like any self-respecting antiwar protester would have done.

Monkey see, money do. The far-right and far-left definitely have something in common: Ill-conceived and inappropriate forms of protest.

Odysseus
05-11-2009, 03:51 PM
Has it sunk in yet, that how the left behaves was completely irrelevant to my point?

No, because it isn't. You complained that we objected to the conduct of the left in their lack of respect for the office of the president, then acted in the same manner, when it's obvious that we're not.


Actually, I am Catholic... one thats obviously departed, but born and raised, nonetheless. In my experience growing up in the church, there were few in it who respect Rome the way Rome thinks it is respected... with the exception of clergymen.
And, naturally, your experience is universal. No, come to think of it, if it were universal, there'd be nothing but former Caltholic atheists running around. So, I guess that we can't take your word for it that this is how things are in the church.

The fake blood on the baby dolls being pushed across campus...???
Which hadn't been reported when you wrote your first tirade against the protestors. You were convinced that they were a "loud minority" and that you were the "educated and intelligent majority." But, let's assume that they're not protesting in a way that you find acceptable in your educated and intelligent majority position. Just how would you be willing to permit them to air their contrarian view of the abortion debate and the invitation of a speaker who is at odds with everything that the school and its church stands for?

Oh, and, while it's certainly shocking, isn't the whole point of a protest to shock us into thinking about the issue in a new way? That's what guys like you told us about Code Pink's use of mini-coffins at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Sauce for the goose...


Bully for you, you can google Notre Dame!!:rolleyes:
Yes, and I can even read what I find on their site. Who'd have thought such a thing? :rolleyes:

It's not a seminary school. It's a major university that teaches a wide range of secular subjects. Admissions to Notre Dame is based on one thing: academic achievement, GPA, SAT... They may ask about faith on a form, but you certainly don't have to be catholic to attend. Guess what, they don't teach Creationism. (maybe in a Psychology class)
But the point is that the school identifies itself as a Catholic university. If I founded a military school but didn't have uniforms, a rank structure or any instruction in military subjects, but rather taught art classes and philosphy, regardless of how good and art or philosophy program I ran, most parents who trusted me to educate their kids would call me a fraud. Now, if you want to argue that a college that calls itself Catholic isn't Catholic, that it's some secular hybrid and that this absolves it from any obeisance to Catholic theology or doctrine, well, knock yourself out, but you're going to have to explain to me how it is that they can call themselves a Catholic university. Call me naive, but if I were to call myself a Catholic, I'd like to think that I would do so because I believed in the tenets of the religion.


My point is that modern Catholics have been able to honor their faith while not engaging is this type religious fanaticism. It's always a few priests or bishops that have to go off and do something stupid.
Hmmmm... If the Catholic church is that loose in its theology, then why did Wilbur feel the need to leave it in the first place? Sounds like he could have continued to be a Catholic and an atheist simultaneously, if the only requirement is to honor your faith without actually doing anything that implies that you believe in it.


Stop, now you're making shit up... Large swathes??:rolleyes: I've heard very little from anyone directly associated with the university. I'm sure you've got lot of super duper links at the ready. Save 'em. I know too many people who actually went to Notre Dame or attend Catholic mass regularly and are embarrassed by this whole deal.
I'm sure that you do. I'm reminded of a comment after the 1972 election, attributed to Pauline Kael, that she was stunned at Nixon's victory in a landslide because she didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon. I'm sure that in your rarified world, nobody who goes to mass or has a degree from Notre Dame would ever do anything as declasse as hold with those scruffy little pro-lifers. In fact, you can't even spell pro-lifer without P-R-O-L-E. Why, that says it all about those tacky little arrivistes, doesn't it my good man? Things would be so much easier if these nasty little tea baggers would just taken their lumpen prole existence back to WalMart and leave the politics to those of us who are much more educated and intelligent than all that. After all, like the university, we just adore our new president and if he chooses to honor us with his presence, why who are these little people to muck things up with their religious fanaticism? The nerve! Why, I just choke on my latte at the thought of it. :rolleyes:


Monkey see, money do. The far-right and far-left definitely have something in common: Ill-conceived and inappropriate forms of protest.
Funny, but I don't recall you being particularly offended by the left's outlandish conduct.

Odysseus
05-11-2009, 04:00 PM
Oh, almost forgot. Here are those links that you didn't need to see. Can't have you saying that I couldn't find proof to back up my arguments:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/archbishop-slams-obama-appearance-notre-dame-administrations-abortion-policies/
http://www.ncregister.com/daily/notre_dame_commencement_scandal/
Catholics outraged over Notre Dame hosting Obama (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=463738)
Notre Dame Obama Commencement Speech Stirs Catholic Opposition (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/24/notre_dame_obama_commencement.html)
OBAMA FACES NOTRE DAME BACKLASH (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/23/1854122.aspx)
Catholic divide over Obama at Notre Dame (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30670354/)

wilbur
05-11-2009, 04:41 PM
No, because it isn't. You complained that we objected to the conduct of the left in their lack of respect for the office of the president,

Yes


then acted in the same manner, when it's obvious that we're not.

When did I act how? huh? I think the problem here might be that you want to believe I am of the 'left'... and therefore things the left does are things that I do. Wrong, and wrong. Almost every post I make here, you respond with a "yea, but the left does it" gotcha... but it has no relevance to me.



And, naturally, your experience is universal. No, come to think of it, if it were universal, there'd be nothing but former Caltholic atheists running around. So, I guess that we can't take your word for it that this is how things are in the church.


No its not universal... but I have been members of churches in many different communities all through my life and had similar experiences at each. And the strong showing of Catholic support for many pro-choice candidates in almost every election, (such as Hillary and Obama) evidences that Rome doesnt have the sway over Catholics that it expects. If fellow Catholics and Christians want to call them untrue to their faith, so be it... but they might find half their church missing the next day... and I really have no qualm about calling the others equally real Catholics, despite their disobedience to idiots in pointy hats.

Besides, you were the one who initially seemed to place so much weight on the experiences of a Catholic... when you thought I wasnt one ;)

Eventually the church, like any organization that wants to maintain a relevant existence, it will bow to public pressure when it has too, even though it will bitterly fight it while it can... though in those times when it does acquiesce, it will try to maintain the illusion that it was a "top down" decree.

Odysseus
05-11-2009, 06:02 PM
Yes
When did I act how? huh? I think the problem here might be that you want to believe I am of the 'left'... and therefore things the left does are things that I do. Wrong, and wrong. Almost every post I make here, you respond with a "yea, but the left does it" gotcha... but it has no relevance to me.

No, I said that you complained that we, as in conservatives, were giving the office of the president the same lack of respect that liberals gave Bush. I pointed out that the left's conduct was far worse than the criticisms issued here.


No its not universal... but I have been members of churches in many different communities all through my life and had similar experiences at each.
Then perhaps the churches aren't the problem...?


And the strong showing of Catholic support for many pro-choice candidates in almost every election, (such as Hillary and Obama) evidences that Rome doesnt have the sway over Catholics that it expects. If fellow Catholics and Christians want to call them untrue to their faith, so be it... but they might find half their church missing the next day... and I really have no qualm about calling the others equally real Catholics, despite their disobedience to idiots in pointy hats.
Once again, I will point out that if you choose to disobey your church, then it's hard to call you a member in good standing of it. Now, in all fairness to many Catholics, the media deliberately blurred the distinctions between McCain and Obama on abortion. There were a number of pro-Obama pro-life sites that were the political equivalent of phishing sites. They created a false impression that Obama was far less doctrinaire on the subject than he is, and I suspect that more than a few self-identified Catholics were fooled by those efforts.


Besides, you were the one who initially seemed to place so much weight on the experiences of a Catholic... when you thought I wasnt one ;)
But you aren't one. You may have been raised in the church, but you obviously had a break with it that has left you intrinsically hostile to just about everything about it. You can't even refer to the clergy without deriding them as "idiots in pointy hats." As a Jew who was on the receiving end of some of the less stellar conduct of Catholics (honest, I didn't even know Jesus, and if I did, I'd have had nothing to do with nailing him to anything), I'm amazed that I have less hostility to the church than you do.

Eventually the church, like any organization that wants to maintain a relevant existence, it will bow to public pressure when it has too, even though it will bitterly fight it while it can... though in those times when it does acquiesce, it will try to maintain the illusion that it was a "top down" decree.
Except that every church that makes that leap from faith to convenience finds itself losing converts. The religions that are gaining adherents tend to be the more orthodox and strict sects. For example, pretty much every American Protestant denomination is on the skids except for the evangelicals. The Anglican church is in freefall in Britain, but is gaining ground in Africa, where they take their faith seriously. Reform Judaism is losing people left and right, but Orthodox Judaism is growing, and faster than simple birth-rate math would allow, and don't get me started on Islam. Faiths that don't speak to, well... faith, tend not to do very well. People pick up on the vacuousness and cynicism of churches that substitute for country clubs.

wilbur
05-12-2009, 11:52 AM
No, I said that you complained that we, as in conservatives, were giving the office of the president the same lack of respect that liberals gave Bush. I pointed out that the left's conduct was far worse than the criticisms issued here.


Thats not really what I was saying... I was saying that dissent or protests over the former president instigated by the left, were often called out as disrespecting the office of the presidency. Not all of these things included "treason", as you say, but mere derogatory or critical statements. Yet today, we see all concern over the respect for the office has disappeared from these same people. Quite mysterious, given the dedication of this group to maintain a social taboo against certain forms of treatment for a sitting president.

If people want to treat the sitting presidents this way, I really don't have much of a problem with it. Its their right.

I do not yet think the right has, as of yet, surpassed the left in its vitriol for a sitting president (well, Clinton perhaps), but hey... its still a fresh presidency. And a threshold has definitely been crossed by the right on this Notre Dame thing.. were a republican in office, and had the protesting come from the left... we would be drown in cries for a return of respect for the office.

Honestly, truly contemplate what flurry of words that would have appeared on this board (and from the pundits), if say... the University of Berkeley allowed Bush to speak, but was met with reactions similar to those that have been launched by pro-life Christians in response to Obama, but instead came from an anti-Bush cabal...



Once again, I will point out that if you choose to disobey your church, then it's hard to call you a member in good standing of it. Now, in all fairness to many Catholics, the media deliberately blurred the distinctions between McCain and Obama on abortion. There were a number of pro-Obama pro-life sites that were the political equivalent of phishing sites. They created a false impression that Obama was far less doctrinaire on the subject than he is, and I suspect that more than a few self-identified Catholics were fooled by those efforts.


Wow, so those Catholics who have voted for pro-choice candidates couldn't have possibly looked at honest facts, and come to reasonable and thoughtful intellectual decision? They are simply ignoramuses who have been duped by transparent Obama propaganda websites? At least if I call some people idiots, I do so plainly, and not through faux patronizing innuendo.

And please... whatever propaganda on the web that might have came from the Obama camp, is equally matched or surpassed by footprint of the pro-life camp (whose refrain is constant and unending).

I've commented many times before, there are at least two separate issues that must be considered with abortion. Most rabid pro-lifers, and the Catholic hierarchy, want to pretend there is only one simple truth to weigh.. but all the wishful thinking in the world doesnt change the facts. The first aspect that needs to be considered, is the morality of the act of abortion itself. The other is government's role in the whole thing. Most of your "pro-choice" catholics, if I were to wager, would agree with the church on its general view of abortion, but would also recognize that the issue is philosophically unreconcilable with society at large, to the degree that it would be wrong to impose that view upon the populace by force... quite a conservative mindset, when you think about it... and in my opinion, a respectable stance.

So perhaps people here might give those they call the 'cafeteria catholics' the benefit of the doubt... because they might actually agree with the pointy hatted idiots in their most forceful declarations on the morality of abortion.. but would disagree that those people have some special insight and authority over election time politics that should override their own conscience in the ballot box. And thank goodness for that... that those pointy hatted idiots half a world away don't have that power. I like our sovereignty, thank you very much.

And again, change in the church isn't always a top-down endeavor.



But you aren't one. You may have been raised in the church, but you obviously had a break with it that has left you intrinsically hostile to just about everything about it. You can't even refer to the clergy without deriding them as "idiots in pointy hats." As a Jew who was on the receiving end of some of the less stellar conduct of Catholics (honest, I didn't even know Jesus, and if I did, I'd have had nothing to do with nailing him to anything), I'm amazed that I have less hostility to the church than you do.


No hostile break.. just a slow gradual realization. My remarks were more glib playfulness, not hostility. But those are the breaks, I guess... outspoken critics of religion are called 'hostile' and viewed as spiteful and hateful, despite using the same matter-of-fact, direct demeanor that people use when criticizing anything else. Look at the criticisms of liberalism or other disagreeable politics all over CU, and you will see "hostility" that puts anything I've ever written about religion to shame.



Except that every church that makes that leap from faith to convenience finds itself losing converts.


What does that even mean: "from faith to convenience"? And how is it relevant? Moving rhetoric, but mostly empty.

Perhaps a more indepth examination of the Catholics who vote for pro-choice candidates (or allow pro-choice presidents speak at a school) is warranted before declaring they 'give up faith for convenience'.



The religions that are gaining adherents tend to be the more orthodox and strict sects. For example, pretty much every American Protestant denomination is on the skids except for the evangelicals. The Anglican church is in freefall in Britain, but is gaining ground in Africa, where they take their faith seriously. Reform Judaism is losing people left and right, but Orthodox Judaism is growing, and faster than simple birth-rate math would allow, and don't get me started on Islam. Faiths that don't speak to, well... faith, tend not to do very well. People pick up on the vacuousness and cynicism of churches that substitute for country clubs.


I would look at this another way... religion without radicalism (and mandatory zealotry that goes with it) might actually be unsustainable. But is the solution here really to bring radicalism back to religion? I really think one Jihad at a time is more than enough ;)

Odysseus
05-12-2009, 01:33 PM
Thats not really what I was saying... I was saying that dissent or protests over the former president instigated by the left, were often called out as disrespecting the office of the presidency. Not all of these things included "treason", as you say, but mere derogatory or critical statements. Yet today, we see all concern over the respect for the office has disappeared from these same people. Quite mysterious, given the dedication of this group to maintain a social taboo against certain forms of treatment for a sitting president.
If people want to treat the sitting presidents this way, I really don't have much of a problem with it. Its their right.

Critical statements are certainly within proper bounds, and how derogatory a statement is can be highly subjective, but there's no doubt that some of the conduct on the left went way over the line.


I do not yet think the right has, as of yet, surpassed the left in its vitriol for a sitting president (well, Clinton perhaps), but hey... its still a fresh presidency. And a threshold has definitely been crossed by the right on this Notre Dame thing.. were a republican in office, and had the protesting come from the left... we would be drown in cries for a return of respect for the office.
I don't recall anyone calling for Clinton's assassination, or comparing him to Hitler. True, he was impeached, but the charges, perjury and obstrction of justice, were based on his own actions, as were the astonishing number of scandals that occurred as a result of his administration's flouting of the laws. The Notre Dame protest is no worse, and a lot better, than just about any protest by the left against a campus conservative.

Honestly, truly contemplate what flurry of words that would have appeared on this board (and from the pundits), if say... the University of Berkeley allowed Bush to speak, but was met with reactions similar to those that have been launched by pro-life Christians in response to Obama, but instead came from an anti-Bush cabal...
I don't have to imagine it. It happened repeatedly. In 2001, Bush delivered the commencement at Yale (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/21/bush.speech/index.html), where a petition was circulated on campus protesting his selection as commencement speaker and graduates held up signs including "Yale Women Against Bush" and death penalty protests. And that was before 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. From then on, whenever he spoke at a campus, the left went berserk. The final protest against him was at Furman University in May 2008, when the faculty protested Bush's selection as commencement speaker. Furman Faculty Balk at Bush Appearance (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90664132)
That was just last year. Did you see anything here about their blatant disrespect for the office of the president? For that matter, did you see any comments at DU about how the protesters were "embarassing" the left with their antics? No, and no. Unlike the left, we may not like what the dissenters have to say, but at least we respect their right to say it.

Wow, so those Catholics who have voted for pro-choice candidates couldn't have possibly looked at honest facts, and come to reasonable and thoughtful intellectual decision? They are simply ignoramuses who have been duped by transparent Obama propaganda websites? At least if I call some people idiots, I do so plainly, and not through faux patronizing innuendo.
And please... whatever propaganda on the web that might have came from the Obama camp, is equally matched or surpassed by footprint of the pro-life camp (whose refrain is constant and unending).
Oh puh-lease. Obama outspent McCain 5:1 during the campaign, and McCain refused to refute so many of Obama's ads that the Dems received a free pass on a host of issues. At the end of the election, most voters honestly believed that Obama planned to cut taxes for most Americans (as blatant a lie as any Democrat has ever told) and didn't know a thing about Obama's record, but they sure knew every piece of dirt on McCain and Palin. In fact, we're seeing this again with the Notre Dame issue. In the most recent polls, those Catholics who regularly attend church opposed the Obama address, but a majority of those who didn't attend church regularly didn't even know about the controversy, but were willing to weigh in when asked by pollsters. Unlike you, I don't call people who make decisions based on imperfect information idiots, I just regret that they haven't got all of the facts.


I've commented many times before, there are at least two separate issues that must be considered with abortion. Most rabid pro-lifers, and the Catholic hierarchy, want to pretend there is only one simple truth to weigh.. but all the wishful thinking in the world doesnt change the facts. The first aspect that needs to be considered, is the morality of the act of abortion itself. The other is government's role in the whole thing. Most of your "pro-choice" catholics, if I were to wager, would agree with the church on its general view of abortion, but would also recognize that the issue is philosophically unreconcilable with society at large, to the degree that it would be wrong to impose that view upon the populace by force... quite a conservative mindset, when you think about it... and in my opinion, a respectable stance.
On the contrary, it is the pro-abortion camp that wants to pretend that there is only one truth, that the issue is about a woman's choice and nothing else. They are rabidly opposed to anything that implies that there may be another life at stake and that there are moral ambiguities. That's why pro-lifers are usually willing to contemplate exemptions to abortion bans, while pro-choicers consider any restriction to be completely horrific. Look at the debate on Partial Birth Abortion. The AMA denied that the procedure had any medical necessity, the facts of the procedure offended and apalled everyone who heard of them, but rather than address the issue, the pro-choicers lied through their teeth about the frequency and necessity of the procedure. Look at parental notification laws for minors, which are overwhelmingly popular among the electorate. Why can't the Democrats accept that modest and reasonable restriction? Face it, the fanaticism and rabid rejection of any compromise doesn't come from the right.


No hostile break.. just a slow gradual realization. My remarks were more glib playfulness, not hostility. But those are the breaks, I guess... outspoken critics of religion are called 'hostile' and viewed as spiteful and hateful, despite using the same matter-of-fact, direct demeanor that people use when criticizing anything else. Look at the criticisms of liberalism or other disagreeable politics all over CU, and you will see "hostility" that puts anything I've ever written about religion to shame.
No, you're pretty hostile to religion. If you can't see it, then you may not realize the depths of your disdain for those who believe in things that you don't, especially those "idiots in pointy hats" that you seem unable to refrain from mocking.


What does that even mean: "from faith to convenience"? And how is it relevant? Moving rhetoric, but mostly empty.
Hmmmm... Think hard. What could it mean when a church's emphasis goes from the tenets of its faith to the convenience of its parishoners, when it abandons hard truths in order to make it easier and less obtrusive to be a member of the flock, to the point where membership means nothing? Do you really claim that this statement confuses you?


I would look at this another way... religion without radicalism (and mandatory zealotry that goes with it) might actually be unsustainable. But is the solution here really to bring radicalism back to religion? I really think one Jihad at a time is more than enough ;)
What you call mandatory zealotry is what religious folks call faith, the belief in a God and the doctrines associated with that God. Religion is a search for truth, for a relationship with a creator and a desire to live in harmony with his laws. Does a country club church provide that, or does it just go through the motions and act as a social network, a kind of facebook with crucifixes? What you have then is a country club church that satisfies no spiritual needs, but makes a pretense of being a source of comfort and guidance, when all it really is is a delivery system for a soup kitchen and a collection plate. It's the difference between a McDonald's and a steakhouse.