President Obama to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame

[mapleoak]

I don’t believe all views are equal. I don’t think anyone believes that all views are equal. But on the other hand, I don’t think the Catholic Church has a monopoly on the truth either. In fact, I’m pretty sure that even the Catholic Church doesn’t claim to have a monopoly on the truth. At least not since Vatican II, when they decided that maybe all Jews weren’t necessarily hell-bound.

Actually, the Catholic Church has never claimed to be the sole proprietor of the Truth. It is the only Church with the “Fullness of the Truth”. Other church’s may contain bits and pieces of the Truth, but are all lacking, because they do not have the Fullness of the Truth.

I’ve heard various Protestant theologians insist that being free to do bad things is in fact not freedom at all, but slavery.

They would be quite correct. We are only free when we are doing God’s will. When we do different, we are in reality, not free at all, but slaves to sin and the devil. We only deceive ourselves.

 

[elts1956]

The whole article was about whether or not pharmacists are allowed to refuse to give people medication if it goes against their conscience. I do think there has to be a line drawn somewhere though. I mean, the last thing we need is Scientologist pharmacists refusing to prescribe psychiatric medication because it apparently contradicts Scientology. But the whole article just rails on some woman who wrote an article on the subject, then puts words in her mouth to make it seem like she’s taking a more extreme position than she is.

But if it’s a tyranny, then who is abusing their authority?

I don’t see everything in these terms, I’m just cynical enough to realize that among most politicians, party loyalty is more important than conscience, or religion, and faith. That’s why I like Bob Casey. He’s put his faith ahead of the party platform on the abortion issue, and succeeded despite it.

Well, he hasn’t refused to support some pro-choice politicians, which is apparently why the bishop of Scranton is considering withholding communion from him. Personally I think that’s a little much. But as far as pro-life legislation, he always supports it. I think he’s voted against some Republican bills that were nominally pro-life, but weren’t realistic and had more to do with cutting assistance to poor people than doing anything about abortion.

Oh goodness, no. Certainly no sarcasm here.

If Casey is so pro life and I admit he has voted pro life on many issues, why did he support Sebilius? sp. She is another of bo’s pro death picks. Casey could have been consistent in his views and beliefs by vetoing Sebilius, but he didn’t. Same with Brownbeck et.al.

 

[elts1956]

I don’t believe all views are equal. I don’t think anyone believes that all views are equal. But on the other hand, I don’t think the Catholic Church has a monopoly on the truth either. Which TRUTH are you talking about? If the Catholic Church does not have the full truth, has it been handed out piecemeal to other faiths? If so, they don’t have the full truth either. I believe the Catholic Church, because of its protection by the Holy Spirit and its History has the full truth as given to the Apostles by Christ.This is called FAITH In fact, I’m pretty sure that even the Catholic Church doesn’t claim to have a monopoly on the truth. Since when? At least not since Vatican II, when they ?decided that maybe all Jews weren’t necessarily hell-bound. I don’t know about the “they” part, but Pope John Paul II did say, in so many words, that the salvation of the Jews was up to God as they have a different relationship with God than Christians.

So you’re saying people who are pro-choice shouldn’t be allowed to vote? You mean pro-abortion, don’t you? I still don’t get the whole “tyranny” thing. I’m not familiar with Benedict’s equation of relativism with tyranny,( neither am I) but I think it must have been interpreted wrong. That is the problem with individual interpretation. Therefore I put my trust in the Pope and the Church. In a tyranny, ( Relativism = tyranny because with relativism, nothing is absolutely right, or wrong. There is no foundation for what is good or evil. There is no support to strive for the “highest” good, because those who believe in relativism do not believe in an objective higher good, or authority. Inrelativism, there is NO authority) someone is abusing their authority, and forcing their will on others.

NO LAW IS OBJECTIVE with relativism. All is subjective. This is how wars are started. Carried to the nth, which it could well be, relativism is a belief in no law, but those made by EACH INDIVIDUAL./COLOR] The government of a country first has an obligation to lead their country in the most moral direction possible. Equal to that the government also has the responsibility and obligation to PROTECT its citizens, especially in matters of conscience.[/FONT The best that the article can come up with is that apparently some people in authority don’t believe pharmacists should be protected from losing their jobs if they don’t fill certain prescriptions or name a pharmacy that will. That’s pretty weak though. Honestly, if a pharmacist is working for an employer that would fire him if they could for not filling prescriptions for emergency contraception, why would he want to work there? What about the medical personnel who have built a lifetime career based on morality? Now they have no protection? I mean, that’s like being in the service of evil or something. You got that right.But even if the woman who wants these laws repealed got her way, it would be a matter of less government control, not more, so I don’t see how that’s a tyranny. I mean, the only ? What about the individuals right to freedom of conscience and faith? change would be that employers would now be allowed to fire their pharmacists who didn’t fill those prescriptions, but Catholic hospitals and clinics would be under no obligation to prescribe them or anything. You haven’t been reading the right articles on this issue. If FOCA were passed, and it is being passed piecemeal, all protective laws regarding abortion would be null and void. What then?

I’ve heard various Protestant theologians insist that being free to do bad things is in fact not freedom at all, but slavery. I remember I heard someone say that by imposing these moral laws on yourself, you would become free from all of these things, like sin and vice. But I had to laugh when he said you would be free from disobedience. Freedom from disobedience. That makes no sense at all. Why can’t he just admit that yes, by imposing these laws on yourself, you’re giving up some freedom, but that it’s worth it because of what you gain? Kind of like how it is with marriage. There is NO freedom without responsibility. If there is no responsibility, there is chaos. How responsibly has the ME generation taken self responsibility? . And that’s how it is with the United States. We’re free to do a lot of bad things, and indeed, many people are doing them. But that doesn’t make it tyranny. Nobody is forcing people to do all these bad things. And no one is protecting anyone either. That is the job of laws. If we have NO laws, where will tyranny end? They’re doing them because they have the freedom to.

Have you ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? We’re not there yet, but we are on our way.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

If Casey is so pro life and I admit he has voted pro life on many issues, why did he support Sebilius? sp. She is another of bo’s pro death picks. Casey could have been consistent in his views and beliefs by vetoing Sebilius, but he didn’t. Same with Brownbeck et.al.

Look, being a politician means you have to choose your battles, something a lot of people don’t understand. Sebelius was going to be confirmed no matter what, and choosing to fight the president in a battle you’re guaranteed to lose is not going to accomplish anything, and will hurt your ability to accomplish things in the future.

There is no support to strive for the “highest” good, because those who believe in relativism do not believe in an objective higher good, or authority. Inrelativism, there is NO authority.

And no one is protecting anyone either. That is the job of laws. If we have NO laws, where will tyranny end?

That was actually kind of my point, relativism is more appropriately compared to anarchy than tyranny. They’re opposites. Tyranny is when the authority is harsh and overbearing. Anarchy is the case where there’s a lack of laws.

What about the medical personnel who have built a lifetime career based on morality? Now they have no protection?

I’m pretty sure they’re only trying to change the law as it relates to pharmacists, not doctors. Well, I suppose someone out there is probably trying to change the law as it relates to doctors, but I don’t think there are too many of them. I know there are pharmacies run by Catholic institutions that don’t stock birth control pills, morning after pills, etc. No one’s trying to force them or their pharmacists to change.

On the other hand, if a pharmacist got a job at Planned Parenthood, then declared that it was against his morals to fill many of their prescriptions, how is that exercising his freedom of conscience? And why would he want to work for a company that would pressure him to go against his morals anyway?

You mean pro-abortion, don’t you?

I try to keep my language neutral, since it shows respect to people I disagree with. I think it is more constructive to engage in dialogue with a person that you show respect to than one that you immediately confront with loaded language. So I tend to call people what they call themselves.

Besides, pro-abortion is kind of a misnomer. I mean, I guess there might be some overpopulation zealots and Chinese politicians that truly are pro-abortion, but just because you don’t think something should be illegal, it doesn’t mean you are “pro-that-thing”. I mean, I don’t believe there should be laws to punish people who cheat on their spouses. If laws like that existed, they would create more problems than they would solve. But does that make me “pro-adultery”?

 

[ted1132]

As is noticed, the debate over Life is a scary proposition to begin with. I believe the Bishops even though it came to a head after? 30 years? have demonstrated the collective will finally to set the standard that one cannot be Catholic and pro-choice. Since Henry Hyde proposed legislation to protect the innocent, time has come on our side (Life). “Those not against us are with us” Only way to turn back to normalcy is to make Abortion illegal. The Church is more fortified now than even 10 yrs ago, vocations up for the first time world wide since-- THE PILL sold over the counter 50 yrs ago! So no need to fear the leadership, its the world(leadership) in which we live that is painfully – don’t pardon the pun! Impotent!

 

[fix]

I don’t believe all views are equal. I don’t think anyone believes that all views are equal. But on the other hand, I don’t think the Catholic Church has a monopoly on the truth either. In fact, I’m pretty sure that even the Catholic Church doesn’t claim to have a monopoly on the truth. At least not since Vatican II, when they decided that maybe all Jews weren’t necessarily hell-bound.

This is off topic and I will be happy to refute your assertions on another thread. Taking bits and pieces of past statements out of context does not prove your point though.

So you’re saying people who are pro-choice shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

I am saying they should better form their consciences.

I still don’t get the whole “tyranny” thing. I’m not familiar with Benedict’s equation of relativism with tyranny, but I think it must have been interpreted wrong. In a tyranny, someone is abusing their authority, and forcing their will on others.

Yea, that is what we have. It is the relativists foisting their errors on society, like the innocents who get no protection from the state.

The best that the article can come up with is that apparently some people in authority don’t believe pharmacists should be protected from losing their jobs if they don’t fill certain prescriptions or name a pharmacy that will. That’s pretty weak though. Honestly, if a pharmacist is working for an employer that would fire him if they could for not filling prescriptions for emergency contraception, why would he want to work there? I mean, that’s like being in the service of evil or something.

That is a new thread.

But even if the woman who wants these laws repealed got her way, it would be a matter of less government control, not more, so I don’t see how that’s a tyranny. I mean, the only change would be that employers would now be allowed to fire their pharmacists who didn’t fill those prescriptions, but Catholic hospitals and clinics would be under no obligation to prescribe them or anything.

I’ve heard various Protestant theologians insist that being free to do bad things is in fact not freedom at all, but slavery. I remember I heard someone say that by imposing these moral laws on yourself, you would become free from all of these things, like sin and vice. But I had to laugh when he said you would be free from disobedience. Freedom from disobedience. That makes no sense at all. Why can’t he just admit that yes, by imposing these laws on yourself, you’re giving up some freedom, but that it’s worth it because of what you gain? Kind of like how it is with marriage. And that’s how it is with the United States. We’re free to do a lot of bad things, and indeed, many people are doing them. But that doesn’t make it tyranny. Nobody is forcing people to do all these bad things. They’re doing them because they have the freedom to.

Freedom is doing what is right. Doing evil is abusing freedom. That is license. One aspect of free will is having the power to abuse it. That is not the totality of free will nor is doing evil being free. As you say doing evil is slavery.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Freedom is doing what is right. Doing evil is abusing freedom. That is license. One aspect of free will is having the power to abuse it. That is not the totality of free will nor is doing evil being free. As you say doing evil is slavery.

Don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t like the idea of my faith using language that sounds like it was written by George Orwell. “Of course you are free, but only he who serves Big Brother is truly free.” I’m not saying God is like Big Brother, just that I don’t like the idea of having to see Him that way. I guess it just seems like that assertion changes the meaning of words too much, especially because I’ve heard people talk about being “a slave to God.” I mean, by definition, a slave isn’t free. And being free means you don’t have to follow anyone’s orders unless you want to.

 

[fix]

Don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t like the idea of my faith using language that sounds like it was written by George Orwell. “Of course you are free, but only he who serves Big Brother is truly free.” I’m not saying God is like Big Brother, just that I don’t like the idea of having to see Him that way. I guess it just seems like that assertion changes the meaning of words too much, especially because I’ve heard people talk about being “a slave to God.” I mean, by definition, a slave isn’t free. And being free means you don’t have to follow anyone’s orders unless you want to.

God can’t sin. Saints in heaven cannot sin. Are they more free or less free than we are?

 

[Luis_Santiago]

God can’t sin. Saints in heaven cannot sin. Are they more free or less free than we are?

God can’t sin because sin is by definition the defiance of God. Saints have no desire to sin and no reason to sin. If I am forced to stay in a jail cell all day, I am not free. But if I sit in my room all day because the weather is bad and I have no reason to leave, I am free, even though I am doing the same thing in both instances.

On the subject of Notre Dame: Honestly, I think Obama sees this as a way of trying to improve relations with Catholics. After all, he chose to speak at Notre Dame instead of the dozens of other universities that doubtlessly invited him to speak at their commencements. Clearly, many people see it differently, but it appears as though he honestly intends to try and build some sort of consensus as far as what the government should be doing, at least on issues besides abortion.

 

[mapleoak]

On the subject of Notre Dame: Honestly, I think Obama sees this as a way of trying to improve relations with Catholics.

I think it is not so much he is trying to improve relations with Catholics so much as he is seizing an opportunity to appeal to Catholics who disagree with Church teaching on abortion. He is using Notre Dame’s invitation to illustrate to the public that the Catholic Church is ‘okay’ with support a pro-abortion president. This is because people look up to Notre Dame as a Catholic university and therefore if it is okay with Notre Dame, then people associate that with the Catholic Church. That is why this is so scandalous to Catholics and possibly especially non-Catholics who will be misled about what the Church stands for. That is why so many bishops oppose Notre Dame’s actions and now even the Vatican is taking notice and expressing opposition. Clearly the Church herself feels this action of Notre Dame’s presents a serious danger and therefore vehemently expressing disapproval.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

I think it is not so much he is trying to improve relations with Catholics so much as he is seizing an opportunity to appeal to Catholics who disagree with Church teaching on abortion. He is using Notre Dame’s invitation to illustrate to the public that the Catholic Church is ‘okay’ with support a pro-abortion president. This is because people look up to Notre Dame as a Catholic university and therefore if it is okay with Notre Dame, then people associate that with the Catholic Church. That is why this is so scandalous to Catholics and possibly especially non-Catholics who will be misled about what the Church stands for. That is why so many bishops oppose Notre Dame’s actions and now even the Vatican is taking notice and expressing opposition. Clearly the Church herself feels this action of Notre Dame’s presents a serious danger and therefore vehemently expressing disapproval.

The Vatican is vehemently expressing disapproval? That’s news to me.

It’s not unrealistic to think that abortion just isn’t a priority for Obama, and he wants to move the discussion to other issues. And don’t start with the “The first think I’d do as president…” line again. I saw that clip in context, and it was part of a list of things he was saying he planned to do as president that lined up with the goals of Planned Parenthood. He didn’t mean it in the sense that that would be his first priority. He talks like that a lot, where he breaks down a plan or scenario into a list of numbered steps or points.

 

[JimG]

After all, he chose to speak at Notre Dame instead of the dozens of other universities that doubtlessly invited him to speak at their commencements.

Possibly because he saw it as a chance to co-opt Catholics. I don’t know if Liberty University or Bob Jones University invited him, but maybe he thinks it easier, or more of a priority, to co-opt Catholics than Evangelicals.

 

[elts1956]

The Vatican is vehemently expressing disapproval? That’s news to me.

Friday May 8, 2009

Top Vatican Prelate Delivers Powerful Address on Life and Family at Prayer Breakfast
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09050819.html

And part of the scope of his talk can be seen at these websites.

ncregister.com/daily/archbishop_burke_is_notre_dame_catholic/

stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/1CC877FF348A4511862575B10003B7FE?OpenDocument

huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/08/archbishop-raymond-burke-_n_200273.html

It’s not unrealistic to think that abortion just isn’t a priority for Obama, and he wants to move the discussion to other issues. And don’t start with the “The first think I’d do as president…” line again. I saw that clip in context, and it was part of a list of things he was saying he planned to do as president that lined up with the goals of Planned Parenthood. He didn’t mean it in the sense that that would be his first priority. So why did he mention it first, ie. “The first thing I will do” then pause for ovation?

He talks like that a lot, Chums, are you? where he breaks down a plan or scenario into a list of numbered steps or points.

 

[Insight]

Obama is a well known disciple of Sol Alinsky, who propagated that “the ends justifies the means”. Alinsky was a satanist and dedicated his works to lucifer. Obama got his start as an Alinsky method instructor for Acorn. By associating himself with Notre Dame, he is following the Alinsky method of associating himself with an Icon to his opposition to gain credibility. Listen 25 min in on following link.

tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2008090134&CFID=8636162&CFTOKEN=98e6342bdeda6a29-BC5C8C52-3048-349E-4E732EBAF9984422&bhcp=1

Also notice how Obama kicked off his Presidential Campaign from Bill Ayers living room. Bill Ayers wrote a book entitled: “Prairie Fire”, which he dedicated to the Palestinian terrorist Sirhan Sirhan, who murdered Robert F. Kennedy.

radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-pal-bill-ayers-dedicated-book-to.html

Birds of a feather flock together.

God Bless

 

[Luis_Santiago]

So why did he mention it first, ie. “The first thing I will do” then pause for ovation?

He was telling them what they wanted to hear. Of course they applauded.

Chums, are you?

I’ve heard a lot of his speeches and debates. I followed the election all last year, same as everyone else.

Obama is a well known disciple of Sol Alinsky, who propagated that “the ends justifies the means”. Alinsky was a satanist and dedicated his works to lucifer. Obama got his start as an Alinsky method instructor for Acorn. By associating himself with Notre Dame, he is following the Alinsky method of associating himself with an Icon to his opposition to gain credibility. Listen 25 min in on following link.

tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2008090134&CFID=8636162&CFTOKEN=98e6342bdeda6a29-BC5C8C52-3048-349E-4E732EBAF9984422&bhcp=1

Also notice how Obama kicked off his Presidential Campaign from Bill Ayers living room. Bill Ayers wrote a book entitled: “Prairie Fire”, which he dedicated to the Palestinian terrorist Sirhan Sirhan, who murdered Robert F. Kennedy.

radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-pal-bill-ayers-dedicated-book-to.html

Birds of a feather flock together.

God Bless

There are too many lies here to refute them all in a timely fashion. Isn’t there a commandment about that? Obviously, you don’t care what is true, so there’s not much point in me trying, but he certainly didn’t start off his presidential campaign from Bill Ayers’ living room. He did that at the same place Lincoln did - the capitol building in Springfield Illinois.

 

[RobbyS]

He was telling them what they wanted to hear. Of course they applauded.

I’ve heard a lot of his speeches and debates. I followed the election all last year, same as everyone else.

There are too many lies here to refute them all in a timely fashion. Isn’t there a commandment about that? Obviously, you don’t care what is true, so there’s not much point in me trying, but he certainly didn’t start off his presidential campaign from Bill Ayers’ living room. He did that at the same place Lincoln did - the capitol building in Springfield Illinois.

He began his political career in Ayer’s living room. He futhered his politcal career by associating himself with The Rev. Wright, an very radical cleric. Ditto Father Pfleuger
who is equally radical. But on point, he must know what a disturbance he has caused by agreeing to speak at Notre Dame. If he is interested in keeping the peace rather than stirring up trouble among Catholics, he would have already delclined to speak there. If he goes ahead, he will prove that he is out to make mischief.

 

[mapleoak]

On the subject of Notre Dame: Honestly, I think Obama sees this as a way of trying to improve relations with Catholics.

But on point, he must know what a disturbance he has caused by agreeing to speak at Notre Dame. If he is interested in keeping the peace rather than stirring up trouble among Catholics, he would have already delclined to speak there. If he goes ahead, he will prove that he is out to make mischief.

Good point.
It would seem naive to believe that Obama is innocently unaware of the backlash which he has created that Notre Dame is receiving from the Church regarding his visit. Is that his honest way of trying to improve relations with the Catholic Church?
If he wanted to improve his relations with the Church, he would renounce his support for the murder of the unborn.

 

[fix]

God can’t sin because sin is by definition the defiance of God. Saints have no desire to sin and no reason to sin. If I am forced to stay in a jail cell all day, I am not free. But if I sit in my room all day because the weather is bad and I have no reason to leave, I am free, even though I am doing the same thing in both instances.

This is off topic, so I suggest this:

For, as the possibility of error, and actual error, are defects of the mind and attest its imperfection, so the pursuit of what has a false appearance of good, though a proof of our freedom, just as a disease is a proof of our vitality, implies defect in human liberty. The will also, simply because of its dependence on the reason, no sooner desires anything contrary thereto than it abuses its freedom of choice and corrupts its very essence. Thus it is that the infinitely perfect God, although supremely free, because of the supremacy of His intellect and of His essential goodness, nevertheless cannot choose evil; neither can the angels and saints, who enjoy the beatific vision. …

Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived than the notion that, because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law. Were this the case, it would follow that to become free we must be deprived of reason; whereas the truth is that we are bound to submit to law precisely because we are free by our very nature. For, law is the guide of man’s actions; it turns him toward good by its rewards, and deters him from evil by its punishments…

On the subject of Notre Dame: Honestly, I think Obama sees this as a way of trying to improve relations with Catholics. After all, he chose to speak at Notre Dame instead of the dozens of other universities that doubtlessly invited him to speak at their commencements. Clearly, many people see it differently, but it appears as though he honestly intends to try and build some sort of consensus as far as what the government should be doing, at least on issues besides abortion.

If he wants to improve relations he should stop being pro abortion. ND is wrong to allow him such an honor. This long debate is proof too many refuse to submit to proper authority.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

He began his political career in Ayer’s living room. He futhered his politcal career by associating himself with The Rev. Wright, an very radical cleric. Ditto Father Pfleuger who is equally radical.

Whatever you say about Rev. Wright, his church was accomplishing a lot in that community, as far as helping the poor and combating gangs, drugs, crime, etc. I think Obama recognized this and joined the church because of it, despite any nuttiness on the part of its leader.

But on point, he must know what a disturbance he has caused by agreeing to speak at Notre Dame. If he is interested in keeping the peace rather than stirring up trouble among Catholics, he would have already delclined to speak there. If he goes ahead, he will prove that he is out to make mischief.

His entire campaign, and indeed much of his career, has centered around reaching out to people who aren’t exactly pleased with what he stands for. Actually, he seems to be using similar tactics with the Catholic Church as he has with Iran, Venezuela, and the Republicans. That is, accepting the offers of those which offer them.

 

[JimG]

Whatever you say about Rev. Wright, his church was accomplishing a lot in that community, as far as helping the poor and combating gangs, drugs, crime, etc. I think Obama recognized this and joined the church because of it, despite any nuttiness on the part of its leader.

His entire campaign, and indeed much of his career, has centered around reaching out to people who aren’t exactly pleased with what he stands for. Actually, he seems to be using similar tactics with the Catholic Church as he has with Iran, Venezuela, and the Republicans. That is, accepting the offers of those which offer them.

In other words, he is quite willing to accept the offers of Catholics who do not wish to follow Catholicism.