B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
Do you know that for a fact? …
So you do not know of the activities of other demonstrators?
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It would be difficult to persuade me that financial rewards were not promised BEFORE the ND invitation. As my Irish grandmother used to say “They took the soup.”
O
otjm
Guest
One is not only not obligate to break the law, but one is obligated to comply with the law when protest can be legitimately made by complying with the law. I don’t know where you are reading moral theology, but it is not out of the Church’s book. Witness to Christ does not demand breaking laws when there are legitimate alternatives. By your logic carried out to its extreme, killing abortionists is permissible; this conclusion has already been tested and rejected - tested in the most recent killing, and rejected soundly by Church leaders.
And following Christ is taking the weakest position. You might try reading the Gospels, to see what He did. Pay particular attention to the whole scenario of the crucifixion.
Your ignorance of Viet Nam is astounding. Even my daughters know better than that - but then, they actually studied the issue. And I was there.
Obama is seen as the savior after Bush. I am astounded at how extremely polarized political discourse has become. While I agree with Powell that if you break it, you own it, I am surprised at how vehement has been the reaction to Iraq. I will leave to historians to pick over the issue of why we entered there, assuming that the facts will all come out (which I have my doubts about). However, what came out of the last election is not a matter of reasoned discourse, but blind and blinded passion, coupled with a combination of naivety and an emotional whiplash that has given us one of the most radically liberal presidents this country has ever seen - either in totality or in context. I truly do not think a large part of the electorate which voted for Obama has any clue of what they have wrought.
But for all the talk about Obama, and about abortion, the issue runs far, far deeper than most people seem to perceive. We are on the same path that Europe has been on for several centuries, and that is a vicious secularization coupled with a hedonistic lifestyle. The issue isn’t abortion; it starts long before that. It is the destruction of moral values, and particularly sexual moral values that has been occuring inch by inch starting in the 1920’s, and growing stronger bit by bit. The destruction of moral values has been the leading cause of the destruction of the family, and the family is the primary integral unit of society. Destroy the family and what holds society together?
You may talk as much as you want about street theater politics, and the necessity of violating trespass laws to get your political point across. But none of the street theater, none of the trespass violations, and none of the violence that a very small minority would do agains abortionists is going to get to the bottom of the problem - the breakdown of moral values and the concurrent breakdown of the family. None of the protest done to date is going to strengthen the family unit. None of the protest is going to keep a teenage boy and girl from having sex. Unless and until we can come aright and turn this ship around, all of the law breaking, all of the violence, all of the street theater is going to do nothing to address the cause of the issue of abortion, which is that we have abandoned any concept or personal responsibilty for our sexuality and the just and proper use of it. Obama is an obvious master at spin; his comments about reducing abortions is nothing more than a smoke screen to throw everyone off track. His actions are the absolute antithesis of what he says. I am not the least surprised that money may have poured in to ND; one only has to go back to the issue of political discourse - or the near utter impossiblity of having any rational discourse - to understand that we have a hugh number of people who are operating on pure emotion with no anchoring in reality whatsoever - either political or moral.
And trespassing to make a point has about as much impact on others as the sound of one hand clapping.
R
reggieM
Guest
She disobeyed a civil law. Apparently, you’d want her convicted for that.
Is racial discrimination a worse crime than the murder of children?
I guess that’s how you justify legalized abortion. Since it’s not “discrimination” then it’s ok with you, right? (I do not know your views – if you’re pro-abortion or not, but it seems like you are).
She could get a sign and walk around in places where it wouldn’t cause any disruption.
That’s what you’re saying.
She didn’t need them – she could have held a sign in places where it wouldn’t bother anyone.
I think you contradicted your point here. He could have made protests and obeyed the law. Instead, he broke the law. According to your attitude, you’d be demanding that he be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
O
otjm
Guest
You need to learn to read with distinction. The distinction is not that subtle.
How many children did the arrested protesters save by their street theater? Or do you think street theater is mroe pwoerful than prayer?
That comment is not worthy of a response. Try taking your emotional response out and using some logic, instead of making an ad hominem slur.
No, that is not what I am saying; and if you can’t understand what I said, there is no point in my belaboring it.
OK, the whole thing went right over your head.
I don’t have an attitutde.
Let’s try this with small words. Both Rosa and Martin were protesting unfair and unjust laws. Rosa violated an unjust law - a law based on the color of your skin, which makes you worthy of privilige or unworthy of it - is an unjust law. By sitting in the whites only section, she violated an unjust law, and prosecuting her made clear how unjust the law was. Trespassing is not an unjust law. Those protesting abortion are not being denied the ability to portest it. Breaking a trespass law is not going to get the abortion law changed, but sitting in the whites only section did get the whites only section removed.
Marching down a street in Selma, Alabama with a permit was not the violation of a law; but when the cameras caught the troops and police using water cannons and police dogs to attack the peaceful protesters, that is what triggered changes in civil rights laws. Whites did not get water cannons and police dogs when they wore hoods and white robes, and burned crosses. But when blacks walked down the street, they got both for the simple reason of marching while black. That was not street theater; it was not the violation of a just law to protest an unjust one, but where it occured, there were violations of unjust laws.
If you don’t get the difference, then conversation about it will be fruitless.
P
peary
Guest
O
otjm
Guest
I was in the delta. I learned about Viet Nam first hand; and about 9 years before I went, I found out first hand about the violence that the Communists worked on Catholics in the North, as I met a seminarian who had been a North Vietnamese, and some of whose family had succeeded in fleeing the persecution in the North. Some didn’t make it to the South; of those who didn’t, some were imprisoned and some killed as traitors to Communism. He was the only family member in the US. So my view of the war in Viet Nam was perhaps a little more personal than the vast majority of us who were sent over there.
The issue about breaking an unjust law is what I have alluded to. The trespass laws at ND were not and are not unjust. The law of trepass that was broken at ND was not broken because it was unjust, but because the trespassers wanted to make street theater about abortion.
I disagree with some posters herein that it was necessary to trespass to effectively protest against Obama. Thousands saw otherwise and did otherwise. In my book, prayer is more efficacious than street theater. And in my view, neither the laws about abortions, nor abortions themselves will be stopped by some self-anointed martyr wannabes who trespass at ND.
R
Rach620
Guest
I have been out of town for a few days, and missed a couple of pages of posts on this thread. I’m tempted to respond point-by-point to several posts, but honestly do not have the time or energy to re-state what I feel like I have stated many times, to the same complaints and questions. It is frankly impossible to clearly enough explain what happened that weekend (and the weeks leading up to Commencement) at Notre Dame to people who were not there and have no basic familiarity with Notre Dame, its campus, its students, or its history, much less an understanding of the events which took place in May. My goal in this discussion has not been to come to Notre Dame’s defense at every turn, but to instead extract a bit more good will from the naysayers, and at least try to show many of you that there is something of value at Notre Dame which should be preserved (and wouldn’t be if it were denied its Catholic ‘title,’ closed, or burned to the ground).
The Obama scandal at ND really highlighted the VERY different ways in which people approach building a culture of life and addressing attacks upon it. What I think we can all say we’ve learned through this debate on the ‘effectiveness’ of peaceful protesting vs. ‘street theater’ disobedience is that the debate itself is a very important one for pro-lifers to have with one another. In this situation, I firmly believe that a reasoned response (suitable for a university), expressed in a peaceful demonstration as it was, to Notre Dame’s decision to honor President Obama was necessary.
As someone who participated in all of ND Response’s events, I have to say that I believe it was the best response, as it was held “in the spirit of Notre Dame”. What do I mean by that? I mean that I can say I am happy to have attended the Class of 2009 Prayer Vigil for Life instead of the official Commencement because I believe it was a much more fitting conclusion to my Notre Dame education than the alternative. I prayed together with my classmates and professors, in a holy place on our campus, one last time; together, we shared how grateful we were for all we had learned (rather than celebrating our “great accomplishments,” as self-congratulatory commencements often do), and most importantly we expressed in no few words how important a pro-life generation is for the world, and how President Obama stands as no example for our generation to follow.
The Obama scandal at ND really highlighted the VERY different ways in which people approach building a culture of life and addressing attacks upon it. What I think we can all say we’ve learned through this debate on the ‘effectiveness’ of peaceful protesting vs. ‘street theater’ disobedience is that the debate itself is a very important one for pro-lifers to have with one another. In this situation, I firmly believe that a reasoned response (suitable for a university), expressed in a peaceful demonstration as it was, to Notre Dame’s decision to honor President Obama was necessary.
As someone who participated in all of ND Response’s events, I have to say that I believe it was the best response, as it was held “in the spirit of Notre Dame”. What do I mean by that? I mean that I can say I am happy to have attended the Class of 2009 Prayer Vigil for Life instead of the official Commencement because I believe it was a much more fitting conclusion to my Notre Dame education than the alternative. I prayed together with my classmates and professors, in a holy place on our campus, one last time; together, we shared how grateful we were for all we had learned (rather than celebrating our “great accomplishments,” as self-congratulatory commencements often do), and most importantly we expressed in no few words how important a pro-life generation is for the world, and how President Obama stands as no example for our generation to follow.
:bowdown2: otjm, this part of your post struck me as what I had been thinking about on a few different levels but had been unable to put together so eloquently. THANK YOU!
R
reggieM
Guest
Faith without works is dead. We have “street theater” in our city at least 3 times a week. I’ve spent hours on the street myself. It appears that you’ve never lent a hand to that activity. Just this year alone, our sidewalk group has saved at least 6 children, that we know of. These are children who are living today – because we were there on the street, with signs.
You have a cynical view for some reason. Randall Terry, for one, basically invented the pro-life protest (not him alone, but he was among the founders). Joe Schiedler has saved dozens of children through his protests, as has Joan Andrews who suffered many arrests in trying to defend life.
Either you don’t know any of this, or you never cared enough to learn about the origins of the pro-life movement.
Or you may have some other motive for trying to demean the people who have been protesting against abortion, and directly saving children for years.
How many children did the Notre Dame group save? You might be surprised that many activists around the country were encouraged by the protests and the arrests – those people will do the same in their own towns. Children will be saved … that’s the point.
Again, you might want to take a look at the life of St. Telemachus.
I
imperial
Guest
The silent scream of those babies in the womb warrants a loud scream by their defenders
No one can hear those babies scream in this world, however, heaven hears them scream.
It is our God given duty to defend the innocent.
No one can hear those babies scream in this world, however, heaven hears them scream.
It is our God given duty to defend the innocent.
O
otjm
Guest
that is not street theater. You appear to be a good bit younger than I am, as I have given examples of street theater, and you didn’t get it. Street theater is the intentional criminal acts done by certain protesters in order to get public (i.e., press) attention to their complaint. Steet Theater is a PETA member going into a store selling mink coats and jackets and spilling red ink on them to protest the death of the mink. Street Theater is a group breaking into a military area and spilling red ink on a missle silo. Street Theater is someone protesting Obama’s postion on abortion at ND, and doing so by purposely and intentionally trespassing, when they could have joined a legitimate protest that had followed the rules.
What you are doing is not within the definition of Street Theater.
Wrong on both issues. The Church has repeatedly said that in protesting abortions, we need to follow the laws of the land. That does not mean that we cannot use the courts to protest and try to change illegal or unconstitutional laws; but neither does the Church suggest that we willy-nilly go about trespassing because we personally don’t like a law.
No. you simply don’t read very well. I understand you are passionate about the issue, and I applaud you for your passion. But passion is not the best base to use in which to make a rational decision. We are talking about rational decisions - the thousands at ND who chose to make a protest about Obama and followed school guidelines are those I applaud; not the few who intentionally chose to violate trespass laws. It is you who doesn’t get it.
Neither you nor I know how prayers are answered, so you are asking a question as if there was an answer that could be given in numbers. I can turn the question around and ask the same - how many children were saved by the protesters who were arrested? I am willing to bet on the work of the Holy Spirit. Are you? Do you believe that prayer is efficacious? And as to how many were influenced by the prayerful vigil as opposed to the street theater, unless and until there is a poll conducted properly, all we have are anecdotes. I don’t give anecdotes a lot of weight.
It is fine to be fired up about an issue. But you need to learn to listen without having the passion you feel distort what you hear or see. You know nothing of me, but seem extemely eager to paint me as either pro-abortion, or at best ambivilent about the issue. Just because I am not on the street with you at the clinic is not grounds for you to try to pass judgement on me. Just because you are passionate about the issue doe not mean that others are not, if they do not do as you do (sidewalk ministry).
You seem to take the position that because you believe your cause is just, that you or others who believe as you do are justified in taking the law into their own hands, picking and choosing which laws you will obey and which you will violate, and that you should be honored for breaking laws rather than punished.
The difficulty with your position is that there are others who feel the same way, but with different issues. PETA has no problem violating numerous laws in their protests about animal “rights”. White Supremiscists feel the same. The Black Panthers felt the same. The violent protesters about Viet Nam felt the same way. They all violated civil and criminal laws because they “knew” their cause was justified. And believe me, they were true believers; it was just everyone else who “didn’t get it”.
That results in anarchy. And your suggestion that someone at ND trespassing in order to protest Obama is going to save a child - that day or the next week, or month or year, is just as anarchical.
There have been heated debates ongoing since the start of protesting about abortions. The debates revolve around the efficaciousness of violating laws while protesting vs. not violating laws. And with the exception of rare test cases concerning unconstitutional laws (and the whole net sum is small), the large majority believe that laws such as trespass should not be violated. It is the small minority who feel that Street Theater is necessary. What they will not concede is that the independent observer, watching such theater, almost always sees them as “wild eyed” radicals and dismisses them and their message. Rational discourse still is the best means of convincing someone else of the correctness of your position.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Personally, while I do not wish ill on Keyes or anybody else involved in the protest, I can’t help but WANT ND to prosecute them vigorously. I believe that in so doing, ND will only heap more shame on its own head.
ND doesn’t need to prosecute those people. Life at ND will go on whether they do or not. But the ND administration’s eagerness to see them harmed when it is totally unnecessary to do it, further exemplifies the stony heart of that administration, particularly when one realizes ND is doing it in order to defend its choice to have an abortion promoter speak on campus and to award him a doctorate of laws degree. A doctor of laws degree to one who is dedicated to keeping the law open to killing. Using the law, then, to harm those who protested the killing of innocents is an irony that I suppose the administration doesn’t appreciate. Probably many will not. Some will.
ND doesn’t need to prosecute those people. Life at ND will go on whether they do or not. But the ND administration’s eagerness to see them harmed when it is totally unnecessary to do it, further exemplifies the stony heart of that administration, particularly when one realizes ND is doing it in order to defend its choice to have an abortion promoter speak on campus and to award him a doctorate of laws degree. A doctor of laws degree to one who is dedicated to keeping the law open to killing. Using the law, then, to harm those who protested the killing of innocents is an irony that I suppose the administration doesn’t appreciate. Probably many will not. Some will.
O
otjm
Guest
I will presume you have not read all of the posts herein; had you done so, you would understand that there is a very real need to prosecute trespassers on private property, particularly property that can be a beacon to any individual with an ax to grind. The results of protesters of every kind and stripe to do physical damage is so thorougly documented that it bears no discussion. One only need read the paper or listen to the news to find out what one or another radical group has done this time. ND, like all other institutions of higher learing which have experimental components are open to the physical violence of radicals such as PETA, to name one; other environmental groups are well docmented by their destruction of private property. Your desire for selective enforcement of laws of trespass indicate a very non-reality based understanding of why we have trespass laws. And given that each of the individuals was welcome to come under the umbrella of a legitimate protest against Obama, you offer no explanation as to why they could not or would not comply. ND is not a monolithic organization intent on shutting down all free speech. But in case you have not learned, free speech is not free. It requires that other laws too be obeyed. Free speech as you would have it borders on anarchy.
D
Daddums
Guest
It is not given that each of the individuals was welcome to come under the umbrella of a legitimate protest against Obama. Dr. Keyes was told that he was banned from the campus and if he stepped foot on it he would be arrested.
Daddums
R
reggieM
Guest
Excellent point.
It does help quite a lot to get an idea or estimate on what kind of Catholics are supporting ND and working there. Eventually, we have to present the facts to our bishops and let them know that they’ve got a full-scale apostasy to clean up.
At the grass-roots, we might see it very clearly and easily but it takes a while to filter up to our shepherds.
O
otjm
Guest
I stand corrected on the specific, and maintain my main point; ND should prosecute them. Or rather, not stand in the way of the DA doing so.It is not given that each of the individuals was welcome to come under the umbrella of a legitimate protest against Obama. Dr. Keyes was told that he was banned from the campus and if he stepped foot on it he would be arrested.
Daddums
And while we are at it, if there was specific damage to ND - costs of dealing with him - then they should persue it civilly also.
And none of that is in any way an approval of inviting Obama. Would that someone would pull Jenkins chain.
R
reggieM
Guest
I am not trying to pass judgement on you – that was absolutely not the reason I mentioned sidewalk counselling. I was trying to point out that babies are saved – and I mean in a real, visible, verifiable way. We’ve seen young girls come back to us with infants who never would have been born if we weren’t on the street protesting – and the girls thank us for it. (It’s an amazing experience – something to think about. Just by standing, praying and offering a good word and a life is saved. Firemen, policemen, rescue workers – they save lives also, but here we have just some ordinary Catholics praying a rosary on the sidewalk with pro-life signs and this saves a child from being killed).
I know many people cannot do this kind of thing, or are not called by God to do so. It is not my place to judge you – I don’t have the right.
But I am saying that it’s a rash judgement to conclude that the people who were arrested at ND did it for their own self-interest. You don’t know that.
If your point was that countless children are saved from abortion by prayer alone, and that is the most powerful means we have – then I would agree 100%.
But some people are called to a more visible witness. I’m not saying that it’s better than what you do to defend life. I’m just saying that there are different and important ways to do it.
The ND administration should realize that. Instead of throwing the protestors over to the civil government and then prosecuting them – why doesn’t Fr. Jenkins try to convince them that he’s right? I think the answer is, “because he knows he is not right”. Therefore, he’s trying to punish them and shut them down.
It only makes ND look worse, and that’s really the point of the protest. It was to show how badly compromised the ND administration really is – and I think it succeeded very well with anyone who really was paying attention to the issues.
O
otjm
Guest
Please don’t put words in my mouth; I am quite capable on my own. I never used the term self-interest. I said that they think that they have more impact by violating laws, including but not limited to trespass laws, to make their point. I most strongly disagree; what they do is incite the crowd that already agrees with them; they are not bringing in those sitting on the sidelines seeing their radical activity for what it is. Law breaking.
and I am saying that intentionally violating laws is not the way.
There are two entirely distinct issues going on, and many people are unable to distinguish one from another.
The first issue is that invitation to Obama. The bishops have said it far better than I, and I won’t repeat them.
The second issue is the question of whether or not an owner of private property has the right to control who may come on the property and for what purposes. Both common law and constitutional law amply back the right of the owener to the peaceful enjoyment of his property. ND is a corporation, and law also grants corporations the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. There are a multitude of reasons that have nothing to do with the issue of abortion that grant ND the right, and possibly even the duty, to protect its property from trespass. The last thing anyone wants to do is set precedent that allows others to respond differently.
Their right in law to protect their property does not devolve from whether or not they are pro abortion, pro life, or mute on the issue. It is totally and completely separate. the problem we are having is that some here are so emotionally involved in the pro-life movement that they cannot see a crime for what it is. It is a crime, and the fact that Keyes, or anyone else saw fit to decide to break trespass laws to make their point does not releave them from the criminal and civil liability for doing so. It is extremely simple: if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. All the pleading, and wishing, and hoping that ND will look bad by prosecuting what a few people are trying to turn into heroic acts will not change the fact that they were intentionally going on private property with the intent of doing so in a criminal fashion. You may well think that others in the community - perhaps some fence sitters on the abortion issue - will see them as heros of the pro-life movement. All they are is more cannon fodder of r the pro abortionist group who constantly tries to paint all pro-lifers as radicals. They flat out make the whole job of ending abortions just that much harder.
Let me put it another way - the pro-abortionists in Washington are tryiong to sic the federal dogs on the pro-lifers through the department of homeland security. They aer painting pro-lifers as radical, wild-eyed dangerous people. Don’t you get it??? this plays exactly into their hands! How dumb do we have to be???
R
reggieM
Guest
I’ll conclude with this last consideration.
Your focus is on the question of “law breaking”. This in itself cannot be an absolute, as can be seen in the civil rights movement and going back to the lives of the martyrs.
Beyond that, there was some theoretical and philosophical work that went into the the pro-life movement in its early days. The key leaders took a non-violent approach, but recognized that the act of killing children is something that should not be viewed merely as a bothersome issue, but as an act of violence against other human beings.
Is a person arrested for trespassing when he breaks into a burning home to save a child?
Obviously not. While it is “against the law” to break into a house – when it comes to saving a life, such things are permitted.
The law that permits abortion is unjust. It cannot be defended by any Catholics.
When a Catholic institution honors (I’ve corrected you on this before – it’s not just a speech) a man who ardently supports this unjust law its a very serious wrong.
Now you’ve just spent a lot of time asserting that peaceful protestors have done something “wrong” and should be punished for it. But this does not take into consideration the gravity of the crime of abortion. Additionally, the so-called wrong that was done, occurred on a campus where they claim to believe in God, in Jesus Christ and in the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church.
The liberal Catholics who claimed that they were interested in “mercy” prove themselves to be oppressive legalists (as many of us already knew they were). They destroyed Catholic theology, spirituality, liturgy and morality in the name of tolerance, openness, compassion and kindness … but now we can clearly see what all of that rhetoric really meant. When they have a chance to show some mercy to their own fellow-Catholics (who they should have been supporting), they hand them over to the civil authorities as if they’re strangers and enemies.
You’re worried that the government will clamp down on pro-life activities but if the new policy is that nobody should ever risk getting arrested, even in protesting an unjust law – then the government’s job is going to be a whole lot easier.
Other than the fact that you are insistent that these peaceful protestors should be prosecuted, I don’t know what you’re advocated at all. I don’t think you’ve given any ideas – except to pray and not do anything that Fr. Jenkins won’t like (since its supposedly his private university).
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion – and I accept that I’m not going to convince you otherwise.
But as for myself, I’m grateful for those who risked getting arrested to show that our opposition to abortion is not just what we do when it’s convenient – but that people are willing to pay a personal price to try to stop it.
R
RobbyS
Guest
Peaceful demonstrators have little impact unless they are able to draw the media spotlight to themselves. If they had been able to muster 100,000 people to the event, maybe (Look at the little attention paid to the annual January gathers in DC.).
- Status