Another player on this site (Fr Peter West) promotes his blog on this site and I wrote the following email to him in disgust at what I found. I wonder if others agree.
I dislike your Blog, especially the following comment about Obama which would not have appeared without your approval: "Any Catholic who voted for this evil man is in danger of losing their salvation."
You are seeming to place the Catholic Church (through your status as a priest) in opposition to one of the most important civil rights success stories of the past fifty years, the culmination in many eyes of that courageous movement. This is poor politics for a start. And to what end?
It is neither Catholic nor Christian to describe Obama as "an evil man." You are entitled to consider specific behaviours or opinions as evil, but here you go at "this evil man." When you promote such statements it seems difficult to accept that you have an authentic religious ground for your behaviour. Nothing in Catholic teaching entitles you or encourages you to usurp the role of divine judgement. I prefer the Buddha's term for your error: it is "unskillful."
Without engaging in any debate about the Pro Life posture whcih dominates your blog I am concerned that
1: you discount the possibility that some Catholics who do not disagree with you on that specific issue might balance this with other moral issues of great importance - I would note the issues of torture, Guantanamo Bay, and the environmental damage caused by US policies on energy as sample moral issues - where they may believe that Obama has better credentials
2: you discount the multicultural and multi faith nature of American society; a major driver in early (US) American thinking was to secure freedom of religious expression. I do not see that a "secular" state need be one in which religion is oppressed; quite the contrary, you need a secular state to protect YOUR rights to your beliefs and your faith. Alternatively, you can return to the religious wars of the past and speculate as to which side God wants to succeed in murdering the rest.
3: you make the error of insisting that because something is a sin it ought to be criminal. Again, usurping the divine role.
I will copy this email to a discussion Forum as you have not accepted it onto your Blog.
Here is the reply I got (below). Of course I did not attack this priest's Pro Life beliefs, but I did attack his inability to perceive that others - including others who agree with those views - might have perfectly valid moral grounds to support Obama and that it is mistaken to bury all other debates by exclusive focus on this specific in which many practising Christians, even Catholics, simply do not see things his way.
I wondered if it was possible to debate anything intelligent with this guy by lending some respect to his own views (with which I naturally disagree because they are too simplistic to merit more than tolerance) and on reflection, his email response suggests not. But then, maybe the chess grade already told me that.
Of Course, one could ask why was Jesus more concerned with protecting outcasts than pharisees but then, that would sound sanctimonious.
From: Fr Peter West wingsubscriberwing
Date: Nov 09 2008 06:02
Subject: RE : Your Blog
Please spare me your sanctimonious drivel. I'm not in the mood for it.
Why are liberals more concerned with the rights of terrorists, or comments on a blog than innocent babies?
Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. That's a fact, not just a religious belief.
In a partial-birth abortion scissors are jammed into the back of a baby's skull and their brains are sucked out. Anyone who thinks this should be a right IS evil.
Originally posted by finneganIf being a bigot is a qualification for salvation then I'd rather take my chances on spending all eternity in Hell.
Another player on this site (Fr Peter West) promotes his blog on this site and I wrote the following email to him in disgust at what I found. I wonder if others agree.
I dislike your Blog, especially the following comment about Obama which would not have appeared without your approval: "Any Catholic who voted for this evil man is in danger of losing the ...[text shortened]... ill copy this email to a discussion Forum as you have not accepted it onto your Blog.
Originally posted by finneganHe seems like a dick.
Here is the reply I got (below). Of course I did not attack this priest's Pro Life beliefs, but I did attack his inability to perceive that others - including others who agree with those views - might have perfectly valid moral grounds to support Obama and that it is mistaken to bury all other debates by exclusive focus on this specific in which many pract ...[text shortened]... y's skull and their brains are sucked out. Anyone who thinks this should be a right IS evil.
If I understand the OP correctly the characterization of Obama as "an evil man" came from a commenter on the blog, not the blogger himself. Though he may have decided to let the commentator's opinion through it does not necessarily follow that the blogger himself would describe Obama as "an evil man". I think this is much ado about nothing.
The notion that he is somehow a "bigot" seems false to me, since the following can be found in the first paragraph of the blog.
"I understand the importance of the symbolism of the first African-American to be elected President. I'd be celebrating this achievement too, if I believed that Barack Obama truly respected the principles upon which this nation was founded."
I don't see the bigotry in that.
As for him being a "dick", well I'll just say that's priceless considering the source.
Some liberals may not like it, but people are still as yet entitled to their own opinions, and some of those opinions are strongly against Obama. Harassing another member with e-mails and then posting them in the forum for a good old lefty tar-and-feathering seems like the height of sanctimony indeed.
Originally posted by finneganYou will know them by their acts.
Another player on this site (Fr Peter West) promotes his blog on this site and I wrote the following email to him in disgust at what I found. I wonder if others agree.
I dislike your Blog, especially the following comment about Obama which would not have appeared without your approval: "Any Catholic who voted for this evil man is in danger of losing the ...[text shortened]... ill copy this email to a discussion Forum as you have not accepted it onto your Blog.
Originally posted by SleepyguyOh dear. What is the distinction between opening a debate and harassing? I was responding to something that was promoted on this site via a player's profile - how else would I find myself reading it? I thought that if he could promote his opinions here then perhaps it was appropriate to comment, while ensuring that I drew this to his attention.
Some liberals may not like it, but people are still as yet entitled to their own opinions, and some of those opinions are strongly against Obama. Harassing another member with e-mails and then posting them in the forum for a good old lefty tar-and-feathering seems like the height of sanctimony indeed.[/b]
The American Right's use of the term "liberal" as a term of disparagement is bizarre as is the extra bite I presume you imply in the term "lefty." It is not uniquely "Left" and arguably more often "Right" in Britain (for example) to argue for the rights of the individual against an over powerful state. So to worry about the mistreatment in Special Rendition programmes and Guantanamo Bay of people who are not in reality proven terrorists and often just in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong religious affiliation, is to my mind well within the remit of all good thinking citizens of this planet. Ditto for environmental issues.
Why do I care? If Americans can be relied on to vote FOR any idiot (let's say, Sarah Palin) or AGAINST even so remarkable a candidate as Obama on the basis of emotive single issues, then they are open to manipulation by the powerful interests behind those idiots. They can avoid defending their actions and their plans and instead buy cheap votes by promising to restrict Women's rights (or do they defend the Rights of the Unborn? I think they could not care less, they just want your vote once every few years). The damage inflicted on the World by the past eight years of New Right leadership in the US has been intolerable. But never mind the fate of this planet and its citizens say the single issue believers. Well I think that is dangerous - for us all.
Here's how democracy works. Ideas are debated in public and with appropriate but not excessive respect, Those participating learn from each other. Those observing see conflicting opinions and think critically about the issues. Bad ideas are exposed and good ideas discovered. We learn. We grow. We take our heads out of that paper bag and deal with reality.
Originally posted by finneganI think that a vast majority of politicians are swayed regarding the issue of abortion by the politics of their respective parties. Case in point, name me a Democrat who is opposed to abortion? How successful would a pro-life Democrat be in his own party? They simply have too many lobbying groups that support them that are pro-aboriton. After all, abortion on demand is a big money business.
Oh dear. What is the distinction between opening a debate and harassing? I was responding to something that was promoted on this site via a player's profile - how else would I find myself reading it? I thought that if he could promote his opinions here then perhaps it was appropriate to comment, while ensuring that I drew this to his attention.
The Amer . We learn. We grow. We take our heads out of that paper bag and deal with reality.
Conversely, I suppose you could name some that are Republican who favor abortion, however, not when they are running for the Presidency. They would NEVER make it without the religious right. Having said that, you might say that politicians are "souless" empty suits regarding such matters because it really comes down to political expediency in my opinion.
Originally posted by finneganSanctimonious drivel indeed.
Oh dear. What is the distinction between opening a debate and harassing? I was responding to something that was promoted on this site via a player's profile - how else would I find myself reading it? I thought that if he could promote his opinions here then perhaps it was appropriate to comment, while ensuring that I drew this to his attention.
The Amer ...[text shortened]... . We learn. We grow. We take our heads out of that paper bag and deal with reality.
Originally posted by generalissimoOnce again, you have added your interpretation to what the Bible says. It says "Thou shalt not kill". Not "Thou shalt not kill innocent lives".
Don't bother being a bigot,
If you support the killing of innocent lives, you'll go to hell anyway.
You support both the war and the death penalty, therefore you support killing. By your logic you are going to hell anyway.
See you there.
Originally posted by CliffLandinActually the translation should be tho shalt not murder.
Once again, you have added your interpretation to what the Bible says. It says "Thou shalt not kill". Not "Thou shalt not kill innocent lives".
You support both the war and the death penalty, therefore you support killing. By your logic you are going to hell anyway.
See you there.