Editor blasts bishops who confront pro-abort politicians (Binghamton NY Press)

[stumbler]

Rossie: One nation under God’s interpreters

As this is being written, the newly minted graduates of St. Elizabeth’s College of Nursing are off to pursue the healing arts, their hearts and minds uncorrupted by exposure to Sherwood Boehlert.

by DAVID ROSSIE

Boehlert, one of perhaps a half-dozen admirable Republican members of the House of Representatives, had been scheduled to be commencement speaker at the college until the Bishop of Syracuse let it be known that the congressman’s presence would be unappreciated; not by the students, understand, but by himself.

What made Boehlert, a practicing Catholic, persona non grata to God’s emissary? He is on record as favoring a woman’s right to choice. In other words, he supports the law of the land, as defined in Roe v. Wade. But in the eyes of the Vatican and sundry right- wing Protestant sects, Constitutional law is trumped by God’s law; whatever that is and as they define it, of course.

Boehlert, a gentleman, withdrew voluntarily when he learned that the bishop was opposed to his being the speaker.

That little episode of ecclesiastic meddling, minor though it may be, is symptomatic of an increasing level of theocratic muscle flexing in this country. We are seeing at nearly every level of government, but especially at the federal level, where the religious right has a friend – or champion, take your choice – in the White House.

We are seeing it in the public schools in the form of pressure groups demanding that something called Intelligent Design, a refined version of Creationism, be taught alongside Evolution, which is, after all, nothing but a theory and not scientific fact.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is based on hard evidence, but short on specifics, that some unknown but all-powerful entity created, or rather designed life as we know it. How? When? In what way? Don’t ask. Just take their word for it. . . .

---

Full editorial

 

[fix]

What made Boehlert, a practicing Catholic, persona non grata to God’s emissary? He is on record as favoring a woman’s right to choice.

One may be practicing, but *practicing *it incorrectly.

 

[caroljm36]

Great, we Catholics are linked with ID somehow…no connection. BTW, I was watching a Science channel physics show last night about the Big Bang and the Singularity and Membrane Theory…wow, and they think Genesis is far-fetched! To the average listener they each have about equal plausibility.

 

[estesbob]

stumbler:

He is on record as favoring a woman’s right to choice. In other words, he supports the law of the land, as defined in Roe v. Wade. But in the eyes of the Vatican and sundry right- wing Protestant sects, Constitutional law is trumped by God’s law; whatever that is and as they define it, of course.

---

Full editorial

I would think that the vatican is in a far better position to define what a “Catholic” is than a left wing rag. To the great shame of our country Roe V Wade is the law of the land as was slavery and segregagtion at one time.

 

[condan]

But in the eyes of the Vatican and sundry right- wing Protestant sects, Constitutional law is trumped by God’s law; whatever that is and as they define it, of course.

“God’s law; whatever that is…” Let’s try: Thou shalt not commit murder.

Pretty clear, no?

 

[Melissa]

Good for my bishop (yes, I’m in the diocese of Syracuse).

 

[Illini]

This editor is trying to tell a Catholic Bishop who may speak at a Catholic university.

 Which one of these is "interfering" and "meddling"?

-Illini

 

[Richardols]

estesbob:

I would think that the vatican is in a far better position to define what a “Catholic” is than a left wing rag.

You diminish the strength of your statement when you resort to an ad hominem term. “…far better position to define what a ‘Catholic’ is than a local newspaper” would have been more even-handed and doesn’t reveal your prejudices.

 

[Maranatha]

stumbler:

Rossie: One nation under God’s interpreters
In other words, he supports the law of the land, as defined in Roe v. Wade.

I suppose he would have support slavery and segregation when they were the law of the land.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Richardols:

You diminish the strength of your statement when you resort to an ad hominem term. “…far better position to define what a ‘Catholic’ is than a local newspaper” would have been more even-handed and doesn’t reveal your prejudices.

So the truth diminishes the strength of his statement? A left wing rag by any other name is still a left wing rag. It’s sad extreme left wingers like this editor don’t see his own prejudices.

 

[Sanctus]

But in the eyes of the Vatican and sundry right- wing Protestant sects, Constitutional law is trumped by God’s law

Since when has it been a faux pas to believe this?

Oh, yes, I forgot, our constitution is Divinely Inspired and so are the infallible wacko-judges who rationalize and allowed abortion.

 

[Melissa]

Richardols:

You diminish the strength of your statement when you resort to an ad hominem term. “…far better position to define what a ‘Catholic’ is than a local newspaper” would have been more even-handed and doesn’t reveal your prejudices.

Except that I wouldn’t consider a Binghamton paper to be a ‘local newspaper’ for news concerning a school in Utica. Both may be in the diocese of Syracuse, but there’s about 90 miles between the two.

 

[Richardols]

So the truth diminishes the strength of his statement? A left wing rag by any other name is still a left wing rag. It’s sad extreme left wingers like this editor don’t see his own prejudices.

One might could think that you are showing some right-wing reactionary (and therefore totally discountable) prejudices when you repeat the pejorative term.

By definition, calling a newspaper a right-wing screed or a left-wing rag is opinion, and not truth or fact.

 

[Richardols]

Melissa:

Except that I wouldn’t consider a Binghamton paper to be a ‘local newspaper’ for news concerning a school in Utica. Both may be in the diocese of Syracuse, but there’s about 90 miles between the two.

Here in Arkansas, 300 miles wide east-west and north-south, we have one important state-wide newspaper (lots of small town papers). So, excuuuuse me for thinking that a newspaper in a city only 90 miles from another might carry news about the other.

 

[Melissa]

Richardols:

Here in Arkansas, 300 miles wide east-west and north-south, we have one important state-wide newspaper (lots of small town papers). So, excuuuuse me for thinking that a newspaper in a city only 90 miles from another might carry news about the other.

The sarcasm isn’t necessary. NYS is different from Arkansas, and I’m not saying that carrying news about a 90-mile distant city is unexpected, only that it wouldn’t qualify as a local newspaper. The Utica paper (Observer-Dispatch) would be a local paper, and the Syracuse paper (Post-Standard) would be another major paper from only 55 miles away (and I wouldn’t consider a Utica story to be local news, even though the highway connecting the two is the Thruway, compared to secondary roads connecting Binghamton & Utica–note that it takes roughly an hour to drive the 55 miles from downtown Syracuse to downtown Utica; it’s approximately 2 hrs to drive the 90 miles from downtown Binghamton to downtown Utica).

 

[Richardols]

Melissa:

it’s approximately 2 hrs to drive the 90 miles from downtown Binghamton to downtown Utica).

And I thought Arkansas had bad roads! Even on our dilapidated, constantly under repair piece of I-40, Little Rock to Memphis, about 145 miles, is no more than a 2 hour ride.

 

[felra]

This editorial inadvertedly does make the good point that a lot of “gentleman” and “practicing Catholic” politicians have a serious defect of the soul. Note: I do not believe that this public figure can plead ignorance of what the Church authoritatively teaches and stands for in matters of faith and morals.

 

[mikev]

by DAVID ROSSIE

What made Boehlert, a practicing Catholic, persona non grata to God’s emissary? He is on record as favoring a woman’s right to choice. In other words, he supports the law of the land, as defined in Roe v. Wade. But in the eyes of the Vatican and sundry right- wing Protestant sects, Constitutional law is trumped by God’s law; whatever that is and as they define it, of course.

At least he’s right in this instance; though he doesn’t know it.

That little episode of ecclesiastic meddling, minor though it may be, is symptomatic of an increasing level of theocratic muscle flexing in this country.

Imagine that, ecclesiastic meddling, at a Catholic school!

We are seeing it in the public schools in the form of pressure groups demanding that something called Intelligent Design, a refined version of Creationism, be taught alongside Evolution, which is, after all, nothing but a theory and not scientific fact.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is based on hard evidence, but short on specifics, that some unknown but all-powerful entity created, or rather designed life as we know it. How? When? In what way? Don’t ask. Just take their word for it. . . .

How condescending. Here we witness Rossie is not content bashing Catholics. This is an insult to Christians, Jews, and Muslims for that matter; and anyone else believing in creation.

 

[Brad]

caroljm36:

Great, we Catholics are linked with ID somehow…no connection. BTW, I was watching a Science channel physics show last night about the Big Bang and the Singularity and Membrane Theory…wow, and they think Genesis is far-fetched! To the average listener they each have about equal plausibility.

I’ll take the linkage to ID anyday over the nonsense of atheism.

 

[Brad]

My response to Rossie:

---

Dear Mr. Rossie:

I regret that you have been an editor for so long and yet you can produce an editorial that is so wrong on so many counts. Your editorial of Wednesday, June 1st, fits the bill.

First, you said there may be a “half dozen admirable Republican members of the House of Representatives.” This is obviously a swipe at the Republican party but are you the ultimate decider of who is admirable in the House? Do you think your editorial position puts you into a position of judgment overtop the American people that obviously saw positive qualities in hundreds of other Republicans in this House? Do none of those positive qualities matter or have you neglected to do adequate research on the possible character of these individuals? You imply that nobody should interpret the will of God and yet you can cast blanket judgment without hesitation.

You then attack Catholics and Protestants by saying that “in the eyes of the Vatican and sundry right- wing Protestant sects, Constitutional law is trumped by God’s law; whatever that is and as they define it, of course.” Do you think it is more appropriate for a newspaper to define what a religious leader should do in matters of faith? Your arugment shows both failure to understand religion as well as history Regarding the former, nobody is required to be a Catholic or a bible-believing Christian. However, if one chooses to be one or the other, the belief systems are quite clear. Rather than Boehlert attempting to re-define 2000 years of Catholic belief, perhaps he should be intellectually and morally honest by either conforming his beliefs and words to his faith or choosing a different faith altogether. Regarding the latter, history is littered with examples of governments and leaders that put their law above God’s law. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Hussein are just some recent examples. Tens of millions died as a result of forcing God out of the public square so that the state could rule without the interference of “intolerant” religious.

Your next error concerns your condescending attitude towards those that question evolution. Instead of asking questions of evolution, you demand scientific evidence for supernatural creation. Considering that science by definition is limited to the natural, you are asking for something that is impossible. Rather than belittle those that are unconvinced by evolution, why not produce the evidence that would move it beyond a theory? Have you dug up fossils in your backyard that adequately show transitional forms from species to species? If you have then you have done more than Darwin, Gould, Hawking or any other scientist. There are no scientifically verifiable facts that move evolution beyond a theory which is why other theories should not be excluded simply because some religions promote them. You cannot deny reason and logic simply because you do not like the implications.

Finally, you take a shot at the only politicians that had enough courage to stand up for the life of Terri Schiavo. Schiavo was never given proper therapy, never given a chance to learn to swallow, often not given a chance to be visited by family or even have pictures in her room. She was dehydrated to death in a most painful way as attested to by witnesses in the room. It is not surprising that you seem to show little concern for someone in this state while, at the same time, you fail to understand the implications of a God-less society.

I found your editorial whiny, scattered, and hostile to Christianity.