What do you think of NPR?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JChapel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
Although I personally oppose capital punishement the Church does now and always has allowed for its use. Pope Benedict said this is an issue Catholics can disagree on.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. While I personally can’t see any justification behind it (given that you are effectively murdering someone as “payment” for earthly crimes), I can also see that the issue isn’t absolutely against church teaching, and I will leave people who choose to support it to their own devices.
 
I love NPR…some of the programs are entertaining and the news “tells it like it is” IMO.
 
JackQ said:
Best case I can think of right off hand is the oft enunciated position that the Church’s just war doctrine is optional, or left to the sole discretion of political leaders. That’s wrong. The just war doctrine is not optional, and the political leadership is not the final judge on the question: the Church is. This position was taken in order that the invasion of Iraq would not be viewed as what it was: sin. One conservative Catholic publication even suggested, after the invasion, that perhaps it was time to revisit the just war doctrine. That was a real eye opener for me.
Click to expand...
If you recall, the Pope sent his envoy to the WH to plead with Mr. Bush not to invade Iraq at the time. The point is “what is a JUST war”. I have been reading Samuel and I noticed that at one point the Lord had told Saul to kill all including the King, the women, the children, the oxen, the etc of the enemy. I’m not sure which group it was and i cannot look it up right now – but the head was named Agag. He was spared by Saul for his own reasons and then chided by Samuel and after that he went insane. Anyway, it reminded me of how when Bush Sr. should have done the complete job in the Gulf War and then his son decided to use the JUST war theory to finish what his pop didn’t. I know, it’s not exactly the same but when i read it – it took me back. Sorry for going on a tangent.
 
JuanVelarde said:
Though I agree with you on the issue of capital punishment, you must know that The Church allows for discusion and disagreement in that matter.

However, your argument makes no sense. How can you equate innocence with guilt?! I doubt anyone here is in favor of killing the innocent at any age. And your closing sentence echos a pro abortion argument used in their propaganda, “abortion should be legal if it will save the life of the mother.” This can never be!! Not for any reason!

I suggest you start listening to Catholic Answers Live instead of NPR if you don’t already. Any one of their awesome apologists would be able to go into great detail about what the church really teaches.
Click to expand...
It’s not accurate to say that the Church allows for discussion and disagreement pertaining to capital punishment in general terms. Here is what the Catechism says:

"2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]”

So capital punishment is permissible only when it is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. If bloodless means are available, they must be chosen. That is the teaching of the Church, and that is what Catholics must follow.
 
JChapel said:
Alright, it may not be murder, but it it still taking the life of a human being, which should not be taken lightly, no matter what the circumstance.
Click to expand...
Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

No exaggerations for effect.

No appeals to the emotions.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

No exaggerations for effect.

No appeals to the emotions.
Click to expand...
I see that you’re trying to break down my argument. I agree exactly with what JackQ just said. Unless the person shows substantial evidence that they are going to seriously harm someone else, they should not be considered for the death penalty. That is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Where do you stand?

BTW: We really need to get back on topic.
 
I really have a hard time when we accuse news media of being anti-Catholic because they cover the Church’s horrible sexual molestation problem and the history of that problem.

What has happened in our Church IS news. A hugely influential, world-wide religious organization was found to be protecting it’s employees who were raping and molesting children. No matter WHICH religion or organization was guilty of this, it would be HUGE news and would be talked about constantly in the news media. Had it been the US Government which protected its employees who it knew to be guilty of molesting children, in order to protect itself, and the media reported at length on the subject, would that make the news outlet “anti-American” or “anti-government”? If it were a school district’s administration protecting teachers who were molesters, would the media be “anti-Education”? It makes no sense to me.

The Church is in a position to be criticized on this issue because many people high up did the wrong thing. It breaks my heart, but the many bad apples in the barrel have put ALL Catholic clergy in a bad light, and the Church as a whole in a position to be criticized.

And now I will put on my flame-retardant suit and prepare myself.
 
I love NPR and listen all the time. I agree that there is a liberal slant, but I have a brain and can recognize when something is opinion vs. fact.

I get a lot of news from NPR because I can’t stand the “Info-tainment” that network news has become. I can’t stand the “If it bleeds, it leads” attitude, and the inane “Human Interest” stories. I can not listen to another mother of a felon with a police record as long as my arm, say tearfully “He’s a good boy” and that his troubles are all the police’s fault.

I also love Prairie Home Companion, This American Life, Diane Rehm, Fresh Air, Science Friday…I could go on.

I guess that makes me an Elitist, Liberal, East-Coast, boring snob. Oh well. 🙂
 
StJudePray4Me said:
I really have a hard time when we accuse news media of being anti-Catholic because they cover the Church’s horrible sexual molestation problem and the history of that problem.

What has happened in our Church IS news. A hugely influential, world-wide religious organization was found to be protecting it’s employees who were raping and molesting children. No matter WHICH religion or organization was guilty of this, it would be HUGE news and would be talked about constantly in the news media. Had it been the US Government which protected its employees who it knew to be guilty of molesting children, in order to protect itself, and the media reported at length on the subject, would that make the news outlet “anti-American” or “anti-government”? If it were a school district’s administration protecting teachers who were molesters, would the media be “anti-Education”? It makes no sense to me.

The Church is in a position to be criticized on this issue because many people high up did the wrong thing. It breaks my heart, but the many bad apples in the barrel have put ALL Catholic clergy in a bad light, and the Church as a whole in a position to be criticized.

And now I will put on my flame-retardant suit and prepare myself.
Click to expand...
Why? You’re right. Some people forget that that the real scandal was not the pederasty, but the way the hierarchy handled it. Creeps can sneak in anywhere, and the only remedy for that is better screening. That aspect has been handled. The problem that remains is that bishops who covered up for the perverts remain in place. The scandal will not go away until that issue is dealt with decisively, as in laicising the bishops involved.
 
livnlern said:
What examples can you give of this?
I have to ask because I watch Fox all the time and they regularly have people with liberal viewpoints on with people of more conservative views. I won’t say they’re not slanted at all, but they do give the other side a chance to state their opinions.
Click to expand...
I would challenge you to actually WATCH what happens when “liberals” are on Fox shows. They nearly always capitulate to the “conservative.” That was part of what got Juan Williams fired. While the whole “I’m scared of Muslims when I see one on a plane” was the straw that broke the camel’s back, it was him appearing regularly on Fox with “NPR News Analyst” under his face as if he was speaking with NPR’s voice. If you look at what NPR execs said, you’ll see it was that he regularly violated his contract by appearing on other news organizations (Fox), who used his employment with NPR as “liberal credentials.” When Williams would be led to agree with Bill O’Rilley then, it was presented as the conservatives winning an argument when Williams pretty much agreed with Papa Bear to begin with.

Is NPR “liberal?” I don’t think so. I think NPR is secular, as it should be considering it gets govt. funding. The real issue has to do with where the “center” is. Fox presents its conservative commentators as middle-of-the-roaders who are on the side of most Americans. They then bring on center-right democrats or news analysts (like WIlliams), label them “liberal,” and then celebrate the triumph of their positions when the “liberal” straw man agrees with them. Liberals never appear on Fox. Centrists and center-right democrats appear on Fox and Fox calls them Liberals.

NPR and Fox aren’t comparable, neither are Fox and MSNBC. Neither MSNBC nor NPR are employing actively-campaigning democrats as regular newscasters.
 
JackQ said:
It’s not accurate to say that the Church allows for discussion and disagreement pertaining to capital punishment in general terms. Here is what the Catechism says:

.
Click to expand...
Heres what the Pope says:

*While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
*

In short it is accurate to say that the Church allows for discussion and disagreement pertaining to capital punishment in general terms
 
RCconvert7 said:
I would challenge you to actually WATCH what happens when “liberals” are on Fox shows. They nearly always capitulate to the “conservative.” That was part of what got Juan Williams fired. While the whole “I’m scared of Muslims when I see one on a plane” was the straw that broke the camel’s back, it was him appearing regularly on Fox with “NPR News Analyst” under his face as if he was speaking with NPR’s voice. If you look at what NPR execs said, you’ll see it was that he regularly violated his contract by appearing on other news organizations (Fox), who used his employment with NPR as “liberal credentials.” When Williams would be led to agree with Bill O’Rilley then, it was presented as the conservatives winning an argument when Williams pretty much agreed with Papa Bear to begin with.

Is NPR “liberal?” I don’t think so. I think NPR is secular, as it should be considering it gets govt. funding. The real issue has to do with where the “center” is. Fox presents its conservative commentators as middle-of-the-roaders who are on the side of most Americans. They then bring on center-right democrats or news analysts (like WIlliams), label them “liberal,” and then celebrate the triumph of their positions when the “liberal” straw man agrees with them. Liberals never appear on Fox. Centrists and center-right democrats appear on Fox and Fox calls them Liberals.

NPR and Fox aren’t comparable, neither are Fox and MSNBC. Neither MSNBC nor NPR are employing actively-campaigning democrats as regular newscasters.
Click to expand...
You make a great case as to why you should not be required to fund Fox news. Why do you not concede the same for conservatives resentful of having to pay for we consider to be liberal tripe on NPR?
 
I really believe that a distinction needs to be made in this debate between “liberal,” and “secular.” There are secular conservatives (Dick Chaney, George H. W. Bush) and there are religious liberals (Andrew Greeley, John Shelby Spong). “Liberal” is not opposed to “religious” any more than “wood” is opposed to “chair,” unless you assume every chair to be made of plastic and every table to be made of wood.
 
estesbob said:
You make a great case as to why you should not be required to fund Fox news. Why do you not concede the same for conservatives resentful of having to pay for we consider to be liberal tripe on NPR?
Click to expand...
What does funding have to do with it? The idea that NPR is “on the dole” isnt totally accurate anyway. They get 6% of their funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is govt. funded. Do you want NPR to be defunded, or all Public Radio member stations? Many of those just play a lot of classical music and pick up some NPR programming here or there. A lot of NPR programming isn’t political in nature at all (Car Talk, Splendid Table, Prairie Home Companion, Thistle and Shamrock, Hearts in Space…).
 
RCconvert7 said:
What does funding have to do with it? The idea that NPR is “on the dole” isnt totally accurate anyway. They get 6% of their funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is govt. funded. Do you want NPR to be defunded, or all Public Radio member stations? Many of those just play a lot of classical music and pick up some NPR programming here or there. A lot of NPR programming isn’t political in nature at all (Car Talk, Splendid Table, Prairie Home Companion, Thistle and Shamrock, Hearts in Space…).
Click to expand...
I believe NPR is an a mouthpiece of the political left Why should I or anybody else have to pay for the airing of political views we find specious? If ,as they claim, their public funding is so insinifanct it should be no problem for and others to make it up out of your own pockets
 
NPR is many things: The entertainment part is pretty good. Car Talk is a real hoot. Ditto classics like A Prairie Home Companion, Ditto Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me. . The music is very good. For many years I listened to Pipe Dreams, a program devoted to organ music. And, except for NPR, there are not many classical channels left. Morning Edition is my drive to work program because it is eclectic and literate. There have several studies of NPR, most recently one by some Stanford U. scholars that found NPR’s news to be in the center, not surprisingly for a publicly funded group. Editorially it is left of center and some of the reporters are clearly and openly biased as one could tell from Nina Totenberg’s coverage of Clarence Thomas. Below is a link to NPR’s programing which may be useful to some posters to this thread.
npr.org/
 
estesbob said:
Heres what the Pope says:

*While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
*

In short it is accurate to say that the Church allows for discussion and disagreement pertaining to capital punishment in general terms
Click to expand...
I suppose the real question here is: Why does the RCC allow for disagreement on capital punishment and war if it takes such a strong stance on protecting life, from conception to natural death?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top