The left and family separations

[po18guy]

Back when I worlked for a living, we raided crackhouses. We took the children away. We raided meth labs and took the children - even the animals - away.

So, how do we justify those who willingly and knowingly subject their children to the dangers of traveling among thieves, rapists and murders for the sake of income/money? They are not fleeing religious of political persecution. And they are 1005, fully aware that they risk deportation - just as record numbers were deported under the Obama administration.

Do such unworthy/incapable parents bear zero responsibility for endangering their own children? All of this smacks of the continuing radical progressive effort to neutralize/degrade the sitting president. Organizing for Action is a radical progressive organization which morphed from Obama’s campaign and “mysteriously” popped up in D.C. after the 2017 inauguration. Consider the self-exalted mental state:

'“Change requires more than righteous anger. It requires a program, and it requires organizing.”

Thus, we see continual agitation, paid for by well-financed and obscure manipulators, attacking the very DNA of America. Thus, the migrant is the new Holy Family and inanimate objects the greatest “threat” - even though the human heart is the source of all sin.

https://www.ofa.us/

Whatever happened to presidents retiring? No! This one is still rabble-rousing, as he was trained to do by radical subversive Saul Alinsky.

And George Soros pulls the strings.

 

[help1]

The transgender people I know certainly weren’t “socially pressured” into it. What you’re doing is taking a group and assuming that everyone must be transgender for the same reasons. Guess what? There’s also people that transition and don’t regret it (this is actually the majority of them). In fact it often solves their mental issues. Having dealed with this issue myself I’ve gone to a support group or two for these people. Hormone therapy made two people I knew go from suicidal to happy with their lives, literally giddy, happy people.

What’s my point? You have to judge the cases individually. What’s true for someone will not be true for another. With every case, let’s look at the facts and be understanding and be compassionate.

 

[TheLittleLady]

George Soros once again.

Oh, phluzzze.

Sheldon Adleson alone is far richer than George Soros. Toss in Mr Thiel and the Koch Brothers, the Republicans have far more wealth and power to run the table.

 

[angel12]

Just to be clear, “the fringe right” refers to the positions that were accepted by nearly everyone around 5 minutes ago.

Possibly in an alternate universe . . .

 

[Arkansan]

No one here has given any indication of being personally affected by the topic of discussion. So I have no duty to be “sensitive” to those who are looking to be vicariously offended.

 

[help1]

I appreciate your politeness. I honestly don’t mind debating with someone if they act as you do. I wish more people were like you.

It almost sounds to me like you’re dealing with drag-queens or something similar. Keep in mind those people aren’t transgender, they just like dressing as women. Also I wouldn’t go to Youtube if you’re looking for a reasonable transgender person…ha! The rule on Youtube and well the Internet in general is that the crazy people get the most attention, so…

As I say, my friend, you have to judge on a case-to-case basis. I know what it’s like to get thrown under the rug, ignored, just because most people in my community were pieces of dirt. It isn’t fair to the individual. All I can really say is it’s just about the most un-Christian thing in the world to have this “ruin a few lives if it doesn’t harm the majority” mentality, actually your thinking is even worse as you’re not really judging by the majority but by the loud minority (you say yourself your source is Youtube) besides the IRL people you’ve met but you are dealing with people in prostitution for crying out loud.

As a newcomer to Catholicism, someone who really is starting to get into it and thinking hard about vocations, it can be difficult, coming to this atmosphere as someone who holds some positions that are not really too popular among die-hard Catholics, the people that are so blatant in their faith as I intend to be. Surprisingly there’s more on this forum advocating for humanity towards transgender people than I even thought there would be. Pleasantly surprised. The thing is, I can’t just let go of my empathy for these people, for the sake of fitting in better with my new Catholic Revivalist community, which is mostly right-wing (at least on the websites I’m coming from, this place, as I said, actually has a bit more diversity!)…but just think about Jesus…was he popular? Heck no! Popularity shouldn’t matter, especially to people like us. I’ll disagree with my fellow revivalists, modern crusaders, etc. if I have to.

 

[ZMystiCat]

No one here has given any indication of being personally affected by the topic of discussion.

First of all, two people, including myself, have already mentioned dealing gender dysphoria. Even without that, this is the Internet. Someone is going to come across this thread eventually who deals with it, and it is entirely possible more than just those who have brought up their struggles have already. Even in real life you can’t assume that every person you talk with doesn’t struggle with it. Many are too afraid to talk about it specifically because people assume that no one they’re talking to struggle and decide to say things that are incredibly insensitive.

Second, my comment wasn’t just about the topic at hand. As you pointed out, it is pretty standard response of the “left” to criticize the far right for being insensitive. Maybe you should consider that that is because the far right seems to have made being insensitive part of its modus operandi, to the point where even many of those on the right are embarrassed by the far right’s rhetoric.

So I have no duty to be “sensitive” to those who are looking to be vicariously offended.

You have a duty to show love to others even when they aren’t around. Why else do you think gossip is such a horrible evil?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Maybe you should consider that that is because the far right seems to have made being insensitive part of its modus operandi , to the point where even many of those on the right are embarrassed by the far right’s rhetoric.

Here! Here!

 

[giuseppe96]

Or that CPS in Canada can take children away whose parents refuse to acknowledge that they are ‘transgender’. It’s sickening.

 

[help1]

This issue has been discussed quite a bit here actually.

 

[Thorolfr]

I say this also, with plenty of gay friends/acquaintances against whom I never discriminated and do get along with - apparently they like me as a person (because I don’t judge them). And those never gave a satisfactory answer to their gayness that managed to go beyond attraction and lust (and the odd touch of romanticism).

What kind of answer would you find to be “satisfactory”? If you’re expecting the average gay man to give you some kind of theological justification for why he’s gay, you probably aren’t going to get It. He’ll probably just say that that is the way he’s always been. And what kind of answer would you get from the average straight man if you asked him why he’s straight instead of gay? He probably wouldn’t know. He’d probably just say that he’s always been attracted to women.

 

[Arkansan]

Someone is going to come across this thread eventually who deals with it

Anything posted on the internet might eventually be read by someone who will be offended by it. If someone is going to be offended by seeing something they don’t agree with, then they probably shouldn’t be on the internet.

I see people say things I don’t like all the time and I don’t feel the need to tell them how offended I am. If someone finds that they can’t make a rational argument against something they disagree with, perhaps they should review their reasons for disagreeing.

You have a duty to show love to others even when they aren’t around. Why else do you think gossip is such a horrible evil?

Because gossip damages the good name of its victim.

 

[help1]

It’s almost as if you’re intentionally being wicked here in your words. I’ll pray for you

 

[ZMystiCat]

Anything posted on the internet might eventually be read by someone who will be offended by it. If someone is going to be offended by seeing something they don’t agree with, then they probably shouldn’t be on the internet.

People aren’t taking offense because they disagree. People take offense when you show that you clearly have no concern for who others are, where they’ve come from, and what they’re going through. It isn’t so much that you’ve considered them as people and have a different opinion about how to address their problem. It’s that you’ve shown little care for who they are as people.

Because gossip damages the good name of its victim.

Which is, of course, not loving. After all, “love your neighbor” is one of the two foundational commands that the others flow from, as expressed by both Jesus and St. Paul. If that suddenly went away when the person wasn’t around, gossip wouldn’t be a problem.

 

[Arkansan]

People take offense when you show that you clearly have no concern for who others are, where they’ve come from, and what they’re going through.

Correct. I don’t keep the feelings of every person in the entire world (or every person with an internet connection) in mind when I make a post.

If a person doesn’t understand that not everything is about themselves, then they probably shouldn’t read public discussions.

Arkansan:

Because gossip damages the good name of its victim.

Which is, of course, not loving. After all, “love your neighbor” is one of the two foundational commands that the others flow from, as expressed by both Jesus and St. Paul. If that suddenly went away when the person wasn’t around, gossip wouldn’t be a problem.

Expressing an opinion that someone somewhere is offended by isn’t uncharitable. Jesus and St. Paul said plenty of things that offended people who were right there in person.

 

[Allegra]

A lot of pro-abortion advocates insist that partial birth abortion was never practiced. There are some who even insist that late-term abortions are not practiced and what pro-life people are protesting are procedures to remove an already dead fetus. The realities of late-term abortion are so intense that in order to continue holding their view, they have to pretend like it doesn’t exist.

 

[twf]

Many here seem to see the whole world through the Republican vs Democrat lens. This is not the Catholic worldview. The US bishops, the successors of the apostles, vicars of Christ, to whom every cathoic is bound to show filial devotion and reverence, condemn BOTH abortion and separating families at the border.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Correct. I don’t keep the feelings of every person in the entire world (or every person with an internet connection) in mind when I make a post.

I’m pretty sure it isn’t too hard to consider what others are going through when commenting on the very things that affect them, even if you aren’t aware of each individual. If it is, then you should do less talking and more listening or at the very least ask questions rather than declare “truth”.

If a person doesn’t understand that not everything is about themselves, then they probably shouldn’t read public discussions.

If you’re going to be talking about something that affects a person, then expect them to take it personally.

Expressing an opinion that someone somewhere is offended by isn’t uncharitable.

You said you weren’t obligated to be sensitive to others who weren’t here. I pointed out that not being here is not a criteria for not expressing things in love. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone actually took offense.

Jesus and St. Paul said plenty of things that offended people who were right there in person.

There’s a big difference between making an effort to understand and love someone but them still being offended and making no effort because they (supposedly) aren’t here.

 

[Arkansan]

You don’t seem to be getting the point. I don’t honestly care that there are people out there who are offended by what I say.

Do you have a rational counterargument to what I said?

 

[abucs]

The left is suddenly so concerned about family separations at the border but doesn’t seem to bat an eye about deadly separations in abortion. Any open borders person here care to explain this inconsistency?

I am not an open borders person but as a man I would say that abortion often rips the child away from the father and grand parents and uncles and aunts and of life itself.