'Obama could have also very easily pointed out the hypocrisy in the Catholic Church's "pro-life" stance by recalling its long, storied, bloodstained personal history'
a) he could NOT have 'easily' done so, not without serious repercussions to his standing.
just the same as you cannot 'easily' address affirmative action and the black community, or illegal immigration and the latin community, or any wrong doings by israel towards the palestinians without hearing from the american jewish community...a large number of which are not israeli, and not serious, practicing jews.
b) all of those instances have been addressed, some to an appropriate degree, others, i wish the church could take its own medicine sometimes and seek forgiveness.
point is, you're beating a dead horse, and the ideals of the church's teachings should not be diminished by it's human and imperfect practice and institution. rome wasn't built in a day. neither was democracy. etc. al.
you also fail to realize, faith aside, how much good the church does in way of education, charity work, and donations. when was the last time you put a few bucks in the basket?
the only issue you brought up that is immediately relevant is the child abuse scandal. and on that...could you have a bit more fucking tact? you could have gotten your point across without being so crude. what happened was terrible, yes. no excuses. but this behavior was NOT condoned and NOT perpetrated by the church. you're dead wrong. you need to look these words up in the dictionary.
I wholeheartedly disagree with all of the things put forth that he "should've" said. Sorry, I think you bring up those things, you disrespect the institution at which you've been invited to speak, and you lose the opposition's attention to what you're trying to put forth. His words were spoken to try and bridge a gap, find a common ground, and I think he succeeded in doing that.
@sublicon: If you read the post again, you'll see that the author actually said "could" not "should," as in "Obama could have easily pointed out the towering jackassery inherent within such ideological tunnel vision."
The author actually made the point that Obama did the right thing by not insulting his hosts.
we probably would have just told them all to go fuck themselves, but we suppose that's why he's the President, and we're not. Faulty logic here -- how do you explain Bush having been president, then?
I graduated from Notre Dame in 07, I think I was a sophomore when Bush came by. He definitely was protested. My Italian professor joked around about the non-violent protest being held in the auditorium, while he was organizing the violent protest out on the quad.
@TomRegan: I agree with you that Bush was protested when he gave his commencement address (I just think that the media didn't cover it the same way), but that was in 2001. What event specifically are you referring to?
I take CB's point, which is that the Catholic Church needs to take a step back and refrain from blathering about other people's sexuality for about 100 years or so. Until it comes clean about the kid fucking, and the covering up of the kid fucking, all the mealy mouthed apologies in the world don't negate its evil, evil recent history.
Obama's rhetoric about abortion being a "heart-rending moral and spiritual decision", seems to accept at face value that you are killing an innocent baby, or at least doing something wrong, and ignores that fact that for many women it is not at all a heart-rending decision.
Politically, it may be smart, if you are having the conversation with ardent pro-lifers. However, he says it frequently and it annoys me. Personally, I'd rather the president accept at face value the fact that I have autonomy over my own body and what is growing in it.
The reality is that under current laws, you have complete autonomy over your body and anything growing inside of it. Obama not only accepts that, he embraces it to a the most extreme of the pro-choice movement.
@momof3wildkids: I appreciate being diplomatic and open-minded, and not demonizing those that disagree with me on a particular issue. I'm not asking for him to mock or belittle pro-lifers. However, when the other side of this issue is trying to actively take away the autonomy that I have over my own body, I simply wish that the president would more enthusiastically defend that right.
@Grim Reaper of the Forest: Obama has a 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood. I think you could have a more enthusiastic person and still be remotely electable. Any more enthusiasm on his part and he would be just as nasty as the people who display pics of aborted fetuses during protests.
I'm curious Grim, when do you think life begins? Do you believe that there is there any point when a fetus is in a woman's body when terminating a pregnancy is killing a living being? I'm not trying to fan flames; I am trying to engage and be open minded as I am pro-life.
@momof3wildkids: I doubt we are going to resolve such deep philosophical differences over Gawker, but I don't think "when life begins" is the right question. All the cells in our body are "living", yet we don't assign them individual rights. Also, there are many independent living beings, like insects, that we kill on a daily basis without thinking about it. For me, the line is when the fetus could survive outside of the mother's body. Prior to that it is not a separate living being. If a three-week old fetus were a separate living being I could deliver it and give it up for adoption at that point.
@taosaur: For many women it is a difficult decision. I have never been in that position so I can't speak from personal experience either. Other people I know have been relieved. A person's reaction probably depends on what they actually think about when life begins, and how conflicted they feel about wanting the baby.
Wow Cajun boy. I think you missed an important point in Obama's speech... the part about having a reasonable discussion without demonizing the people with whom you disagree.
The Catholic Church is by no means perfect. It is an institution that strives for perfection but is populated with sinners. Duh. We all sin. You outline some of the Catholic Churches worst sins and they are indeed horrible. I could add one more that was awful: the Catholic Church's relative silence during the time when Germany had concentration camps.
As for the death penalty, you rightly point out that GWB signed the papers which condemned those found guilty of murder and other horrific crimes. I am against the death penalty, but there is a significance difference between abortion and death penalty. With abortion, many believe that you are killing an innocent fetus/child. With the death penalty, presumably one has committed and has been found guilty of a crime. Perhaps that is why GWB was not protested against when he spoke at ND.
As I it was explained to me by someone who went there, the protests against Bush at the University of Notre Dame were quite vociferous and were played out both in the student papers and in protests. There were also many protests on campus put on by several student organizations. The Catholic social justice peaceniks and the blanket organization that united several smaller student groups were quite vocal in their opposition to Bush. These groups were met, of course, with widespread apathy from both the students and the administration. People were either depressed that Bush was elected over Gore, or they were apathetic or they were scared of saying anything.
The problem is that at ND, in order for a student group to protest, it's necessary to receive approval from the administration. Also, many of the students are sheepish about running counter to the administration and the Board of Trustees for the latter was perceived as supporting Bush policies, as Condoleezza Rice as well as several other prominent Republicans sat on the board. The students who would have otherwise done something were just interested in getting their diplomas and getting the hell out of the university without incurring any sort of blemish on their record from an administration that did always seem to work in mysterious ways to suspend people, re-budget student funding or disband political groups on campus. That would have been a waste of the $30,000+ yearly tuition.
For the record, however, George W. Bush was protested in May of 2001 by a little under 700 people. He was protested because of his support of tax breaks for the rich and his defense policies. The capital punishment debate was sidestepped completely because it was not part of Bush's policy initiatives. It could have been discussed, but there were more pressing matters. Discussions of capital punishment at Notre Dame have a way of taking center stage over all other debates. The petition that was circulated specifically left that point out to keep the protests focused, not because, as you suggest, that people saw it as being more acceptable in comparison with abortion because it was sanctioned by the judiciary.
Here is an article for your reading pleasure about the protests and the petition.
@i'm a bottle: I also was told to add that the demographic at Notre Dame that supported Bush was divided in their support of capital punishment. The ND student body was, at the time, almost rabidly conservative but was nevertheless open to debate on the capital punishment issue.
@momof3wildkids: A Catholic proper should be against both war and the death penalty, if they're also against abortion, as it's not their affair to end the life of any other human being on earth.
Any other justification is one that's personal, and not religious.
@Pope John Peeps II: A Catholic doesn't need to be against war, a Catholic just has to submit to proper moral principles deciding to go to war (ius ad bellum) and in war (ius in bello).
@momof3wildkids: @Pope John Peeps II: Oops, I guess I snapped there. Sorry. I just had a few cups of tea so that I could write, and I guess I got a little miffed.
I should have said that the Vatican has no official teaching on the two wars in Iraq, so Catholics can act on it in any way they wish as long as it jives with what their bishop says and what they know Church teaching to be in general. The Vatican generally officially provides wide latitude in what the bishops and priests can say, but who knows what goes on behind closed doors? Who knows what kind of an unofficial warning the Vatican will give to an archbishop who goes around preaching against the war?
The just war doctrine I mentioned above is an important concept that is drawn out formally in a pastoral document (letters to bishops and priests) composed during the Second Vatican Council. Such documents are for bishops to understand and interpret. They, in turn, give their marching orders to priests. Ordinary Catholics don't have to deal with this though. Catholics just have to listen to the bishops -- and the priests -- who are expected to answer questions relating to all this. This is why they have a hierarchy, so that ordinary people don't have to think about it.
I should mention that I'm not Catholic, so I may be wrong about some of these things.
Catholic Universities, in the Jesuit Tradition, are about learning at its very best. Socratic thinking is part of it. Asking questions. Always including "the greater good." I argue that an economy that is thriving will reduce more abortions than a million signs shoved in the faces of poor women. Ask yourself, of the 2000 or so car dealerships just handed a closure notice, how many of the employees who find themselves or their wives newly pregnant won't have a much tougher choice - or perhaps consider the choice for the first time in their lives - as their families collapse under econonmic strain?
Learning to think is what education is all about (perhaps not at the Liberty Universities of the nation, however.)
07/17/09
Is that President Obama, dressed in that garb? He's getting more clever.
It erased my photo for some reason. NSA interference no doubt.
05/18/09
a) he could NOT have 'easily' done so, not without serious repercussions to his standing.
just the same as you cannot 'easily' address affirmative action and the black community, or illegal immigration and the latin community, or any wrong doings by israel towards the palestinians without hearing from the american jewish community...a large number of which are not israeli, and not serious, practicing jews.
b) all of those instances have been addressed, some to an appropriate degree, others, i wish the church could take its own medicine sometimes and seek forgiveness.
point is, you're beating a dead horse, and the ideals of the church's teachings should not be diminished by it's human and imperfect practice and institution. rome wasn't built in a day. neither was democracy. etc. al.
you also fail to realize, faith aside, how much good the church does in way of education, charity work, and donations. when was the last time you put a few bucks in the basket?
the only issue you brought up that is immediately relevant is the child abuse scandal. and on that...could you have a bit more fucking tact? you could have gotten your point across without being so crude. what happened was terrible, yes. no excuses. but this behavior was NOT condoned and NOT perpetrated by the church. you're dead wrong. you need to look these words up in the dictionary.
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
The hypocrisy of the whole protest she-bang is just so ingenious; it's really just fascinating watching the way denial and disillusion works.
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
The author actually made the point that Obama did the right thing by not insulting his hosts.
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
We will debate this in the court of public opinion. And I'm going to win. Nyaah, nyaah, nyaah.
05/18/09
05/18/09
[gawker.com]
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
Politically, it may be smart, if you are having the conversation with ardent pro-lifers. However, he says it frequently and it annoys me. Personally, I'd rather the president accept at face value the fact that I have autonomy over my own body and what is growing in it.
05/18/09
The reality is that under current laws, you have complete autonomy over your body and anything growing inside of it. Obama not only accepts that, he embraces it to a the most extreme of the pro-choice movement.
05/18/09
05/18/09
I'm curious Grim, when do you think life begins? Do you believe that there is there any point when a fetus is in a woman's body when terminating a pregnancy is killing a living being? I'm not trying to fan flames; I am trying to engage and be open minded as I am pro-life.
05/18/09
@taosaur: For many women it is a difficult decision. I have never been in that position so I can't speak from personal experience either. Other people I know have been relieved. A person's reaction probably depends on what they actually think about when life begins, and how conflicted they feel about wanting the baby.
05/18/09
The Catholic Church is by no means perfect. It is an institution that strives for perfection but is populated with sinners. Duh. We all sin. You outline some of the Catholic Churches worst sins and they are indeed horrible. I could add one more that was awful: the Catholic Church's relative silence during the time when Germany had concentration camps.
As for the death penalty, you rightly point out that GWB signed the papers which condemned those found guilty of murder and other horrific crimes. I am against the death penalty, but there is a significance difference between abortion and death penalty. With abortion, many believe that you are killing an innocent fetus/child. With the death penalty, presumably one has committed and has been found guilty of a crime. Perhaps that is why GWB was not protested against when he spoke at ND.
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
[www.nd.edu]
05/18/09
As I it was explained to me by someone who went there, the protests against Bush at the University of Notre Dame were quite vociferous and were played out both in the student papers and in protests. There were also many protests on campus put on by several student organizations. The Catholic social justice peaceniks and the blanket organization that united several smaller student groups were quite vocal in their opposition to Bush. These groups were met, of course, with widespread apathy from both the students and the administration. People were either depressed that Bush was elected over Gore, or they were apathetic or they were scared of saying anything.
The problem is that at ND, in order for a student group to protest, it's necessary to receive approval from the administration. Also, many of the students are sheepish about running counter to the administration and the Board of Trustees for the latter was perceived as supporting Bush policies, as Condoleezza Rice as well as several other prominent Republicans sat on the board. The students who would have otherwise done something were just interested in getting their diplomas and getting the hell out of the university without incurring any sort of blemish on their record from an administration that did always seem to work in mysterious ways to suspend people, re-budget student funding or disband political groups on campus. That would have been a waste of the $30,000+ yearly tuition.
For the record, however, George W. Bush was protested in May of 2001 by a little under 700 people. He was protested because of his support of tax breaks for the rich and his defense policies. The capital punishment debate was sidestepped completely because it was not part of Bush's policy initiatives. It could have been discussed, but there were more pressing matters. Discussions of capital punishment at Notre Dame have a way of taking center stage over all other debates. The petition that was circulated specifically left that point out to keep the protests focused, not because, as you suggest, that people saw it as being more acceptable in comparison with abortion because it was sanctioned by the judiciary.
Here is an article for your reading pleasure about the protests and the petition.
[www.nd.edu]
05/18/09
05/18/09
Any other justification is one that's personal, and not religious.
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
I should have said that the Vatican has no official teaching on the two wars in Iraq, so Catholics can act on it in any way they wish as long as it jives with what their bishop says and what they know Church teaching to be in general. The Vatican generally officially provides wide latitude in what the bishops and priests can say, but who knows what goes on behind closed doors? Who knows what kind of an unofficial warning the Vatican will give to an archbishop who goes around preaching against the war?
The just war doctrine I mentioned above is an important concept that is drawn out formally in a pastoral document (letters to bishops and priests) composed during the Second Vatican Council. Such documents are for bishops to understand and interpret. They, in turn, give their marching orders to priests. Ordinary Catholics don't have to deal with this though. Catholics just have to listen to the bishops -- and the priests -- who are expected to answer questions relating to all this. This is why they have a hierarchy, so that ordinary people don't have to think about it.
I should mention that I'm not Catholic, so I may be wrong about some of these things.
05/18/09
Learning to think is what education is all about (perhaps not at the Liberty Universities of the nation, however.)
05/18/09
05/18/09