St. Thomas Controversy over Star Parker Speech Has a Happy Ending — or Does It?
April 15th, 2008 – 4:05 PMYesterday, I wrote about the University of St. Thomas’ refusal to allow pro-life speaker Star Parker to appear on campus on April 21. University officials were not “comfortable” having Parker appear because the Young America’s Foundation – which had underwritten commentator Ann Coulter’s visit in 2005 — was paying half her fee.
This afternoon, however, St. Thomas announced that Parker will be speaking after all. She will appear on April 21 at 7:00 in O’Shaughnessy Educational Center auditorium at the university’s invitation. According to a St. Thomas “bulletin update,” the university
extended the invitation Monday after the decision was made to use St. Thomas funds to pay her speaker’s fee and related expenses, thus giving university officials more involvement in managing the event.
Parker, a syndicated columnist, is active in the pro-life movement. Critics of St. Thomas’ original decision not to invite Parker said the decision diminished the university’s position on pro-life issues.
‘St. Thomas proudly functions within the Catholic intellectual tradition,’ said Dr. Mark Dienhart, executive vice president…. ‘We are now and always have been fully supportive of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. This issue has always been about what is the appropriate involvement of the university in scheduling speakers, not about any particular speaker or his or her message. We are glad we have reached this agreement with Ms. Parker.’
St. Thomas’ Student Life Committee, which had voted not to provide a room for Parker’s appearance, reconsidered the issue of her speech after being informed that the university itself would pay for the event.
St. Thomas deserves a round of applause for — in one respect — doing the right thing here. But there’s more to the story, as Power Line blog reports.
Alumna Katie Kieffer, who organized Parker’s original, YAF-sponsored appearance, remains concerned about a double standard on liberal/conservative speakers at the university. She says she plans to continue pressuring school authorities for equity and intellectual diversity.
286 Responses to "St. Thomas Controversy over Star Parker Speech Has a Happy Ending — or Does It?"
Again, KK, would you have been just as upset if UST had not allowed a speech by someone who was going to speak in favor of Roe v Wade?
How ’bout “more openness to..” ALL speakers?
JonR–KK doesn’t need to be upset if it was the other way…the ACLU, this paper, and many other media outlets would get outraged. Thankfully someone is out there is who looking out for those of us who tend to agree with her points of view.
Ummm… Yes, any Catholic should be upset if there were to be a Pro-Choice speaker at UST. And no, there does not need to be more openness to all speakers. It’s is a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY. A Catholic University should not be giving podiums to those who expressly reject the teachings of the Church and are directly lecturing about the topic. UST needs to always be open to speakers who are lecturing on topics that uphold the sanctity of life from conception to natural death and any other topic that dovetails with the Catholic teaching mission of the University.
JonR–KK wouldn’t have to get upset about a speech by someone favoring RvW–the ACLU, this paper, and many other media outlets would all throw a fit.
Thank goodness there is someone who is willing to stand up for some morality and common sense!
Shouldn’t any good institution be able to stand up to contradiction/criticism? Contradictory ideas, if wrong, should only strengthen your view. If not, adjustments should be made.
Shouldn’t any good institution be able to stand up to contradiction/criticism? Contradictory ideas, if wrong, should only strengthen your view. If not, adjustments should be made.
If you take UST’s statement at face value, it will not lead to more cooperation with groups like the Young America’s Foundation - that was their beef. And this statement doesn’t change that at all - they took on the full financial responsibility, in exchange for “more control” over the speaking arrangements.
I’ve got no really strong opinion about this particular issue, but I think it is pretty oblivious for KK to conclude as she did.
Teachermom. Read the letters to the editors about KK columns. They are hilarious. There must be about a dozen people who wake up everyday and no matter what the subject get out that Rip the KK column” template. Change a few words around and hit the send button.
Hi, all,
I’m with FaithandReason on this one, and I think his or her comment is well said. Thank you.
I would add that if I were the head of UST, I would allow speakers whose views conflict with Catholicism, IF and only if, the speaker(s) were part of a panel that included orthodox Catholic intellectuals, so the students could hear both sides of the argument.
There’s a fine line between teaching and indoctrination. I would hope that young Catholics over 18 have been “indoctrinated” (note that word contains the word “doctrine”) enough that they can be taught. I think college is as good a place as any for those young Catholics to learn that not everyone in the world (to put it very mildly) agrees with the Church; but it’s also a good place for them to learn how to defend what they believe in.
G. K. Chesterton said in one of his books (I think it was Orthodoxy ), words to the effect that Christian intellectuals have to be able to chew and digest the toughest and strongest meat of pagan philosophies.
He says in his book Saint Thomas Aquinas that “St. Thomas was willing to allow the one truth tom approached by two paths, precisely because he was sure there was only one truth. Because the Faith was the one truth, nothing discovered in nature could ultimately contradict the Faith. Because the Faith was the one truth, nothing deduced from the Faith could ultimately contradict the facts. It was in truth a curiously daring confidence in the reality of his religion….”
I was at the U of M from 1962 to 1972 and have read a lot since, and I have never run across any idea that successfully contradicted my faith. Any difficulties I have, and have had, come from within myself.
Hi, all,
Typographical error:
“St. Thomas was willing to allow the one truth tom approached by two paths”
should read:
“St. Thomas was willing to allow the one truth to be approached by two paths”
Again, my thanks to FaithandReason.
A Catholic University should not be giving podiums to those who expressly reject the teachings of the Church and are directly lecturing about the topic.
Perhaps you should read this commentary piece written by Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity College (a Catholic university) in Washington. It appeared in the Strib yesterday:
EBF
Are you saying you agree with the article?
The article seems nothing more to me than a thinly-veiled attempt at trying to change a private organization whose beliefs the writer does not agree with.
It is obvious why you latched on to the article (advocating allowing gay clubs).
The writer’s logic is mind boggling when she tries to compare as equals: the stag[ing] a play about women’s body parts (”The Vagina Monologues”); allow[ing] gay students to form clubs; or allow[ing] speakers whose political views diverge from church teachings.
The first two are actions (and just so you don’t attack me personally - ones I don’t agree with) that go against the teachings of their faith. They are not the same as allowing discussions about those actions.
EBF, we get it. You want your gay lifestyle or whatever is the PC term today to refer to your gender orientation to be accepted everywhere. However, this is a free society, a private organization members gets to decide what they want about the members of that organizations.
The article seems nothing more to me than a thinly-veiled attempt at trying to change a private organization whose beliefs the writer does not agree with.
MOI, I guess I could say the same thing about KK’s original column.
Gypsy
MOI, I guess I could say the same thing about KK’s original column.
I would agree with that. However, I was not trying to compare KK’s column to the other column. I was commenting on EBF’s posting the link to bolster his position. By by adding a “president of a catholic university’s article”, EBF is saying that if a president of a catholic university (as he posted in his parentehetical statement) is advocating for something then it is all good and something special. I am saying that it isn’t.
In addition, I also pointed out the ill-chosen and wrong comparison in the article.
Mindless dogmatism is not part of the Catholic intellectual tradition.
YES IT IS. This is the perfect summary of the Catholic faith!!! Mindless dogmatism. Step into any Mass and that’s all you’ll get. I love it!
Well, that’s not really fair. There are a few Catholics wanting to step out of the box, ‘progressives,’ if you will. But the majority, right there - they love their mindless dogma.
“But the majority, right there - they love their mindless dogma.”
I love the stain glass windows.
AND the pipe organ, and the pictures of the uterus with the baby developing inside in the vestibule. My son particularly loves the bloodied Jesus on the crucifix. “mommy why is he hurting? why don’t they give hima bandaid or the doctor?”
You use to be able to look at a catholic priest and say to yourself
“Man I’m not gettin’ much “action” lately, but at least I’m getting’ more “action” then that guy”
hey tiny
I need to commission a blog song.
how many blogs bucks do you charge for creating a song.
The song i want is about MOI being a blog bully.
Something like……
MOI MOI he’s a blog bully, wah wah wah.
Some Catholics go to church late on Sunday morning. Stand in the back for a couple minutes. Bolt out of there only to drive over to some poor hung over Lutheran guys house who doesn’t HAVE to go to church, and wake him up.
M.O.I. Stay with the “I hate you guys” poem. You can stick the name right in there.
“Thank goodness there is someone who is willing to stand up for some morality and common sense!”
Let me know when they get here. Im still waiting.
FaithandReason posted his/her opinion that “A Catholic University should not be giving podiums to those who expressly reject the teachings of the Church.”
Because I had read McGuire’s article, which offers a different opinion authored by what I would consider a credible and knowledgeable source on Catholic intellectual tradition (the president of a Catholic university and a practitioner of the Catholic faith), I directed readers to it. It was simply another viewpoint to consider.
Are you saying you agree with the article?
I neither agree nor disagree. Because I was not raised in the Catholic faith, I do not have the personal experience necessary to agree or disagree with McGuire’s opinions. I’d like to believe that she is right, but I do not know that she is.
The article seems nothing more to me than a thinly-veiled attempt at trying to change a private organization whose beliefs the writer does not agree with.
I certainly understand this cynical interpretation, and find some merit in it. I too am suspicious of McGuire’s claims. However, I note that in the article, McGuire never did express her personal views about abortion, same-sex marriage or any other controversial topic. What she did say is that
“[r]ather than being afraid of the expression of contrary ideas, we should leverage the teaching opportunities inherent in the free and open exchange of ideas that is essential to university life. If our faith is as strong as we claim it to be, we should not fear the cacophony that emerges during the struggle of learning.”
It is obvious why you latched on to the article (advocating allowing gay clubs).
I didn’t “latch on” to the article. I simply referred readers to another point of view to consider. That is all. My sexual orientation was irrelevant to that action.
EBF, we get it. You want your gay lifestyle or whatever is the PC term today to refer to your gender orientation to be accepted everywhere.
That would be nice, yes. But this has nothing to do with posting the link to the article. Had McGuire omitted any reference to gays or sexual orientation, I still would have posted the link.
However, this is a free society, a private organization members gets to decide what they want about the members of that organizations.
I agree, and have said so many times before.
I was commenting on EBF’s posting the link to bolster his position.
What position would that be? Gay rights? Again, my sexual orientation and opinions about gay rights had nothing to do with posting the link. You, not I, are trying to make it an issue here. It is a red herring.
By by adding a “president of a catholic university’s article”, EBF is saying that if a president of a catholic university (as he posted in his parentehetical statement) is advocating for something then it is all good and something special.
I said nothing of the kind. In fact, such a claim that I would say or believe any such thing is laughable. It is reasonable to presume that most presidents of Catholic universities advocate some, perhaps many, positions that are directly opposed to my own – abortion and same-sex marriage come to mind – so how on earth can you conclude that I believe Catholic university presidents who argue pro-life and “traditional” marriage positions are advocating something that is “all good and something special?” Again, McGuire never stated her personal opinions about these topics. I have no reason to believe that she favors same-sex marriage, and every reason to suspect that she opposes it.
The parenthetical statement gave information about the institution that the author oversees. Because I cannot assume that people will be familiar with Trinity University – I’d never heard of it myself before I read McGuire’s article – I thought the fact that it was a Catholic university was important and relevant to the topic at hand.
Most Catholic universities have a wonderful tradition of encouraging discussion and debate from everyone. This is a tradition going all the way back to St Thomas Aquinas — whom the U of St Thomas is named after. St Thomas believed that the Christian faith will hold up to the most vigorous philosophical debate.
OH how nice.
EBF would like us to believe he was just presenting another side of the argument - how did EBF put…“simply referred readers to another point of view to consider”
I say bull carp. EBF presented this other point of view because he advocate’s that point of view. This is indictive of EBF’s method right here. He posts his opinion (or in this case he posts someone elses opinion he obviously wants us to think he shares with them too). Then when he is shown how blantently illogical or false his reasoning is (or in this case the other person) - he back pedals and then posts that we misunderstood his post or he did not really post that at all.
Come on, MAN UP and take personal responsibility for your posting the link…You posted the link - not just to consider another point of view…..You posted the link because you believe in that other’s point of view.
The parenthetical statement gave information about the institution that the author oversees. Because I cannot assume that people will be familiar with Trinity University – I’d never heard of it myself before I read McGuire’s article – I thought the fact that it was a Catholic university was important and relevant to the topic at hand.
Your so close….you posted it because you thought it was relevant - WHY did you think it was relevant? You thought it relevant because by being a president of the catholic university it lended more credibility to her article. Again, at least admit why you are doing what you are doing.
Why didn’t you address the other point (and more important) in my post….that the argument the writer put forth was an illogical and false comparison.
Could it be you would rather just nitpick and divert the argument or maybe you would rather debate semantics? Isn’t that what you accuse me of?
Faithandreason, I completely disagree with this statement: “A Catholic University should not be giving podiums to those who expressly reject the teachings of the Church and are directly lecturing about the topic.” One’s position can only be made stronger by having someone provide a counter argument against which one can argue. I went to a Catholic college and we had speakers from all sorts of positions. We went to them for class and for personal reasons, and while I didn’t always agree with their point of view (or all the points of view of the Church), it was good to hear the views and think for myself. It’s one of the reasons I read KK. I may not always agree with her and I certainly don’t think she’s the best writer, but she makes me think again about my own assumptions and ideas. I’m glad to have this diversity of opinion.
As for the UST issue, I’m glad they have the speaker coming. I’d also be glad to have a pro-choice speaker coming. Respectful dialogue on college campuses, regardless of religious dogma, MUST happen. One cannot learn by indoctrination but does learn through constructing one’s own meaning through discussion of ideas.
Ahh, yes. It’s bash the Catholics week again. Very nice.
The Catholic Church (which, by the way, translates to the “universal” church) is a diverse, broad body of people who have a faith based upon a common dogma (”set of principles”) which they use to guide them in every day life. And yes, Catholics love their guiding principles. I am not sure, tanks, how a set of principles can be mindless, but thanks for your summary of how I live my life. Very nice.
UST is a private institution, and while I am not sure why they felt the YAF would not provide them with enough control over a campus event, it is perfectly within their rights to have control over a campus event. It seems like much ado about nothing, to me.
Except for the bashing the Cahtolics thing. Really, people.
I have some questions….doesn’t this blog often raise the point “If you don’t like it, go to school somewhere else”….maybe you need to start a new, more “Catholic” university.
If how “Catholic” should this University be? If it’s OK to not allow gay clubs, should you even allow gay students to attend? Should you even accept students who aren’t catholic into your university? What if they just say their catholic but aren’t really catholic?
Dang!! Delete the “If” at the start of the 2nd paragraph.
“Dang!! Delete the “If” at the start of the 2nd paragraph.”
“you could wile away the hours
Conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain
And your head I’d be scratchin’
While your thoughts were busy hatchin’
If you only had a brain
you’d unravel any riddle
For any individ’le
In trouble or in pain
With the thoughts you’d be thinkin’
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain
Oh, you would tell you why
The ocean’s near the shore
you could think of things you never thunk before
And then you’d sit and think some more
you would not be just a nuffin’
your head all full of stuffin’
your heart all full of pain
you would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If you only had a brain”
Do openly gay students attend Private Muslim Universities?
Should a neo-Nazi skinhead be allowed to attend a Private Jewish college?
That’s why they are private. They want to “express” the institutions views and “shelter” if you will the students from the nastiness of the real world.
I assume that’s why they are formed. If a parent or students wants to attend the school for those specific reason….what the hell..its “private”
Let me see if I’m understanding this correctly. I can READ the comments put on this blog. I can GIVE my comments on this blog, or I can COMMENT on another poster’s comments on this blog. But, if the comment is coming from EBF, then I have to believe what MOI tells us is REALLY true about EBF’s comments???
I don’t think so. Each of us has a right to post a comment. If I/we didn’t know that EBF was gay, the link would just be a link. But, because EBF is gay, then providing the link means EBF has an agenda. No, that’s not what I’m getting from EBF’s comment.
Last I noticed, EBF is a person (regardless of his sexual preference) and has a right to provide information he sees out there that the rest of us may not have noticed yet.
As a Private Muslim University probably wouldn’t allow a openly gay person to be a student. I assume a Private Gay University wouldn’t allow an anti-gay Christian fundamentalist to attend.
A Catholic University I would think would be under no “obligations” to have a pro-choice or gay speaker.
GS, thanks for the effort….you could have taken the lazy way out and just called me an idiot!
I understand UST is a private college and they can “do what they want”. It seems to me that, in uninviting Parker, they were doing what they wanted and KK had a problem with that.
And I’m asking, can I go to a Muslim college if I’m gay? Can I do so openly? Can they kick me out? What if I’m one of those Muslims who doesn’t mind driving a cab with someone who has a dog or alcohol in the back seat….can I still go to a Muslim college if I’m not really Muslim enough?
It’s a Pope Parade…..
Hes throwin’ out condom samples to the little kiddies from an open limousine.
He looks allot better then he did a few years ago.
Did he have some work done?
“GS, thanks for the effort….you could have taken the lazy way out and just called me an idiot!”
I thought I did.
Hey G.Eliot go get a hanky then. What should it matter what someone else thinks of how you live your life?
I grew up Catholic, went to a Catholic parochial school, and my family is still Catholic so I think I have a pretty accurate picture of the Catholic life.
Shoot, my mother was even President of the Southwest MN chapter of the Catholic Women’s Charities. Like I mentioned, there are a few progressives who don’t fit the mold. I know what I’m talking about here, man. Chill.
whoa i’m starting to be the blog bully - move over moi!!!
tiny litess says:
April 16th, 2008 at 11:15 am
He looks allot better then he did a few years ago
Did he have some work done?
WTF are you talking about Tiny? The guy still looks like the AntiChrist. He needs to go spend some more time in his AntiChrist bat cave.
“GS, thanks for the effort….you could have taken the lazy way out and just called me an idiot!”
Probably because it doesn’t fit….
Imbecile….
Now that fits.
I thought he was all slumped over and you know lookin’ like he wasn’t feeling well.
“whoa i’m starting to be the blog bully - move over moi!!!”
Tanks, didnt we decide to go with Blog Gestapo Lady a while back?
tiny litess says:
April 16th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I thought he was all slumped over and you know lookin’ like he wasn’t feeling well.
That’s what happens when you’re an evil spirit inhabiting a human carcass.
Oh yah - thanks 4blahs.
Catholic Cry Babies = Get Your Hankies
-Blog Gestapo Lady
“Hey G.Eliot go get a hanky then. What should it matter what someone else thinks of how you live your life?”
Bravo tanks, Bravo!!!
“whoa i’m starting to be the blog bully - move over moi!!!”
At least your pixels look better than his!
“WTF are you talking about Tiny? The guy still looks like the AntiChrist. He needs to go spend some more time in his AntiChrist bat cave.”
Ahhhh I see Yep..sure a sheep dressed in woman’s cloths.
Looks like he might need a little sun. I guess there was no spring break for him.
Isn’t there a special place in Florida so these guys can let loose.
Tiny,
John Paul II died. Your lookin at Pope Benedict XVI of Bavaria.
You know I like your simple religions. You know the 10 rules minus that one.
So 9 rules.
The Pope dies and goes to heaven. When he gets there, Saint Peter shows him to his new quarters which turn out to be a tiny one bedroom apartment.
The Pope is horrified and wants to know why he doesn’t have the penthouse apartment, which is huge.
Saint Peter informs him that the resident of the penthouse is a lawyer.
“A lawyer,” says the Pope. “But I’m the Pope, surely I’m more important.”
“With respect Sir,” says Saint Peter, “We have lots of Pope’s up here, but we only have ONE lawyer!”
You know they should update that one. You know add ….only if its your sister-in-law or close friends spouse or neighbor or something.
Hey its 2007
Are there any pope merchendise opportunities for the vatican to make a few extra bucks on the side? Maybe Pope trading cards? Or pope fanny packs? Im sure there are plenty of church ladies ready to buy pope at home hair coloring kits.
Pope on a Rope soap!
” merchendise opportunities for the vatican”
Pope on a Rope. Don’t want to be dropping it with that crowd
Hey GO did Ya just always use the same old line just to get out of there fast.
Forgive me Father for I touched myself in an impure manner…
“Pope on a Rope soap!”
-Adrian Cronauer.
Yeah, I saw that movie.
It was in a movie? I thought i was being original.
Guess not.
Hey GO
What the hell kind of calendar did you have at your house? You know you just read the thing and mark off the days. Do a little adding and subtracting and you get this little “Action” window. Can’t be that hard!
Pope & fanny pack….make up your own punch line!
elle, given the history of the Cathloic church, I’m not sure there’s many Popes in heaven either.
“It was in a movie? I thought i was being original”
Good Morning Vietnam
Nope no popes in heaven. But I’m sure god found a place for Che Guevara.
“elle, given the history of the Cathloic church, I’m not sure there’s many Popes in heaven either.”
Oh snap!
Such fond memories of growing up Catholic– like the time my best friend and i were kicked out of the line for confessional because we kept telling the little old blue hairs that the sculpture of Jesus behind us had 6 toes.
“Minneapolis/St. Paul International Film Festival”
Wow I wonder if there are any movies about poop?
I love a good poop movie with subtitles.
“Hey GO did Ya”
“Hey GO”
Hey Tiny,
I can still summon one of my sisters to walk on over to your house and kick your A$$.
Just keep it up. She’s only a phone call away.
Unless they’re getting their backs waxed.
You know like a claymation move but not with clay.
I can see all the Misguidedcakes lining up for that one. “oh did you see it”
Its wednesday. Thats upper lip waxing day. They’ll be real ornery for ya tiny. No mercy
Tiny,
They may even want to do IT when they get to your house.
Tiny, have ya ever done IT with a catholic neanderthal.
“I can see all the Misguidedcakes lining up for that one. “oh did you see it””
Tiny youre confusing the Fringe Festival with the Film festival. The freakie freakie come out of the wood work for the Fringe festival. I saw a Robert Duval flick a couple years back about a hit man at the Film festival. It was real good. Youre not puttin’ down Robert Duvall are you?
Ill be sorry if you cant make it to the film festival tiny. I know its hard to get away from the pull tabs and meat raffels up in Buffalo. Of course Im sure you’ll be busy.
Robert Duvall smells of elderberries
and his mother was a hamster
LOL elle! six toes…. hee hee hee
Did someone say upperlip?
Katherine.
I just wanted to say I enjoyed your column that appeared in print today on “Glass Half Full”. Well done!
Let’s face it…the high gas and food prices aren’t fun, but it does give us an opportunity to rethink how we live our lives. It does help too look back at history on how our families survived tough times.
I hope you post it here, so us crazy Think Again blog readers can comment.
“and his mother was a hamster”
Tanks?
You know, most times I support people geeting off welfare, finding a job and doing something for a living. Then you go to a subway to order lunch and a cranky, nasty worker hands you a mangled disgusting looking thing that might be a sandwich and gives you the evil eye as they swipe your ATM card. No thank you, have a nice day. None of that. Thats when I wish they’d stayed on welfare and out of the work force.
4B, it wasn’t just Duvall as a hitman, it was Duvall as a dancing hitman. Am I right?
Bingo.
Assasination Tango.
“Then you go to a subway to order lunch and a cranky, nasty worker hands you a mangled disgusting looking thing that might be a sandwich and gives you the evil eye as they swipe your ATM card. No thank you, have a nice day. None of that. Thats when I wish they’d stayed on welfare and out of the work force.”
Next time, as they ring you up, you should remind them of what a lousy job they have, and how grateful you are that you took your education seriously.
Mthalo,
Its times like that when I think maybe welfare is worth it to keep people away from handeling food and serving lunch. It also makes me a huge supporter of immigration.
4blahs,
Yet another reason to bring my lunch. Less expensive and I know who handled my food.
godshateshrimp: Thanks for your compliment. I’ll put the column on the blog tomorrow. But do you think the gang will go easy on my folks? (There’s a fair amount in the column about them.) I’m used to the arrows and enjoy a good dose of smart, or at least witty, criticism. Sometimes even the verbal food fights are entertaining. But mom and dad are different. I think they’d take it personally. Oh well, it’s worth the risk. Just try to blame all the blemishes on me and not the folks.
I mean for christ sake. Im really sorry that you are making sandwiches at 43 years of age for a living. Im sorry you have to wear the uniform you have on. But if I can go through the line and say wheat bread please, lettuce please, tomatos please etc etc… You can put a fake Fing grin on your face and say thank you when I hand you the money. Sometimes I want to punch my customers in the face, but its always thank you for your business.
Katherine, I would never insult your parents.
Katherine writes: “But do you think the gang will go easy on my folks? ”
I promise I will. My parents, sibling, kids, partner and family are important to me, so I will extend the same respect to your family.
Katherine
Don’t worry - I will protect them. I am MOI - the blog bully!! I rule the blog!!! (or at least as much as you let me). If any blogger so happens to look the wrong way at your folks, I will blog bully them into oblivian (the blogger I mean not your folks). What I will do to those bloggers who dare to post some type of arrow at your folks, well lets just say in comparison it will look like I have been treating EBF’s to cookies and ice cream.
Seriously, please post it. I think there are plenty of us in here who will post righteous comments that will so outshine the others that those arrows will not be noticed.
Oh no not another “so what if my parents where cousins” column
“Just try to blame all the blemishes on me and not the folks.”
But aren’t they partly responsible for your blemishes?
I second GHS’s comments, it is a great column Katherine.
Just one point of fact - the only person I have ever seen post something about someone else’s family was when EBF posted something about my family.
So we should get EBF’s promise that he will not bring family into the mix.
Whoops - wait a minute. Personal responsibility time.
I posted stuff about EBF’s significant other. ALthough in my defense, I was posting it in retalliation for EBF’s posting, nevertheless I did post something about family. (See how one takes personal responsibility)
SO, I vow to leave your family out of it Katherine.
I’m going after her family first chance I get!!! :)
I am MOI - the blog bully!!
No one is afraid of 4 eyes. Now Tanks, that’s another story…………
Parents are off limits. Unless BM is your parent.
iamme
Last I noticed, EBF is a person (regardless of his sexual preference) and has a right to provide information he sees out there that the rest of us may not have noticed yet.
Yes he does have the right to post and I never said he did not. Nevertheless, that same right is afford to me and that I have the right to post what I feel about EBF’s comment. If you notice I don’t advocate EBF to stop posting, I am just advocating him to be honest, use proper facts, logic and reasoning; and take personal responsibility for what he posts.
On the other hand, in the past, you sir, iamme, has repeatedly called for censoring what I post. Hmmmmm – wee bit hypocritical? (as EBF would say)
tluck
No one is afraid of 4 eyes. Now Tanks, that’s another story
DANG IT
I was suppose to pick up my glasses over lunch!!!! I forgot.
Gypsy
I’m going after her family first chance I get!!! :)
You do so at your own peril!!!
“If you notice I don’t advocate EBF to stop posting, I am just advocating him to be honest, use proper facts, logic and reasoning”
MOI,
Thanks for not holding my posts to that same standard. Heck, I’d never be able to post again.
DANG IT
G
Quit taking my posts out of context - the full quote is this
If you notice I don’t advocate EBF to stop posting, I am just advocating him to be honest, use proper facts, logic and reasoning; and take personal responsibility for what he posts.
The last part is the most important. See, you do take personal responsibility - that makes up for your other shortcummings.
“Texas defends separation of polygamist sect kids from moms”
Am I the only one…but man those moms are hot!
Hi, all,
Elle, that’s a good joke about lawyers, and I do hate to rain on your parade, but there are two lawyers who are canonized saints.
“shortcummings.”
Shortcomings? What the………..?
Tiny
Now that you have brought that topic up. Texas is so far off base on this one it isn’t even funny!!!
They are taking ALL the children from the community on the theory - get this - the whole community is like one big family!!!
There is so much trampling of people’s constitutional rights going on down there I don’t know even where to start!!!
“but there are two lawyers who are canonized saints.”
I bet that’s what started all the problems. Slippery slope kind of thing.
I, for one, enjoy EBF’s comments. They are well thought out. I also enjoy his responses to other’s questions, once again…well thought out and diplomatic.
Katherine,
In return for the blog protection of your parents, could you do a piece on whats going on with FDLS down in Texas?
Geez MOI, just ask her to get a room!! :)
“Am I the only one…but man those moms are hot!”
Tiny, I bet you were a big Little House fan. Probably locked yourself in a room with the TV huh? But that goes along with the “country” thing.
Its amazing how Southern California looks like Korea (M*A*S*H) Georgia (Dukes of Hazard) and Minnesota (Little House) all at the same time.
MOI You just want you name in the column again as “contributor”
I’m just sayin’ they got that “church lady” hairdo deal goin’. And the pointy classes…..ohhhhh stop baby.
Who wouldn’t want more then one?
“but there are two lawyers who are canonized saints.”
FC-
I thought you were stating a punch line! :)
GHS
well thought out and diplomatic.
You think calling me names (when I have never called him names); dissing my family (when I had not dissed his family); calling for my censorship (when I haven’t called for his censorship); calling for my death (when I have never called for his death); threatening to push me out the window (when I have never threatened to do him any bodily harm); belittling my profession (when I never have mentioned his profession); questioning my professional ethics (when again I never have mentioned his profession); I could go on and on.
You may like EBF and call me the blog bully but in truth - EBF has thrown many many personal arrows and barbs at me when I have thrown none. The only thing I do is talk aobut his actions or in his case - lack of inaction (he doesn’t take personal responsibility). In my definition of bully - EBF fits the bill.
So, to me it seems that your sense of diplomacy is a little off track.
BTW - why don’t you go back and read some of his stuff and some of mine.
BUT hey I digress, please continue to post anyway you want - I am all for freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas.
“There is so much trampling of people’s constitutional rights going on down there I don’t know even where to start!!!”
Dont you need to err on keeping the girls safe from forced breeding? If the community is actively engaging in lying to the authorities and hiding the kids, shouldnt some lattitude be allowed until the facts come out?
“Think Again commentator MOI adroitly responded to that yesterday: “Wendy Knox—when was the first unconscionable act? When your friend almost blew up scores of people or when your friend helped murder someone?””
coughbrownnosercough
MOI Don’t kid yourself the same thing is happening real close to home.
But hell…
God my knuckles hurt, Blah how do you guys keep them upright….
Marka
To remove a child from the home there has to be immenant unpreventable danger.
Texas could be investigating and watching the community with the children still in the family homes. Its not like these children were being secretly raped in the middle of the night. The practice the community is accused of is done out in the open in their community.
This community has a set religious practice that - well might be incomphrehensible and offensive to us, may not be against the law. Under 18 can be married with parental consent.
The authorities could step in and stop practives.
Oh by the way, there is no proof of them lying to authorities or hiding the kids.
The reason the authorities have the kids is because they think the kids, i repeat, the kids would be more truthful away from the parents.
“Its times like that when I think maybe welfare is worth it to keep people away from handeling food and serving lunch. It also makes me a huge supporter of immigration.”
Funny how those immigrants as a whole seem to want provide friendly, courteous service no matter what the job is. Doing the jobs Americans refuse to do well
What I hate Mark is when they yell out the meat raffle winners while your trying to manage a couple of bingo cards.
MOI Man you type fast. Don’t you have to look down at the keys?
“belittling my profession”
Come on MOI, You have to give him that one!
Oh yeah,
Elle, your joke was offensive to me. I am christian, I try to live my life so that I will be accepted into heaven. I am also a lawyer. Furthermore, I know many lawyers that are Christian and will be accepted into heaven.
Most of us lawyers are very good and ethical people who work very hard for our clients.
I spent alot of time making substandard pay (considering schooling, the market and my debt load) working for the ‘people’. I know alot of other lawyers in the same boat.
I would appreciate you being a little more sensitive.
tluck
“belittling my profession”
Come on MOI, You have to give him that one!
No I don’t. Most lawyers are very ethical. There may be some rotten apples but no more than any other profession.
I am sick of people thinking it is ok to belittle and make fun of lawyers.
What if you replace the word “lawyer” with “black guy” in elle’s joke. Not funny anymore is it.
So please everyone, think about who you are offending.
“I would appreciate you being a little more sensitive.”
Maybe G Eliot can pass you the hanky.
“This community has a set religious practice that - well might be incomphrehensible and offensive to us, may not be against the law.”
It was my understanding that the reason they went in in the first place is that a 16 year old girl called them. Her “husband” was in his 50s and she was forced to sleep with him in some ritual sex room. The sherif also said there were dozens of girls as young as 13 that were pregnant. Thats sounds illegal to me.
Most lawyers are very ethical. There may be some rotten apples but no more than any other profession.
Source please?
tluck
Maybe G Eliot can pass you the hanky
Ok now that was funny!!
Katherine
How about a column on how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. Some of us are getting older here and we may go to our graves never knowing.
“I know alot of other lawyers in the same boat.”
Not you though. You cant afford a boat.
Life’s tough, isn’t MOI? I’m blonde, but if i take offense every time someone felt the need to tell me a dumb blonde joke, well… that would be just sad.
4blahs
It was my understanding that the reason they went in in the first place is that a 16 year old girl called them. Her “husband” was in his 50s and she was forced to sleep with him in some ritual sex room. The sherif also said there were dozens of girls as young as 13 that were pregnant. Thats sounds illegal to me.
Way to keep an open mind and not go for the witch hunt.
Markie -The Waltons
I wanted Mary Ellen sooooooooooooo bad.
elle
So your position is it is ok to offend people - they should just tough it out?
“Most lawyers are very ethical. There may be some rotten apples but no more than any other profession.”
“Source please?”
mAN uP
Well John Boy but I fought that out !
G
Don’t get to my punchline before I do.
“Way to keep an open mind and not go for the witch hunt.”
Call me crazy, and maybe the sherif is lying, but isnt a 13 year old too young to get married in the USA even if her mom and dad says its okay?
Hi, all,
elle, no, I wasn’t stating a punch line, though I admit it does look like one - :-)
If you go to newadvent.org you can probably find the two lawyers.
tanks, your son has asked the most important question anyone could ever ask: “mommy why is he hurting? why don’t they give him a bandaid or the doctor?”
“Out of the mouths of babes….” Allow me to offer a very imperfect ânalogy. Suppose your son was sitting in the street playing, and a car comes zooming down, and your boy doesn’t see it in time to get out of the way. Would you hesitate for an instant to try to pull your boy out of danger — even if it meant you might get killed yourself? Somehow I think not. And that’s why he’s hurting.
MOI- I take personal responsibility for my joke. I did not realize you were so sensitive of your position. I should man up and apologize, except that i thought you were all for freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas?
4blahs
Call me crazy, and maybe the sherif is lying, but isnt a 13 year old too young to get married in the USA even if her mom and dad says its okay?
Ok you are crazy.
Marriage laws are done on a state by state basis.
So your question has a faulty premise - the USA (i.e. the feds) don’t regulate when someone can get married.
Then go for it elle
“Call me crazy, and maybe the sherif is lying, but isnt a 13 year old too young to get married in the USA even if her mom and dad says its okay?”
Watch out Mark next week you may be saying its a cultural thing and defending it.
What if you replace the word “lawyer” with “black guy” in elle’s joke. Not funny anymore is it.
Being a “black guy” is a choice? Or were you born a lawyer?
“Under 18 can be married with parental consent.”
Okay, lets say these girls wanted to marry these guys. Parental concent would only be relevant to the state of Texas marriage right? Not the religious ceremony? Can a parent give concent to a 13 year old to enter into a polygymous marriage? Isnt polygamy illegal? If its illegal how can the parents concent and why would the state allow it?
Elle, tluck, GSAHA, and others who are being mean to me;
I am considering leaving this blog, you all are just posting insensitive and prejudicial and offensive remarks about me. But I am not going to leave, because I am not going to give you the satisfaction.
Elle, tluck, GSAHA, and others who are being mean to me;
I am considering leaving this blog, you all are just posting insensitive and prejudicial and offensive remarks about me. But I am not going to leave, because I am not going to give you the satisfaction.
Is this BM???
“I am considering leaving this blog, you all are just posting insensitive and prejudicial and offensive remarks about me. But I am not going to leave, because I am not going to give you the satisfaction.”
MOI, You chose to be offended. Now MAN UP and take a little personal responsibility for your choices.
“Ok you are crazy.”
Fine Texas then. Can parents allow their daughters to marry men in polygymous marriages? Or is that illegal?
“Watch out Mark next week you may be saying its a cultural thing and defending it.”
Culture is stupid. Especially a culture that thinks winning meat is fun.
elle, you should have thrown “gay” into that joke….now THAT would have been funny!
“Markie -The Waltons
I wanted Mary Ellen sooooooooooooo bad.”
I always thought that Samantha from Whos The Boss was hot.
And has anyone seen punky brewster lately, Holy Sh:t!
Mark you know…I know and the state knows it. This is happening right here Minnesota. There are those in this “communtiy” who will defend it.
“Especially a culture that thinks winning meat is fun”
Never been to one. But I am a member of P.E.T.A.
PEOPLE EATING TASTY ANIMALS
G-A gay lawyer, or a gay pope?
“gay pope”
yeah- that pretty much confirmed my already reserved ticket to hell…..
MOI, You chose to be offended. Now MAN UP and take a little personal responsibility for your choices.
Hmmm - let me see - you guys don’t like the same tactic I used that EBF used…hmmm
OK I will man up and not be offended.
MAC MEAT EATING SOCIETY
so the pope is visiting washington today and during his speech he says “god bless america.”
how refreshing. what a contrast to the guy who obama gave tens of thousands of dollars to. the guy who was obama’s great friend and spiritual guide for 20 years, they guy who proclaimed “god damn america” over and over.
what a contrast between those who hate america and sow discord among races and those who love their fellow man.
it sure helps to highlight the freshman Illinois senators judgment.
Downtown dan
Being a “black guy” is a choice? Or were you born a lawyer?
lets see
which response should I use:
Ok so according to your logic - we can make fun of anybody for something they choose and not someone for something they don’t choose.
OR
LIGHTEN UP FRANCES!
“And has anyone seen punky brewster lately, Holy Sh:t!”
I’ve alwasy had a hankerin for Thelma. Dafny seemed to elitist. I think Fred was doing shaggy.
Ever hear that joke that ends with;
“Oops that’s right your brother has the car tonight”
Thats illegal right there. No question bout it.
tiny
no - can you give us more - may be go backwards one line at a time.
“what a contrast between those who hate america and sow discord among races and those who love their fellow man.”
Humor from the irony deficient?
I’ve alwasy had a hankerin for Thelma. Dafny seemed to elitist. I think Fred was doing shaggy.
So who was Scooby Dooing?
Hey DD
Since choice is the issue can we make jokes about black people talking in a theater or irishman who drink too much. Talking and drinking are choices right?
or
Lighten up frances.
“So who was Scooby Dooing?”
Forgive me Father for I touched myself in an impure manner…
Stevek,
Give us a break. And if you wont give us a break, who do you think is worse. Rev. Wright for saying god damn america for not taking care of the poor. Or Rev. King for saying America is going to hell for not taking care of the poor?
sorry bd not accurate. maybe you can explain yourself better.
and completely besides point. obama supports those who seek to damn america. while im not catholic, its nice to hear the pope asking for gods blessings for our country.
4blahs
I’ll go with Rev. Tiny for thinking golden valley was in the country.
Geezus, Am I the only one that has a job around here?
MOI,
Show some respect. It Dr.Rev. T. Lites.
“I’ll go with Rev. Tiny for thinking golden valley was in the country. ”
Moi,
Not in the country.
Tiny thought Golden Vally was a Country or a shower.
I dont get why Rev. Wright is such a liability and people fall all over themselves to be connected to Dr. King? They both said virtually the same thing. Help me out her Stevek. Is Dr. King now a liability because he once said America is going to hell?
EBF presented this other point of view because he advocate’s that point of view.
You posted the link because you believe in that other’s point of view.
moi, please refrain from speaking for me. While you may certainly believe what you wish about my motives, it is not for you state that they are my motives unless I have previously said that they are. In the absence of such evidence, statements such as yours, which I quoted above, are merely opinion, not fact.
As I stated, I neither agree nor disagree with McGuire’s article because I do not know enough about Catholic intellectual tradition to form an educated opinion.
he back pedals and then posts that we misunderstood his post or he did not really post that at all.
From what did I backpedal – a post that gave a link to an article? I’m sorry, but there’s precious little there from which to backpedal. The only thing I could possibly be backpedaling from is your erroneous conclusions about my motives for posting the link. I didn’t know it was possible to backpedal from someone else’s erroneous conclusions.
Your so close….you posted it because you thought it was relevant - WHY did you think it was relevant?
Because today’s blog topic is about the University of St. Thomas, a Catholic university, and its decision to invite Star Parker to speak. More generally, the topic is about who should and should not be allowed to speak at Catholic universities. FaithandReason offered one opinion. Patricia McGuire, in her article, offered another. Because McGuire is a practicing Catholic and the president of a Catholic university, posting that Trinity University is Catholic was entirely relevant.
You thought it relevant because by being a president of the catholic university it lended more credibility to her article.
Whether it lends more credibility to her article is something for each reader to decide for him/herself. In the context of this discussion, would anyone have cared what a president of a Lutheran university thought about this issue? Not likely. The parenthetical statement – (a Catholic university) – simply demonstrated how McGuire’s article was relevant to today’s topic by virtue of Trinity University being Catholic.
Why didn’t you address the other point (and more important) in my post….that the argument the writer put forth was an illogical and false comparison.
Because it’s irrelevant. As I stated, there is merit to your argument. My intent was not to debate McGuire’s claims; it was only to direct people to them.
Could it be you would rather just nitpick and divert the argument or maybe you would rather debate semantics?
Given today’s topic, I don’t see how directing people to McGuire’s article could be considered diversionary.
Shouldn’t rev go before dr. - I mean isn’t a man of god higher than a man of whatever a doctor is a man of.
Argh, another end tag problem!
nice ebf
what a contrast between those who hate america and sow discord among races and those who love their fellow man.
Actually, it’s the “loving their fellow man” part that makes the rest of us non-catholics uncomfortable.
Reposting for clarity:
EBF presented this other point of view because he advocate’s that point of view.
You posted the link because you believe in that other’s point of view.
moi, please refrain from speaking for me. While you may certainly believe what you wish about my motives, it is not for you state that they are my motives unless I have previously said that they are. In the absence of such evidence, statements such as yours, which I quoted above, are merely opinion, not fact.
As I stated, I neither agree nor disagree with McGuire’s article because I do not know enough about Catholic intellectual tradition to form an educated opinion.
he back pedals and then posts that we misunderstood his post or he did not really post that at all.
From what did I backpedal – a post that gave a link to an article? I’m sorry, but there’s precious little from which to backpedal there. The only thing I could possibly be backpedaling from is your erroneous conclusions about my motives for posting the link. I didn’t know it was possible to backpedal from someone else’s erroneous conclusions.
Your so close….you posted it because you thought it was relevant - WHY did you think it was relevant?
Because today’s blog topic is about the University of St. Thomas, a Catholic university, and its decision to invite Star Parker to speak. More generally, the topic is about who should and should not be allowed to speak at Catholic universities. FaithandReason offered one opinion. Patricia McGuire, in her article, offered another. Because McGuire is a practicing Catholic and the president of a Catholic university, posting that Trinity University is Catholic was entirely relevant.
You thought it relevant because by being a president of the catholic university it lended more credibility to her article.
Whether it lends more credibility to her article is something for each reader to decide for him/herself. In the context of this discussion, would anyone have cared what a president of a Lutheran university thought about this issue? Not likely. The parenthetical statement – (a Catholic university) – simply demonstrated how McGuire’s article was relevant to today’s topic by virtue of Trinity University being Catholic.
Why didn’t you address the other point (and more important) in my post….that the argument the writer put forth was an illogical and false comparison.
Because it’s irrelevant. As I stated, there is merit to your argument. My intent was not to debate McGuire’s claims; it was only to direct people to them.
Could it be you would rather just nitpick and divert the argument or maybe you would rather debate semantics?
Given today’s topic, I don’t see how directing people to McGuire’s article could be considered diversionary.
Tanks…it’s interesting that you would take someone telling you that you have no idea what dogma means as crying.
I would also bet, despite your mother’s lofty position serving coffe to Catholic ladies in SW MN, that you hardly understand Catholic dogma.
More crying. Boo hoo me. Oh you’re so mean. Please be nice to me. Wah.
You guys got me bitter now. I’m goin’ to the gym to work on “My Guns”
Or my “Keith mallard’s” as I call them.
Well than EBF you tell us why you directed us to the article?
And your thoughts on the article and why it pertains to today.
Also, give us a stance that you believe in regarding today’s topic and the article including debating her claims.
And please try to keep the wording down to a minumin.
Oh and one last thing.
I tried your little “I am considering leaving” thing, but nobody like it when I did it.
I was going to read your post EBF, then I decided it was too long.
mark
I was going to read your post EBF, then I decided it was too long.
Come on mark, don’t be mean. We don’t want EBF to ‘consider’ leaving us.
Geliot and Tanks should have a “Catholic Off”. Im not sure what that would entail but I bet it would be BORING.
Hi, all,
Actually, it’s the “loving their fellow man” part that makes the rest of us non-catholics uncomfortable.
GypsyBiker, that’s a very interesting comment, and I would like to know why you said it and what you mean by it.
Tiny,
How many people do you think Lou Farigno beat up with his “Guns” for teasing him about his speach problems as a kid after he got huge. Yeah I know he was deaf so he probably never heard the teasing, but maybe he saw it.
FC
Seriously?
Plesae don’t do it. Don’t give in to the offended crowd.
Gypsy was probably making a probably phrased joke, don’t bite.
Please you are our last sebastian of decency in this blog forsaken blog.
“And your thoughts on the article and why it pertains to today.
Also, give us a stance that you believe in regarding today’s topic and the article including debating her claims.”
Ah you guys. I’m just going to stick to posting mindless babbling thoughts. So don’t expect anything less.
“Help me out her Stevek. Is Dr. King now a liability because he once said America is going to hell?”
Dr King has long been elevated to an icon. whether deserved or not, noone is going to question his goodness and godliness.
Neither is Dr. King a close friend and spiritual advisor to someone seeking election to the presidency of the US in 2008.
That makes pastor wrights association with obama a little more relevant than whether people who for the most part pay lip service to Dr King’s “dream”. noone remembers King as a man. he has been relegated to media soundbites. which of course you could argue thats what has happened to wright. but again, i point to his closeness and duration of his relationship to the man who seeks to be president. a candidate whos almost total campaign consists of us trusting his judgment and bringing people together.
that was suppose to be poor joke or poorly phrased joke
“Geliot and Tanks should have a “Catholic Off”. Im not sure what that would entail but I bet it would be BORING.”
Hey we can have a cross dragging race.
MOI - I missed somewhere where the battle between you and EBF started. That’s really between the two of you.
Okay,
Stevek. I consider that to be a dodge. They both said the same thing. I just want to know if you think King hated America or if your just using Rev. Wright to go after Obama because you dislike him regardless.
EBF
You still haven’t admitted you are being hypocritical from the other post.
Come on. man up. I caught you red handed. (hmmm…not sure I want to catch any guy red handed, if you know what i mean)
“Hey we can have a cross dragging race.”
I like it. Can we drink beer at this race?
“hmmm…not sure I want to catch any guy red handed, if you know what i mean)”
MOI,
The proper term is “Rosie Palmed”
GHS
MOI - I missed somewhere where the battle between you and EBF started. That’s really between the two of you.
I would agree but it was you who decided to get in the middle of it with your post “I, for one, enjoy EBF’s comments. They are well thought out. I also enjoy his responses to other’s questions, once again…well thought out and diplomatic. “
Oh no, not you too. Come on - you can take some personal responsibility for your own posts can’t you.
BTW - I am still laughing at your ’so nobody is safe’ post. That was funny.
FC, it was an indirect shot at the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. I was mildly irritated by what I inferred was stevek wanting to cast the Pope vs. Rev. Wright as “good vs. evil” or “right vs. wrong”. I don’t see things quite that clearly. I think both Men of the Cloth represent viewpoints that are imperfect.
Either that or it was a probably phrased joke towards the last sebastian of decency. Or a lawyer joke.
You still haven’t admitted you are being hypocritical from the other post.
Maybe you should go back and look now, moi….
Well than EBF you tell us why you directed us to the article?
I think I’ve already answered this question, but I’ll repeat my answer:
FaithandReason posted his/her opinion that “A Catholic University should not be giving podiums to those who expressly reject the teachings of the Church.”
Because I had read McGuire’s article, which offers a different opinion authored by what I would consider a credible and knowledgeable source on Catholic intellectual tradition (the president of a Catholic university and a practitioner of the Catholic faith), I directed readers to it. It was simply another viewpoint to consider.
I thought readers would find a different opinion interesting and relevant.
EBF
Let me post this for you to read here. You have done by far the most disrespectful posts towards me - they have been personal to me, my profession, my ethics, my family, my coworkers, etc.. You even joked about commiting bodily injury to me. Think back how many different names have you called me.
You seem to think that those posts were ok because I tell you to man up and take personal responsibility and try to tear apart your faulty logic.
Not once have a called you a name, not once did I bring in your profession or anything else.
Well here is your chance - man up and take personal responsibility and admit that you have post very nasty personal things about me and all I have done is told you to man up.
But then again - you are not going to see it that way - you are going to see you as being the victim and that all you did was ok because YOU thought you were being bullied.
“Stevek. I consider that to be a dodge. They both said the same thing. I just want to know if you think King hated America or if your just using Rev. Wright to go after Obama because you dislike him regardless. ”
i dont care whether king disliked america or not. the man passed in 1968. i dont think he is relevant.
i am using dr wright to go after obama, and, i believe, deservedly so. the man has almost no experience in politics. he has served for 2 years. he has been accused of dodging voting on controversial issue. he asks us to trust him. he tells us he is a great uniter. he is above the politics of race and exclusion. but it comes out that the person , besides his wife, he is closer to than anyone in his life is a man who uses a pulpit to tell other black people that the white man created aids to kill them. and that the white man imports drugs into black neighborhoods to imprison and kill black people as government policy. and that god should damn america.
yes, i am personally offended by this man. i dont believe a man can be what obama claims to be and have had such a long , close association with wright. add to the fact that i do not believe in the far left cradle to the grave government dependence ideology that obama seems to espouse.
i do not believe obama is who he claims, nor do i believe in the politcs that obama promotes.
WOOLY BULLY
Uno, dos, one, two, tres, quatro
Matty told Hatty about a thing she saw.
Had two big horns and a wooly jaw.
Wooly bully, wooly bully.
Wooly bully, wooly bully, wooly bully.
Hatty told Matty, “Let’s don’t take no chance.
Let’s not be L-seven, come and learn to dance.”
Wooly bully, wooly bully
Wooly bully, wooly bully, wooly bully.
Matty told Hatty, “That’s the thing to do.
Get you someone really to pull the wool with you.”
Wooly bully, wooly bully.
Wooly bully, wooly bully, wooly bully.
Hi, all,
Some miscellaneous comments:
GypsyBiker, thanks for the explanation. I kind of figured it might be one of the first two reasons, or maybe both. You might be interested to hear that - as far as I know - the people most furious about the wicked priests, and the bishops who swept all that under the rug, are faithful Catholic folks.
MOI, thanks for the kind words.
EBF, thanks for the explanation and for posting the reference. I looked it up, and while I think it muddies the waters, I like hearing other opinions.
SteveK and GEliot, thanks.
Elle, did the sculpture have six toes (on one foot or both, I mean)?
And your thoughts on the article and why it pertains to today.
I preface this by restating that I do not know much about Catholic intellectual tradition.
I found McGuire’s article intriguing. I took from it that, according to McGuire, Catholics, and especially Catholic universities, have a duty to engage in constructive dialog on a wide range of topics relevant to the world today. Such dialog must include the presentation and consideration of as wide a variety of viewpoints as possible, even if those viewpoints contradict teachings of the Catholic Church, because learning and understanding are most expeditiously accomplished through the examination and debate of all viewpoints. Such debate would not be possible in the absence of opinions contradictory to Catholic teaching.
This pertains to today’s topic because the University of St. Thomas has made controversial decisions about who gets to speak at UST. Ann Coulter was allowed, Desmond Tutu was not allowed (a decision later changed), and Star Parker was not allowed (a decision later changed). These specific examples illustrate the broader issue, namely that of allowing students access to a wide variety of opinions and ideas from various speakers across the political and ideological spectrum.
McGuire argues in her article that exposure to a wide variety of opinions is important, indeed necessary, within Catholic intellectual tradition. FaithandReason, on the other hand, stated that “A Catholic University should not be giving podiums to those who expressly reject the teachings of the Church and are directly lecturing about the topic.” These are diametrically opposite viewpoints, but people would need to read McGuire’s article to consider her arguments, especially as they relate to (and oppose) FaithandReason’s.
My personal thoughts about McGuire’s article are that, while I’d like to believe what she says, I am rather skeptical. I have known many Catholics who seem to embody the very tradition McGuire advocates, but I cannot say if those individual Catholics are necessarily representative of most Catholics or of the religion as a whole. I do not conclude that McGuire is trying to change the tenets of her faith from within. If what she says is true, she is merely practicing her faith as she sees it demands her to do so. I do, however, allow for the possibility that she is using Catholic intellectual tradition to either 1) push an agenda contrary to that of the Catholic church or 2) give the appearance of being open-minded when in fact she is not. I allow for these possibilities because I am cynical and distrustful of religion and the religious, generally speaking (there are many individual exceptions).
What part of keep it to a minumin did you not understand!!!!
“Elle, did the sculpture have six toes (on one foot or both, I mean)?”
Hi FC-
No, he had 5 toes on each foot. :) He was fine. My mom on the other hand…. She made us sit in the car for 2 hours.
Hi, all,
EBF, Well said! Thank you!
You might be interested in what I posted at 11 pm last night. Here are a couple of snippets:
“I would add that if I were the head of UST, I would allow speakers whose views conflict with Catholicism, IF and only if, the speaker(s) were part of a panel that included orthodox Catholic intellectuals, so the students could hear both sides of the argument.
“G. K. Chesterton said in one of his books (I think it was Orthodoxy ), words to the effect that Christian intellectuals have to be able to chew and digest the toughest and strongest meat of pagan philosophies.”
2 minutes, EBF, delay of blog
Thats a better response Stevek. I understand you are using wright as a wedge. I see what wright said and what King said as virtually indentical. For a person to condemn wrights words and in turn the man himself on those words alone they should then condemn King for saying the same thing. However long ago it was doesnt matter. The sentiments of both men are identical. God damn america and send it to hell.
If you dont like Obama on his politics thats fine with me. Ive got problems with his politics too. But this wright stuff in my mind is just petty BS.
EBF,
You better slow down or you’ll be on disability with Carpal Tunnel syndrome.
““I would add that if I were the head of UST, I would allow speakers whose views conflict with Catholicism, IF and only if, the speaker(s) were part of a panel that included orthodox Catholic intellectuals, so the students could hear both sides of the argument.”
FC,
Arent they going to hear the other side of the argument to any views expressed by a non catholic speaker simply by being in the University? If the pro life speaker speaks, isnt the Catholic University the pannel?
EBF
I see you posted no response here. Yeah thats what I thought.
Why is it when you see mob scenes or fighting in oreintal countries you never see them fighting using karate or kung fu? No chops and round house kicks or that squaring off on one leg with an arm up over their heads and the other leg off the ground in front.
It looks more slapping and hitting like in a chick fight.
G
(please read this like it was being said in a calm soothing voice) We dont use the word ‘oreintal’ anymore. We now use the word ‘asian’. OK?
“But this wright stuff in my mind is just petty BS. ”
it seems we disagree on whether its petty. i think it shows alot about his character.
GO,
Nothing beats a good Parliment or Court Room fight in an Asian country. Also, in case your curious, we dont call people Oriental anymore.
“OK?”
what? since when?
Can we still use it when refering to a certain kind of rug?
I think so….
Did you see that oriental with the bad rug no?
NO no no that was so wrong
I think so….
Did you see that oriental with the bad rug on?
NO no no that was so wrong
“We dont use the word ‘oreintal’ anymore. We now use the word ‘asian’.”
“we dont call people Oriental anymore.”
When you guys say “WE” do you mean Minnesotans?
What If they are from an Oreintal country do “WE” still call the Asians?
…and that the white man imports drugs into black neighborhoods to imprison and kill black people as government policy.
Actually the government’s been doing this as a means of financing insurgents we support but can’t otherwise fund directly. However I do believe the “destroy urban blacks” was a feature of this policy, not a bug.
G
You are on your own. Good luck with that.
Soooooo……then its probulbly wrong to assume they all know Karate or Kung Fu?
If you’re referring to a thing- you say oriental. As in oriental rug or oriental vase.
If its a person- you say asian.
or that they pick up burning hot metal pots with their forearms and snatch pebbles from each others hands.
Hi, all,
Arent they going to hear the other side of the argument to any views expressed by a non catholic speaker simply by being in the University? If the pro life speaker speaks, isnt the Catholic University the pannel?
4blahs, that’s a very good question, and I admit I never thought of it quite that way.
I would hope that a Catholic university, being Catholic, would teach the students about Catholicism in greater depth than they got in grade school or high school. I would hope also that a Catholic university, being a university, would have at least one course in formal logic, so the students can learn how to think critically and dissect arguments.
I would also hope that at a Catholic university, the students would discuss all their subject matter, especially current events, in the light of Catholic teaching.
If a Catholic university student decides — after much thought and prayer, I hope — that he or she cannot believe what the Church teaches, it’s up to him or her to go be something else; and that’s a matter between the person and God. It’s most emphatically none of my business. And, believe it or not, I was taught that in grade school, in 1956 and 1957.
G.Eliot says:
April 16th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Tanks…it’s interesting that you would take someone telling you that you have no idea what dogma means as crying.
I would also bet, despite your mother’s lofty position serving coffe to Catholic ladies in SW MN, that you hardly understand Catholic dogma.
More crying. Boo hoo me. Oh you’re so mean. Please be nice to me. Wah.
G.Eliot - Just because I no longer subscribe to your cult doesn’t mean I don’t know what Catholic dogma is. I think having been brainwashed for my formative years into the Catholic religion I know what I’m referring to.
And if I were the good Catholic you are, I wouldn’t be betting anything. They look down on gambling.
Go pray to your dead patron saint of addiction about that.
Also, Mr/Ms Eliot, you should be familiar enough with the work the Catholic Charities do to not degrade her to that level. Serving coffee. You’re so ignorant.
Then again, there’s always the comfort of your hanky or maybe it’s your unhealthy amount of over-confidence.
Peace be with you, lemming.
DD
You are so right and the gov’t’s been doin more than that.
they gov’t shot jfk, mlk, rfk, and some other people with the last name the starts with k
They control people’s minds with the television and radio waves
The dollar bill represents a secret society.
don’t forget area 51 - the gov’t has a alien spaceship.
oh yea - speaking of space - the moon landing was faked.
I could go on and on
“If you’re referring to a thing- you say oriental. As in oriental rug or oriental vase.
If its a person- you say asian.”
Then its an Oreintal Country Or Asians living in an Oreintal Country?
Tanks karma just ran over G.Eliots dagma.
Tanks karma just ran over G.Eliots d0gma.
Vroom vroom i’m the gestapo beeyotch
If its a person- you say Norwegian?
“Then its an Oriental Country Or Asians living in an Oriental Country?”
People who are good at math living in an Oriental Country?
MOI - Are you really denying that our government was heavily involved in running drugs into the US throughout the 80s?
Aside from easily found information on the subject (Google is your friend), a business I was involved in back then (a legal business) occasionally put me into contact with “protected importers.” I’ve seen first-hand hashish bricks stamped with “Help Smoke the Russians/Afghanistan.” I’ve also heard from others involved in the trade how cocaine was being brought in to finance a number of our Central American adventures. Any Columbian drug lab busts we saw on TV were only those that failed to pay their protection money to the locals. Our military was being used as their “tax” enforcers.
I could go on and on.
Hi, all,
Tanks, I could well be wrong, but I sense an ambivalence about Catholicism in your posts. At 9:06 you mention your son seeing a crucifix in a church, which tells me you go sometimes and take him.
But then I see “mindless dogmatism” at 8:53 am, “AntiChrist” at 11:31 am, and “evil spirit inhabiting a human carcass” at 11:40 am.
Now I can relate to people who have a love-hate relationship with Catholicism, because I did once, and almost every adult Catholic I know did too.
I’m not saying you fit that mold (I can’t read minds), but I am curious about what appears to me to be ambivalence.
Asian country- because you’re referring to a country of asian people.
“but I am curious about what appears to me to be ambivalence.”
I think its tongue in cheek ambivalence.
DD
Oh no - they were definitely running the drugs into the country.
I personally saw bricks of cocaince - stamped - “Property of the US Govt” - when I was working for the CIA. shhhh don’t tell anyone by the way.
Hi, all,
tinylites, you could be right, and I could be wrong; the main thing I’m interested in is what tanks says.
Hi, all,
Warning: silly joke ahead.
When I was a kid I thought “euthanasia” meant Chinese and Japanese kids.
“they gov’t shot jfk, mlk, rfk, and some other people with the last name the starts with k”
thanks for the heads up moi, ill be looking over my shoulder.
Dan, were you not the same person who was going about the board shouting BOOGEY MAN a short time back ??
am i to believe that you have no problem with the concept of government sponsored hit squads, drug running rings and lord knows what other black ops, but are completely dismissive and characterize as paranoia, the idea that there are organizations hell bent on the violent and non-violent promotion of islam ??
am i to believe that you have no problem with the concept of government sponsored hit squads, drug running rings and lord knows what other black ops, but are completely dismissive and characterize as paranoia, the idea that there are organizations hell bent on the violent and non-violent promotion of islam ??
You would be incorrect (shocker). I have a big problem with my government supporting it (that was actually the beginning of my transition away from the GOP), but when I have a cash client who wants to kick back and start talking I have to listen. Besides, it would have been a very bad idea to try and turn them in, the loss in business not withstanding.
That I took their money doesn’t mean a) that I supported what they did, or b) that I can’t still be dismissive towards the actual level of threat posed by radical Islamics, hell bent as they are on our destruction (yawn), compared to the numerous real threats posed to us on a daily basis. If you doubt it, try looking up an actuarial chart and find out what your odds are of premature death by ____. Terrorism is so far down the list you might as well hide in the basement every thunder storm, give away your car, and live in a plastic bubble.
So yes I openly mock those who support our trillion dollar debt and Constitution shredding “For Your Own Good” reaction to the terrorism bogeyman (leaving aside that Iraq had nothing to do with any terrorism and our “friends” the Saudis, who somehow got “lucky” on a OneTimeOnly job, were up to their humus holes in it) as paranoid wussies playing GI Joe in their underwear who think they can hide their irrational fears from others by pounding their chests in front of their keyboards while cheering on the sending young Americans to die in an unending, mission-less, trillion dollar hellhole so they can sleep better at night (as if).
Or were you trying to say that the government never sponsored hit squads, drug running rings and lord knows what other black ops, and that it was somehow irrational or paranoid to suggest otherwise?
What part of keep it to a minumin did you not understand!!!!
Hey, for me, that was pretty short! Seriously, I will take the space I need to feel that I have answered a question or addressed an issue adequately.
EBF, Well said! Thank you!
Thanks, FC!
I would add that if I were the head of UST, I would allow speakers whose views conflict with Catholicism, IF and only if, the speaker(s) were part of a panel that included orthodox Catholic intellectuals, so the students could hear both sides of the argument.
Wouldn’t there be times when this wouldn’t be possible? If, by doing this, you would deprive students of the opportunity to hear about an opposing viewpoint, how would you be best serving those students? Do you feel that implementing such a policy is within Catholic intellectual tradition?
Also, give us a stance that you believe in regarding today’s topic and the article including debating her claims.
I’m not sure I understand the question, so if my answer isn’t what you’re after, please clarify and I’ll try again.
My stance on today’s topic: I applaud UST’s change of heart. Star Parker should be allowed to speak at UST, and now she will do just that.
As for today’s topic, how it relates to McGuire’s article, and my thoughts about her (McGuire’s?) claims, hopefully I have already shown how I believe McGuire’s article relates to today’s topic. If you feel I have not, I’d be happy to try again or clarify.
Again, it is difficult for me to know if McGuire’s claims are true because I do not understand Catholic intellectual tradition or its history. If Catholic intellectual tradition is what McGuire claims, her arguments make sense. All ideas need to be examined and debated so that one can fully understand an issue and arrive at truth, at least as much as it is possible to arrive at truth.
If, however, Catholic intellectual tradition is not what McGuire claims it to be, then everything she says is thrown into doubt. It could be that the tradition is used to promote an agenda, either by individuals or by the church. Or the tradition could be used as a tool to make it seem that its practitioners are open-mined when they are not. Perhaps there are other nefarious uses for which the tradition could be used.
Because I do not know enough about Catholic intellectual tradition, I cannot determine whether the basis of McGuire’s argument is factual or flawed; that makes it hard for me to take much of a stance or debate her claims. I’d like to believe that she is right, and I found her to be convincing. But then my cynicism about religion and the religious kicked in, and I became suspicious of her claims. Maybe she is pushing her own agenda, maybe she isn’t. Personally, she hasn’t changed my mind about the Catholic Church, religion or the religious. She did give me some hope that Catholics do value intellectual pursuit, something reinforced by my personal experience with individual Catholics.
Hi, all,
EBF, good fair question. I guess I would have to play it by ear and somehow make sure that, as much as possible, students heard both sides of a case. You’re right that it wouldn’t be best serving the students by letting them hear only one side.
In Aquinas’ work Summa Contra Gentiles, Book One, “God,” chapter 10 is titled, “The opinion of those who would say that the existence of God, being self-evident, cannot be demonstrated.”
Chapter 11 title: “A refutation of the abovementioned opinion and a solution of the arguments.”
Chapter 12: “The opinion of those who say that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated but is held by faith alone.”
Chapter 13: “Arguments in proof of the existence of God.” (In this chapter Thomas has 35 arguments, and all but one of the footnotes are from Aristotle.)
The point here is to show in a little way, as G. K. C. did much better, that Thomas always considered both sides of a question, and he thought that was the only method worthy of a true philosopher; this is why he is considered one of the most shining lights of the Catholic intellectual tradition.
Now one disclaimer I have to make here is that I’m not a trained philosopher, and I don’t have all the technical vocabulary of the philosopher to even understand all the things that Aquinas wrote, much less explain them to other people.
Now, all that said, there’s a saying in
Aquinas that “For whatever is received into anything is received not according to the mode of the source whence it flows, but according to the mode of the recipient.” So?
This saying applied in this connection means to me that subtle or dificult ideas shouldn’t always be given plain and direct, without explanation or commentary, to those who haven’t got the intellect, the training, or the open-mindedness to receive them.
A simple example would be that it would be foolish to try to teach calculus to someone who hasn’t mastered algebra. Another example: My dad had a copy of Toynbee’s Study of History, and when I tried to read it, I found quickly that it wasn’t a book of history, but a book about history, and I didn’t know enough history to even begin to be able to read the book intelligently.
So it’s a tough call. I appreciate that your comments have made me think twice, and realize that it’s not as easy or simple as I wrote last night.
But in general, as much as possible, expose the students to both (or all) sides of an issue, and try hard to see they don’t get too confused. I’m glad I’m not a prof or a dean.
How many more businesses have to leave the State of Minnesota before voters wake up and vote the anti-business, anti-capitalist liberal democrats out of office? There was no way in hell the headquarters of the Delta/North West merger was going to be here and taxed out of existance. I won’t even mention 3M.
From Anti-Strib:
******************************
PARIS (Reuters) - French former film star Brigitte Bardot went on trial on Tuesday for insulting Muslims, the fifth time she has faced the charge of “inciting racial hatred” over her controversial remarks about Islam and its followers.
Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros (12,071 pounds) for saying the Muslim community was “destroying our country and imposing its acts”.
Prosecutor Anne de Fontette told the court she was seeking a tougher sentence than usual, adding: “I am a little tired of prosecuting Mrs Bardot.”
So are we, Ms. Fontette.
FREE BRIGETTE!
**********************
How long before liberals here will restrict our free speech as well?
Holy crap!!! Bridget Bardot. She’s still alive? Oh My genitals!!! You know alls ya need is the name and memories and the chub starts thinkin on its own. Bridget and Rachel Welch. Hubba hubba.
But in general, as much as possible, expose the students to both (or all) sides of an issue, and try hard to see they don’t get too confused.
Absolutely. I would add that students should be allowed to make up their own minds about issues; they should not be penalized if the conclusions they reach are not in accordance with a particular doctrine or dogma. As long as students clearly understand all sides of an issue, that freedom of conscience is their right.
In the example today (Catholic teachings), I would expect those advocating the Catholic position to explain their reasoning without, as much as is possible, pushing an agenda (and I would expect that of people advocating other positions as well). Of course the very act of explanation is pushing an agenda, but as long as that explanation is very clear and reasoned such an agenda is a non-issue. It is when students are expected to adhere to beliefs without reasonable explanation or opportunity to hear opposing views that I begin to have serious concerns, as I think you would.
Hi, all,
It is when students are expected to adhere to beliefs without reasonable explanation or opportunity to hear opposing views that I begin to have serious concerns, as I think you would.
I would. College students aren’t exactly little children anymore. Ideally, teaching is done according to the age and maturity of the pupil or student.
d2si, I know it’s hard for you…but it would be nice if you stayed on topic. There was a very interesting conversation going on until you started ranting.
OK Class,
Lets remember that Katherine is bringing in her parents for show and tell thursday. Lets be on our best behaviour. Check that your spell check is working properly. We certainly do not want to dissapoint them. Lets keep it clean. No blows below the belt.
“MOI” will be officiating the event. All and any vulgar and/or crude inuindo posts directed towards her Mom and Dad will be delt with harshly by the rank and file. All references to swear words should be limited to 2nd grade level. In other words if you would’nt want your 2nd grader (6 year old) to repeat it don’t post it.
“the Reverand Dr. T. Lites” will lead with a nondenomical prayer (for our athiest guests we suggest you go to hell)
“Former Carrier” will be circulating a list of appropriate words and/or substitute words before sun up thursday. In the event that you do not receive your list please refer back to your childhood. If you did not have a childhood then refer back to the stone age of FC’s childhood
“4blahs” will be taking up a collection for room and board so that Katherines Parents can stay in the country at or near Plymouth or Golden Valley.
“Tluck” will the disc jocky. We want to make their stay a pleasant one so please refrain from Hip HOp, Wrap and/or Frank Kristofferson.
“Leland” will be designated driver. Irv is lending his taxie to him so please leave your booze, dog and pork at home.
“Tanks” will be bartending and is in charge of the the sound system so please all complaints should be directed towards her. (tanks leave the slut attitude at home)
“Gypsy Biker” and “Down Town Dan” will be liberally applying their opinions to those of you who will not Man Up.
“EBF” will pass out the programs for the event that he personally took responsibility for writing. Bring a lunch for it is anticipated to be a long read.
“Dare2 and Mahoney” are in charge of crowd control and may draft any and all idle bystanders so I suggest you keep a drink in your hands at all times.
“Elle” will be the designated Go Go dancer with “tanks” as releif hitter. (Bathroom breaks)
“Average Guy” will be autioning off Jesse’s Feather Boa donated to this event and the proceeds will be used to pave more bike paths for “Godhatesshrimp”, “junkefer”, “JCF” and “Rabbit”. Said bike path beneficiaries will also be hanging CFL bulb piniatas for the kids.
“stevek” will be making balloon animals out of free condoms for you pleasure.
For those of you who do not have a sanctioned event job, have fun. If you see me passed out please pull me back from the toilet before you use it. My Karma will much appreciate it. Until then Tah Tah.
Hi, all,
Per G.S.A.H.A.’s request, here is my list of suggested (approved genuine stone-age, accept no substitutes) words for dismay, distress, disenchantment, disappointment, disapproval, and disgust.
Ouch! Ow! Owie, owie! Ooh! Oh, my! Oh, my hat! Oh, my land! Land sakes! Land sakes alive! Oh, my goodness! Oh, my goodness’ sake! Oh, dearie me!
Oy! Oy vey! Oy gevalt! Gottimhimmel! Donnerwetter! Sacre bleu! Sacre nom de Dieu! Ish da! Fyda, fyda! ¡Ay caramba! Bozhe moy!
Aw, darn! Darn it! Poopy-darn! Blast it! Drat! Drat it! Drat it all! Rats! Mice!(for kids) Grrrhh!
Ugh! Ick! Ish! Ish-kabibble! Yuck! Yuckh! Echh! Bleah! Barf!
FC,
For your prompt repy you have won a night of romp and cercumstance hiking through Loring Park for two. The evening will start with a hot bath of mineral salts and your choice of one of two full body massages either by bruno or larry. Then its off to the legendary loring park bushes where you will be treated to a full 15 minute of debauchery and sodomy. To finish the evening you will be dropped off at a local conveiniance store in North minneapolis that is well known for it gang and drug activities at which time you will be filmed and posted on U-tubes making your escape. Thanks for participating.
Hi, all,
Well, golly gee and gee whiz! What can I say, G.S.A.H.A.? Bless my soul, fan mah brow, tan mah hide. an’ shet ma mouf!
If that isn’t the cat’s meow, the bee’s knees, and the cat’s pajamas! Twenty-three skiddoo and hot-cha, baby! Hubba, hubba, ding-ding-ding! Best thing since sliced bread, bottled beer, and ice cubes! I’ll tell the world!
(As Cole Porter sort of said) –
It’s the tops, it’s the Boston Pops,
It’s the Coliseum, it’s the Louvre Museum,
It’s the Tower of Pisa, it’s the smile on the Mona Lisa,
It’s Mahatma Ghandi, it’s Napoleon Brandy,
It’s an O’Neill drama, Whistler’s Mama,
It’s a rose, Inferno’s Dante,
It’s the nose on the great Durante,
It’s a dance in Bali, a hot tamale,
It’s a Botticelli, a Keats, a Shelly!
WOW!
G
clap clap clap clap clap
Very very funny and well written.
I don’t know how much time you took on that but it was well worth it.
I appreciate not only you puting me into it but also everyone else. Very thoughtful and intelligent. I have tried on more then one occasion to write something like that and have failed everytime.
Thank you
To the guy That Obama said last night “JUST” lost his job and was worried about how to get money to buy gas to look for the next job.
Sign up for unemployment.
God almighty you listen to these people and it’s like ….
And I’m sure that Obama got the guys name and address…you know send him a few bucks to help him make it through. Really what’s a couple of hundred bucks when you made 4 million last year.
And people still think these guys give a sh^t about them…
FC
As always thank for your posts
I read this one:
Aquinas that “For whatever is received into anything is received not according to the mode of the source whence it flows, but according to the mode of the recipient.” So?
This saying applied in this connection means to me that subtle or dificult ideas shouldn’t always be given plain and direct, without explanation or commentary, to those who haven’t got the intellect, the training, or the open-mindedness to receive them.
I know this problem quite well. It is the exact problem I face when I try to explain the nuiances of the constutituion and the interplay of case law to this crowd and on this medium.
Just so you all know - I don’t think its anyone’s intellegence (or more appropriately - lack of intelligence) thats makes it difficult. Its all about training.
Tiny
What about savings? What about working for yourself. What about taking care of yourself and not depend on someone else for anything, like a job, a paycheck, etc.
It goes back to personal responsibility. Obama is tapping into the public’s belief of entitlement. The modern public seems to think that we are entitled to a job, entitled to a paycheck, entitled to food, etc. We are not entitled to anything - we need and should be providing for ourselves.
Now don’t confuse this with rights. We have the right to things and we cannot be stop from those rights. But thats different from entitlements. Entititlements are given - rights are protected.
What slut attitude? OH nevermind.
Thanks alot G Spot.
FC, to answer your question my entire family remains devoutly Catholic, I attend the sacramental celebrations - such as my nephew’s 1st communion this Sunday. That is where my son will again encounter the gory Jesus.
And we worry about what’s on TV, I tell ya… half-naked bloody people hanging on crosses…
I had a few more thoughts about Catholic intellectual tradition.
What happens when people who utilize this tradition reach a conclusion that is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church? Whose “truth” is the right one, and how can we know that it is the right one?
We see many examples of this today. Take any hot-button issue – abortion, gay rights/same-sex marriage, euthanasia, etc. We are all familiar with the Catholic Church’s positions on these issues. But don’t individual Catholics examine the available evidence and sometimes reach a conclusion different from that of the Catholic Church?
Surely there are Catholics who are pro-choice, who favor allowing same-sex marriage, and/or who would allow euthanasia or assisted suicide. How are we to know that it is the reasoning of these Catholics, and not the reasoning of the Catholic Church’s leaders, that is flawed?
What are the implications for the Catholic Church when its practitioners reach conclusions opposed to Catholic doctrine? Are those practitioners to be punished? Denied the sacraments of their faith? Excommunicated?
What are the implications for those practitioners? Is there a place for them within the Catholic Church, or do their differences lead them away from Catholicism? Are they able to reconcile their conclusions with their faith?
Historically, when did Catholic intellectual tradition move from being a tool exclusively for the clergy to a tradition all Catholics were expected to utilize?
What does it take for the Catholic Church to realize that one of its conclusions is wrong? Didn’t the Church excommunicate Galileo Galilei because he believed the earth was not the center of the universe? Didn’t the Catholic Church admit that they had been wrong to excommunicate Galileo in the 20th century? Where was Catholic intellectual tradition before then? Why did it take the Catholic Church so long – over 400 years – to admit its error? Was Catholic intellectual tradition absent, or was this particular issue simply overlooked? What other erroneous “truths” has the Catholic Church produced?
Even though I am not Catholic, I have an interest in the answers to these questions because the Catholic Church has influence over many things in the world.
Go-
that was good! very funny.
EBF-
You raise some good questions. I can tell you in my personal experience of growing up Catholic, the only hot button issue i heard about during sermons, was on abortion. And even then, it was a pretty watered down preaching. Our priest didn’t belt out the evils of gays, same sex marriage, suicide, etc. (And now, writing this, I realize that seems a little strange) I remember sermons being about accepting God in your heart, loving your neighbor, helping those less fortunate, acceptance of others, living a worthy life, being a “good” christian. Which is one reason i am glad i was raised in that church– that’s what being Catholic means to me. Maybe that’s why i also consider my mother to be a “devout” Catholic, not because she follows the prejudices and discriminatory practices of the Catholic church, but because she tries to live each day as a good person, with God in her heart. At the age of 73, she believes in equality for gays, but that doesn’t deter her faith in her Catholic church. Does that make her a hypocrite? Or less of a Catholic? Or is the Catholic faith the hypocrite? I don’t know.
Hi, all,
Tanks, EBF, and Elle, thank you for your comments and questions. They show me a lot of thought. And it seems to me that it’s very important that you keep on thinking according to your own consciences and what information is available to you.
There’s very little in the way of comment or answer that I can make in return. I would have to write several books, and I don’t think Katherine would allow that. :o) If any of you are or become interested in authoritative sources, I can only suggest Scripture, especially the Gospels, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The ultimate core, it seems to me, and I think I am on solid ground, is the Gospel story where someone asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment of the law, and he replied, love the Lord your God with your whole heart and soul and mind, and your neighbor as yourself; on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (I’m not quoting exactly because I don’t remember exactly, but it’s there.)
Anyway, all the rest of it is built on that. And since it’s been 2000 years in the building, it’s a large and complex building. I think that is necessary. Life is complex, especially moderen life. Just like a lock is complex, and only one key is exactly the right shape and will open the door.
Thank you again. Keep thinking. More later.
Hi again, all,
EBF, you’ve raised some good, hard, queations, and I’ll confess at the beginning I can’t answer them all, and even the answers I give may be inadequate. After all, these things have been talked about for thousands of years.
Last post, I talked about a building. This time, I have to go below the building, to the foundation, its footings, and the bedrock. The bedrock is a belief in supernature, the footings are monotheism, the foundation is Judaism, and the building is Christianity. I admit this might not make sense to an atheist.
The Nicene Creed we Catholics say at most every Mass says this, among other things: “I believe in one God, the Father, the almighty, the maker of all things seen and unseen.”
I suggest that the common and ordinary intuition of all humanity throughout the ages is that there’s something “out there,” there’s more to the cosmos than we can see and sense. And a lot of it remains mysterious, and the best we can do is make educated approximations, aided now and again by flashes of insight or inspiration.
The Jews claim that God, the maker and Master of the Universe (”Melech ha-Olam”) revealed Himself directly to Abraham, Moses, and the other patriarchs and prophets, and made of the Jews a people and a nation.
The earliest Christians claimed that the Jew Jesus of Nazareth, was the Messiah (”moshiach”) promised by God to the Jews. More than that, Jesus claimed to be not only a prophet of God, but to be equal with God. This in Jewish eyes was blasphemy, and was one of the reasons the temple authorities of the time thought he deserved death. So he was executed as a common criminal (crucifixion was reserved for criminals and slaves); but on the third day, it was claimed, he rose from the dead, stayed with his followers for forty days, and then “ascended into heaven”; in any case, vanished from their sight.
On the night before he died, he consecrated bread and wine, told his apostles “This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . do this in remembrance of me.”
After he left them, his followers continued to do that, as he said, adding to the offering and sacrifice the custom of readings from scripture that they were used to from the synagogues. (The twelve apostles were all Jews.) Probably by the end of the first century, and almost certainly no later than 150, the Mass was pretty much in the form we know today. I forget who calls it “the source and summit of the Christian life,” but I consider that a wonderful description.
More later.
Thanks for your comments FC. I’m still working on the finding the right path when i comes to religion. I don’t really believe the things I was taught growing up, but yet, its tough to leave them– because they did help to mold me to the adult i am today. I find your (and EBF’s) comments very thought provoking and interesting.
Hi, all,
Thank you, elle, for the kind words!
Your situation sounds just like what I experienced between the ages of 16 or 17 and 23. It somehow didn’t seem to make sense, but after 6 or 7 years of half-in, half-out, I said to myself, this is ridiculous. So in the spring of 1967 I walked up to the parish I was raised in and had a long talk with Fr. Ward, and decided to stay. The main reason for the confusion I didn’t figure out for many years after that; the reason was that I didn’t know that what I was taught as a child and teenager could be believed as an adult. Since then I’ve discovered that Catholicism is so rich that I’ll never get to the end of it. That’s my personal story, and with talking to many of my contemporaries now in middle age, I find I was very typical.
There are (at least) two other things I have to explain for EBF before I can answer his questions — sorry, EBF, I really don’t mean to preach, much less be condescending.
The first is that Catholic thought holds that a person is a combination of soul and body. We’re not spirits trapped in matter (as if matter were evil), nor are we merely more intelligent animals (though we are that).
What makes humanity different from the other animals is that we have a soul, which has an intellect to know with, and a will to choose with. This is what the scriptures and philosophers mean when they say we’re made in God’s image.
The second thing is that at the same time Jesus claimed to be God (and that has all kinds of philosophical implications, I’m sure you see), he said to his apostles “Who hears you hears me, and who hears me hears him who sent me” (or something very similar.) Catholics have always held that to mean that he gave them authority to speak in his name. And since he was God . . . .
Finally, Jesus appointed Peter to be the head of the twelve apostles, to keep up the work on earth until the end of time; and as far as history goes, Peter’s authority was universally recognized until 1054 (give or take) by the Eastern Orthodox, and until 1517 (give or take) by the Protestants.
So we have a voluntary association of people that has lasted for 2000 years, which recognizes the bishops as speaking in the name of God, and the Pope having final authority on earth over all.
Lastly — and this may seem strange — the Church is more than the sum of its parts. It’s very hard to explain, maybe impossible, but I’ll maybe give it a try later after I answer your questions. I’ve been giving you all this prelim material so you and I can go from bedrock to footings to foundation up into the structure.
elle and especially FC, thanks so much for your posts. I have found them very interesting and am looking forward to more.
I am sorry that I had little time — well, really no time — to post today. Some of your statements have raised additional questions and thoughts, but I will post those tomorrow.
Hi, all,
Well, EBF (and anyone else listening in), I think I’ve got to the point where I can answer the questions you raised.
I notice that they seem to fall into two main categories: the tension (and sometimes conflict) between conscience and authority; and how this has played out in history.
When people reach conclusions about moral behavior (not just sexual morality) that are different from Church teaching, a great deal depends on whether they’re Catholic or not, whether they really know what the Catholic Church teaches on an issue, and whether or not they have the capability of giving full assent or not.
I believe that what the Catholic Church teaches is the Truth, the right truth — and that in all things, not just religion, truth isn’t relative, that is, defined by the individual intellect. So I assent to its assertions that it has the authority to teach and why it has that authority. My assent is (I hope!) of the mind, of the will, and of the heart. I’ve often said that at my age and after all my reading, knowing and believing what I do, if I weren’t already Catholic, I’d be bound in conscience to convert.
By the way, I forgot to mention that of course a great deal of what I’ve said before about God, Jesus, the authority of Peter, can sound incredibly arrogant to some people, even reasonable people, and therefore incapable of being believed.
So someone can in good conscience say, “I hear what you’re saying, I can see it sort of all fits together and makes some kind of sense, but when push comes to shove, I just can’t buy it.”
My dad was raised Catholic, but by the end of his life, that was his position. Now, he was rigorously honest in his intellect as well as his conduct, so when he said in his last weeks “I don’t believe,” I think he meant he couldn’t. But whether he couldn’t believe anymore, or didn’t want to, I don’t know, and (as I’ve mentioned before in previous posts) it’s none of my business. It’s between Pop and God.
On the hot-button issues, as you said, individual Catholics can examine the available evidence and come to different conclusions. However, reaching a position on morality isn’t (just) a matter of examining evidence (maybe not at all) — it’s mainly (maybe totally) a matter of assenting to authority.
The mom says to the small child, “because I’m your mom, and I say so.” When the child is older, or adult, the parent lets go. In some contrast, what Catholic teaching says is that God isn’t just a parent (though he’s called “Our Father” and in places in the Bible is compared to a mother). God is our creator who made us out of nothing and keeps us in existence at every instant by His act of will. Even though “in” us insofar as we are His creatures, He is at the same time infinitely “above” us. Part of Catholic teaching is that part of the proper response to one’s Creator is adoration and obedience. And since Jesus is God, and since he gave Peter authority to speak in his name, and since that authority has been handed down, ultimately to Benedict . . . the pope deserves respect and obedience.
So the Catholic who wants to stay faithful will give respect and assent to Church teaching. For myself, I deduce that when my reasoning differs from the Church’s on a particular point, that my reasoning is in error. This for two reasons: first, I give assent to the idea of the transmission of authority through the ages; second, to me it only makes sense to defer to the opinions of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of scholars and saints who have gone before me, who have studied these things far far more than I have.
(I’m not going to try to build my retaining wall by myself, I’m hiring a guy; how much less should I try to build an intellectual edifice alone.)
Hope this helps. More later.
Hi, all,
EBF, you asked what happens to Catholics who reach conclusions opposed to Catholic doctrine. The short answer is “it depends.”
Part of it depends on what I mentioned before. Another thing to be considered is whether the opinions, and any statements, are private or public; another thing is the position of the person who publicly utters them.
Doubt and difficulty are part of life. A Catholic can have difficulties with any number of doctrines. If I do, I go talk to Father Charlie about it all.
But we have clergy who openly dissent from Church teaching, we have Catholic politicians who openly dissent, and bring their dissent into the performance of their public duties (and I suppose see no contradiction there). And dissent is a very different matter from doubt.
The “official” answer (as far as I know) is that a cleric or a teacher in a Catholic school, who is openly dissenting from Church teaching, has by that lost the privilege of holding their position.
This sounds harsh, I’m sure, but to me it makes sense. Think of an army general who sells out to the enemy on the battlefield, and deliberately leads a troop of soldiers to certain death, or hands over a key position to the enemy. Such a general is considered a traitor (think of Benedict Arnold).
The whole business of the Catholic Church is to lead souls to heaven. Anyone in the Church who uses their position to forestall that or make it more difficult is, in a way, a traitor to the Church’s mission, and deserves to be reprimanded, perhaps fired from the teaching job.
The rationale behind that is the dignity of the human person and the immortality of the human soul. (I believe the belief in the immortality of the soul was in Greek philosophy, and was part of the belief of some of the Jews in Jesus’ time.) The Church teaches that since the soul lives forever and the body does not (though bodies will rise and be reunited to souls at the end of the world) the soul is in a way far more valuable than the body.
By the way, Jesus had some very harsh condemnations directed at those who entice others to sin: better for such a one to never have been born, better for such a one to be tied to a millstone and drowned in the sea, and so on.
And insofar as the Church is a human institution, it reserves the right to make rules about who can belong and who can’t, who’s a member in good standing and who isn’t, just as any other human institution does — an employer, for instance.
In the case some years ago of Fr. Charles Curran, who was a college prof. teaching things opposed to Catholic doctrine, after many years of discussion and attempts at reconciliation, what finally happened is that he lost his “license” to call himself a Catholic teacher; and as far as I know, that’s all.
The case of the pro-choice Catholic politicians, like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and others, is difficult. On the face of things, these men are advocating public policies that are totally opposed to their professed allegiance to the Church. Some bishops have said they will deny Communion to these; some have said they won’t, on the ground that they can’t read their souls. I don’t believe Rome has spoken on this yet. I, for my own part only, see a very serious “dissonance” or “dichotomy” that shouldn’t be, and it distresses me greatly.
I do know what “Joe and Jane Average” in the pews are saying about the politicians: deny them Communion. They’re publicly and persistently defying Church teaching on an extremely important matter, and have lost the right to call themselves good Catholics. (In effect, they’ve excommunicated themselves.) The usual complaint I hear is “Why can’t they be honest, and leave?!”
(Aside: the Church teaches — and has since the beginning — that abortion is the direct taking of an innocent human life, so it is one of those acts that are always and everywhere intrinsically evil and can never in any way be condoned. It is perhaps the ultimate assault — killing — on the most defenseless of human beings.)
Of course not everyone is going to agree with this. And I may have stated it badly. I’m not a philosopher, much less a theologian, only a very ordinary Catholic lay man, and I may well have made mistakes here.
Last two questions next time.
Thank you, FC! I’m going to hold my thoughts until you’ve answered the last two questions because I think those answers will be important to my additional questions. In other words, those answers will give me a more complete picture and help me better frame my additional questions.
Hi, all, especially EBF,
You’re welcome, and here’s a little something on intellectual tradition; happily, I can answer this question rather easily.
“Historically, when did Catholic intellectual tradition move from being a tool exclusively for the clergy to a tradition all Catholics were expected to utilize?”
The answer, as best I know, is when a significant part of the faithful became literate enough and educated enough to read and discuss these things. The Catholic Church arose in the high summer of the Roman Empire, but as best I know, the vast majority of the early Christians were not literate, let alone highly educated.
It wasn’t until the rise of the universities in the 12th and 13th centuries that there appeared large numbers of literate and educated lay people. The reason for this, as I see it, wasn’t that the clergy wanted to keep a monopoly on literacy, but rather that life in general was so “low-tech” then that literacy wasn’t really necessary.
(An interesting comparison is with computer literacy; 40 years ago, it was the domain of highly-educated professionals, and even as late as 1970 computer science was a grad degree in the math department. Nowadays, computer literacy is considered essential even for children.)
Besides that, most people were so busy just getting a living from farm and field and forest that there wasn’t time to learn to read and write. (The whole history of technology and science from 500 to 1500 or so is very interesting to me.)
As best I understand my history, teaching was aimed more at the heart than the mind. The average Catholic in the little parish church would learn some prayers and the creed by heart, listen to the Sunday sermon almost certainly in the vernacular, and would be exhorted to keep the commandments and follow the teaching and example of Jesus, and the examples of his followers who were so heroic in their faith that they were called saints. (One doesn’t have to be very smart, or highly educated, to be a good person, after all.)
Worth mentioning here are the great cathedrals of the middle ages, with their statues of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, etc.; the stained-glass windows depicting the same; the mystery, miracle, and morality plays about events in scripture; the plays were staged and acted by the ordinary people of the cities like Wakefield, Chester, and I think Coventry.
All this said, there were tensions, disputes, and abuses — the Church is made up of fallible human beings -– and the story of those makes pretty lively reading. No serious historian will deny that in a way Luther was right when he called attention to abuses, denounced them, and did it so strongly that it produced a total upheaval of all Western Christendom. (The effects are still with us.)
After the Reformation, the Council of Trent sat on several sessions between 1545 and 1563. A site containing all its decrees is http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.html
and another is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm
which gives the following quick summary:
“The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it.”
In closing, I should say a word about sin, heresy and heretics.
The definition of sin that I learned as a kid is, roughly: a matter of morality, and sufficient reflection of the intellect about it, and full consent given by the will to it. If it isn’t a matter of morality, or if one doesn’t think about it, or if one acts out of habit, passion, or coercion, the sin is mitigated or nonexistent. (You probably know from logic or computer courses that one of the opposites of “A-and-B-and-C” is “not-A-OR-not-B-OR-not-C.”
Here’s a little snippet from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm:
“The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material.” (emphasis mine)
Hope this helps. Galileo next.
Hi, all, especially EBF,
You’re welcome, and here’s a little something on intellectual tradition; happily, I can answer this question rather easily.
“Historically, when did Catholic intellectual tradition move from being a tool exclusively for the clergy to a tradition all Catholics were expected to utilize?”
The answer, as best I know, is when a significant part of the faithful became literate enough and educated enough to read and discuss these things. The Catholic Church arose in the high summer of the Roman Empire, but as best I know, the vast majority of the early Christians were not literate, let alone highly educated.
It wasn’t until the rise of the universities in the 12th and 13th centuries that there appeared large numbers of literate and educated lay people. The reason for this, as I see it, wasn’t that the clergy wanted to keep a monopoly on literacy, but rather that life in general was so “low-tech” then that literacy wasn’t really necessary.
(An interesting comparison is with computer literacy; 40 years ago, it was the domain of highly-educated professionals, and even as late as 1970 computer science was a grad degree in the math department. Nowadays, computer literacy is considered essential even for children.)
Besides that, most people were so busy just getting a living from farm and field and forest that there wasn’t time to learn to read and write. (The whole history of technology and science from 500 to 1500 or so is very interesting to me.)
As best I understand my history, teaching was aimed more at the heart than the mind. The average Catholic in the little parish church would learn some prayers and the creed by heart, listen to the Sunday sermon almost certainly in the vernacular, and would be exhorted to keep the commandments and follow the teaching and example of Jesus, and the examples of his followers who were so heroic in their faith that they were called saints. (One doesn’t have to be very smart, or highly educated, to be a good person, after all.)
Worth mentioning here are the great cathedrals of the middle ages, with their statues of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, etc.; the stained-glass windows depicting the same; the mystery, miracle, and morality plays about events in scripture; the plays were staged and acted by the ordinary people of the cities like Wakefield, Chester, and I think Coventry.
All this said, there were tensions, disputes, and abuses — the Church is made up of fallible human beings -– and the story of those makes pretty lively reading. No serious historian will deny that in a way Luther was right when he called attention to abuses, denounced them, and did it so strongly that it produced a total upheaval of all Western Christendom. (The effects are still with us.)
After the Reformation, the Council of Trent sat on several sessions between 1545 and 1563. A site containing all its decrees is history.hanover.edu/early/trent.html
and another is newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm
which gives the following quick summary:
“The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it.”
In closing, I should say a word about sin, heresy and heretics.
The definition of sin that I learned as a kid is, roughly: a matter of morality, and sufficient reflection of the intellect about it, and full consent given by the will to it. If it isn’t a matter of morality, or if one doesn’t think about it, or if one acts out of habit, passion, or coercion, the sin is mitigated or nonexistent. (You probably know from logic or computer courses that one of the opposites of “A-and-B-and-C” is “not-A-OR-not-B-OR-not-C.”
Here’s a little snippet from newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm:
“The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material.” (emphasis mine)
Hope this helps. Galileo next.
Hi, all, especially EBF,
The Galileo affair is messy and much misunderstood.
One thing to keep in mind is that by 1582 the Julian calendar was about 10 or 11 days off. So on recommendation of the Vatican astronomers, Pope Gregory issued a statement reforming the calendar and bringing it back in line with the sun. The point is that in 1582 the Vatican had some of the best astronomers in the world.
Up to the Renaissance, the generally accepted theory was that the earth was the center of the universe. This view was held by the ancient Greeks, most notably Ptolemy.
Three very important names to keep in mind besides Galileo are:
Nicholas Copernicus, 1473-1543,
Tycho Brahe, 1546-1601,
Johann Kepler 1571-1630;
Galileo lived from 1574 to 1642.
Copernicus was the first Western astronomer to publish the theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system.
Hi, all, especially EBF,
The Galileo affair is messy and much misunderstood.
One thing to keep in mind is that by 1582 the Julian calendar was about 10 or 11 days off. So on recommendation of the Vatican astronomers, Pope Gregory issued a statement reforming the calendar and bringing it back in line with the sun. The point is that in 1582 the Vatican had some of the best astronomers in the world.
Up to the Renaissance, the generally accepted theory was that the earth was the center of the universe, and everything moved about the earth in circular orbits. This view was held by the ancient Greeks, most notably Ptolemy.
Three very important names to keep in mind besides Galileo are:
Nicholas Copernicus, 1473-1543,
Tycho Brahe, 1546-1601,
Johann Kepler 1571-1630;
Galileo lived from 1574 to 1642.
Copernicus was the first Western astronomer to publish the theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system.
Tycho Brahe set up an observatory and made many many observations of the apparent motions of the planets, in an effort to reconcile the Ptolemaic and Copernican theories.
The reason is that the Ptolemaic theory didn’t account for apparent retrograde movements of visible planets. That is, a planet under observation would seem to change position in the night sky, then stop, go backward a bit, then resume its “forward” course.
Kepler got hold of Brahe’s observations and formulated the first “laws” of planetary motion that fit the observed data. A very good site to see is:
kepler.nasa.gov/johannes/
About Galileo –
(see galileo.rice.edu) –
Galileo taught mathematics at the University of Pisa, starting about 1589. In 1592 he obtained the chair of mathematics at the University of Padua. The Rice U. website says that it was about 1595 that he adopted the Copernican theory, and about 1609 he made his own telescope. About 1610 he discovered four satellites of Jupiter, and was appointed chief mathematician of the University of Pisa.
In December 1610, says the website, Galileo discovered that Venus has “phases,” like the Moon, and thus the Ptolemaic system is disproven (Note: I don’t know how).
In 1611, things started to get messy: Cardinal Bellarmine had some Jesuit mathematicians certify Galileo’s discoveries, but they didn’t agree with his interpretations. As far as I recall, it was because the Copernican theory appeared to contradict Scripture. (This is a highly important point, because one of the complaints of the Reformers against the Church was that the Church didn’t regard the Bible highly enough.)
In 1615, Galileo was complained about to the Inquisition by a Dominican friar, but defended by a Franciscan friar named Foscarini. Bellarmine wrote to Foscarini and said (basically) there was nothing wrong with publishing about the Copernican theory as long as it was treated as a theory, not as fact. But in February 1616, Galileo was warned by Bellarmine to lay off the Copernican theory.
In April 1624, Galileo had audiences with the Pope and some cardinals; the Pope told Galileo he could write about the Copernican theory as long as he treated it as a hypothesis.
In April 1630 Galileo published his book / treatise Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems [that is, Ptolemaic and Copernican]. And if I remember correctly, that was when the big trouble started.
Stay tuned . . .
Hi, all, especially EBF,
I found a good objective website about the Dialogue. It is
calstatela.edu/faculty/kaniol/a360/galileo_dialogue.htm
A good website about the trial is
law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileo.html and here’s an interesting snippet from it:
“In 1623, Galileo received some hopeful news: Cardinal Maffeo Barberini had been elected Pope. Unlike the dull and mean-tempered Pope Paul V, the new Pope Urban VIII held a generally positive view of the arts and science. Writing from Rome, the Pope’s private secretary, Secretary of the Briefs Ciampoli, urged Galileo to resume publication of his ideas: ‘If you would resolve to commit to print those ideas that you still have in mind, I am quite certain that they would be most acceptable to His Holiness, who never ceases from admiring your eminence and preserves intact his attachment for you. You should not deprive the world of your productions.’”
But some folks in the Church objected to the Dialogue, not only because it seemed to contradict Scripture, but because it looked as though he had ignored the advice of 1616 and 1624. Also, if my memory serves, in the book he had made the character who defends the Ptolemaic system look like a fool, and some took that as a caricature of the Pope.
To further confuse the issue, there was infighting among Church people:
“Undoubtedly some Church officials wanted to protect doctrinal authority and others still felt that Copernicanism was heretical. But the men who wanted to see Galileo subjected to the strictest penalties were not so highly motivated as all that. It is hard to say who they were or why they were so anxious to have Galileo grovel in the dust. But that there was a group of clerics bent on humiliating him cannot be denied. Cardinal Barberini, Firenzuola, Riccardi, and Campanella, among others, were pretty sure that this trial was not aimed so much at preserving doctrinal purity as it was at extracting personal revenge. And they wanted no part of it.” [1]
Galileo was made to recant, and received a sentence of house arrest, during which he was to recite the seven penitenial psalms (q.v.) for, I believe, the rest of his life; but as his health failed, his daughter did it for him. Note he was not excommunicated.
“Galileo was sentenced as vehemently suspected of heresy. This was an unfortunate decision on several accounts. First, the Copernical opinion was treated as heretical when, in reality, it was not. The … Consultors in 1616 had qualified the proposition that the earth moves as ‘formally heretical’ but their judgment did not make the immobility of the earth a matter of faith. Neither the ordinary nor the extraordinary magisterium [teaching authority] of the Church had pronounced infallibly on the Copernican system. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas had said long before that Scripture was not meant to teach natural science. In other words, Galileo was suspected of heresy for holding something which it was not heretical to hold, since the Copernican opinion had never been declared false by infallible authority.” [2]
So as I see it, this is basically why John Paul II apologized. The Church of the time mishandled the case. Why it took so long I have only one idea, and that is that the Pope simply can’t pay attention to everything, though I think he’s arguably one of the best-informed people on the planet.
[1] Jerome J. Langford, O.P. Galileo, Science, and the Church. New York: Desclee, 1966, p. 142
[2] op. cit., p. 155
FC, thanks again for your very thoughtful and thorough posts. It’s funny, you said you could write books answering my questions – and I know that is quite literally true – but considering the length of some of my posts, I really don’t think Katherine would mind!
I know that you have answered these questions from the perspective of a devout, practicing Catholic, and that has given me a good bit of insight into that perspective. I very much appreciate that. As you know, not only was I not raised Catholic, I now consider myself an atheist. As skeptical as I am about anything involving religion, and as difficult as the questions are that I seem to ask, I do have a good bit of curiosity about religion, and how and why people practice it. I’ve been fortunate to have had many good friends who practice different religions. Even though I do not believe in any of those religions personally, I’ve enjoyed learning about them. I have also enjoyed attending religious services with some of these friends, obviously not because I wish to worship, but because I wish to observe the ceremonies and understand how they are significant to those who practice the religion. One need not believe in a deity or the supernatural to appreciate that religious ceremony can be very meaningful, and not only in a religious sense.
It is not my intent here to debate Catholic intellectual tradition as an atheist. Obviously, the very premise you started with – “the bedrock belief in supernature” – is something that I, as an atheist, reject. Without that basis, there is nothing to hold up the rest. It all crumbles. And, of course, belief in the supernatural does require a certain amount of faith, probably more for some people than for others.
So, instead, I’m trying to understand this from your point of view, even if I don’t necessarily subscribe to your point of view.
Before I start with the questions, I’d like to make one observation. You said that
I suggest that the common and ordinary intuition of all humanity throughout the ages is that there’s something “out there,” there’s more to the cosmos than we can see and sense. And a lot of it remains mysterious, and the best we can do is make educated approximations, aided now and again by flashes of insight or inspiration.
I found this interesting, because even we atheists can agree with this entire statement. We don’t necessarily believe there is something intelligent or divine out there, but there is a good bit about the universe that we don’t understand. Many scientific discoveries have been stumbled upon, often with flashes of insight or inspiration. As for the unseen, I’ve read theories about space and time that theorize the existence of 26 dimensions – certainly nothing we could see in our three dimensions (four if you consider time to be a dimension).
Now, on to more questions!
What makes humanity different from the other animals is that we have a soul, which has an intellect to know with, and a will to choose with.
Is this really true? I think about animals like chimpanzees, orangutans, dolphins and elephants – animals that exhibit significant intelligence, even self-awareness – and I have to wonder. Perhaps the difference between man and “beast” is the ability to reason. But some humans never develop the ability to reason. Some humans are challenged from birth; others suffer brain injuries severe enough to change their personalities. Some humans are incapable of understanding the choices they make, or the ethics behind those choices. While this may be focusing on the tiny percentage of exceptions within the human race, are these people also not made in God’s image? If God does not make mistakes, what are we to think of a human born with severe mental retardation or a brain deformity, especially when the mother did “everything right” during the pregnancy?
I believe that what the Catholic Church teaches is the Truth, the right truth — and that in all things, not just religion, truth isn’t relative, that is, defined by the individual intellect.
How can this be so? Are there no examples of “truths” the Church has taught, only to be proven wrong? How are we to know that the “truths” taught today won’t be proven wrong in ten years, or ten thousand years? I have a very difficult time with anyone professing to know “the truth.”
By the way, I forgot to mention that of course a great deal of what I’ve said before about God, Jesus, the authority of Peter, can sound incredibly arrogant to some people, even reasonable people, and therefore incapable of being believed.
So someone can in good conscience say, “I hear what you’re saying, I can see it sort of all fits together and makes some kind of sense, but when push comes to shove, I just can’t buy it.”
Well, I can say that I understand what you’re saying, and I can see how people believe that it all fits together, but not that it makes enough sense for me to buy it! I do not, though, think any of it sounds arrogant. I do not see sincerity as being arrogant, even if I personally believe that sincerity to be misguided.
On the hot-button issues, as you said, individual Catholics can examine the available evidence and come to different conclusions. However, reaching a position on morality isn’t (just) a matter of examining evidence (maybe not at all) — it’s mainly (maybe totally) a matter of assenting to authority.
And that’s where I start having problems. On the one hand, the Church seems to be saying, “use this intellectual tradition; it’s necessary for understanding and to arrive at truth.” But on the other hand, the Church is saying, “if you don’t arrive at the same truth we arrive at, well, you’re wrong. You have to go with what we tell you is right.” Is this true even when the individual understands the reasons for the Church’s position, but sees those reasons as flawed? How do people deal with such a conflict of conscience?
Part of Catholic teaching is that part of the proper response to one’s Creator is adoration and obedience.
Not blind obedience. If blind obedience were acceptable, Catholic intellectual tradition would never be encouraged outside of the clergy. But at some point obedience must be blind, because it is expected even if the reasons for obeying something are not only not understood, but also rejected outright. This rejection can be arrived at through Catholic intellectual tradition, correct?
For myself, I deduce that when my reasoning differs from the Church’s on a particular point, that my reasoning is in error. This for two reasons: first, I give assent to the idea of the transmission of authority through the ages; second, to me it only makes sense to defer to the opinions of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of scholars and saints who have gone before me, who have studied these things far far more than I have.
That makes sense as far as it goes, but what if you’re an expert in a particular field, you’ve looked at all sides of an issue, and you just can’t subscribe to the Church’s position? What if you feel so strongly about your conclusions that there is simply no way you’re going to defer or obey, especially if doing so would be morally unacceptable to you? I’m sure for a lot of issues, people are rather neutral and don’t mind going one way or another, but some people are very strong-minded about some issues and have good, solid reasons to back their positions. How do they reconcile with the Church’s positions – or do they?
All this said, there were tensions, disputes, and abuses — the Church is made up of fallible human beings -– and the story of those makes pretty lively reading.
I’ll bet it’s pretty juicy! But if the humans who make up the Church are fallible, can’t the Pope himself also be fallible? Isn’t it possible for a Pope to make a colossal blunder?
The definition of sin that I learned as a kid is, roughly: a matter of morality, and sufficient reflection of the intellect about it, and full consent given by the will to it. If it isn’t a matter of morality, or if one doesn’t think about it, or if one acts out of habit, passion, or coercion, the sin is mitigated or nonexistent.
So if a person does not possess sufficient reasoning capabilities – say as in a severely mentally retarded person, or maybe a person in the final stages of Alzheimer’s – is it not possible for that person to sin? Does an act have to be deliberate to be sinful? Does there have to be malicious intent? What if one’s intent is anything but malicious, and is in fact passionate – two gay men making love, for example – is there no sin in the act?
You probably know from logic or computer courses that one of the opposites of “A-and-B-and-C” is “not-A-OR-not-B-OR-not-C.”
Oh, yes! I deal with this all the time at work!
Galileo was made to recant, and received a sentence of house arrest, during which he was to recite the seven penitenial psalms (q.v.) for, I believe, the rest of his life; but as his health failed, his daughter did it for him. Note he was not excommunicated.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Again, FC, I thank you very much for taking the time to research and post your responses. They are very thoughtful. I appreciate the work you put into this!
Hi, all,
EBF, you’re very welcome. I’m always glad to state, and try to explain, what I believe.
As to more answers, I will have to defer for a day or so: dead-tired, having rebuilt a secondhand computer desk so it will fit here; with the uncabling, carting, and recabling that goes with it.
Some of the questions can be easily answered, some only tentatively and with difficulty, and some I can’t answer at all, because they’re beyond me. But I’ll do what I can.
Many thanks for courteous listening and response!
Hi, all, especially EBF,
It’s been a while: I’m still tired from Friday and Saturday, and construction and yard work season has begun, so I’ve been busy and expect to be so until well into autumn.
I can’t answer, much less rebut, all your comments, because many of them are of the “I believe” - “You believe” kind, and I don’t think we can find much (if any) common ground.
I have to add something I don’t think I did before, which is that Catholic intellectual tradition is - in a sense - partly Jewish, partly Platonic, and partly Aristotelian. As far as I know, it’s well established that when the early Christians met the Hellenistic world, they had to develop a philosophy (which is not just a bunch of ideas but also a method of reasoning about them). It was a matter of expressing their witnessed experiences and their convictions in a language philosophers would accept.
Augustine was a Platonist; Aquinas was an Aristotelian, in that he introduced Aristotelian methods into medieval philosophy and theology. There is a vast literature on this.
Re some people and some animals:
I grant you that some animals exhibit what looks like intelligence and self-awareness; I have read somewhere that chimps will use sticks to knock bananas out of trees, and that some seem to understand sign language. However, when I see (e.g.) chimps developing a written language, or birds building their nests in different architectural styles, I’ll concede that there’s “something going on”; until then, I’ll stick with what I was taught.
My friend J. got pregnant when she was 40 and contracted pregnancy diabetes (and didn’t know it), so N. has Down’s Syndrome. Despite predictions of utter doom and gloom, N. is now about 26, has a high school diploma and a job, and is a joy to the family because of being such a good-natured kid. What’s more, J. got involved in ARC, in the “mainstreaming” movement, and became a certified special-ed teacher’s assistant. She rose far above herself. So what looks like a mistake turned out to be a great blessing after all.
I admit this is not proof in the philosophical sense, but one piece of evidence that tells me there’s a divine plan behind those things which look like mistakes.
Hi, all, especially EBF,
Re: Truth
As far as I know, there are no truths the Church has taught which have been proven wrong.
Catholic belief is that the Church teaches spiritual truths necessary for our salvation. These are of necessaity the kind of thing that touch on the mysterious, or are mysteries in the sense that we can never get to the bottom of them, not in the sense that there’s some kind of esoteric lore available only to the “in-group.” That’s Gnosticism, and the Church condemned that way back.
I should mention here that “Papal Infallibility” is a much misused term. Here’s what it means according to the new Catechism: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful — who confirms his brethren in the faith — he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals…” or, earlier, “In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed down by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share of his own infallibility.” (CCC, 891, 888)
The whole point of Church teaching is to hand down without change that which the apostles received from Jesus Christ; you’ll recall that he claimed to be God, and that He said to the apostles, “Who hears you hears me, and who hears me hears Him who sent me.”
Hi, all, especially EBF,
More on papal fallibility:
It is possible for the Pope to make a “colossal blunder” (and I can think of a few over 2000 years) because he is, after all, a human being like everyone else.
That said, however, when it comes to matters of faith and morals, when he teaches authoritatively as head of the Church with the intention to instruct the faithful, we believe that he is protected from error.
Hi, all, especially EBF,
Re: Intellectual Tradition:
There are two very interesting books out there which I would recommend to anyone interested in philosophy and theology through the ages. One is called Dissent From the Creed by Fr. Richard Hogan (who I believe has doctorates in both theology and medieval history).
The other is called The Catholic Church and the Counter-Faith, by Philip Trower, in which he explains very well how the Catholic intellectual tradition was distorted by the Reformation and “Enlightenment” and how a great deal of modern thought is based on the distortion. One of the best quips in this 318-page book is: “After Descartes had philosophically shut men up inside their minds, the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) redecorated the prison’s interior, the Scot David Hume (1711-1776) locked the door and the Prussian Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) threw away the key.” To appeciate why this quip is so deliciously sharp, read the book. :o)
Hi, all, especially EBF,
To take the last two questions, conscience versus authority, and sin and culpability:
On the first, I can say that any time that I have ever had difficulty understanding or wanting to conform myself to a teaching of the Church, I go and talk about it to someone who knows more than I do, and I’ve never walked away unsatisfied.
The question, whether a position of rejection of a Catholic truth can be arrived at through the Catholic intellectual tradition, is to my mind a non-question. Again, I am most definitely not a philosopher or theologian. The reason I say this is that if a person is thinking about matters of faith or morals, and is using the very sound methods of scholastic philosophy to think with, it seems to me the chance of arriving at a different conclusion is zero. I think Hogan and Trower demonstrate very well that one can arrive at a position different from orthodox Catholicism only by rejecting one of the premises, or by rejecting common sense or strict logic.
I just happened on a passage in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth): “Certainly the Church’s Magisterium does not intend to impose on the faithful any particular theological system, much less a philosophical one. Nevertheless, in order to ‘reverently preserve and faithfully expound’ the word of God, the Magisterium has the duty to state that some trends of theological thinking and certain philosophical affirmations are incompatible with revealed truth.”
As I see it, the thought is only to explain the events to which the apostles and others were eyewitnesses, and thinking about the events is only to lead us to the person of Jesus Christ and a relationship of discipleship to him. The whole edifice is, beginning, middle, and end, about Christ crucified and risen.
Here’s another quote: “God’s law does not reduce, much less do away with human freedom; rather, it protects and promotes that freedom. In contrast, however, some present-day cultural tendencies have given rise to several currents of thought in ethics which center upon an alleged conflict between freedom and law. These doctrines would grant to individuals or social groups the right to determine what is good or evil. Human freedom would thus be able to ‘create values’ and would enjoy a primacy over truth, to the point that truth itself would be considered a creation of freedom.” [emphases his]
On the second point, the Church teaches that there are degrees of sin and degrees of culpability; also that any one of three things can make an act sinful: the action in itself, the intent behind it, and the consequences of it. Thus it is forbidden to do evil so that good might result. It is necessary to think of the long-term consequences of an action (ripples spreading in a pond). It is also necessary to ask oneself why one is doing something.
If the action is wicked, OR if the intention is wicked, OR if the results are wicked, then there is sin. It’s possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing despite the right reasons.
In Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth), John Paul states that conscience is not free from the possibility of error, conscience is not an infallible judge.
One thing the Catholic Church teaches, espcially by John Paul in this encyclical letter, is that there are some actions that — regardless of intention or consequences — are always and everywhere evil and inexcusable.
Vatican II, in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) Section 27, said this:
“Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostritution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honor due to the creator.”
There is a hint about sexual sin in St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians [5:13]: “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh.” And in his letter to the Corinthians [6:9-11], he is explicit as can be: “You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God.”
And that is all, and I am finished.
FC, thank you again for your posts. I really do appreciate the thought you’ve put into them. I’m adding the books you referenced to my “need to read” list!
I hope you will indulge me two last questions.
First, you said that, as far as you know, the Catholic Church has taught no truths that have been proven wrong. That led me to wonder exactly what a “truth” is. You explained about spiritual truths; are those the only kind of truths the Church teaches? Or are there other kinds of truths? This may be a bad example, but I think it will convey the thought behind my question: if the Church taught that the earth was flat, would that be considered a “truth?” This isn’t exactly a spiritual question, but its answer can have spiritual implications.
Second, if a truth must be spiritual in nature, is it possible for mundane teachings of the Church to be incorrect? In other words, if there is no spiritual component to the teaching, does the Church ever err within that teaching – and, if so, are there any implications for its spiritual teachings?
Thanks again, FC! I hope you’ve had an opportunity to enjoy some of the beautiful weather we’ve had lately!
Hi, all, especially EBF,
As far as I know, the Church confines itself to teaching only what is necessary for our salvation. However, since people are both soul and body, and live in the real world, our salvation depends to a high degree on keeping the “super-commandment” to love our neighbor. So the spiritual and the mundane overlap, or, one might say, interpenetrate each other. See the end of the Gospel according to Matthew. There are also in the Church what are called “the seven corporal works of mercy”: feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned, shelter the homeless, visit the sick, and bury the dead.
In this day and age, and with present circumstances, these works of mercy have political implications; e.g., should the taxpayers subsidize homeless shelters? This is a question that’s still being argued both inside and outside the Church, as best I know. Some American Catholics think the US bishops are getting too specifically mundane in their writings about these social questions; some think not; their argument being that there is a moral dimension to these social and political problems, and the bishops have a duty to address that moral dimension.
On the “flat earth” question, here’s a quote from G. K. Chesterton’s book on Aquinas: “…he [Aquinas] was historically a great friend to the freedom of science. The principles he laid down, properly understood, are perhaps the best that can be produced for protecting science from mere obscurantist persecution. For instance, in the matter of the interpretation od Scripture, he fixed first on the obvious fact, which was forgotten by four furious centuries of sectarian battle, that the meaning of Scripture is very far from self-evident; and that we must often interpret it in the light of other truths. If a literal interpretation is really and flatly contradicted by and obvious fact, why then we can say that the literal interpretation must be a false interpretation. But the fact must really be an obvious fact.” See also again my “Galileo” letter on this.
You might be interested to know that there exists the Pontifical Academy of Sciences; it was established in 1603, has a website; and if that isn’t Galileo on their front page, I’ll eat my stocking cap. :o)
Thanks for the kind words, EBF, and I wish you well too.
FC, I must thank you again! I appreciate all of the time you spent writing your thoughtful answers to my questions.
Please leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Katherine Kersten writes a weekly column for the Star Tribune's Sunday Opinion Exchange section. The column covers a broad range of topics reflecting her experiences and interests.
In this blog, she will address many of the same issues, albeit in quicker, less formal fashion, along with pointing readers to other sources of interesting online commentary and coverage.
Subscribe to Katherine Kersten
Learn more about RSS
Books I Love
- Underdevelopment is a State of Mind - Lawrence E. Harrison
- The Schools We Need: Why We Don’t Have Them – E.D. Hirsch
- The Closing of the American Mind – Allan Bloom
- The Repeal of Reticence – Rochelle Gurstein
- Political Pilgrims – Paul Hollander
- The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism – Michael Novak
- A Conflict of Visions – Thomas Sowell
- Adam Bede – George Eliot
- The Brothers Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoevsky
- The Lord of the Rings -- J. R. R. Tolkein
Great Minnesota Blogs
Indispensible Think Tanks
Movies You Won't Forget
On Education
- Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
- Center for Education Reform
- Core Knowledge Foundation
- Intercollegiate Studies Institute
On Marriage and the Family
Sites You Shouldn't Miss
Categories
- 2008 GOP Convention (11)
- Abstinence (3)
- ACLU (3)
- ADA (1)
- Adoption (1)
- Adversary Culture (3)
- Affirmative Action (3)
- AIDS (2)
- Airlines (1)
- Airport Taxi Drivers (3)
- Al Franken (5)
- Al Gore (3)
- Al Sharpton (1)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Animal Rights (3)
- Anti-Americans (1)
- art (1)
- Assisted Suicide (1)
- Athletics (1)
- Bikes (5)
- Bill Clinton (1)
- Bin Laden (1)
- Boy Scouts (1)
- Boys (2)
- Brainerd Lakes (1)
- Bridge (1)
- Bridge Collapse (8)
- British (1)
- Canada (1)
- Charter schools (1)
- Children (14)
- China (1)
- Chris Stewert (1)
- Christianity (8)
- Christmas (6)
- Cities (2)
- Clarence Thomas (1)
- Collectors (1)
- Colleges (24)
- Congress (2)
- Conservatism (8)
- Constitution (5)
- Contraception (1)
- Courts (9)
- Courtship (1)
- Crime (12)
- Critical Mass (2)
- Culture Wars (6)
- Cyberspace (1)
- Darwin (1)
- Dating (2)
- Dawkins (1)
- Death (2)
- Death Penalty (2)
- Delta Queen (2)
- Discrimination (8)
- Disneyland (1)
- Diversity (9)
- Divorce (2)
- Don Samuels (1)
- Drugs (5)
- Economics (10)
- Education (32)
- Emperor has no clothes (1)
- Energy Policy (1)
- Environmental Issues (11)
- Ethanol (2)
- Eugenics (1)
- Europe (8)
- Evil (1)
- Experts (1)
- Falwell (1)
- Fathers (4)
- Feminists (3)
- First Minnesota Volunteers (1)
- Flying Imams (12)
- Francis of Assisi (1)
- Free Speech (2)
- free will (1)
- Gambling (1)
- Garrison Keillor (2)
- Gas Prices (1)
- Gay Issues (4)
- Gay Marriage (8)
- George Washington (1)
- Germany (1)
- Global Warming (11)
- government gone wild (2)
- Happiness (4)
- Hate Crimes (3)
- Health Care (10)
- Hillary Clinton (2)
- Home Schooling (2)
- Huck Finn (1)
- Indomitable Human Spirit (6)
- Intellectual Freedom (1)
- Iran (1)
- Iraq (22)
- Islam (3)
- James Lileks (1)
- Jane Fonda (1)
- Joe Lieberman (2)
- John Edwards (1)
- John Kerry (2)
- John McCain (2)
- John Wesley Powell (1)
- Journalists (2)
- Keith Ellison (5)
- Larry Craig (1)
- law enforcement (3)
- Lawyers (3)
- Legislature (5)
- Lori Swanson (1)
- Love (2)
- Main (555)
- Manhood (3)
- Mark Ritchie (1)
- Marriage (14)
- Media (9)
- medical ethics (1)
- Melancholia (1)
- Michael Moore (1)
- Michael Vick (1)
- Michelle Bachmann (2)
- Mike Hatch (2)
- Military (19)
- Mitt Romney (1)
- Monster Houses (1)
- Morality (12)
- Mortgage Crises (2)
- Mother Teresa (1)
- Movies (3)
- Multiculturalism (4)
- Museums (1)
- Music (1)
- Muslims (17)
- Nancy Pelosi (1)
- Navy SEALs (1)
- New Orleans (1)
- Norm Coleman (3)
- Norman Borlaug (1)
- North Korea (1)
- Novels (1)
- Obama (10)
- Oberstar (2)
- Olympics (1)
- Outward Bound (1)
- Overcoming (1)
- Parenting (10)
- Peter Singer (2)
- Peter Swanson (1)
- Political Correctness (3)
- Political Pilgrims (1)
- Politics (68)
- Popular Entertainment (3)
- Pornography (3)
- Poverty (5)
- Princess Diana (1)
- Prostitution (1)
- psychology (1)
- Race (16)
- Rachel Paulose (2)
- Radical Islam (3)
- Rap Music (3)
- Religion (21)
- Rights Talk (7)
- ROTC (1)
- Salvation Army (1)
- Sara Jane Olson (1)
- Sarah Palin (4)
- Science (15)
- Self Esteem (2)
- Sexual Infidelity (1)
- Sexuality (16)
- Single Parents (1)
- Sixties (1)
- Skewering the Author (4)
- Slavery (1)
- Smoking (2)
- Social Security (1)
- Solzhenitsyn (1)
- Somalis (2)
- Sports (1)
- Statistics (1)
- STDs (1)
- Stem Cells (2)
- Suicide (1)
- Sustainability (1)
- Sweden (1)
- Tatoos (1)
- Taxes (6)
- Terrorism (6)
- There for Another (8)
- Think Again Readers (5)
- Thomas More (2)
- Tim Pawlenty (6)
- TIZA (6)
- Tobacco (1)
- Transgender (1)
- University of MN (2)
- Ventura (2)
- Video games (2)
- Vietnam (5)
- Violence and the Media (1)
- Virtues and Values (9)
- Voting (3)
- Wal-Mart (1)
- Wealth and Poverty (6)
- Welfare (4)
- Western Culture (1)
- Woodstock (1)
- World War II (2)
- Young People (18)
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006