Boston University Catholic chaplain forced out of his position after email to Catholics there suggesting that the killing of George Floyd was not an a

[JoeFreedom]

I think the response to Erika would be, “so you’re equating someone’s misdeed from nearly 40 years ago in her teens for which she does not deny to justification of the violent and destructive rioting?”

If it is true that she committed a crime 40 years ago, was punished and repented and tells the truth when asked, why bring it up? It was wrong when she did it, and it is wrong when the looters do it, and I would add that they have a much more serious crime on their hands as they destroy property first to shoplift.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I think the response to Erika would be, “so you’re equating someone’s misdeed from nearly 40 years ago in her teens for which she does not deny to justification of the violent and destructive rioting?”

I’m simply pointing out wholesale hypocrisy. This is NOT a justification of rioting, looting, etc. I’m simply pointing out that the right wing commentators who are adamant about “law and order” are convicted criminals themselves. Hypocrisy. “Those who are without sin cast the first stone…” I guess they never read that.

 

[JoeFreedom]

So once someone makes one mistake, and then repents, and decides not to do it again, cannot decry that others then doing the same is bad? That is not what a hypocrite is. A hypocrite is someone who performs that behavior and decries others who do the same, as in present tense.

I suppose you must be a hypocrite in telling others who lie that they shall not do so, as I’m fairly certain all of us fallen men and women have lied.

 

[Polak]

So if somebody does something bad in their life, regrets it, accepts the punishment, repents, and doesn’t do it again, they lose the right to call out anyone else doing such a thing?

I suppose somebody who used to live a gay lifestyle, but has since stopped that and repented for their sins, isn’t allowed to point out somebody else’s gay lifestyle is wrong either, right?

It’s absurd logic. It might be hypocrisy if the person calling out the wrongdoings of others continues to do the same thing themselves, while calling out others, but not if they did it a long time ago and have since stopped.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

It’s absurd logic. It might be hypocrisy if the person calling out the wrongdoings of others continues to do the same thing themselves, while calling out others, but not if they did it a long time ago and have since stopped.

Here’s the thing: If I write an article in the Washington Post saying how great Amazon is and don’t disclose that the Wash. Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, I’m open to being accused of corruption, favoritism, whatever.

Likewise, if I–on TV–accuse others of criminal acts and don’t mention (and never have mentioned!) that I have a criminal record myself, that is hypocrisy. Let’s go to the Oxford dictionary: "The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense. " Yup. That’s it.

 

[StudentMI]

So you don’t need proof to prove your point? That’s… odd.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So you don’t need proof to prove your point? That’s… odd.

Depends on the meaning of “proof.” In the commonly accepted meaning–as I pointed out above–that means evidence and argument. In the current right-wing lexicon, that means logical, mathematical proof that is 100% certain–which of course nothing is outside of mathematics.

 

[StudentMI]

In the current right-wing lexicon, that means logical, mathematical proof that is 100% certain–which of course nothing is outside of mathematics.

So because right wingers demand proof you dismiss the concept of proof. Oookay.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So because right wingers demand proof you dismiss the concept of proof. Oookay.

Not at all. I fully accept the actual meaning of “proof” as evidence and argument.

But the right-wing definition is an impossibility. Prove to me (in the mathematical certainty meaning–i.e., right wing logic) that you are not an alien from outer space. You can’t. You can offer evidence and you can offer arguments, but you cannot “prove” it 100%. In the language of the right-wing, it’s always “possible” that you are a space alien. It “could be.” Nonsensical, but that’s their argument.

 

[StudentMI]

Still it seems a tad odd to smear everyone as an implicit racist and reject any argument against such as denial.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Still it seems a tad odd to smear everyone as an implicit racist and reject any argument against such as denial.

First, “smear” does not make any sense. How many times have I written that “implicit racism” is neither good nor bad in itself? And that it is natural? And if you reject it, then you have to prove–by evidence and argument–that people do not have implicit racism. And to do that you have to argue against both the test I have mentioned and the everyday actions you see around you. Good luck with that.

 

[StudentMI]

And if you reject it, then you have to prove–by evidence and argument–that people do not have implicit racism.

I don’t have to prove anything. I’m not the one making a claim. You’ve submitted the test and other articles etc. I find them lacking. I have no responsibility in this matter. You can’t demand someone prove a negative because your evidence is faulted.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I find them lacking. I have no responsibility in this matter. You can’t demand someone prove a negative because your evidence is faulted.

And, once again, that’s why we have had protests in the streets for over two weeks.

I’m not asking you to prove a negative. Prove a positive: “The vast majority of people have no unconscious bias or preference for one race or ethnicity over another.” Go ahead. Prove it.

 

[StudentMI]

Again, that’s asking me to prove a negative. Riots in the streets don’t really prove much. There were riots against Jews because of blood libel. That doesn’t prove Jews were guilty of anything. This is just bad logic.

 

[Socrates92]

I also said I’m not sure but it is indeed possible. Remember those complaints against him? He has had exhibited violent behavior before against others not just against George Floyd.

Do you think it’s impossible that Chauvin is a racist?

It is of course possible that he is. The first part of the message doesn’t really shed any light on this question though. Unless there has been some actual data about the former complaints against him (ex: if every single one were a complaint by a black person, then you’d have a strong case for racism) or other former conduct which would point in this direction. To my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong) none of this data has been made public, so for the time being we have to grounds to conclude, or even speculate one way or the other.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

And, once again, that’s why we have had protests in the streets for over two weeks.

I’m not asking you to prove a negative. Prove a positive: “The vast majority of people have no unconscious bias or preference for one race or ethnicity over another.” Go ahead. Prove it.

The test is invalid because there is a variable that relies more on reflexes than anything else.

 

[YADA]

While I had not heard of Laura Ingrams teenage escapades … I had read about the others - so I dont think Fox hid the information.

It is not hypocrisy to say though shalt not steal nor to complain about the downgrading of the offense [obviously she was not prosecuted to that new lower standard - or we might not de discussing it as it would not be a conviction]. She may believe that suffering the consequences of ones actions is a good teacher and one that would bring about a change in actions, attitude and character - long term.

I do not tell my children every misdeed I did … and because I attempted to hold my children to proper behavior [as did my parents] does not necessarily make one a hypocrite. One cannot undo a bad action. However, that also does not mean one should not counsel another to avoid committing the same action. Neither do I think is is wise to “war story” your teenage years for your children as if past mistakes are easily put behind you. That some escape major consequences does not mean every one does … For example - while alcohol is common at teenage dances and most students make it home safely and without arrest - there are deaths and arrests/convictions for some - who will never recover.

Law and Order are a good thing … what would be worse would be if these commentators maligned the police for doing their jobs. If they had resisted arrest and then claimed harm done to them by the police during the effort necessary to restrain them and complete the arrest.

And then had a movement to glorify all of the good they do. Have the press show their friends and family who love them and plead its not their fault they stole, were drunk or what have you… Maybe they could use the new Clinton defense - just reducing the stress of their jobs [or for Laura that would be High School classes] But, I digress and that is topic for another day

 

[Elizabeth3]

Now don’t you think it’s just a tiny bit weird that a convicted shoplifter goes on and on about bad, bad shoplifters?

No, I don’t think it’s weird. Context is everything. Laura has admitted in a radio interview that when she was in college she and her friends attempted to each steal a cup of coffee from a convenience store because they had no money at the time to pay for it. She has never said this was a good thing to do. She said it was stupid. Laura isn’t speaking out against petty shoplifters she’s condemning looting and destruction of property. We Catholics know that all sins have different degrees of gravity. Your question implies that what Laura did in college at 19 is an apples to apples comparison to what the looters/vandalizers are doing and that it’s somehow weird for her to even mention it. I think it’s weird that you think people who committed a past sin and have repented can’t call out that sin (especially ones more grave) as wrong. I think it’s weird that you think she should have to mention it every time she speaks out against it. If George Floyd’s past shouldn’t be mentioned, then neither should Laura’s or anyone else at Fox News. What does bringing that up prove?

 

[Elizabeth3]

I agree with everything the Chaplain wrote. It was well thought out. It was factual. It looked at many possibilities on both sides of the issue and avoided knee-jerk assumptions about motive in this specific case, which we are called to do as Catholics.

It stated the injustice of Floyd’s death despite his criminal background. It looked at other possibilities of motive besides racism by the cop. There was mercy shown for both sides of the issue and no final judgement of the matter. It was wrong for him to be fired. I don’t buy the “tensions are too high” argument against making a reasonable statement. If all possibilities are not laid out on the table, then how will we ever arrive at truth. Emotionalism has never been a good indicator of facts and raging that one refuses to even allow all possibilities of motives to be mentioned and how cops like the one who killed Floyd may have arrived at the point of using unnecessarily aggressive force, does nothing to help solve the problem. The court of public opinion is not the final arbiter of the truth in determining motive. It’s assumed to have been racially motivated and it’s not out of the realm of possibility that the motive was broader than that. It’s not wrong to question that. It is not a fire-able offense to say something that is true just because other’s disagree. The chaplain should be able to communicate with Catholic students in ways that help them see beyond just the one possible motive in this situation so they can be formed as good Catholic leaders and thinkers going forward. Higher education should not be about limiting moral thought to current public opinion but to be broad enough to look at all possibilities and question assumptions.

 

[C.Ray]

Heaven forbid anyone would simply state the facts of the case and fail to dutifully reiterate the prejudgment of the media.

Established facts: George Floyd had a violent criminal history. George Floyd had both methamphetamine and fentanyl in his system. George Floyd resisted arrest.

Not established facts: Derek Chauvin was motivated by racial animus. Derek Chauvin intentionally murdered George Floyd whilst being filmed by witnesses.

Somehow, it is a crime to point out the facts.