Amb. Keyes arrested at Notre Dame

[elts1956]

For some reason This sounds like something familar from a Star Trek debate over Spock…

excellent, excellent post. :tiphat:

Ambassador Keyes did what is praised so much by Rosa Parks, Martin Lurther King and many others and it is protesting by an act of civil **disobedience. **

When Rosa Parks said no to going to the back of the bus it was an act against the law at the time and place. Sometimes one must in order to get the attention of others do just that break the law and in this case it was not an unjust law, trespassing, but it was a peaceful way of making a point and getting media coverage for the case against abortion (immoral, unjust, evil and violates nature law), politicians that pander to it and Catholics that pander to it as well as the politicians.

What really gets me is how many of the same people, Catholics included, that oppose what Keyes and Terry did, speak so ofton how grand of another person, Ghandi, who is sighted as the father of the use of civil disobedience, yet when he did it it provoked violence against the protestors which resulted in thousand to to be killed. And here with what Keyes and Terry did, they provked no violence at all, in a protest of the murders of millions that continues in each and every day,

It is sad that when a Catholic acts in a peaceful protest he is condemned by fellow Catholics (I expect it from the pro-aborts) and called a self-seeking oportunist, but when a Hindu does it and causes thousands to be killed he is called a man of peace. I think we all need to take some time to do a reality check - Of course sometimes I think way too many claim to be Catholic but don’t just fail to live up to that claim (we all have our failures and fall short) but go out of their way to disgrace themselves and the Church in despite of that claim, such as priest that run Catholic universities and politcians that vote for and pander to the pro-abort agenda…

May God have mercy on the American Catholic Church

If I am not mistaken, ( but I could be mistaken) the actions taken by Rosa Parks and the resulting massacre of the protestors by the British army took place as first time incidents. Did the British continue to kill peaceful protestors? I think there were other incidents of uprising by the people which resulted in killings?

Keyes and Terry both knew, they have been around long enough, what would probably happen as a result of their “very obvious” pro life demonstration, while possibly Rosa Parks and neither Ghandi knew what would happen as a result of their actions.

So if was Keye’s intention, and I am sure it was, was to call attention to the pro life movement, he succeeded. I still think it was in an inappropriate way for this type of pro life demonstration considering the time and place.

 

[mystified]

It would have been great if Alan Keyes had been the first African-American to be elected President instead of Obama. But too many people don’t like him because he speaks the truth on various issues.

He would have had my vote!

 

[KathleenElsie]

If I am not mistaken, ( but I could be mistaken) the actions taken by Rosa Parks and the resulting massacre of the protestors by the British army took place as first time incidents. Did the British continue to kill peaceful protestors? I think there were other incidents of uprising by the people which resulted in killings?

Keyes and Terry both knew, they have been around long enough, what would probably happen as a result of their “very obvious” pro life demonstration, while possibly Rosa Parks and neither Ghandi knew what would happen as a result of their actions.

So if was Keye’s intention, and I am sure it was, was to call attention to the pro life movement, he succeeded. I still think it was in an inappropriate way for this type of pro life demonstration considering the time and place.

This brave woman did not wait for the correct time and place. She lived a long and productive life.

Columbia Encyclopedia entry: Parks, Rosa Louise
http://o.aolcdn.com/art/one-click-encyclo-full/parks-ro Parks, Rosa Louise, 1913–2005, American civil-rights activist, b. Tuskegee, Ala., as Rosa Louise McCauley. A seamstress and long-time member of the Montgomery, Ala., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), her Dec. 1, 1955, arrest for refusing to give up her seat on a municipal bus to a white man sparked the Montgomery bus boycott. This successful protest, which lasted just over a year, marked the emergence of Martin Luther [King](http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/...lopedia.M&clickedItemDescription=Encyclopedia Main), Jr., to national prominence as a civil-rights leader and provided the model for future nonviolent movement actions. Fired from her job and unable to find work, Parks moved in 1957 to Detroit, where she remained active in the civil-rights movement and worked (1965–88) as an aide to Congressman John Conyers. She was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress’s highest honor, in 1999.

Not sure where a British massacre comes in here. I guess I missed something. Please enlighten me.

 

[KathleenElsie]

He would have had my vote!

 

[Michael_C]

How outrageous! Notre Dame really must frown on people protesting abortion. It’s secularization should be complete on the 17th.

 

[Bennie_P]

If I am not mistaken, ( but I could be mistaken) the actions taken by Rosa Parks and the resulting massacre of the protestors by the British army took place as first time incidents. Did the British continue to kill peaceful protestors? I think there were other incidents of uprising by the people which resulted in killings?

Keyes and Terry both knew, they have been around long enough, what would probably happen as a result of their “very obvious” pro life demonstration, while possibly Rosa Parks and neither Ghandi knew what would happen as a result of their actions.

So if was Keye’s intention, and I am sure it was, was to call attention to the pro life movement, he succeeded. I still think it was in an inappropriate way for this type of pro life demonstration considering the time and place.

Rosa Park expected to get hurt or arrested, mainly she was just too tired to walk to the back of the bus, but she only put her life in danger not others. Ghandi knew very well what he was doing for he did the same in South Africa. He knew what the reaction of his call to action would be, in fact he counted on it. In order to bring shame the British. but his action resulted in people dying.

The inaction of the “faithful” allows thousands of innocents to be murdered each and everyday. Just like the “good and faithful” German did 60 -70 years ago.

Right now we have the right to protest without using violence or the threat of violence, let us not waste this time of freedom with apathy.

 

[Havard]

“Keyes was among a group of 26 protesters, some of them pushing baby carriages with dolls covered in fake blood, who entered the campus and were greeted by Notre Dame police, said university spokesman Dennis Brown.”

Notre Dame is allowing peaceful demonstrations, and since the university is private property, they have a right to ask that protesters refrain from bloody imagery.

For anyone who thinks that bloody imagery isn’t a bad thing, do you otherwise favor such graphic imagery in the public square when it’s not related to pro-Life issues as well? Or are you against it, but it’s simply a matter of the ends justifying the means?

 

[Michael_C]

“Keyes was among a group of 26 protesters, some of them pushing baby carriages with dolls covered in fake blood, who entered the campus and were greeted by Notre Dame police, said university spokesman Dennis Brown.”

Notre Dame is allowing peaceful demonstrations, and since the university is private property, they have a right to ask that protesters refrain from bloody imagery.

For anyone who thinks that bloody imagery isn’t a bad thing, do you otherwise favor such graphic imagery in the public square when it’s not related to pro-Life issues as well? Or are you against it, but it’s simply a matter of the ends justifying the means?

On one hand I oppose people from PETA spraying peoples furs with red dye. That’s assault. On the other hand people protesting wars with coffins is powerful. Do you have an example? I became pro-ife after I saw what happens to a baby during an abortion. it was pretty graphic. At that time in my life that’s what I needed to see to be convinced.

 

[Bennie_P]

“Keyes was among a group of 26 protesters, some of them pushing baby carriages with dolls covered in fake blood, who entered the campus and were greeted by Notre Dame police, said university spokesman Dennis Brown.”

Notre Dame is allowing peaceful demonstrations, and since the university is private property, they have a right to ask that protesters refrain from bloody imagery.

For anyone who thinks that bloody imagery isn’t a bad thing, do you otherwise favor such graphic imagery in the public square when it’s not related to pro-Life issues as well? Or are you against it, but it’s simply a matter of the ends justifying the means?

The problem with your logic is the bloody imagery reflects a reality the pro-aborts and others don’t wan to deal with, that is the babies being murdered are in fact not just an image but real human beings. I assume you would want to censor the photographs of the Shoah (שואה)? for we would not want to be reminded what cold blooded murder looks like, would we? And perhaps we should also ban the bloody corpus of our savior on the cross? Lest we might just remember the sacrafice performed for our salvation? Each time a baby is murdered in the womb, we repeat the act of crucifying our Lord. - this needs to be internalized in the heart of the nation.

http://lighthousealliance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/passion.jpg

May God bless Keyes and Terry and the rest of the protesters at ND.

 

[Havard]

On one hand I oppose people from PETA spraying peoples furs with red dye. That’s assault. On the other hand people protesting wars with coffins is powerful. Do you have an example? I became pro-ife after I saw what happens to a baby during an abortion. it was pretty graphic. At that time in my life that’s what I needed to see to be convinced.

First off, I’m very glad to hear that you did have a change of heart about the issue. My problem isn’t with adults or even some mature teens from seeing such imagery, but with children seeing it. Parents have a right to spare their younger children from adult issues such as the details sexual reproduction until those children’s minds are more formed.

 

[Havard]

Hey Bennie, my prior post explains a bit of what I think. Just because abortion is a reality, doesn’t mean a five-year-old is ready to handle it. And there are five-year olds on the ND campus, I know of at least two day care centers there… there are probably more.

Edit: Also, I think the rosary campaign by NDResponse is just right, and I don’t believe the rosary is “deficient” in any way, to necessitate more visceral images.

 

[Stonehouse]

“Keyes was among a group of 26 protesters, some of them pushing baby carriages with dolls covered in fake blood, who entered the campus and were greeted by Notre Dame police, said university spokesman Dennis Brown.”

Notre Dame is allowing peaceful demonstrations, and since the university is private property, they have a right to ask that protesters refrain from bloody imagery.

For anyone who thinks that bloody imagery isn’t a bad thing, do you otherwise favor such graphic imagery in the public square when it’s not related to pro-Life issues as well? Or are you against it, but it’s simply a matter of the ends justifying the means?

If we must refrain from “unseemly” demonstrations, our freedom of speech is necessarily restricted to that which offends no one. Is that all that the First Amendment to our Constitution was intended to guarantee? The blood of innocents cries out from the earth. Alan Keyes has merely brought it to public attention. For decades animal rights activists have employed blood–real blood, not fake blood–and not merely as “imagery” but to spatter over those wearing furs. Yet I have never heard any Catholic protest over this practice. If we cannot employ “graphic imagery” in our opposition to the holocaust of abortion, then when, exactly, would it be appropriate?

Both Rosa Parks and Ghandi were involved in political organizations with the express purpose of civil disobedience as public opposition to injustice. Of course they anticipated the consequences! That was the point! They wanted to startle the conscience of humanity. They wanted to draw attention to injustices which the world had quietly accomodated for so long that no one could remember. And of course the world at first rejected them, and only grudgingly came to recognize that their causes were right. That they, and others like them, were persecuted and even killed was not their fault. Christ himself inspired martyrs! We do not blame the victim!

Would you have opposed the use of “bloody imagery” by German Christians as a means of expressing their horror at the Nazi extermination of the Jews? It is easy to support a righteous cause once it has prevailed, but quite another matter to put your life on the line when the outcome is in doubt. There are few willing to do this. Many others, knowing what is right, yet lack the courage. Still others mistake what is popular and “seemly” for what is just, and probably always will.

 

[Havard]

I’ve never mentioned the offensiveness of the imagery to adults, only the age-appropriateness of it from a maturity standpoint.

There’s a reason why the USCCB has a rating system for films. Here’s their take on Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ: “Due to gory scenes of torture and crucifixion, a suicide and some frightening images, the USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is A-III - - adults.”

Exposing children to extreme, graphic imagery that they cannot fully understand at their age can be very harmful to them. If we can’t find a way to fight abortion without protecting living children as well, we’re not being very creative.

 

[Bennie_P]

Hey Bennie, my prior post explains a bit of what I think. Just because abortion is a reality, doesn’t mean a five-year-old is ready to handle it. And there are five-year olds on the ND campus, I know of at least two day care centers there… there are probably more.

Edit: Also, I think the rosary campaign by NDResponse is just right, and I don’t believe the rosary is “deficient” in any way, to necessitate more visceral images.

Just because you are uncomfortable with their protest, does that make their protest invalid?

As to children, the sooner they realize the bloody details of an abortion the better. Five year-olds are being taught that it is an equal rights issue that women have the right to choose, by the time the are old enough to see such images they have already been brainwased to believe such lies and dimiss the truth just as being too gross to see yet not evil enough to stop. And parents trying to protect them, and degrade members of the pro-life movement just feed into the pro-abort wishes. It is they that don’t want the truth to be known, but the truth about abortion is it is a bloody, gross business not just a choice…IMHO, yes the rosery is a very good practice, for prayer is powerful, Jesus prayed until he sweated blood, then went off to do his Father’s will…

 

[KathleenElsie]

“Keyes was among a group of 26 protesters, some of them pushing baby carriages with dolls covered in fake blood, who entered the campus and were greeted by Notre Dame police, said university spokesman Dennis Brown.”

Notre Dame is allowing peaceful demonstrations, and since the university is private property, they have a right to ask that protesters refrain from bloody imagery.

For anyone who thinks that bloody imagery isn’t a bad thing, do you otherwise favor such graphic imagery in the public square when it’s not related to pro-Life issues as well? Or are you against it, but it’s simply a matter of the ends justifying the means?

Do I favor graphic imagery? No. But I am exposed to it daily. Graphic images of accidents of every kind. Sexual and graphic content on billboards. People drowning, falling from air planes without their chute opening, dog attacks, polar bear attacks to name a few that are presented to me daily.

I wish that there was no need to use the graphic images or photos or drawings to wake people up to what abortion is. After almost 40 years of legal abortion and people still believing that the “thing” inside a woman is a blob or just some cells has left us with only the shock method. These pictures show people that that “thing” is a separate human baby that prior to this “procedure” was in one piece and not many small parts torn from the mothers uterus.

So no I don’t favor it I do support the use of the pictures. Just as those that are against war will use the photos of bloody battlefields and returning caskets to get their point out for the public to see.

 

[Havard]

First off, let’s remember that Notre Dame is private property, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply. Just as you are free to kick out guests from your property when they don’t conform to your guidelines as a host, so is Notre Dame.

Secondly, two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because children are exposed to more inappropriate things now than ever before, it doesn’t mean we should stop protecting their innocence.

To Benny, the protest isn’t invalidated, but I believe that it is scandalized when it places the graphic details of both sexual reproduction and murder before children. I have no problem with demonstrators handing out informational resources that contain graphic imagery to adults, but using no discretion on this issue is grossly irresponsible in my opinion.

 

[Rach620]

Wow, this thread has been hopping while I was away for the day!

A few responses:

the bishop is intitled to his opinion but he is not infallible. i notice he never said what constituted an ‘unhelpfl’ protest. by the posts here it has been shown that the use of these graphic images to show the horror of abortion has saved the lives of the unborn-thats the exact opposite of unhelpful.

as to the street thing, i admitted i had not been there and didnt know, that was just a suggestion.

• so if by chance he were pro-choice would that mean we should all be too?(not saying he is just making a point)

The faithful are called to obedience to their local ordinary. Second-guessing the bishop’s judgments on these issues, and forming opinions apart from and contrary to them is exactly what has gotten ND into this mess, and what continues to keep it there. Fr. Jenkins believes that his interpretation of “Catholics in Political Life” and the issues at hand is more correct and therefore the best course of action for ND, even though Bishop D’Arcy and over 70 other bishops have told him otherwise. And yet you’re siding with Jenkins’ logic on this issue?

Look, it’s silly to examine the hypothetical of a pro-choice bishop in this matter. Bishop D’Arcy is a good and holy man who has led this diocese for decades. He knows the importance of Catholic education at Notre Dame better than anyone else, and is better acquainted with the administration, faculty and students than any other bishop in the world.

I know it’s hearsay to you on this forum, but from my involvement in ND Response I have heard the bishop’s opinions on Terry from his own mouth, and let’s just say that the statement about “unhelpful and unseemly protests” was directed his way. And apparently Terry took it that way, given the rude and rather absurd letter he published in response in a local paper:

This I know for certain: D’Arcy has stepped far beyond his canonical authority by urging the faithful to abandon the babies – and thereby abandon Christ – and to honor Obama and Jenkins with our silent cooperation. We do not deny D’Arcy’s right to question certain tactics, but he has gone far beyond that. He has asked us to commit the sins of omission and silence. Respectfully, we will not.

Let us remember that the last chapter on D’Arcy has not yet been written. Even as Peter wept, repented, was restored by Christ and finally strengthened his brothers, let us pray for D’Arcy’s full conversion and restoration.

The tactics of Terry and Keyes are radical in an unhelpful and alienating way. They take no prisoners, and assume that all who question their techniques are aiding and abetting the pro-choice side. The disrespectful tone Terry has taken with the local bishop should turn off ALL well-meaning Catholics from his tactics, IMO.

I congratulate the students on handling this scandal as best they can by upholding not only their pro life values, but also saying, “Here we are, we are Catholic”. “We place this day in Our Lady’s hands”.

Bravo, elts, for all of your well-thought-out posts! Hope to see you at ND this weekend!

 

[Melvin]

If there were more Catholics like Ambassador Keyes, maybe there would be fewer Catholics who don’t seem to have a clue about the Faith…and want to substitute some type of new world utopia for the Gospel. And, just maybe, America would not be drowning in its own filth.

May God have mercy on us!

 

[Insight]

”…I believe that it is scandalized when it places the graphic details of both sexual reproduction and murder before children. I have no problem with demonstrators handing out informational resources that contain graphic imagery to adults, but using no discretion on this issue is grossly irresponsible in my opinion.

The Liberal Media has been endeavoring to candy coat the murdering of babies. “The only way America will stop abortion is when they see abortion” (Father Pavone).

Some useful links concerning Notre Shame:

advancedchristianity.com

catholicity.com/notredame.html

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042205.html

nrlc.org/NotreDameAction.html

notredamescandal.com/

notredameshame.wordpress.com/

renewamerica.us/columns/otoole/090327

replacejenkins.com/

rrstar.com/communities/x1579124958/Rockford-bishop-rips-Notre-Dame-over-Obama-invite

stopobamanotredame.com/

Voting4Life.org

God Bless

 

[Havard]

Who said anything about candy-coating? If you can responsibly distribute graphic pamphlets to adults, by all means do so.

Just because the abortion battle is a difficult one doesn’t mean you should cut corners and put our children’s welfare in jeopardy.

Do right, period. Not wrong for right’s sake.