Alan Keyes arrested in Notre Dame protest

[Odysseus]

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]

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]

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, 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
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.