Obama's Catholic difficulties
Before turning to the Catholic Church, a brief word about me. Or actually you. This is a validation of your decision to come here!
It is a testament to the quality of discussion, and we should all bathe in the glory of what an American organisation calls an honor (everyone shall have prizes!) but we Brits would probably refer to as a "long list". Anyway, I take the American view...
As for the Catholic Church: the row over whether or not the US ambassador to the Holy See ought to be Caroline Kennedy seems to me to be dwarfed in political significance by the 17 May appearance of President Obama at Notre Dame University, the most Catholic of Catholic institutions in the US.
Protests are growing and a compromise is desperately required for both sides.
This is one suggestion and it may well be attractive to all concerned (if you have been to Columbia and Harvard you do not really need the extra degree), but I put my money on a big Obama moment in the speech - a chance to speak to the nation about tolerance and bigotry again as he did after the Rev Wright controversy.
Protests could actually be helpful - Nixon and friends used to love speaking at university campuses in order to look reasonable and cool in the face of impolite crowds...
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Way to go ! And if they could learn to spell it 'honoured' that would be even 'fabbier'. Or 'webbier'. Or something.
But well done anyway.
Complain about this comment
This is far more than you're making it out to be.
One of the main ways American Universities generate revenue is through NCAA Division 1 sports. Notre Dame is no exception. Indeed the recent struggles of the University's football team (and its lack of bowl appearances especially) has hurt the school financially. They don't need this. If a goodly sized chunk of America sees this as a sleight to their newly elected president, that could affect TV revenues next fall (the game viewership ratings could take a hit). Remember, there doesn't have to be an organized boycott or the like. Every college football game broadcast has plenty of competition. Even mild ill-feeling towards the university could cause a viewer to select another game. The truth is that Notre Dame has such a long football tradition that this wouldn't have anywhere near the deleterious affect that it would on another university, but it still would have an effect.
I'd be willing to bet you Notre Dame blinks in a manner similar to that of ASU (which also faced the same backlash). I'm certainly not sure of it. Notre Dame is run by priests after all.
Complain about this comment
"It is a testament to the quality of discussion, and we should all bathe in the glory of what an American organisation calls an honor (everyone shall have prizes!) but we Brits would probably refer to as a "long list". Anyway, I take the American view..."
I can't make heads or tails out of this paragraph. Would someone please translate?
Complain about this comment
Thank Christ for that.
Out of Pirate talk Sam
Complain about this comment
ASU is also in a controversy over the "honorary degree" issue. I think the whole thing is one of those "tempests in a tea pot." No amount of justification can be found for a refusal to give our President an honorary degree when he speaks at commencements. Considering those who have been 'honored' over the years with what amounts to academic bathroom tissue, the whole thing is ridiculous.
I believe the this current debacle of 'honorary degrees and speaking at commencements' to be a not so subtle result of the racism that still poisons our society. It is time that racism be called what it is and abandoning a pretense that it is anything else.
Congratulations to Justin Webb and thank you for rescuing your posters with a new thread!
Complain about this comment
Notra Dame maybe the most favourite Catholic University For Football.
Georgetown is the National Catholic University, and now they are doing obama's bidding!
Complain about this comment
I wonder which threads those Webby people read. Can't have been all of them. I'm preening, though. Adore being validated.
3, Andy - Did you go to the link? Justin prefers to see it as an honor (American view) rather than the more understated British "long list."
Complain about this comment
The honorary degree is just that an honor that is given to most prominent speakers. despite my many policy disagreements with him , if President Obama is speaking at Norte Dame; he should be given an honorary degree.
I will admidt when my university gave Kofi Annan one I did write the President of my school to protest.
But a big difference beetween a terrorist appeaser and a U.S President. But let's talk about the hypocracy when Bush or Rice is asked to speak and the left protests an honorary degree.
As far as the witch of you knows, Caroline is another of the dim witted Kennedy children.
Complain about this comment
Well Justin - congratulations! I can hardly believe it, what with all the slashing and bashing that goes on here. Perhaps in blog talk it is considered "lively debate" and the definition of a successful blog. Are we all going out to dinner to celebrate? If so, I suggest you ask some of your bloggers to leave their issues at home.
Complain about this comment
Huh?
Complain about this comment
Anyway, I take the American view...
No kidding
As to the catholics seeing red.
These are the same american catholics that rally everyday to prevent murder by the state?
Oh no they forgot that bit.
PS why is you blog so popular.? you have racists on one page saying murder is OK and talking of darker hued fellows that are undesirable.
Is that why the controversy always plays out on your thread , and why you have continually allowed racism to be present in both your posters and your posts.
When Will you TRY to look for some positive in a guy who is doing a pretty good job despite the nation behind him.
Andy post I think he is saying that we all have done him proud.
Complain about this comment
5 well said Aqua gal
followed by the totally incomprehensible number 6.what are you not getting?
enough calories to feed your brain.
the post is pointing out how they are not exactly under his control and how they are trying to snub him.
but if that is his bidding the so be it.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 7
Aha! Thank you. I missed the link. Now it makes sense.
Uh, I'm not sure what to think about the Webby. Congratulations to the BBC, I guess. Website awards are a new concept for me. I wonder what they based it on.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 6
"Georgetown is the National Catholic University, and now they are doing Obama's bidding!"
How so?
Complain about this comment
To#6 Drivingduchess
I am confused, please enlighten me.
How is Georgetown's Catholic University doing "Obama's bidding" and what on earth does football have to do with it?
Complain about this comment
To#8 Magickirin
We agree!
If you invite someone to use valuable time to speak at a commencement, that person should at least get an 'honorary degree,' hopefully printed on soft paper!
Complain about this comment
9 well said Time.
I come here to slag off America,not the other places you refer to.
8 Gherkin well said about our president.
Though I think you will find Annan was not an appeaser but we can leave that out of this thread CAN'T WE.
Nice try As for Condi Rice. She was the ONLY one in the last administration with a brain so why would we complain about her getting a degree.
Bush maybe. he was too dumb to read the report that said "MAY BE WMD, But we really arn't sure) I would also leave the right smelly tony the tiger out of any honours while I was at it.
As for Caroline Kennedy not getting the ambassadorship.
Of course she shouldn't.
it should go to a career diplomat. they all should, but that has not been the norm for the USA where every new president has to appoint a new person as a favour.
That is the American way.
the Vatican's stubbornness should be answered by sending them GW as the ambassador the guy who personally signed so many death penalties as gov. and then went on to start wars for laughs .
Or we could send . ME.
I've got diplomacy sweating out.
I'd have fun there and a drink with Stu (or something smokier )
Complain about this comment
"the row over whether or not the US ambassador to the Holy See ought to be Caroline Kennedy"
There is no "row" and this news brief from The Catholic New Service sets the record straight. Any disagreement appears to originate from the fertile and collective imagination of the media.
An address by the President of the United States most certainly transcends religious opinion; interestingly the Fox News (!) link writes "The site . . . says it is a nonpartisan group of Notre Dame graduates and donors who support academic freedom." But apparently not religious freedom or the right to hold other opinions.
Complain about this comment
To#17 Happylaze
You have my vote!
I think you would make a great ambassador but perhaps not to the Vatican. I have some other ideas that I will provide elsewhere.
I agree about Caroline Kennedy not being suitable for a number of reasons. Mostly because I believe that she suffers from long term PTSD. Who would not who has had so many losses in one life? She is also very close to her Uncle Ted. I believe that she has great anxiety and is suffering over his illness.
I think that she really does not want the job of Vatican Ambassador or any other in the public eye. In addition, I believe that her own health is precarious and I would not be surprised if we should get news of that at some time soon.
Complain about this comment
#6 drivingduchess
Please say what you are driving at
Complain about this comment
To#18 Davidcunard
I think that academic freedom and religious freedom may be diametrically opposed which precludes the "right" to hold differing opinions.
Complain about this comment
#9, timewaits, perhaps the slashing and bashing is what got us
where we are today. Where would Dr. Who be without the Daleks?
#17, happy, you have my vote. Say hi to Father Guido Sarducci for me.
In case you would like to go back to school, you could do worse than
by starting here.
Complain about this comment
To#20 Canadacold
I think that car is already off the road!
Complain about this comment
lol DC Thanks . probably a bit more informed than justin, who seems to love muck raking so much he should become a stable boy.
10 Aqua,, good call I could get sea sick and I'm not into Fish.
I am not opposed to Caroline or anyone. I think it should be the job of someone who's job is diplomacy.
I do not agree with the American system of appointing ambassadors that have No diplomatic background.
The UK mostly uses career diplomats . I would say it seems a better arrangement.(no surprises there).
The US state department is the appropriate place to start looking for an Ambassador .
Not cocktail parties in Washington or anywhere else.
America spends vast amounts of energy and money refilling each post in each department, I'd say that is strange .
It is the way here. Built in excess for the sake of political expediency. it always has been.
Not that the UK was much better but they don't change the guard to pure cronies every time the gov was changed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIto5mwDLxo&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=4007E473402A0A45
this here is the way .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xYI3M2098w&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=4007E473402A0A45&index=0
but here is some real diplomacy in action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16sT4yV43Cs&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=4007E473402A0A45&index=6
all hail the BBC
Complain about this comment
ref #18 and 21
FYI conservative speakers have their rights enfringed by the intolerant left more than the other way around. Look at recent actions at Columbia, Brown and others.
And John Zieglar was arrested by storm trooper guards at USC for reporting on award Katie Courac got.
Go to Youtube to see it.
Complain about this comment
22 Guns and religion " Moi bein" se I said I waz educated.
Without Daleks they would have had to introduce republicans.
But no one in the UK would find the characters believable .
Big ;)
Complain about this comment
Ref. 18
'"The site . . . says it is a nonpartisan group of Notre Dame graduates and donors who support academic freedom." But apparently not religious freedom or the right to hold other opinions."
As you surely know, Notre Dame is a private, Catholic institution. As such it does have the right to teach as it sees fit. Since it is not government supported (like state schools), the government has no say in what ideas are espoused by the university. Indeed, the first admendment protects the university from any such interference.
I think we (Americans) have to allow religious schools a different standard than those in the secular vein. If we are to require that all schools observe religious freedom to be considered a institute of higher learning, then we are simply saying that no religious schools will be considered so. As Notre Dame is one of the top universities in the world, let alone the country, I think that would be unjust.
Now, if CU Boulder were to behave this way, I'd be fit to be tied.
Complain about this comment
lol 20 23
cold, Aqua
DC I would be interested to see if they have pro death anti abortionists.
Oh I forgot that is just about half of the states.
Complain about this comment
25 Gherkin Lol thats funny..
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Dear Justin: Congratulations Premium Cheese. Bravo.
Complain about this comment
4. LOL.
Complain about this comment
To Happylaze
See #377 in the kitchen.
Complain about this comment
andy ,, i'll be the devils advocate , but how far are you willing to allow a "religious" private school to go.
(obviously I mean with the exception of CU boulder)
Just for laughs not taking it too seriously . you could have the Mormon school that ways popular with all the boys. It was the only school where you were actively encouraged to have relations with as many girls as possible.
the Rastafarian school where I teach kids to not choke on their , bongs not bombs.
Complain about this comment
To#27 Andypost
CU Boulder exists in its own country.
I agree that universities who collect no taxpayer money and who organize themselves around their own belief systems have a right to preach anything even worship of the Great Pumpkin if they wish. However, if they branch out to inviting controversial figures such as our current President to speak at their own commencements then they have to expect to take some flack.
Complain about this comment
re: 18 David Cunard
Thanks for that link, and for pointing out the joke of Fox calling such a group "non-partisan."
It seems almost every University Administration is beset by such organisations. Here, if you care to look, is a link to one such organisation be-devilling UCLA.
Rush Limburgher would find it non-partisan, to be sure.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Forget this story, its tiny in comparison to all this teabag nonsense.
Complain about this comment
I don't understand all the fuss and bother. Must be a slow news week. Anyway the Catholic church is not that important anymore and after Vatican 2 headed straight downhill. The magic that held it together (a language no one understood, medieval habits and Gregorian chants) were replaced by English, ugly clothing and guitars. The only real advantage the Catholic church still has over protestant churches is that its adherents don't feel compelled to follow its doctrines. It is a mortal sin not to obey your conscience. That gives Catholics a lot of leeway.
Complain about this comment
To#36 Chronophobe
There is no such thing as "non-partisan." The sooner that is accepted the better it will be for all of us. We each walk in our own shoes and would find that the shoes of others pinch our feet.
Complain about this comment
ref #18
I can tell you one former ambassador to the Vatican Ray Flynn has come out strongly against Caroline You know because of her stand on arbortion.
Now I don't think that is automaticly a disqualifier but it does not help.
And we do want our foriegn represetative to have a brain and Caroline's is very tiny.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
Most Americans could care less who the ambassador to the Vatican is, where Caroline Kennedy goes or what she does, and although ASU made fools of themselves with the honorary degree issue, who cares?
There are more important things going on to worry about trivia like this. The levity of the discussion is much appreciated though.
Indiferent agnostic.
Complain about this comment
To#41 Saintdominick
Those of us who live in Arizona would really like to not be allied with "fools." It really all is a "tempest in a teapot" but when it is YOUR teapot that can be somewhat embarrassing.
Complain about this comment
42, aqua -
I'm sure you noticed this, but all through the campaign those of you in Arizona were allied with a fool. I do not hold this against you because I know he was not your personal fool. But you have my condolences. I lived in Virginia when Oliver North was running in the Republican primary for the Senate there and thought I would never be able to hold my head up again. Fortunately, he lost. It made me feel better, if only temporarily, about my fellow Virginians.
I will not make you feel worse by pointing out how we here in Vermont are basking in the glory of our sea captain! I would never be so cruel!
Complain about this comment
40
Career diplomats do not have opinions. that is the point of it.
They do their Job and keep opinion out of it. to some extent
Gherkin. your My flynn.
A jock who made it in politics.
Great next you will be saying that jock reporters running for president would be better than Obama. (who I have to say is doing rather well is he not.)
A Democrat that supported Bush because of his anti abortion stance.
GW BUSH
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/061100-01.htm
131 Executions in how long? 6 YEARS
Seems Bush being anti death is a bit sicker than a joke.
Made the news in the UK. didn't do to well here.
people liked that Killer attitude. the little jokes at people who were about to have their life taken away by murder.
State sanctioned Murder.
But this Mr Flynn who thinks he is somehow in touch with the lord thinks that GW is somehow OK?
Now did he get hit on the head too much, but it seems to me that he is a little injured if he thinks that GW was in any way anything other than a cold blooded murderer. Who killed people for political gain.
Not vengeance. not because he was seething at his friend/relative, who got murdered by someone.
but because he wanted Power.
That Flynn who supported a know killer to take power of the USA. the same killer that then went on to ignore warnings on terrorism and then engaged in two wars that were equally fraught and fought with ,dare I say stupid tactics,(we won)( Alls good) ,( No We don't need any more troops, were fine!), that led to the deaths of many american soldiers.
He must spend all his days in confession these days.
The president that should have been baseball commisioner.
just to hint at where I stand on your so called Critic of Kennedy.
Lover of water boarding and death from above.Sod his opinion.
Complain about this comment
Addendum to Saintdominick
I do agree that there are a lot more important things to discuss but considering the topics that have been blogged here for the last two weeks anything else might be considered somewhat of an improvement.
Also, there is a subtle racism that has pervaded the whole issue of President Obama's invitations to speak at these colleges that I think needs to be faced.
I also feel a yawn occurring when discussing the Catholic church but they are there and believe themselves to have some continuing importance in the grand scheme of things and it hurts no one really to humor them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If you invite someone to speak at your commencement, you should honor that person like all other commencement speakers. If you're a University sponsored by the Catholic church with strong pro-life views, controversy should be expected.
More interesting is news from George Town University, where christian symbols were covered at the request of the White House. Why would a Catholic University allow such a thing?
Complain about this comment
To#43 bere54
Sure you would!
Our stupid, deluded, backwater of a state actually voted for McCain, even though it was not in the best interests of most people here. Now ASU has played themselves for fools. ASU is not even Brand X, more like QED that never really made it.
Complain about this comment
Because if they didn't they would face the wrath of God and would be visited with a pillar of salt and brimstone, who would offer everyone a nice cup of tea and some biscuits
Complain about this comment
47 Rodidog
Who would think that Catholics exist in the UK.
No constant hijacking of national politics on abortion issue all the time. AND the Vatican lets them in.
who would have thought such a thing.
http://ukinholysee.fco.gov.uk/en/our-office-in-holy-see/ambassador/cv
Guess what? Says nothing about past comments on abortion.
Nowt.
by heck
Complain about this comment
To#47 Rodidog
Please provide more information (links) about this.
Complain about this comment
22 gunsandreligion
Not clear on your, "where we are today." Where are we? And who are we? Are you suggesting slashing and bashing is common American discourse? I am rarely the only "foreigner" in a group of debating, to use the term loosely, Americans, so would not know. Enlightenment required.
Complain about this comment
what's controversial about speaking at a catholic Uni.
or a muslim one. or a jewish one.
What is this Obsession in the states with religious differences.
Christians had to split up into ethnic groups. that all worship the same god while distrusting each other.
Words from a catholic song.
"your creed and your colour and your name don't matter any more."
or a song sung by catholics.
Seems to me Notre Dam is probably not the most racially diverse collage but I just read a link to idiots all around , and they said that anti abortion protesters would be there because Obama is pro abortion ( so well like sort of WHO CARES) so go and lend him your support.
Strange people here can't seem to figure out what they are fighting.
Complain about this comment
"Americans, so would not know. Enlightenment required."
Exactly. though some have been through it.
Complain about this comment
#40. MagicKirin: "I can tell you one former ambassador to the Vatican Ray Flynn has come out strongly against Caroline You know because of her stand on arbortion."
Who cares what the former Mayor of Boston thinks? If the US had taken Ambassador Joseph Kennedy's opinions to heart, WWII would have had a quite different result. Mr Flynn should keep his opinions to himself.
"And we do want our foriegn represetative to have a brain and Caroline's is very tiny."
As used to be said about certain male members of the community, it takes one to know one. But do follow the link to The Catholic News since I think they know better than anyone - Ms Kennedy as an ambassador is a non-story.
Complain about this comment
I think that President Obama is 'pro life' if we define pro life as respect for ALL life, all creeds and all nations. So far he has not done anything that makes me think otherwise. However, it seems evident that he has to work harder and do more in order to receive respect himself.
Complain about this comment
Are there any research shrinks in the house?
Complain about this comment
53, happy Jack.
Notre Dame is a Jesuit university. Since Jesuits can rationalize just about anything, all the fuss seems excissive. Actually I get a kick out of Jesuits.
Complain about this comment
56, aqua.
"I think that President Obama is 'pro life' if we define pro life as respect for ALL life, all creeds and all nations."
C'mon. We all know what is meant by "pro-life" as it is used. It means anti-abortion.
Complain about this comment
56 yes it does seem that way doesn't it.
but then for some he really does have to walk on water and become the messiah if he is to be believed. (they seem to be the same that dislike him) anything less is failure.
and when it was GW or that prat Bill or that other prat GHW why you have to go clear back to Carter to find one that did any good.( and yes he did he got solar going. about the only thing decent in 40 years.)
The rest just held on and tried not to get bucked off as the anti anti trust world started to grow.
Including Bill the pill.
But he's been in for a few days now so he should have sorted out all the last 60 years of bull from the "leaders" that are so much more respectable to some it would seem just because they are a little less "dark".
Complain about this comment
Now Obama is going to have to find another way to pay for the Kennedy support. He has tried twice and failed both times. I am still plumping for Ambassadress to the Court of St. James. Great post for a society matron with lots of money, in a friendly country where she is unliketly to do harm.
Complain about this comment
lol Marbles. I'm one of the rare boys who went through a cathlolic education and never got accosted by the priests.
there was one and he was annoying though Mon senior Glen morgan was ok.
Either way I think DC post shows the truth behind the Vatican not being as crazy as it's american off shoots.
Complain about this comment
Dinner
Complain about this comment
re:39 aquagal,
Hey, but what about, "never judge a man till you've walked a mile in his moccasins?" I'm alright with that.
On the other hand, you'd have a heck of a time getting me into a pair of heels.
Ok, I see your point.
Yours,
Pinko
Complain about this comment
52, timewaits: "Where are we? And who are we?"
Exactly.
Slashing and bashing seems to be an international sport. The ones that
get thrown out of bars because they are disagreeable and can only tell
the correct time twice a day are the ones that show up here to be lampooned.
Living above a noisy biker's bar, as you Canucks do, you might think
that Americans are a radical sort, prone to extremes, but that's just
the fractured, slow-witted US media that presents that picture.
The US media make money off it - at some point, the need for entertainment
replaced the need for good journalism, and that's why we're showing
up on the BBC site.
Complain about this comment
To#61 Allmymarbles
You have my vote!
We all know how words are used to manipulate and it is important to call that out every time. I believe that President Obama is 'pro life' and 'pro choice' because I have seen nothing yet that contradicts that.
Please enjoy you evening.
Complain about this comment
61, Ms. Marbles, Caroline looks a little bit flakey, like someone who
has been sheltered from the world.
Dare we inflict this on our friends? We should send her to Cuba to
hang out with Mariel and revive the whole Hemmingway thing.
Complain about this comment
67, guns.
I figured Caroline Kennedy couldn't do any harm in England. And she could give great parties.
62, happy Jack.
I suspect there is more homosexuality now in the Catholic church than there was in my youth. The gossip I heard in those days was about priests having affairs with women. Also there was a lot of prressure then to give a son or daughter to the church. And those children who became priests or nuns had a much higher status and were almost revered by their families - not like today. That's not to say that there wasn't scandal about some of the old boys, and I can think of one cardinal who was known as "the queen of New York."
Complain about this comment
gunsandreligion
"good journalism"
I remember when, and it was not that long ago, I knew the names and reputations of the US anchormen. It doesn't seem important any more. If I want to see what is going on I watch the CBC or BBC. Thank you for the enlightenment. I was concerned you meant slashing and bashing was typical behaviour.
Complain about this comment
62, happy Jack.
"...Vatican not being as crazy as it's american off shoots."
People don't understand the difference between Latin Catholics and Irish Catholics. The former are more easy going and the latter more doctrinaire. The U.S hierarchy is Irish. Let's not forget that it was an Italian Catholic who made the first condom. And that was long ago.
Complain about this comment
Look, being "honored" is all very well, but as Alice might say, what's the use of an award without money or free food? Will someone email each of us a teabag or something?
Anyone would think Obama was going to a Catholic university (how peculiar that -- ditto 'Baptist' or "Methodist' -- sounds to us Brits) to hand out prophylactics to gays. Now I suppose that might be a tad controversial.
Complain about this comment
Marbles. I just see american catholics.lol. But then I haven't been to church here for many a year.
71 Digestives for us stuck in purgatory land.Or maybe even Hobnobbies.
mmmm
As to Notre Dam. there is one question. Do they have a hunchback ?
other than that who cares.
Complain about this comment
68, Ms. Marbles, you're right if she could throw a good party.
Complain about this comment
I mean...like...the Vatican wants somebody to hang out with that is...you know...like-minded. YouknowwhatImean...somebody who digs human life. Somebody who knows about life in the womb...and all that stuff. Somebody who wants to stem all the cell research.
I don't think they care about recruiting somebody for the football team. Yeah...right! Like the Vatican even has a football team. Wow! Dude! Where would they get cheerleaders? It's like an all boys school, or something. They just want somebody who...you know...is into Jesus like they're into Jesus.
Oh! Wow! Dude! Like...this would really be a great time for the Big O Man to show some more of that bi-partisanship stuff...you know!
What's that chick's name? Oh! Man! You know? The one that lives next to Russia? Oh! Wow man! She'd be perfect! Like she could be the whole cheerleading squad. Oh man! I'm just blasted. YouknowwhoI'mtalking'bout. She was on television all the time until...like...November. Man! This is embarrassing, Dude. Like...she even knew my name.
Joe Six-pack
Complain about this comment
#61. allmymarbles: "I am still plumping for Ambassadress to the Court of St. James. Great post for a society matron with lots of money, in a friendly country where she is unliketly to do harm."
But what about her husband, Edwin Schlossberg? He'd have to go as well and that seems unlikely, not to mention the two youngest children. I can't see that working out, particularly since her grandfather was no friend to Britain.
Complain about this comment
72, happy Jack.
"I just see american catholics.lol."
I would say Irish Catholics. The difference between Irish and Italian Catholics is that the Irish do what the church tells them (or feel guilty), whereas the Italians do whatever they want and make up reasons, sort of like in-the-closet Jesuits.
I don't like to think of you in purgatory suffering the blather of ubermensch, untrue and staph. aureus. That is too cruel. The Jesuits said that, if I am good, I would get to go to Limbo because I am a "victim of the invincible ignorance." But now there is no Limbo, so I am destined to ..... what? Maybe you could avoid Purgatory by becoming a fellow "victim." Victimization is the in thing now.
Complain about this comment
74, Publius.
Too, too funny of you to visit purgatory on the Vatican. The Pope would probably convert ot Buddhism.
(And what would Palin do when she found out his wardrobe was more expensive than hers?)
Complain about this comment
Ref 71 british-ish
Dude! You can have some of mine. Here, man.
Like...I took some into the sports bar I go to...you know...to hand out to people and stuff. Dude! They didn't even know what it was. They thought it was something to wipe up the little round puddles from sweat dripping off your beer glasses.
I told them, "No! Dude! This is like serious stuff. We all need to protest like the pilgrims did...you know. Dress up like indians and paint out faces...and stuff." Well...there were a couple chicks that got into painting my face. They used their lipstick and eyeliner stuff on me. I really felt patriotic after that. Man! Like...I got a little American flag on a toothpick and I was waving it around! Everybody started mopping their sweat rings with the tea bags. We were really protesting! Like...real First Amendment stuff!
Oh. Dude. Don't worry. I dried out all the teabags I'm sending you.
Do you know the name of that chick I was talking about earlier? You know. The one who wore the cool glasses everybody liked? Raised like...caribou or something. Maybe like in Maine where it gets real cold and snows.
Joe Six-pack
Complain about this comment
78, publius.
No one can top you. Thanks for the laughs.
Complain about this comment
Ref 77 allmymarbles
I don't know this purgatory stuff. I mean...like..like I should. There were lots of Polish Catholics in my church. They really know all that Pope stuff.
We had a lot of Irish Catholics too. They crossed themselves a lot...but wasn't anything in comparison to the Polish Catholic women.
There was this one chick. You know...Polish Catholic. Kinda older. Like...she knew everything the Pope was even thinking. Wow! Dude! She could even see the little circle...you know...kinda like a circular bumb in the leather of my wallet. She knew what it was! She'd tell me the Pope thought that carrying one of those was wrong. I knew she knew because she went to mass all the time. Even during the week!
I'll limbo with you, Dude! I gotta tell you. I'm really good at that! I can limbo REAL low. Like...I limbo so low I have to be careful not to let my brush-cut touch the floor. You know that's wrong!
Joe Six-pack School of Limbo
Complain about this comment
I wonder why he had to have crucifix covered up when he spoke. The students at Notre Dame that are opossed to BHO speaking there have a valid point. But the central point in catholic doctrine is that the politicians have a moral obligation to honor the teachings of the faith they are a member of. This standard does not apply to those who are not members of the Catholic faith. Notre Dame like Georgetown invited BHO to speak becuase they wanted to be pc and brown nose. I expected a little more from my alma mater, but then again we all must be pc these days.
Complain about this comment
Ref 79 allmymarbles
Oh! Dude. I know lots about the Catholic church. I was even an altar boy. You know. I got to ring the bells...and everthin'! I rang the bells so well...well, they had to find another thing for me to do. Like a promotion. I knew right then, Dude...I was on my way to becoming a priest.
I was playing the bells to get chicks.
When I found out that there are no chicks to jingle the bells for as soon as I took the oath...Dude I split that scene. I mean...why would you work so hard learning to jingle the bells without an appreciating audience. A waste, Dude. A real waste.
Oh! Dude before the bartender gets back with my next beer, and I forget. Thanks for the name! That's her! Sally Palin! Oh! Dude! She's a true believer. I know. The kinda older chick I know. She told me the Pope is keeping a sharp eye on Sally's career.
Joe Six-pack Bell-ringing Productions
Complain about this comment
78. At 05:46am on 18 Apr 2009, publiusdetroit wrote:
Ref 71 british-ish
Dude! You can have some of mine.
I was thinking of trading the other way. There's a British company (what else?) advertising tea bag making and filling machines to be found on the Huff Post page that has the John Oliver teaparty thing on it. (Don't think the Beeb will let me link to a commercial site.) Export opportunities here. The Republican Party and Fox News can save a fortune by making their own. Maybe even with stars and stripes patterns?
Complain about this comment
82. At 06:41am on 18 Apr 2009, Joe Sixpack wrote:
"When I found out that there are no chicks to jingle the bells for . . ."
Well there wouldn't be, would there? That's why it's called campanology.
Complain about this comment
#50 Happylaze,
Not sure what your point is in context to my post. Abortion is an hot button topic in US. If someone who just provided Federal funding for foreign abortions is invited to speak at a religious institution, you're bound to have unhappy campers...just saying.
#51 aquarizonagal,
link to George Town Story, if you google you'll several others:
www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Jesus-Missing-From-Obamas-Georgetown-Speech.html
My question is: why select a venue for a foreign policy speech where you feel a need to cover their symbols, and why would such a place allow such symbols to be covered?
Complain about this comment
Ref 81 amerika_first
Good Morning amerika, how are ya! Well don't you know me? I'm a native son!
Dude! I keep hearin' that the Big O Man is some kinda new Christian-Islamic kinda Duda. The Big Duda! You know...like an Abdula Big Duda.
I know it's confusing. It confuses me too, Man. This side says he's Christian. This side says he's Islamic. This side says he's...well let's just say...it's not something for polite company. YouknowwhatImean. It's like...what does it matter? The Dude can be solid on all sides of the equation. He can be like...half Christian...half Islamic...half...well...wait a second. (too many halves make a...) Let me buy you a drink.
Okay. Like, Dude. The Big Duda...Abdula Big Duda...is only human, Man.
I mean...all people that belive in one kinda God...they just read different books. Yeah...(hehe)...like anyone reads a book these days. (hehe)
It's like...I have a book. I-I do! I read it once, Dude! I mean...like the whole book! Not just the dog-earred pages.
I know! I know! Like...reading books are for...
Anyways. So I read a book, Dude. Big deal. I'm cool with it. You should read one. Sorry. I mean...if you haven't already read one.
I don't know, Man. I'm thinking about it. It's like...well...if you read one book. The right kinda book. You know...something that is...kinda fun to read. Then, a whole new world opens! It's like...Dude...if you really read the book. I mean...really get into the book. WoW! It's like ecstasy!
Joe Six-pack Booksellers
Complain about this comment
America and Americans!
Much as I admire the place and most of its people I cannot help feeling in the last few years the right-wing/conservative element have been presenting an awful image of this great Nation and the 'Catholic' hullabaloo about President Obama is just one more example.
I am not one who bluntly opposed Pres Bush or the Iraq invasion and I certainly think longterm History has still to judge the impact and results of his policies. Nevertheless, those 8 years are perceived by most of the World as bordering on disastrous for USA-internal development as well as USA-International relations.
The image these supposedly intelligent, educated Americans are giving is that they would rather listen to the words of a man who lost touch with reality the moment some aged Cardinals secretly elected him than a man elected in the full glare of public approval and the process of democracy! Because of their commitment to their Faith some RC including several in the higher echelons of the USA RC and Political Republican leadership oppose President Obama being giving an Honorary Degree and even allowing the man to make a Speech. It is testimony to how well the US Public did in voting for a Democrat President and Democrats in general and how very little the Republican-Right Wing have learned from their international unpopularity and electoral humiliation.
As for the Pontiff: With respect to all RC and His Holiness, when is the man going to make a pronouncement on 21st Century issues, such as 'termination of pregnancy', 'cellular research', 'AIDS prevention', 'safe sex', 'gays', 'holocaust' etc. that does not sound as if it were written in the 19th Century at some cut-off, hill-top monastic centre supplied by baskets of food and water from an illiterate, superstitious peasantry!?
Complain about this comment
85. At 07:42am on 18 Apr 2009, rodidog wrote:
"My question is: why select a venue for a foreign policy speech where you feel a need to cover their symbols, and why would such a place allow such symbols to be covered?"
Why not? Why should a President who obviously does not wish to be adopted by the supporters of one religious sect as Dubbyah was, prefer not to have an obvious symbol of one behind him. Presumably, he spoke there because he was invited, and to have "Iesu Hominem Salvator" above his head would send a rather partisan signal in a speech about foreign policy. Or are you suggesting speeches ought to be made only in venues appropriate to their content? I can just see the reaction if the Prez was filmed speaking about drug trafficking in a crack house . . .
I hope the same will apply to any appearance he makes in front of other religious groups who have in the past made a point of prominently displaying flags . . .
Anyway, Obama is a protestant. That 'secret Muslim' thing is what it's all about, really, isn't it? Any Senators set up an "Unchristian Activities Committee" yet? Doesn't look as though it'll be long.
I was brought up as a 'Primitive Methodist' who had reservations about any religious symbol at all being displayed, even a straightforward cross. And we'll have no cracks about being uncivilised, either, if you don't mind. That's not what the founders meant when they separated from the Wesleyans.
Complain about this comment
47. rodidog wrote:
More interesting is news from George Town University, where christian symbols were covered at the request of the White House. Why would a Catholic University allow such a thing?
That is just beyond belief. Whoever acquiesced in covering the symbols of their faith has no right to be in authority over a hot dog stand, leave alone a university. What a shameful act.
85. rodidog,
I pasted in your link but it didn't work. I found some others via Google:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,516906,00.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46667
Re abortion, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Catholic point of view. The tunnel-visioned social engineers of the left regard abortion as "progressive." I'd like to know what is progressive about the killing of the unborn. Regressive is more like it. What is most disturbing is the fact that limit of the term of pregnancy at which abortion is allowed has been steadily lengthening. I guess soon we'll able to legally murder the newborn with the comrades of the left enthusiastically waving banners to celebrate such a wonderful achievement. At the same time, euthanasia of the elderly and terminally ill will become more widespread and permissible till we reach a point where, for one reason or another, it will be legal to put anyone to sleep, much like you would put down a dog.
The "pro-choice" crew should take a careful look at the sick society that has resulted from their selfishness and consider how much sicker it is likely to get, fostered and encouraged by damaging decisions made by people like Obama without regard for the horrendous consequences.
30. aquarizonagal,
That's a little rough. You don't seem to like Catholics too much.
Complain about this comment
39. aquarizonagal wrote:
To#36 Chronophobe
There is no such thing as "non-partisan." The sooner that is accepted the better it will be for all of us. We each walk in our own shoes and would find that the shoes of others pinch our feet.
I agree to a degree. Take the BBC for example. It is obliged by its charter to be impartial, objective, balanced and fair in its reporting. Instead we see it leaning so far left that it walks with a permanent crick in its back and one leg shorter than the other. The BBC is in serious need of physiotherapy to straighten itself out.
BBC reporters show a near-total inability to separate out their personal bias from their reporting. They campaign for causes dear to their hearts rather than report and analyse. Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen has just been judged to be biased by the BBC Trust in at least some of his reporting on the Israeli-Arab conflict. And it takes a helluvah lot for the BBC Trust to find bias in BBC reporters. They usually have to be dragged kicking and screaming to even look at the possibility of their beloved BBC being less than perfect.
The complainants had to push the BBC for well over a year to even produce that meagre acknowledgement that Bowen is biased against Israel.
Complain about this comment
#88 british-ish wrote:
Why not? Why should a President who obviously does not wish to be adopted by the supporters of one religious sect as Dubbyah was, prefer not to have an obvious symbol of one behind him.
-------------------------------------------------
Well, that's the whole point. Why speak in a hall, decorated with religious symbols, if you fear adoption from a particular denomination or religion? If you want a secular speech with no religious over tones, use a secular venue.
----------------------------
Anyway, Obama is a protestant. That 'secret Muslim' thing is what it's all about, really, isn't it? Any Senators set up an "Unchristian Activities Committee" yet? Doesn't look as though it'll be long.
Sounds pretty silly to me, but if you believe Obama is a secret Muslim....whatever.
--------------------------------------------------------
I was brought up as a 'Primitive Methodist' who had reservations about any religious symbol at all being displayed, even a straightforward cross. And we'll have no cracks about being uncivilised, either, if you don't mind. That's not what the founders meant when they separated from the Wesleyans.
Sounds primitive.
Complain about this comment
Ref 90 TrueToo
Dude. Is this Middle East place like somewhere in Pennsylvania? Up-state New York, or something? I mean...like...everybody knows the Midwest starts in Ohio, Man. We all learned about that in fourth grade. What were you doing then? Didn't your mom tell you to pay attention in class?
I'm only asking because...like...you're talking about some town called Israel. Is that a suburb of Bethlehem, PA? I've been there Dude! They have a place that serves a great Philly Cheese Steak sandwich. If you go there, tell them to make it with extra cheeze-whiz. That stuffs to die for, Dude!
I'm with you, Dude, on that kicking and screaming stuff. We had this kid in our social studies class that was always kicking and screaming. They used to take him down to the school nurse all the time. He'd come back really mellow. Dude! You should try that sometime. Get mellow. You know...kick back and think some pleasant thoughts. Like Philly Cheese Steak sandwiches. It'll help your karma, Dude!
Joe Six-pack Philly Cheese Steak Vendors
Complain about this comment
The Facebook group you mentioned currently has 135 members, while a group supporting Jenkins has 1,743 members.
Complain about this comment
Since the new format of this page the links no longer show up unless I mouse over them. So the first paragraph was also incomprehensible to me untill I found the one word link. But I still do not understand the 'long list' reference. I am British but have lived in US or 14 years so perhaps I am forgetting British things!
Thank you to whoever posted the Vatican denial. Please Justin be more balanced in your links - why assist the right wing crazies they have enough power and money behind them already.
Complain about this comment
88. british-ish wrote:
Why should a President who obviously does not wish to be adopted by the supporters of one religious sect as Dubbyah was, prefer not to have an obvious symbol of one behind him. Presumably, he spoke there because he was invited, and to have "Iesu Hominem Salvator" above his head would send a rather partisan signal in a speech about foreign policy.
I had a similar thought when I first heard of this. But I think the point here is if you are representing a country, you represent the whole country. To me this incident smacks of the current fashionable obsession to regard Christianity as an embarrassment and something that has to be curtained off. It's also highly likely that they didn't want to "offend" Muslims by displaying Christian symbols, whether or not Obama is a "hidden Muslim." In fact, this is deeply offensive to Christians.
74. 78. 80. 82. 86. 92. publiusdetroit,
Brevity is the soul of wit.
In other words, if you are trying to be funny, keep it short.
Complain about this comment
39
Your complaint of left wing bias in the BBC is bizarre. The BBC has always pointed to the fact that it is criticised by both sides as a sign that they have it about right. I complain about Justin's apparent tendency to keep us up to date with the right wing view. And of course the BBC is demonstrably conservative in many ways because it is an institution paid for by the government.
What you may be missing is that what is called a liberal education is just that. Educated people tend to take a bigger, more nuanced view, more liberal, more contextual, more internationalist, etc. etc. view so yes thoughtfull educated people are on the whole are going to be more liberal even when working within a conservative institution like the BBC.
Justin is of course a special case because he seems to have been affected by over exposure to his particular Washington sub-culture - in the days of Empire this was called going native.
Complain about this comment
94. AAPrescott,
So your idea of "balance" is to only link to left wing crazies?
Complain about this comment
Storm in a teacup.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ikamaskeip (87),
- "Nevertheless, those 8 years are perceived by most of the World as bordering on disastrous for USA-internal development as well as USA-International relations."
Well put, and I second the rest of your observations. Fortunately (for all but the hierarchy) most of the Catholic Laity are more sensible than the guardians of their faith.Brit (88), A good answer to a pertinant question.
AAP (96),
- "Justin is of course a special case because he seems to have been affected by over exposure to his particular Washington sub-culture - in the days of Empire this was called going native."
Indeed, and we cannae be doin' wi' ony o' that, can we? Och, noooooo!Slainté!
Complain about this comment
ref #96
I have to laugh at your declaration of the left being more nuanced, intelligent and thoughtful. Sweeping generalization of both sides.
Liberal academia is more intolerant than most of society and rejects the principal of reason arguments contrary to them.
And now to protest any Obama decision get you called a racist.
What happened to the people who claimed Dissent was the highest form of Patriotism?
Complain about this comment
Hello everyone - before I scroll back and read the previous posts, here are my initial thoughts....
The Vatican is entitled to its opinion of ambassadorial candidates of course, but for me the issue is simply "Why should the Vatican even have diplomatic status as a country?" No other religion has it's own nation state (although many nation's have a state religion - it is very different).
Re Notre Dame - if the alumni want to stifle debate and discourse then they are simply blind fundamentalists who will brook no tolerance of ideas different to their own.
If the university wants to claim any sort of standing as a place of learning, rather than indoctrination, it should of course let Obama speak. You don't have to agree with him, although it seems many do.
On the issue of Bob McDonell's comments on withholding the honorary degree from Obama.... I doubt Obama would care. I have always though honorary degrees were a particularly stupid and irrelevent part of academia. I remember Nelson Mandela got so many when he came to the UK for the first time as President of South Africa, that instead of him going to each university for a ceremony, the universityies came to him, and all the deans lined up to hand him certificates. Ridiculous! (although I certainly beleive he was a great man who merits much honour)
Now to read the posts and see what you all think...
Ciao
Complain about this comment
PS to Justin and everyone ..... wow, a "webby" (is the award named for Justin himself????
Congratulations one and all
Complain about this comment
#95
Obviously you're not funny.
Sam
Complain about this comment
81 amerika
"But the central point in catholic doctrine is that the politicians have a moral obligation to honor the teachings of the faith they are a member of. This standard does not apply to those who are not members of the Catholic faith."
Yes indeed, and Obama is not catholic - but should this catholic university bar the US president from speaking because of a certain disparity of views? He is not to be speaking out about social policy, so it is irrelevent.
Also re the catholic doctrine, not just politicians, but all adherents to a faith should honor the teachings. There was something in that book about those without sin and casting first stones ..... should the church excommunicate all so-called catholics who use condoms or have abortions? Let's see how long the church lasts.
"Notre Dame like Georgetown invited BHO to speak becuase they wanted to be pc and brown nose. I expected a little more from my alma mater, but then again we all must be pc these days."
Or perhaps they think that the president of the USA, whatever his views on abortion, might have something interesting to say. You demean yourself and your alma mater by this comment.
Complain about this comment
93. Michael_Walsh wrote:
"The Facebook group you mentioned currently has 135 members, while a group supporting Jenkins has 1,743 members."
Thank you for this info Michael. Only with good information can we formulate rational opinions.
As ever it seems a few rich or well-placed extremists seek to hijack free speech with their narrow brand of fundamentalist dogma. Let them protest as is their right, but why not let the alumni decide democratically what to do? So far it seems they want him.
Complain about this comment
Why does the Vatican not want Kennedy?
Perhaps they fear that the word will get out that her New England compatriot Cardinal Bernard Law did not go off to some quiet parish in the boonies after the whole priest scandal a few years ago .... but in fact got a huge promotion to be Arch-priest of the Basilica of St Mary Major in Rome. Ah, the wages of a cover-up ...... scandalous!
Complain about this comment
#94. AAPrescott: "Since the new format of this page the links no longer show up unless I mouse over them. So the first paragraph was also incomprehensible to me until I found the one word link."
There's something wrong with your browser - the links should show up in blue type rather than black.
"I still do not understand the 'long list' reference. I am British but have lived in US or 14 years so perhaps I am forgetting British things!"
I'm British too (and posted the link you refer to) but can see why Justin calls it a long list - there are seventy categories, so the honour is almost meaningless - rather than an honour, it is, as he says, simply a long list - calling a spade a spade. It makes the Oscar categories appear positively skimpy.
#96. "Educated people tend to take a bigger, more nuanced view, more liberal, more contextual, more internationalist, etc. etc. view"
Clearly you have not lived in the United States long enough! There are plenty of highly educated people on both sides of the Atlantic who are none of those things and who display extreme bias.
#95. TrueToo:"It's also highly likely that they didn't want to "offend" Muslims by displaying Christian symbols, whether or not Obama is a "hidden Muslim." In fact, this is deeply offensive to Christians."
More likely that that the President did not wish to be seen as endorsing any one religion, keeping very strictly to the separation of Church and State. However, you do not speak for all Christians and I'll wager that most did not and do not care. You see iniquity where there is none.
Complain about this comment
One of the most interesting political developments this week, besides the apparent rapproachment with Cuba and Venezuela, was the speech delivered by a member of Sen. McCain's campaign team regarding the need to shun the perception of the Republican party as a secular institution. His comments and enthusiastic reaction, and the recent appointment of a moderate African-American as chairman of the GOP, suggest a recognition that the best way for the party to survive the recent onslaught is to move to the center.
Unfortunately, there is a difference between political strategy and ideology and a veneer of tolerance and inclusion is just that, a veneer designed to project an illusion rather than a reflection of reality.
Distancing from religious priorities and refraining from discourse filled with religious overtones and code words will not change the fact that religion, or lack thereof and regardless of party, will continue to influence policy. As human beings we react and act upon our convictions and no matter how hard we try to portray ourselves as tolerant and receptive to differing opinions, when it comes time to vote on legislation we will do it based on what we believe in and what we would like to see implemented.
As for the Vatican, well, I have better things to do that worrying about background noise from an increasingly irrelevant institution, and what it comes to Caroline Kennedy I could care less if she is appointed ambassador or dog catcher...come to think of it, as an animal lover I am not sure I would be very pleased with the latter.
The USA remains fairly conservative on social issues, hawkish on foreign policy (that may be changing), and very liberal on fiscal matters.
Complain about this comment
Notre Dame is the Catholic football school , Georgetown is a Jesuit institution and Catholic University of America is the papal university in the US,
Catholics universities come in many flavors , Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan , etc. and as such may also represent some varied opinion on a number of doctrinal issues .
I suspect if Obama is looking for honorary degrees ( Why should he care?) there will be enough around at other Catholic institutions to fill his basement recreation room wall
Complain about this comment
publius -
Like, priceless, dude!
Complain about this comment
#101
Magic,
The fact is Republicans have an issue, the 'right', or small c conservatives, per se do not. Other than they have no political party to represent them.
The policies made by the Republicans and their pundits over the past 8 years, and to a degree beforehand, depend on a series of arguements thatr were made up with no empirircal data. For example the idea that cutting taxes raises revenues. Not a single study to support it as even a correlation, let alone cause and effect. Yet it bacame a mainstay of Republican policy making.
The net result is a Republican party which cannot discuss based on facts, and so retorts to dogmatic repetition of these made up statements (like the nice Churchill quote) and a reliance on so called 'social' issues which represent the views of a majority of folks in the SE states. This has driven most conservatives to become independent, and the party to lurch further to the right.
As it has done so it's mouthpieces more and more use extreme language that appeals to their base, Limbore, Beck and the likelikening Obama to Mugabe, Mussolini and worse. The problem is they can;t seem to decide if he is a fascist or a socialist.
That doesn't make them racist. It makes them ignorant, perhaps stupid perhaps just manipulative.
The other problem the Republicans have is most of their base are simply average folks who got a leg up through birth. Smart parents made money and they benefited. They are slightly above average in terms of income, slightly below in intelligence. They need to rail against the estate tax because they need daddy's cash to live the same standard of living. The others are folks who get suckered in by the dogma. Joe the Plumber worrying about paying more taxes if he ever makes $250k (don't worry Joe, won't happen).
Average people with chips on their shoulders who can;t take the fact that they are average and have chips on their shoulders. So when someone says, be it an academic or whoever, 'Geez, that's dumb calling Obama a Socialist' they retort 'Are you calloing me a racist?'.
No, they are calling you stupid. And you are proving their point.
Academic Sam
Complain about this comment
My nomination for Ambassador to the Vatican ? Lets have a lottery all the boys and girls who went to parochial school in the U.S. and are now adults.
Kinda like the old Church raffles . It would raise a lot of money ( a dollar a ticket ) and maybe we can use it for the bailout of of all those parochial schools that are in financial trouble in the U.S.
Odds are, we would select a lapsed Catholic as they seem to have the numbers .
Complain about this comment
# 40 MagicKirin wrote:
"I can tell you one former ambassador to the Vatican Ray Flynn has come out strongly against Caroline You know because of her stand on arbortion [sic]./
Now I don't think that is automaticly [sic] a disqualifier but it does not help./And we do want our foriegn [sic] represetative [sic] to have a brain and Caroline's is very tiny."
According to Wikipedia, "She graduated from Concord Academy in Massachusetts in 1975,and received her A.B. from Radcliffe College at Harvard University in 1979. She earned a J.D. from Columbia Law School in 1988, graduating in the top ten percent of her class, several weeks before giving birth to her first child."
I assume by alleging she has a 'tiny' brain you are trying to say you think she is unintelligent?
One of those people, perhaps, who claims to have received a third level education, but clearly has no grasp of basic principles of spelling, grammar and punctuation ?
Complain about this comment
Cap'n Sam (112), Spot on! and Lawchicago,
- "Odds are, we would select a lapsed Catholic as they seem to have the numbers ."
and it would be a good choice.Pax
Complain about this comment
80, publius.
72, happy Jack.
I just realized something. Since limbo is (was) a domain of the Catholics, and if a "victim of the invincible ignorance" (someone who's conscience denied the existence of god) lived a good life was sent to limbo, that would mean that you could be a Catholic and an athiest at the same time. Gotta love those Jesuits!
Complain about this comment
47, rodidog.
"More interesting is news from George Town University, where christian symbols were covered at the request of the White House. Why would a Catholic University allow such a thing?"
That was an arrogant request and Georgetown should have refused. (Note that Georgetown is one word.)
Complain about this comment
88, ish-ish.
"Why should a President who obviously does not wish to be adopted by the supporters of one religious sect as Dubbyah was, prefer not to have an obvious symbol of one behind him. Presumably, he spoke there because he was invited, and to have 'Iesu Hominem Salvator' above his head would send a rather partisan signal in a speech about foreign policy."
I disagree. He can speak at Georgetown without supporting Catholicism. Can you see him going to Israel and demanding that the star of David be covered, or to Iran and require they cover pictures of Ali? The request to Georgetown was foolish and, if anything, negated his acceptance of all religions.
Complain about this comment
108. David_Cunard wrote:
More likely that that the President did not wish to be seen as endorsing any one religion, keeping very strictly to the separation of Church and State. However, you do not speak for all Christians and I'll wager that most did not and do not care. You see iniquity where there is none.
I doubt whether Obama himself dealt with those arrangements. The guy's got others to do that sort of stuff for him. But the separation of church and state in this instance is ridiculous. What could possibly be objectionable about displaying the symbols of the institution at which the president is giving an address? It's part of the PC madness into which the West has fallen. But you are right, I don't speak for all Christians. I just can't imagine many Christians being happy with the situation if they really think it through.
I believe that in America in some places you can't wish people "Merry Christmas" anymore but are obliged to say "Happy holidays," or some such meaningless idiocy. And in Britain you get the absurdity of a worker having to remove her piggy tissue dispenser because it "offends" a Muslim worker while Christmas celebrations have to be scaled down so as not to "offend" other faiths. This is all driven by the social engineers of the lunatic left and the West is slowly losing its senses.
104. SamTyler1969,
It's hard work talking to you people. Ain't nothing at all funny about it.
Complain about this comment
116 lol great escape clause
I see thinly veiled racism .02 is up and running.
Complain about this comment
117 I don't think they put Mary in a bag nor Joseph in a corner with the drapes . As far as Jesus, he is well represented at Georgetown . Where do you get this stuff from ?
Complain about this comment
96, untrue.
"Brevity is the soul of wit."
How would you know?
Complain about this comment
Aqua I think your opinion of Catholics is stained by americans.
I know plenty of good catholics in the UK.
I agree with marbles the Italians are less deferential to the pope(he's theirs after all).
I would agree that the racism is back on this thread in force.
Darker hued folk not welcome. Muslims not welcome.
Some talk about exclusion but then they make sure no Muslim, Buddhist Hindu would want to join a discussion so filled with racially bias hatred.
Some one who has brought Muslims into their posts about a catholic affair , as always.
But the Mods and justin who at least has not let the award go to his head would rather that everyone obey the rules except the right. because they can't read.
Complain about this comment
correction: #122 should be referenced to #95, untrue.
Complain about this comment
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Jesus-Missing-From-Obamas-Georgetown-Speech.html
Seems Georgetown did cover the IHS lettering on a pediment , but as I said, religious symbols abound at Georgetown
Complain about this comment
105
Stu it seems to me that I should care even less about people Degrees in the states.
Any crazy can get a degree.
I have heard so much unreasoned and unreasonable crap that it is amazing they get through.
then somehow have the nerve to complain about affirmative selection.
Their whole degree seems to be based on the sympathy from their tutors for being ,,, well Obama used the word and people got offended so I won't.
but here is the wiki entry for it.
"is a generalized disorder, characterized by subaverage cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors with onset before the age of 18. Once focused almost entirely on cognition, the definition now includes both a component relating to mental functioning and one relating to the individual's functional skills in their environment."
And pub good humour. funny.
and satirical.
and witty.
too much for some.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
109, saintD.
"As for the Vatican, well, I have better things to do that worrying about background noise from an increasingly irrelevant institution, and what it comes to Caroline Kennedy I could care less if she is appointed ambassador or dog catcher...come to think of it, as an animal lover I am not sure I would be very pleased with the latter. "
That just about sums it up.
Complain about this comment
114, John-in-Dublin.
Being proficient academically does not equate with smarts. It is what you do in the real world that matters. I can't see that Caroline Kennedy has done anything to indicate a superior intellect (in the real world).
Complain about this comment
119, Too True.
"I doubt whether Obama himself dealt with those arrangements. The guy's got others to do that sort of stuff for him. But the separation of church and state in this instance is ridiculous. What could possibly be objectionable about displaying the symbols of the institution at which the president is giving an address? It's part of the PC madness into which the West has fallen."
I agree with you 100 per cent.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
130. allmymarbles,
They call that "SNAP." Addressing each another at the same time. Well, I'm glad you agree. I think this must be the first time we have agreed on anything.
Complain about this comment
The largest group protesting Obama's ND visit currently has 5,147 members: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=8d5874e9009992d7c630c71ae8ddf7c7&gid=62506620806&ref=search
The largest group supporting Obama's ND visit currently has 7,525 members: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=8d5874e9009992d7c630c71ae8ddf7c7&gid=70698078952&ref=search
Complain about this comment
#119
Number two,
Ironic. I find talking to you completely unchallenging.
Bored Sam
Complain about this comment
Hmmmm, OK let's see. Some of our wonderfully "liberal" comrades on the left of the political spectrum here are demonstrating their liberal approach to communication and their unswerving commitment to freedom of speech by "referring" my comments. This particular comment could end up setting a record for the most referred comment if I keep on whittling it down and it keeps on getting referred.
So here we go again, though I doubt that AAPrescott is still around to catch it:
96. AAPrescott,
I take your point about the "liberal" education of journalists, though you appear to be arguing against yourself there. I happen to think that the kind of stuff they force feed students in Western universities these days results in a paralysis of critical thought. A student has to adopt a "liberal" left world view if he wants to progress. I put liberal in quotes since many so-called liberals prove to be the most illiberal of people, wildly intolerant of any opinion that digresses from their own. Many of them are on this very blog.
The BBC is not "getting it about right" simply because it is criticised from the left as well as the right. The criticism of the tunnel-visioned devotees of the left is of an extremely intolerant nature while the criticism from the right is generally based on observation of the BBC's campaigning for left-wing causes and the quite extraordinary bias of its reporting. Take practically any issue under the sun and the slant that the BBC will take when looking at it can be predicted with a fair degree of accuracy.
Complain about this comment
123. At 5:15pm on 18 Apr 2009, happylaze wrote:
Some one who has brought Muslims into their posts about a catholic affair , as always.
Twice now. But I simply can't be bothered challenging that rubbish any more. I'm having a holiday in May, and I'll be working on getting darker hued than I am naturally. That'll show him!
Complain about this comment
#119. TrueToo: "I believe that in America in some places you can't wish people "Merry Christmas" anymore but are obliged to say "Happy holidays," or some such meaningless idiocy."
I hadn't noticed it previously, but it would appear that you are not American, do not live in America and possibly have never visited America. Before attempting to right the perceived wrongs of America, I suggest you spend your time fixing the dreadful state into which the United Kingdom is falling. Like Charity, Political Action begins at home; take care of your own first, then worry about the other lot.
With regard to the salutation "Happy Holidays", it is forgotten by those who live on the far side of the Atlantic that in the United States there are several holidays celebrated from November to January - Thanksgiving, Chanukah, Christmas, Eid-al-Adha, Kwanza and Three Kings Day. So much easier to use the catchall phrase rather than remembering the precise date of each. In the United Kingdom it is still not uncommon to see, if not say, the words "Season's Greetings" which seems to be equally "meaningless idiocy".
Complain about this comment
137. David_Cunard,
I've been to America a few times. It's the greatest country on the planet. I first became aware of the "Happy holidays" salutation through listening to a Christian-American radio show. The hostess was most indignant about having her arm twisted to address people with "Happy holidays" at Christmas time. She was in a department store over Christmas and came to a downcast looking teller who had evidently been instructed to substitute the bland and meaningless "Happy holidays" for "Merry Christmas." So she gave her a broad smile and a loud "Merry Christmas" and the teller's face lit up and she responded in kind.
I take your point about the number of holidays celebrated at the same time but there is absolutely no reason at all to regard them all as an undifferentiated grey mush and have one phrase to encompass all of them. When you think about it, we then might as well just grunt at one another or say nothing at all.
As the PC noose tightens around us we are in serious danger of diminishing ourselves and becoming lesser people. We need to resist the machinations of the irreligious social engineers of the left in every way we possibly can. In Europe, the battle has almost been lost. America is still free and still wide open, thank God.
136. british-ish,
You guys are a laugh a minute. I suppose you are now going to try to lay down the law as to what can or cannot be mentioned on this blog. The term Muslim was pertinent to the discussion on Obama's address at a Christian university where Christian symbols were covered simply because all over the Western world we see Christianity belittled and diminished while Islam is accorded hushed respect. I have provided a touch of evidence of this in my comments, though I doubt that you noticed.
And soon we wont be able to mention the word "black" as well. We'll all sing "Baa Baa rainbow-coloured sheep" in unison and smile vacantly at one another and celebrate our PC paralysis as we tread gingerly into our Brave New World.
Now you can keep on taking my "darker hued" statement out of context, even though I provided the context on the previous thread since you were not honest enough to do it yourself, but you impress nobody with your juvenile antics, except the other juveniles.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
british-ish, TrueToo, rodidog:
It just a matter of appearances. If the President appears in public backed by religious symbols, it might suggest endorsement of the President's actions by the religion. Although there are no laws against it, it violates the spirit behind the separation of church and state. It makes Americans uncomfortable.
As far as the venue is concerned, they understand the reasons given above. Having the President give a policy speech at your venue is an honor.
It has nothing to do with rejecting President Bush's former constituents.
Complain about this comment
Oh, no, are we back to Israel again? If that subject were stricken from this blog some people would never be heard from again. That's not a bad thing, come to think of it.
Complain about this comment
RE: "It's part of the PC madness into which the West has fallen"
Here are Stewart Lee's views about Political Correctness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K21e7po1Sro
Complain about this comment
#138. TrueToo: "I first became aware of the "Happy holidays" salutation through listening to a Christian-American radio show."
That in itself speaks volumes. They're the kind of people who don't - and won't - recognise the broad religious followings in the United States, not to mention those who have no affiliation, together with non-believers. The department store clerk (tellers are in banks) was following the instructions of her employer who obviously did not wish to offend its patrons - what Jewish customer really wants to hear "Merry Christmas" when "Happy Hanukah" would be more appropriate? So, Bill O'Reilly not withstanding, "Happy Holidays" works for everyone and is far better than the grunt you suggest. Incidentally, you might watch the film "Holiday Inn" in which the phrase was used musically and possibly made it so popular. Irving Berlin was Jewish but recognised that others celebrated different events at more-or-less the same time.
Complain about this comment
142. allmymarbles wrote:
Oh, no, are we back to Israel again? If that subject were stricken from this blog some people would never be heard from again.
I
About time it was. I for one refuse to take any part in it here. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread no matter how one persistent offender tries to twist it.
(He'll probably tell me I'm being 'juvenile' again. I call what he does simply crass.)
Complain about this comment
#145.british-ish --- Seconded!
Complain about this comment
145, 146 -
If no one replied to those posts, there would be no reason for them to post a riposte. I recommend a class-action non-response to future attempts to twist the thread into the I/P direction.
Complain about this comment
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
-Jefferson
I hope to see an eloquent speech from Obama at Notre Dame celebrating the 1st amendment separation of church and state, touching compassionately on the issue of preventing unnecessary abortions not through legislation or force but through education and aid to unwed mothers. Don't think he could care less what "honors" they bestow on him.
Notre Dame's mission statement reads: "Notre Dame offers undergraduate students an educational experience that is second to none in quality and, at the same time, distinctly Catholic. Faith informs learning at Notre Dame..." .... what does 'faith informs learning' mean ?
Complain about this comment
# 138 "TrueToo" wrote:
"We need to resist the machinations of the irreligious social engineers of the left in every way we possibly can. In Europe, the battle has almost been lost. America is still free and still wide open, thank God."
All this from people saying 'happy holidays' - in recognition of the fact that not everyone in the US is a Christian.
Complain about this comment
148, frayed -
I don't want to start any sort of argument, but just want to point out that no amount of education can prevent the occasional failure of contraceptives. Other than that, I thought your comment excellent.
Complain about this comment
# 135 TrueToo wrote:
"The BBC is not "getting it about right" simply because it is criticised from the left as well as the right. The criticism of the tunnel-visioned devotees of the left is of an extremely intolerant nature while the criticism from the right is generally based on observation of the BBC's campaigning for left-wing causes and the quite extraordinary bias of its reporting."
So, just to be clear - if a 'leftwinger' complains about BBC bias, that's just because of his own biased and intolerant tunnel-vision? Whereas if a rightwinger, such as yourself, makes the same complaint, then of course it's purely factual.
Or to put it more simply - you're right because you're Right. [Quite possibly extreme Right - you do a splendid impersonation of Peter Hitchens or a Daily Mail editorial.]
And they're wrong because they're Left.
Rather reminds me of the old observation which goes something like
I - am a traveller
You - are a tourist
They - are bringing down the tone of the place...
Complain about this comment
Frayed Feline, Thanks for the words of our third President, one of the greatest Americans yet.
Complain about this comment
149, John-in-Dublin.
It is uncomfoble to be "sensitivity conscious" all the time. And most of it is phoney anyway. Merry Christmas is no more than a happy greeting of goodwill in the darkest month of the year. Most don't even mean the greeting to be religious. We have gone so far as to call the retarded "special" and we toss around dumb words like "hearing impaired." Can't say deaf as a post. And don't call anyone fat. You might be accused of discrimination. Well I don't follow those rules. The rest of you will do what you want.
Complain about this comment
# 129 allmymarbles wrote:
"114, John-in-Dublin.
Being proficient academically does not equate with smarts. It is what you do in the real world that matters. I can't see that Caroline Kennedy has done anything to indicate a superior intellect (in the real world)."
Well - that's one viewpoint.
I would suggest rather that academic intelligence isn't the only kind; that doesn't, however, make it immaterial.
As to CK's achievements or otherwise, Wiki says this, inter alia - "Kennedy is an attorney, writer, and editor and serves on the boards of numerous non-profit organizations./From 2002 through 2004, Kennedy worked as director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the New York City Department of Education. The three-day-a-week job paid her a salary of $1 and had the goal of raising private money for the New York City public schools. In that capacity, she helped raise more than $65 million for the city’s public schools."
Frankly, I never said she has a 'superior intellect" - I know little about her, and have no v strong views on her. I was primarily objecting to a snide remark re her alleged 'small brain' from someone [not Marbles] whose postings appear to combine a maximum of prejudice with a minimum of fact.
Complain about this comment
#147. bere54: "145, 146 - If no one replied to those posts, there would be no reason for them to post a riposte."
The only way to stop them is to register a complaint - off-topic . If enough people would do so, when appropriate, then the Moderators might sit up and take notice. In case anyone should think this censorship, it is not. It simply keeps the discussion straying far from the subject at the head of this column and others like it. Argue about Israel and Palestine here and do so at your peril!
Complain about this comment
As someone who has never celebrated Christmas and grew weary long ago of always being told to have a merry something that has nothing to do with me, I appreciate the sensitivity of those who realize that their holiday is not universal. It never occurred to me that there could be anything uncomfortable about being sensitive to the feelings of others. It comes naturally to many people. Perhaps it's a matter of upbringing.
Complain about this comment
154, John--
"From 2002 through 2004, Kennedy worked as director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the New York City Department of Education. The three-day-a-week job paid her a salary of $1 and had the goal of raising private money for the New York City public schools. In that capacity, she helped raise more than $65 million for the city?s public schools."
What that means is that she hit up her rich friends for money. She knew these people because she was born in that circle and did no more than what society matrons have always done. That is not the same thing as producing something, even as you would on an assembly line.
Complain about this comment
To say that I am ambivalent about the Vatican ambassadorship appointment is an understatement, but I can't help questioning the logic of appointing a person like Caroline Kennedy to a highly visible post. CK has an excellent education, and she has done a wonderful job raising money for worthy causes, but her performance during her recent bid for the vacant New York senatorial seat was dismal at best. She is not a good speaker, and the arguments she used to strengthen her candidacy did not show political skills or an ability to influence people. Her most important attribute is her name.
On the issue of Happy Holidays, I am with those who voiced their opinion about the logic of using good wishes in a way that does not offend people of different spiritual and cultural persuasions, or for that matter those who simply take the opportunity to see family and enjoy a few days off with pay!
An now it is time for me to say my Mea Culpas...
Complain about this comment
105. At 3:09pm on 18 Apr 2009, RomeStu wrote:
Yes indeed, and Obama is not catholic - but should this catholic university bar the US president from speaking because of a certain disparity of views?
Should anyone listen seriously listen to someone who has a different doctrine? Should an institution invite someone to speak to their membership, who is known to have differing views?
Should the members of this blog read, consider, and respect variant opinions?
Why would we?
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Ref 148, Frayed
"...what does 'faith informs learning' mean?"
Brainwashing.
Complain about this comment
155, David -
But then what would happen to the kitchen? It might also be banished, since sometimes things stray a tiny bit off topic.
Complain about this comment
So Ms Kennedy has had advantages, but it appears she has used them for public benefit. Good for her, say I.
My mother always said it was a poor way to raise yourself up by dragging others down.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Complain about this comment
Ref 159, KS
"Should anyone listen seriously listen to someone who has a different doctrine? Should an institution invite someone to speak to their membership, who is known to have differing views?"
The answer to your questions is yes, but tolerance and acceptance of the will of the majority are not among the virtues that can be attributed to the Church of Peter and Paul. I spent many years in Jesuit and Franciscan schools and while I recognize their academic abilities, their efforts to instill high moral values on their pupils, and their insistence on discipline I will tell you that I would not recommend that experience to anyone.
Complain about this comment
ref #158
I generally say Happy Holidays, but I am comfortable in my own philosphical beliefs if I am wished a Merry Chrismass, I won't feel that a terrible wrong is done to me.
It seems atheists are most likely to take offense on this type of situation
Regarding Georgetown situation the podium is set up a certain way to choegraph an entrance and exit.
I am more concerned with pc at Brown where some misguided faculty and students want to change Columbus day to fall break day.
Complain about this comment
#138
LOL True,
You come up with the ultimate wimp statemnet 'Ooo I'm being moderated' then tell us you get your facts from Christian Radio? The folks who think the world is 4,000 years old and that the gay guys next door are a threat to my marriage?
Funny beyond belief. We all have gun racks in our pick up trucks too, and tons of guns.
Ok, that's just me.
Amused Sam
Complain about this comment
162, Heloise -
Very well said!
Complain about this comment
156, bere.
"It never occurred to me that there could be anything uncomfortable about being sensitive to the feelings of others. "
Wouldn't it be more sensitive to accept a greeting in the spirit in which it was meant? You can look for all the ulterior motive you want. They aren't there.
Complain about this comment
#162. Hesiodos: "My mother always said it was a poor way to raise yourself up by dragging others down."
To add a little levity, evidently she had never met - nor heard of - Quentin Crisp, who advised "Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag 'em down to your level. It's cheaper."
Complain about this comment
ref #162
Here some interesting tidbit about Caroline Kennedy
She promoted the NY City school systems and spoke against school choice then sent her kids toa private school.
she did not vote in several elections.
Why can't people admidt that like her uncle when he first ran she only was considered because of her name.
Complain about this comment
It's more comfortable to be sensitive than to expect others to be accepting of insensitivity. At least it is for me. Obviously for others it's more comfortable to expect others to tolerate their insensitivity. To each his own.
Complain about this comment
164, magic.
"I generally say Happy Holidays, but I am comfortable in my own philosphical beliefs if I am wished a Merry Chrismass, I won't feel that a terrible wrong is done to me."
This seems to be my day for agreeing with people I don't normally agree with. Many's the time someone has said Happy Hanakkah to to me. I take it in the spirit it was meant.
Complain about this comment
Pro-life groups say the unborn child has a beating heart as early as 17 days, its own complete human DNA code, and other scientific facts and abortionists tell us we need a lecture on "tolerance" if we think it is wrong to kill it?
Obama has allowed US taxpayer money to fund overseas abortions, overturned the ban on federal funding of the harvesting of human embryos for research and is trying to change laws to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions..
Obama doesn't deserve an honorary degree from a Catholic college or a free platform to speak unchallenged. It's not like he is participating in a roundtable discussion or debate.
President Obama should speak as he was invited, but no honorary degree should be given. The president of Notre Dame should resign.
Complain about this comment
#161. At 01:48am on 19 Apr 2009, bere54: "sometimes things stray a tiny bit off topic."
A tiny bit is OK but, in my view, a great leap is not. When given an inch, some take a mile - and more.
Complain about this comment
Ref 148, Frayed
"...what does 'faith informs learning' mean?"
ahem.
Faith informs learning by providing:
- a structure for data that is independent of yourself and others like you
- a reason for your being that is not self-justification
- a moral structure for existence
- a reason for and a reasoned approach to Hope
Seeing differently is not evidence of brainwashing. Refusing to allow that others may reasonably, even accurately see things differently, is evidence of a readiness to brainwash.
KScurmudgeon
alternate
Complain about this comment
#168 David_cunard
Quentin Crisp said that "after three years of not dusting it looks no different"
Complain about this comment
173, David -
Well, then, oops.
174, KS -
The four things you list are easily taught without faith by families and by non-faith-based institutions also. It's important to remember that. In fact, understanding that is seeing things differently in this country (U.S.).
Complain about this comment
171 allmyymarbles
Very wise words- thank you. Someone who in the warmth of their Holiday feelings means no offense, and is not necessarily any less sensitive, for saying Merry Christmas, or Happy Hannukah, or whatever is their Holiday of choice. They are expressing their joy, and inviting others to share the goodwill.
Complain about this comment
170, bere.
Make it easy for all of us. Wear a sign in December that says you are Jewish and please not to say "Merry Christmas." When we greet people we do not ususally ask their religion before making a well felt greeting.
Complain about this comment
173, David.
"A tiny bit is OK but, in my view, a great leap is not. When given an inch, some take a mile - and more."
When people drift off topic it usually means that the topic has run its course. Justin might want to keep his eye on this.
Complain about this comment
#172
Billy,
The problem is they made that up. Foetal heart beats can be measured at 6 and a half weeks.
That's just a fact. It's also a fact Roman dads had the right of life or death over their children throughout their lives.
Both facts are tedious and rather irrelevant in a philosophical discussion. For example, if life begins at conception then all in vitro fertilization must stop. Not all embryo's can be implanted and therefore the doctors would be murderers. The practice must be stopped.
That question is an easier one to morally and practically resolve than the one of abortion, where an additional party is involved.
Ethicist Sam
Complain about this comment
177, Via-Media -
I have to disagree with you here. I'm sure no one means offense, but the assumption that everyone around you celebrates your holiday (and in the U.S. the assumption is usually that everyone celebrates Christmas) and cluelessly wishing them joy in your holiday is, I think, just plain obtuseness. I don't take offense at it; I just find myself wishing that people were more aware of the diversity and would stop making assumptions. Perhaps my way of seeing it comes from growing up as part of a minority. Things really do look different from that perspective.
178 -
I have no religion. I greet people by saying "hello." I feel pretty sure I've never offended anyone with that greeting. Fortunately, here in Vermont people tend not to be obsessive about saying "Merry Christmas" to everyone they meet, which is just one of the many reasons I moved here from the Christmas-obsessed South.
Complain about this comment
Think the conversation about the holiday season in April is a bit premature ....then agin, maybe not it could be a leap in marketing with Wal Mart ( Asda to you nice folks on the other side of the pond) clearing out the Easter bunny chocolates with Christmas ornaments and Santas?
Complain about this comment
happy, perhaps you glossed over my previous post.
You really must spend 5 minutes here.
Complain about this comment
181, bere.
The Roman Saturnalia, occurring during the darkest days of winter was a very appealing holiday that included partying and the exchange of gifts. It is no coincidence that the growing Christian faith created Christmas in the fourth century AD to almost exactly coincide with the pagan Saturnalia. (If you can't beat them, join them, or at least steal their holiday.)
It is still a very appealing holiday. The Jews in fact upgraded Hanukkah, which is in fact a very minor festival. Why miss the fun? Some families even have "Hanukkah bushes." No matter what you call it, everyone has the same thought in mind - to brighten the days of winter.
My family, by the way, is now of mixed faces and religions, which is how we like it. Almost all of us are atheists, which is also how we like it. We celebrate Christmas, or whatever you want to call it. Why? So that we can give presents, party and visit, and forget that spring is a long way off.
By turning your thoughts inward, you deprive yourself of the spirit of the season. It is not a time for self-centeredness and imagined abuses. It's a time for light-heartedness that you share with others.
Complain about this comment
183, guns.
Thanks for the Father Guido Sarducci link. I saw it some time ago, but he never gets stale. Sort of like Tom Lehrer. I saw a movie the Sarducci character made some years ago. I think he was in Italy. I can't remember the name and can't find it anywhere. Can you help me out here?
Complain about this comment
#175. canadacold: "Quentin Crisp (also) said that "after three years of not dusting it looks no different."
The same would go for certain arguments to be found here; some opinions never change.
Complain about this comment
Ms. Marbles, you might be thinking of this movie, in which he performs
an exorcism.
I do remember him making a fuss by going over to the Vatican and getting
himself arrested for impersonating a priest.
Complain about this comment
I understand your main point, Justin, but are you suggesting by this "chance to speak to the nation about tolerance and bigotry again as he did after the Rev Wright controversy" that the protests at Notre Dame University are inspired by the same or similar bigotry and intolerance displayed by Rev. Wright? I certainly hope not. Realize that, as a private Catholic University, it is understandable that students at Notre Dame would protest Obamas policies that are contrary to the Churchs teachings, though I think not allowing Obama to speak is a bit excessive.
And on a lighter note, did anyone hear about the new Canadian citizenship law that went into effect on the 17th? The April 17th amendment to Canada's Citizenship Act restores Canadian citizenship to many people forced to renounce it when they became citizens of another country and it also grants citizenship to their children. Canadian families who crossed the border into the US between 1947 and 1977 to have their babies in U.S. hospitals found that their children weren't recognized as Canadian citizens and this law fixes this problem, so many Americans may now be Canadian as well and dont know it. Interesting, I wonder if Canada will try to grant citizenship to all Cajuns next seeing as their ancesters were from Nova Scotia.
Complain about this comment
187, guns.
Thanks. I will look for those.
Complain about this comment
#188. BienvenueEnLouisiana: "many Americans may now be Canadian as well and dont know it."
The United States does not formally recognise dual-nationality; you can be American or Canadian (or British, French, etc.) but not both at the same time. If one is British and then becomes an American citizen, you renounce your former allegiance. However, the British government would not recognise that act unless a statement of renunciation were made to the nearest British Consulate-General or the Embassy itself. My guess is that Canada has a similar rule. It's something our illegal immigrants should bear in mind - even if US citizenship were to be granted after some worker programme, they would cease to be nationals of their former country.
Complain about this comment
"The problem is they made that up. Foetal heart beats can be measured at 6 and a half weeks." Ethicist Sam
National Right to Life (US)lists 22 days from fertilization.
The Mayo Clinic lists 5 weeks from the start of the PREGNANCY..
("Obstetricians and pregnant women traditionally count the weeks of PREGNANCY from the last menstrual period. By this measure, the fetus is already two weeks old at the time of fertilization" Drspock.com 5-2=3)
The source I remember said "as early as" 17 days from fertilization.
Life begins on day 1 at conception.
Complain about this comment
Why not simply say: 'Merry Solstice" and be done with the whole silly controversy?
Complain about this comment
151. john-In-Dublin,
I take your point. The comment you replied to was considerably whittled down from the "referred" comments at nos. 99 and 127. There my argument is considerably expanded upon. If the moderators would reintroduce those comments, or perhaps just no. 99, we could have a freer discussion on the issue.
Complain about this comment
David_Cunard 190
Yeah, I realize that American citizens cant hold duel nationalities, but without a similar citizenship law in Canada there is nothing to stop the Canadians from recognizing those individuals-if not officially, then unofficially-when they are in Canada, say for a visit. The thing is that because of the US citizenship law all Canada can do is advertise the change in the law and hope that a few individuals take advantage of it by dropping their American citizenship. I doubt that too many people will do this because it is likely that the majority of the people this change would affect have lived their whole lives as Americans, but the whole legal issue is still fascinating.
Complain about this comment
#191. Billy2USA: "Life begins on day 1 at conception."
That is a matter of opinion, not medical fact. The tissue may be living, but that does not in any sense equate to a living person, despite what right-to-lifers and the Church of Rome may think.
Complain about this comment
141. AndyPost wrote:
It just a matter of appearances. If the President appears in public backed by religious symbols, it might suggest endorsement of the President's actions by the religion.
I take that point. And I accept that it might equally suggest endorsement of the religion by the president. But if the president addresses members of other religions without disguising who they are then the apparent endorsements would cancel one another out, as it were. This business of tiptoeing around and covering up religious symbols so as not to "offend" others is an absurdity.
A British Airways stewardess was instructed to conceal a tiny cross she was wearing on a necklace. This is pure idiocy and there is no end to it once you go down that path.
144. David_Cunard,
You have no way of knowing who this particular person is or her level of tolerance of others. In fact, all she requires of others is that they don't interfere with her practice of her religion as she doesn't interfere with theirs, even if its atheism. (Yes, some people do make a religion out of the latter.)
149. john-In-Dublin,
Feel free to reduce my argument to one point. Alternatively, you could take the debate seriously.
155. David_Cunard wrote:
The only way to stop them is to register a complaint - off-topic
Fair enough. But then all off-topic comments should be removed, including chit-chat, of which there is an abundance on this blog. Unless of course you want to have one rule for some contributors and another rule for others. I don't complain about others' comments, tempting though it is at times, since I believe in freedom of speech.
164. MagicKirin,
I second that opinion.
165. SamTyler1969,
It wasn't a wimp statement. I mentioned the referral of my comments at no. 135 in the interests of free and fair debate, something foreign to many here who regard this blog as their private club and blast others who talk about stuff they don't want to hear. They've don't now how to use their scroll bar.
Your comment is a fine example of your own prejudices, not those of others.
178. allmymarbles,
Agreed. Soon we'll see people being offended by others wishing them "Good morning."
"What's good about this morning," they'll fume, "and how dare you wish it on me."
Complain about this comment
195. David_Cunard wrote:
#191. Billy2USA: "Life begins on day 1 at conception."
That is a matter of opinion, not medical fact. The tissue may be living, but that does not in any sense equate to a living person, despite what right-to-lifers and the Church of Rome may think.
Dunno about that. There's obviously a a direct line from conception to pregnancy to birth to life outside the womb at the first breath. This is not simply a medical question but also a medical-ethical one. What is that little bundle of cells on its way to become a person if not life itself?
Complain about this comment
Ms Marbles (178),
Like an armband?
;-)
Complain about this comment
97 - Why these responses come so quickly that bear not relation to anything I said? I think there is another strand of American culture which seems more focussed on winning a debate at all costs, and there are no rules -= straw man arguments being a favourite of such debates (and to be fair and balanced it is not partisan).
No I would not link to the crazies of either side unless I was specifically talking about crazies and their ways. I remember when I moved to the US one of my culture shocks was reading opinion pieces and letters that seemed like the extreme and not the mainstream (and more often these seemed to be on the right but sometimes left).
I recognize that there was much in the left wing 'media' that went over the line during the Bush years. But this tended to be on the fringe of the media. The right wing seem to have more of a prescence in the mainstream media.
Complain about this comment
Bien (188),
- "the same or similar bigotry and intolerance displayed by Rev. Wright?"
Or the same acceptance of media sound-bite condemnation? Dr Wright is neither bigoted nor intolerant, but those who condemn him on such scanty slander may be."Judge not, lest ye be likewise judged"
Complain about this comment
#191. Billy2USA: "Life begins on day 1 at conception."
My upbringing included RE (Religious Education) lessons in school from a high church retired Vicar/Priest. One thing I learned was phrase and the meaning of the 'quick and the dead'. Life as an individual soul (I don't know correct expresson in theological terms) began when the foetus 'quickened'. This appears to be a common traditional idea the world over. There is something powerful about that moment. I guess only the mother can tell use when this happens!
This common belief is of course arguably even more usefull nowadays when we rocognize that the distintion between life and not-life, between animal and human is at least shades of gray.
Complain about this comment
194 - "Yeah, I realize that American citizens cant hold duel nationalities, but without a similar citizenship"
Actually they can and have been able to for several years. My son is a dual US/UK citizen - prior to a few yeas ago under American law, he would have had to choose at the age of 18. A friend of mine became a US citizen a few years ago when the law changed, she had not wanted to give up her UK citizenship.
Complain about this comment
Sre not eggs and sperm also alive?
Complain about this comment
190 - lots of confusion here.
My wife came to the UK some years ago she is fourth generation German-American by her paternal line. But she missed being able to claim a British passport because her British ancestor was four generations removed. Actually I believe the limit of three generations was a limit that Maggie Thatcher introduced. I believe that this may be common practice in many countries and Canada is simply coming into line with that practice in allowing children of Canadians to claim citizenship.
Complain about this comment
135. At 8:36pm on 18 Apr 2009, TrueToo wrote:
"Hmmmm, ...This particular comment could end up setting a record for the most referred comment if I keep on whittling it down and it keeps on getting referred.
So here we go again, though I doubt that AAPrescott is still around to catch it:....."
Actually I am still around as you can probably tell by now (and working backwards), but I do admit that I often do not have the time to keep up with the posts. I do some moral soul searching (or at least head scratching) over whether there is an obligation to do so if one is going to particpate in the discussion.
I agree with a latter comment that someone made on your absurd (there really is no other weay to characterize it) distinction between the right and left wing criticism. But thanks for the laugh.
Complain about this comment
Number two,
Wuss. Get moderated and whine, twice. Take it like a man.
Speaking of which, my refusal to believe Christian radio as a source of facts is simple and based on two observable facts:
1. The folks on those stations spend a lot of time telling me how to live my life while theysteal or commit adultery with their 'flock'
2. They make stuff up to cause outrage
Neither of which makes them credible or entertaining. However, if you want to get your views of america from those folks, that is your freedom. It just makes you wrong, and sort of funny.
Amused Sam
Complain about this comment
159 KScurmudgeon wrote in response to my post 105:
"Should anyone listen seriously listen to someone who has a different doctrine? Should an institution invite someone to speak to their membership, who is known to have differing views?
Should the members of this blog read, consider, and respect variant opinions?
Why would we?"
Everyone should consider, read and respect other peoples views. Only through debate and open discussion (not polemic) can we advance our learning.
I do not base my opinions on my absolute pre-conceptions, and given a rational argument am inclined sometimes to change my position because I do not claim to have all knowledge, or right on my side.
To claim that is the mark of the fundamentalist, who brooks no discussion of his views.
If a catholic university wishes to have Obama speak, so much the better. Many catholics instinctively side with Obama's more centrist policies, insomuch as they may benefit the less wealthy Americans, and not simply favour the rich.
Complain about this comment
#191
Mr the Fish,
Stating something does not make it so. A human heartbeat can be measured at 6 weeks. No sooner.
If life begins at conception pro lifers should seek to outlaw in vitro fertilization first. There is less moral hazard than outlawing abortion.
Ethicist Sam
Factual Sam
Complain about this comment
164 MagicKirin wrote:
"ref #158
I generally say Happy Holidays, but I am comfortable in my own philosphical beliefs if I am wished a Merry Chrismass, I won't feel that a terrible wrong is done to me.
It seems atheists are most likely to take offense on this type of situation"
In europe in am happy to wish and be wished a Merry Christmas at the correct time of year. I am an atheist and have no problem with this, as the festival itself seems to be a commercialised parody of its spiritual intention.
An atheist I may be, but I do not take offense at being wished Happy Hannukah (? spelling) or Diwali or any other festival .... as long as the adherent does not try to convert me.
If a salutation is well intended then I take it (and respond) in the spirit it is meant.
Although I am in general a bit of a lefty, I too find political correctness rather iritating, if only because it tends to favour ridiculous causes over valid causes, and devalue the latter.
Complain about this comment
Ref 204, AA
You are right, Spain gives automatic citizenship to children and grandchildren of Spaniards born abroad, and recently extended that privilege to great grandchildren of people who fled the country during and after the Civil War. Approximately one million Latin Americans are expected to apply, and most are expected to migrate to Spain, within the next two years.
Considering the low birth rate in Spain (compared to Ireland, the UK, and France) this decision may be influenced by more than moral imperatives...
Complain about this comment
174 KScurmugeon wrote
"Faith informs learning by providing:
- a structure for data that is independent of yourself and others like you
- a reason for your being that is not self-justification
- a moral structure for existence
- a reason for and a reasoned approach to Hope"
Learning is informed by questioning EVERYTHING.
A moral structure is not exclusive to faith. Morals are not absolute. Why is homosexuality wrong to christians? Why is sex before marriage wrong? Murder, theft .... yes I see that. Morals are determined by what you believe .... or is only YOUR belief correct?
"A reasoned approach" ..... Reasoned? How so? Faith by its nature refutes reason. Or will you now "reason" to me the virign birth, ressurrection, god's existence blah blah blah.
You continue
"Seeing differently is not evidence of brainwashing. Refusing to allow that others may reasonably, even accurately see things differently, is evidence of a readiness to brainwash."
You do not see atheists setting up churches and going door to door to convert people to their way of thinking. Look to your own brainwashing, and reason your own beliefs....
Complain about this comment
Guns wrote
"it is understandable that students at Notre Dame would protest Obamas policies that are contrary to the Churchs teachings"
Fair point, but we are still stuck on that US affliction - single issue politics.
Yes catholics (and other christians) would possibly disagree with Obama's position on abortion ..... BUT as christians I would expect them to agree with his position on wlefare, health, education and many other policies designed to improve the lot of the least fortunate in the USA.
Why focus on one issue, which is simply one of CHOICE. Obama is not pro-abortion. He is pro-choice. We have all done this subject to death during the election campaign, and it is time to focus the christians' love and goodwill on some issues which will benefit the poor.
Complain about this comment
sorry guns - my post 212 was in reply to bienvenueenlouisiana at 188
Complain about this comment
Stu (211), Namaste.
- "You continue
With respect, I think you should read Curmudgeon's statement before you challenge it. Your challenge is a non-sequitur, and his statement is essentially another way of saying what I suspect you might say (if differently)."Seeing differently is not evidence of brainwashing. Refusing to allow that others may reasonably, even accurately see things differently, is evidence of a readiness to brainwash."
You do not see atheists setting up churches and going door to door to convert people to their way of thinking. Look to your own brainwashing, and reason your own beliefs...."
Not accepting that others may reasonably see differently is definitively intolerant.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Complain about this comment
Ref 164, Magic
"It seems atheists are most likely to take offense on this type of situation"
Most atheists and agnostics are indifferent to this issue. If people wish me a Happy Holiday season or Merry Christmas I respond likewise.
My only concern is that Holiday wishes herald the start of another spending spree for my wife...a devout Catholic. I prefer the 4th of July.
Complain about this comment
Never before have I heard anyone suggest that trying to be sensitive to others indicates self-centeredness. How very odd. I always thought it was the other way round.
190, David -
I think you may be wrong about the U.S. not recognizing dual nationality, at least with certain countries. My husband had two valid passports, from the U.S., and the other country I won't mention so as not to provide an opening. He had recognized dual nationality. I also have friends who became citizens of this other country, retained their American citizenship, and when they moved home were still American citizens. Is this particular country the only exception? I had thought that had changed.
192, aqua -
Very good suggestion, since the Solstice is something that actually happens, as opposed to the events celebrated by the man-made, mass-market holidays.
202 -
I see you've answered my question as to how it is now, but for many years the U.S. has recognized dual nationality with the unmentionable country. At the very least for the last 30 years and I don't know how long before that.
Complain about this comment
ref #209 i am glad that you are comfortable in your beliefs that is how it should be.
ref #214 Atheists have their proponents who tend to indoctrinate and want their beliefs put on a higher pedestal. Look at the gang in the State of Washington who put up a holiday presentation next to a creche just to mock it. that is intolerance.
Just like Michael Nedow insits becvause he not his daugher or ex wife is offended by a non denomination god reference in the Pledge or in money it must be abondened.
Complain about this comment
This new law (1947-1977) rectifies situations such as (a family I know): Family moves to the US (pre-1977) with three children. A fourth child is born in the US, father takes out US citizenship and all except the US born child lose their Canadian citizenship. She retains hers as she is a child of (at the time) Canadians. Ironic, the only family member not born in Canada has duel citizenship. Other family members may now apply.
Although my mother was born in the UK and not as yet a Canadian citizen when I was born, I am not entitled to British citizenship as the right must pass through my father/grandfather. (Paternal family originally from the UK but in Canada/Newfoundland for more than two generations.) I find this discriminatory.
BienvenueEnLouisiana
I believe the Cajuns were British subjects at the time. Perhaps they could apply to the UK?!?
Complain about this comment
Ref 190, David
"...The United States does not formally recognise dual-nationality..."
I believe there have been changes on this subject in recent years, but when my wife, who was born in Spain, applied for US citizenship about 30 years ago she had to renounce allegiance to her ancestral homeland to become a citizen of the USA. That was not an easy decision for her to make as her parents were still alive and, like most people, she loved her ancestral homeland as much as she does her adopted country.
Complain about this comment
It always make me shake my head when our president ends every speech with "god bless you and god bless america". As an atheist this confirms how much religion and politics are interwoven in a nation that supposedly stands for the separation of church and state. I voted for Barack Obama of course, but I hate to see him bow down to anything connected with the catholic church. Just skip Notre Dame and go somewhere else, there is too much work to be done in the world of politics. I used lower case letters whenever typing things associated with god and religion because I have irreverence towards both.
Complain about this comment
219, saint -
I suppose 30 years ago the crucial difference between your wife's situation and my husband's (and in his case it was more like 35 years ago) is that he was born an American citizen, and he did not have to renounce this citizenship when he also became a citizen of another country. Even serving in the armed forces of that other country did not affect American citizenship (my husband did not, but I know others who did serve; it was compulsory for most).
If this situation applied to no other countries way back then, I guess I know the reasons but will not get into it here.
Complain about this comment
I have never posted a comment on any website. I read BBC daily and I created a sign-on today to express how angry I am to click on a link (Protests are growing) here and find myself reading a FOX news article. I am more than happy to read any previously published BBC coverage that fleshes out a blog entry. But I read the BBC for a reason: Your level of journalism. Don't water that down with links from all over the web!
Complain about this comment
"Stating something does not make it so." SamTyler1969 #208 ref #191
Better tell the Mayo Clinic then.
Week 5: "the motion of your baby's beating heart may be detected with an ultrasound exam." Mayo Clinic
5-2=3 weeks
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112/METHOD=print
http://www.webmd.com/news/20060710/14-hospitals-ranked-best
Complain about this comment
I see an angle of humor in looking at the Catholic church position on anything, with its long history of child castration, child-molestation, murder, torture, war, accumulating wealth, excommunicating scientists. As I "understand" it (which I don't) the Catholic objection is not to terminating the life of the foetus, but rather any form of birth control -- the church/state always needing more 'arrows of god' for the next war.
Complain about this comment
#202. AAPrescott: "A friend of mine became a US citizen a few years ago when the law changed, she had not wanted to give up her UK citizenship."
The UK does not recognise the acceptance of another nationality - the individual may hold two passports but when in America, the person is American. I something goes awry, perhaps a criminal complaint, they can't suddenly claim to be British.
#219. saintDominick "when my wife, who was born in Spain, applied for US citizenship about 30 years ago she had to renounce allegiance to her ancestral homeland to become a citizen of the USA."
That remains the case since the Oath of Allegiance states "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…"
People may hold passports of more than one nation, but in America, only one of those counts - the American one. The situation isn't monitored but to my mind, declaring on oath that one renounces allegiance to all others, says it all.
Complain about this comment
219, saintD.
As to dual citizenship, if an American subsequently becomes the citizen of another country as well, and that country does not require the American to denounce his American citizenship (which renunciation would not be recognized by the US in any case), then, in effect he has dual citizenship. I don't know it this works the other way around. I do know that three of my children can apply for, and receive, Iranian citizenship,if they so wish.
Complain about this comment
#196. TrueToo: "You have no way of knowing who this particular (clerk) is or her level of tolerance of others. In fact, all she requires of others is that they don't interfere with her practice of her religion as she doesn't interfere with theirs, even if its atheism. (Yes, some people do make a religion out of the latter.)"
Because she was employed as a store clerk, then she should have a high tolerance of others. Since her employer is paying her, he is in the position of being able to dictate what greeting is used to his customers. Clearly he wishes to offend no-one, hence the use of a catch-all phrase. Sounds like good business practice to me.
"What is that little bundle of cells on its way to become a person if not life itself?"
Like sperm and ova, it is living, but but we don't cry over losing those. To take your argument to its logical end, every last ova must be fertilised and every last sperm saved. To destroy them would be to destroy every potential life.
Complain about this comment
To all posters so far concerning Caroline Kennedy.
She must have some abilities, because she did graduate well up in her law school class. But the idea that her family is somehow owed something, ... lots of people would have trouble with that.
Diplomatic positions should go to career diplomats. It seems to me always to be an insult to the host country when ambassadorial appointments are made as political patronage rewards - and we have had a slew of them as US Ambassador to Canada. If you value the relationship, send somebody with serious credentials to show the host country that you regard the position as being important. On a related note, why does the ambassador to the Vatican have to be a Catholic? Why does the ambassador to Israel have to be Jewish?
We have the Caroline Kennedy issue with the scions of two well known families: Justin Trudeau and Ben Mulroney.
Ben Mulroney is (or was) a TV show host, and may have further ambitions.
Justin Trudeau wanted to run for Parliament. The leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada would not guarantee him a safe seat, and rightly so. Instead he ran in a riding in east end Montreal that had been held by the Bloc Quebecois (them's be separatists, for those what comes from away). It was not a sure thing by any means. He campaigned hard. He won the seat fair and square. Now it's up to him to succeed or fail in Parliament on his own merits.
Wouldn't that be the appropriate route for Caroline Kennedy, or the child of any other prominent family?
Complain about this comment
224, frayed.
Catholicism is only one of many that behaved immorally in the name of religion. I guess when you speak to god you can do anything. I don't belong to any religion, so I am stuck with the responsibility for any wrong that I do. All of you who castigate athiests should keep that in mind.
Complain about this comment
Ref 190
"...The United States does not formally recognise dual-nationality..."
My mother holds dual citizenship (Australia and U.S.). The U.S. government certainly doesn't outlaw it.
However, it makes no concessions to its citizens based on any dual citizenship that individual asserts. For instance, if a person with both Greek and American citizenship is facing a conflict as to whether to serve the U.S. during a time of a draft or Greece, which seems to have a permanent draft, the government does not recognize the individual's obligation to Greece in any way.
Is that what you're referring to?
Complain about this comment
Further to dual-nationality, this site skates on some very thin ice. Although it says that "if you were born in Mexico you are a native-born Mexican. If you move to the United States and become a naturalized US citizen, you now have dual citizenship" it entirely ignores the fact that one is supposed to have renounced all allegiance to the former country. It may well be legal to hold to different passports, but how can one possibly swear allegiance to both countries equally? It's an ethical dilemma which many choose to ignore.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 220
"As an atheist this confirms how much religion and politics are interwoven in a nation that supposedly stands for the separation of church and state."
Indeed, this is a stark contradiction and one central to the American experience. The separation of church and state is an ideal which like so many in our constitution we struggle to live up to (it's right up there with "all men are created equal"). The question for me is whether the church has undue influence in our policy making process. As an atheist I can only assume that you feel it does. As an agnostic, I'm wary but ok with where we are now.
It's certainly in my mind a topic worth keeping an eye on. For the most part I think we (Americans) do, too.
Complain about this comment
225, David -
I think I understand now what you mean by not recognizing dual nationality - that only one nationality is primary (or recognized) when the person is in that particular country. In a criminal case that might perhaps bring a death sentence, a dual US/UK could flee to the UK (before arrest, of course) and then fight extradition based on being a UK citizen and the UK being opposed to the death penalty. Wouldn't he be a citizen the moment he set foot on UK soil?
This happened years ago, once again with the unmentionable country. A teenager in Maryland killed someone and cut up the body and as soon as his dual-national-at-the-time-son's-birth father found out, he put his kid on a plane where he claimed citizenship in the other country. As I recall, the country to which he fled was not pleased, but by law could not extradite him to the U.S. I think he is in prison over there. They do not have the death penalty.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 224
The Catholic church also has a long history of defining western civilization. As such I'll continue to make note of its positions. I don't feel any obligation to accept them, though.
Complain about this comment
Citizenship is an odd animal. Years ago I had a friend who had been born in Germany of U.S. military parents. For some reason he was born in a German hospital rather than on base (proximity at time of labor, perhaps). No one thought anything of this until this boy turned 18 and the German embassy came looking for him (here) for national service! Apparently there had been a mix-up in the paperwork at the time of his birth and they had him listed as a German citizen. It was all straightened out; I think he just had to renounce his German citizenship. But it was quite a shock to the family at the time.
Complain about this comment
174 KScurmudgeon. 211 RomeStu, and others.
KS, "Faith informs learning"
While I understand your point, and don't disagree with it entirely, it seems to me that the opposite is also true, namely that "learning informs faith"
And you may say, "faith is faith, how can it possibly be "informed" by anything, it is what it is?"
Faith and belief evolve. What we believe at 20 is not what we believe at 50, or at 80. They may overlap, but they also shift. Why? because our experiences in life change our beliefs, or allow us to understand our beliefs in a different light or a different context.
Which brings me to ...
Complain about this comment
211 RomStu: "Morals are not absolute ... Why is sex before marriage wrong? Murder, theft, yes, I see that ..."
As an atheist (possibly not sure about that either, but wouldn't want to be called an agnostic - sounds like a disease, or roast lamb on a skewer - and it would involve those three little words that Red Green figures men find so hard to say: "I don't know"), but definitely a Christianity marinated atheist, it seems to me that much of morality - and the explanation of shifting morality over time - is tied up with the restraint of negative externalities.
In a society in which there is no reliable birth control, and in which the social safety net is the family, as defined by blood relationships within societally recognized family structures (i.e., church weddings), "sex before marriage" probably does give rise to a serious wealth distribution issue - as would adultery. Especially so in a feudal society in which wealth is concentrated in landholdings, or herds of cattlebeasts, or whatever. And especially so when women, and the property rights that come with them through inheritance, are themselves treated as chattels.
Under those circumstances, "sex before", or in any way outside of, marriage might have quite a fair chance of giving rise to negative externalities.
But the relevance of those factors in the welfare state, i.e., a cash based service economy, where birth control is readily available, ought to be questioned. Of perhaps more contemporary relevance is the effect of trying to raise a child with (a) incomplete education (b) limited employment prospects (c) no financial support from the other biological parent. These are things that may raise very significant negative externalities, (most typically for the child, often for the mother, but also for fellow taxpayers), and point the way toward the desirability of comprehensive sex education, the encouragement of effective birth control for teenagers, and tolerance of readily available abortion.
That may not be a comfortable thought to all people.
Complain about this comment
Bere (233),
- "In a criminal case that might perhaps bring a death sentence, a dual US/UK could flee to the UK (before arrest, of course) and then fight extradition based on being a UK citizen and the UK being opposed to the death penalty."
I should be very careful in depending upon this between US and UK. There is a certain lack of reciprocity as a certain UK citizen "hacker" has reason to know...- "The controversy stemmed from the absence of any reciprocal arrangement in respect of the United States. Therefore there was no requirement on the US to provide prima facie evidence when requesting the extradition of UK residents, both foreign nationals and UK citizens, but as provided by the UK Act it maintained the requirement for the UK to provide such evidence to the US in the reverse situation. This was the subject of concern prior to the passing of the legislation, and a cause of controversy when it was applied." -- emphasis mine
Do we imagine we are living in a just world?Have a care
;-)
Complain about this comment
Off topic but the Obama apology tour continues in Trinidad.
How can he not confront human right violators who imprison or attack their opponents; like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales.
Mr. President you owe George Bush and the American people the real apology.
At his worst GWB never violated your rights which Dictator Hugo and class warfare proponent Morales have to their opponents
Working together is fine but you are the U.S President not the U.N secretary general.
Complain about this comment
188 Bienvenue and 218. Timewaits.
Now you have opened the eternally contentious topic of the explusion of the Acadians. Now the blog will be hijacked by the crazies and other partisans of ACPAC (Acadian-Canadian Political Action Committee) and the Committee for Fairness to Anglo-Caledonian Canadians (NS, NB and PEI branches) with their tired out, repetitive, tit-for-tat recitations of injustices.
NOOOOOOOOO!
Complain about this comment
If the Vatican doesn't like the US nomination for Ambassador, then the US should simply leave the post vacant.
A US appointment is simply that, the other side shouldn't be able to veto it.
Complain about this comment
#233. bere54: "I think I understand now what you mean by not recognizing dual nationality - that only one nationality is primary (or recognized) when the person is in that particular country."
You got it!! One can only be of one nation at a time - a naturalised Briton cannot claim to be British when on American soil.
"In a criminal case that might perhaps bring a death sentence, a dual US/UK could flee to the UK (before arrest, of course) and then fight extradition based on being a UK citizen and the UK being opposed to the death penalty. Wouldn't he be a citizen the moment he set foot on UK soil?"
Quite probably - I do know that immediately an ex-pat like myself steps back onto British soil they are considered to be "resident" in Britain and can then apply to register to vote. In the case of an act where the death penalty might be the punishment, the UK authorities would most likely recognise the UK citizenship rather than the US, since the party never renounced it to a consular official. I believe the Home Secretary would have the last word on the matter, like the NatWest three (bankers) who were accused of fraud - their British citizenship did not stop them from being sent to the USA for trial, one of the reasons being that it was a non-capital crime involved. Had it been China, where the punishment for such fraud would be death, extradition would not have been permitted.
Complain about this comment
237, IF -
It's interesting that we tend to assume that children born out of wedlock will be raised by single mothers. When I first moved here and would occasionally read the "births" column of the local paper, which lists both parents, I was impressed at how many young women here were choosing not to change their names upon marriage, which is unusual again nowadays. Then I come to find out that feminism had no part in it -- many couples in this area simply don't bother to get married, but live together, raise the children together and to all outward appearances (except name changes) are married, except they're not.
The only problem with this is that were one parent to die, the other parent would not be eligible for Social Security Survivor's Benefits. The children, as far as I know, are eligible because their birth certificates indicate paternity (if that is the parent who dies), but that spouse benefit could be a good chunk of change.
I often wonder if these young couples are aware of this, and if I perhaps should be a busybody and tell them. Haven't so far. But marriage in this country is really all about money, fair or not.
Complain about this comment
238 -
Of course we're not living in a just world. I thought we all knew that!
But does that mean that the U.S. does not have to inform the U.K. even when it's a possible death penalty case? I didn't go to your link because I know it will just be "page not found" and I will not find it!
Complain about this comment
188 Bienvenue 218 Timewaits.
The issue was whether the Acadians had in fact become Birtish subjects. With war coming, and the great French fortress Louisbourg still very much a threat, the British demanded that the Acadians swear loyalty to the Crown.
The upshot was the the British uprooted something like 10,000 - 15,000 people and gave them the choice of going back to France (like that was an option!) or to other French colonies. 5500 or so opted for La Louisianne.
It has been called ethnic cleansing, but there was no mass killing of civilians. It is in some ways more similar to the internment of Japanese Canadians in WWII: a population in a perceived war zone was uprooted not because of disloyalty, but because of fears of disloyalty, and a good deal of prejudice. Their property was confiscated. They were exiled.
Clearly the British must have been fairly inept about it too, because there is no shortage of Acadians in the Maritimes. I have been very fond of one of them for some years, and even to this day.
Complain about this comment
Worth a listen- An interview with Avraham Burg
Contains good, careful consideration of "separation of church and state".
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Complain about this comment
228, interested.
"Diplomatic positions should go to career diplomats. It seems to me always to be an insult to the host country when ambassadorial appointments are made as political patronage rewards ,,, If you value the relationship, send somebody with serious credentials to show the host country that you regard the position as being important."
Nixon's ambassadorial appointments defied this tradition. He actually chose competent people that were respected by their host countries. Iran felt honored to have Richard Helms, especially after having to put up with that old fool, Holmes. This was obvious in the put down that Prime Minister Hoyeda gave the Russian ambassador. What he actually said when the Russian tweaked him about having America's number one spy as his ambassador was, "Well at least he is number one, you couldn't be more than four or five."
"On a related note, why does the ambassador to the Vatican have to be a Catholic? Why does the ambassador to Israel have to be Jewish?"
Why send an ambassador to the Vatican at ll? Why pander to the pope? America is not a theocracy. And I agree that there is no need to send a Jew to Israel (or an Arab to an Arab country). The problem is that the host country may not accept the choice otherwise. If it is any consolation, I don't think the host country takes a fool ambassador seriously.
Complain about this comment
188 Bienvenue and 218. Timewaits
The real issue is the use of Canadian passports as "passports of convenience".
The first issue being cleaned up is the disenfranchisement of war babies. This is long overdue, and rights a very significant injustice.
The second issue is an attempt to solve a fairly common problem, whose solution is also long, long overdue: foreigners come to Canada, stay just long enough to obtain Canadian citizenship, and then go elsewhere, e.g., back to their country of origin, to live. However a Canadian passport guarantees them refuge here, and the right to benefit from out public health care and pensions.
This came to light when the government had to pay for the evacuation of some 11,000 passport holders of Lebanese origin from Lebanon during the recent war.
Some very ugly characters have decided that having a Canadian bolt-hole is a thing: it happened during the Bosnian war where a number of war crimes suspects were found hiding in Canada as either citizens or landed immigrants (London, Ontario, come to mind, but I could be wrong); it has happened with Haitians; it has happened with at least one Rwandan genocide suspect; and it has happened with another notorious family, much in the news, who have mightily abused our immigration system. The one and only thing the Harper government has done right, in my view, is to have refused to help people like this who have abused our hospitality.
For all that, Canada still takes in about 250,000 people per year, and has benefited throughout its history from being open-minded with respect to welcoming immigrants. That policy should not change.
Complain about this comment
243, bere.
"...many couples in this area simply don't bother to get married, but live together, raise the children together and to all outward appearances (except name changes) are married, except they're not."
There used to be common law marriage in New York. If a couple lived together for seven years as husband and wife it was declared a legal marriage. This was abolished in 1933. I might be a good idea to reinstate it. That would provide the children with legitimacy and make clear the duties of both parents.
Complain about this comment
241, ralph.
"If the Vatican doesn't like the US nomination for Ambassador, then the US should simply leave the post vacant."
I second that. It is not appropriate for us to have an ambassador to a non-nation religious hierarchy in any case.
Complain about this comment
249 -
Many states still recognize common law marriage, but this is no help on the Federal level which governs Social Security. Because I had a different last name, I had to present my marriage license to a Social Security office in order to receive benefits when my husband went on disability and then died. I also had to present my kids' birth certificates to prove they were our children (only because of my different last name). This only came up when I informed them of the incorrect name (my husband's) they had put down for me. Had we not been married the children would not have received benefits either, but I'm pretty sure this has been changed. If my memory does not deceive me, the state we were living in at the time recognized common law marriage, but that made no difference.
Complain about this comment
249, Ms. Marbles, N.Y. got rid of that? What an amazingly progressive
state! And, just in time for the repeal of Prohibition.
If we got rid of that here in the Golden State, then our gold diggers
would be out of business in no time!
Complain about this comment
ref #247
I always felt the Vatican was given far too much deference. I think John Paul and Benedict lost the moral authority to lecture anyone with their lack of actions on the priest abuse scandal
Complain about this comment
Ref. 242
"In a criminal case that might perhaps bring a death sentence, a dual US/UK could flee to the UK (before arrest, of course) and then fight extradition based on being a UK citizen and the UK being opposed to the death penalty. Wouldn't he be a citizen the moment he set foot on UK soil?"
Morally? Beats me, but I do know the U.S. government considers anyone who is a citizen of the United States to be its citizen alone. So, Washington will ask (and feel justified in asking) for the return of its citizen.
I'd be interested to see how that plays out.
Complain about this comment
251, bere.
My name is different from my husband's, but I have had no trouble with Social Security because of it. Perhaps it is more common in New York for women to keep their names. It has been the law in New York, for as long as I can remember, that if you use a name consistently for seven years (but not for criminal purposes) it is your legal name. When I left home I changed my name so that no one could find me and drag me back. That name became legal with use. When I got married I kept that name.
The only time I ran into trouble was in England. I was leaving the country with two of my minor children and was stopped because our names were different (kidnapping?). This set my kids laughing, saying things like: "You don't want her in your prison. She'll make a lot of trouble. We know. But maybe you should take her." They were very funny. I was not on the "list," and we left.
Complain about this comment
54. AndyPost: "I do know the U.S. government considers anyone who is a citizen of the United States to be its citizen alone. So, Washington will ask (and feel justified in asking) for the return of its citizen."
But if that citizen was originally a UK citizen, his new US status would not be recognised by the UK authorities - unless he had specifically renounced his British Citizenship to a British Consular Officer. If the crime was of a capital nature, he would then not be extradited, but if it were merely criminal or civil, where the penalty was short of execution, the Home Office might very well accede to a request by the American officials - hence the NatWest Three.
Complain about this comment
225 and variuos others.
"That remains the case since the Oath of Allegiance states "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen?"
My British friend when becoming and American citizen queried this language and the offical was unable to give her a coherent answer. But despite the language it is now official that a person becoming a national of another country can retain their American citizenship and a person becoming an American citizen can retain their previous nationality. And yes a few years ago Americans who took another nationality were formally notified of their loss of American nationality so it was definitely a clear change in the official practice.
And yes I do believe that there were two exceptions that I know of to the rule for many years before the most recent changes.
And citizenship of one country does not confer any protection against the laws of another country - including the draft.
Complain about this comment
257. AAPrescot: "But despite the language (of the Oath of Allegiance) it is now official that a person becoming a national of another country can retain their American citizenship and a person becoming an American citizen can retain their previous nationality."
If you take an oath to do one thing and then do another, how can it be officially sanctioned? It would be tantamount to perjury. It may be that a blind eye is turned, but I have never read an official pronouncement on the subject. Additionally, the language of the Oath is particularly clear and I can't see how anyone with an ounce of intelligence can claim otherwise - the new Citizen specifically swears to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen." It really cannot be plainer than that.
Complain about this comment
255 -
I was referring to a situation where I was going to be collecting disability payments and then survivor's benefits from Social Security, based on my husband's employment. It doesn't sound like you have experienced this. If you are eligible to receive your husband's benefits after his death, you may very well have to prove there was a marriage, even in New York, because the SSA is like the postal service - it is a federal agency and the rules do not vary by state.
Where I lived back then it was not at all unusual for women not to have changed their names but the SSA had apparently not caught up with this. Bureaucracy is always behind the times.
Complain about this comment
257, AAPrescott -
I wonder if the other exception was Argentina. My mother-in-law always claimed that she did not have to renounce her Argentinian citizenship when she became an American citizen. But since she was not known for truthfulness, I have no idea if this is true.
Complain about this comment
To#258 Davidcunard
When one of my grandsons-in-law took his US citizenship he also retained legally his pass port and rights to his prior country. He did not do this out of any ambivalence but because he has a large extended family and a child from a previous marriage in his birth country. The laws there are complex and while he could have renounced his rights he wished to retain them for family reasons.
This does not make him any less of a US citizen and he takes pride in that citizenship and sees America as his home. When my own parents immigrated here many years ago they were required by law to renounce any prior ties or allegiance to their birth country, which believe me, they were more than happy to do even though that made contact with relatives often problematic at times.
People can have many complex reasons for holding a dual citizenship. In this world, we need to relax some of the 'nationness' to which we cling and be more open to our differences and the personal issues that motivate us all.
Complain about this comment
I would send them a Southern Baptist Ambassador or a Mormon if they do not accept my Ambassador. That should make the point nicely.
Complain about this comment
253, Magic.
"I always felt the Vatican was given far too much deference. I think John Paul and Benedict lost the moral authority to lecture anyone with their lack of actions on the priest abuse scandal"'
And how about Pope Pius' indifference to the plight of the Jews under the Nazis?
Complain about this comment
252, guns.
"If we got rid of that here in the Golden State, then our gold diggers would be out of business in no time!"
It used to be true in Pennsylvania (and may still be) that if a man and woman registered in a hotel as husband and wife, this was grounds for a legal marriage. My friends and I were always careful not to stay overnight in Pennsylvania.
Complain about this comment
264, I never heard about that, but if you are aware of the names
of some small towns in Pennsylvania, then you might be lead to believe
such a thing.
Complain about this comment
365, guns.
It might be something that has been on the books forever, but no longer enforced. There are lots of archaic laws still on the books.
Complain about this comment
Many years ago when I was in a criminal justice class at American University in Washington, D.C., the professor mentioned that the length of time for a common law marriage to be in effect in the District was three months. Horrified gasps and cries came from all round the classroom. Even when the professor expounded on the meaning of "holding oneself out as being married" there were still some very rattled students.
Complain about this comment
ref #263
Regarding Pius, john Paul did the closest thing to denouncing Pius which gave the Vatican alot more credbility. but his silence and the fact that he did not order Cardinal Law to return to the U.S to face justice lost a great deal of respect in this country.
Complain about this comment
#223
Billy,
You need to read the documents you cite. Reading is so important.
Sources I use and personal experience is 6 weeks, but if the Mayo can detect it earlier that's great.
If you read their document you'll see they count fertilization, your definition of human life, as begining week 2. Detecting the heartbeat in week 5 gives you a number of 28 days. Your right to life sources are counting the heart as forming before implantation. An interesting idea, but biologically wrong.
It's fun throwing numbers around. You start at 17 days, then you try 22, provide a document that indicates 28.
All of which is irrelevant to the question. If you believe life begins at conception and to take life is murder then you must be anti in vitro fertilization and anti death penalty. Neither can be confused or confusing as there is no moral hazard involved in either issue.
Of course if you have different beliefs then you can hold different positions.
Here's the great news, and this struck me just today in church! No one is going to make you have an abortion! Really! So you can live your life as you please. And if other people have abortions and that is a mortal sin then they will have to answer to their maker. Because He is their judge, not you.
So you can relax and stop getting all excited about abortion talk and let people live their lives, just as they leave you to live yours.
Problem solved.
Helpful Sam
This is awesome, all you
Complain about this comment
#196
Two,
It's a little bundle of cells.
That's that 'sorted' then.
Helpful Sam
Complain about this comment
268, Magic.
In a way, none of this matters. The Catholic church has been on the decline for some time and many now think of the pope as a politician rather than a spiritual leader. Religiously he is something of an anachronism. Strangely enough evangelicals are more tightly controlled than Catholics, in spite of the latter's wealth and its homogeneous hierarchy.
Complain about this comment
#261. aquarizonagal: "When my own parents immigrated here many years ago they were required by law to renounce any prior ties or allegiance to their birth country."
And which naturalised citizens are obliged to do today - they swear an oath to do so. Or in this supposedly God-fearing nation is it now OK to dismiss the oath? We might as well say that giving false evidence or lying under oath is permissible since the oaths sworn by those in court are, by that logic, meaningless. There is no reason why someone such as your grandson could not have retained his Resident Alien status, which provides all the benefits of US citizenship save voting and security clearance and at the same time allow him to maintain his original citizenship. As far as I am concerned, you can only serve and be loyal to one country at a time. The day of the hyphenated American should have passed long ago. Apparently many simply want to have their American cake - and eat a helping of Mexican/English/French cake as well.
Complain about this comment
In Ref. to 263 & 268:
Yall make it sound like Pope Pius XII was in the back rooms eging Hitler on with his final solution. As a head of state with no standing army but the Swiss guard and being all but imprisoned within Vatican City by Mussolini, one can hardly denounce Pope Pius for what he did and did not do; if anything he had his hands ful just holding on to the little bit of independance that Vatican City had. What would yall have had him do-seriously?
Yall are looking at an inaccurate history that ironically is based originally on the antisemitic laws inacted by the French Vichy government which stated that such laws were not in conflict with Catholic teaching. This strictly overlooks the many protests made by the Pope about antisimitism and the many thousands of Jews who were saved from deportation to the deathcamps by hiding them in the Vatican as well as in monasteries and convents owned by church authorities. I understand your frustration at his inability to do and say more because of the Churchs official neutral stance, but if it is any concilation, the German authorities in their own words thought that Pope Pius did not support them:
"The Pope has repudiated the National-Socialist New European Order.... He is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."
- RSHA officials from Prague (Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia) in a note to Heinrich Himmler at the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Berlin December, 1942.
Enough said.
Complain about this comment
270, Sam.
Why is anybody still discussing abortion" Women have always had abortions, whether legal or illegal. My great grandmother had sure-fire methods that probably didn't work most of the time, but the intent was there. Then came the illegal physician abortionists, and now the legal ones. And if some state should make it difficult to have an abortion, then a woman will just go on to the next state. Abortions have and always will be. So why is everyone, including the pope, is wasting his breath on this subject.
Complain about this comment
To# 272 Davidcunard
Wow!
My grand-son-in law was born in an African country that really requires no allegiance from him and he gives them none but he does love his family.
It was interesting to me that you mentioned the "Mexican cake" first.
Complain about this comment
To#274 Allmymarbles
Amen to that!!!
Also, when using a person with really extensive herbal knowledge, abortion did work very well but with no promises to the health and survival of the mother. Most of the herbs that were utilized are quite poisonous.
Complain about this comment
#196. TrueToo: "I don't complain about others' comments, tempting though it is at times, since I believe in freedom of speech."
Then you're writing in the wrong place. If there was freedom to write anything you wished, there would not be Moderators. As it is, some posters return to the same tired topic again-and-again. getting nowhere. So yes, there may as well be one rule for the majority, chit-chat and all, but another for the same propagandists who will always try to insert their pet subject, no matter how disconnected it may be with the subject at hand.
Complain about this comment
273. Bienvenue:
When the Germans announced that henceforth all Jews would have to wear the Star of David on their arms, the next day the King of Denmark went riding his horse in the park wearing the Star of David on his arm.
His comment: One Dane is the same as another.
Denmark whisked its entire Jewish population across the Skagerrak to safety in Sweden.
That is leadership.
Now think carefully about the conduct of the Pope. What did he do? Could he have ordered all of the Catholic priests in Europe to have done the same thing?
When we think about WWII in this way, it is time to be humble and thankful.
Complain about this comment
#270
Hi Marby,
I suspect it comes down to the fact that weak people need a subject on which they can claim some sort of higher moral ground from which they can make themselves feel better about their lack of professional or personal achievement.
Because the alternative (foolish people are being manipulated by their church on behalf of their church leaders political friends to vote on the basis of this issue rather than their overall self interest including Christian morals and economic well being) is even worse.
Sociologist Sam
Complain about this comment
276, aqua.
I heard that one of my great grandmother's cures were hot mustard baths (ouch). Imagine the damage it could cause.
If a vote were taken across the country, I guarantee that there would be many more women voting in favor of abortion than men and, in the case of abortion, what women want, women get. There are so many reasons to have an abortion. Not enough money. Already have enough children. A silly fling with a boy you would never marry in a million years. The baby is not your husband's (whoops). You have to finish school. You always have lousy pregnancies and can't face another. The boy won't marry you. You had a little too much to drink one night (whoops). Whatever the reason, when the need to have an abortion outweights the consequences of not having it, philosophical discussion goes by the board. So people can talk until doomsday about the morality of the act. At that point it simply does not matter.
Need I mention that women are more practical then men?
Complain about this comment
279, Sam.
I'll bet that just as many (or almost just as many) church-going women have abortions as those who sleep late on Sunday.
Complain about this comment
273, bienvenue.
"I understand your frustration at his inability to do and say more because of the Churchs official neutral stance,"
If the pope truly repesents morality, this takes precedence over politics. It was his duty, not to be neutral, but to take the proper moral stance - openly - no matter what it cost him or the church materially. He would have accomplihsed much more that way and gotten the respect of even his enemies.
Complain about this comment
In Ref. to 278:
I agree. But I felt that I had no choice other than to respond immediately to scathing accusations about my Church and its former leader that were inflamatory half truths. I cant help but feel that there was some alterior motive on the part of those that brought this up. And thats the honest to God truth.
Complain about this comment
Ref 272, David
"We might as well say that giving false evidence or lying under oath is permissible since the oaths sworn by those in court are, by that logic, meaningless."
I agree with the point you are making, but I assure you that for some this was a very traumatic decision. My wife did not come to the USA seeking a better life, she had a very comfortable life when I married her 46 year ago in her homeland. She came to the USA because she was my wife, the mother of my children, and because I had no choice but to relocate to the USA when the Spanish government took over the NASA complex where I worked consistent with the terms of an international agreement between the two countries.
About ten years after settling in the USA as a permanent resident with a green card, she decided to apply for citizenship. I suspect she did it because all the other family members in the US were Americans, and because she had embraced our values and had by then become so accustomed to our lifestyle that she felt more comfortable here than during her short visits to Spain. What she did not expect was the need to renounce her homeland, family, friends and everything she held dear during her childhood to become a US citizen.
I suspect the decision may have been easier for those who come to our country seeking a better life or to take advantage of the economic opportunities and freedoms that their ancestral homeland denied them, but for people like my wife it was very traumatic, even though she had no intention of ever returning to her place of birth.
I am glad the US government now allows people to hold dual citizenship, there is no need to insist on people giving up their heritage to prove loyalty to their adopted country and I assure that, for some, giving an oath is not a trivial matter.
Complain about this comment
To#280 Allmymarbles
Slam, dunked, nailed! (A quote from one of my grandsons)
Complain about this comment
#281
Marby,
That is not a bet I would want to take, I fear the odds would be against me.
Gambler Sam
Complain about this comment
Ref 269 SamTaylor1969
Wooaa! Sam! Dude! I beg to differ, Man! I remember it all! You know? Like I remember the moment of my inception. It was great!
The starting gun went off. I swam like I never swam since. It was a race, Dude! I mean...there were like...millions of swimmers in this race. Every swimmer giving it there best. Man...I was flailing like mad just to keep ahead of them.
Then I got to this raft kinda thing. I WON! I got to be like a part of the raft. I was so jubilant, Dude! I said...like, everybody's gonna know me now!
And I was right! NObody knows those other swimmers in the race.
Oh! Wow, Dude. I just thought of this! Did they go to that purgatory place? That would be bad, Dude. They really swam a good race!
Joe Six-pack All-Star Swimming Coach
Complain about this comment
In this new world where people move freely between countries (or as freely as Homeland Security will permit) for work and pleasure, and we're connected by this net, it seems anachronistic and ludicrous to have to swear oaths of allegiance to any one country, forswearing all others.
Complain about this comment
If only Caroline committed tax evasion, ..., she could be Secretary of Treasury.
"I suspect it comes down to the fact that weak people need a subject on which they can claim some sort of higher moral ground from which they can make themselves feel better about their lack of professional or personal achievement."
Is that why so many like Obama?
Complain about this comment
#275. aquarizonagal: "My grand-son-in law was born in an African country that really requires no allegiance from him and he gives them none but he does love his family."
In that case, why would he want to retain his citizenship of that country? I don't see the reasoning behind that. He could visit it using an American passport and no other, unless of course he wanted to guarantee that he could work there in the event that he left the United States permanently
"It was interesting to me that you mentioned the "Mexican cake" first."
Because there are millions of illegal Mexican immigrants who hope that they will be allowed to become citizens. If you lived out here you'd see almost as many Mexican flags and advertisements as American. I had to jump through hoops to be allowed to live here permanently, so why shouldn't others?
#284. saintDominick : "I am glad the US government now allows people to hold dual citizenship, there is no need to insist on people giving up their heritage to prove loyalty to their adopted country and I assure that, for some, giving an oath is not a trivial matter."
I can see that I'm knocking my head against a brick wall. The US Government does not allow people to hold dual citizenship - after taken the Oath, it simply does not recognise the validity of the original. Having sworn to forfeit allegiance to all others, the new citizen becomes American, not some hyphenated citizen. How other countries view that person is of no consequence.
"What she did not expect was the need to renounce her homeland, family, friends and everything she held dear during her childhood to become a US citizen."
The Oath of Allegiance does not require a new citizen to renounce any of those things, only that (in this case) she give up her allegiance to her native government and the King of Spain. She could, and possibly still does, maintain contact with her homeland, friends and everything she held dear - the Oath did not and does not cover such things. If it did, vacations to the Iberian peninsula would be off-limits, which of course they are not.
Complain about this comment
This centrist Democrat does have a problem with abortion, which I only support when the life of the mother is at stake. In my case, my objection has nothing to do with religion, I am an agnostic, but with the fact that in spite of my agnosticism I take the Ten Commandments very seriously, not because of divinity considerations, but because they encapsulate the essence of morality. There is no ambiguity and no caveats in Thou Shall Not Kill, and regardless of whether a zygote is or is not a human being, which it is not because it does not have organs, it is a life form which if allowed would develop into a fetus and eventually a baby. By the way, I also oppose the death penalty and only support war in self defense.
Why should anyone, woman or man, have the right to terminate life regardless of whether it involves a zygote or a fetus? For that matter, people who support the death penalty, pre-emptive wars, and adventurism should not pretend to be religious because, if anything, their acts are more consistent with the anti-Christ than the lives of the prophets or anyone with an ounce of morality. Why should people have the ability to choose which life forms should be allowed to develop and which should not simply to satisfy professional and social priorities or avoid stigmas?
Where religious people go astray, in my opinion, is in denying the use of birth control, making contraceptives available free of charge, and teaching sex education to teenagers. Over population should be a greater concern than terrorism (foreign and domestic), totalitarianism, and our collapsing economies. The focus ought to be on limiting pregnancies to those that are wanted, rather than championing absurd campaigns such as "just say no".
Complain about this comment
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
-- Florynce R. Kennedy
Complain about this comment
#274. allmymarbles: On abortion - "My great grandmother had sure-fire methods . ."
#276. aquarizonagal: "when using a person with really extensive herbal knowledge, abortion did work very well . ."
Many years ago I was acquainted (not professionally) with a very glamourous and successful lady-of-the-evening who used to work the great night clubs that existed in London. She swore by slippery-elm bark and once remarked that the effect occurred, embarrassingly, while she was in a cinema. As I mentioned sometime back, she was a proponent of a penny-worth of alum to 'restore' her virginity. Now those were words from a professional! I have no doubt the remedies work today, but have been superseded by more expensive methods.
Complain about this comment
re: 269 sam "No one is going to make you have an abortion! Really! So you can live your life as you please."
That's the key, really. If you don't agree with abortion, you are free not to have one. If your religious denomination or sect don't agree with abortion, they are free to state their case, and advise adherents not to have one (on pain of damnation, if that is the way of your creed).
I myself am uneasy with the act of abortion, and I would never casually advise anyone I knew or loved to "just do it."
But I am a man, and I am not, nor will I ever be, pregnant. Nor will I ever know the particulars of any woman's situation intimately enough to judge her actions. That decision must be for each woman to make. She may seek guidance from church, family, public institutions, etc., or she may make the decision alone. But ultimately she knows what is right for her, and what is right for the foetus. In a secular, rational society, the decision is rightfully a matter of individual conscience.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Ref 290, David
"The Oath of Allegiance does not require a new citizen to renounce any of those things, only that (in this case) she give up her allegiance to her native government and the King of Spain."
Your understanding is very different from what she was told when she questioned the meaning of the Oath of Allegiance and asked what would she be expected to do if Spain and the US went to war. The answer was unequivocal, she would be expected to side with the USA against her country of birth. If that is not renouncing your heritage I don't know what is; and yes, she does visit Spain periodically, but is no longer keen on ever settling there again.
Regarding the dual citizenship issue, I'll have to check into that further because I heard not long ago from fairly reliable sources that it is now permissible. I admit that I was shocked when I heard it and until I see it in writing I would not be a bit surprised if you are correct.
Complain about this comment
US allows dual citizenship and Immigration Support webpage provides a guide I think this link would work
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/dual_citizenship.html
Complain about this comment
David, you may want to take a look at the U.S. State Department website and search for dual nationality...
Complain about this comment
re: 292 Hesiodos
That's exactly what I mean! (though it took me 3 paragraphs to say it . . . ).
Yours,
Pinko
Complain about this comment
Ref 290, David
"If you lived out here you'd see almost as many Mexican flags and advertisements as American. I had to jump through hoops to be allowed to live here permanently, so why shouldn't others?"
I felt fortunate I speak Spanish fluently when I went to Miami last year to meet a brother in law from Spain who spent a few days with us, because otherwise I would have needed an interpreter. In that case, it is not Mexican or Central American "illegal" immigrants, but Cubans who enjoy refuge status, and permanent residency, the minute they set foot in the USA.
Complain about this comment
To #290 Davidcunard
I respect your viewpoint but we have to agree to disagree regarding immigration and my grandson-in-law wished to be a full American citizen. He holds no allegiance to his birth country but he is allowed to periodically visit his child which would not be allowed if he did not retain his prior passport.
Complain about this comment
I think mainstream Roman Catholics support President Obama's invitation to speak at Notre Dame. Different lobby efforts compete within American Roman Catholicism, Protestant Evangelical, Baptist, Pentecostal and Charismatic Ministries. Randall Terry is a leading anti - abortion activist, a convert from one of the Christian Evangelical faiths to a branch of Catholicism called "Radical Traditionalist Catholicism." A Wiki article says that in 1993, Terry advocated hatred and intolerance as tools in achieving a Christian theocracy in the United States. He was quoted in the Fort Wayne Indiana News-Sentinel on August 16, 1993:
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
Randall Terry established a website that refers to stopping Obama. Here are excerpts from the site:
"Let me be frank with you: this "war" will not be waged in cyber space."
"This is not about emails, and on-line petitions. That is why we are going to South Bend to open an office to "lead a political attack" on the ground." "We will have an ongoing series of activities aimed at getting the University to withdraw its invitation, or Obama to “change his plans.”
I'm concerned that the demonstration may take a less than peaceful direction.
South Bend, Indiana is also home to a chapter of the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
I've a queasy feeling about potentially angry people in multiple groups who might break legal boundaries.
Complain about this comment
#294 rite on. Free choice and make the right choice. Mammals reabsorb the foetus' in time of overpopulation or drought, rodents eat the litter, fish eat their own eggs, early man killed babies born out of season, the male progeny of any enemy... If abortion is illegal then there will be illegal abortions. Some day we'll all evolve beyond it and be more civilized...maybe...
Complain about this comment
#287
Publius,
Give thanks Michael phelps wasn't in there with you.
Olympian Sam
Complain about this comment
291, saintDominick -
I think that if you had ever been a young woman faced with a catastrophically unwanted pregnancy due to a failure of birth control, you might have a different view on the matter. But these are shoes you could never have walked in. You are certainly entitled to your personal views but I hope you don't want to make the rules for my daughter and other young women.
Complain about this comment
291, saintD.
"Why should anyone, woman or man, have the right to terminate life regardless of whether it involves a zygote or a fetus?"
Should or would doesn't matter, saint. The fact is that we do, and nothing will change it.
Complain about this comment
293, David.
"She swore by slippery-elm bark and once remarked that the effect occurred, embarrassingly, while she was in a cinema. "
Well don't leave us hanging. Did she drink it, or what....
Complain about this comment
I understand that women used to swear that horseback riding would produce the desired effect but I think that's an old nag's tale.
Complain about this comment
304, bere.
"...unwanted pregnancy due to a failure of birth contro;...."
Or just plain carelessness. It doesn't matter.
Complain about this comment
Ref 303 SamTyler1969
For sure, Dude!
I would have beat him. I chose my my mother and father, Dude. We all do. I knew they were good people when I chose them. It's just that some of us that didn't make it, made a bad choice. That's all. It's all...like...cosmic, Dude. Roll the dice! Life's a crap game, Man.
Joe Six-pack Casinos
Complain about this comment
I understood your title. I went to Notre Dame. However, your article makes no sense. The people that run Notre Dame want to be Yale. The graduates want Notre Dame to be a Catholic university that supports Catholic beliefs. Time for a leadership change in South Bend, IN.
Complain about this comment
308 -
True.
Complain about this comment
re: 305 Ms. Marbles Should or would doesn't matter, saint. The fact is that we do, and nothing will change it.
The should and the would do matter, I think. It is legitimate and necessary for individuals to seek ethical and moral guidance for their actions. Our culture as a whole is the business of building character. Character is the basis on which we, as individuals, make important decisions.
It is true that women will have abortions. What matters, after the question of legality is resolved, is who, and why.
When you know you can have one, "should I have an abortion?" becomes (for different people in different situations) a helluva question. Cultural norms are how such decisions are made. So they matter.
Yours,
Pinko
Complain about this comment
# 291 saintdominic
I think that men can be more moralistic on this issue
I think I can be assured by you that in the case of rape, you might include such a procedure
Complain about this comment
#306. allmymarbles: "Well don't leave us hanging. Did she drink (the slippery elm-bark), or what...."
It's inserted into the cervix where it absorbs liquids produced in the area and thus swells, inducing the abortion. Actually, I never asked but assumed that this was the method and had to research it via Google. I had no idea there were so many methods to achieve the same result, balsa wood, dried asparagus and even a kind of barbed wire. For anyone interested in the subject, this link will provide some additional insight to the more barbaric methods used. Fortunately today women no longer have to resort to these dangerous methods, although there are some who would deny them the right to use safer solutions.
Complain about this comment
Comments all over the map:
Well, I'm surprised that nobody in the Catholic hierarchy is arguing for refusal for Obama to speak based on his and his VP's denial of "Just War" doctrine, by supporting the invasion of Iraq...
In regards to the Catholics and the Nazis, it's worth noting that there were Catholics on both sides of the issue. Thanks to high-ranking Catholics, Valerian Trifa was able to escape to the USA. (He became a Romanian Orthodox Archbishop, before he left...) However, Maximillian Kolbe hid a number of Jews and was executed at Auschwitz. He was canonized a few years back.
In regards to Obama supporting leaders who locked up their own countrymen- Are you saying he should denounce Mikhail Saakashvili?
Finally, I think this uproar over the "hiding" of Christian symbols is a manufactured controversy by those who want to ride the anger of Christians into power again. And I'm a Christian.
(Oh, to the Primitive Methodist? We have Primitive Baptists over here...)
Complain about this comment
306. At 02:47am on 20 Apr 2009, allmymarbles wrote:
293, David.
"She swore by slippery-elm bark and once remarked that the effect occurred, embarrassingly, while she was in a cinema. "
Well don't leave us hanging. Did she drink it, or what....
S'pose if she injected it she'd have got Dutch Elm Disease?
(I'm intrigued. I'm kind of 'morning after pill' generation, I suppose. What on earth is a "slippery elm"? I fell out of an elm tree once when I was a kid, but it wasn't because it was slippery. Not as far as I remember. But I dare say it might have had the desired effect if I'd been pregnant. And a girl, of course.)
Complain about this comment
312, chrono.
It is easy for men to moralize when it is the women carrying the babies. It is not an issue that concerns men anyway because they cannot control what a woman does with her body (much as some might like to). It is curious that the most strident evangelists of anti-abortion are male, as are they who physically attack abortionists. Do men oppose our rights because of an age old need to dominate us? Well, good luck.
Excuse me for generalizing. Obviously all men are not cut from the same cloth, as evidenced by most of those contributng to this blog.
Complain about this comment
316, ish-ish.
The slippery elm that I know is used to ease sore throats. It leaves a soothing coating.
Complain about this comment
Why do people get so hung up on life and death, Dudes?
What's the difference if you don't make it out of the womb, or you croak taking your first breath? Lot's of people have done that. Man...like the Priests always told me you have to kick off to get to heaven.
I mean...like...Dudes! Isn't that what Christians want most? Get to heaven? Why won't you want to go to heaven, Dudes? It's supposed to be a really rockin' place.
Complain about this comment
211. At 1:47pm on 19 Apr 2009, RomeStu wrote:
Learning is informed by questioning EVERYTHING.
- Yes, it is, but I took a different meaning for 'informed' - more 'enfilled', and 'given shape'. When your subjective and objective universes have a difinitive structure, the structure informs them and your progressive learning experience.
A moral structure is not exclusive to faith. Morals are not absolute.
- No, I agree, moral structures are not unique to faith - in fact, we can make ours up to suit ourselves and change them to suit the moment, if we like. An external authority does give backbone to both moral understanding and to moral commitment.
Why is homosexuality wrong to christians?
- God said it is an abominable practice.
Why is sex before marriage wrong?
- This has been admirably answered in a subsequent post - I also recommend John Paul II's 'Love and Responsibility,' if you are seriously interested in understanding the Christian approach to human-human relationships.
Murder, theft .... yes I see that. Morals are determined by what you believe .... or is only YOUR belief correct?
-Why is it even a matter of belief? Aren't there somewhere data-derived (i.e. scientific) principles involved? But I suspect 'your belief' is inserted here to enable you as an individual the freedom to be in complete control of your actions and relationships, and to justify yourself or refute the business of justification as you will. If I am wrong in this assumption, pleas forgive me....
"A reasoned approach" ..... Reasoned? How so? Faith by its nature refutes reason. Or will you now "reason" to me the virign birth, ressurrection, god's existence blah blah blah.
- I think you are wrong in saying it this way. Faith supports reason, and is supported by it. Faith, by it's nature, provides a basis for reason. A rational system must begin somewhere - "a priori", as it was said. The 'priori', or first arguments, must be accepted or there can be no reasoning, only fruitless disputation, as we see so often here because we have not agreed on the principle facts. Even you must have 'faith' in the basis of your first principles, both of evidence and of method, or you will get nothing but baseless conjecture.
You do not see atheists setting up churches and going door to door to convert people to their way of thinking. Look to your own brainwashing, and reason your own beliefs....
Oh, I do - I see their billboards here in Kansas - on which they have spent considerable money, it seems.
220. At 3:37pm on 19 Apr 2009, chuckbyrd wrote:
It always make me shake my head when our president ends every speech with "god bless you and god bless america". As an atheist this confirms how much religion and politics are interwoven in a nation that supposedly stands for the separation of church and state.
- Mr. Obama has said he is a sincere Christian, and as such his devout wish and prayer must be that God bless our country. When he expresses that sentiment in public he is openly praying that it be so, and also declaring his unity with all people of faith who pray the same, as well as with every person who wishes our country well.
How dare you attempt to deny others the freedom to publicly declare their love, hopes, and support for this country in their own most heartfelt way? How dare you claim the right to reduce this entire nation to your own belief system?
227. At 5:20pm on 19 Apr 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
Because she was employed as a store clerk, then she should have a high tolerance of others. Since her employer is paying her, he is in the position of being able to dictate what greeting is used to his customers.
- That's enough for me. I agree that store clerks should be tolerant and strive not to offend. Saying 'I'm sorry', while it is generally very true, is no recompense for not providing what is paid for, including respectful, effective service.
227. At 5:20pm on 19 Apr 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
Like sperm and ova, it is living, but but we don't cry over losing those. To take your argument to its logical end, every last ova must be fertilised and every last sperm saved. To destroy them would be to destroy every potential life.
- Ah, but you miss the underlying principle - in a perfect world, God gets to decide. And the Humans are ready to support that decision.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
237. At 6:13pm on 19 Apr 2009, Interestedforeigner wrote:
In a society in which there is no reliable birth control, and in which the social safety net is the family, as defined by blood relationships within societally recognized family structures (i.e., church weddings), "sex before marriage" probably does give rise to a serious wealth distribution issue - as would adultery. Especially so in a feudal society in which wealth is concentrated in landholdings, or herds of cattlebeasts, or whatever. And especially so when women, and the property rights that come with them through inheritance, are themselves treated as chattels.
Under those circumstances, "sex before", or in any way outside of, marriage might have quite a fair chance of giving rise to negative externalities.
236. At 6:01pm on 19 Apr 2009, Interestedforeigner wrote:
Faith and belief evolve. What we believe at 20 is not what we believe at 50, or at 80. They may overlap, but they also shift. Why? because our experiences in life change our beliefs, or allow us to understand our beliefs in a different light or a different context.
But the relevance of those factors in the welfare state, i.e., a cash based service economy, where birth control is readily available, ought to be questioned. Of perhaps more contemporary relevance is the effect of trying to raise a child with (a) incomplete education (b) limited employment prospects (c) no financial support from the other biological parent. These are things that may raise very significant negative externalities, (most typically for the child, often for the mother, but also for fellow taxpayers), and point the way toward the desirability of comprehensive sex education, the encouragement of effective birth control for teenagers, and tolerance of readily available abortion.
curmudgeon here -
- my wife is the manager of a large Head Start center. She serves the needs of over 125 3-and 4- year-olds from very low income households, as they prepare to begin their public education.
Most of these children's mothers are not married to their fathers - some have no male in the household, some have a live-in or a series of live-ins, some have an abusive male (or female) adult in the household, some are being raised by grandparents or others because both parents are absent or legally incompetent.
Most, i.e., more than 50% have disabilities documented in individual education plans (IEPs), including physical, psychological, emotional, and developmental difficulties. Some have AIDS or its precursor (although we are not allowed to know who), some bear the evidence of serious exposure to Methamphetamines. Some have witnessed murders in their own homes. Three and four-year olds, in every year's cadre.
There is no way to determine whether this is a representative sampling of this low-income segment of our community, or of the community at large. The public schools solve the problems these kids bring to the classroom by suspending them, particularly when the parents do not advocate for their children or pursue the help that is available.
Freedom of choice comes with responsibility. Sex is not free, even today.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
#295. saintDominick: "(she) asked what would she be expected to do if Spain and the US went to war. The answer was unequivocal, she would be expected to side with the USA against her country of birth."
I fail to see what's wrong with that. Without meaning to appear rude, if she didn't like the terms of the contract, then she should - and could - have remained a Permanent Resident (Alien). Swearing allegiance means what it says - you swear allegiance to your new country and promise to uphold its laws and fight for it when and if necessary. Becoming a naturalised citizen is not a matter of convenience but a solemn undertaking. Of course, so is marriage, but those vows are broken all too often. I suppose we've become used to saying one thing in public and thinking something else in private.
#296. frayedcat: "US allows dual citizenship and Immigration Support webpage provides a guide I think this link would work"
Although the link appears to represent the Government of the United States, it does not - it is a commercial site masquerading as one which is official - read the small print at the very beginning.
#306. allmymarbles: "Well don't leave us hanging. Did she drink it, or what...."
The Mods must be particularly sensitive or perhaps squeamish this evening, since my original response at #314 ("referred") provided the details and a link to demonstrate its veracity. But the answer is no, since drinking an infusion of slippery-elm bark is, so I've read, good for all manner of ailments. You'll just have to use your imagination - or Google it.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, KScurmudgeon, sex is only premarital if one gets married.
Complain about this comment
#320. KScurmudgeon: "Why is homosexuality wrong to christians? - God said it is an abominable practice."
No, God said no such thing; the Book of Deuteronomy was a series of sermons given by Moses; the list of "abominations" contained therein included all manner of things which even Jews do today - cutting one's hair comes to mind. As for Christians, Jesus never mentioned it.
"Why is sex before marriage wrong? "
If it was good enough for Adam and Eve, I guess it should be OK for everyone else.
Complain about this comment
205. AAPrescott wrote:
I agree with a latter comment that someone made on your absurd (there really is no other weay to characterize it) distinction between the right and left wing criticism.
The moderators reinstated my comment at no. 99, in the event that you would want to go back and consider it. I expand there considerably on the blind intolerance of the left and the extraordinary attack on the BBC for one unpopular decision, many of them swearing that they would never again access a BBC programme.
In contrast, if you scout the Internet you will find a number of sites opposing left wing media like the BBC with reasoned argument and an abundance of evidence.
The BBC is meant to be impartial. It came under vicious attack from the left for trying to be just that on a rare occasion. Impartiality for the left means the BBC never deviating from its left wing stance.
206. wrote:
Get moderated and whine, twice.
As I said, I don't "whine." Some people really are hard of hearing. The moderators reinstated my comment at no 99, so I was proven correct there as it didn't warrant removal. But don't bother yourself with facts.
227. David_Cunard,
I was talking about the radio talk show hostess' level of tolerance, not the clerk. There are people on this blog who hear the words "American Christians" and go into spasms of rage and fall all over themselves in their rush to post mocking comments trashing those particular Christians.
277. David_Cunard wrote:
So yes, there may as well be one rule for the majority, chit-chat and all, but another for the same propagandists who will always try to insert their pet subject, no matter how disconnected it may be with the subject at hand.
You mean like Ed Iglehart/Hesiodos just did at no. 246?
320. KScurmudgeon,
You should put others' comments in quotes and preferably refer to the comment number rather than copying and pasting in large chunks. Otherwise it's difficult to comprehend your comments and I believe they are worth reading.
Complain about this comment
I suppose God told us not to eat pork or eat meat and milk together at the same meal. No ham sandwich with a glass of milk. That is just as wrong as homosexuality; they are equally sinful.
As I recall, there are parts of the Bible where abortions are described. Woman have always had folk remedies to cause abortion, and it wasn't illegal in the US until the 20th Century.
This is like the Q'ran. There is a passage that says men and women should dress modestly. That has been interpreted by some to mean that women must be covered head to toe.
Men who want to control women will never agree to abortion. Men who like women, will support a woman's right to choose. If she chooses not to have an abortion, she must be supported in that choice by soceity, though that may be expensive.
It is all in the interpretation.
Complain about this comment
This is completely off topic, so I apologize, but has anyone else had enough of North Korea? They just threatened (nuclear) war on anyone who imposes sanctions on them, and that they would continue to pursue development of nuclear weapons.
Now I'm fairly peaceful, and on the left of the political spectrum, but does anyone else think it might be time to actually do something about North Korea? I know it's complicated with China and South Korea being involved, but seriously.....The country's statements that they release are vomit inducing....
Complain about this comment
99. At 1:39pm on 18 Apr 2009, TrueToo wrote:
The whole point of yor redious discouse is simply to say left wrong-right - correct.
To call the BBC somehow left is ridiculous. Can't recall Melanie Phillips, Ken Clarke, Marmaduke Hussey, Songs of praise, the Chief Rabbi, thought for the day, all BBC regularsbeing described as left wingers. Indeed does any aminstream commercial channel carry any regular religious braodcasting. Indeed the BBC's chief domestic correspondent was a card carrying conservative.
Your views of the BBC are filtered through yourown extreme right wing stance typified by your views about "dark hued people. Your crude attemnpts to justifiy such somments show how extreme you actually are.
The fact the moderators even allowed such references show how right-wing some of them are.
As for the fact your post was reinstated, so what? Every comment the moderators remove of mine is promptly reinstated should I object.
Complain about this comment
327. SaintOne,
North Korea was defeated by South Korea in a Football World Cup qualifier for next year in South Africa. Though they still have a good chance of qualifying, that defeat must have stung. Perhaps that is why they are sulking more than usual and making nuclear noises. Sounds irrational, I guess but that's not a country under rational leadership.
Re abortion, I disagree with the oft-expressed opinion that men are somehow not qualified to partake in the debate just because they don't bear the child.
Complain about this comment
328. Simon21 wrote:
The point of the comment being reinstated was that it was most likely referred in spite by someone who can't tolerate a different viewpoint. That is, it was referred for no other reason than prejudice.
The fact the moderators even allowed such references show how right-wing some of them are.
Nonsense. You never heard of freedom of speech?
As for the fact your post was reinstated, so what? Every comment the moderators remove of mine is promptly reinstated should I object.
Also nonsense. Work out the difference between referral and removal.
Like to chat, you're such a pleasant fellow to chat with, but I gotta go.
Complain about this comment
242 David Cunard
233 bere54
Another twist on the dual citizenship discussion- in most instances, the U.S. government requires those with dual citizenships to renounce the second with that country's embassy/consulate before that person will be permitted to work for the govt., either as an employee or as a contractor. This was not often enforced in years gone by unless someone was up for a security clearance, but in these paranoid times everyone is going under the microscope for conflicting loyalties.
Complain about this comment
Pinko (312),
Well said. Ethics, though embodying vast amounts of near-universal common wisdom, are endangered by (of all things) the "globalisation" of culture and the accompanying political correctness.
Although it's wrapped in "green" clothing, I still reckon Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic" serves as a much broader and general ethical cornerstone than "simple" questions of land-use....
The evolution of a land ethic is an intellectual as well an emotional process. Conservation is paved with good intentions which prove to be futile, or even dangerous, because they are devoid of critical understanding either of the land or of economic land-use. I think it is a truism that as the ethical frontier advances from the individual to the community, its intellectual content increases."
Hmmmmmm
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
TT,
- "
So, Separation of church and state is totally un-connected with the thread topic? Or is it forbidden to refer to a deep thinker's thoughts on the topic because of the particular state he belongs to?So yes, there may as well be one rule for the majority, chit-chat and all, but another for the same propagandists who will always try to insert their pet subject, no matter how disconnected it may be with the subject at hand.
You mean like Ed Iglehart/Hesiodos just did at no. 246?"
Salaam, twit
Complain about this comment
329. At 10:56am on 20 Apr 2009, TrueToo wrote:
"Re abortion, I disagree with the oft-expressed opinion that men are somehow not qualified to partake in the debate just because they don't bear the child.2
Why, on what grounds? What is the source of your view?
Hatred of women? (all women or just "dark hued" ones)?
Any debate here?
Complain about this comment
327 SaintOne
I agree about N. Korea, but of our host of options, all of them are bad. The bluster is just the latest round of such being used as a "negotiating" tool, so I don't think that they're quite as irrational as they lead on.
Sanctions? They're already clamped down for almost everything but food and medical relief.
Military? The U.S. is overtaxed with the Middle East, and N. Korea knows it. Even if we were to do a limited "surgical" strike on their nuclear production facilities, it might well produce a full scale retaliation against S. Korea, for whom we could provide little relief.
And any military course might well lead to a nuclear reprisal against one of our allies.
The best bet is one at which we in the U.S. are terrible: patience. Let the snarling beast smell the benefits we have to offer for cooperation, and come out of its kennel.
Complain about this comment
330. At 11:22am on 20 Apr 2009, TrueToo wrote:
328. Simon21 wrote:
The point of the comment being reinstated was that it was most likely referred in spite by someone who can't tolerate a different viewpoint. That is, it was referred for no other reason than prejudice.
Or that you removed the bigotry.
"The fact the moderators even allowed such references show how right-wing some of them are.
Nonsense. You never heard of freedom of speech?"
Oh so these BBC lefties beleive in free speech for right wingers? In other words you concede the point thanks.
Game set and match.
No wonder you do not debate
Complain about this comment
327. At 09:51am on 20 Apr 2009, SaintOne wrote:
This is completely off topic, so I apologize, but has anyone else had enough of North Korea? They just threatened (nuclear) war on anyone who imposes sanctions on them, and that they would continue to pursue development of nuclear weapons.
Now I'm fairly peaceful, and on the left of the political spectrum, but does anyone else think it might be time to actually do something about North Korea? I know it's complicated with China and South Korea being involved, but seriously.....The country's statements that they release are vomit inducing...."
Statements are sticks and stones.
On this subject it would be interesting to be told the truth
How can a state we are all told is collapsing run a successful nuclear programme and launch rockeets into space?
And if NK can do this, how do we seriously expect to prevent other cuntries from doing so.
Complain about this comment
253 MagicKirin wrote:
"I always felt the Vatican was given far too much deference. I think John Paul and Benedict lost the moral authority to lecture anyone with their lack of actions on the priest abuse scandal"
and 263 marbles
"And how about Pope Pius' indifference to the plight of the Jews under the Nazis?"
This puts me in the rare position of agreeing with MagicKirin .... but Marbles, the church was not alone in being indifferent ot the plight of the Jews. How many nations went to war after Kristallnacht?
Admittedly the church as a christian organisation arguably had a moral duty to care, the rest of the world was not blameless. WW2 was not fought to save Jews.
273 bienvenue
""if anything he had his hands ful just holding on to the little bit of independance that Vatican City had. What would yall have had him do-seriously?"
You make some good points. However the Pope was not a prisoner of Mussolini (he had his independence), but a tacit ally - after all Mussolini gave his predecessor nation status of Vatican City in 1929 with the Lateran Concordat, with the understanding that he would at least remain silent about fascism. It worked.
Pius XII was not an active supporter of the Nazis, and as you write did speak in 1942 against the holocaust, but again the Nazis were upset as they thought they had him under wraps. The doubts about Pius XII come from the fact that he was Papal Legate to Nazi Germany from 1933, and then the Vatican was known to enable the flight of many Nazis to south America post WW2.
Complain about this comment
Ref 331, Via
"...renounce the second with that country's embassy/consulate before that person will be permitted to work for the govt., either as an employee or as a contractor."
I believe the restriction apply to positions that require security clearance. Yes, we have gone overboard and our fears often seem paranoidal, but governments have an obligation to defend their citizens and there are certain facilities and information that should not be compromised.
Complain about this comment
Ref 329, TrueToo
"Sounds irrational, I guess but that's not a country under rational leadership."
This avid football, sorry soccer, fan does not think it is irrational at all. In fact, I think it is a better reason to vent frustration than some of the other reasons that pop up occasionally and cause so much pain. Viva Real Madrid!
Complain about this comment
320 KScurmudgeon
Thank you for your reply to my post. We agree on some bits and differ on others, but I must take issue with your idea that faith supports reason.
"RomeStu wrote....."A reasoned approach" ..... Reasoned? How so? Faith by its nature refutes reason. Or will you now "reason" to me the virign birth, ressurrection, god's existence blah blah blah."
curmudgeon replied 320
- I think you are wrong in saying it this way. Faith supports reason, and is supported by it. Faith, by it's nature, provides a basis for reason. A rational system must begin somewhere - "a priori", as it was said. The 'priori', or first arguments, must be accepted or there can be no reasoning, only fruitless disputation, as we see so often here because we have not agreed on the principle facts. Even you must have 'faith' in the basis of your first principles, both of evidence and of method, or you will get nothing but baseless conjecture."
A priori arguments as the basis for reasoned debate do not include religious texts whose validity is dependent entirely on belief or faith in those texts. You use a circular argument.
I accept your other comment as follows
"You do not see atheists setting up churches and going door to door to convert people to their way of thinking. Look to your own brainwashing, and reason your own beliefs....
Oh, I do - I see their billboards here in Kansas - on which they have spent considerable money, it seems."
I didn't know about the Kansas billboards, and of course London recently had its famous "atheist buses", but it is a drop in the ocean compared to the propaganda output of organised christianity.
Complain about this comment
to six pack
Heavens - - what about those who are afraid of heights
one other thing -do people following these themes ever do anything else
Just wondering
Complain about this comment
Ref 313, Canada
"I think I can be assured by you that in the case of rape, you might include such a procedure..."
I would not be the one driving my granddaughter to an abortion clinic if she was the victim of incest or rape (I'll be too busy looking for the culprit), but I suspect that in situations such as those I would not be enraged or apt to voice my views of morality on that subject.
Regarding comments about men having or voicing an opinion on this subject being a reflection of dominance, I would say that in addition to the small, and pleasurable role we play on the matter, most married men are not the domineering naenderthals that tend to make the news. More often than not married men end up doing what their wives want, when they want it, and the way they want it, without hesitation or the slightest deviation. I suspect that's something the old dudes at the Vatican forgot to learn while in the confines of a seminary and subsequent ascetic lives.
Complain about this comment
340 saintDominick
Like anything, security can and is overdone. Like threatening termination to a 25 year government contractor if she doesn't renounce her dual Canadian citizenship...
And it's not just clearance holders; if a position is deemed to be one for which the holder would merely be Eligible for a clearance, then the requirements apply.
I'm all for enhanced security, but it doesn't have to be intrusive or nonsensical. I think Jefferson's (Franklin's) oft-quoted line applies: "those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."
Complain about this comment
D. Cunard - Complicated subject - apparently the fault of the British...here's from an article on the subject (Emery U)
...Hence England's aggressive assertion of the common law doctrine at the beginning of the nineteenth century against subjects who emigrated to and naturalized in the United States. Refusing to accept the legal fact of naturalization as diminishing obligations to the Crown--a November 1807 proclamation warned that "no such letters of naturalization, or certificates of citizenship, do, or can, in any matter divest our natural-born subjects of the allegiance, or in any degree alter the duty which they owe to us, their lawful Sovereign" --the English navy would impress the naturalized Americans at sea into its service on the grounds that they had never been released from their obligations to their country of birth. British naval vessels took to routinely stopping U.S. flag ships and seizing those crew members thought to be (former) British subjects. Of course, at the same time as England may have perceived diminished powers in the face of attempted expatriations, the United States saw a threat not only to the strength of its own forces and the wellbeing of its adopted citizens but also to its very sovereignty. The problem festered through the first decade of the century. British impressment policy was an important contributing factor in the outbreak of war in 1812.
In the wake of that conflict and the obvious costs of continued impressment, Britain desisted from extraterritorial efforts to return would-be former subjects by force. But as was true of the many other states that refused to recognize expatriation, they remained subjects in the eyes of the birth country. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the U.S. population of formal dual nationals thus constituted a significant proportion of its immigrant population. To the extent this posed potential problems of loyalty, they were answered by the oath of naturalization, which, since 1795, had included a renunciation clause. This oath could not be enforced against the individual so long as other states adhered to perpetual allegiance, at least not to the extent that the nation sought new immigrants; the United States could not hold an individual accountable for a tie that he could not undo. American authorities nonetheless claimed the taking of the oath to be effective as against the country of origin. They also clearly thought it effective as against the individual.
***
... The Immigration and Nationality Act was finally amended in 1986 to reflect this standard. In the face of this amendment as well as increasingly constrictive rulings from the lower courts, the Department of State retreated with a 1990 policy statement which reversed the presumption of expatriating intent upon naturalization in another state. As it more recently observed in a 1995 opinion circulated to all U.S. diplomatic posts, "it is no longer possible to terminate an American's citizenship without the citizen's cooperation." This standard in effect allows a U.S. citizen to undertake any activity in another polity without risk of denationalization. Never mind the mere act of voting, there have been many recent instances of Americans retaining their citizenship at the same time as they have assumed high political office in foreign governments. In practice, the only expatriating act which is now subsequently enforceable against an individual seeking to retain citizenship will be a formal renunciation before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer overseas. Even then, there may be defenses to denationalization. As for dual citizenship, these developments evince its complete toleration, at least as respects birthright U.S. citizens who acquire or retain additional nationality. Mere naturalization in a foreign state will no longer result in the loss of U.S. nationality.
-46 Emory L.J. 1411, 1454-1455
Complain about this comment
99 "This is to illustrate the fact that the BBC is not "getting it about right" simply because it is criticised from the left as well as the right."
I am not saying that the BBC is wonderfully following the middle way all the time. They will err on both sides. There are many times that I am anoyed at their fundamental conservatism (with a small 'c'). And I gather that there are times when you see them as going too far to the left. So let me rephrase that most of the time they get it about right.
But in the US we have a choice of Fox news - that is clearly so far right that it is frightening - they are not directly responsible for the wacko's going off the deep end, but if you push people in a direction the unstable ones at the extreme are going to go over the edge. I do watch MSNBC at times because it is a welcome relief to have the alternative to Fox, but I prefer a more sober traditional presentation of the news. NPR tends to be even more cautious than the BBC (I use this 'c' word rather than conservative). For example, untill quite recently they still tended to always have a global warming nay-sayer in order to appear 'balanced'. This is of course not balanced (having a nay-sayer one in every hundred times would be balanced with world scientific consensus.
In short there is nothing like the BBC anywhere else, a goverment financed media with a charter that insists on its impartiality. And the US may be exceptional in its own way - it does not have a state controlled media, but Fox did a better job in the last 8 years than any state controlled media. And now that their party has lost (despite them) they are determined to undermine Obama. I doubt if any other country in the world has such a well financed oppositon media. In short right wing complaints about the media being left wing in the US is absurd, but does serve to illustrate how off center America is in general in its politics. Which of course produces crazies at both extremes.
Complain about this comment
KScurmudgeon @320
'Why is homosexuality wrong to christians?
- God said it is an abominable practice'
That is not what God said. That is what christians say God said.
Complain about this comment
# 247 allmymarbles wrote:
"Why send an ambassador to the Vatican at ll? Why pander to the pope? America is not a theocracy."
On a purely factual level, AFAIK the Vatican is regarded as an independent state - which presumably is why it sends ambassadors to other independent states [think they're called papal nuncios] and other independent states send ambassadors to the Vatican.
On a practical level, the pope is the head of the largest Christian denomination, and [again AFAIK] catholicism per se is one of, if not the, largest religions in the world. Even though the days when all catholics obeyed the pope may be gone - if they ever existed - I would have thought that there is good reason for most states to maintain diplomatic relations with the Vatican.
Complain about this comment
321, KS -
So at the end of this long post, are you suggesting that these terribly disadvantaged young women, obviously unprepared to become mothers, should have had abortions? I agree with you. I'm just surprised to see you so suddenly accept reality.
Complain about this comment
I think the problem Notre Dame is having with the President speaking at the commencement, is that Obama is the most 'anti-life' president in american history. The Catholic Church is completely PRO-LIFE. It is like having the head of the Ku Klux Klan speak at the commencement of an all black college. I complete slap in the face. I don't know if you all have heard (across the pond) that the President spoke at Georgetown University (an ivy-league Catholic University), and asked them to cover up the letters referencing the name of Christ. The University complied. Most of us feel that he should have chosen somewhere else than the Cathedral to make his speech, it was wrong to ask the Church to HIDE its identity. If he didn't want to "make a statement" regarding religion...why speak there? (I am not even Catholic!)
He would not have dreamed of asking ANY other group to HIDE its identity for him to speak. We have elected an unprofessional, unpolished, thin-skinned, child-like, autocrat. He says he is against elitism, money and power, but he couldn't wait to meet the Queen. This is not a slight against her, most american's respect her. He is a liar and a sycophant.
Complain about this comment
321 Curmudgeon:
I have enormous respect for the really important public service your wife is providing. She is contributing to her community in a way that can only be admired. Please thank her, for me and every other parent.
I agree that sex and responsibility go hand in hand, but that can be said of other things too - driver's licenses and responsibility, credit cards and responsibility, and so on.
In each case the issue is irresponsible behaviour by adults, and the negative externalities that arise thereform. Some of them are just barely adults - adults, really, only in the sense of having functioning reproductive systems, but not in the sense of being able to exercise mature judgement on any of a range of issues.
It seems to me that prohibition rarely, if ever, works. Certainly it didn't work even in the Garden of Eden. We are genetically programmed to have sex, and have been since the earliest times of hunter-gatherer societies. It starts when you are a teenager. It is reflected in societal coming-of-age rites: confirmation, bar mitzvahs, bat-mitzvahs, debutantes balls, etc. (and, as Marbles pointed out earlier, there are lots of non-adolescent opportunities, too.)
Since there is abundant empirical evidence that prohibition does not work, and keeping in mind that public services are not likely ever to be able to fill the place of a supportive extended family (rarer, too, now), it seems to me that a more practical approach is to rely first and foremost on education, and secondarily on internalization of negative externalities.
Education of almost any kind will advance a child's future opportunities. Teaching a child to read and do math are probably fairly good steps in a voiding a host of social problems, including unwanted or much-too-young pregnancies. Science, language, history, geography, sports and general fitness - all good. By contrast, the negative externalities of a lack of education in a knowledge based economy are crippling: Education only looks expensive until you calculate the cost of lack of education.
Also from an early age health education is important to encourage the use of birth control; to advertise the consequences of early pregnancy; to raise the sense of genuine self-value of adolescents (i.e., there are better ways of showing that you "belong" in the club than having sex, that a woman's value is not defined or "validated" merely or only by being able to have babies at sixteen); and to provide activities that give teenagers and longer and more positive (which is not the same as more self-indulgent) view on the world.
Giving teenagers responsibility at a young age - for chores at home, for taking care of a pet, for helping an elderly neighbour with yard work - is also, in my observation, very healthy. It teaches children not to be selfish, but to care about others, which is one of the greatest gifts a parent can bestow.
And when people don't behave responsibly, then we need mechanisms to internalize the costs of that behaviour. It is an area where huge improvements could be made. Yep. Lots of deadbeats out there. Not all of them are men.
Finally, whatever moral qualms each of us may have personally, there does not seem to be any practical case to be made against readily available, safe, confidential, abortion. The negative externalities of the alternatives, i.e., illegal abortion, for which there is, again, abundant empirical evidence, are far worse.
Complain about this comment
Comment to "Isenhorn" regarding the act of homosexual sex. The Bible does say that homosexual sex is an abomination or detestable to God, depending on your translation. You may not agree with the Bible if you do not believe in the God of the Jews and Christians, but it is there.
Complain about this comment
347. At 1:18pm on 20 Apr 2009, AAPrescott wrote:
"But in the US we have a choice of Fox news - that is clearly so far right that it is frightening - they are not directly responsible for the wacko's going off the deep end, but if you push people in a direction the unstable ones at the extreme are going to go over the edge. I do watch MSNBC at times because it is a welcome relief to have the alternative to Fox, but I prefer a more sober traditional presentation of the news. NPR tends to be even more cautious than the BBC (I use this 'c' word rather than conservative). For example, untill quite recently they still tended to always have a global warming nay-sayer in order to appear 'balanced'.
This idea of balance is badly misunderstood. What is important is not some silly puerile idea that all views are equal but that a clear news agenda is followed and followed ethically.
The BBC does this very well, the Telegraph is also good. Reelvant sources are consulted, witnesses interviewed, opinions flagged.
News stories are not issues of balance. No one seriously expects a piece on pedophilia, to be followed by the declamations of a pedophiliac to give "balance".
Or Columbine, horrible massacre or the joys of bomb making hobbies!
Complain about this comment
AA Prescott (347),
- "In short there is nothing like the BBC anywhere else, a goverment financed media with a charter that insists on its impartiality. ... I doubt if any other country in the world has such a well financed oppositon media. In short right wing complaints about the media being left wing in the US is absurd, but does serve to illustrate how off center America is in general in its politics. Which of course produces crazies at both extremes."
Well said. but the BBC is not "government financed", but more precisely State-mandated and supported by a compulsory license for television use.On the matter of "balance" this is very pertinent
In science, it's different. There are rarely just two polar opposite sides, but rather a spectrum of potential outcomes, oftentimes accompanied by a considerable history of scientific assessment of the relative credibility of these many possibilities. A climate scientist faced with a reporter locked into the "get both sides" mindset risks getting his or her views stuffed into one of two boxed storylines: “we’re worried” or “it will all be OK.” And sometimes, these two "boxes" are misrepresentative; a mainstream, well-established consensus may be "balanced" against the opposing views of a few extremists, and to the uninformed, each position seems equally credible."
Peace to all
Complain about this comment
Ref 354, Simon
My favority station is NPR, especially the Diane Ream Show and Talk of the Nation. I enjoy listening to programs where the host allows guests to express their views regardless of ideological leanings.
In fairness to conservatives, ultra liberal news media is just as offensive and devoid of logic as those on the far right of the political spectrum.
Complain about this comment
#338
A curious misspelling of "countries" - A freudian slip?
:P
Complain about this comment
Ref. 256, David
"But if that citizen was originally a UK citizen, his new US status would not be recognised by the UK authorities..."
I can't think of any logical basis for thinking the UK authorities should necessarily recognize the individual's new U.S. status. Indeed, it would be hypocritical in the height for the U.S. to claim rights as it denies the same to the U.K. (not that that would stop us, at least judging from my government's past).
I think this is a situation where a blanket policy would be ineffective or even damaging. Rather, I believe it should be handled on a case by case basis. For instance, if an individual left the U.S. to become a U.K. citizen, committed murder, and fled back to the U.S. claiming the protections of U.S. citizenship to avoid prosecution, I'd be in favor (and I think most Americans would be, in the case of the U.K. at least) of sending that person back to the U.K. to face charges no matter what the possible penalty is. I can imagine exceptions, but they're pretty far fetched (something along the lines of the use of torture as a punishment -- not very likely).
Complain about this comment
The media makes too much about everything. Everything is symbolic. If President Obama was to speak at a Baptist university the media would say he is playing to the religious right. Let him make a speech and evaluate the content. He is president of the entire nation so he should address as many groups as possible. They may not agree with his positions but that is what the democratic process is all about. If President Hu went to address the Uigher, now there would be a story.
Complain about this comment
347 AAP.
The CBC/SRC is expected to provide independent, impartial and balanced news coverage. It is funded by the state, but is an arm's length crown corporation. It is supposed to be free of political interference by the party in power.
At least in theory.
The present federal government is trying to kneecap the CBC financially, much in keeping with its general inclination to prevent any view other than its own reaching the mass media.
Funny, though, every government that ever assumes office eventually alleges that the CBC is biased, and, in the case of the SRC, is a nest of separatists.
I suspect that Australian Broadcasting, and others, have a similar remit.
And probably face similar pressures.
And you are completely right about the importance of maintaining a well funded public broadcaster as a counterwieght to commercial news services.
Complain about this comment
351 Idtobias.
At least one of us does not know what the words "liar" and "sycophant" mean.
There are lots of world leaders who have respect and affection for the Queen. And for good reason: a lifetime of dedicated public service. That doesn't make them sycophants. Or liars.
The "Catholic Church" is "completely PRO LIFE", you say.
How would you like to hold a vote and find out if the majority of Catholics are anti-abortionists as you implicitly suppose? In the US, if 35 % of Catholics opposed abortion, that would be at the high end of the scale.
President Obama's moderate religious views are broadly in line with not only the majority of Catholics, but the majority of Americans generally. It is really difficult to believe that either Notre Dame as an institution, its students, its alumni, or God, are in any way half as fussed as you are about this non-issue. My guess is that most of them are thrilled he is going to speak there.
Complain about this comment
To #359 QinGuangWang
Excellent post!
Sometimes people here do forget that our President is for ALL the people.
Complain about this comment
re: 317 Ms. Marbles It is curious that the most strident evangelists of anti-abortion are male, as are they who physically attack abortionists. Do men oppose our rights because of an age old need to dominate us? Well, good luck.
Indeed it is so. Patriarchy (I know that is a dirty word to some) is based on men controlling women's bodies. Passing property and honours from father to son can't happen reliably if women are freely choosing mates and determining the fates of the offspring so generated. Paternity, in the absence of female marital fidelity (and DNA tests!) is a tricky thing to keep track of.
Have you read Margaret Atwood's Penelopiad? It's a reworking of the Odyssey from Penelope's point of view. The twelve hanged maids (those who kept Penelope's suitors at bay), as the 12 lunar cycles of the year, figure prominently. (Ed and Kscurmudgeon, you might be interested in this little book too).
Anyway, I would stick to my point that we, as individual men and women, make our personal decisions on the basis of cultural norms.
Whether or not those norms are patriarchal is a matter for some serious thought. Certainly many women raised in various religious or cultural traditions may accept as wholly true the view that men have authority over them. Others will chafe under such values, and suffer them grudgingly (or perhaps resist in the best way they are able). Still others will rebel.
The glory of this time in history, at least in the west, is that women are free to participate in the ethical life of the community and, if they choose to do so, re-think and re-work oppressive ethical values.
This doesn't necessarily mean chucking the lot and starting from scratch (in fact, the various revolutions that have attempted this sort of thing seem to end in disaster). Rather, like Atwood does in her re-working of the Odyssey, it is possible to work within old frameworks to create new possibilities.
Yours,
Pinko
Complain about this comment
#353. ldtobias: "The Bible does say that homosexual sex is an abomination or detestable to God, depending on your translation."
Where do you get the idea that the words of the Torah are directly from the mouth of God? If you consider homosexual sex an abomination, I hope you follow all the other edicts therein. You may not pick and chose which ones you like or dislike, so it stands to reason that you would agree with Leviticus 25: 44-45: Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. And don't forget that the cutting of hair and eating shellfish and pork is forbidden, along with those who curse their parents since he (or she) "shall surely be put to death."
"You may not agree with the Bible if you do not believe in the God of the Jews and Christians, but it is there."
Show us precisely where Christ even alluded to the subject, let alone condemned it.
Complain about this comment
To#363 Chronophobe
Cheers to you for one of the best posts on this thread!
Your last paragraph is the most insightful. I have always wondered why we now seem to see it necessary to crush what is deemed as old, nonfunctional and contrary to what ever belief system we may espouse. This is certainly not a "way to win friends and influence enemies."
I have felt that one of the reasons Christianity was so successful was not necessarily because of the message but because in many cases pagan rites and rituals were very cannily incorporated into Christian worship.
I believe that many of the tenets of Islam also spoke to the hearts of a tribal people but I am not very knowledgeable on this.
While the messages were important, recognition that the 'old ways' could be integrated into 'new ways' seems to have had some success. There is something to be said for having an open mind to the needs, thoughts and belief systems of others.
Complain about this comment
Pinko (363),
Thanks for that, and I am indeed interested. I shall seek more knowledge of the Penelopiad. The hanged maids have indeed puzzled me for some time.
I also second your observations on the nature of ethics.
QinGuangWang (359), Welcome, and well said!
Peace and sound ethics
Complain about this comment
To#364 Davidcnard
Your words:
"Show us where Christ even alluded to the subject, let alone condemned it."
Christ DID NOT!
Christ came to "give a new law" of peace, tolerance and love. The people he called to task and castigated were the hypocrites, the hate mongers, those who abused others for their own gain and glory.
His example was to treat everyone with respect, love and acceptance.
I, for one, think that some Christians need to really READ the bible.
Complain about this comment
#358. AndyPost: "I can imagine exceptions, but they're pretty far fetched (something along the lines of the use of torture as a punishment -- not very likely)."
It's not an unheard-of justification for asylum seekers in Britain to use that reasoning - that they will be tortured or executed when returned to the country of origin. The UK is introducing some quite stringent rules for potential new citizens concerning "Britishness" and may have done so by now, which I think also includes the required ability to read and write the English language. If a similar rule were ever to be introduced into the United States, what a difference that would make!!
Complain about this comment
Ability to read and write the English language is a part of the US citizenship test, as far as I am aware.
Complain about this comment
The business of honorary degress is more than absurd. Awarding an honorary degree debases the degrees which students earn through work & study.
A university who wishes to honor a non-student should send the person a scroll filled with meaningless words of congratulation & end it with that. Pres Crow of ASU is, at the very best, is a dull tool. It is past time for Pres Crow to retire & be gone from Arizona.
American Universaties & Colleges must end the practice of granting honorary degrees to anyone at once. Administrators of Pres Crow's ilk will always abuse the practice of granting of honorary degrees. Pres Crow has disgraced ASU. Be gone, Pres Crow, for your own good, the good of ASU & the good of American Scholorship.
Complain about this comment
"Ability to read and write the English language is a part of the US citizenship test, as far as I am aware. "
Yes, I think so.
Complain about this comment
I had completely forgotten about some American RC clergy being upset with Notre Dame, a RC, American University, for inviting Pres Obama to speak at Norte Dame. Since I'm a former RC & dislike that body I dare say nothing. I'm more than bigoted toward the RC persuasion. All that I may do is refer RC's to the writings of the late Cardinal Newman, a distinguised RC clergy person of the UK. Cardinal Newman wrote of the idea of a university. Cardinal Newman's words are worth studying in the USA of 2009.
I do hope that Pres Obama has a pleasent time at Notre Dame.
Complain about this comment
329, TooTrue.
"Re abortion, I disagree with the oft-expressed opinion that men are somehow not qualified to partake in the debate just because they don't bear the child."
You can talk as much as you like, but you don't have to power to control us.
Complain about this comment
Ref 338, Simon
"Now I'm fairly peaceful, and on the left of the political spectrum, but does anyone else think it might be time to actually do something about North Korea?"
Regardless of whether the North Korean threats are real or just a tactic to get concessions, recognition, and desperately needed help I am afraid NK is going to be a major challenge for the Obama Administration. Unlike Al Qaeda. North Korea has a formidable army, well equipped, disciplined and tested; which means a confrontation with that country would be much more serious than police actions in the Middle East...without the veneer of divine impetus that dominates the latter.
The North Korean situation could easily develop into a major international crisis, with a very real threat to the security of our allies in the region as well as US forces deployed in South Korea. IMO, we must continue to pursue a peaceful settlement with them, using China and SK as mediators, but insisting on more evidence than the destruction of old and obsolete nuclear sites.
Interestingly, in the midst of such serious threats we focus our attention on the Vatican, the release of memos everyone was already familiar with, Sarah's latest speech, and a cute Portuguese water dog named Bo. BTW, President Obama's speech at the CIA a few minutes ago was excellent and well received.
Complain about this comment
The Catholic church might just have been trying to protect it's own people.
disgusting I know but no different from other religious organisations that blah b;ah.
DC when did a Brit not serving swear an oath to the queen. Did you?
I didn't
Not all countries make one swear alliegence to them like sycophants.
some just accept that you are a citizen and that is enough. Not america though they like the "promise me" line.
Larry the same cardinal that started The Oratory.
DC 368
Crud about the language test.
Americans don't speak English and they don't spell it right either. so why should the USA have to be full of Pseudo Brit speak.
What with a melting pot and more Germans than Brits , what says an attempt at English is compulsory.
--------------
Ed 238. At 6:19pm on 19 Apr 2009, Hesiodos wrote:
Bere (233),
"In a criminal case that might perhaps bring a death sentence, a dual US/UK could flee to the UK (before arrest, of course) and then fight extradition based on being a UK citizen and the UK being opposed to the death penalty."
DAMN RIGHT> Aerican jury america justice system american jury again. no question.
------------------------
" Need I mention that women are more practical then men?" Marbles that's right and the colour of the car is also important.
--------------
people cropping on about how Obama suports murder and Notverysmart Uni should tell him to get lost of resign etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/04/obamas_catholic_difficulties.html#P78736195
DC you jumped through hoops so why make others suffer.
Not very nice of you.
And if any ban on abortion was even talked about before fertillity clinics are closed is a joke.
happy Breeding
Complain about this comment
#375. happylaze: "when did a Brit not serving swear an oath to the queen. Did you?"
No, but new UK citizens do.
"you jumped through hoops so why make others suffer. Not very nice of you."
Who said I was nice??
Complain about this comment
344, saintD.
"Regarding comments about men having or voicing an opinion on this subject being a reflection of dominance, I would say that in addition to the small, and pleasurable role we play on the matter, most married men are not the domineering naenderthals that tend to make the news."
Absolutely true.
"More often than not married men end up doing what their wives want, when they want it, and the way they want it, without hesitation or the slightest deviation."
Now you are being facetious. Although we are the weaker sex only physically, if we ran roughshod over our husbands, they would run for the hills, and I wouldn't blame them. Not only that, we wouldn't want them to come back. Who needs a wuss for a husband.
Complain about this comment
370, larry.
"The business of honorary degress is more than absurd. Awarding an honorary degree debases the degrees which students earn through work & study."
Absurd, indeed. And how ridiculous it is to give an honoray law degree to Obama hwo already has a law degree that he earned.
Complain about this comment
376 then why should anyone care about you?
Complain about this comment
376 so people already British can come to the states swear allegiance to the states and be OK. because they never did in the UK.
Do you get the point.
Complain about this comment
190. At 06:41am on 19 Apr 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#188. BienvenueEnLouisiana: "many Americans may now be Canadian as well and dont know it."
The United States does not formally recognise dual-nationality; you can be American or Canadian (or British, French, etc.) but not both at the same time. If one is British and then becomes an American citizen, you renounce your former allegiance. However, the British government would not recognise that act unless a statement of renunciation were made to the nearest British Consulate-General or the Embassy itself. My guess is that Canada has a similar rule. It's something our illegal immigrants should bear in mind - even if US citizenship were to be granted after some worker programme, they would cease to be nationals of their former country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DC This is not right
sorry you have been seriously misinformed.
Complain about this comment
347. AAPrescott,
Try listening to the BBC World Service. I have for a very long time. The left wing bias there must be heard to be believed.
Here's one example among literally thousands of the BBC's left wing bias. Google "corridors strewn with empty champagne bottles" for proof from the horse's mouth of the "impartial" BBC's pro-Labour stance.
However, there has been some evidence recently that the BBC is finally beginning to make some effort to live up to its Charter re impartiality.
341. saintDominick,
Football is great. Can't stand rugby, though. Damn ball doesn't bounce properly when it hits the ground. And who ever heard of kicking a ball over the crossbar to score?
337. Simon21 wrote:
Oh so these BBC lefties beleive in free speech for right wingers? In other words you concede the point thanks.
You mean you didn't know a lot of the moderation is done outside of the BBC? Before you claim your victory, you should wait for your opponent's response. Otherwise you run the risk of making a fool of yourself.
Or that you removed the bigotry.
I'll try to explain this to you slowly. I couldn't change anything about comment 99 once I posted it, obviously. Then it was referred to the moderators. When they reinstated it, it appeared exactly as posted. No change, and no removal of anything. Anyway, it's an academic question now because it's been referred again.
373. allmymarbles,
It's not a matter of power or control but simply that the issue of abortion affects society at large and always goes beyond the question of a woman's "right" to choose.
334. Ed Iglehart/Hesiodos,
I'll give you that one. Now you can acknowledge all the other times you have forced the debate onto the Israeli-Arab conflict out of your obsessive need to bash Israel.
Anyway, it doesn't look like anyone is interested in your Avraham Burg on this thread.
Complain about this comment
Mostly Erroneous
Not only do you and Truly a pack of lies share the same rare obsession with Ireland having the Lisbon treaty forced on them.
You now seem to share the same rare problem about Champaign in the BBC.
Is it because though you claim to have been a few times to the states. and that you claim to be a med student in the past in France
I say yuo amke both these claims because there is no Doubt you are the same boring person. shown to be untruthfull as always.
Showing you up,
Jacksforge
Complain about this comment
Plus the Moderate argue style. make up other arguments and then there is the poodle that follows you so carefully..
One rant TOO many there Truly Marcus
Complain about this comment
Truly Marcus there is no denying it.
Marcus. no one cares for you're new Lie of a character . Did you not figure this out yet.
They didn't like you as Mostly erroneous and they don't like True trash either.
So what will your new name be.
Total Twit.
Start off honest and people might like you.
Complain about this comment
382, TooTrue.
"It's not a matter of power or control but simply that the issue of abortion affects society at large and always goes beyond the question of a woman's 'right' to choose."
You still don't get it. We are not concerned with our right to choose. We choose. Period. We don't wait for someone's permission.
Complain about this comment
382 -
When you think you have the right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want, it is about nothing but power and control. And not understanding that is called "ignorance."
Complain about this comment
Not only can they not spell 'honour' they play a strangegame that functions mainly by hanging onto a ball & call it football.
Good on Obama if he uses the chance to push 'tolerance', though I suspect they misspell that too.
Complain about this comment
382. TT; 386 Marbles; 387 Bere
This comment at 382 has me baffled:
"It's not a matter of power or control but simply that the issue of abortion affects society at large and always goes beyond the question of a woman's "right" to choose."
Which externalities of abortion, precisely, are doing you injury?
How have you been penalised because your neighbour has had an abortion?
Have your taxes gone up?
Do you lie awake in fear in your bed because of it?
Has your life expectanciy been shortened because of it?
How does the availabilty of safe abortion clinics cause you any harm, in any way?
How does the "issue of abortion" in respect of anyone else actually affect you, or "society at large" in any material way at all?
Abortion yields positive externalities to society at large, most typically be reducing the crime rate, by reducing the cost of incarceration, and by reducing your taxes accordingly. How can that possibly give you or anybody else grounds for complaint as an affect "on society at large".
By contrast, those who oppose abortion have done enormous injury to their country, and have been responsible for the death or injury of countless women - this is measurable, and there have been any number of studies on it-; have caused America's political process to become greatly distorted; and have poisoned the process of judicial appointments.
If you want to consider negative externalties, these dwarf anything that a rational policy on free and ready access to abortion could ever cause. This skew brought George Bush Jr., to the White House, and saw him re-elected. Isn't that enough damage for anyone? Talk about negative externalities.
And all for a bunch of busybodies who somehow have the idea that it should be any of their business whether, for example, their neighbour's daughter has an abortion.
Why would you want to stick your nose into that, under any circumstances?
"Affects on society at large."
Show me.
Complain about this comment
389, Interested -
I can't think what made you think your very informative, intelligent, and well-expressed posts might be too long. You write what some of us (me, anyway) would like to but can't find the right words or don't have the energy. This one ranks among your best. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that only women can make the choice, the father has no legal say in a woman's choice to terminate or carry the pregnancy to completion. As abortion is under Federal jurisdiction it is the same across Canada. The cost is covered by medicare.
InterestedForeigner will kindly correct me if any of this is incorrect or misleading!
Complain about this comment
For those guys out there who don't understand a woman's position on abortion, let's first consider the risks involved in bearing and delivering a baby. And there are risks. The most obvious is ceasarean section (all too frequently performed in America for minimal indications). This is a surgical procedure with its attendant risks, and there can be sequelae, such as adhesions. Also addtional births will be caesarean, increasing the risks. Leaving that aside, pregnancy is not a cakewalk, accompanied as it is by morning sickness, aches and pains, and general strain. There are also particularly difficult pregnancies. I knew one woman who had morning sickeness for nine months.
It is one thing to have a husband beside you, sharing the excitement of the coming birth. But what about the woman alone (most abortions are had by unmarried women). What about the lonliness, at a time when you really need an understanding companion, and the dismal prospect of rearing a child alone. And we haven't touched on the possibility of an abnormal baby. The men on this blog who have had children and seen their wives through pregnancy and birth will understand.
Complain about this comment
buggeritmeleniumshrimp
Complain about this comment
389, Interested.
TT's comment baffled me to, but I didn't address it, being caught up in the arrogance of a woman's "right" to chose. But you have, and well done.
Complain about this comment
To#389 Interestedforeignor
From one more:
Well said and again well said!
Complain about this comment
Ok
look I find it quite amazing.Ignore Truely marcus too erroneous liar .
(What ever I have nicer names for it.) the same person that made suggestions back in the early summer that were distractions ,into this same subject that normally gets arrived at here.
Suggested bombing certain fragile infrastructure in Gaza to cause suffering to the people.
(sewers)
Those comments were to a large part moderated,( because I do not like people giving any side of terrorists Ideas, so I complained) Whiney whiney ?? The Israeli air force and army recently did destroy this.
so why not talk about it now. The last 3 threads have been hi jacked by this crap.
Truly Marcus .
Now nasty names are fine by me, call me them and tell me I'm a fart, I don't care. I do care about honesty. Idiots giving other idiots Ideas.That strange republican phenommenon that has happened where the bible was changed to give the impression that ones vocalisations will be visited upon thy enamies(I think that is how them freaks would put it)
Blaming others for ones problems.(they say lefties do that,he say she say)
but while they LIE.
Were all used to some obstruction , but the new levels of as long as I hold my head up I can lie as much as I like and blame it on you because I HAVE GOD ON MY SIDE..
This is has been and will be the extent of the thought of Truely a big hairy liar engineer and space ship expert erroneous Did you see that pig fly by. No it was a boeing.
Complain about this comment
391, timewaits -
That is how it should be. Canada is a truly modern, civilized country. Maybe some day we'll catch up with you. I'm not holding my breath.
Complain about this comment
Idtobias, you frighten me when you say "most of us" think..., and call BO "anti-life", then slip into a reference to the KKK. It sounds a little off-color dear and maybe misinformed and thoughtless. Georgetown and ND invited BO to speak (a couple of probably hundreds of invitations). These illustrious universities probably thought their alumni were more enlightened. It would be worse for a president to give a speech in his executive capacity under the symbols "IHS" then to have them covered - good heavens wouldn't you have been offended if he had? If you read his words, you will see that he is in not "anti-life" but respects the rule of law and the separation of church and state, and proposes every means apart from force to encourage women, and enable them, to not get an abortion - like giving them education on alternatives and....dare I say it, aid.
#381 PS I think since the 1800's British nationals can have dual citz as well - this from Wiki: 'Since the British Nationality Act of 1948, there is in general no restriction, in United Kingdom law, on a British national being a citizen of another country as well. So, if a British national acquires another nationality, they will not automatically lose British nationality. Similarly, a person does not need to give up any other nationality when they become British.' Of course that's nationals only, and with EU papers all of this becomes an even better mishmash
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sorry, just must say per the media comments, Fox News is half T&A, CNN's headlines today look like the Enquirer, NY Times is revelling in its Pulitzers, check out the Arizona Sun for some strange twists too. Lots of propoganda going on but is it the media moguls, the advertisers (have lobbiests changed their payees?) or just news giving the people what they want?
Complain about this comment
397 bere
I regret to say I would not hold my breath either. Abortions are legal, free and easily available. A woman's right to chose is protected under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In that by denying the freedom to chose would violate the Charter.
happylaze
What would you have us do? I ask that sincerely.
Complain about this comment
Fire with fire?
water with a flood?
I'm all in for the complain when racially offensive. defend letters struck that should not be and remember cause really who cares because he makes anyone look smart.
the BBC blogster Justinian (who did you all notice had a bigger link today . corner office on the way) and others must just love these permanent discussions on Israel . If not COMPLAIN ABOUT IT WHENHE BRINGS IT UP, but do not reply in writing as the MODS ask.
Screw them If they cannot post answers then screw them.
I'm not really sure. maybe Kitchen talk to the mods about policing their end.
And kick that sunday modder.
Who know time. maybe all disappear until the site does not smell so strongly of RACISTS
Complain about this comment
seriously.
Complain about this comment
notice the asking of questions and ignoring the answers.
Now I know there are a lot of prats in the world , but seriously folk?
Complain about this comment
#382
Two,
Re rugby. As I said before, you continue to reinforce your position as a wuss. One of the weedy lads yelling 'get the ball scrum' from the sidelines. It is no coincidence that soccer is more popular globally as a sport for women than men.
Maybe you should pop into the kitchen for some tips on painting your toe nails.
And while you are there be abused by some of your friends from the religious right for 'unnatural practices'
Sportsman Sam
Complain about this comment
#353
Idtobias,
What a wonderful post! Truly illustrating. I love you unconditionally.
Starting with the wonderful phrase 'Depending on your translation' to the tone of your post you amply demonstrate why you deserve my love.
There isn't really a depending on translation issue. Biblical scholars who start before the King James Bible find lots of references to outlawing bestiality, rape, child rape and child abuse. There are references to ritual orgy. Even the troubling tale of Lot giving his daughter to be raped rather than give up the angels to 'meet' (literal) the mob. Known being a very interesting translation that could mean 'known'. There is a contorted piece of logic that says when Lot offered his daughters and the crowd refused it must be because they were 'gay' (though I have to say, whenever I stop by a neighbours house and say 'who were the two guys who steeped in a minute ago? They looked cool, could we have a beer?' 'How about you ravish my daughter instead?' 'Umm no dude, I just wanted to watch the game' 'You're gay' is kind of a stretch).
All of which comes down not so much to 'depending on translation' but 'depending on interpretation', and who you empower to interpret for you. Who interprets for you, Tobias?
The King James Bible, most quoted on these passages, firmly asserts the divine right of Kings. Who in America believes in that?
Even better, all of those passages are old testament. Not one mention in the Gospel of Jesus speaking against gays or lesbians. Not one. He was silent on the issue.
He did have an awful lot to say about folks who abuse their positions of power or position. Who seek to put others down. Who dislike and despise. Simply put, he taught us to love the sinner and hate the sin. We are born into a fallen world, and all have sinned. But there is nothing in scripture or especially the Gospel that defines homosexuality as a sin. Nor does the Bible say when the human soul passes into the body of a foetus. Be it the first breath taken, the first thought or the fertilization of the egg. The Bible, and Jesus, is silent on these issues. God gave us the gift of free will to dtermine them for ourselves.
Beyond that, the Bible did not arrive by fax machine or e-mail. It has been endlessly interpreted and translated and changed. There are many books on the subject of how the texts have changed. A quick look at 'Misquoting Jesus' is very illuminating.
I could be wrong, I could burn in hell for all eternity. But I try to live my life as Jesus taught, so far as I can interpret it. And the more I study the more I find that the way we treat our gay colleagues and citizens, the way we treat our least advantaged, the way we choose to condemn or not the person who is a victim or made a bad choice. To think we can prescribe 'The Bible' as a solution to homosexuality and legislate against our fellow human beings seems to challenge the greatest gift our Lord gave us, that of free will.
These are tests as to whether we can truly live as Christians. Or whether we are guilty of the very sins Jesus spoke loudest against. Those of oppression, manipulation of power and greed.
I love you Tobias, as I love all sinners.
Christian Sam
OK, bring on the crazies.
Complain about this comment
#367
Aqua,
Amen to that.
Christian Sam
Complain about this comment
#351
Tobias,
Georgetown was asked to cover all University insignia behind the President with some drapes and some US flags. There are many reasons for this, some regarding the Presidents security.
Unfortunately the drapes covered the university shield but not the 'IHS' above it. Not wishing this to be seen out of context in the room (TV showed the drapes), the University chose to cover the letters with a board. Not a direction from the White House.
Why speak there? I suspect he wanted to speak in a seat of learning.
As for anti life? No one is anti life, other than a psychopath. Are we back on abortion and your views being projected on others?
So what can we determine from your post? You don't like Obama. OK, cool. I don't like some things about him either. You have some issues with him as our elected leader. Not supporting the President is a bit unpatriotic but OK, a secular issue. Long anti abortion rant from a black board a university taped to a column? that is a bit of a logical stretch with an agenda attached.
I love you Tobias. Unconditionally.
Christian Sam
Complain about this comment
These CIA memos released by this administration have distracted everyone from University speech-bashing. So Mr. Cheney has formally requested that the CIA release memos showing that torture worked to some extent maybe. He also recently opined that releasing CIA memos creates danger. But I guess its OK if your doing it in retaliation and have no obligation to use logic. Burning at the stake, drawing and quartering, drowning (to see if you're a witch), heads on spikes, iron maidens, water wheels ... these also were found to have some degree of success to the inquisators, and were very popular. Mr. Cheney might have a point there.
Complain about this comment
409, freyedcat, these all sound like progressive measures. And, just
to clarify, nobody ever drowned someone to find out if they were a witch.
You're only a witch if you float.
Complain about this comment
What is this controversy about Obama and Notre Dame all about? He represents everyone in the U.S. regardless of political or religious persuasion and he also is president of every square inch of U.S. territory. So what is the problem about him appearing at Notre Dame?
Complain about this comment
409. At 05:00am on 21 Apr 2009, frayedcat wrote:
Burning at the stake, drawing and quartering, drowning (to see if you're a witch), heads on spikes, iron maidens,