If pro-lifers have no place in New York, then believing practicing Catholic have no place in New York! Is this Gov. Andrew Cumo, a supposed Catholic, speaking like Adolph Hitler but in coded language when it comes to believing Christians in New York who are pro-life and the Catholic Church which is pro-life? This fascism is truly frightening and in the United States of America! My father who fought in World War II for our American liberties and the freedom of the world is turning over in his grave!
This audio gives the full context of this highly partisan speech, but does not in any way assuage the extreme concern that all Americans should have toward the Governor's explicit fascism regarding a political party's right to be in New York, no matter how conservative, and the right of pro-life citizens to be in New York be they Catholic, Protestants, Jews, Democrats, Republicans, Muslims, agnostics or atheists.
14 comments:
Gee Father. I guess we need to dialogue more with people like this. We should be taking their children into our schools and dilute the Faith so as not to offend them because they are innocent children. And I'm sure they will show the same tolerance and understanding towards the Church.....oh wait never mind. Oh the Catholic Faith will not be taught at all so as not to offend, but that's been pretty much the way of the Church since Vatican II, so there shouldn't be a problem. Definitely Francis won't have a problem with the governor's words.
Wonder If Cardinal Dolan will invite him To dinner for a photo opp...
Stop it,Anonymous...you're killin' me! LOL!
Yes, the full context of the Governor’s words is important. I hope readers will listen to the entire clip.
Descriptively, I find little to fault in the Governor’s words. He sees, to paraphrase, a “struggle for the soul” of the Republican Party in New York (and nationally) and characterizes the “extreme conservative Republicans” in New York as being “pro-life, pro-assault weapons, and anti-gay.” Although I suspect that the term “anti-gay” is somewhat loaded and likely unfair, the other two descriptors seem accurate, and he is surely correct about the struggle between “extreme conservative Republicans” and “moderate Republicans” (although one should be very careful about such “labeling”). The Governor seems particularly exercised about the opposition of candidates belonging to the former group to the SAFE Act of 2013, in contrast to the moderate Republicans in the New York Senate who supported it and helped pass it. Here is some background on the SAFE Act, which imposes various types of gun control (especially on “assault weapons”):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act
Normatively, the Governor’s words may be more objectionable. For me that depends on what he means when he says that such extreme conservative Republicans “have no place in New York.” because “that’s not who New Yorkers are.” If he means they should not be permitted to run for office or express their opinions, then of course he is dead wrong, morally and constitutionally. But if he is making a prediction that they will discover they do not belong in New York when voters reject them at the polls, well, that is how our Republic is supposed to work nowadays.
Assuming he means the latter (could he really mean the former?), and assuming his prediction is correct, then the deeper question would concern the “character” of the “people” of New York, at least as judged by the expression of their “will” at the polls. Another deeper question, of course, would concern the integrity of the electoral system itself, in New York and nationally. And perhaps the deepest question of all would concern how a democratic people should engage in healthy political conversation about these deeply divisive issues.
Let me clarify something I said in my earlier comment, to avoid possible misunderstanding.
When I speculated that the Governor may have been predicting that extreme conservative Republicans “do not belong in New York” if voters reject them at the polls, I mean “belonging” only in the sense of being a political party/faction with realistic prospects of succeeding at the polls, not "belonging" in the sense of being citizens with every right to express their opinions, agitate for political change, etc. Of course, they “belong” in this latter sense and I would be surprised indeed if the Governor thought differently.
"Pro-assault weapon"? Oh dear. Semi-automatic rifles have been in the hands of American citizens since what, at least 1946? Few Americans are murdered with rifles: 323 in 2011, compared to 6,220 with handguns. But Cuomo doesn't want a solution, he wants a straw man to kick around.
There is no such thing as an "assault rifle." It is a term invented by the media and the anti-gun nuts to use in their propaganda schemes.
So, then, Anon 2. It was just a matter of careless language…sort of like the Pope…LOL!
The Governor is simply setting a position for himself that allows him to not have discussions with people on this topics unless they substantively agree with him from the beginning. It also allows him to place his opposition in a position that is pre-damned in the minds of the public. They must spend precious time explaining that they are not enemies of humanity rather than discussing the topics of the election. In the end they are allowed to remain in the state as an act of graciousness on his part, but not allowed to participate in the public discussion of certain topics. A neat trick, really.
Dolan needs to double down with this Governor and debate him.
There is no such thing as an "automobile". It is a term invented by the media.
Gene: I expected you or perhaps Anonymous to make that point. In response I would say this: I agree that those in positions of authority, whose every word is parsed and analyzed, have a responsibility to be careful how they express themselves (unless there are countervailing reasons justifying them not doing so or mitigating reasons excusing their imprecision in any given instance). However, I also think, as I have argued before, that readers also have a responsibility to be as “fair-minded” as they can and thus not to leap immediately to the most negative and uncharitable interpretation of what such a person says but to try to understand their words in light of the full context (perhaps subject to similar qualifications, at least the second one about mitigating reasons).
Christian and Gene:
I only mentioned the SAFE Act because it was part of the context for the Governor’s comments. I did not intend to spark yet another debate about gun control. Although I am truly perplexed (and dismayed) by the obsession over guns in this country as well as by the tens of thousands of deaths they cause each year, guns hold little interest for me. Coming from the U.K. as I do, I have pretty much resigned myself to never understanding the American obsession with guns (the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and I suspect most people from Britain, have the same problem). Thankfully, I was not required to adopt this passion as a requirement of naturalization.
In my youth I did enjoy the target shooting at the London rifle and pistol club to which I belonged because of the steady hand and controlled breathing it required, and the bit of hunting with shotguns in which I participated in France, especially after discovering that I was a pretty good shot, but other than for this kind of purpose guns have never interested me particularly (I gave up pretending to kill people with toy guns well before puberty). This is not intended to be snarky or superior, just a statement of fact explaining my cultural difficulty. Indeed, I feel somewhat inadequate because I truly cannot understand the gun thing and probably never will, history lessons on the Second Amendment notwithstanding.
That said, and in the interests of creating light instead of heat (pun intended), I would point out that the SAFE Act broadens the definition of “assault weapon” to include certain types of handguns. It also does more than just regulate assault weapons. In the same spirit, I also include the following link regarding the term “assault weapon” and controversies surrounding that use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons
Those who are interested can continue the discussion on this matter if they wish.
I am not interested in talking with anti-gun nuts in any venue.
A2, the point I would make concerning the term 'Assault Weapon' is that the definition you are referring to is being promulgated by partisans in the discussion through their influence in the Government. The industry and military do not use the term in the same manner. This shows that it is an attempt to prevent discussion of certain aspects of this topic.
Post a Comment