Sojourner Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 um ... ok Since that hasn't been specifically mentioned in this thread until [i]your[/i] post perhaps you should reconsider your assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin86 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 [quote name='Terra Firma' post='1354064' date='Aug 10 2007, 05:07 AM']So no you're a legal scholar? You've dissected Griswold and Roe and know all the inner workings of the legal issues involved? Actually the right to privacy, which stems out of the court's interpretation of substantitive due process, is a foundational element of the legal reasoning in Roe. The question of the baby's personhood is an issue as well, yes, but the legal foundation on which the decision rests is substantive due process and a resultant right to privacy. There is a clear linkage between the reasoning established in Griswold and the reasoning in Roe.[/quote] It's quite hypocritical of you to accuse me of "dissecting Griswold and Roe and know all the inner workings" when you then go off and do the same. It would have been smarter for you to say "I think we can agree to disagree", but its too late now. [quote]As I've stated multiple times, I'm not saying that sacramental marriage needs to be enshrined in civil law. However, I am saying that [i]our societal conception of marriage as expressed in our laws has real-life life-and-death consequences[/i]. I understand the need for political compromise, etc., in order to make marginal advances. However, I think we have been too free with the things we are willing to compromise on. We have compromised on the definitions of marriage, and we are paying the price for it with the lives of unborn children. The connection is very clear between our societal views of marriage and understanding of life and the reasoning that leads to the deaths of six million babies. Abortion is a horrific symptom of a much deeper illness.[/quote] So what exactly is the purpose of this rant? Why are you so against Catholics encouraging other Catholics to vote pro-life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 [quote name='Justin86' post='1355159' date='Aug 10 2007, 10:31 AM']It's quite hypocritical of you to accuse me of "dissecting Griswold and Roe and know all the inner workings" when you then go off and do the same.[/quote] You didn't catch the sarcasm. I didn't "accuse" you of anything. But I was saying that you've not studied these cases in an academic setting, and your comments bely that you are not really familiar with the issues involved ... frankly, I would be surprised if you've read them, but then people often surprise me. I have studied both cases, and have discussed them at length in classes, both with regard to the reasoning in each case and how they fit into the larger legal landscape. I'm not prepared to write a treatise on them, but I am a little better qualified to provide analysis than some may be. [quote name='Justin86' post='1355159' date='Aug 10 2007, 10:31 AM']So what exactly is the purpose of this rant? Why are you so against Catholics encouraging other Catholics to vote pro-life?[/quote] Catholics aren't being encouraged to vote pro-life. They are being encouraged to vote Republican. There is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 [quote name='Terra Firma' post='1355241' date='Aug 10 2007, 02:30 PM']Catholics aren't being encouraged to vote pro-life. They are being encouraged to vote Republican. There is a difference.[/quote]I thought it was discouraging Catholics to vote Democratic. Horrors! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 [quote name='Terra Firma' post='1355241' date='Aug 10 2007, 02:30 PM']Catholics aren't being encouraged to vote pro-life. They are being encouraged to vote Republican. There is a difference.[/quote]I thought it was discouraging Catholics to vote Democratic. Horrors! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted August 11, 2007 Author Share Posted August 11, 2007 (edited) [mod]Public criticism of mods - Lil Red[/mod] Second... Terra... you need to start paying the toll... the price: ATTENTION. Catholics are being told to vote pro-life. Reasoning is something else that is needed here, but you can't reason soundly unless you have the facts.... which you obviously don't. You really need to read Church documents, especially THIS ONE: [url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url] Show me one dem running for president that meets the priorities goverened by the faith.... you can't, because they go against at least 3 if not ALL of the four MAJOR points (In Order: Life, Family, Social Justice, Global Solidarity). I don't understand why you argue a point with blatently wrong information.... this is why I don't view your posts... I see them in replies from others. FACTS: - DEM NATIONAL AGENDA: Kill Babies, Same Sex Marriage, Depend on Walfare - give them fish to keep our power, Force people to charity through taxes. - Rep National Agenda: Save Babies, Save Families, Teach people to fish, trust in the charity of Americans hmmm.... doesn't take much reason to figure out which party at a National level is closer to the Catholic faith teachings.... THEREFORE, right now is a good time to be a register rep so that you can make sure you vote for good Catholics in the primaries... If the reps change for the worst, and the dems change for the better, then it'll be time to switch. As for me, I am FIRST AND FOREMOST Catholic, and I will vote the faith, if I want to vote in primaries so that I can try to keep people like rudy and romney out of office, I need to be registered as a rep. Secondly, I am an American... Thridly, I'm currently registered as a rep because they are closest to the Catholic Church teachings... dems at national level are opposite Catholic teachings... Anyone who can seperate their faith from their daily lives has no faith at all and cannot be trusted.... all dems at a national level that I've ever seen claim any faith are these type of people. I just do not understand why these simple obvious concepts of character are so hard for some here to understand... are they that sheltered from real life? God Bless. maybe she doesn't view my posts either... but... ahhhhh.... I feel better now. I should one day post a mp3 of me reading a post so people get the right tone...lol Edited August 13, 2007 by Lil Red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateri05 Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 [quote]Show me one dem running for president that meets the priorities goverened by the faith.... you can't, because they go against at least 3 if not ALL of the four MAJOR points (In Order: Life, Family, Social Justice, Global Solidarity). I don't understand why you argue a point with blatently wrong information.... this is why I don't view your posts... I see them in replies from others.[/quote] umm, iron, can you cite one place where terra firma has said you should vote democrat? cuz i'm like 99.9% positive she doesn't what she is saying, if understand her correctly, and what i pretty much agree with, is that REPUBLICANS also can be pro-death, so its mistaken to make blanket party statements. besides, closest to Catholic standards still isn't the same as dead on, ESPECIALLY when it comes to abortion. and guiliani is pro-death, so why should anyone be ok with voting for him, ever? even if he is a human, vs. robots like hilary i'm a registered republican but i've become pretty unenamored with the GOP's wishywashy stance on things i care about, like abortion. i just don't think that they're all that great either. sure, democrats smell of elderberries MORE, but the lesser of two evils is still evil. and i think thats all terra is trying to address, that catholic doesn't equal republican. its sure as shootin doesn't equal democrat, but shes not saying it does. catholic worldview on political issues i really believe in this day and age rises above parties. because they both, in the end, are godless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 (edited) [quote name='ironmonk' post='1356135' date='Aug 10 2007, 10:28 PM'][mod]Public criticism of mods - Lil Red[/mod] Second... Terra... you need to start paying the toll... the price: ATTENTION. Catholics are being told to vote pro-life. Reasoning is something else that is needed here, but you can't reason soundly unless you have the facts.... which you obviously don't. You really need to read Church documents, especially THIS ONE: [url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url] Show me one dem running for president that meets the priorities goverened by the faith.... you can't, because they go against at least 3 if not ALL of the four MAJOR points (In Order: Life, Family, Social Justice, Global Solidarity). I don't understand why you argue a point with blatently wrong information.... this is why I don't view your posts... I see them in replies from others. FACTS: - DEM NATIONAL AGENDA: Kill Babies, Same Sex Marriage, Depend on Walfare - give them fish to keep our power, Force people to charity through taxes. - Rep National Agenda: Save Babies, Save Families, Teach people to fish, trust in the charity of Americans hmmm.... doesn't take much reason to figure out which party at a National level is closer to the Catholic faith teachings.... THEREFORE, right now is a good time to be a register rep so that you can make sure you vote for good Catholics in the primaries... If the reps change for the worst, and the dems change for the better, then it'll be time to switch. As for me, I am FIRST AND FOREMOST Catholic, and I will vote the faith, if I want to vote in primaries so that I can try to keep people like rudy and romney out of office, I need to be registered as a rep. Secondly, I am an American... Thridly, I'm currently registered as a rep because they are closest to the Catholic Church teachings... dems at national level are opposite Catholic teachings... Anyone who can seperate their faith from their daily lives has no faith at all and cannot be trusted.... all dems at a national level that I've ever seen claim any faith are these type of people. I just do not understand why these simple obvious concepts of character are so hard for some here to understand... are they that sheltered from real life? God Bless. maybe she doesn't view my posts either... but... ahhhhh.... I feel better now. I should one day post a mp3 of me reading a post so people get the right tone...lol[/quote] 1) What Kateri said ... she is right on in her response. 2) I already addressed the fact that I don't have you blocked, and that I believe that refusing to read or respond directly to people you don't degree with is a sign of immaturity. You, of course, didn't see that post because you have me blocked, and so you keep making the same comments again and again. It doesn't make you sound any more mature to keep repeating that you have me on ignore. In fact, your bragging about the fact that you have me on ignore only cements the perception I have of you as a person who doesn't actually think for himself and rather mindlessly follows the dictates of the Republican party. You ask for responses, but are too ... whatever to actually read them, then you spout off with a vent about something you know nothing about ... accusing me of posting "blatantly wrong information." Now that's irony. 3) If the mods wish to edit me for charity, they are more than capable of doing so, and I don't mind being edited where necessary. If you wish to address a mod editing decision the appropriate place to do so, per the phorum guidelines is through a personal message to the mods. Maybe you have those on ignore as well? 4) As I noted in an earlier post, I did (and have) read the USCCB guidelines. The quote I posted was: [quote]A Catholic moral framework does not easily fit the ideologies of "right" or "left," nor tthe platforms of any party. Our values are often not "politically correct." Believers are called to be a community of conscience within the larger society and to test public life by the values of Scripture and the principles of Catholic social teaching. Our responsibility is to measure all candidates, policies, parties, and platforms by how they protect or undermine the life, dignity, and rights of the human person?whether they protect the poor and vulnerable and advance the common good.[/quote] Since you have me on ignore, you didn't see this and therefore can't respond intelligently to any of the points I have made. 5) And this baloney you write about reading your post so you can communicate the proper tone ... you know, many people have mastered the written word to the point that they can communicate tone effectively, or close to effectively. If you truly wanted your posts to come across as intelligent and charitable, I'm quite certain you could manage it. Edited August 13, 2007 by Lil Red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin86 Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 [quote name='kateri05' post='1356236' date='Aug 11 2007, 02:31 PM']umm, iron, can you cite one place where terra firma has said you should vote democrat? cuz i'm like 99.9% positive she doesn't [/quote] Umm, kateri, can you cite one place where iron has said being a Republican and a Catholic are the same thing? Cuz I'm like 99.9% positive he hasn't. [quote]You didn't catch the sarcasm. I didn't "accuse" you of anything. But I was saying that you've not studied these cases in an academic setting, and your comments bely that you are not really familiar with the issues involved ... frankly, I would be surprised if you've read them, but then people often surprise me. I have studied both cases, and have discussed them at length in classes, both with regard to the reasoning in each case and how they fit into the larger legal landscape. I'm not prepared to write a treatise on them, but I am a little better qualified to provide analysis than some may be.[/quote] In other words, "buzz off". Look, if you actually have discussed these issues in an academic setting you already know that they're are people who disagree with you. There was no reason for your belittling post other than to say no one else has a right to opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 [quote name='Justin86' post='1356265' date='Aug 11 2007, 12:10 AM']Umm, kateri, can you cite one place where iron has said being a Republican and a Catholic are the same thing? Cuz I'm like 99.9% positive he hasn't. In other words, "buzz off". Look, if you actually have discussed these issues in an academic setting you already know that they're are people who disagree with you. There was no reason for your belittling post other than to say no one else has a right to opinions.[/quote] You corrected me on a topic I am fairly familiar with but you are apparently not well versed in, and I felt your corrections were condescending and off the mark, and so I responded as I did. You're more than welcome to offer your opinion. People can decide for themselves whether to accept an interpretation based on study of an opinion or one based on ... whatever you based yours on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateri05 Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 (edited) [quote name='Justin86' post='1356265' date='Aug 10 2007, 11:10 PM']Umm, kateri, can you cite one place where iron has said being a Republican and a Catholic are the same thing? Cuz I'm like 99.9% positive he hasn't. [/quote] i never said that he DID say that; maybe you should read my whole post before you get snotty i was merely explaining WHAT SHE SAID. ugh. ETA: i just re-read my post. where the HECK did you get that i said that he said that? i'm sorry to keep harping, its just irritating being completely misquoted. Edited August 11, 2007 by kateri05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin86 Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 [quote name='kateri05' post='1356236' date='Aug 11 2007, 02:31 PM']ETA: i just re-read my post. where the HECK did you get that i said that he said that? i'm sorry to keep harping, its just irritating being completely misquoted.[/quote] Right here. [quote]what she is saying, if understand her correctly, and what i pretty much agree with, is that REPUBLICANS also can be pro-death, so its mistaken to make blanket party statements. besides, closest to Catholic standards still isn't the same as dead on, ESPECIALLY when it comes to abortion. and guiliani is pro-death, so why should anyone be ok with voting for him, ever? even if he is a human, vs. robots like hilary [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin86 Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 I'm bowing out of this topic. Nobody can make up their minds what they're arguing about, and when you make a rebuttal to someone's snotty/condescending post all they do is accuse you of doing the same thing. This topic is being removed from my life all together. Good day, Phatmassers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 [quote name='Justin86' post='1356371' date='Aug 11 2007, 03:32 AM']I'm bowing out of this topic. Nobody can make up their minds what they're arguing about, and when you make a rebuttal to someone's snotty/condescending post all they do is accuse you of doing the same thing. This topic is being removed from my life all together. Good day, Phatmassers.[/quote] Well alrighty then. BTW with regard to your comment to kateri ... your comment is a stretch, esp. since Ironmonk has actually advocated each of the things she mentioned at various points in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Ironmonk-- By repeatedly announcing that you ignore someone with whom you are engaged in conversation, this is the image you present: [img]http://www.geocities.com/emmacrew/philip/images/nohear.jpg[/img] What's the point of having her on ignore if you read her posts in others' replies and respond? What's the point of even mentioning it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now