D
Darryl1958
Guest
Not nearly as hurtful as the death of 50 million.
- Status
A
A_Fortiori_33
Guest
Aren’t you the one who keeps accusing posters of ad hominem insults. I’m surprised this one or should I say two got passed you.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not that we be not judged.
– Abraham Lincoln, in his Second Innaugural Address (1865)
– Abraham Lincoln, in his Second Innaugural Address (1865)
po18guy
Well-known member
You are speaking of, naturally, those who constantly bleat about “tolerance” and “diversity”?
A
A_Fortiori_33
Guest
Thank you. I didn’t realize that quote was from Lincoln. I thought it was biblical. Thanks for the timely post.
A
A_Fortiori_33
Guest
I question the word “naturally” Are tolerance and diversity a bad thing?
Suudy
Active member
Depends.
Peter Kreeft makes a great point about tolerance. We only tolerate bad things. But some things are intolerable. Do we tolerate rape? Do we tolerate murder? So tolerance, itself is a good thing, but the receiving end of that tolerance is not. Would the world not be a better place if we didn’t have to tolerate anything at all? But instead celebrated everything?
As for diversity, the concept in and of it itself is not problematic. However, when diversity is sought as an end is problematic. It is especially problematic when diversity of arbitrary, irrelevant features is sought. For example, seeking an end of diversity of skin color for no other reason than to be diverse, is arbitrary and meaningless. However, seeking diversity of backgrounds (which are often correlated, but not causally linked with skin color) is meaningful, because it brings diversity of opinion, which is instructive.
Say for example I wanted to create a panel of Ivy League educated people together to discuss economics. Should I expect my panel to be sufficiently diverse in skin color? Must it have the same (or nearly the same) ratio of race as in the general public? Or should I rather choose my panel based upon their backgrounds and philosophies of thought.
Or, for example, say I’m trying to create a panel of high school graduates to see how race was viewed in their school. In this case, I would choose a variety of races. But the end is not a diversity of race, for diversity’s sake, but diversity of race for a diversity of opinion on race. The unspoken assumption is that different races view and treat other races in different ways.
My point is only that diversity, sought as an end independent of the ultimate end, is meaningless and (I think) ultimately harmful. Diversity should only be a means to an end, not the end itself.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
50 million are the bigger priority here, form the point of view of Catholic teaching.
The staff can take care of the rest.
Beside, the question seemed to be a legitimate one, especially today when a leftist has taken hostages in a protest against babies as parasites.
I saw no ad hominen in the question.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Careful…that is what the gay rights activists want us to do - go from tolerating same-sex relationships to endorsing and celebrating them.
Suudy
Active member
Oh, I know. That’s why they try to change the language. Instead of demanding tolerance, they now demand acceptance, even celebration.
But that doesn’t change the underlying nature of things. We still only “tolerate” bad things.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Tolerance of theological differences is a necessary thing in a pluralistic society. America after all defines herself as a nation, under God, with secular government and a religious population.
Diversity of opinion is also essential in democracy. It has become sadly lacking in our elites who are now dominated by leftist thinking, and intolerance of conservative thought.
Suudy
Active member
Oh, I know. That’s why they try to change the language. Instead of demanding tolerance, they now demand acceptance, even celebration.
But that doesn’t change the underlying nature of things. We still only “tolerate” bad things.
But, like usual, I’m talking about a society that is in conformance with the will of God. It would indeed be a wonderful world where we did not have to tolerate the bad things (i.e. things contrary to to the will of God).
R
rlg94086
Guest
Seriously? You won’t vote for anyone unless they are a faithful Catholic? Wow.
Also, I have seen nothing in Beck or “his ilk,” whomever you are referring to there, to lead me to believe they “would return us to the American traditional values of anticatholicism.” Do you have some evidence of this?
Personally, I’m a Romney supporter - another Mormon. I don’t feel that supporting and voting for a qualified, Mormon candidate is wrong for a Catholic - ditto for a Protestant or Muslim candidate.
D
dusty_david
Guest
“Sometimes a man’s character can best be judged by seeing who his worst enemies are.
When it comes to Beck, sure, some people find him off-putting because of his style. Some don’t like his religion. But his ideological opponents; the ones who castigate him the most, and the most viciously, are some of the most unappetizing people in this society”
True. Liberals, particularly the skinny ones, taste a bit gamy. Need to add butter or olive oil to help cover the taste. Watch how long you roast, because they can be overdone in a minute. Don’t add garlic. Big mistake. Took forever to air out the kitchen.
Conservatives however are juicy! Throw them on grill with onions and peppers and you can have yourself a nice meal in minutes. They stew in their own juices. No need to marinate. Quite tender after a few minutes on the flame. Goes well with potatoes and a green salad. And a big glass of good red wine!
Moderates are neither here nor there. Tastes sometimes like chicken, sometimes like fish. Doesn’t take to seasonings well. Too bad because they are rather bland. Serves best with boiled potatoes and lima beans. Some sort of middling white wine goes well.
Anyone got some recipes?
DD
When it comes to Beck, sure, some people find him off-putting because of his style. Some don’t like his religion. But his ideological opponents; the ones who castigate him the most, and the most viciously, are some of the most unappetizing people in this society”
True. Liberals, particularly the skinny ones, taste a bit gamy. Need to add butter or olive oil to help cover the taste. Watch how long you roast, because they can be overdone in a minute. Don’t add garlic. Big mistake. Took forever to air out the kitchen.
Conservatives however are juicy! Throw them on grill with onions and peppers and you can have yourself a nice meal in minutes. They stew in their own juices. No need to marinate. Quite tender after a few minutes on the flame. Goes well with potatoes and a green salad. And a big glass of good red wine!
Moderates are neither here nor there. Tastes sometimes like chicken, sometimes like fish. Doesn’t take to seasonings well. Too bad because they are rather bland. Serves best with boiled potatoes and lima beans. Some sort of middling white wine goes well.
Anyone got some recipes?
DD
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Of course attacking Beck on account of his ilk and presupposing that he would support anti-catholic values without even a single fact to support such an assertion is a classic ad hominem. It is an argument fully based in the lack of character of Beck and his ilk.
I have recently been criticized for not pointing out these faulty arguments with enough vigor, so I suppose that now is a good time to mention this.
C
Catherine_D
Guest
Re: The tolerance of “bad things”. I’m presuming the “bad things” are things we don’t like.
We should never tolerate evil, which is an extremely “bad thing”.
We should never tolerate evil, which is an extremely “bad thing”.
po18guy
Well-known member
Can be. Tolerance of evil is bad. Diversity which allows evil is bad. My comment was specifically aimed at those who preach tolerance and diversity all the while demonizing those who disagree with them.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
Can you expand your thoughts. I find it hard to understand your logic. It’s just me.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
As long as evil exists, our highest purpose must be to wage war against it.
Unfortunately, many on the left today since the time of the “Make Love, not War” mantra, have chosen to declare war on ‘war’, rather than waging war on evil. Leftist ideology of moral equivalence sees not distinction between between America and the USSR in the cold war, between Bush and Ahmadinejad. Failure to differentiate between better and worse has led to a state of affairs where good and bad are no longer seen as meaningful concepts by many Americans and westerners in general today. The exceptionalism of the American experience, the wonderfulness of the freedom and richness that the American way has brought to people everywhere who have followed that example is not absolutely good, and therefore not exceptional at all.
The world does not need an America following the European example.The oppressed simply do not turn to the Swedens and the Denmarks of the world for aid against their tyrants, but to America.
America was both willing and able to fight the evils of the world, to provide the imperial Japans and then the Bosnias and now the Iraqs and Afghanistans with a better way. America’s traditional values were a necessary precondition to the world having a fighting chance against the worse evils of the world.
The way of the world has always been oppression from Egypt and Assyria, through Babylon and Persia and Greece and Rome and the caliphates and the oppression of the castes and eastern emperors. America alone provided the exception to the rule of oppression that has been the rule since the dawn of human history, if not even before.
Fight evil, or fight war and allow evil to triumph. That is one of the choices we have too.
It is an American tradition worthy of restoration for sure.
- Status