Controversy erupts over Campus Republicans bake sale plans

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No, I don’t. And, where such has been the case, the benefits of maintaining the policy outweight the negatives. My opinion.

Can you give me your definition of discrimination? I think this is another place where we diverge.

As for the benefits outweighing the negatives, it is basic moral (Catholic) teaching that an evil may never be done for a good outcome.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

so you do not view it as discriminatroy except where it is discriminatory?

Who gives a r.a. about what I believe? I’m a nobody when it comes to politics. What counts is that the policy is in place, it’s being implemented, and those who want to see it abolished will have a tough row to hoe to do that, and will do so to the peril of the GOP. Sorry, but I take a very practical view of such things.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Who gives a r.a. about what I believe? I’m a nobody when it comes to politics. What counts is that the policy is in place, it’s being implemented, and those who want to see it abolished will have a tough row to hoe to do that, and will do so to the peril of the GOP. Sorry, but I take a very practical view of such things.

Then why participate in this discussion?

 

[rlg94086]

Who gives a r.a. about what I believe? I’m a nobody when it comes to politics. What counts is that the policy is in place, it’s being implemented, and those who want to see it abolished will have a tough row to hoe to do that, and will do so to the peril of the GOP. Sorry, but I take a very practical view of such things.

translation: it gets the Democrats votes, so who cares.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

As for the benefits outweighing the negatives, it is basic moral (Catholic) teaching that an evil may never be done for a good outcome.

Given that various bishops have either supported AA or have taken a neutral position, I’ll not be the one to say that they are tolerating evil.

You, of course, are one of those presuming that it is evil. What Catholic bishops have agreed with you?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I have as well. It sucks, especially when they try to make you feel better by saying “You really were the most qualified! We just needed a Hispanic instead, so you are a good candidate, just find another place that needs a white person and you’re a shoe-in.”

sigh

It sucks to be broke and unable to get a job because you were born with slightly less melanin in your skin than other people. I’ve been tanning though…lots of time to spend out in the sun fishing so I can get some food in the house that isn’t pre-process crud 'cause that’s all we can afford. SO I have darker skin…time will tell if that helps me any…

Anyone who tries to tell me AA isn’t an evil and racist policy needs their head examined.

Well, that’s something you need to think about the next time someone long dead with the same skin color and is not related to you decides to treat a person with darker skin that is long since dead as property.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Given that various bishops have either supported AA or have taken a neutral position, I’ll not be the one to say that they are tolerating evil.

You, of course, are one of those presuming that it is evil. What Catholic bishops have agreed with you?

I will turn the question back on you. What Catholic bishops have supported discrimination.

Bishops are not infallible.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, that’s something you need to think about the next time someone long dead with the same skin color and is not related to you decides to treat a person with darker skin that is long since dead as property.

Added dimension for me is that I am a second generation American and my ancestors moved to America to get away from persecution in their homeland.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Added dimension for me is that I am a second generation American and my ancestors moved to America to get away from persecution in their homeland.

As am I, but my grandparents weren’t persecuted. They were just poor Polish farmers and miners who saw more opportunity in the United States.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I will turn the question back on you. What Catholic bishops have supported discrimination.

Bishops are not infallible.

The bishop of Detroit supports AA. I haven’t the time to do research for the benefit of the folks here, but y’all can google the topic to find out. He wasn’t invoking infallibility when he said that he supported it.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Whenever a hard point is made well, numbers are dragged out as though morality is dictated by it.

Votes count when it comes to passing, maintaining, or abolishing any federal policy.

And a play towards being totally ineffective (perhaps a victim) concerning the decision to have AA is made.

Not me, friend. I am ineffective because I am one man, regardless which side of the issue I stand.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

As am I, but my grandparents weren’t persecuted. They were just poor Polish farmers and miners who saw more opportunity in the United States.

And for that you will be punished.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Then why participate in this discussion?

It’s not a discussion. There are two of us who are supporting the policy on this thread. Everyone else is against it. I’m not going to join in, “Me, too.”

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And for that you will be punished.

I have been. I’m not a rich man.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

translation: it gets the Democrats votes, so who cares.

Ah, you’re not dumb at all.

Attn all, including Moderator: a joke, NOT a personal attack on Robert.

I’ll delete it if Robert objects to it.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I have been. I’m not a rich man.

That’s good. This government of our favors mediocrity as long as you are working hard.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

That’s good. This government of our favors mediocrity as long as you are working hard.

As I said to my wife, “Si fuiss’un rico.”

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

As I said to my wife, “Si fuiss’un rico.”

AS I say to my wife “Vamos a Puerto Rico.”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The bishop of Detroit supports AA. I haven’t the time to do research for the benefit of the folks here, but y’all can google the topic to find out. He wasn’t invoking infallibility when he said that he supported it.

So then it is his opinion and as the Church has no official teaching in the matter I am free to disagree with him.

Added to that freedom is the fact that he is not my bishop so has no jurisdiction to compel me to follow his opinion.

Mainly I am against any racial discrimination and the use of race as a criteria of AA is a form of discrimination. If this was removed from it then I would not necessarily be against it.

It’s not a discussion. There are two of us who are supporting the policy on this thread. Everyone else is against it. I’m not going to join in, “Me, too.”

A discussion is defined as;
dis·cus·sion Noun /disˈkəSHən/

1. The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas: “the specific content of the legislation was under discussion”.
2. A conversation or debate about a certain topic.

A discussion does not mean we all agree on a topic, see #2 of the definition of the word.

So it appears that now we do not agree on the definition of two words, discussion and discrimination. I have asked you for your definition of discrimination but you do not seem to wish to supply that so that limits the discussion.

But then you deny that a discussion is going on.

So with that I will end my participation with you in what ever you call is going on in this thread.

 

[vz71]

I fought in the Vietnam War, - for two years in country - never completely understood the whys of our being there and certainly had no idea how long the war would last - but I lent my support to the war.

Yes, fool that I was.

Straw man.