Episcopal Clergy Tear gassed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inquisitor85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then it shouldn’t matter which they used. Either is absolutely unacceptable and egregious. I answered your question for you. Thanks for mocking my honest question. Shame what passes for dialogue around here.
 
I’ve been in school longer than you’ve been alive most likely. . . .
 
Last edited:
Do you have something to add or are you going to just keep criticizing what you perceive to be my tone? I’ve asked every question in earnest. Answer or ignore them. I’m happy with either.
 
Last edited:
You do know that when people announce in public that they’re “ignoring” you, that they’re really not “ignoring” you, right? Why announce it and not just do it? Many people get “ignored” on social media and are still monitored by those who claim to have to " ignored" them in the first place. Besides, now my feelings are hurt because I was insulted. Besides, I don’t know anything about this alledged “dripping sarcasm”, anyway. I was only trying to express my opinion, which we are permitted to do, right? Or is this alleged " dripping sarcasm" which is not part of my nature, not permitted. I don’t know how to be sarcastic, anyway. I would like to learn one day, though, as my writing now is so terse, boring, dry, and rigid.
 
Last edited:
Make a point or keep not making a point. Answer a question or don’t answer it. I won’t be drawn into some attack on my questions as a means to obfuscate the point I mean to make, which will be made by simply answering what I’ve asked.
 
I don’t see any of this alledged “sarcasm” from him. Must be a perception thing or a matter of opinion thing. Not that there is anything wrong with that…
 
PatrickC1982 said:
Make a point or keep not making a point. Answer a question or don’t answer it. I won’t be drawn into some attack on my questions as a means to obfuscate the point I mean to make, which will be made by simply answering what I’ve asked.
Click to expand...
You asked me whether I’d prefer my bishop be subjected to tear gas or smoke bombs. Are you trying to be facetious or do you really think that’s an appropriate question?
 
Are you Catholic? How do your feel about the president’s appearance at the Catholic shrine? How do you feel about clergy being hit with either tear gas or smoke bombs? Is the second question honestly even a question that needs to be asked?
 
I think it’s an appropriate question. If you’re bent over whether the Episcopal clergy were hit with tear gas or simply smoke bombs, which would you prefer your own clergy subject to? Or, would you be horrified if they were subject to either? That’s a genuine question.
 
PatrickC1982 said:
Are you Catholic? How do your feel about the president’s appearance at the Catholic shrine? How do you feel about clergy being hit with either tear gas or smoke bombs? Is the second question honestly even a question that needs to be asked?
Click to expand...
There. That’s dialogue. Thank you.
  1. The same way I feel about any politician’s appearance at such a location. Meh. It’s pathetic PR.
  2. I don’t agree with either. I also don’t think protestors should have been throwing things at the cops.
 
If they threw things at the cops, does it make it fair that the cops threw either tear gas or smoke bombs indiscriminately affecting Episcopal clergy in the process, then using their church as a backdrop without permission?
 
PatrickC1982 said:
If they threw things at the cops, does it make it fair that the cops threw either tear gas or smoke bombs indiscriminately affecting Episcopal clergy in the process, then using their church as a backdrop without permission?
Click to expand...
If the protestors saw clergy among them why would they throw things at cops? Number one I at least try to be civil around clergy. Second, why endanger the clergy around them by doing something that was likely to provoke a response?
 
I expect more from law enforcement that I do from the general public, many of which are likely teenagers attempting to engage in meaningful protests for the rights of their fellow man, something all religious people could agree on. They are held to a higher standard, they are expected to exhibit training and restraint, and they certainly aren’t exempt from guilt when abusing the use of force, whether it was commanded or not.
 
PatrickC1982 said:
I expect more from law enforcement that I do from the general public, many of which are likely teenagers attempting to engage in meaningful protests for the rights of their fellow man, something all religious people could agree on.
Click to expand...
Yes, the rights and dignity of our fellows is something all religious people can agree on.

I highly disagree with your characterization of the protestors however. I’m cynical by nature, but I really think this is more about the allure of mob mentalities, and for the looters the promise of free stuff.
 
Your question was and is a serious one. I read it no other way. It’s a legitimate question that directly pertains to the subject. The subject of distinguishing which type of grenade is lobbed at a clergyman or clergywoman, esp. if that clergy is a male bishop or female bishop, esp. when the implication is that solely because of a person’s gender, and throw in that she is a female bishop (I still don’t understand why someone would be so hard on a female, and esp.a female bishop, as it has nothing to do with getting a smoke, tear gas, or pepper bullet lobbed at them, because all of them hurt) seems rather prejudicial, not that I’m being prejudicial. Ah, but there I go… But seriously, or not, but I’m only asking because the subject was brought up earlier. Does a female Episcopal Bishop.have any lesser knowledge of arms and munitions, then say, a Roman Catholic Bishop? Is it something taught in the seminary? I still don’t why a “woman priest” as I quote what was originally written, has anything to do with the fact that people, including her, were getting ammo lobbed at them for absolutely no reason at all, except for exercising their First Amendment Rights.
I agree with you Patrick, by the way.
 
Think what you want. I’m likewise a religiously minded and educated individual, probably cynical in a somewhat similar manner, but my cynicism is directed toward the opposite side of the issue. When the Bishops of the respective churches, both Catholic and Episcopal come out and denounce the actions of the president- make a judgement and speak on an issue (which is the absolute right and prerogative of a Bishop)- to second guess them and speak out against them absent of very serious proof or good reasoning strikes me as absolutely irreligious and deserving of serious questioning ( especially when one is a member of the religious body of either) simply speaks to me of the lack of respect for the clergy and hierarchy that has become prevalent and so commonplace in this country.
 
I couldn’t tell you whether tear gas or a smoke bomb was lobbed at me were it to be be thrown. Maybe I lack the seminary training, though? We could possibly seek out someone for training. Would go halfsies with you.
 
One is not bound in conscience to agree with political talking points espoused by one’s bishop.

Speaking personally, I must go by my sense of truth. If I just cannot square what a bishop says with what I believe (and believe to know) to be the truth, then so be it. If my archbishop called me up tomorrow and said “you must accept that x = y or else”, I just couldn’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top