PDA

View Full Version : Catholic Group Banned From Town Parade Over Baby Picture on Pro-Life Banner



megimoo
06-14-2011, 08:51 PM
“They decided that an unborn baby is too offensive,” said Martin Kelley, co-founder of Palatine Area Catholics Respect Life. “It’s an ultrasound photo. It’s not a picture of an aborted baby.”

The banner displays a picture of the unborn baby and an elderly woman with the words “Palatine Area Catholics Respect Life ... from Conception ‘til Natural Death.”

The group marched with the banner last year, but this year organizers informed them they would not be allowed unless they removed or changed the picture of the unborn baby.

“Changing the photo would defeat the whole purpose of expressing our point of view that life does begin at conception,” said Kelley. “It’s a stand on principle. It kind of defeats the purpose to have a newborn baby or a three-year old. It was necessary for our message.”

The parade will take place July 2 and organizers have already approved approximately 80 groups for participation. It is sponsored and organized by Palatine Jaycees, a private service organization.

“The Respect Life Group was denied participation in the Hometown Fest parade because [they] refused to work with festival organizers regarding their display materials,” the Jaycees said in a statement. “Unlike other groups who fully cooperate regarding display materials, the Respect Life Group refused to make any changes to the banner or even have a discussion about it.”

While the Jaycees maintain they are a non-political organization that does not reject the banner for its message, they retained the right to refuse admission based on the manner in which the message was displayed. According to the Jaycees’ board of directors, the banner was offensive.
snip
He said the Jaycees have utilized a double standard in censoring the pro-life message. The organizers have permitted other organizations, he added, such as Parents and Families of Lesbians and Gays, while not allowing the pro-life group.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-group-banned-from-town-parade-over-baby-picture-on-pro-life-banner

NJCardFan
06-15-2011, 12:50 AM
To be fair, it is a little extreme for a parade.

Rockntractor
06-15-2011, 01:04 AM
To be fair, it is a little extreme for a parade.

By god you're right! How can you get more extreme than a, a baby! :eek:

djones520
06-15-2011, 01:17 AM
By god you're right! How can you get more extreme than a, a baby! :eek:

I think the extreme part is injecting partisan issues into a time of fun and rejoicement.

Rockntractor
06-15-2011, 01:25 AM
I think the extreme part is injecting partisan issues into a time of fun and rejoicement.

Some think killing of babies is extreme, are babies Democrat or Republican? I never really thought about it, huh.:confused:

djones520
06-15-2011, 01:26 AM
Some think killing of babies is extreme, are babies Democrat or Republican? I never really thought about it, huh.:confused:

Come on Rock. There's a right and wrong place for such discussions. A celebration is not the right place.

Rockntractor
06-15-2011, 01:33 AM
Come on Rock. There's a right and wrong place for such discussions. A celebration is not the right place.
If it wasn't for this I might agree with you.

He said the Jaycees have utilized a double standard in censoring the pro-life message. The organizers have permitted other organizations, he added, such as Parents and Families of Lesbians and Gays, while not allowing the pro-life group.

Bailey
06-15-2011, 04:12 AM
If it wasn't for this I might agree with you.

Hey Jones I guess this is ok?

MrsSmith
06-15-2011, 06:52 AM
Baby pictures are extreme, but rainbow pride flags and diversity banners are not. Hate to mention this (not really), but somewhere around 100% of the babies born in the US today have their pictures posted somewhere before the birth. My daughter put them on her Facebook and hung them on the wall in the baby's room. My niece did much the same. I guess I'll have to make sure they know that this is "extreme" in some people's views, and tell them to hide those pics before they offend anyone. After all, this earth has too many people already, only filthy breeders would celebrate the arrival of yet another nasty baby!!!



:rolleyes:



If the pic had been an aborted baby, not an unborn baby, I could see it. Otherwise, it's is quite simply one more example of the loudmouth left pushing their personal preferences upon the public square. (In the comments section of one article, some left-wing-nut actually said that a religious picture like that of a fetus should never be allowed on public property because of the separation of church and state.) I guess that now means that all unborn children belong solely to the church, in some views. :rolleyes:

A private group has the legal authority to deny anyone they choose, but I know if I lived in Palatine, there would be no money from my household going to purchase anything at this Fest, and I doubt I'm alone in this feeling.

Arroyo_Doble
06-15-2011, 08:20 AM
He said the Jaycees have utilized a double standard in censoring the pro-life message. The organizers have permitted other organizations, he added, such as Parents and Families of Lesbians and Gays, while not allowing the pro-life group.

If the Parents and Families of Lesbians can have banners with gestating babies, so should the pro-life group. That is a seriously bad double standard.

noonwitch
06-15-2011, 08:26 AM
It's a double standard, but it's the Jaycees' parade. They don't have to allow it if they don't want to.

megimoo
06-15-2011, 08:31 AM
He said the Jaycees have utilized a double standard in censoring the pro-life message. The organizers have permitted other organizations, he added, such as Parents and Families of Lesbians and Gays, while not allowing the pro-life group.

If the Parents and Families of Lesbians can have banners with gestating babies, so should the pro-life group. That is a seriously bad double standard.
Do you work hard at being so droll or is it a 'gift' ?

MrsSmith
06-15-2011, 08:18 PM
He said the Jaycees have utilized a double standard in censoring the pro-life message. The organizers have permitted other organizations, he added, such as Parents and Families of Lesbians and Gays, while not allowing the pro-life group.

If the Parents and Families of Lesbians can have banners with gestating babies, so should the pro-life group. That is a seriously bad double standard.
They'll probably march with their normal regard for "family friendly" events.

http://sfpride.org/photos/images/2009/parade09_leather001_charlesmorelo_72r570w.jpg

JB
06-15-2011, 08:35 PM
Tell them to use this pic:

http://www.new-baby-and-beyond.com/images/conception.jpg

It almost looks like a float. Shouldn't be a problem.

Articulate_Ape
06-15-2011, 09:03 PM
A developing baby in a womb is somehow offensive? If it was an aborted fetus, then yeah, a parade is no place for that from a tactful perspective, but a healthy fetus? WTF? I happen to be on the fence with this issue, but when the hell are we going to remember the 1st amendment.

People, we are losing our liberty each and every day. Each and every day.

Hawkgirl
06-15-2011, 09:13 PM
Don't offend the gays, let them march
Don't offend the muslims, let them where their burkas
Don't offend the Catholics....oh wait

Novaheart
06-15-2011, 10:58 PM
It doesn't matter if they have a double standard or not. The Jaycees can decide who and what can be in their parade.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

If you approve of the Order Of Ancient Hibernians being legally able to bar the Irish American GLBT Association from the St Patrick's Day Parade, then you also approve of the Jaycees being able to decide who can do what in their parade.

MrsSmith
06-15-2011, 11:12 PM
It doesn't matter if they have a double standard or not. The Jaycees can decide who and what can be in their parade.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

If you approve of the Order Of Ancient Hibernians being legally able to bar the Irish American GLBT Association from the St Patrick's Day Parade, then you also approve of the Jaycees being able to decide who can do what in their parade.

They do have that right. And those that are offended by their intolerant attitude have the right to refuse to attend or support their functions. There are a lot of people that are more offended by this slanted venue than would be offended by the picture of a baby.

Odysseus
06-16-2011, 01:47 AM
I think the extreme part is injecting partisan issues into a time of fun and rejoicement.
"rejoicement"? :confused:

It doesn't matter if they have a double standard or not. The Jaycees can decide who and what can be in their parade.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

If you approve of the Order Of Ancient Hibernians being legally able to bar the Irish American GLBT Association from the St Patrick's Day Parade, then you also approve of the Jaycees being able to decide who can do what in their parade.

You are absolutely correct. They have the right to associate with whom they choose. OTOH, I am surprised that the Jaycees, who have a reputation as a pretty straight-laced organization, would choose to exclude a pro-life church group and permit gay groups. Especially since their stated creed includes a statement of faith:


We believe:
That faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life;
That the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations;
That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise;
That government should be of laws rather than of men;
That Earth's great treasure lies in human personality;
And that service to humanity is the best work of life.

MrsSmith
06-16-2011, 07:30 AM
"rejoicement"? :confused:


You are absolutely correct. They have the right to associate with whom they choose. OTOH, I am surprised that the Jaycees, who have a reputation as a pretty straight-laced organization, would choose to exclude a pro-life church group and permit gay groups. Especially since their stated creed includes a statement of faith:


We believe:
That faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life;
That the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations;
That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise;
That government should be of laws rather than of men;
That Earth's great treasure lies in human personality;
And that service to humanity is the best work of life.

:rolleyes: Homosexuals are humans. Fundies and fetuses are not, really. Everyone knows that. :rolleyes: [/DUmpMode]

Odysseus
06-16-2011, 11:50 AM
:rolleyes: Homosexuals are humans. Fundies and fetuses are not, really. Everyone knows that. :rolleyes: [/DUmpMode]

Silly me... :D

Novaheart
06-16-2011, 12:44 PM
We believe:
That faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life;
That the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations;
That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise;
That government should be of laws rather than of men;
That Earth's great treasure lies in human personality;
And that service to humanity is the best work of life.

I honestly had no idea that the Jaycees had such lofty intellectual principles incorporated in their doctrine. I only remember them as being small business owners who got together to promote Main Street and the Christmas Parade in the winter and play golf in the summer.

I think an objective look at this would show that they are excluding an activity rather than a group of people.

Arroyo_Doble
06-16-2011, 12:49 PM
I honestly had no idea that the Jaycees had such lofty intellectual principles incorporated in their doctrine. I only remember them as being small business owners who got together to promote Main Street and the Christmas Parade in the winter and play golf in the summer.

I think an objective look at this would show that they are excluding an activity rather than a group of people.

When I was a kid, they sponsored the baseball leagues in the rural Oklahoma town I grew up in.

I am with you on the principles, though. They sound almost leftist. But that could be because they are a Christian oriented organization. I really don't know that much about them.

Odysseus
06-16-2011, 04:26 PM
When I was a kid, they sponsored the baseball leagues in the rural Oklahoma town I grew up in.

I am with you on the principles, though. They sound almost leftist. But that could be because they are a Christian oriented organization. I really don't know that much about them.

There are a couple of lines that could be construed as leftist, but mostly, they come off as conservative.

That faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life; Conservative take on religion.
That the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations; Neutral. Could be leftist, but also a Christian doctrine.
That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise; Conservative/Libertarian. Free enterprise tends to send lefties screaming for their copies of the Federal Register. Leftists would cite economic justice, but equate it with some sort of planned economy or wealth sharing program.
That government should be of laws rather than of men; Neutral, but more conservative than liberal, especially when viewed in terms of Constitutional law.
That Earth's great treasure lies in human personality; Neutral, but definitely in opposition to enviro-leftism, which sees humanity as a plague on mother Earth.
And that service to humanity is the best work of life. Neutral to mildly leftist, but most conservatives would agree with that statement, as well.

BTW, the Elks have a similar credo:


To inculcate the principles of Charity, Justice, Brotherly Love and Fidelity; to recognize a belief in God; to promote the welfare and enhance the happiness of its Members; to quicken the spirit of American patriotism; to cultivate good fellowship; to perpetuate itself as a fraternal organization, and to provide for its government, the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the United States of America will serve the people and communities through benevolent programs, demonstrating that Elks Care and Elks Share.

For really gonzo dogma, you have to join the Raccoon Lodge.

Arroyo_Doble
06-16-2011, 04:36 PM
That faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life; Conservative take on religion.Christian left but I can see where conservatives might fall in there as far as lip service - I say neutral but I think of Christians as being pretty far left
That the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations; Neutral. Could be leftist, but also a Christian doctrine. Definitely leftist ... the kind of thing that will get the nutwing right talking about treason
That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise; Conservative/Libertarian. Free enterprise tends to send lefties screaming for their copies of the Federal Register. Leftists would cite economic justice, but equate it with some sort of planned economy or wealth sharing program.I would tend to agree, there for the most part. Neoliberal value set where economic freedom brings political freedom
That government should be of laws rather than of men; Neutral, but more conservative than liberal, especially when viewed in terms of Constitutional law. Neutral ... and conservatives only pretend to value the Constitution for dramatic purposes. They ignore it when its not on their side
That Earth's great treasure lies in human personality; Neutral, but definitely in opposition to enviro-leftism, which sees humanity as a plague on mother Earth. Yea ... clean air and water are for commies
And that service to humanity is the best work of life. Neutral to mildly leftist, but most conservatives would agree with that statement, as well. That is definitely left. The right is about the needs of the individual being paramount. Ayn Rand created an entire life philosophy that pretty much calls that sentence slavery. Not sure how you got neutral out of that..

..........

Phillygirl
06-16-2011, 04:38 PM
..........

Today is Thursday.

Arroyo_Doble
06-16-2011, 04:40 PM
Today is Thursday.

Liberals suck. Now where's my bathtub? I have a nation to drown.

Odysseus
06-16-2011, 05:13 PM
Liberals suck. Now where's my bathtub? I have a nation to drown.

What, and pollute that water? Fascist!

The line about only commies caring about clean air and water was old when Teddy Roosevelt set up the National Parks. The difference is that commies want to run the economy, and are willing to use the pretext of environmental concerns to do it, even though communism has the worst record on pollution of any economic system.

But, you keep that meme up. Just because it's false, hackneyed and infantile has never stopped a leftist before.

Arroyo_Doble
06-16-2011, 05:24 PM
What, and pollute that water? Fascist!

The line about only commies caring about clean air and water was old when Teddy Roosevelt set up the National Parks. The difference is that commies want to run the economy, and are willing to use the pretext of environmental concerns to do it, even though communism has the worst record on pollution of any economic system.

But, you keep that meme up. Just because it's false, hackneyed and infantile has never stopped a leftist before.

Yea. Levin. I've heard his schtick. He just wants "freedom" from the "tyranny" of not being allowed to piss in your drinking water.

Odysseus
06-16-2011, 05:51 PM
Yea. Levin. I've heard his schtick. He just wants "freedom" from the "tyranny" of not being allowed to piss in your drinking water.

Let me be sure that I understand this: Since I listen to Mark Levin's show, I am therefore just a mouthpiece for his opinions, since I can't possibly have an independent thought? :rolleyes: This from a guy who can't form an opinion that doesn't come wrapped in a PBS tote bag (Quick! It's pledge week! Get your checkbook and make it out to Big Bird, care of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Ministry of Truth). Now, to rub your nose in your ignorance and refusal to address the content of my comments:

First, communist states really do have horrific records on environmental issues. Look at what the Soviets did to the Aral Sea, or what the Chinese breath for that matter. But, they are also perfectly happy to use environmentalism to take power over economic activities, as the Global Warming hoax has amply demonstrated.

Second, as I have stated before, conservatives also breath air and drink water, despite your belief to the contrary (I know, you believe that we ingest industrial sludge that's been spiced with the bile of puppies and wash it down with copious amounts of orphans' tears, but that's NPR for you). We also have an interest in clean air and water, we just don't think that the government has our best interests at heart when they run amok and grab power that isn't theirs. Prime example is the federal jurisdiction over "wetlands". The Constitution gives congress authority over the "Navigable waters" of the United States. That was always understood to mean rivers and lakes large enough to be navigated by boats, especially those that crossed state borders. But, after the failure of the Migratory Bird Act, which sought to restrict hunting of waterfowl, the Army Corps of Engineers was given authority over lands in which navigable waters drained, i.e., "wetlands" (or, as they used to be called, swamps). But even that wasn't enough power for the feds. They then redefined wetlands to include any water-covered area that might provide a habitat for waterfowl, which meant that any body of water that could be viewed from the air qualified. This became known as the "glancing geese" standard, believe it or not. People who filled in puddles in their yards were cited by the ACE and EPA for destroying "wetlands". That is what is called "tyranny". And it isn't Mark Levin saying it, it's me.

Third, if you really feel that there is a risk of urine in your drinking water, stop pissing into the wind whenever you respond to a post and try to avoid the "talk radio" meme. It's a sloppy, lazy response to arguments that you don't like addressing directly, and you're not fooling anyone but yourself.

Arroyo_Doble
06-16-2011, 06:00 PM
Let me be sure that I understand this: Since I listen to Mark Levin's show, I am therefore just a mouthpiece for his opinions, since I can't possibly have an independent thought?

Yea, pretty much.

Odysseus
06-16-2011, 06:30 PM
Yea, pretty much.

Well, I said that you didn't have to become the new Wilbur, but you are well on your way to being the same kind of condescending, arrogant, elitist tool that he is.

BTW, writing in National Review, Stanley Kurtz (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269538/bachmann-smart-media-dumb-stanley-kurtz) had a very good observation about the left and leftists:


Liberalism nowadays may be the last great holdout of old-fashioned prejudice. By telling themselves they’re against group hatreds of all kinds, and dismissing their opponents’ arguments as nothing but bigotry in disguise, liberals grant themselves license to despise. They swear, mock, and hate with a clean conscience, never guessing they’re turning liberalism itself into an outpost of bigotry in reverse. The flip side of liberal guilt is this hidden license to hate.

By telling yourself that you are against propaganda of all kinds, and dismissing your opponents' arguments as nothing but regurgitated propaganda that doesn't mesh with the propaganda that you regurgitate, you have given yourself a license to be arrogant and dismissive. You are just as blinkered as you pretend that we are, but flatter yourself with your supposed enlightenment.

Now, are you actually going to answer my points about environmentalism and politics, or are you just going to continue braying like an ignorant jackass?

Arroyo_Doble
06-16-2011, 06:32 PM
Well, I said that you didn't have to become the new Wilbur, but you are well on your way to being the same kind of condescending, arrogant, elitist tool that he is.

BTW, writing in National Review, Stanley Kurtz (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269538/bachmann-smart-media-dumb-stanley-kurtz) had a very good observation about the left and leftists:


Liberalism nowadays may be the last great holdout of old-fashioned prejudice. By telling themselves they’re against group hatreds of all kinds, and dismissing their opponents’ arguments as nothing but bigotry in disguise, liberals grant themselves license to despise. They swear, mock, and hate with a clean conscience, never guessing they’re turning liberalism itself into an outpost of bigotry in reverse. The flip side of liberal guilt is this hidden license to hate.

By telling yourself that you are against propaganda of all kinds, and dismissing your opponents' arguments as nothing but regurgitated propaganda that doesn't mesh with the propaganda that you regurgitate, you have given yourself a license to be arrogant and dismissive. You are just as blinkered as you pretend that we are, but flatter yourself with your supposed enlightenment.

Now, are you actually going to answer my points about environmentalism and politics, or are you just going to continue braying like an ignorant jackass?


Are those my only two choices?

Odysseus
06-16-2011, 06:54 PM
Are those my only two choices?

Pretty much, and it seems that you've chosen the latter. Again.

MrsSmith
06-17-2011, 05:33 AM
That faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life; Conservative take on religion.Christian left but I can see where conservatives might fall in there as far as lip service - I say neutral but I think of Christians as being pretty far left
That the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations; Neutral. Could be leftist, but also a Christian doctrine. Definitely leftist ... the kind of thing that will get the nutwing right talking about treason
That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise; Conservative/Libertarian. Free enterprise tends to send lefties screaming for their copies of the Federal Register. Leftists would cite economic justice, but equate it with some sort of planned economy or wealth sharing program.I would tend to agree, there for the most part. Neoliberal value set where economic freedom brings political freedom
That government should be of laws rather than of men; Neutral, but more conservative than liberal, especially when viewed in terms of Constitutional law. Neutral ... and conservatives only pretend to value the Constitution for dramatic purposes. They ignore it when its not on their side
That Earth's great treasure lies in human personality; Neutral, but definitely in opposition to enviro-leftism, which sees humanity as a plague on mother Earth. Yea ... clean air and water are for commies
And that service to humanity is the best work of life. Neutral to mildly leftist, but most conservatives would agree with that statement, as well. That is definitely left. The right is about the needs of the individual being paramount. Ayn Rand created an entire life philosophy that pretty much calls that sentence slavery. Not sure how you got neutral out of that..

Wow, thanks for the laugh AD. Those were some good jokes. :D Leftist Christians...man, that would totally end tithing and charity, wouldn't it!! ROFL No more missions to foreign countries, leftists only send government money and never, ever go on mission trips just to serve those in need. No Constitutional limits on government...all churches would be Pastafarian!! Enviro-nuts are definitely the best example of the "love your enemies" command!! LOL :D:D

Odysseus
06-17-2011, 11:48 AM
Wow, thanks for the laugh AD. Those were some good jokes. :D Leftist Christians...man, that would totally end tithing and charity, wouldn't it!! ROFL No more missions to foreign countries, leftists only send government money and never, ever go on mission trips just to serve those in need. No Constitutional limits on government...all churches would be Pastafarian!! Enviro-nuts are definitely the best example of the "love your enemies" command!! LOL :D:D

It wouldn't so much end tithing as reverse it. The state/church would get 90% and we'd get to keep 10%, unless we earned too much and ended up in one of the higher brackets.