WASHINGTON – Rep. Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez drew backlash on Twitter after criticizing those who
offered prayers after the mass shooting at two mosques in New Zealand.
"At 1st I thought of saying,
'Imagine being told your house of faith isn’t safe anymore.' But I
couldn’t say 'imagine.' Because of Charleston. Pittsburgh. Sutherland
Springs," the first-term Democrat from New York wrote hours after the
shooting. "What good are your thoughts & prayers when they don’t
even keep the pews safe?"
While Alexandria might be a high priestess of the nones and an airhead to boot, so too is her male counterpart, a high priest of the nones and an airhead to boot.
This is what happens to nones. But as a high priest of the nones, at least he uses the orans position.
Do you think the nones of this generation will give the baby boomers of my generation, when we were the social activists, dropout generation of the 60's a run for our money?
78 comments:
I'll go to her defense: If she meant to say that prayer without acts is not enough, then I agree. I suspect she is the victim of her own success: able to come up with a good sound bite too fast for her brain to catch up. I can understand the appeal: she is beautiful and her heart seems to be in the right place in the broadest sense, but does seem to be really a collection of slogans and emotion without a lot of thought. Maybe her star rose a little too soon.
Actually, I agree with her. She is not saying not to pray. She is pointing out what is the point of prayers if you are not going to do what is within your power and duty to do also. It is mocking God, tempting Him to action. Catholics are meant to co-operate with God in restoring creation, not to merely pray and then wash one's hands leaving it up to God. Yes prayer is necessary but so is action, doing your part, like making pews safe through gun control, something that can and should be done. This prayer only Christianity is a hypocrisy.
Not only will they give boomers a run for the money, they will be sure to euthanize as many of us as they can... because of compassion.....
Bee here:
I expect as long as they can live in the furnished basement/family room for free and live a middle class suburban lifestyle, including use of the SUV, ATV, and deck (and gas barbecue) for parties, without the income to support it, they'll pretty much just snore their way through life. After all, as John Lennon sang, "....nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too..." Ah. Utopia has arrived.
God bless.
Bee
She's a nutcase and a fake catholic, typical combo
Neither her nor Mr. O'Rourke claims any religious affiliation? Except maybe "government"? (As in, government is theirs---our supposedly our--personal and financial salvation?)
They are both nuts. God help us if this is the best the younger generation can do.
Gene,
This is how you get more Trump. But pompous, insular academics probably think they are very cool and cutting edge.
You cant call her a "None" because she frequently references her catholic faith, as does Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. They are the Left-Wing Catholics, the followers of Fr Jim the rainbow clad Jesuit. If one follows the news frequently, you will hear their references to their religion. AOC has mentioned the importance of hers. Nancy Pelosi said that she does what she does precisely because of her Faith. Joe Beiden always mentions his Catholic high school, especially when he wants to punch an opponent in the school parking lot.You can call them cafeteria Catholics, or politically motivated left wing Catholics; but you cant call them Nones. They don't fit the definition.
I suspect that the NZ government will react by bringing in greater gun control. It doesn't appear that the gunman was part of an organized conspiracy, but revenge attacks (which this clearly was, despite politicians bandying about the meaningless term 'Islamophobia') are going to happen, although one can hope that they are few and far between.
The attacks in New Zealand may have been "revenge" as the Islamophobic terrorist has claimed.
But that changes nothing.
It was a planned terrorist attack against innocent Muslims, including children.
Well, unfortunately, left-wing fake catholics turn a blind eye to Islamic terrorism because the enemy of their enemy (faithful Catholic) is their friend. Wake me up when faithful catholics saw off Muslim heads and toss gays off of tall buildings
fake catholics and Dems (but I repeat myself) will not be happen with this:
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/03/17/media-silence-surrounds-muslim-massacre-of-christians/
These folks won't be happy when the Muslims saw off their heads and toss their favorite minority off tall buildings.
Interestingly, and perhaps conveniently, Breitbart does not point out an important reason why the New Zealand attacks received so much coverage – the fact that in the West the danger from extremist White supremacist terrorism is currently just as high, if not higher, than the danger from Islamic terrorism. Therefore, to the extent we are focused on dangers in our own countries in the West (as opposed to dangers in non-Western countries), it is perfectly appropriate to highlight attacks such as occurred in New Zealand:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/03/18/new-zealand-attacks-white-supremacist-terrorist-threat-america-column/3193597002/
This said, the persecution of Christians around the world does indeed seem to be woefully under-reported in the mainstream media and this needs to change as the Breitbart article suggests.
Sorry, Anonymous. Perhaps I should have said that the gunman in NZ suffered from an irrational fear of Islam (Islamophobia); irrational since the Religion of Peace has never, in the past or in the present, acted in a way that might make such a fear rational.
During the recent Northern Irish 'troubles' a grim pattern frequently emerged. PIRA, under the guise of conducting 'military operations' would murder Protestants. Protestant paramilitaries would retaliate by murdering random Catholics. The media described these as 'tit-for-tat killings'. There was nothing irrational about them.
When PIRA finally called off its futile 'armed struggle' the murder of innocent Catholics by 'loyalist' terrorists ceased. There are surely parallels with the current situation.
John,
I certainly share your hope that such revenge attacks will be few and far between. Unfortunately, however, human experience throughout history and today suggests that they may not be. One can only hope that at some point very soon point someone will be wise enough to find a way to prevent it all spiraling out of control into what can so easily become a long-term, sometimes very long-term, tit-for-tat cycle of violence. For me that wisdom must begin with an attempt to create mutual understanding of perspectives (for example, how do we look, and what narratives are created about us, when we kill innocent men, women, and children as “collateral damage”?). Perhaps, too, we can also learn from history about how to attempt to break the cycle.
It does not matter who holds the gun or drops the bomb or controls the drone that kills you—bullets and bombs don’t discriminate; they are equal opportunity destroyers of God-given life, wielded by broken and damaged people. As Jesus says on the cross, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” And we don’t know because our sin and brokenness gets in the way of the truth and obscures the light. If it didn’t, such diabolical non-sense by whomever perpetrated would all surely stop.
And of course, John Nolan, Christian, specifically Catholics, have never done anything in the past that would lead anyone to fear their behavior today.
It is completely irrational to suspect or to blame every member of a religion for the bad behavior, the terrible behavior, of some members of that religion.
It is beginning to sound to me like you are trying to justify the murder of Muslims.
The youngest victim of the irrational, Islamophobic, terroristic attack in Christchurch (oh, the grotesque irony) was Mucaad Ibrahim. And you want to claim that it was rational to murder in cold blood a three year old child because some Muslims have done violence to others.
Shame on you. Your attitude and your Islamophobia are what lead to the deaths of three year old boys at prayer.
May God have mercy on you.
"in the West the danger from extremist White supremacist terrorism is currently just as high, if not higher, than the danger from Islamic terrorism."
This makes me laugh. I wonder what you are considering the "west." Do European countries count? Have you seen the news? What's in your kool-aid?
A2, since you love discussion. It further occurs to me that your statement possibly implies that you think that in countries other than those in the west, may have issues with islamic terrorism. Do you think this might have something to due with the numbers/percentages of followers of islam? If so, do you think the west should consider this in developing immigration rules?
Thank you for your willingness to discus!
She also said people should not procreate -- hardly a Catholic, pro-life position, that...
Anonymous
Once again your ignorance and propensity to leap to conclusions have shown you up to be the shallow individual that you are, in this case exacerbated by your sanctimoniousness.
If you were paying attention you will have realized that I do not have an irrational fear of Islam. I would even argue that it has contributed to human civilization; however, I would also argue that it reverted to obscurantism at the same time as Christianity flourished and indeed underpinned modern science and discovery.
On 14 July 2016 a Tunisian Muslim drove a 19-ton truck into a crowd of people in Nice, killing 86 and injuring 458. ISIL claimed responsibility, there were arrests of many others involved, and Europol classified the attack as an example of Islamic terrorism.
It is easy to claim that the act was 'irrational' and it serves as a cop-out for those who won't confront the issues. But it was not insane, far from it in fact. Terrorists are not madmen, or even criminals in the strict sense of the word. Their violence is in pursuit of an agenda, and while it may appear indiscriminate is not mindless.
Now go away, have a good think, and perhaps God in His mercy might endow you with some critical faculty, although I suspect it is a bit late in your case.
"If you were paying attention you will have realized that I do not have an irrational fear of Islam.
It is irrational to blame all Muslims for the actions of some Muslims.
"It is easy to claim that the act was 'irrational' and it serves as a cop-out for those who won't confront the issues."
I never claimed the attackers were irrational.
"Perhaps I should have said that the gunman in NZ suffered from an irrational fear of Islam (Islamophobia); irrational since the Religion of Peace has never, in the past or in the present, acted in a way that might make such a fear rational."
We can readily count the ways that Christians, including Catholics, in the past and in modern times, have acted in ways that could, and does, make people fear Christianity.
It may seem irrational unless you've read the Koran and listened to what so MANY of the Imams say... then, not so much... but good for you A2, you have the politically correct brainwashing...
Btw A2, I should mention that I KNOW from personal experience that almost all the peace loving muslims do not even know what the Koran teaches (having never read it) or do not take their faith seriously. This is from having relatives by marriage that identify as Muslim and by spending time in India.
Where does your knowledge come from?
Discuss....
Anonymous
You had the temerity to write, concerning me: 'Your attitude and your Islamophobia are what lead (sic) to the deaths of three year old boys at prayer'.
This is a slanderous accusation unwarranted by anything I have written. I would ask you either to retract it, or repeat it under your real name.
If, as I strongly suspect, you are a priest by the name of Michael Kavanaugh, and do not dissociate yourself from the aforesaid shameful anonymous slur within a reasonable time (say 24 hours) I shall be compelled to make a formal complaint to your bishop.
I think that most reasonable people would agree that a priest should not use the internet as a vehicle for calumny and detraction.
Anonymous 2,
I almost had a heart attack when you seem to be agreeing with me that the media has under-reported Muslim terrorism against Christians. FYI, the media HATES Christians because Christians oppose their sacraments of Abortion and Gay "Marriage." Even when one of their own got their head cut off by a Muslim terrorist, the media did not change their tune.
The media truly lives in a fantasy world of their own making. Since they slavishly worship multi-culturalism and "diversity" (except intellectual diversity) they cannot deal with facts which undermine their puerile world view. I am all for people maintaining their native language, music, dance, and other harmless customs. However, when they move to a Western democracy they really need to assimilate into the norms of the Country they are now living in and not expect their host country to accommodate sharia law. Correct me if I am mistaken, but if we moved to a fundamentalism Muslim country, our Western views would not be accommodated.
John Nolan,
Alas, you are dealing with a crass and childish simpleton. I pity his parishioners. Maybe someday they will get a mature, Catholic priest.
Dan,
I have Muslim friends who are thoroughly Americanized and most of whom are successful and, gasp, are Republicans. I saw that CNN was caught flatfooted when a Muslim doctor appeared on one of their broadcasts and she mentioned that many in the Muslim world love and respect President Trump. I suspect that CNN producer has been given their walking papers for allowing this affront to their agenda. The national media really are populated with biased, simpletons
No, Dan, I will not discuss with you or TJM on this thread. The uncivil and irrational tenor of your remarks suggests that neither of you is interested in genuine discussion—unlike civil reasonable participants like John Nolan and rcg. I will not discuss with someone who apparently just wants to snipe and scrap. Sorry.
John,
FWIIW I would be very surprised if Father Kavanaugh were the Anonymous in question.
A2, very easy to throw out "irrational" SLANDER and CALUMNY remarks when one does not wish to consider the other persons point of view.
Please retract your slanderous comments unless you can prove I and TJM are irrational beings.
Anon 2
At least some of the anonymous comments bear the hallmarks of his style. Still, if you are right, he will be quick to dissociate himself from the outrageous comment at 9:27 pm on 18 March. Otherwise 'qui tacet consentire videtur'.
Perhaps Fr McDonald, who knows the identity of the anonymous contributors, can set the record straight and exonerate his fellow diocesan priest. We shall see.
John,
First, you will not be "compelled" to make a complaint. There are two - not one, not three - thingS that you are "compelled" to do in this life. One is die, and two is stay the colour you were born.
If you make a complaint it will be because you choose to do so.
Second, it seems to me that complaining about an anonymous comment is a rather quixotic venture. But, tilt away if you wish.
Third, you are by no means innocent of making slanderous accusations. I am reminded of that marvelous biblical injunction, "First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."
Cheers!
Anonymous, you forgot taxes... definitely compelled to pay taxes.
Meanwhile, I shall reiterate the points that I made, which are reasonable and based on experience and study.
A phobia is by definition an irrational fear. If I lived in the African bush I might fear man-eating lions, but this is not a phobia. Were I shipwrecked in the South China seas I might entertain a fear of man-eating sharks, but again this is not a phobia. However, if I were afraid of walking down a street in Surbiton or bathing off Bridport for fear of lions and sharks, then this would be an irrational fear and therefore a phobia.
A Christian in Egypt might have good reasons for fearing Islam after his church was attacked by a Moslem mob. Therefore it is nonsense to describe him as Islamophobic. A citizen of Vienna in 1683 when the Ottoman Turks were battering at the gates had very good reason for fearing Islam.
Of course it is irrational to hate all Moslems and wish to kill them because of a (very real) fear of Islamic terrorism, just as it would have been irrational to persecute all Catholics on account of the murderous activities of PIRA in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. But the motor which sustained the NI troubles for so long was the Provisional IRA which was well armed and well organized. The NZ shootings were an inchoate response to Islamic terrorism world-wide. To explain something is not to excuse or condone it. But there would not be the one without the other.
Americans are familiar with mass shootings which can be put down to psychotic individuals with access to lethal weaponry. But until 9/11 they had little experience of terrorism. Irish-Americans were happy to subsidize PIRA who were letting off bombs in other people's cities, despite pleas by the British and Irish governments not to do so. The Boston bombings might, just might, have brought home to them what it was they were funding.
Anonymous 2
You are an intelligent individual. Having read the anonymous comment of 7:19, do you still stand by your opinion of yesterday at 11:27?
Poison-pen letters are anonymous, but deliberately concealing one's identity does not guarantee immunity. I've no doubt that the perpetrator would have no compunction about lying to his bishop.
My only concern is that a formal written complaint might have repercussions for Fr McDonald and his blog.
Yes, a phobia is an irrational fear.
Fearing a three year old Muslim boy at prayer in a mosque in Christchurch and allowing that irrational fear to "compel" you to kill that boy - is this not the definition of irrational?
But, of course, if it is a "revenge" killing, well, then that is something different. It might even be explainable in a rational sort of way to a certain group of people. It might, just might, even be excusable. Or maybe even be expected.
And, of course, "revenge" attacks can't possibly be based on irrational fears. Oh no, no, no. That just can't be...
Anonymous 2,
"The uncivil and irrational tenor of your remarks"
This is your opinion, nothing more. I know Abortion droolers or those that support the Party of Abortion droolers are very sensitive when they are called out. I did not realize it was "civil and rational" to murder the unborn and sell their body parts. My bad. There is an old saying, "those that can do, do, those that can't do, teach." Seems apt here. But I imagine you are popular in the lefty faculty lounges.
John Nolan,
You have spent time and effort to give a reasonable and cogent response. It is always appreciated.
"My only concern is that a formal written complaint might have repercussions for Fr McDonald and his blog."
Ya think?
Anonymous you seem to be confusing people commenting on this blog who are concerned about immigration and the REAL instances of repeated terrorist acts by muslims with an individual who actually begins to KILL people.
Two different sets of people okay?
Anonymous
'Ya think?'
Yes, I do think. Unless your bishop is in the habit of ignoring formal written complaints, he might decide to investigate the allegation. Fr McDonald, mistakenly in my opinion, has allowed you to comment anonymously when you want to troll or make snide comments. However, you have made little effort to conceal your true identity, and internal evidence (style, vocabulary etc.) points towards the authorship.
You'll no doubt get away with it; but at least there will be something on record in the offices of your diocese.
"...but at least there will be something on record in the offices of your diocese."
Let the record show that someone took exception to something that was written anonymously on Fr. McDonald's blog. He could not say who wrote it. He, himself has posted slanderous accusations against others on Fr. McDonald's blog. When terrible, awful accusations have been posted about others, he has been silent, offering no defense of the wrongly accused. As it has recently been said, I can't remember where, "qui tacet consentire videtur".
Well, it's good that that is settled.
Anonymous, let the record show that YOU are accusing someone of making slanderous comments. Please show that the person you are accusing has actually made slanderous comments.
No, my friend, it is far from settled. For starters, I am not a priest in your diocese or anyone else's, for that matter. Nor am I a lawyer, paid to defend those who may have been wrongly accused. I am a Catholic layman who has been accused (by a priest, no less) of justifying mass murder.
This is calumny (a sin contrary to the eighth commandment) and no doubt actionable if one had the money and patience to pursue it. No sanctimonious references to motes and beams can excuse it.
I could of course be accused of trying to break a butterfly on a wheel. Still, a formal letter of complaint may not be a complete waste of time, and might even elicit a reply. We shall see.
John Nolan,
Go for it. A positive consequence may be the parish is assigned a Catholic priest, a welcome change
John at 4:53 a.m.:
I can only say that “Your attitude and your Islamophobia are what lead [sic] to the deaths of three year old boys at prayer” just doesn’t sound like the sort of statement Father Kavanaugh would make about you or about anyone else for that matter.
Dan at 4:24 a.m.:
I do not need to prove anything. The maxim res ipsa loquitur applies to the comments in question.
I am still waiting for TJM (or Dan or anyone) to advise me how we should talk to the parents who share their stories in the following links:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/late-term-abortion-rape_us_5c630b8de4b0a8731aeabbd6
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-late-term-abortion_n_5c5b02c5e4b09293b20a8263
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abortion-17-weeks_n_5a85f603e4b05c2bcac8fd28
So far it’s just crickets, or should I say parrots because TJM seems to prefer parroting phrases like “abortion drooler” to grappling with the tough questions.
I am also still waiting for him to answer the question I asked him about abortion and voting well over a year ago. Once again, still just crickets.
And as for TJM’s near heart attack when I agreed that the media has been under-reporting persecution of Christians around the world, well, some of us are still capable of non-binary thinking.
Anon 2
If Fr Kavanaugh did not make the offending comment why doesn't he say so? Also, one of his traits is semantic quibbling leading to illogical conclusions. The following is an example:
'Fearing a three year old Muslim boy at prayer in a mosque in Christchurch and allowing that irrational fear to "compel" you to kill that boy - is this not the definition of irrational?'
This is an attempt to justify his use of the term 'Islamophobia' which he applied to me, as well as to the NZ gunman. Yet it blithely ignores the obvious - what motivated the attacker was not fear (rational or irrational) but hatred, pure and simple.
I have repeatedly said that whatever my misgivings about Islam, I neither fear nor hate Moslems as individuals - in fact I work happily alongside them.
Huffpost??? HA, HA, HA... it makes perfect sense! However even the most pro abortion individual is aware that most abortions are done because the female feels a child would interfere with her "life."
Now as a Catholic I feel like perhaps SELF CONTROL would be better than killing life, however, reality is that so many abortions are performed just because people were too lazy, or cheap, to buy birth control. This too, seems like a poor reason to kill..
Huffpost... I cant stop laughing...
"...what motivated the attacker was not fear (rational or irrational) but hatred, pure and simple."
And hatred is rational? Hatred of a three year old boy at prayer is rational? Walking into a mosque and firing an automatic weapon into a crowd is rational?
Kavanaugh
You still don't get it do you? Love and hate are products of reason. The man who killed an innocent boy in an indiscriminate shooting did not hate him as an individual. Nazis who murdered Jews did not hate them as individuals. The Nice truck attacker probably didn't even see those killed under his wheels, yet alone hate them as individuals. Some of those were his co-religionists.
As long as you regard evil acts as intrinsically irrational you will never understand evil (odd for someone who has purportedly studied theology).
Be that as it may, your attempts to wriggle off the hook convince no-one. Your recent calumny against me is well documented and since you have not retracted it, I shall be making a formal complaint to your bishop. Whether anything comes of it is immaterial. I can already hear your mocking 'ya thinks' and 'cheers'.
It will be written over the weekend and should be in the hands of your diocesan chancery by the end of next week.
Besides, do we even know if he was specifically targeting the child? I don't. I did not watch the video.
Also, did anyone see that this particular mosque had produced TWO wanted jihadists? This may also be a reason this mosque was targeted... however, what do I know... I'm not nearly as reasonable as the 'anonymi.'
Huffington Post as a source ? LOL.
Notice how TJM and Dan still avoid the hard questions. Is this because they have no answers?
I am trying to have a serious conversation about how to deal with the tragic situations described in the links I posted. They do not seem interested in serious conversation, just in playing puerile playground word games. They deliberately misread what I write and deflect about an issue they purport, and I emphasize the word purport, to care about as committed and “real” Catholics. Are they? And wouldn’t a “real” Catholic have answered my question about voting and abortion that I posed to TJM over a year ago as several real Catholics did on this Blog but TJM refused to do?
John,
I don’t know what to tell you. I like and respect both of you. I hope you can work it out with each other.
John, hate MAY be a product of reason, or it MAY not. Some, maybe the majority, is the result of psychopathology - mental illness. It flows from the psychopathology of aggression and is given expression in a variety of ways, including the violence we saw in Christchurch.
The man who killed an innocent boy hated Muslims and immigrants. He chose to act on that hatred, so i am not excusing him or denying his culpability. Whether he hated that boy as an individual is immaterial.
Why not post your letter here. I'm sure many are waiting with bated breath to see what you come up with!
Ole!
John Nolan,
Your anonymous has a screw loose.
Anonymous 2,
LOL - you work in a playground where puerile playground word games are de rigueur, otherwise known as academia. I play with the big boys. Last time: no practicing Catholic is free to vote for the abortion party if he or she takes the Catholic Faith seriously. It is an affront to Our Lord who would award you a millstone and toss you to the bottom of the sea. It's really that simple - there is no nuance or shades of grey
A2, "Now as a Catholic I feel like perhaps SELF CONTROL would be better than killing life, however, reality is that so many abortions are performed just because people were too lazy, or cheap, to buy birth control. This too, seems like a poor reason to kill.."
My attempt at 'discussing' which you so fervently desire.
Discuss!
A2, your examples seem to be arguing "some people really, really, REALLY, wish that they had killed their child since they are so much trouble - therefore everyone should be allowed to kill whenever they worry that they might be inconvenienced by a child."
Discuss!
Dan,
If A2 said that in Chicago, he would be accused of being "racist" because the local cognoscenti would know which group he was referring to because they say so. Definitely would get him kicked out of the faculty lounge.
John Nolan,
Do you think Kavanaugh and his merry band will have much to say about this because it involves the Democrat Party's favorite,new victim group:
"Migrant kidnaps 51 children, sets them on fire
We aren't supposed to talk about this, so as you read along, read it in a whisper voice in your head. The New York Times tell us that "an Italian school bus driver took 51 seventh graders hostage in northern Italy on Wednesday, pouring gasoline on the bus floor and later setting it afire." Yikes.
An Italian school bus driver? Well...he's not just an Italian, he is an "Italian of Senegalese origin." And this "Italian of Senegalese origin" decided to kidnap the children and kill them because he was upset people were dying as they tried to cross the Mediterranean to get to Europe. And who is responsible for these deaths? Trump? Almost...
A promise to curb migration from North Africa was a key factor in the election of Italy’s populist national government a year ago. Since then, the country — once a principal hub for migrants crossing the Mediterranean — has closed its ports to nongovernmental rescue vessels, to force other European countries to bear the burden of migrant landings.
The Italian interior ministry announced on Sunday that migrant arrivals were down 94 percent this year, compared to 2018.
He seems like a nice guy. "Italy's interior ministry said in a statement that the driver had been previously caught driving while drunk and had sexually assaulted a minor."
I can't imagine why Italy would not want more of this guy coming into their country, can you? What a horrendous story. Imagine if this freak had been successful at killing all these children? We probably wouldn't hear about this story either. No worries, this secret is safe with the media. Hush now."
Maybe PF can welcome more of these nice folks to live in the Vatican, yes?
To answer TJM’s question about Italy, no, Trump is not responsible; George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Neocon Brigade are. None of this would be happening were it not for what is arguably the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history—the 2003 invasion of Iraq (which Trump was in favor of, by the way, until he lied (gasp) and said he wasn’t). And because of the Neocon Brigade’s recklessness, Europe now pays the price. Sheesh!
I see that TJM and Dan still refuse to address the three tragic cases that I linked—cases incidentally that involved two married couples and one woman who was raped—and that implicate the issue of “late(r) term abortions” – you know, the ones where Democrats want to commit infanticide of perfectly healthy babies. I also see that TJM still refuses to answer my question about voting. Specifically, he still refuses to answer the question whether he would vote for the Democratic Party if they were the ones opposed to abortion and the Republicans were in favor of it (as they used to be) but everything else about their respective policies stayed the same. That was the question I asked on the Blog over a year ago and that many answered sincerely but TJM refused to answer because it was “hypothetical.”
Unless and until Dan and TJM address these issues instead of deflecting, distracting, and demonizing, I suggest that nothing they say about the issue of abortion should be taken seriously.
To answer TJM’s question about Italy, no, Trump is not responsible; George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Neocon Brigade are. None of this would be happening were it not for what is arguably the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history—the 2003 invasion of Iraq (which Trump was in favor of, by the way, until he lied (gasp) and said he wasn’t). And because of the Neocon Brigade’s recklessness, Europe now pays the price. Sheesh!
And let me be clear—again. I do not support abortion or even the Democratic Party. But I am tired of platitudes and lies that refuse to confront real-life tragedies as our priests have to do. And so I seek guidance on how to talk to parents or rape victims facing_these_kinds of dreadful situations—such as where the baby has no brain except for a brain stem or has other terrible deformities that are incompatible with life. I wonder if Dan and TJM will finally get it now or whether they will continue to engage in schoolyard tactics and avoid the hard questions.
Look A2 specific cases can be tragic. Society could do more to help. Do you need answers for each individual case that you might present before you consider the possibility that perhaps the culture is encouraging and engaged unthinkingly in a very grave evil?
Hooray for you. You think you found three very tragic cases. Big deal. I see tragedy every day. An excuse around every corner justifying any sort of behaviour in the next person that just doesn't want to be 'burdened."
"In 2015, 638,169 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2015 was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 188 abortions per 1,000 live births."
That's one heck of a lot of abortions A2. Think that they all are 'tragic cases' like the ones you found?
Think all the abortions done actually were reported to the CDC.. I dont- meaning there was a lot more killing done.
Do you believe God can make saints in life using the circumstance (some tragic) in ones life? Why are you trying to push 'aborting our troubles away?'
I've actually worked with patients that lacked anything but a brainstem.... is it hell? Yeah. But I don't know what they are experiencing. Should society write them off? Well I would hope we would be better than that.
If not. You or I might be next.
A2, I think you better get off of Huffpost, and go out and help someone.
Life isnt a schoolyard. Shut up till you know something.
A2, oh no, poor rape victim... maybe if society had REAL compassion, instead of 'monster' faux compassion... pushing abortion, abortion, abortion... as the ONLY solution to every stinking problem... your tragic cases could turn out to be real 'miraculous' examples of love!
Go away!!!@
A2, you are oblivious. You think only priests see tragedies... what about police? Hospital workers? Mothers? EVERYONE?
It's the rough parts of life and the tragedies that make us human AND saints.
So take your stupid examples of a couple little tragedies in an already tragic world and go somewhere else.
They DONT justify becoming a culture that encourages killing!!
That's my opinion. I'm sticking to it.
I dont not care what you think about it smartguy.
I hope I've addressed the 'issues' to your satisfaction.
Well, not really....
One final small comment A2. Almost EVERY female that I've know in my life besides those of my mothers generation - has had an abortion. All, were while they were 'young' 'not-ready' 'working on a degree' ask me how many got one because of 'tragic circumstances.'
None.
Do I sympathize with people facing tragedies-more than you can know A2.
But I claim that no one can escape problems... and killing isnt a solution. Hurrah, so one doesnt have that 'kid' interfering with ones 'life.' Or 'thank God I killed it before it suffered with only a brainstem.'
Think it solves problems A2?
Wasnt the holocaust all about 'solving a problem?'
Think anyone's life is 'improved' by doing evil?
Wanna 'discuss' more?
Gee golly gosh, Dan. You've lived what many of us have lived. Welcome to the club.
A2 never once said that priests alone face tragedies, yet you have twisted his words into noting short of an ugly, pointless tirade.
Congratulations on your accomplishment.
What you have NOT accomplished is making him or anyone else who exercises his/her prudential judgment in voting guilty of abortion.
Dan,
That’s quite a torrent of invective you let loose there. I was focused on one very narrow issue—the issue of late term abortions, which are a very small percentage of all abortions in the United States, and the following claim in the LifeSite article that TJM linked on another thread: “In one of the sickest ironies no one is talking about, Senate liberals picked this moment — 17 days after they voted to kill America's perfectly healthy infants — to fight for the humane treatment of kittens.”
When I questioned the accuracy of this claim you insisted that Senate liberals did indeed talk about kittens and ignored the part of the claim that I was clearly questioning, namely that “Senate liberals . . . voted to kill America’s perfectly healthy infants.” I conceded that “If they did, then I am as appalled as anyone on this Blog.”
My series of comments on that thread and this one raised two questions:
(1) What percentage of late-term abortions are of “perfectly healthy infants”? Do you know? I have tried to research this question and find conflicting assertions.
(2) How do we talk to the parent(s) of the unborn who are facing the types of tragic situations described in the three articles I linked?
.
The issue here is not just about morality; it is also about truth because it is not possible to take a moral position on the basis of falsehoods. So, let us first establish the actual facts. We do our cause of resisting abortions no good if we assert or buy into falsehoods because we lose credibility.
To help move the conversation forward, instead of ranting at me you would do better, and be more helpful to everyone, if you cited articles such as these, which I just found, assuming of course they are accurate and reliable:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a13017/how-much-of-the-brain-can-a-person-do-without-17223085/
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/07/miraculous-cases-of-people-who-lived-without-a-brain/
Perhaps this can get us started. You see, Dan, I am interested in truth, both factual and moral, but have no interest in playing schoolyard ego games.
Thank you, Bean.
Bean... I did not know this was only about 'voting' I thought we were discussing morality. Funny that A2 would pretend to be someone else and then thank them. Weird guy that A2.
Post a Comment