Death Wins Again

[dominicansoul]

I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh, and he is speaking about Obama's speech at Notre Dame. I don't always agree with Rush, but he made some good points:

"If abortion is not wrong, then why is Obama saying we need to reduce it? If abortion is not wrong, then why all the tension? Why the protests? If Abortion is not wrong, then why does the prez have to reinforce over and over again the need for "constructive dialogue" between the two opposing voices? If abortion is not wrong, why is Obama continually having to deal with the controversy...?"

Rush goes on to say that Obama is a master in the low art of political seduction. Rush pointed out that the prez continued to speak about constructive dialogue, when at the same time, calling the Pro-life position "extreme" and the pro-choice position the balanced position. Also, obama calls for constructive dialogue in order for people to agree with his point of view, because it is obviously the only point of view that he wants us to take...

[Marie-Therese]

[quote]Oh no, a Catholic university encouraging constructive dialogue. A nice change from the pointless vitriol you guys constantly puke out.[/quote]

Bonkers,

I would like to point out something that you might have missed, just in passing. This is a Catholic phorum. I see your religious preference listed as "atheist."

Constructive dialogue is always welcomed between parties which disagree on issues. However, your comment above is yet another representation about the hackneyed "tolerance" argument from the left. Apparently, it's tolerance as long as we agree with your viewpoint, but if we don't, we're...egads...INTOLERANT.

The only intolerance here is your condescending, hateful remark which minimizes the gravity of a situation you cannot possibly understand. The debate here is not whether ND has the ability to invite whomever they please to speak (dissenting views or not). It's the particular view in question here.

If the question were reframed, and the argument was whether it would be OK to shoot blind people in the head, you could not possibly consider it "dialogue" to say, well, we have to respect both sides of this argument.

NO WE DO NOT.

I might respect the inherent right of a person to hold an opinion. That is the foundation of the liberty in this country. Nowhere does it state that I must respect the opinion. Disagreement, even vehement, is not "pointless vitriol." Perhaps it might be to someone who is so intolerant of another person's "right to choose" a belief that they cannot stomach someone not finding their viewpoint to be so overwhelming in its brilliance that it could not possibly be refuted.

Your intolerance is insulting, and your ignorance is telling. I will pray for you, and I mean that sincerely, not to change your opinions, but that you might realize what real tolerance is all about.

[thessalonian]

I do wonder if he treats the unborn the way he would have his mother treat him? Would he have approved of her right to abort him? Does the golden rule apply to babies. That is the question he refuses to speculate on. Why can't he see that human dignity he speaks of in the unborn?

Edited May 18, 2009 by thessalonian

[Norseman82]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1870189' date='May 18 2009, 12:47 PM']I am embarressed about the Catholic crowd. I hear in their voices "crucify him" (not obaoma). Oboma played them for geniuses.[/quote]

For those that heard the speech on TV, did anyone notice the sound of the baby crying throughout a good portion of the speech?

[Saint Therese]

Thank you for that well thought out and meaningful comment.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1869569' date='May 17 2009, 02:47 PM']Did Obama say anything of substance in the entire speech? Sounds like a lot of "I'm ok, you're ok, we're all ok." to me.[/quote]
Nothing new there.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1870204' date='May 18 2009, 11:09 AM']I do wonder if he treats the unborn the way he would have his mother treat him? Would he have approved of her right to abort him? Does the golden rule apply to babies. That is the question he refuses to speculate on. Why can't he see that human dignity he speaks of in the unborn?[/quote]
He probably would support the idea that his mother had a right to abort him, since he has spoken of the fact that his daughters have a right to abort his grandchildren (cf. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqSxWsQzzz0"][u][b]Cardinal Stafford's speech at CUA[/b][/u][/url]).

[bonkers]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1870162' date='May 18 2009, 10:42 AM']i mean, the prez was given the soapbox to say all he wanted to say, there was not going to be any dialogue to counter his words...

me thinks you have made a mistake... it wasn't a dialogue....it was a commencement where they honored a rabid pro-death politician....

A commencement is a graduation ceremony...you know, where people gather to receive diplomas and such?

a dialogue is where two parties actually come together to discuss issues...

this was not an appropriate event for "dialogue..."[/quote]

I'm obviously aware the commencement wasn't itself a dialogue, but allowing the president to speak publically inside the grounds of a catholic institution is symbolic gesture and a clear sign some segments within the church are prepared to try to influence him by engaging in longer term discussion with him. Seriously the whole demonizing the president and his policies thing isn't going to acheive diddly squat given that the president has all the power to do what he wants and the full backing of the American public. You might be better of trying to make hiim a friend..

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1870771' date='May 19 2009, 12:49 AM']Thank you for that well thought out and meaningful comment.[/quote]
I think it was supposed to reflect a rather deep irony. I had to think about it for a moment too.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' post='1870200' date='May 18 2009, 01:04 PM']Bonkers,

I would like to point out something that you might have missed, just in passing. This is a Catholic phorum. I see your religious preference listed as "atheist."

Constructive dialogue is always welcomed between parties which disagree on issues. However, your comment above is yet another representation about the hackneyed "tolerance" argument from the left. Apparently, it's tolerance as long as we agree with your viewpoint, but if we don't, we're...egads...INTOLERANT.

The only intolerance here is your condescending, hateful remark which minimizes the gravity of a situation you cannot possibly understand. The debate here is not whether ND has the ability to invite whomever they please to speak (dissenting views or not). It's the particular view in question here.

If the question were reframed, and the argument was whether it would be OK to shoot blind people in the head, you could not possibly consider it "dialogue" to say, well, we have to respect both sides of this argument.

NO WE DO NOT.

I might respect the inherent right of a person to hold an opinion. That is the foundation of the liberty in this country. Nowhere does it state that I must respect the opinion. Disagreement, even vehement, is not "pointless vitriol." Perhaps it might be to someone who is so intolerant of another person's "right to choose" a belief that they cannot stomach someone not finding their viewpoint to be so overwhelming in its brilliance that it could not possibly be refuted.

Your intolerance is insulting, and your ignorance is telling. I will pray for you, and I mean that sincerely, not to change your opinions, but that you might realize what real tolerance is all about.[/quote]

Well, you know, I object to your comment that infers I lack understanding because we believe something different. Isn't that a form of intolerance, assuming you possess greater moral fibre and intelligence than I do because you believe one way, and I am void of it because I believe another? Maybe you're the one in error?

Regarding constructive dialogue it goes both ways. When we agree with you it's all good but when we don't we're baby killers, right? What separates us from you guys is you are totally inflexible to any sort of compromise. Every situation of abortion is a great moral evil, and therefore constructive dialogue for you can only be every situation of is agreement abortion is a great moral evil. For non pro-lifers, there is far more complexity and grey area, few people are rigid in their views and most people are flexible and pervious to change them. I am one of them.

Further I will say the ongoing campaign of hate directed towards Obama and constant attempts to destroy his character is evidence that this concept of "tolerance" is not something embraced by the Catholic community, perhaps only superficially and in public by institutions such as ND and the Vatican. The common attitudes expressed by the lay Catholics here are indicative that Obama is much maligned and every attempt has been made to demonize and make him out to be an enemy of god. Vehement disagreement definitely is "pointless vitriol" when it's designed to cause harm or offence rather than advance the discussion in any way forward. The common consensus here at one stage was that he was the "anti-christ", not sure if this is still the case, but does not say much for this notion of tolerance you claim to uphold. I simply cannot accept the prayers from someone who claims to know what tolerance is but doesn't practice it.