The caveat being that there is a difference between accidentally harming/killing another human being or being forced to harm/kill another human being in defense of one’s own or another innocent person’s life and fighting in a just war. I just thought the clarification should be made for our non-Catholic lurkers and seekers.
Yet that narrows the focus to a abortion or nothing litmus test. It highly limits debate when you have to get by this issue, which is often unrelated to the initial issue. This is one issue politics which is highly limiting to both educational missions and understanding of other issues. How much are we willing to cede in other matters based on one issue alone?
Yet that also highly restricts what will be presented. The Church hierarchy have their own personal preferences which may not be the same of those in the pews, that then tends to make all other issues pretty unimportant as they are not the priority of the hierarchy. Asking for complete obedience leads to a very narrow focus of issues which is a disservice to education and growth for the entire Church.
There is no way to get by this issue. It is not a political issue-it is the most serious moral issue facing our Country today. To allow one sho supports this evil to speak at a Catholic School would be sacrilege.
What you call the left I call “all moral people” or “everyone except some neoconservative thugs.” If a broad definition of torture is characteristic of the “left,” then sign me up. Of course, my position on abortion is supposedly “right wing,” even though it’s based on exactly the same moral principles. I define torture broadly for the same reasons I define the beginning of human life generously.
It is a political issue as it relates to the world around the Church and the issues to be brought up at this event. It is also full of inter-church politics. It is one thing to be against abortion and to encourage minimizing its use, it is another to have it be the end-all litmus test gatekeeper issue to decide the starting point on if other issues can be discussed. That is a very dangerous precedent.
So those who disagree with your definition of torture are “neo-conservative thugs”
Forgive me for asking, but what does the word “neo” mean in front of conservative? I know what a conservative is, but I’m not sure what “neo” is???
Now, too bad you couldn’t write another speech entitled “Abortion and the Courage to Be Inconvenienced.” Besides, isn’t abortion merely torture of the unborn?
You did not respond: Do you think it acceptable to invite a speaker to address the issue of, say, child abuse or domestic violence, although the speaker may be known for his public support of burning crosses in the front yards of African-Americans’ homes. I mean, let’s not let a single issue obstruct an otherwise worthy topic of discussion. After all, we don’t want to use racial prejudice as a litmus test.
How is this limiting? You act as if there is some shortage of ‘qualified’ speakers to speak on worthy topics - as if these deficient speakers were not allowed a platform, then there would be no one else to cover “other issues.” Why is that?
seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/images/graphics/Kristol-Pie.gif
It was a church - one that’s been in the news a lot over the past several years for skating quite dangerously close to liberalism - it’s nice to see them take a stand in favour of morality, for a change.
Are people who support corporal punishment “neoconservative thugs” as well? Just how broad is your definition?
I am ill-prepared to answer you, but since no one else has responded, I will give my impression. Neo-conservatives seem to be distinguished from ordinary conservatives by their aggressive, hawkish foreign policy. Unlike Teddy Roosevelt’s dictum of “Speak softly and carry a big stick”, neo-conservatives seem to favor an attitude of “Speak loudly, and brandish a big stick.”
He is sending quite a mixed message. Dismembering children and throwing them out with the garbage is OK-waterborarding a terrororist to save lives is evil.
In my estimation, both of these things go contrary to justice.
There were exactly three instances of water boarding(all of which arguably saved lives and did no physical damage to those thus treated) as compared to 50 million children slaughtered-there is no moral equivalenceIn my estimation, both of these things go contrary to justice.
What is there left of civilization to save, when we can do either of these things, supposedly in order to save civilization?
Whatever. Yes, three half-drowned guilty people is not equal to 50 million dead innocents.
No -I am saying that bringing up the alleged torture of people by th US in this context is a red herring designed to derail the discussion.