Hawaii Judge Orders Loosening of Trump Travel Ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stylteralmaldo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steve_b said:
Obama in 8 yrs appointed to the bench, over 300 lefty judges.

Ecc 10:2
A wise man’s heart inclines him toward the right,
but a fool’s heart toward the left.

That goes for voters as well.

Actions have consequences… for a long time.
Click to expand...
You know that 300 are lefthanded? I hardly think though when Ecclesiastes was written that the United States political references of left and right were what was meant.
 
Sy_Noe said:
You know that 300 are lefthanded? I hardly think though when Ecclesiastes was written that the United States political references of left and right were what was meant.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Steve meant anything sinister by the comment.
 
FrDavid96 said:
I don’t think Steve meant anything sinister by the comment.
Click to expand...
I like subtle jokes.

I took it as a light jest, kind of like the old preacher from the sixties who condemned the modern up-do’s on women with the quote from the Bible, “Top knot, come down.”

“Let him which is on the house top not come down to take any thing out of his house:” (Matt. 24:17 KJV)
 
steve_b said:
Obama in 8 yrs appointed to the bench, over 300 lefty judges.

Ecc 10:2
A wise man’s heart inclines him toward the right,
but a fool’s heart toward the left.

That goes for voters as well.

Actions have consequences… for a long time.
Click to expand...
Drawing a ridiculous conclusion from a verse that cannot possibly be linked to American politics.
 
johnnykins said:
Q.E.D. This is why it needs to be pointed out in non-ecclesiastical posts.
Click to expand...
I do not want to make more of this than it deserves. I’m willing to just move on here.

However, I’ll just make this one comment.

Your statement implied that because I am a priest, that necessarily means that I am ignorant of any other subject matter. That’s not only insulting to me personally, but to every other priest who worked long and hard at his own education. Just because we do know theology, doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything else.

You made that very clear when you wrote “and makes clear his own lack of knowledge in the secular legal realm.”

You can disagree all you like, but don’t accuse me of ignorance just because we disagree.

That’s all I have to say.
 
FrDavid96 said:
I do not want to make more of this than it deserves. I’m willing to just move on here.

However, I’ll just make this one comment.

Your statement implied that because I am a priest, that necessarily means that I am ignorant of any other subject matter. That’s not only insulting to me personally, but to every other priest who worked long and hard at his own education. Just because we do know theology, doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything else.

You made that very clear when you wrote “and makes clear his own lack of knowledge in the secular legal realm.”

You can disagree all you like, but don’t accuse me of ignorance just because we disagree.

That’s all I have to say.
Click to expand...
An appropriate reply. Well said.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Your statement implied that because I am a priest, that necessarily means that I am ignorant of any other subject matter. That’s not only insulting to me personally, but to every other priest who worked long and hard at his own education. Just because we do know theology, doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything else.

You made that very clear when you wrote “and makes clear his own lack of knowledge in the secular legal realm.”

You can disagree all you like, but don’t accuse me of ignorance just because we disagree.
Click to expand...
Although your objection to the insult of ignorance seems reasonable, there is the problem that you have modeled the opposite in your comments about the judge:
Obviously, this federal judge is trying to circumvent the Supreme Court decision that over-ruled him in the first place.
Would someone please explain to this federal judge that he does not have the authority to over-turn the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
f you would read something called The Constitution of the United States you would understand.
Perhaps someone should send that judge a copy. Apparently, he’s never read it.
Click to expand...
You probably should not assert his ignorance just because you disagree with him.
 
FrDavid96 said:
I do not want to make more of this than it deserves. I’m willing to just move on here.
Click to expand...
Good Morning Father,

I applaud your defense of a priest being able to weigh in on this! I hope you don’t go away though… 🙂

I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind taking this to a deeper level. On July 9, this was the Sunday second reading:

Reading 2, Romans 8:9, 11-13

9 You, however, live not by your natural inclinations, but by the Spirit, since the Spirit of God has made a home in you. Indeed, anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

11 and if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead has made his home in you, then he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your own mortal bodies through his Spirit living in you.

12 So then, my brothers, we have no obligation to human nature to be dominated by it.

13 If you do live in that way, you are doomed to die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the habits originating in the body, you will have life.

When I read the reading, it dawned on me that who we trust is based on our experiences. We experience life, we develop values, and also develop genuine fears, we come to resent certain ideologies, we come to see hope as that which solves the problems we see in the world.

People, then, congregate and affiliate based on common likes and dislikes as well as the above, it is a very natural phenomenon, our political affiliations, our affiliations as “conservative” “liberal” etc. are habits originating in the body. Trust itself is a largely a habit originating in the body, and the habit tends to divide people. We can look at the fruits of the Spirit, uniting us through Eucharist, works of mercy, beliefs held in common, etc., and we can see the fruits of the affiliation habit which divide.

Jesus exaggerates when saying:

Matthew 10:37

New International Version
"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

In this age, it could very well be applied that we can substitute “conservative” and “liberal” for “father” and “mother”.

Is not partisanship, the trust we put in certain groups and people based on our specific values and experiences, a habit of the flesh?
 
And Hey, 7 Sorrows and dvdjs, I would like to hear your own “weigh in” on the post I just wrote to Fr. David.

Thanks 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top