I never said I was there.So you will admit, finally, you weren’t there?
You are relying on some information from the Internet?
You’re expecting me to rely on information from the internet (namely your eyewitness testimony) - and at the same time you’re belittling information on the internet. So you’re contradicting yourself.And of course we all now how reliable and objective Internet sources can be.
No, I’m just asking why, if you are given two sources providing conflicting information, both from the Internet, you only consider one source? that’s what’s contradictory.I never said I was there.
You’re expecting me to rely on information from the internet (namely your eyewitness testimony) - and at the same time you’re belittling information on the internet. So you’re contradicting yourself.
That is because you don’t pay attention to what is said. I have yet to see any information about a pro-abortion demonstration on campus. Many of the people - students, parents and friends, and university members, are very in favor of a black, young, Democratic President and were very enthusiastic that he was the commencement speaker. That does not make a pro-abortion or a pro-Obama demonstration; it simpley makes them members of or guests of the graduates. As such they had nothing to comply with other than not making disruptive behavior. Because there was one demonstration - that of the students, friends and families who were pro life, numbering 2000 or so, they had to get permission for their activites - which they did, and which they were granted. You are the one who keeps trying to put this into a demonstration and a counter-demonstration. Maybe it is just the reports you read, or the colored glasses through which you read them, or maybe you ahve never been to a commencement exercise. But your imagination does not comport with reality.Compared to what the pro-Obama types had to go through (namely nothing) it is “jumping through hoops” You have yet to refute this.
they were students and guests at the commencement, not counter-demonstrators. You don’t get it.Actually, I assert that ND does not apply any rules to pro-Obama types. They had free reign. No permission required. There was no way for a pro-Obama type to get charged with trespassing because: pro-Obama types represent what the leftist dominated brass of ND are like, and the police were directed not to arrest them.
From the information you gave, the woman arrested at the ATM was not complying with police orders. Had she gotten back into her car and left, she would not have been arrested, but she was going to wave her sign, never mind the request to not do so. QED. I am not assigning guilty intentions, when people say they intend to do what is prohibited. They speak for themselves.What I see here is a bias against the pro-lifers, by ND. Which you are repeating. You assign guilty intentions, and an negative uncharitable reading of their souls and minds, on the part of the pro-lifers. Some showed up not knowing the rules and not intending to trespass but were arrested anyway. Some tried to comply with officer’s orders to leave and were arrested anyway.
If you actually read what I have posted, as opposed to your conjectures, you would note that I have said allalong that Jenkins was a glory hound. I have further said that I fhope the alumni and alumnae do what will get his attention quickest - cut him off at the pocketbook.However, you assign NO guilty intentions and NO such negative uncharitable reading of their souls and minds to the pro-Obama types. This shows your bias in the situation. Are you willing to defend ND to the point of ignoring the facts that make it look bad?
No, they didn’t trespass. They did not violate any of the rules that applied to the pro life group of 2000 or so. Neither did most of the pro life group.Officers didn’t arrest pro-Obama types mainly because ND didn’t want them to. Viewpoint discrimination.
Discrimination? They were guests who came to the commencement, no dobut some of them to see the President in person. That is not grounds for an arrest. It has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.Then he should have had pro-Obama types arrested for trespassing too. But he didn’t. That’s because ND practices viewpoint discrimination.
No one was arrrested for being white or black or being pro abortion or being pr life. 2000 people did not get arrested for being pro life; about somewhere between 20 and 40 got arrested for trespass. Get a clue.Imagine if this was 1941 and ND had a president come by for a speech. However, zero whites were arrested while a bunch of blacks were arrested. Would you then defend ND and tell me they were not practicing discrimination?
No he isn’t. Where did you get your law degree?ight now, he’s leaving ND vulnerable to lawsuits for violating people’s civil rights.
YOur lack of logic is its own answer. You don’t “have his actions” as you are so narrow minded on the issue as to only be able to see one conclusion - the one you want to see. I do not have to prove a negative, as that is bordering on impossible. But your unwillingness to see what actually occured, even when it is explained to you, shows the degree that your passion about the issue is clouding your process.With leftists (I won’t call them liberals - they’re not.) dissenting on Church teachings and rules, you really have no proof that Jenkins is not dissenting on the abortion teaching.
He’s obviously a dissenter. You haven’t proven he hasn’t dissented on the abortion teaching yet. All you have is his words. I have his actions.
Yes, it has been thoroughly refuted. You simply shoose to look at a few facts and a good deal of speculation and ignore each and every fact that doesn’t comport with your preconceived notions. One should never have so open a mind that one’s brains fall out; but you are in no danger of that. Yours is simply closed to any reality except the one you have constructed.His actions speak louder than words.
Again, I say: ND practices viewpoint discrimination. You have not refuted this yet.
had she put her sign away and gotten bacvk in the car as directed, she would not ahve been arrested. She tried to ignore the police directive. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.Like the woman who was heading to the sidewalk (which is off of ND property) to comply with a police order to leave was STILL arrested? And then people were on the sidewalk later on (pro-Obama types) without any one of them arrested?
ND practices viewpoint discrimination.
The law was enforced in an unjust manner by ND.
I don’t blame you for not agreeing with ND’s choice. I think Catholics can have different opinions on ND’s choice.You both seem to blame folks like me that do not agree with nds choices perhaps you should focus on the root of this evil
Actually, I have seen such issues in the Catholic press. Several of our secular press newspapers have done a story on a program in our parish, Catholics Returning Home.In reply to the breaking down of my post
do you ever see the media waiting outside a church getting ready to interview and reporting on folks that have just said a rosary for the aborted children. I didn’t think so
One of the problems with email, etc is that tone of voice does not necessarily come through accurately. Given some comments I have seen in these forae it would not have surprised me had it not been meant sarcastically. Point made.The rosary, I’m talking spiritually, of course he wasn’t arrested for holding & praying the rosary. The comment was made sarcastically
You misunderstood my comment about Mass and rosary. The 2000+ peaceful pro life demonstrators, as I understand it, had a Mass, at least one rosary, and other prayer activites. My question was directed to why those arrested saw fit not to participate peacefully with the other 2000+, but rather “do their own thing”.As for them praying the rosary did you have the volume muted when you watched them?
This is still available on you tube if you wish to refresh your memory. They were praying the rosary as they were walking. Some people on this forum say do not judge others yet they are the first ones to Judge.
The issue is why a small number of individuals were arrested at ND while protesting against Obama, and more specifically (primarily) against his positions on abortion. It is not an issue about controversy, it is about trespass. It is about people not connected immediately to the university (e.g. staff, professors, students, parents relatives and guests of graduates, and alumni/alumnae) coming onto ND property at commencement exercises with the specific intent of protesting the appearance of Obama. Some people herein seem to insist that trespass laws don’t apply to those they agree with morally.diggerdomer re
So? Because something causes controversy it should not be done?
No it should not be done when it comes to the culture of death, there should not be any controversy at all when it comes to abortion Christians should all be united not plagued with controversy.
That seems to be more a qualifier than the bishops have insisted upon, and they would probably not agree that it had to be that restrictive.That is why catholic institutions should only honor people with Christ like virtues regardless of religion or race.
The reports I have seen have put the number of bishops somewhere between 60+ and about 90 who came out specifically on the issue. I do not know of any bishops who said anything to the contrary, or hedged around the issue. The fact that other bishops did not weigh in on the issue is in no way, shape or form an indication that they had any other opinion other than the one expressed by those who spoke up.Nd knew this would divide those that are advocates for pro life; yes even some lukewarm bishops were divided
His record is public knowledge. As I said above, perhaps some of the Catholics who voted for him will wake up in light of his rapid moves to increase abortion.what has obama done to @ worse reduce abortion or @ best stop it? Please answer my question.
One does not have to be sinless to sit on a jury; I have done so and never claimed to be sinless. The status of one’s soul is not subject to voir dire. They were charged with crimes of trespass and other minor issues. The Church upholds the right of the State to prosecute for such issues, and for Catholics to serve; in fact I believe that the Church holds that we have a moral duty to do so. I don’t care if those arrested for trespass were doing so to protest animal rights to not be used in lab experiments, Obama’s position on abortion, the war in Iraq, or if they were members of the Ku Klux Klan. They were on private property, and if the prosecuting attorney set out facts beyone a reasonable doubt that they trespassed, and the case went to the jury I would have absolutely no problem convicting them of trespass. That does not mean that I am not vigorously pro life; it means that I uphold well established criminal law. They had the opportunity to join the 2000+ who protested within the rules set by the university. They chose street theater instead. Bad choice.Otjm comment Not. I would gladly sit on a jury and vote to convict if the facts showed beyond a reasonable doubt that they had violated the laws they are charged with. I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for street theater protesters.
Let him without sin cast the first stone.
The public record speaks for itself. We are not on opposite sides concerning Obama. I simply hold that people do not have a right to go on private property and make whatever protests they like, even if I agree with the substance of their protest.Please feel free to once again dissect my post, can you kindly at least answer my question while you’re at it. What has obama done since his honoree degree for life?
No, as a matter of fact I am on record repeatedly saying that ND royally screwed up on this one, that Jenkins is far too big for his britches and thinks he is some sort of Hesberg (of whom I have my own uncomplimentary opinion), and that I hope the alumni and alumnae cut him off at the pockets, as money speaks far louder than words.You both seem to blame folks like me that do not agree with nds choices perhaps you should focus on the root of this evil