www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Number one supporter of abortions to speak at Notre Dame Commen..

That's a chilling thought!

Then again, how many doctors have tried to argue that a baby's nervous system is not developed sufficiently for them to feel pain?

Awarding the degree does, though, indicate that the university found him worthy of the honor of that particular degree.

hawk

Interesting news. The Diocese of Orlando is having a Mass of Reparation [wdtprs.com] for Notre Dame.

Alexis

Please re-read the article. The President is speaking at ASU not U of A. U of A invited the inventor of the Segway. My daughter, a graduating senior at U of A, was ROFLOL when she told me the identity of their commencement speaker.

Our Lord didn't bestow honors on sinners as much as accept them and tell them to "sin no more." Rather a big difference, wouldn't you say?

You conservatives are amazing. Ostensibly you are still upset that Barrack Obama will be speaking at Notre Dame university because he is pro-choice. In reality, you are still upset that you lost the 2008 election.

You still don't seem to understand. Maybe you will understand in time for the 2012 election. Probably not, but hope springs eternal.

To that end, consider this:

You lost.

You lost the last American national election, in 2008, because you are a bunch of single-issue voters and religious fanatics on abortion. The rest of the country doesn't agree with you, or doesn't care; and so they voted for someone else. If you ever want to *win* an election again, you will have to appeal to other people than just yourselves. And that means you will have to care about more types of people than just the fetus.

Conservative theology ? Fine.

Conservative angst, hate, and exclusion? You will just continue to repel prospective allies and prospective voters.

-- John

This is about Catholic doctrine, not about Democrats and Republicans. Otherwise, I as a Norwegian wouldn't care one bit!

John, you are right. They should all watch the following:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#30143781


It reinforces your comment:


You lost the last American national election, in 2008, because you are a bunch of single-issue voters and religious fanatics on abortion. The rest of the country doesn't agree with you, or doesn't care; and so they voted for someone else. If you ever want to *win* an election again, you will have to appeal to other people than just yourselves. And that means you will have to care about more types of people than just the fetus.

General Archibald Murray, in the movie Lawrence of Arabia, called the Arabian campaign a side show of a sideshow and that the real show was the war in Europe. Chris Cilizza, in the msnbc piece, rightly calls this Notre Dame issue the same sort of thing.

So what would the two Johns say to me, someone who was (and largely still is!) in favor of Barack Obama during the election, but also a person who is TOTALLY against his being honored at Notre Dame?

I guess I don't fit into your little preconceived categories, huh?

Oops.

And although I do agree with you that lots of political conservatives and Republicans (neither of which I ever have been, and doubt very much I will ever be) are simply sore losers, just because someone cares about the lives of the unborn does not mean he is a religious fanatic.

Alexis

Dear Alexis,

I am honestly and respectfully curious...since you don't fit into the category in many ways, (as an attorney you will probably be in the tax bracket that gets taxed higher), and as a Catholic you are conservative on moral issues, so what makes you so in favor of the Democratic party? Is it this one candidate, or would it be any Democrat?

Thanks.

Alice, who looks forward to your post.

Some comments:

1. The insinuation of "religious fanatics on abortion" is itself on the level of rhetorical fanaticism against those with a legitimate, opposing view. Just keep shouting it often and louder, and people will believe it and agree and join in, the substance of the issue, abortion, thereby being effectively ignored. It is simply a demeaning remark but since it's "media-correct" it is very "say-able" and effective.

2.The insinuation "you will have to care about more types of people than just the fetus" is another caricaturization, as though caring about the "fetus" automatically implies one cares about no one else. As a rhetorical device, it is just another deplorable form of manipulation, deception and, yes, discrimination -- a conveniently uttered falsehood masquerading as fact.

3. The "single-issue voters" slur is hurled very effectively by those who have same, similar, and even more zealotry for their own single issue, which they are just better able to keep hidden. The problem is not really that it's a single issue, only that it is not THEIR single issue, or an issue THEY support.

4. Odd then that there isn't a movie "General Archibald Murray of Arabia." I've heard of Lawrence, had to look Murray up. According to one source: link [en.wikipedia.org] The so-called "side show" seems to have had an enduring message.

5. The words of Henry Clay, "I'd rather be right than be President!", came to mind, which I found included in this interesting context: link [en.wikipedia.org]
Never president, "principle over ambition", unpopular "stance against slavery", not an "If you ever want to *win* an election again, you will have to appeal to other people than just yourselves" approach. But right on the issue, slavery, so that one day a person of color could even be elected President.

ajk (Deacon Tony) has spoken in truth and with eloquently.

As administrator I generally do not wish to post harshly but both harmon3110 and jonhzonaras (and a few others) are far from both Christian Teaching and logic in what they have posted. I invite them to re-examine the important things and to study what the Church teaches on these issues.

So the Lord has taught us that “Thou shalt not murder” and you consider His Commandments to be nothing but religious fanaticism? How long have you believed this about Christ and His Teachings? Why do you reject them? And do you realize you put your eternal salvation at risk (as well as the lives of the people murdered because you will not stand up for them) when you reject them?

But then there is the illogical point of your post. You say we need to care about more types of people then just the fetus? Firstly, we do. And to say we do not is to accuse falsely. Secondly, of what use are any other rights if one does not have the right to life? Can you please provide a detailed, enumerated list of things that are worth the price of 40 million lives killed from abortion? I ask this and require this question to be addressed in your very next post on this forum.

We serve Christ first.

Thank you Administrator,
I was about to ask them to question if they were even Christian at all. But then again I would probably be shot down as one of those "fanatics". Im glad you took them to task.
Again thank you.
Stephanos I

Alice,

Good question!

Rightly or wrongly, before the election I really did believe that the numbers of abortions under a Republican president wouldn't be lower than under a Democratic one. Even under eight years of Bush, states still don't have the right to decide for themselves, much less is abortion outlawed. The small incremental advancements that were made toward embryonic stem-cells, etc. to me did not necessarily outnumber the lives that could be lost if we engaged in more unnecessary wars (just my opinion). There was also no guarantee that John McCain would keep those laws intact, and I did fear that he might get us involved in another war.

I'm sure plenty of people have found much to disagree with me about in terms of the paragraph above. But I think when one considers the state of things, and of history, I'm just not sure the leadership in either party is really committed to outlawing abortion, or even giving the decision back to the states. With six years of a Republican Congress and President behind us, we still have about the same numbers of abortion occuring yearly. And with a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, in my view unnecessarily.

As far as the tax bracket stuff, I don't consider it at all. Both my parents, through their own hard work and determination (putting themselves through college and law school, building successful self-owned law firms and making intelligent real estate ventures), have built a very comfortable lifestyle for themselves and are in the top tax bracket, but nevertheless are fiscally liberal because in their eyes (and in mine), they have enough, and there are so many people who have so little, through no fault of their own. Yes, my parents give a *lot* of their time and money to charity as well, and if they get taxed a bit more, honestly what's the big deal?

My mother is also of the mindset that the disappearance of a strong middle class and the widening gap between the very rich and very poor is a recipe for Revolution (cf. the French one!). I tend to agree with that to a certain extent.

The fact is that lots of people are poor because they are lazy, and they rely on food stamps and government handouts...no denying that! But I think the facts have also clearly demonstrated that there are many out there who work hard, often two or three jobs, try their best to support their families, do all the "right things," and still barely scrape by, or not at all. And the existence of even one person like that, much less millions, to me justifies taxing the very rich at higher percentages.

I don't really buy the argument that by taxing the very rich at higher rates, that there charitable donations will go down, or go down so much as to offset the higher taxes.

So, Alice, that is probably a scatterbrained response, but there it is!

Please, no one bite my head off!

Alexis

Dear Alexis,

Christ is Risen!

Thank you for your response. I won't bite off your head. I honestly cared to understand.

Be well,
Alice