Three presidents in USA history have faced impeachment trials, but were found not guilty and remained in office.
Could there be a fourth impeachment trial? And will President Biden, unlike any of his predecessors, actually be removed from office.
My clairvoyance tells me (I know clairvoyance is pagan occult) that President Biden will not follow his impeached predecessors, but rather that famous Republican, President Nixon, he will resign from office in disgrace.
That opens the door for the Vice President to become the President and then like President Nixon’s Vice President, who became President, she will pardon him so that the nation will not have to go through the trauma of having a former president placed on trial and convict and sent to prison.
But she will not pardon President Trump.
Duplicity will reign as it always does with the Democrats.
I call for wholesale repentance for the sake of their salvation. When it comes to mortal sins like endangering the security of a great nation and enabling hitmen to murder unborn babies and even born babies in a botched abortion, repentance is needed for the soul to experience salvation from the fires of hell. Jesus is the One who saves. But he doesn’t impose salvation on us, He offers it to us and shows us how, by His grace, we can experience the salvation He offers.
37 comments:
I'm not defending the president, but, I doubt that will happen. I also am less bothered by his actions than the former president. There currently isn't a mechanism to ensure that removed documentation isn't classified. I imagine staffers were instructed to box the docs, did as they were told, heaved docs to get it done, they were removed and placed in that garage awaiting a day that didn't come for years to go through those boxes. Though not the ideal, and I'm not among his supporters, I also am not leaning toward repercussions as well. I just don't sense malicious behavior here.
Oh, for heaven's sake, Father McDonald...why do you keep baiting you-know-who?
He's sitting at his computer with links to every derogatory story about Donald Trump that has ever been suggested and will not rest until he has rebutted virtually ANYTHING even mildly positive or sympathetic to Trump, all the while insisting that he does not hate him, but just "STANDS UP FOR TRUTH' or some other self-righteous fantasy.
If only he "stood up" with half as much passion for Jesus Christ and the unborn.
Seriously, Father. There's no point in pursuing this any further.
Methinks, Good Father, that, even in this cool weather, you are getting a little too much sun...
I'm still waiting for Jerome to call you out for your obssesssion with politics. I seem to remember his words... "When a priest, whose "business" or vocation is bringing Jesus Christ to the faithful shows more interest in politics than anything else, well, THAT'S obsession."
Chirp...... Chirp.....
Well Father Kavanaugh, in case you missed it, that's kind of what I did--except more specifically, I called him out for posting such things that are likely to trigger you.
I have no problem with a priest making political observations. In the sick world, it's nearly impossible to separate the immorality we swim in as a culture from religion and politics. However, Father McDonald does not focus on one single political part or one single personality and he knows when to quit. He certainly doesn't overreact with a need to be "right" about his opinions and he is comfortable enough to let others have the last word, even when he disagrees with them.
I'm sure I'm not the only reader here who has noticed the difference.
No, Jerome, you called out the Blog Owner for his "baiting you-know-who" (that would be me), not for posting about politics.
And, Jerome, if you read my comments you'll realize that any post of mine that is "political" is in response to something the Good Blog Owner or one of the commenters has posted. I don't initiate such conversations. It seems to me that, because you assume he shares your politics, Fr McDonald "knows when to quit." It would be those who don't share your politics that are the ones who go overboard. Convenient, that...
You may think that posting facts is an "overreation." In a "sick world" - your phrase - where people play fast and loose with facts all the time - remember Sharpie Gate and the fake hurricane map? - I think facts can be a antidote to foolishness.
Jerome Merwick,
By now you must reaoize that Fr K is a Democrat operative masquerading as a Catholic and must be suffering now that even the mainstream media and such luminaries such as Jonathan Turley are turning on the corrupt, senile grifter who happens to be a fake Catholic. My personal opinion, given the extreme positions the Party of Moloch has taken on abortion, LGBTQ issues and the sexual grooming of young children, that a priest or bishop who votes for this Party is risking eternal damnation. There are no compelling proportionate issues that overrides these intrinsic evils. Amen
PS: I think he thinks he is one of the “cool kids” by voting in lockstep with the Hollywood and media simpletons. He’s lucky I am not his bishop because I would not hesitate to suspend him and require him to retake Moral Theology 101
Posting facts? Like abortion is healthcare? What a twisted mind
Biden claimed that in High School he went to Mass everyday and then attended a Black Church following Mass - Fr K’s kind of “facts!”
TJM - That's a lie. I never said, nor do I support the notion, that abortion is healthcare.
Fr K,
You consent to it every time you vote for the Party of Moloch. That is what they stand for . You can lie to yourself but it is eminently clear where you stand. You can’t even claim your Party is for the little guy. The data shows the working and middle class fared better under Trump than now. The last three Democrat presidents became extremely wealthy from their “public service.” Harry Truman would call them crooks. You’re delusional and a puppet for the evil Left. I don’t understand why you keep up the charade of being Catholic
Here's just another exampled of how unhinged the Democrats have become. They are going bonkers because the Diocese of Desmoines has banned the use in Catholic Schools of "preferred pronouns" by the mentally ill and insist children play sports on teams of their biological sex. State Senator Celsi (Democrat) is calling this move "un-Christian."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11642739/Activists-erupt-Diocese-Des-Moines-enacts-anti-woke-rules-churches-schools.html
The "journalist" has a deep knowledge of the Catholic Church, referring to the Diocese as a "sect" of the Catholic Church.
Oh dear, here we go again—round and round the merry-go-round. Father McDonald periodically lobs in a political post (almost always, of course, inflaming the subject of the post with the “A” word), I suspect just to get certain people to react, myself included. So, yes, there does seem to be a sort of political obsession there.
Then, inevitably, the conversation deteriorates, typically because TJM engages in his usual splenetic invective against the Democrats. Voices that attempt to engage in rational discussion have little chance of penetrating such noisy chatter. So hey, it's party time, folks, let’s all descend to the conversational gutter. I’ll see your party of Moloch and raise you the party of Mammon. Take your pick.
Oh Dear, Mark...I have to take issue with your mocking coda...just a little bit.
I too used to be a bit annoyed by the persistence of what you call TJM's "splenetic invectives" against Democrats, especially since 99.9 percent of them always seem directed at Fr. Kavanaugh. However, I have come to appreciate his persistence and boldness. He is essentially stripping away all the other B.S. and getting down to the most glaring point, refusing to allow any of us, myself included, from turning away from it. I mean, this is a party in which EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS, EXCEPT TWO, VOTED AGAINST THE INFANT BORN ALIVE PROTECTION ACT. How anyone can support a party that has gone that barbaric, all in the name of "protecting women" is only Satan's guess. The only reason TJM (and myself) call the Democrats the "Party of Moloch" is because, they've worked so hard to earn that label.
And the "party of Mammon"? Puh-leeeze. Maybe that sold back in the 70's and 80's, and it was also the reason I gave for remaining a Democrat for so many years, since the Democrats were, oh, so surely, "The Party of the Working Man" or the "Little Guy"--yeah, I bought it. Except that the Democrats stopped being the party of the working man when they sold their souls to special interest and turned every perversion in the world into a civil right. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos aren't Republicans, and George Soros isn't backing any Republican initiatives. Sometime around the time of Bill Clinton--the last embarrassment of a Democrat I ever made the mistake of voting for--the polarity switched and its magnetic pull is getting tighter. And I am not the only one to make that observation:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/18/hanson-democratic-party-wont-admit-its-become-the-party-of-wealth/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/further-evidence-that-democrats-have-become-the-party-of-the-rich
https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2021/04/irs-data-shows-that-democrats-not-republicans-are-now-the-party-of-the-rich/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenhayward/2014/01/08/how-did-the-democrats-become-the-party-of-the-rich/?sh=5c369b5c3f60
The Republican Party stopped being the party of the rich about the time Dallas stopped being "America's Team". The paradigm no longer holds.
Oh Dear, Mark...I have to take issue with your mocking coda...just a little bit.
I too used to be a bit annoyed by the persistence of what you call TJM's "splenetic invectives" against Democrats, especially since 99.9 percent of them always seem directed at Fr. Kavanaugh. However, I have come to appreciate his persistence and boldness. He is essentially stripping away all the other B.S. and getting down to the most glaring point, refusing to allow any of us, myself included, from turning away from it. I mean, this is a party in which EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS, EXCEPT TWO, VOTED AGAINST THE INFANT BORN ALIVE PROTECTION ACT. How anyone can support a party that has gone that barbaric, all in the name of "protecting women" is only Satan's guess. The only reason TJM (and myself) call the Democrats the "Party of Moloch" is because, they've worked so hard to earn that label.
And the "party of Mammon"? Puh-leeeze. Maybe that sold back in the 70's and 80's, and it was also the reason I gave for remaining a Democrat for so many years, since the Democrats were, oh, so surely, "The Party of the Working Man" or the "Little Guy"--yeah, I bought it. Except that the Democrats stopped being the party of the working man when they sold their souls to special interest and turned every perversion in the world into a civil right. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos aren't Republicans, and George Soros isn't backing any Republican initiatives. Sometime around the time of Bill Clinton--the last embarrassment of a Democrat I ever made the mistake of voting for--the polarity switched and its magnetic pull is getting tighter. And I am not the only one to make that observation:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/18/hanson-democratic-party-wont-admit-its-become-the-party-of-wealth/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/further-evidence-that-democrats-have-become-the-party-of-the-rich
https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2021/04/irs-data-shows-that-democrats-not-republicans-are-now-the-party-of-the-rich/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenhayward/2014/01/08/how-did-the-democrats-become-the-party-of-the-rich/?sh=5c369b5c3f60
The Republican Party stopped being the party of the rich about the time Dallas stopped being "America's Team". The paradigm no longer holds.
Jerome Merwick,
Mark is an academic and would be banished if he criticized the Party of Moloch - so much for “diversity” in academia. He also employs the moral equivalence ploy but that doesn’t work because the Party of Moloch worships intrinsic evils but the Republican Party does not. Neither Mark or his sidekick Father K can come up with a side by side comparison explaining how Republicans are objectively promoting offsetting intrinsic evils. But I really don’t blame them - they are just slaves to the modern zeitgeist and feel comfortable there. I beat the same tom-tom (may I say that today?) just like Republicans railed against slavery during the 1850s and 1860s. However, My real ire is directed at the wimps we call bishops. They could have acted in the 1970s when the Church still had real influence but chose not to do so. They have earned their “eternal reward.”
I once was a Democratic Party official and my late father ran Bobby Kennedy’s campaign in a Midwestern State in 1968. He and I began to drift away from the Democratic Party over the abortion issue but Bill “Horndog” Clintoon and his “wife” were the final straw - they were most responsible for associating the Party with big money and abandoning the working classes. They were the first of modern Democrat presidents to become wealthy off of “public service” reminiscent of Castro and other big name Communists. The Clintoons also were instrumental in cementing the Party’s ties to Planned Abortionhood - they would not allow pro life Democratic Governor Casey of Pennsylvania to appear on the stage at the Party’s Presidential Convention. I find it perplexing that so-called educated people cannot connect the dots. Hence, I refer to these types as credentialed idiots
Jerome,
Thank you for your response.
I strongly suspect the House Republicans are playing cynical and manipulative political games with this Act. As best I can tell, federal and state law already protects such infants who are born alive. Please investigate this angle. I stand to be corrected.
That’s one way to interpret TJM’s interjections, I suppose. But there are other ways, too!
As for your dismissal of the “party of Mammon” slogan, although the situation is somewhat nuanced, in general the facts would suggest otherwise. See, e.g.,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2019/06/24/how-democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-matters-of-wealth--equality/?sh=fbc702f702f9 [also referencing the study in the next link]
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/on-the-money
"However, My real ire is directed at the wimps we call bishops."
No, your real ire is directed at a world you cannot mold as you would want it.
TJM:
It is pretty pointless responding to you as you haven’t a clue about academia, at least the part I inhabit, and you also (willfully?) ignore the multiple occasions on which Father Kavanaugh and I have addressed the points you say we haven’t.
And as for being slaves to, and comfortable with, the modern zeitgeist, read my book and, until you do, please be quiet! Because once again, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Mark you and Father K won’t respond to my very pointed question, because you can’t. The Democratic party is totalitarian, intrinsically evil, and a crime organization masquerading as a political party.
"Let's cut to the chase. We are not living in a political atmosphere where there are differences of ideas. We are living in a political atmosphere where it is good on one side and evil on another. It's not a matter of differences of ideas. The ideas that they throw out are just to promote their evil. It's that simple. If you cut to the chase of it, and get down to the bottom of it,, there's certain people that are just nefarious. They're just doing evil things. And how do you know this? Every single thing they do maximizes damage within the context of what they're able to do.
"This is the type of thing that actually ends up affecting us. I'm not going to name names--I can see it now, it'll be all over the newspapers. But the point being is that we have to recognize that this indirect oppression that we suffer is when other people do evil things to get demons involved in culture, in society, in the Church...
"Part of spiritual warfare, you have an obligation to vote...you have an obligation to get out there and do this, because, why? Because we have an obligation as Leo XIII said and as Pius XI said and all of the saints have said, especially the popes in the last 150 years, that we have an obligation to establish the kingship of Christ even in the secular sphere. Everybody thinks that the most important thing in an election is the economy. No, it's not. The most important thing in any election is the spiritual and moral welfare of the citizenry.
"The only reason that St. Thomas says in his work on 'De Regimine Principum'--he says the reason that you have to promote a good economy is so that those citizens can develop virtue.
-Fr. Chad Ripperger
Exorcist, Founder, Doloran Fathers
I think it's important to note that he doesn't mention political parties. Obviously the Democrats and Republicans are the two main polar opposites on most major moral issues, but that does not make the Republicans "all virtuous" by any means. As a former Democrat, I believe my old party has given itself entirely over to evil. However the Republicans present no panacea to the world's ills, and many of them are just Democrats in slow motion. Political parties themselves are a huge problem, that I won't bother with here.
TJM:
Please stop denying the facts (to put it charitably). Repeating a falsehood constantly does not make it true. We have responded, and you know it, including in one very recent thread in which we addressed “proportionate reasons.”
Jerome:
As I have said repeatedly, both parties are corrupt! However, whether or not it is helpful to think in Manichaean terms of a “cosmic battle between good and evil” is a different question.
Mark,
I would be tempted to be just as "dismissive" about a cosmic battle between good and evil, except I have spent many hours listening to talks by Fr. Ripperger and he is not some crazy fanatic. He has extensive experience in the realm of deliverance ministry and his teachings are generally sound and are backed up by the Church's perennial teachings.
In another one of his talks, he mentions specific demons by name that are associated with various sins (Moloch obviously, is associated with abortion) but he mentions four others, associated with sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, lesbianism and other perversions. Our Supreme Court has, essentially handed the moral destiny of our nation over to these demons. So long as we as a nation tolerate legal abortion and pretend marriages of the same sex and give them the protection of our laws and courts, we cannot expect God to protect us.
Then again, the real religion of America isn't Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other faith. Our religion is hedonism. And our creed? It's the quiet part that too many are afraid to say out loud: "Everybody knows there really is no God."
I wouldn't bet on it.
I'm not inclined to go the Ripperger route in ascribing the cause(s) of those who do evil to obsession and/or posssession. The Tempter (Satan) certainly is present, but, due to our concupiscence, we are too ready to buy the devil's line, to give into temptation, without the overlay of the indwelling of some "demon." To me, that tends to diminish the responsibility of the person who commits a sinful act.
I agree with Mark, as I have stated elsewhere, that the "We are living in a political atmosphere where it is good on one side and evil on another," (Manicheanism) idea is too simplistic and not a just description of the characters involved, their actions, or their motivations.
Father K,
One of the reasons that I give Father Ripperger the esteem in which I hold him is precisely because he does NOT go looking for demons under every rock. While is IS an exorcist, he also spends a great deal of time talking about the ordinary way humans experience evil, with common, everyday temptations. Simply because he works in this kind of ministry, so many are so quick to discredit him, but he is adamant that the types of cases that require his intervention are the extreme exception and not the norm.
Mark,
Unlike the snarkster, you try. But give me one proportionate reason to vote for a Party which worships child sacrifice. There is no moral equivalence between the parties, the Democrats are pure evil if you care to look at the evidence. Just the other day, Democrats in Minnesota are demanding menstruation materials be placed in boys bathrooms in schools. Does that follow the “science?” Is that not a waste of taxpayers dollars? Is that not pursuing a twisted and evil agenda?
I would also add that if you listen to Father Ripperger speak, he probably sounds about as dull and bored as a speaker possibly could--in fact, he's downright laconic sometimes. He sticks to the point and is far more apt to quote the writings of St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas than share some sensationalistic story of some demonic manifestation. He's all business and his observation of what some deem to be "Manicheanism" is based on objectivity and experience.
TJM:
Perhaps you missed it in the recent thread involving an extended conversation with Sophia. So, I am responding to you by repeating here one of my comments there:
As best I can tell, the term “proportionate reasons” is unclear and there is disagreement about what it means. Does it mean “equally serious,” “sufficiently serious,” or something else? The USCCB gives helpful guidance, in which it seems to equate the phrase with “truly grave moral reasons,” as opposed to reasons that simply “advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or . . . ignore a fundamental moral evil” (see section 35 on page 22 of “Faithful Citizenship” cited below).
The USCCB document in question, “Faithful Citizenship,” provides a very helpful framework for Catholics to work through in forming their consciences when voting. In my own view, a good faith reading of this document permits Catholics to vote Democrat or Republican, provided they do so “conscientiously,” guided by the multiple considerations set out in this framework. See especially sections 17-39 on pp. 18-24.
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf
It seems to me that those who experience the greatest conscientious conflict and struggle are Catholics who vote Democrat. I suspect there is very little conflict and struggle for most of those who vote Republican as they can cast a vote for candidates who both oppose abortion and advocate other policies they approve of anyway. Therefore, I am unsure how well positioned they are to judge those who vote Democrat despite the Democratic position an abortion. (Please correct me if I am being too harsh here.)
None of this is intended to be pro-Democrat. As I have made it abundantly clear, I regard both parties as corrupt. This said, until our politics can be improved, practical choices must be made in the real world, not the ideal world, even as we might try to work toward the latter.
Mark,
Thank you. I read this with interest. Bishops write ambiguously for political, not religious reasons. Think McCarrick, former hero of liberal Catholics who lied about Rome’s position on voting for pro abortion candidates. Thou Shalt Not Kill overrides almost anything I can think of - I cannot fathom another issue being more important.
What we need is a Pope like Pius XI to condemn the modern Democratic Party like he did the Nazis, Fascists and Communists for their stances on key matters like abortion, gender issues, etc that are antithetical to the Faith and human life itself There is nothing in the Republican Party’s platform that comes remotely close to supporting intrinsic evils like this. I surmise some people are living in the past believing the Democratic Party is the champion of the poor which it is not. Biden’s economic policies have made things very tough for the poor and working classes. The only folks who seem to prosper are ex Democrat presidents who have become fabulously wealthy peddling influence living in seaside mansions in violation of the Global Warming Religion and taking private jets.
As an aside, one of my favorite actresses, Oliver Spencer, who grew up in Alabama, said Los Angeles was more racist than Alabama. I imagine White liberals will accuse her of not being Black!
I never saw your response on the Democrats demand that tampons be placed in the boys bathrooms because it isn’t just women who menstruate! Let me know when Republicans support this insanity.
Mark - I think those who ask for "...one proportionate reason.." are expecting an answer such as "economic policy" or "international relations" or "climate change action." They loook for a one-to-one comparison that, I suspect, is not how you or I or millions of others judge the quality and qualifications of a candidate.
Regarding tampons, it is one Democratic state legislator, Rep. Sandra Feist. Saying "the Democrats" is intentionally misleading. And her party is not the Democratic party. It is the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party.
Father Kavanaugh (and TJM):
Thank you for clarifying that point about “proportionate reasons.” The USCCB Document acknowledges multiple “reasons for action,” which of course must all be weighed in accordance with the Guidelines set out in the document when forming one’s conscience and making a judgment how to vote. And dismissing the document as being deliberately ambiguous for political reasons (e.g., to preserve tax exempt status or some such) seems too facile an evaluation. What is the evidence for such an allegation?
Thank you, too, for clarifying the point about tampons in Minnesota bathrooms. I can't say it is an issue I have followed closely. -:) Moreover, I thought TJM’s questions in his reply to me were essentially rhetorical.
Playing fast and loose with the facts is par for the course for the Trump crowd.
Sean Hannity stated on January 10, 2023 in a TV segment: “The White House is now attempting to ban all gas ovens and burners.” He was lying, of course, but the Trump lovers all over the country had their paring knives sharpened and their Mix Master wire beaters at the ready to defend their kitchens from excessive gubmint intrusion.
Mark – I appreciate you providing your perspective on “Faithful Citizenship” and proportionate reasons (January 19, 2023 at 11:56 AM). I would like to make one point in response. I see reason to distinguish between an individual following his/her conscience to vote for a pro-choice candidate and an individual posting on this forum in support of a pro-choice candidate or the Democratic party in general. In the latter case, I think it is generally reasonable to ask the posting individual to explicitly state his/her proportionate reasons. At the same time, I support individuals to freely post what they want (in accordance with forum rules) and choose which posts to respond to.
I worry that some here an in high places in Church and society are using an outdated version of “proportionate” reasoning to enable them to vote for a candidate who accepts and promotes abortion murder on demand, murder of a child born alive in a so-called “botched” abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Yet, they feel they can’t support Trump because he lies, may be a womanizer (like Clinton was) and wants to build walls to eliminate illegal migration of non citizens into our country.
While a Catholic can question those kinds of policies and behavior, they all pale compared to advocacy of murder of children in vitro or born.
Those here advocating for voting for candidates who promote death could well make the same case for voting for Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini. Apart from their genocide advocacy or a particular religious/ethnic group and those not of a superior race or defective in other ways, they had some good things for society, a pure society.
Do we really want to go down that rabbit hole with what the Democrat party promotes today in terms of legal murder even though they have some really good other policies which their candidates promote.
Dave - It may well be reasonable to ask a person to explain his or her conscientious reasoning. However, when people ask for such an explanation, having previously stated that there can be NO such reason, then the exercise is rather pointless. Add to that that some of those questioning have, on many previous occasions, given ample evidence that they are incapable of, or at least unwilling to, entering into an adult conversation, then, again, making a response is an exercise in futility.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald, there may be people who vote for a pro-abortion candidate because they support that view. I am not one of them. I am also not "advocating" voting for pro-abortion candidates. As always, I want people to consider seriously ALL the qualifications of a candidate, as well as what would be considered disqualifications, and make a choice based on their own conclusions.
Father McDonald:
You said: “Those here advocating for voting for candidates who promote death could well make the same case for voting for Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini.”
First, as Father Kavanaugh quite correctly points out, no one here “advocates voting for candidates who promote death” except, arguably, in the very narrow sense acknowledged by the USCCB document—that it is sometimes permissible to vote for a candidate despite their position on abortion, not because of it.
Second, let us explore the point of view of someone who is not a Catholic and who does in fact vote for such a candidate, intending to support their position that there should be a legal right to abortion (regardless of whether they are themselves personally opposed to it). Are you seriously suggesting that such a voter, or indeed such a candidate, would also have been prepared to vote for Hitler and would support extermination of the Jews (which is what I think you are rather clearly implying, but please correct me if I am wrong about that)? Or do you think that, rightly or wrongly, they would try to distinguish the situation of abortion? And if so, what sorts of distinctions might they try to make?
Unless and until we are prepared to grapple with these sorts of questions, and then articulate an effective and persuasive response, I very much doubt that we will succeed in persuading those who support a legal right to abortion and in converting their hearts and minds to the Catholic point of view (shared, of course, by some other religious denominations). Just continuing to accuse them of genocide will not cut it and will only cause them to double down on their position. Such rhetoric is superficial labeling and name calling and not a “serious” approach to the political conversation. Moreover, I suspect that it is deeply offensive to many Jews.
Of course, my premise is that persuasion is a better and more effective approach than coercion through force of the criminal law and punishment, and people are free to disagree with the premise I suppose.
Post a Comment