NationStates Jolt Archive

"ten priests from the Congregation of the Holy Cross... said the school risks its "true soul" by hosting Obama".

http://www.wowowow.com/politics/obama-asu-priests-abortion-notre-dame-risks-true-soul-264476

Priests: Abortion-Supporting Obama at Notre Dame Risks School's 'True Soul'.

The college has been getting a lot of flack lately for inviting the president to deliver the commencement address May 17. Since it’s a Catholic school, many object to Obama because of the president’s support of abortion rights. But now, ten priests from the Congregation of the Holy Cross, which founded the university, said the school risks its "true soul" by hosting Obama.

"It is our deep conviction that Notre Dame should lead by word and deed in upholding the Church’s fundamental teaching that human life must be respected and protected from the moment of conception...

Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions"

Should Notre Dame give a 'platform' to Abortion-Supporting Obama?

Is this controversy going to hurt him?

Are souls really at stake?

Should Notre Dame give a 'platform' to Abortion-Supporting Obama?
Yes.
Is this controversy going to hurt him?
Not with sane people.
Are souls really at stake?
No

Not with sane people.


Which is which? The people that voted for him, or those that opposed him?

Didn't Obama get unusually high Catholic representation? Couldn't this polarise his base?

Lolwut?!

Which is which? The people that voted for him, or those that opposed him?

Didn't Obama get unusually high Catholic representation? Couldn't this polarise his base?

People who don't believe in a sky-faerie... :p



Seriously though. I meant people who do not support taking rights away from women.

As an aside, I thought "Obammunist" was mildly clever, but a Google search revealed that a certain poster who uses the term on NSG doesn't seem to have coined it.

As another aside:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4Ad_0DrpUq0/ScfmOVnJQ_I/AAAAAAAAABE/CotruarKmTo/S1600-R/obammunist_banner3.jpg

Clearly we need to have Firefox spellchecker work for MS Paint too.

Why are half the threads atm about obama? I see his name everywhere I look.

Second verse... same as the first.

Why are half the threads atm about obama? I see his name everywhere I look.

Because he's in the news?

Apparently, he's quite well known.

Why are half the threads atm about obama? I see his name everywhere I look.

Recent influx of newbies. Several of them rather conservative. There's a desire to hop all over the president for any perceived flaw or misstep.

It's rather annoying and amusing. Annusing? Amoying?

Are souls really at stake?

Perhaps, but I don't think it's for the reasons they think it is. :tongue:

It's a little disingenuous a concern, isn't it? Not being anti-abortion is supposed to be pro-abortion, like actively promoting it? Meanwhile, the Catholics are also against the death penalty, however Bush who is pro-death penalty, has spoken there.

Not being opposed to something they are opposed to is worse than being in favor of something they are opposed to? Or really, just someone using a wedge issue soap box and isn't actually a real concern?

It's a little disingenuous a concern, isn't it? Not being anti-abortion is supposed to be pro-abortion, like actively promoting it?


Matthew 12:30 ""He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."


Meanwhile, the Catholics are also against the death penalty, however Bush who is pro-death penalty, has spoken there.


Death penalty =/= abortion.

Death penalty is 'an eye for an eye'.


Not being opposed to something they are opposed to is worse than being in favor of something they are opposed to? Or really, just someone using a wedge issue soap box and isn't actually a real concern?

You're saying they don't really believe that Obama speaking at Notre Dame will do damage to 'it's true soul'?

Wait!!......I Cared about Notre Dame and Catholicism?....



oh, wait, I didnt...carry on....

Matthew 12:30 ""He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."

Clearly they don't apply such a stringent standard across the board so there is no reason to believe they should now.


Death penalty =/= abortion.

Death penalty is 'an eye for an eye'.
I wasn't saying that the death penalty was abortion. I was saying that they are both issues that the Catholic church opposes. That is the issue, isn't it? That the speaker supports something that the church opposes?



You're saying they don't really believe that Obama speaking at Notre Dame will do damage to 'it's true soul'?
No, I do not.

Recent influx of newbies. Several of them rather conservative. There's a desire to hop all over the president for any perceived flaw or misstep.

It's rather annoying and amusing. Annusing? Amoying?
Did that happen when Bush got in?
Matthew 12:30 ""He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."


Death penalty =/= abortion.

Death penalty is 'an eye for an eye'.
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42

The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty. Did these priests object to Bush coming to Notre Dame? Somehow I doubt it.

Clearly they don't apply such a stringent standard across the board so there is no reason to believe they should now.


You were saying it was disingenuous to posit lack of opposition as support. I was showing how a Catholic body might scripturally justify it.


I wasn't saying that the death penalty was abortion. I was saying that they are both issues that the Catholic church opposes. That is the issue, isn't it? That the speaker supports something that the church opposes?


But you're not assessing it as apples to apples.

The Death penalty does not kill innocents. Thus, in the eyes of the church, it is entirely different.

The Death penalty does not kill innocents. Thus, in the eyes of the church, it is entirely different.

No, it's not. Murder is murder is murder is against the commandments. Besides, the church hasn't made any statement on this matter, to my knowledge. It's just some priests.

No, it's not. Murder is murder is murder is against the commandments. Besides, the church hasn't made any statement on this matter, to my knowledge. It's just some priests.

The death penalty isn't murder.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4Ad_0DrpUq0/ScfmOVnJQ_I/AAAAAAAAABE/CotruarKmTo/S1600-R/obammunist_banner3.jpg

Clearly we need to have Firefox spellchecker work for MS Paint too.
Commuinism is, logically, a system based upon a communal "muin." If my five seconds of research on wikipedia are any indicator, that means that Obama wishes all people in the United States to have one neck. Presumably, this is so that he may wrap his hands around it.
Because he's in the news?

Apparently, he's quite well known.
Wasn't he, like, elected to Captain of something? Right? He's a big leader-of-something-guy.

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42


Okay - so you could argue - scripturally - that the Catholic Church shouldn't 'resist' Obama (if he is portrayed as the 'evil person')... but that doesn't mean they SHOULD invite him, offer him their sponsorship - in terms of a platform and/or honorary awards, or condone his position.


The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty. Did these priests object to Bush coming to Notre Dame? Somehow I doubt it.

Clearly they see a difference between death penalties for those proven guilty, and abortion.

Didn't Obama get unusually high Catholic representation? Couldn't this polarise his base?

yes to the first - due to mainly to latino support. and no more so than anything, because catholic views on abortion are more-or-less identical to the population at large (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx)

Wasn't he, like, elected to Captain of something? Right? He's a big leader-of-something-guy.

He's somewhere between a religious figure and a cult-of-personality, apparently.

You were saying it was disingenuous to posit lack of opposition as support. I was showing how a Catholic body might scripturally justify it.
Scripturally you can justify a whole lot of crap. Where the church stands on the issue is what's at discussion.



But you're not assessing it as apples to apples.

The Death penalty does not kill innocents. Thus, in the eyes of the church, it is entirely different.
First of all, yes, the death penalty does in fact kill innocents. One of the chief problems with the death penalty is the fact that the courts are not infallible and people have been wrongly sent to their deaths, so yes-the death penalty does kill innocents. And innocence.

Second, I do not see any sort of 'grading' in the things the Catholic church opposes. Could you show me their rankings? Do they break things down like a survey? Death Penalty: ( ) Strongly Oppose (X) Kind of Oppose ( ) Indifferent ( ) Kind of Support ( ) Strongly Support, Abortion: (X) Strongly Oppose ( ) Kind of Oppose ( ) Indifferent ( ) Kind of Support ( ) Strongly Support

Scripturally you can justify a whole lot of crap. Where the church stands on the issue is what's at discussion.


Given Notre Dame's Catholic heritage, scriptural justification seems very relevant.


First of all, yes, the death penalty does in fact kill innocents. One of the chief problems with the death penalty is the fact that the courts are not infallible and people have been wrongly sent to their deaths, so yes-the death penalty does kill innocents. And innocence.


Then your complaint is with the system that asseses guilt, not the penalty, itself. Even if only half of death penalties actually punished the guilty - would that be by design or by coincidence? How does that compare to abortion, do you think?


Second, I do not see any sort of 'grading' in the things the Catholic church opposes. Could you show me their rankings?

40% of Catholics admit to considering Abortion 'morally acceptable'.

53% of Catholics favor the death penalty.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/newsreport.aspx?id=488

The death penalty isn't murder.

Since they're Roman Catholic that viewpoint doesn't matter:

Thou shalt not kill.

Since they're Roman Catholic that viewpoint doesn't matter:

Thou shalt not kill.

Unless youve got Authorization from the Pope...then, yeah, you can kill to your heart's content, ;)

Since they're Roman Catholic that viewpoint doesn't matter:

Thou shalt not kill.

I know, it just bugs me when people misuse the term.

The death penalty isn't murder.
Abortion isn't either, technically. Doesn't stop a variety of Christians and others saying it is.
Okay - so you could argue - scripturally - that the Catholic Church shouldn't 'resist' Obama (if he is portrayed as the 'evil person')... but that doesn't mean they SHOULD invite him, offer him their sponsorship - in terms of a platform and/or honorary awards, or condone his position.
The Catholic Church, as far as I know, does not own Notre Dame. They are in no position to invite anyone there or offer them awards on the behalf of the university.



Clearly they see a difference between death penalties for those proven guilty, and abortion.
Pope John Paul II appealed to America to cease using the death penalty (http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr1999/feature1.asp#F6). It would be perfectly fitting, then, for Catholic priests to urge everyone to deny a platform to anyone who supports the death penalty, or doesn't oppose it, no? Have these 10 priests ever done something like this? If they're going to be consistent about their standards then maybe I'll take them a bit more seriously.
He's somewhere between a religious figure and a cult-of-personality, apparently.

No silly, he's the president.

Given Notre Dame's Catholic heritage, scriptural justification seems very relevant.
Relevant only in how it contributes to their current stand. Their current stand is, they are against the death penalty.


Then your complaint is with the system that asseses guilt, not the penalty, itself. Even if only half of death penalties actually punished the guilty - would that be by design or by coincidence? How does that compare to abortion, do you think?
My problem with the death penalty is many fold and not being discussed. You stated the difference as being the death of innocents. Both activities result in the death of innocents, therefore it is not a distinction.



40% of Catholics admit to considering Abortion 'morally acceptable'.

53% of Catholics favor the death penalty.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/newsreport.aspx?id=488
The last I checked the positions of the Catholic church were not up for vote. There is not a standard where a single issue is picked and then the alumni of the college a president is to speak at vote on. Whether or not Obama speaks at ASU is not determined by the alumni's position on immigration.

Why are half the threads atm about obama? I see his name everywhere I look.
And they all reek of Kimchi.

The death penalty isn't murder.
Neither is abortion. Problem solved. Go Fighting Irish!

Lolwut?!

Quite, indeed.

The Catholic Church, as far as I know, does not own Notre Dame. They are in no position to invite anyone there or offer them awards on the behalf of the university.


The University of Notre Dame was founded by the Congregation of Holy Cross, is on the official list of Catholic Institutions, and refers to itself to have a: "distinctive mission to be a Catholic university, inspired and guided by a great spiritual tradition".

It certainly has to be considered a 'Catholic' University.


Pope John Paul II appealed to America to cease using the death penalty (http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr1999/feature1.asp#F6). It would be perfectly fitting, then, for Catholic priests to urge everyone to deny a platform to anyone who supports the death penalty, or doesn't oppose it, no? Have these 10 priests ever done something like this? If they're going to be consistent about their standards then maybe I'll take them a bit more seriously.


I'm not sure what these 10 priests, collectively have done.

I do know that the severally published Wilson D. Miscamble composed a book comprising couple of dozen commencement speeches, one of which was Bush.

Perhaps that is evidence of bias of a partisan nature - or perhaps it is evidence of what I said before - the difference in perception between 'killing the innocent' and 'killing the guilty'.

For the other 9 priests, I admit I do not know.


No silly, he's the president.

I thought that was Kal-El?

Relevant only in how it contributes to their current stand. Their current stand is, they are against the death penalty.


I think you've lost track of what this comment relates to.


My problem with the death penalty is many fold and not being discussed. You stated the difference as being the death of innocents. Both activities result in the death of innocents, therefore it is not a distinction.


No, one results in the death of the guilty - if there is a fault, it is the method by which that guilt is decided that is faulty.


The last I checked the positions of the Catholic church were not up for vote. There is not a standard where a single issue is picked and then the alumni of the college a president is to speak at vote on. Whether or not Obama speaks at ASU is not determined by the alumni's position on immigration.

No, but it could be decided based on the concerns of the founder organization?

I think you've lost track of what this comment relates to.
I have not. I also have not allowed it to be a discussion of personal decisions or views but rather of the stated issues of the body under discussion.



No, one results in the death of the guilty - if there is a fault, it is the method by which that guilt is decided that is faulty.
You made the distinction. That distinction is false. This is not a debate on the death penalty. It is about the church's position. The church is against it. If you make a distinction between the two, then that is your position, but it has no bearing on what Notre Dame should or should not do.



No, but it could be decided based on the concerns of the founder organization?
The founder organization, by past invitations, does not reject speakers on single issue disagreements.

I have not. I also have not allowed it to be a discussion of personal decisions or views but rather of the stated issues of the body under discussion.


The point was that 'either with us or against us' is scripturally valid, and we are talking about people who adhere to scripture as justification.

You appear to have forgotten. Since you then started talking about the scripture as it applies to death penalties.


You made the distinction. That distinction is false. This is not a debate on the death penalty. It is about the church's position. The church is against it. If you make a distinction between the two, then that is your position, but it has no bearing on what Notre Dame should or should not do.


Catholics look at Obama's actions against the pro-life agenda, and see deliberate opposition. Bush (who also gave a commencement speech) didn't up the ante, indeed - on this issue - he was 'helpful' to the Catholic agenda.


The founder organization, by past invitations, does not reject speakers on single issue disagreements.

What about when that single issue is abortion?

I was unaware that Universities had souls. This is deeply worrying.

I was unaware that Universities had souls. This is deeply worrying.

Awareness denies faith thy friend, lol...

The point was that 'either with us or against us' is scripturally valid, and we are talking about people who adhere to scripture as justification.

You appear to have forgotten. Since you then started talking about the scripture as it applies to death penalties.
Actually, it was you who brought up scripture as I am uninterested in it. What I am interested in is the church's stated and actual stand and how they have applied the standard regarding speakers to this point.



Catholics look at Obama's actions against the pro-life agenda, and see deliberate opposition. Bush (who also gave a commencement speech) didn't up the ante, indeed - on this issue - he was 'helpful' to the Catholic agenda.
I would be interested to see the actual action against the pro-life movement and further compare them to Bush's enthusiasm for the death penalty, which the Catholic church also opposes and in fact specifically petitioned him to stop.




What about when that single issue is abortion?
Again, I would like to see some sort of Vatican ranking of being "sort of opposed" or "really opposed".

Actually, it was you who brought up scripture as I am uninterested in it. What I am interested in is the church's stated and actual stand and how they have applied the standard regarding speakers to this point.


Whether or not you are 'interested' in scripture - we are talking about a Catholic Order, and the Catholic institution they founded. We were discussing their position on this issue - indeed, your words: "Not being anti-abortion is supposed to be pro-abortion, like actively promoting it".

So - scriptural justification for that position is available, which is pertinent to the issue, given the players.


I would be interested to see the actual action against the pro-life movement and further compare them to Bush's enthusiasm for the death penalty, which the Catholic church also opposes and in fact specifically petitioned him to stop.


Enthusiasm for the death penalty? In order to be on the same level, you'd have to show that Bush overturned legislation that had inhibited death penalties.


Again, I would like to see some sort of Vatican ranking of being "sort of opposed" or "really opposed".

Why? Each time a religious reason is offered, you immediately dismiss it.

Single Catholics, groups of Catholics, can be motivated, interested (or voting on) different single-issue issues.

The University of Notre Dame was founded by the Congregation of Holy Cross, is on the official list of Catholic Institutions, and refers to itself to have a: "distinctive mission to be a Catholic university, inspired and guided by a great spiritual tradition".

It certainly has to be considered a 'Catholic' University.
Which does not make it part of the Catholic Church. It is an institute of higher education with a Catholic ethos.



I'm not sure what these 10 priests, collectively have done.

I do know that the severally published Wilson D. Miscamble composed a book comprising couple of dozen commencement speeches, one of which was Bush.

Perhaps that is evidence of bias of a partisan nature - or perhaps it is evidence of what I said before - the difference in perception between 'killing the innocent' and 'killing the guilty'.
I suspect the former. A former Pope, the highest Catholic authority, save God himself, has spoken against the death penalty. What sincere Catholic would insist that someone who isn't pro-life be denied a platform while making no objection to someone who is pro-death penalty being given one.

I thought that was Kal-El?
Cute.
The point was that 'either with us or against us' is scripturally valid, and we are talking about people who adhere to scripture as justification.
Therefore such people should have objected to then president Bush giving a commencement speech, as he is not opposed to the death penalty, and therefore supports it. According to the scriptural basis you cite.

Clearly, these people have done no such thing. So the only conclusion I can see as being reasonable is partisan rhetoric.

You appear to have forgotten. Since you then started talking about the scripture as it applies to death penalties.
Notre Dame is not ruled by scripture.


Catholics look at Obama's actions against the pro-life agenda, and see deliberate opposition. Bush (who also gave a commencement speech) didn't up the ante, indeed - on this issue - he was 'helpful' to the Catholic agenda.
Big hairy bollocks. What evidence do you have of this ridiculous claim?



What about when that single issue is abortion?
Abortion is as bad to the Catholic church as executing convicts.
Whether or not you are 'interested' in scripture - we are talking about a Catholic Order, and the Catholic institution they founded. We were discussing their position on this issue - indeed, your words: "Not being anti-abortion is supposed to be pro-abortion, like actively promoting it".
If Notre Dame is a catholic institution then it is a hypocritical one, because it has allowed a speaker who supports something they, as catholics, should oppose.


Alternatively, it's just an institution of higher education with a Catholic ethos.

So - scriptural justification for that position is available, which is pertinent to the issue, given the players.
These priests are no more players than the WBC are players in the funerals of US soldiers.



Enthusiasm for the death penalty? In order to be on the same level, you'd have to show that Bush overturned legislation that had inhibited death penalties.
What anti-abortion legislation has Obama overturned?



Why? Each time a religious reason is offered, you immediately dismiss it.
Institute of higher education =/= religious institution. Don't worry, you;ll get it eventually.

Single Catholics, groups of Catholics, can be motivated, interested (or voting on) different single-issue issues.

Regardless, there is a ruling authority that can make decrees as to what the Catholic position is on any given issue. American Catholics can vote contrary to the expressed position of the Pope, but that doesn't mean the Catholic position is what American Catholics vote for.

And they all reek of Kimchi.
His comments on abortion seem to indicate otherwise. DK couldn't keep who he was straight, but his positions were consistently maintained.

God, its a bad sign that I no longer have the will to deal with this shit.

The Death penalty does not kill innocents. Thus, in the eyes of the church, it is entirely different.

Um, no, it's not. The official position of the Catholic Church is that killing is killing no matter what. You can disagree with that position if you like - I do myself, for rather different reasons - but that is their position.

The death penalty isn't murder.

Yes it is. Killing is murder, unless its because they worship a different god, or the same one in a different way. Then you can kill 'em all and not worry.

His comments on abortion seem to indicate otherwise. DK couldn't keep who he was straight, but his positions were consistently maintained.
That's true. But there is still a cabbagey odor about these things, if not in content then certainly in style -- multiple threads all on the same subject, at the same time, all boiling down to the same complaints about the same person; making claims without support, or posting sources that don't actually support the claims. It would make me sad to think that we had gotten rid of DK only to clear the way for his followers.

:( <-- That's me thinking that.

Um, no, it's not. The official position of the Catholic Church is that killing is killing no matter what. You can disagree with that position if you like - I do myself, for rather different reasons - but that is their position.
Also, all the squirming interpretations that claim innocence makes the difference fail in the face of the officially released and signed/stamped by the Pope himself statement of position of the Catholic Church, which is AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY.

Arguing that a Catholic institution is okay with the death penalty because of this or that minute theological/moralistic distinction, when THE Catholic institution has already stated categorically that the Catholic Church is not okay with the death penalty, only makes this poster (and other talking point readers, such as Pat Buchanan) look silly.

Recent influx of newbies. Several of them rather conservative. There's a desire to hop all over the president for any perceived flaw or misstep.

It's rather annoying and amusing. Annusing? Amoying?

I rather enjoy it. We don't have that many animated conservative posters anymore. Most of the ones we still have are fairly sedate, at least by comparison.

His comments on abortion seem to indicate otherwise. DK couldn't keep who he was straight, but his positions were consistently maintained.

And my position on abortion is not consistent?

That's true. But there is still a cabbagey odor about these things, if not in content then certainly in style -- multiple threads all on the same subject, at the same time, all boiling down to the same complaints about the same person; making claims without support, or posting sources that don't actually support the claims. It would make me sad to think that we had gotten rid of DK only to clear the way for his followers.

:( <-- That's me thinking that.

Then you're clearly not paying attention.

Each thread I have made has been supported. Two of them have been relating to Obama - one about a Catholic institution attacking him over his stance on abortion, and one on supplemental spending. The third thread I made was about Silvio Berlusconi, which got spammed to death after languishing sans attention.

The fact that you only paid attention to the threads I made with Obama in the title, says more about your preferences, than about mine.

Also, all the squirming interpretations that claim innocence makes the difference fail in the face of the officially released and signed/stamped by the Pope himself statement of position of the Catholic Church, which is AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY.

Arguing that a Catholic institution is okay with the death penalty because of this or that minute theological/moralistic distinction, when THE Catholic institution has already stated categorically that the Catholic Church is not okay with the death penalty, only makes this poster (and other talking point readers, such as Pat Buchanan) look silly.

As someone said, earlier - THE Catholic Church is not the same as Catholic institutions.

As I said - a group can have one Catholic issue that it is most concerned with. I the case of the Congregation of Holy Cross, it's apparently abortion.

But then - since Bush didn't actually overturn any anti-Death Penalty markers, there's no comparison.

Then you're clearly not paying attention.

Each thread I have made has been supported. Two of them have been relating to Obama - one about a Catholic institution attacking him over his stance on abortion, and one on supplemental spending. The third thread I made was about Silvio Berlusconi, which got spammed to death after languishing sans attention.

The fact that you only paid attention to the threads I made with Obama in the title, says more about your preferences, than about mine.
And now you pretend to be in the room with me, looking over my shoulder, in order to know what I have been paying attention to?

And you can say that your arguments have been supported all you like. The fact remains that, when you have presented sources, they have not actually supported the claims you have been making nor the points you have been arguing.

As someone said, earlier - THE Catholic Church is not the same as Catholic institutions.

As I said - a group can have one Catholic issue that it is most concerned with. I the case of the Congregation of Holy Cross, it's apparently abortion.

But then - since Bush didn't actually overturn any anti-Death Penalty markers, there's no comparison.
And has also been pointed, that is a bullshit argument. Here's why:

1) Catholic institutions do not overrule the Vatican.

2) If you claim otherwise, then it is up to you to show that Notre Dame University (Go Irish!) has a policy of supporting the death penalty.

3) If no such policy of the university exists, then you have no basis on which to claim that this Catholic institution is bucking the position of the Catholic Church on this issue while adhering to it on others.

Basically, the argument drawing a distinction between the Catholic Church and Catholic institutions in this regard is nothing more than an attempt to weasel out of the corner into which you have backed yourselves -- but the attempt fails unless you can prove that the institution you claim is okay with the death penalty actually is okay with the death penalty. Otherwise, the far more reasonable assumption is that Catholic institutions follow Catholic doctrine.

Now, if you were claiming merely that the heads of Notre Dame are personally okay with the death penalty, then you could do that. You might be wrong, but not as egregiously. But that is not the argument, is it? No, the argument against having Obama speak at Notre Dame, although it was okay for Bush to speak at Notre Dame, is that Obama is pro-choice and Catholic belief and doctrine oppose abortion, whereas Bush was in favor of the death penalty and Catholic belief and doctrine also support the death penalty. Only it doesn't.

And my position on abortion is not consistent?

It could just be different.

one about a Catholic institution attacking him over his stance on abortion

You cannot be referring to this thread, because 10 priests do not constitute a Catholic institution.

Yes it is. Killing is murder, unless its because they worship a different god, or the same one in a different way. Then you can kill 'em all and not worry.

If the death penalty is murder, then imprisonment is kidnapping, tolls are muggings, community service is slavery, taxes are theft, and I'm a jelly donut.

and I'm a jelly donut.

I see what you did there, Mr. Kennedy.

Talk's cheap. If Notre Dame truly, really felt that affiliating with the pro choice Obama administration would harm its "true soul" then they should do the only meaningful step.

Refuse to accept any and all federal funds for the institution, or its students. There's an expression, "put your money where your mouth is." I'd like to see them do that.

Talk's cheap. If Notre Dame truly, really felt that affiliating with the pro choice Obama administration would harm its "true soul" then they should do the only meaningful step.

Refuse to accept any and all federal funds for the institution, or its students. There's an expression, "put your money where your mouth is." I'd like to see them do that.
But -- but -- that's crazy talk!

I mean -- I mean -- it's the money!! :eek2:

If the death penalty is murder, then imprisonment is kidnapping, tolls are muggings, community service is slavery, taxes are theft, and I'm a jelly donut.

You missed the point.

"ten priests from the Congregation of the Holy Cross... said the school risks its "true soul" by hosting Obama".

http://www.wowowow.com/politics/obama-asu-priests-abortion-notre-dame-risks-true-soul-264476



Should Notre Dame give a 'platform' to Abortion-Supporting Obama?

Is this controversy going to hurt him?

Are souls really at stake?

Let him speak? Yes.

Give him any kind of honor from a Catholic university? Absolutely HELL NO! An enemy of the unborn who advocates killing survivors of botched abortions is unworthy of official recognition from any Catholic institution and sullies any institution who so recognizes him.

As a Catholic, I find the idea scandalous and intolerable. The Vatican should take immediate and appropriate disciplinary action and seriously reconsider its recognition as a Catholic institution of any school that takes such action.

Give him any kind of honor from a Catholic university? Absolutely HELL NO! An enemy of the unborn who advocates killing survivors of botched abortions is unworthy of official recognition from any Catholic institution and sullies any institution who so recognizes him.


Last time I checked the Vatican recognises the United States. Way to overreact.

The Catholic church helps rapists get new victims. Frankly, if I were Obama, I'd be insulted if the Catholics DIDN'T bar me from speaking. As long as the Catholics think I'm wicked, I'm confident that I'm on the right moral track.

Let him speak? Yes.

Give him any kind of honor from a Catholic university? Absolutely HELL NO! An enemy of the unborn who advocates killing survivors of botched abortions is unworthy of official recognition from any Catholic institution and sullies any institution who so recognizes him.

As a Catholic, I find the idea scandalous and intolerable. The Vatican should take immediate and appropriate disciplinary action and seriously reconsider its recognition as a Catholic institution of any school that takes such action.

Hey, haven't you called for people to be executed before? You know, in stark contradiction to Catholic doctrine?

What was that saying Jesus had about planks? It's at the tip of my tongue, but I can't quite recall it. Maybe you'd care to enlighten us?

Hey, haven't you called for people to be executed before? You know, in stark contradiction to Catholic doctrine?

What was that saying Jesus had about planks? It's at the tip of my tongue, but I can't quite recall it. Maybe you'd care to enlighten us?

Was it about their tendency to vote Republican? :p

And now you pretend to be in the room with me, looking over my shoulder, in order to know what I have been paying attention to?


Actually, I just read what you wrote. Since you claimed: "multiple threads all on the same subject, at the same time, all boiling down to the same complaints about the same person" - and, since two of my threads were about one person, and the other thread was about an entirely different person...

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. no 'being in the room' needed. You implicated yourself.


And you can say that your arguments have been supported all you like. The fact remains that, when you have presented sources, they have not actually supported the claims you have been making nor the points you have been arguing.


You think my source did NOT support the claim that priests of the founding order that established Notre Dame, are complaining that allowing pro-abortion Obama to speak there will risk it's 'true soul'?


And has also been pointed, that is a bullshit argument. Here's why:

1) Catholic institutions do not overrule the Vatican.


Okay. That doesn't make it bullshit.


2) If you claim otherwise, then it is up to you to show that Notre Dame University (Go Irish!) has a policy of supporting the death penalty.


Why?

Surely - if your point had ANY validity, I'd have to show that the Congregation of Holy Cross had such a policy?


3) If no such policy of the university exists, then you have no basis on which to claim that this Catholic institution is bucking the position of the Catholic Church on this issue while adhering to it on others.


Now you're trying to have it both ways.


Basically, the argument drawing a distinction between the Catholic Church and Catholic institutions in this regard is nothing more than an attempt to weasel out of the corner into which you have backed yourselves -- but the attempt fails unless you can prove that the institution you claim is okay with the death penalty actually is okay with the death penalty. Otherwise, the far more reasonable assumption is that Catholic institutions follow Catholic doctrine.


That's a far more reasonable assumption.

Except that you've apparently forgotten we're not talking about a hypothesis, we're talking about an actual 'real life' situation, where a doctrinal hardline is being argued on one issue (abortion) and apparently (so you've been arguing) not on another.

If your argument is valid - the REALITY, as you've portrayed it - is that Catholic institutions DON'T always follow Catholic doctrine.

Like I said - you're trying to have it both ways.


No, the argument against having Obama speak at Notre Dame... is that Obama is pro-choice and Catholic belief and doctrine oppose abortion, whereas...

At last. And an acknowledgement of my opening source, all in the same breath.

Ok let me spell this out for you guys. ABORTION IS OKAY. Despite what the church may believe, and as far as I can tell, Obama has done more good than any priest I've ever heard about.

Ok let me spell this out for you guys. ABORTION IS OKAY. Despite what the church may believe, and as far as I can tell, Obama has done more good than any priest I've ever heard about.

Which is an opinion I'm happy for you to hold - but how does it address this issue?

Actually, I just read what you wrote. Since you claimed: "multiple threads all on the same subject, at the same time, all boiling down to the same complaints about the same person" - and, since two of my threads were about one person, and the other thread was about an entirely different person...

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. no 'being in the room' needed. You implicated yourself.
If you are not the poster you remind people of, then you would not understand the reference I was making -- "multiple threads all on one topic etc" was a reference to what that other person did, which you seem intent on doing as well. I note that in the meantime, you have posted a third thread criticizing Obama in a comparative context to Bush, btw. I think I'll stand by my comments.

You think my source did NOT support the claim that priests of the founding order that established Notre Dame, are complaining that allowing pro-abortion Obama to speak there will risk it's 'true soul'?
No, I think your source does not support your argument that the grounds upon which they think Obama is a risk to ND's "true soul" but Bush was not a similar risk is not hypocritical. The argument is that the risk exists because Obama's views about abortion violate Catholic belief, but Bush's views about the death penalty also violated Catholic belief. Therefore, why was Bush not a spiritual risk while Obama is, if the measure is the beliefs enshrined within Catholicism?

Also, contrary to your arguments, this one group of priests do not define Catholic beliefs. The Pope does that.


Okay. That doesn't make it bullshit.



Why?

Surely - if your point had ANY validity, I'd have to show that the Congregation of Holy Cross had such a policy?
Split a hair, why don't you? I was referring in a lazy generic way to the people making such decisions on behalf of the organization in charge of Notre Dame University.

Of course, if you don't have anything to show that would answer my question, then I guess splitting hairs is all you can do.


Now you're trying to have it both ways.



That's a far more reasonable assumption.

Except that you've apparently forgotten we're not talking about a hypothesis, we're talking about an actual 'real life' situation, where a doctrinal hardline is being argued on one issue (abortion) and apparently (so you've been arguing) not on another.

If your argument is valid - the REALITY, as you've portrayed it - is that Catholic institutions DON'T always follow Catholic doctrine.

Like I said - you're trying to have it both ways.
On the contrary, you are the one trying to have it both ways. You are trying to argue that this is an issue of Catholic doctrine at the same time that you claim Catholic institutions get to make up their own standards independent of the Vatican which is the source and authority on all Catholic doctrine. You don't get to invoke doctrine and ignore doctrine at the same time.

Your argument reminds me a little of a very entertaining short story about a guy who made a deal for his soul, only it wasn't really with THE devil, just A devil. You're trying to tar Obama not with the brush of Catholic beliefs, but just the beliefs of these particular Catholics.

At last. And an acknowledgement of my opening source, all in the same breath.
And you had to cherrypick to find it.

Hey, haven't you called for people to be executed before? You know, in stark contradiction to Catholic doctrine?


NM is one of those who is only religious when it suits him. Its actually hilarious, in an unintended sort of way.

No, I think your source does not support your argument that the grounds upon which they think Obama is a risk to ND's "true soul" but Bush was not a similar risk is not hypocritical.


Which wouldn't be a flaw in my argument or my source - but in the 'Catholic' integrity, if you will, of the ten priests.


The argument is that the risk exists because Obama's views about abortion violate Catholic belief, but Bush's views about the death penalty also violated Catholic belief. Therefore, why was Bush not a spiritual risk while Obama is, if the measure is the beliefs enshrined within Catholicism?

Also, contrary to your arguments, this one group of priests do not define Catholic beliefs. The Pope does that.


The one group of priests doesn't have to 'define' Catholic beliefs - unless you're now going to try to argue that their position on Abortion is somehow 'un-Catholic'?

Which wouldn't be a flaw in my argument or my source - but in the 'Catholic' integrity, if you will, of the ten priests.



The one group of priests doesn't have to 'define' Catholic beliefs - unless you're now going to try to argue that their position on Abortion is somehow 'un-Catholic'?

Nope, that's not what I'm going to say. It's not what I've been saying. I explicitly stated what my argument is in an earlier post. Try again.

Nope, that's not what I'm going to say. It's not what I've been saying. I explicitly stated what my argument is in an earlier post. Try again.

Yes. You 'explicitly stated' that these ten priests don't 'define Catholic beliefs'.

Okay - congratulations an 'explicit statement' that finally puts to rest an argument no one made. We can all rest much easier now the spectre of that argument has been pre-emptively stricken.


Now, since we've dealt with the 'explicit' part - we can look at what isn't as obvious - i.e. the idea that MY argument had somehow been that they DID 'define' it - which you subtly introduced ("contrary to your arguments, this one group of priests...") and the idea that, because they're not 'defining' it, it somehow makes their Catholic position less valid.

Why hide what you mean?

Yes. You 'explicitly stated' that these ten priests don't 'define Catholic beliefs'.

Okay - congratulations an 'explicit statement' that finally puts to rest an argument no one made. We can all rest much easier now the spectre of that argument has been pre-emptively stricken.


Now, since we've dealt with the 'explicit' part - we can look at what isn't as obvious - i.e. the idea that MY argument had somehow been that they DID 'define' it - which you subtly introduced ("contrary to your arguments, this one group of priests...") and the idea that, because they're not 'defining' it, it somehow makes their Catholic position less valid.

Why hide what you mean?

Wrong. Try again. Look for sentences that contain the words "my argument" or "I am arguing".

Wrong. Try again. Look for sentences that contain the words "my argument" or "I am arguing".

Just saying 'wrong' doesn't cut it.

Everything in the post you just tried to dismiss was true to the content of what you had posted, and this little trick is no more effective here, than any of the other times you've tried to employ it.

If you want me to believe your posts don't mean what they mean, you could make them clearer... or you could stop the evasions.

Just saying 'wrong' doesn't cut it.

Everything in the post you just tried to dismiss was true to the content of what you had posted, and this little trick is no more effective here, than any of the other times you've tried to employ it.

If you want me to believe your posts don't mean what they mean, you could make them clearer... or you could stop the evasions.

She doesnt have to. We all see what she said, despite your efforts to change it.

She doesnt have to. We all see what she said, despite your efforts to change it.

I've really just run out of patience with this very common trick of trying to dictate to someone what they said and then demand that they defend that. I made an argument about what is hypocritical in the priests' position. I restated my argument a few times in the thread. I'm not going to keep jumping through that hoop because this guy wants to argue with me about something else. Maybe that's no fun of me, but feh, life is too short.

I've really just run out of patience with this very common trick of trying to dictate to someone what they said and then demand that they defend that. I made an argument about what is hypocritical in the priests' position. I restated my argument a few times in the thread. I'm not going to keep jumping through that hoop because this guy wants to argue with me about something else. Maybe that's no fun of me, but feh, life is too short.

I hear milk can wash the taste of Kimchi out of your mouth.

I've really just run out of patience with this very common trick of trying to dictate to someone what they said and then demand that they defend that. I made an argument about what is hypocritical in the priests' position. I restated my argument a few times in the thread. I'm not going to keep jumping through that hoop because this guy wants to argue with me about something else. Maybe that's no fun of me, but feh, life is too short.

Whats that you say? The Final Solution would have improved the overall quality of life for those under German rule? Look, its right there, in your arguement. No, I wont point out where exactly you said that. Why do you think that? Defend that position.


;)

according to myself, i have authority to say what is good or bad for your soul.

killing babies is bad for your soul!

making up phony reasons for a war that kills your citizens for no good purpose is bad for your soul!

paying for your phony war with tax breaks for those who need them least is bad for your soul!

so good luck with that; every party you choose will damn your soul one way or another.

She doesnt have to. We all see what she said, despite your efforts to change it.

Awesome.

Now, you can go through that post and show me where I was wrong, since Muravyets has decided on a position of avoidance, and you appear to have decided to be an enabler.

Let me recap - she made an argument that answered a question no one had asked, she attempted to suggest (fairly explicitly) that it was my argument, and then she decided to take refuge under the argument that - since it wasn't the Pope, it doesn't 'define' Catholicism. Which was, of course, irrelevent - since the argument wasn't made that it 'defines' Catholicism.

She's playing keepaway, so that she doesn't have to address the points - do you intend to just back her from the bleachers, or are you bringing a game?

I've really just run out of patience with this very common trick of trying to dictate to someone what they said and then demand that they defend that.


Irony? Double-standard?

Let me see: "...contrary to your arguments, this one group of priests do not define Catholic beliefs..."

But, I didn't say that, you say? Why, that's just terrible! That would be almost like someone was trying to dictate what someone else had said.

Boy, if I'd done something like that, you can bet I'd be the last person to claim it as a failing in another - even if that claim had basis.


I made an argument about what is hypocritical in the priests' position.


And hypocrisy was not, has not ever been, and never will be, the 'focus' of this particular topic. More evasion.

Awesome.

Now, you can go through that post and show me where I was wrong, since Muravyets has decided on a position of avoidance, and you appear to have decided to be an enabler.

I can, but I dont have to and Im not going to.

Im just a buzz kill like that.

Awesome.

Now, you can go through that post and show me where I was wrong, since Muravyets has decided on a position of avoidance, and you appear to have decided to be an enabler.

Let me recap - she made an argument that answered a question no one had asked, she attempted to suggest (fairly explicitly) that it was my argument, and then she decided to take refuge under the argument that - since it wasn't the Pope, it doesn't 'define' Catholicism. Which was, of course, irrelevent - since the argument wasn't made that it 'defines' Catholicism.

She's playing keepaway, so that she doesn't have to address the points - do you intend to just back her from the bleachers, or are you bringing a game?
Wrong again. That is not what I have been arguing. Go back and read the posts again. Figure out what I have really been talking about. Then decide whether you want to attack the points I actually made. If you do, go for it. If you don't, leave me the fuck alone. But either way, the thing I'm not going to do is be led around by the nose by you.

Irony? Double-standard?

Let me see: "...contrary to your arguments, this one group of priests do not define Catholic beliefs..."

But, I didn't say that, you say? Why, that's just terrible! That would be almost like someone was trying to dictate what someone else had said.

Boy, if I'd done something like that, you can bet I'd be the last person to claim it as a failing in another - even if that claim had basis.



And hypocrisy was not, has not ever been, and never will be, the 'focus' of this particular topic. More evasion.
Evasion on your part, you mean, you're very right about it. I made the point about hypocrisy. It has always been the focus of the argument I made. If you don't want to address it, then don't. But don't think you're going to somehow get to dictate to me what points I'm allowed to make, or what arguments I am required to defend or attack on your say-so. Don't think I'm going to cooperate with you cherrypicking sentences out of whole posts and whole interchanges, you assigning meanings to them in isolation, and then demanding that I play the parts you've scripted for me and defend the arguments you've made up for me. Not going to happen. I made my statement. It was that the priests are hypocrites because they condemn Obama for violating Catholic principles on abortion, while they lauded Bush even though he violated Catholic principles on the death penalty. That's my argument and I'm not going to assist you in turning it into something else.

I also note that you have failed utterly to counter my argument. Your only attempt has consisted of a pathetic dodge in which you claim that the priests don't have to adhere to Catholic doctrine while invoking Catholic doctrine as their excuse. And when that failed to shut me up, you resorted to attacking the poster instead of the post. As far as I'm concerned you have run through all the tactics you had. You're done.

EDIT: Finally, I remind you that I am not the topic of this thread. If all you have left to throw at me is you bitching about me, I suggest you move on to someone else. Because I'm not changing my statements.

I can, but I dont have to and Im not going to.

Im just a buzz kill like that.

Which is fine. The "I know, but I'm not going to tell you" approach is a perfectly acceptable debate tactic.



In kindergarten.

Figure out what I have really been talking about. Then decide whether you want to attack the points I actually made. If you do, go for it. If you don't, leave me the fuck alone.


I was under the impression that you chose to come into the thread, to make some kind of point - which, you now appear to be saying was just a hijack.

You're accusing me of not leaving you alone, when you came looking for me. I'm sure that makes sense... in some kind of twisted logic.


Evasion on your part, you mean, you're very right about it. I made the point about hypocrisy. It has always been the focus of the argument I made.


Right. Hypocrisy has always been your argument?

Let's look back... oh, wait - you're very first comment in the thread was an ad hominem, with no actual thread content.

You followed that up with another ad hominem in post #47, and your first actual reply to me, was to tell me that my sources didn't support my argument - which you have consistently refused to expand upon.

Then, you finally get to the argument that the same priests didn't seem to rail gainst Bush. So - ad hominem, ad hominem, hijack.

Not really a good track record to be claiming a moral highground from.


If you don't want to address it, then don't. But don't think you're going to somehow get to dictate to me what points I'm allowed to make, or what arguments I am required to defend or attack on your say-so.


"...but the attempt fails unless you can prove that the institution you claim is okay with the death penalty actually is okay with the death penalty..."

"...I made the point about hypocrisy. It has always been the focus of the argument I made... I also note that you have failed utterly to counter my argument...."

More double standards?


I also note that you have failed utterly to counter my argument.


Which, you admit, was off topic.


Your only attempt has consisted of a pathetic dodge in which you claim that the priests don't have to adhere to Catholic doctrine while invoking Catholic doctrine as their excuse.


I didn't say that. I said that they clearly prioritise abortion as an issue. This is why I talked about you 'attempting to have it both ways' - they're not the Catholic Church when it's detrimental to ana rgument against me, but they are as-good-as the same thing when you think it works in favor of your argument.

"Pathetic dodge"? More ad hominem?


And when that failed to shut me up, you resorted to attacking the poster instead of the post.


Given the ad hominem references I've highlighted from your own posting history, just in this thread (and I've not even tried to be exhaustive), that would be a weak claim if it was based on reality.

Telling you that you are arguing a double standard or avoiding the issue, is not an attack on the poster.

Accusing me of being 'Kimchi', I have to assume, is.


As far as I'm concerned you have run through all the tactics you had. You're done.


And here's the problem. You're looking for tactics, and you already admitted your 'argument' was a hijack.

I'm 'done', and yet you haven't actually even begun to address the issue.


EDIT: Finally, I remind you that I am not the topic of this thread. If all you have left to throw at me is you bitching about me, I suggest you move on to someone else. Because I'm not changing my statements.

A martyr complex AND a resolutely dogmatic stance?

Telling you you've not answered the question is not 'bitching about you'. Saying you're arguing a double-standard is not 'bitching about you'.

Again - I have to say - considering the amount of time you've devoted to dogging me, the idea that you've actually convinced yourself it's me somehow bitching about you? Words fail.

I was under the impression that you chose to come into the thread, to make some kind of point - which, you now appear to be saying was just a hijack.

<snip>
Making a statement about the topic of a thread is now a thread hijack in your little world, is it? Yeah, well, take it to moderation then.

As to the rest of your scolding: I am not the topic of this thread. (Talk about a hijack. :rolleyes:)

Making a statement about the topic of a thread is now a thread hijack in your little world, is it? Yeah, well, take it to moderation then.


You're welcome to make off-topic posts. The irony arises when you make off-topic posts, demand that I defend the things you say... and then complain about me not defending the things you said, and not joining your hijack.


As to the rest of your scolding: I am not the topic of this thread. (Talk about a hijack. :rolleyes:)

Scolding. That's it. Holding you to the same standards you think I should be held to... is scolding. Pointing out your own hipocrisy in response to your attacks one me... is scolding.

You're right, though - you are not the topic. Which you really have yet to comment on - despite dozens of posts in the thread.

You're welcome to make off-topic posts. The irony arises when you make off-topic posts, demand that I defend the things you say... and then complain about me not defending the things you said, and not joining your hijack.



Scolding. That's it. Holding you to the same standards you think I should be held to... is scolding. Pointing out your own hipocrisy in response to your attacks one me... is scolding.

You're right, though - you are not the topic. Which you really have yet to comment on - despite dozens of posts in the thread.
Wrong again. Not only did I comment on it, but I've told you exactly what comment I made not two posts ago.

Now it's clear at this point that you not only don't want to address the comment I made on the topic, but you do want to punish me for having made it. I'm not interested in playing that game. My comments are there for anyone else to respond to if they like, and I will be happy to explain or defend my point. But I will just put you down as "not interested" and not engage you on it anymore.