Posts Tagged ‘pet peeves’

…unless those views make the wrong people uncomfortable.

It this was a secular organization that would be bad enough but that it is Notre Dame it boggles the mind. The quote from American Papist seems apt:

“Truly the late great Professor Ralph McInerny was correct in his styling of Notre Dame’s ‘truly vulgar lust’ to be accepted by the secular academy and the secular world.”

Read the e-mail exchange and the column that it was over. If it column sounds familiar if you read this blog it should be, and his logical conclusion is the same secular argument that I’ve been making for years on the subject:

Personally on a religious level I can’t support gay marriage but this is not a valid argument for a non-religious person. On a non-religious level it seems to me you can not rationally say that gay marriage is ok and should be legal without also allowing either polygamy and incest between consenting adults. Both have a longer and more accepted cultural history worldwide.

And PLEASE don’t give me the “ick” factor argument about these other things being accepted. Ick is just an argument about culture. It is the same argument that one would have heard concerning gay marriage less that 20 years ago. It is particularly galling when gay people are subject to state sponsored murder in places like Iran and ick is invoked beside Islam.

It is a pet peeve of mine when Catholic institutions try to apologize for being Catholic or run away from Catholic teaching or raise money touting their Catholicism while downplaying it in person. It disgusts me. If you want to be Protestant, be Protestant, if you want to be secular be secular, but don’t pretend to be Catholic when you are not.

Let’s finish with two quotes: The First from Professor’s Rice’s letter of response:

In a university that claims to be Catholic, I am not willing to restrict my presentation of Catholic teaching to a format that treats the authoritative teaching of the Church as merely one viewpoint or “side” among many. If you require that future columns of mine on homosexuality comply with a format such as you propose, it will be inappropriate for me to continue writing the column for the Observer.

The first quote implies that he knows the second.

Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. Luke 9:26

My youngest son is going to be of college age in two years. If you are the president of a Catholic College that is ACTUALLY Catholic I’d love to hear from you. Consider that an open invitation.

Update: The Curt Jester is unhappy too.

Update 2: “In the Land of Believers” is being touched on today at Morning Joe. It is a good parallel.

…is considered offensive by a local Blogger:

Fitchburg Massachusetts:

The Massachusetts state commission on Indian Affairs is being described as “horrifically offensive” by local blogger DaTechGuy and he suggests that it be changed.

The local Blogger fresh of his visit to CPAC expressed his views after reading this Fox 25 story this morning where the commission decided that the Massachusetts State Seal was “patently offensive” and suggested to replace it.

The Blogger deplored the ignorance of the state commission which seems to be unaware that the seal was first introduced in 1780 by John Hancock long after local Indian wars were over. It also ignores that the sword represents the the motto at the bottom “By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty”.

The Blogger suggests that given the timing of it’s introduction (1775) by the provincial congress it clearly refers to the battle with the English from who we obtained independence and that the general court’s official adoption of the seal in 1885 does not represent any attack or offense on the American Indian.

The blogger deplored the attempt by the commission to find offense where none existed and the attempt to re-write the history of the state for the sake of a politically correct agenda. Said blogger suggests that instead they focus on actual Indian issues concerning land and/or conditions rather than “make work” changes to the sake of their own self worth.

Material from the web site NetState was used for this blog post.

…concerning my interview with Katherine Jenerette.

I can’t claim to know the facts, being a very long way away, nor do I claim to know the Mrs. Jenerette personally. My contact with her consisted of that interview and of sitting next to her as she had a long pleasant chat with a lady concerning life and children, and showing off pictures of our families. My gut says when someone attempts to personally ruin somebody with a chance for a congressional seat, that sounds very wrong. I think it smells.

What follows is pure speculation…

I’m guessing that she is doing well in a very crowded field, I’m guessing that the only chance that some people have to win is to attempt to bring her down any way they can and if her family has to suffer so be it.

How disgraceful, how disgusting! No single seat of power is worth such tactics and no candidate who uses or endorses such tactics is worthy of any high office. I’d sooner vote for an acolyte of Nancy Pelosi than someone who would use such methods.

And consider, this is a race in South Carolina, I am a Massachusetts Yankee who’s grandparents came from Sicily about 100 years ago. Can my interview and opinion be so critical to the voters of South Carolina that it has to be countered? How desperate must some people be?…

….end pure speculation.

I have always believed the best way to answer speech is more speech but this is a type of thing I’ve seen before and I don’t like it and since comments are moderated I can do something about it.

So here is what is going to happen. If you make a germane argument why this candidate should not be elected, a position you don’t like, a better candidate offered, etc I’ll allow the comment. Any further attempt to hit this lady’s family will not make it past the censor.

And yes this is censorship in the same way that I censor my sons if they use language that is not proper, in the same way that I expect guests in my house to behave with decorum.

I will repeat what I said before: My impression of this lady from the brief time I’ve met her is that she is a fine woman, with a fine family that she is very proud of. A man married to her deserves a handshake. I would be pleased if she was my congresswoman but even happier if she was my neighbor. I don’t know her husband and family but I think I’d like to.

And if you would like another perspective Smitty interviewed her too and likes her. Other than the lapse of allowing me to stay in his house during CPAC, he is a very good judge of Character.

Jihad event and sure enough by an odd turn of events I ended up getting in the door 30 minutes late.

After seeing it I’m convinced my original thought was correct. This is the single most important issue facing this nation and if it is ignored we will suffer for it and deservedly so. I can’t say enough about the courage and dedication of Ms. Geller. She is an international treasure!

I includes some clips and photos here:

And some short clips: