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...
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.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.
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.
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.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.
What does that even mean: "from faith to convenience"? And how is it relevant? Moving rhetoric, but mostly empty.Except that every church that makes that leap from faith to convenience finds itself losing converts.
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'.
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 ;)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.
Last edited by wilbur; 05-12-2009 at 12:50 PM.
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.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|