Thursday, May 14, 2009

The Notre Dame Scandal- A Brief Report

Last Friday (May 8) I and others concerned with Notre Dame's scandalous invitation and extension of an honorary degree to Barack Obama were engaged in peaceful, prayerful witness to truth on the Notre Dame Campus. We walked onto the campus praying the rosary and pushing strollers that illustrated the Church's teaching with respect to the objective evil of abortion. At the behest of Father John Jenkins, the President of the University, we were detained by the UND police and turned over to the civil authorities. At the time of our arrest we were not defying civil law, but obeying the laws of God and the directives of the Church and its leadership. We sought to counteract the scandalous impression given by University authorities that it is compatible with Christian faith and Catholic teaching to honor and hold up as an example of good conduct someone who has made himself the focus of abortion evil in the world today.

Yesterday I sent a letter to David Tyson, the Provincial Superior of the Indiana Province of the Congregation of Holy Cross urgently requesting a hearing at which I and the others injured by Father Jenkins' abuse of his authority can present our grievances and seek relief. Unlike Father Jenkins, we are acting with respect for Christ's instruction that people of faith should work out their differences within the communion of the faithful before calling upon civil authorities who may or may not act with respect for the laws of God and the teachings of the Church. This is why I sought to meet with Father Jenkins before I joined in the spiritual rescue efforts occasioned by the University's scandalous behavior. He did not respond to my request. In this he displayed the same obdurate indifference to spiritual considerations that has exemplified his conduct throughout this scandalous affair. He has encouraged a bunker mentality within the University of Notre Dame community, by treating other members of the Body of Christ, even those in communion with the Holy See, as if we are "outsiders".

This mentality contradicts the "emphasis on Community in Catholicism" cited in the University's mission statement but utterly ignored in the actions ordered by Father Jenkins and his colleagues. Archbishop Burke of the Vatican and the American bishops who have asked that the invitation and honorary degree be withdrawn; the hundreds of thousands who have signed the petition with the same plea; the millions of Catholics and prolife Christians they represent: though part of the Church communion, the body of Christ or the community of the faithful, all are apparently to be treated as criminals if they dare to set foot on the Notre Dame campus to question the University administration's will and judgment.

Where is the humility that should characterize Christian leadership? Where is the love toward other believers that should give glory to God? Instead of ordering arrests and persecution, a true Catholic and Christian heart should seek to converse in order to instruct (if there is misunderstanding) or to learn. Instead Father Jenkins has reacted with a harshness that bespeaks fearful guilt, using force to dispose of opposition. If, despite the opinion of the Vatican, the bishops and so many of the laity, he and his colleagues are right to honor evil, why are they afraid to deal openly and respectfully with both the Church authorities and fellow believers who disagree?

They react with forceful abuses of their authority because they cannot properly defend their action in terms of the laws of God and the teachings of the Catholic Church. They therefore substitute force for persuasion. In this too they honor evil, by imitating its methods.

109 comments:

Myron said...

Dear Sir:

I am deeply and favorably impressed by your sacrificial service to the cause of Christ and to the helpless unborn.

Millions of us, Catholic and Protestant, are with you in prayer, and in devotion to the causes which made America great and special.

I'm sorry that I was unable to be there with you through your recent protest, arrest, and incarceration. It seems a pity that there were not thousands who were willing to be by your side.

Please continue to lead by example. Know that many support you and cherish what you are.

Regards,
Myron Cockerham
Oakland, AR

Greywolfe said...

I would like to add my approval and commendations to those of Mr. Cockerham. As a Christian family man, I too wish that I were able to be present with you. My prayers have been, are now, and will continue to be with you in this.

Keith Ent
aka Greywolfe
Alva, Oklahoma
www.okiepatriot.blogspot.com

Gramma 2 Many said...

There are many of us who are outraged by the abuse of power in our nation today. Thank you for taking a stand in all of our names. We want to be beside you, but circumstances make it impossible for many.
God Bless and keep you in all that you do.

Franz said...

I have called - and will do so unceasingly - to our Father God and Jesus, the Blessed Mother and all of the hosts of heaven, to intercede in the cause of liberating our great nation from the evil that is in the hearts, minds and souls of its citizens. May we all take a step higher in consciousness, so that we may merit that intercession that is needed to save America from the great plagues and woes that are descending upon us as I write this.

groovsmyth said...

In thanksgiving for your moral courage, I continue to pray that The Holy Spirit articulates from your lips as you witness with your actions.

Ashley B. Hughes said...

1 Timothy (NIV)

Warning Against False Teachers of the Law
3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.



2 Peter 2
1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

newsndesign said...

Thank you for your courageous stand against this abomination. Like others here, I too was unable to attend. Still, it is pitiful to see that there are so few willing to expose evil and wickedness, particularly at a time when we are relatively free to do so. Nevertheless, you are a great encouragement to us, and we are blessed to have a faithful remnant of men and women who put God and His principles above expediency and personal ambition. May our nation repent while there is still time.

Rudy Sanchez
http://christianear.com

Rudy Sanchez said...

Thank you for your courageous stand against this abomination. Like others here, I too was unable to attend. Still, it is pitiful to see that there are so few willing to expose evil and wickedness, particularly at a time when we are relatively free to do so. Nevertheless, you are a great encouragement to us, and we are blessed to have a faithful remnant of men and women who put God and His principles above expediency and personal ambition. May our nation repent while there is still time.

Rudy Sanchez
http://christianear.com

bigbusguy said...

Dr. Keyes, you are an inspiration to us all. I thank you from the the depths of my heart for your courageous stand for truth. Look upon the treatment of our master, can we his servants expect any better? I was financially unable to be with you in person and resorted to the best weapon I had, the Holy Rosary of Our Mother. I wish Notre Dame was in southern California, I would've been arm and arm with you to whatever end. I have to say that I have watched all the videos of that day and was most upset by the henchmen of Father Jenkins, who came to serve you notice that you would be arrested should you attempt to come on campus. Your argument to them was very enlightening, as to the "I am just doing my job" mentality! I saw first hand how otherwise good christian men could be coerced to commit crimes against their brothers and sisters. In the end they served evil to save their jobs, another word for fellow christians who refuse to stand with the truth and with Jesus comes to mind! JUDAS!

God Loves you Alan Keyes and so do I

Praying for you always,

Michael McKinney
San Clemente, CA

Andrew said...

Alan,

For what it's worth, you may have lost the presidency through lack of coverage and lack of scrutiny over the qualifications of our current community organizer, but I believe God has much more in mind for you than that. I believe you have been set to be the catalyst this nation needs both spiritually and politically and whether you become president or not is not nearly as important as what you have yet to do on behalf of the American people both through your words and your actions. Since I first ran into this site and since I first saw you running for office many years ago I have been praying for you and believe things are finally happening.

Be bold and stand strong brother.
Andrew
Santa Rosa Ca

Terry Morris said...

As I've said many times before of leftism, the less radical it needs to be in order to advance its agenda, the more radical it becomes. And yes, leftist subversives have infiltrated the Church just as they have infiltrated the Republican party. Father Jenkins, it seems to me, is the Arlen Specter, et al, of Notre Dame University.

Thanks for fighting the battle on the frontlines!

Friar Matt said...

I just heard that Alan is a scheduled guest on the Sean Hannity Show Friday night at 9 pm and is rebroadcast at midnight.

Alan, keep up the good fight.

csnelten said...

Dear Dr. Keys,

You are in my thoughts and prayers. A few minutes ago you were arrested at ND. My heart cries out to you and your cause. I invited Christ into my life in the late eighties and the calling to serve is great. You are an inspiration to me and as your sister in Christ I stand by your side.

Sincerely your sister,

Carol Snelten
Lakewood, IL

Anthony said...

Dear Mr. Keys,

Congradulations on your moral victory. It is becoming more and more prevelant to be persecuted and even prosecuted in this country for Christian beliefs and moral speech.

Fight the fight sir as more are joining your ranks every day. Anthony Stephens

grace said...

I am so proud of you Dr. Keys! I agree with Andrew of Santa Rosa, I think God has something great in mind for you. I pray that He will reveal that to all of us soon! You are a light, a beacon, and I thank you so much for your passion and bravery in defense of the unborn. I hope one day I can shake your hand.
Keep fighting the good fight!
You'll be in my prayers,
With love in Christ!
Grace
Boone, NC

Erik said...

You people need to shut the hell up.

John said...

There is nothing wrong with expressing your right to assemble and peaceful protest, but the crowd trespassed onto private property and refused to leave when peacefully asked to. There was not much else the security could do but threaten and arrest, sure they didn't hold hands and sing Kumbaya but it's not like they killed anyone either. The campus may be big and contain a community, but a right to privacy still applies, regardless of how compelled you may be by your faith to deny others that right which you take for granted.

It does not matter how hard you believe in your religion, America is not forced to care and your so called "rules of god" will not gain precedence over the rational liberties which we are guaranteed as citizens and are protected by the Constitution.

I'm not going to discuss abortion, because your post is mainly about the protest, but keep in mind America is not a theocracy, you should be thankful it is not.

Peace.

IONU said...

John,

You are sadly and foolishly mistaken. Murdering an unborn human being (or as advocated by our Murderer in Chief, a living human being) violates not only God's Law but also the U.S. Constitution - the highest law of the United States.

"...secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our *** posterity ***..."

Shame on Notre Dame.

IONU said...

Clarification:

By "living human being" I meant babies who survive abortions.

Avoiding the issue ("I'm not going to discuss abortion") invalidates your comments, John, and is a convenient liberal cop out. What do you think Dr. Keyes was doing on the ND campus?

John said...

IONU-

Convenient liberal cop out? Oh yeah, because cop outs and other shady methods of debating have idealogical biases, right. Or you mean that all "liberal" people are dishonest, evil zombies bent on destroying life as you know it, just for kicks. Neither hold up too well in public. Let's just mutually refer to the action as a "cop out", alright?

And saying a cop out would remove any reason to reply to the rest (when you said it "invalidates [my] comments") is a cop out in itself and some serious hypocrisy. Did you even read it, or did you immediately fixate on the one instance in which I used the word "abortion"?

I was trying to prevent people like you preaching to me about the issue and completely ignoring my original point about the scandal. But since you asked nicely, I'll go ahead and talk about it.

First of all, yes, I currently consider myself to be pro-choice. No surprise there (but I still wouldn't advocate late term abortions). I just believe in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, and that it's not a life until it's born or ready to be born. I know it's a touchy issue, but that's my opinion.

Second, I find it interesting why you would assume that people who are pro-choice, or having an opinion on any given issue, would need to "cop out" on explaining why. If I had no reason to back it, I simply wouldn't.

Finally, this "Shame on Notre Dame" for inviting President Obama to speak is a direct contradiction with your boasting of the constitution, and simply a promotion of your religious ideals. He is entitled to his opinion, and for people to condemn Notre Dame for letting him from speak (about unrelated issues, nonetheless) is anti-freedom of speech/thought itself in nature.

James the Least said...

John, so you think the unborn baby is human but not alive, or that it's neither, or what? I would like you to answer this question, please. In return, I will address your trespass comment:

Imagine, if you will, that your brother, while claiming to love you and, indeed, be of one mind with you, refuses to allow you on his property to talk to him, even going so far as to have you arrested although you have done nothing wrong. Don't you think that would raise a flag in your mind that maybe his love and his solidarity with you aren't exactly what he's claiming they are?

The issue here isn't Notre Dame's right to punish trespassers. That's an idiotic argument on your part which demonstrates either your ignorance about what's going on or your dishonesty. Other than mentioning in passing that he was breaking no actual laws, Dr. Keyes has not argued that they had no civil right to arrest him, nor is he whining about the fact that he was arrested per se. What he's arguing is that the tree is known by its fruit: this so-called "Catholic university" treats Catholics as enemies and enemies of the Catholic Faith as friends. This is well illustrated by the arrests Dr. Keyes willingly subjected himself to, which no true brother would have ever resorted to ordering as they were completely unnecessary.

Can you imagine St. Peter delivering up St. Paul to the civil authorities over their disagreement about the retention of Jewish Law practices in the Church? I certainly can't.

"Finally, this "Shame on Notre Dame" for inviting President Obama to speak is a direct contradiction with your boasting of the constitution..."

No it isn't, genius. Notre Dame University is a PRIVATE INSTITUTION. This argument is between Catholics and a PRIVATE INSTITUTION that offers education in the name of the Catholic Church and claims to serve it and our interests. Outsiders are the ones who have no standing whatsoever, UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, to stick their noses in a private matter where it doesn't belong.

IONU said...

Stop the blather. Despite your protests, you continue to avoid the issue. It's not about trespassing or First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech or peaceful assembly, it's not about political persuasion or religious beliefs, it's not about ideology, it's about taking a stand against MURDER - something ND should not have to think twice about. Reread the Constitution. A woman does not have a Constitutional "right" to choose to terminate a human life. It is a violation of God's Law and the rule of law embodied by the Constitution.

As for condemning ND for INVITING (not "letting") Obama to speak is reprehensible, but conferring an HONORARY DEGREE on him is Satanic.

James the Least said...

Btw, in the interest of full disclosure (well, nearly full disclosure anyway), I am the poster formerly known as "jnewl." For some reason, the blog here isn't letting me post under my TypePad moniker today, so I had to go with my Google name.

John said...

James-

I believe that before birth a fetus should be recognized as human only very last stages of pregnancy, when it is ready to be born (because that's essentially the same as already born, plus the umbilical cord). Up until then, it is raw cells and flesh, potential but not confirmed. I'm open to increased knowledge about pregnancy which could shift this view (however, not religious dogma or simply unconfirmable and overblown right-wing propaganda).

I never said the issue was Notre Dame's right to punish trespassers, that's simply a reason why they were justified in stifling the protesters who broke their rules. As for your "brother" metaphor, I think a more relational situation would be if this brother just wanted to be left alone for a short period of time so he could do something requiring privacy and a lack of disruption on your part so you don't bother him, for example hanging out with someone you don't particularly like. The protesters where permitted to do their thing, but they broke simple guidelines set by the organization to prevent conflicts. Certainly the College is open to discussion, but a large overbearing crowd all passionately trying to do so at once can only bring dismay regardless of any peaceful pretense, so it's safe to marginalize them to areas adjacent but not on campus.

"No it isn't, genius. Notre Dame University is a PRIVATE INSTITUTION"

Ha! I had a feeling someone would say pretty much those exact words, and it only solidifies my impression of you as being impatiently eager to shoot down whatever I say.
Now, do I have to spell it out for you? I said "IN NATURE." This means the essence of their actions is anti-freedom of thought, but still perfectly constitutional.

IONU-

I'm not avoiding anything. I don't believe abortion is murder. You're telling ME to reread the Constitution? The Constitution does not say anything about abortion, but it does give the right to privacy. The womb is, by definition, in every way a private institution. From the way I see it the fetus is not yet an individual.

Obama is not receiving an award based on Catholicism, or his policies, therefore there is no link between the award and abortion, other than the fact that the event takes place at a traditionally Catholic university and the honoree happens to be pro-choice. To expunge someone based on their beliefs is the antithesis of American.

RonM said...

Just curious. How can a person who pursues "liberty" be "loyal" to anything? Is this just another example of how pea-brained conservatives are?

Dianne said...

Dear Dr. Keyes, Just as God raised up Esther to willingly lay down her life for her people, God has surely raised you up for such a time as this, to stand in defense of the unborn & to stand up for Jesus. Thank you for your courage, & for your convictions, & please be assured there are many who stand with you! John & Dianne

IONU said...

Let me amend the old adage: never discuss politics or religion [with a liberal].

They seem to have a blind spot when the truth conflicts with their opinions.

Friar Matt said...

"Up until then, it is raw cells and flesh, potential but not confirmed. "

John,
Scientifically, when egg and sperm join, they bring together a unique set of HUMAN DNA. This DNA is completely distinct from its mother. That single human cell will continue to grow as a unique human grows to old age provided that it is given the nutrients and time to do so. As it grows it remains intrinsically one, each part growing as part of the larger whole, not just flesh and raw cells growing without an end until a mystery happens again and all the raw cells and flesh combine near the end and become human.
This human being no matter how small, is genetically one whole, and is separate and distinct from its mother while only relying on the mother for shelter and nutrition. If we were to judge a beings right to life based on whether we can feed ourselves... I'm afraid that none of us would ever gain that right without help from others.

Justin said...

And here we go, the Liberal Pea brains show themselves. I have a news flash for all you good Liberals.
1) A Human being exhibits all four of the scientifically accepted definition of life as soon as the Bloastocyte exits the Fallopian tubes and attaches itself to the Uteran wall. (And no I will not explain what any of those words mean, look it up yourself).
2) The degenerate in charge of this country (and no, I will not refer to him as the president because he is not, he fraudulently won through a combination of Bush hatred syndrome, PC gone haywire, an extremely efficient campaign team, ACORN voter fraud, and the Supreme Court (who interestingly enough is now having all it's corporate law rulings overturned by the Obama administration in regards to the Chrysler bankruptcy)ruling that the issue that needs to come to life, if B.O. is really an American citizen, I am sure he is not as our many others (and no pea brain it is not because he is not white or has the middle name Hussein)is giving a speech at a university that is DEFINED as a religious school and his political stance is a contradiction to the religious teachings they have their. He has no right to speak their, much less receive a diversionary degree and the fact that the sham who runs ND is still OK with this is very telling of just how in line the university leadership is with the failed, corrupt cockroaches in Washington.

John said...

INOU-

Does this mean you bitterly give up? It's really easy to argue politics with a religious conservative because I on the other hand am not bogged down by a number of fallacies introduced by the religion itself which concern the issue and drive them away from a fair and reasonable solution (in favor of one that may not make sense or be fair but agrees with the extensive forgery we call the Bible).

Friar Matt-

I have DNA in my shedded skin cells, grass has DNA and we have no problem mowing it down. There are plenty of orphan children in this world, and stopping one from being born hurts no one, not even the fetus itself. I certainly don't remember anything from before I was actually born. What would be a baby would never experience anything, exactly as if the mother had never been impregnated. Yes there is some signs of life, but nothing that induces conscious self awareness which we generally associate with being an individual. This may have started by the time the baby is about to be born, so I'm skeptical about late term abortions and tentatively think they shouldn't be preformed out of respect for the new individual.

I would never judge a right to life based on whether or not we can feed ourselves. Especially considering there are plenty of less fortunate people with disabilities who fall under this category.

Justin-

Yes, I know what those words mean, did you? Kind of have to believe so since you capitalized them, indicating a copy-paste job from dictionary.com. Refer to earlier in this post, I do not believe it's a life without conscious thought.

Obama won the election (and was subsequently sworn in as president) fair and square by a large margin, something all your pathetic conspiracies combined couldn't do. McCain himself even said "the people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly". Saying he didn't deserve it is just immature and nothing more than denial. Now Bush on the other hand served two terms and was only actually elected once, thanks to his brother Jeb in Florida. Clear and obvious nepotism there, much more rational than any of the weak reasons you spewed.

Why would you imply that I think that you would believe that his skin color or middle name matters in any way? Don't go putting words in my mouth.

If you want "failed, corrupt cockroaches in washington", look no further than the last eight years. In my opinion and that of about two thirds of the country, the Obama Administration is doing great so far.

IONU said...

Do I "bitterly give up?" Give up what? Talking to a pea brain?

Uhhh....Yes!

John said...

IONU-

I pointed out the flaws in everything you said and you have the nerve to call me a pea brain, as if saying it could make it true? Sad. You aren't going to change anything by throwing blind insults at people you don't agree with. It is just a cop out, and it makes you look close-minded.

Friar Matt said...

John,

**I have DNA in my shedded skin cells, grass has DNA and we have no problem mowing it down.**

Your skin cells do indeed have DNA... but when you scratch your head, how many of those hairs and skin cells grow to become a human? Even if we gave them the best environment possible, they would never grow into another you... because they are only a part of the larger organism. A child in the womb is entirely different at EVERY stage of life than any of the things you mentioned because at every stage of life it is a distinct human life. And I think you realize this because your next arguments are not ones grounded in the science of pregnancy that, as you stated earlier, you wished this conversation to be rooted in.

**There are plenty of orphan children in this world, and stopping one from being born hurts no one, not even the fetus itself. I certainly don't remember anything from before I was actually born. What would be a baby would never experience anything, exactly as if the mother had never been impregnated. Yes there is some signs of life, but nothing that induces conscious self awareness which we generally associate with being an individual.**

Nothing like a plea to the emotion of children starving to justify the slaughter of other innocent children. Do we just kill the unborn out of convenience for the sake of the rest of us? There are too many old people too, wouldn't you say? They don't add much of value to society after a certain age and just leach off the system preventing us from feeding starving children.(BTW- You may enjoy the movie Logans Run) What shall we say the perfect population of the planet is? These are all insane questions because any answer is arbitrary. Even if you could put a number on it, based on how you "feel" then again would it justify the bloodshed as long as we got to that number?

Is it really self awareness or biology that makes us human and valuable in your eyes? From what I've looked at, self awareness begins around the 20th week of development, but I would argue that this is just as sick of a cut off date than any other. You are no longer saying that killing at this point is okay because it is not human, because we've already seen that it is more than a shed skin cell with its own HUMAN DNA and is a living developing unique individual. You are now saying that it is okay because "self-awareness" is a new arbitrary condition you put forth to decide a human beings value. You are acknowledging that this human being is developing on its own, but because it doesn't meet your standards we can do away with it. No matter the size or amount of development, the simple fact that this is a human life remains.

IONU said...

One last, predictably futile attempt. OK, you're not a pea brain, you may be an educated and articulate person but you choose to ignore or reject an absolute truth if it does not satisfy your ideological needs.

I am not calling you names, I am pointing out errors in your thinking. Why don't liberals tolerate criticism? Counter arguments don't come easily when you're wrong. Why don't you address the subject instead of personalizing it?

Discussion forums and blogs are so inundated with liberal-babble that serious dialogue is hampered. Let's stay on topic folks.





with liberal-babble

Friar Matt said...

John,

I realize that you said "orphan children", but if I understand what you were trying to convey, is that there are suffering children or enough of a population already... I used the example of starving children. The same would apply to orphans though... Because there is an orphan child out there somewhere you should not procreate until all have been adopted... Or you are allowed to kill the child in the womb as long as you adopt another outside of the womb?

smcchick1 said...

Dear Dr. Keyes,
Thank you. Keep running for president. Keep reminding the church authorities that there are still Roman Catholics who think the teachings of the church trump the bishops and those in charge of Catholic institutions with other agendas.

I could have stood behind Notre Dame if they had invited President Obama to a forum for opposing ideas. To give him an honorary degree and ask that the President advise Notre Dame students how to live their lives successfully in line with the religious and philosophical views their parents and generous benefactors sacrificed to send them to learn at Notre Dame, when these are fundamentally opposed to the President's religious and philosophical views is atrocious. I love Notre Dame and have fond memories as an alumna of Saint Mary's College; I took many theology and philosophy courses at Notre Dame as a Religious Studies major and I remember when Holy Cross Fathers and Sisters were proud to be a university for ideas and equally proud to be counter cultural when it meant promoting the truth.

I will keep you, Dr. Keyes, and the University of Notre Dame, the Holy Cross Order, and of course the students - born and as yet unborn - of Notre Dame in my prayers.

John said...

Friar Matt-

We as a society are not sure when life begins, but we know that it is present after birth. Because of this uncertainty, there is no constitutional reason to make it illegal, unless seen through the eyes of someone raised under a religion with the teaching that life starts at conception. I only theorize that it has something to do with conscious thinking and self awareness, but that is not fully understood either and there are still too many missing pieces to come to any conclusions.

IONU-

What is this absolute truth? And I have addressed the subject above in response to Friar Matt.

"Why don't liberals tolerate criticism?"
Way to go with another sweeping generalization, and I do tolerate criticism. "Pea Brain" is an insult, not in any way a critical evaluation.

You complain about too many liberals voicing their opinion, but isn't expressing viewpoints one of the principals of democracy? Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it can't be serious or valid, ever stop to think that such a multitude of people might all support similar causes for a reason in the exact same way that conservatives do?

Friar Matt, again-

I touched on the topic of orphan children to point out that there are young people actually suffering while we bicker over the ones that don't feel a thing. This has nothing to do with adoption, so sorry if I was unclear.

pbunyon said...

What you are seeing is the physical manifestation of the spiritual world. For years people have tried to put a finger on what the next civil war would be fought over. I thought environment and water. I thought ethnic or culture issues. I thought it possible taxes an maybe states rights. Now it seems more logical that simply MORALS and how it is applied to every day freedom for all, including the expected is the biggest iron in the fire. There is only one set of morals. There is not one for each. The way you choose to live places you here or there. That live is ever widening and this Notre Dame incident makes it so easy to see. I know what side I am on. Do you?

pbunyon said...

That "line"...not "live"

James the Least said...

John:

"As for your 'brother' metaphor, I think a more relational situation would be if this brother just wanted to be left alone for a short period of time so he could do something requiring privacy and a lack of disruption on your part so you don't bother him, for example hanging out with someone you don't particularly like.'

Like hanging out with, say, your enemy, who is supposed to be your common enemy? Way to completely ignore the point, John. Let me repeat it for you for the umpteenth time, because I'm not going to let you get away with your transparent sophistry: this isn't about trespassing and/or getting arrested. This is about showing up the leadership of Notre Dame for what they are: enemies of the Faith, or at the very least incompetent and disobedient stewards of Our Lord's vineyard.

"Ha! I had a feeling someone would say pretty much those exact words, and it only solidifies my impression of you as being impatiently eager to shoot down whatever I say.
Now, do I have to spell it out for you? I said "IN NATURE." This means the essence of their actions is anti-freedom of thought, but still perfectly constitutional."

No, perhaps you should spell it the way you did the first time, which was by claiming that Catholics' oppposition to letting Obama speak at Notre Dame is "a direct contradiction with your boasting of the constitution." Those are YOUR words, not mine. Your accusation--the one you are now rather stupidly trying to claim you never made--was that we can't really believe what we believe about the Constitution if we refuse to allow Obama to speak at OUR PRIVATE INSTITUTION. As I have said, we can perfectly well do that, because Notre Dame is a PRIVATE INSTUTITION and does not fall under the rubric of the First Amendment. (Not that failing to invite someone to speak is somehow a violation of the First Amendment anyway, EVEN IF NOTRE DAME WAS THE WELL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ITSELF!)

YOU made the accusation, now lie in it (not about it).

On your abortion position:

So in your opinion, the "raw cells and flesh" of a developing child have no inherent unity but just happen to all hang together and develop together, as it were, by accident? That they ALWAYS develop together doesn't give you pause to think that maybe they constitute some being possessing an intrinsic unity?

And if you DO think they, when taken together, possess a unity, do you think that unity has a specific nature--that it is THIS kind of thing and not just any old thing? Because--news flash--the developing human embryo ALWAYS develops into a human being. Not a dog, not a tractor, not the Northwest Passage--a human being. And just as you are not less human when you get old and fugly and can't take care of yourself, neither is the child less human when it begins from that state. Both of you possess the nature "human" from the first moment of your life to the last.

And if you should care to argue that the developing baby isn't alive, might I point to the developing bird in its egg (which is completely separate and removed from the mother's body), which grows and moves toward the perfection of its nature by an internal motive power which we call "life." Put plainly, if an unborn baby of whatever species is developing, it is undoubtedly alive. If you disagree, please feel free to explain to me the bird's movement and growth within its shell.

zapem said...

John,

This is a Catholic matter. It's has nothing to do with atheists (you). Why is it you're always drawn to these situations and can't stop yourself from spewing hate? Very telling if you ask me. Even in a situation that's absolutely none of your business, you guys just can't help yourselves, can you? You might want to see somebody about that. It borders on wondering if you're psychotic who should be reported to the law for follow-up investigations or just a noseybody.

A warning to Catholics, too. If you took part in these arrests or cheered it on, you're just as guilty in the eyes of God. Remember that, because it's true.

And to Barack Obama, if you think your attacks against the Catholic Church specifically aren't noticed, you're a fool. Most people are smart enough to know you picked the Church on purpose. Remember one thing. The Bible says you don't win, He does. You're just trying to bring as many down with you as you can. We know you believe in Jesus Christ. We just know you don't worship Him. Big difference. Keep it up though. You're literally showing everyone what you're all about.

Finally, to Notre Dame. Catholic literally means, "the whole (universal) Church". Catholics need to decide if they're part of that whole or not. There is no in between. Those that fall outside of what it means to be Catholic, simply aren't, no matter what they say.

Christ said in the days of judgment, he will say to many, even the elite (priests, nun, bishops, PRESIDENTS, rich, poor, etc.), "Depart from me, I never knew you."

It doesn't matter who you are. It matters how you acted.

Evann said...

I am not educated in theology or politcs. I am simply a believer in the Word of God. For me, the 10 Commandments are clear- one of them being "Thy shall not kill." This is not open for "debate" as Father Jenkins has stated - it is clearly a command from God, not a suggestion or topic for debate. How hard is this to understand?

MIKE said...

to start, i grew up in the church and i would identify as being pro-life. what bothers me about debates like these is i've always felt that as a catholic i should be part of a group of understanding, but i've frequently found myself surrounded by a group that is more critical, more judgmental, and more vehement in their words.

the basics of catholic teaching indicate to me that i am in no position to judge a poster like john nor president obama. they may have conflicting beliefs, but i don't feel it is of any good use to talk down to them, call them satanic (among other names), etc. why should i paint them as devils for not agreeing with me? wouldn't i be the one who couldn't construct a proper argument then?

btw, being a catholic or christian is not a black and white issue. if you say so, then you are not a true catholic or christian, for that matter. it is a decision of your faith that leads to a life long journey. god anticipated that you will stumble, stray from the path, and do things that are not in agreement, but that is the true beauty of catholicism because no matter our choices, we can look to god for guidance and forgiveness and he will be there for us. i don't even consider myself to be overly spiritual, but i feel as if i have a fine grasp on both humanity and religion.

zapem, who are you to say that obama hasn't acted in a matter befitting of a human being and a president? you disagree with his stance on abortion and stem cells, but that's not to say he hasn't done more good than harm. yes, he has some beliefs that are contrary to the faith, but moral issues are one aspect of the presidency. helping the country out of the recession, trying to find a resolution in iraq and afghanistan, working on providing affordable healthcare, etc. there are so many more issues that obama has done the right thing on. his current stance on certain moral matters does not make him into a bad person. it makes him a man that is on a path that has a made a choice that is in disagreement with his faith. i can't name a single catholic who hasn't made a choice that is in contradiction to their faith. if you can, guess what? you are lying and that's one of the most basic sins of all.

pfinley said...

What the liberal, pro choice mind set never fails to approach is the fact that Roe vs Wade is a travesty of justice, if nothing else. Law was handed down from the bench.

Regardless if you choose to believe that which is scientifically true, or what is morally and religiously correct, abortion is illegal, the verdict itself, was illegal. There is no constitutional right that says a woman can chose to end a life

Why is it, a person can be charged double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, yet that same woman can turn around, and kill an unborn child in those same stages.

Also, another nice item the liberals like to avoid, is the fact that as much as they parade the concept of "Well.. it should be their for rape victims, or children that might die anyways" or whatever other inscrupulous ideas they might come up with. However, probably the chief use of abortion is a vain attempt to hide and cover up the foolishness of both parties in the situation, that is the mother and father who co created to brinq that life into the world. Also I would address the point about terminal lives? Who gives anyone the right to decide because a person has difficulties, that they are unfit to live? Are we to handle our own kind the way we might handle a pet, simply putting it out of its misery? There was public outrage at Dr. Kovorkian, Yet, complacincy at this? It is amazing to me, the double standard the liberal mind envokes.

The liberal will always go back to the "choice" arguement, because it so devilishly works for them. What american, would deny another freedom? What american would deny that each and every person is capable of shaping and molding their own destiny? Probably none of us here would. Yet their is where the flaw in the arguement is. The choice really doesnt exist, not morally and not under the constitution, and certainly not under the law of heaven, despite the fact there is a judicial sanction of it, find me in the constitution where a woman had the right to "choose" to begin with? Then I would allow the judicial law. The problem is, no one can, because it simply did not exist

Another ploy is they like to say "well, then start adopting each and every one of those children" or "Make better options for "struggling" women".

I would address that two fold , one the responsibility for the child began that day in bed, the very act of sexual intercourse, is in nature for purposes of pro creation. So to deny the outcome of that act, is to deny an otherwise very human nature.

Second, there are many wonderful programs to help the so called struggling mother. we have a welfare system that is so bitterly crooked that the more children one has the more wealthy they can become. Also there are many wonderful institutions that reach out to these women. Planned parenthood recieves money for being a charitable oragnization, why can they not start the programs too, thus making themselves truly "parental" ? Why is it society's responsibility, when someone is careless?

Also explain to me why for years so called "struggling" families have raised perfectly wonderful, sucessful children? Is not our own president, the great champion of choice from a "broken family"?

Also, I will leave that simply because one has a "choice" , does not mean they make the right choice, as I have defined above. The pro life supporters can argue the life issue, on both sides, and by grace dont need to rely on the religious side, yet I would defy the pro choice person to argue the point at all, without having to run to the haven of so called "choice"

Coffee Crazed said...

what is right is not always popular,
what is popular is not always right.

chiu_chunling said...

I think that I need to clarify something.

I consider myself "pro-choice" more than "pro-life" on several grounds. Basically, I don't regard it as feasible to impose any sort of absolute ban on abortion, though of course I wish to see all government subsidies for the practice end. The hypocrisies of selective enforcement of molestation laws and doctors participating in abortion must end if the law is to retain any integrity. But I would hesitate to go further without strong evidence that it is necessary.

I also believe that education about the actual nature and results of abortion is vitally important to supporting real choice. Decisions made in deliberately fostered ignorance of their consequences is not freedom. And, distasteful as the pictures of aborted "fetal tissue" may seem, they are in fact just the sort of educational material that every woman considering an abortion should contemplate. Randall Terry, by providing this type of information to those who would otherwise not receive it, is providing a vital service to true freedom of choice.

Efforts to censor access to such information aren't "pro-choice" in any rational sense of the term. They are simply an effort to insure that abortion remains common, as are the distortions of law enforcement which currently foster abortion. I am strongly pro-choice, but I am less favorably inclined towards the wholesale slaughter of tiny babies.

Thus, without disparaging the special relationship which Notre Dame should have with the Catholic community, I will say that the decision to abrogate this particular free speech--which is vital to informed choice--demonstrates a clear threat to the essential liberties America was founded to protect. Women have the right to know the details of abortion and its results before they walk into a clinic. Concerned citizens have the right to provide such details. Attempts to suppress this information are a direct assault on the right to choose.

Unless, like some, you believe that "choice" is only "free" when it is made in a certain direction.

As a cyberneticist, I disagree with Catholicism on many things, including the sanctity of human life. But the pro-abortion movement is not merely an assault on humanity, it is an affront to sentience of every kind.

Show me an argument in favor of abortion that is firmly grounded in truth, and I will happily defend it. But in the current state of the controversy, all the actual facts (including pictures) are stacked on one side, while the other relies entirely on blatant lies and forceful suppression of truth. That tells me something important about the champions of abortion.

It may not be pleasant knowledge, but I am not free to reject it on that basis.

danl1985 said...

we can't back down now, or we have forfeited the fight. no matter what the cost we must stand for the fundamental human right to LIFE as laid out by our US Constitution. It is a sad day when people are arrested for standing up for life here in America. I am saddened by how far we have fallen since the foundation of this country. I feel in my heart that this nation will not make it to 2010. I just can't believe that we let the politicians destroy such a beautiful land and a God-inspired constitution. There is simply no way the constitution came together through the works of men alone; no. these were the fundamental truths of our Lord and God Jesus Christ and were rightfully guided by His Holy Spirit to our forefathers. Never give up! Never!

John said...

James-

If you want to see how I spelled it out the first time, why don't you check? I said "in nature". That's pretty clear cut. It has nothing to do with the constitution, but with the attitude associated with it. There is a difference.

Yes a pregnancy usually results in a healthy baby, but that doesn't mean it has to. A hetereosexual, fertile couple have as much potental to produce a living baby as a pregnancy does, the pregnancy just has better chances because it has already passed a few more preliminary steps (such as the fertilization). I don't believe it is a life until birth. It is a waste, but waste is legal.

Bird eggs are completely different, if humans layed external eggs that hatched into babies, maybe we could talk.


zapem-

In a democracy like our own, if it is about laws which will effect everybody, it is everybodys business, and this is a public blog (but speaking of business, I'll reiterate an old phrase: if you don't support abortion, don't have one). If it is strictly a catholic issue like you say, it shouldn't be trying to sway politics, ever heard of the separation of church and state?

Now, why would you think I am spewing hate? I am not a hateful person, even if the giant bold text seems to create that temperament for all of us. I'm just casually debating, giving my opinions, and replying back when people reply to me. A lot better that the totalitarian stream of comments which were initially flooding the blog, and this would go both ways, a liberally oriented blog full of "I concur" type posts would be pointless as well. Any disputed issue needs two sides to keep things, you know, "fair and balanced" ;)


Mike-

Glad to see someone who disagrees but doesn't bash me for my opinions, thanks for that.


danl1985-

Our founding fathers were deists who rejected the Bible, not Christians nor Athiests.

chiu_chunling said...

Such honesty....

John said...

chui_chunling, here's a few links for proof of my last statement:

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Religious_views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Franklin#Virtue.2C_religion.2C_and_personal_beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Lincoln#Religious_and_philosophical_beliefs

Joel Lehman said...

Dr. Keyes is my favorite politician. I agree with his positions and marvel at his oratory skills. He needs to continue his passion but refine it more. I have watched many of his speeches. There is quite a bit of vanity and conceit his delivery methods. He would also do well not to mock or mimic peoples speaking behaviors such as he did in April at the Tea Sparty Speech in Pittsburgh, PA. He comes across as pompous. I love his passion and articulation. He is too intelligent and truthful to be President of the US. He might have a chance someday (obviously he wants to be President, he is ambitious, it shows) to be President if like St. Paul, God puts a thorn in his side to keep him from being such a proud, pompous, conceited, hothead.

zapem said...

The founding fathers were not atheists. Do your homework. To this day the Congress opens with prayer and that's because the framers ALL agreed that's the way it was going to be. They also said mankind was made with certain inalienable rights, ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR. That right is clear. It comes from GOD, not YOU. So said the framers and if you don't like that, find yourself another country, because it's NOT going to change to your way. You can't change what they said, so you lie about it. Whatever they believed, they signed that into the law of the land.

Atheists think they're clever. They play God, in essence, by taking God out of the equation, hence making themselves the superior being. But unless you can show that the framers meant the "CREATOR" to be anything other than God, you lost that argument.

The point is clear. You have no business here other than to hope someone reads your spin and believes you. You already got knocked down on your First Amendment excuse because this isn't a First Amendment issue. It's a private issue, between Catholics and the Church. Something you don't know anything about.

You talk big words, but they aren't for me or anyone here. You write them hoping the ignorant will listen to you and justify murder and atheism. By your logic, if society decides tomorrow that pedophilia is ok, that makes it ok, too? Or how about we start allowing euthanasia of old people because everyone likes that idea and the old can't fight back either? Or how about we start killing off the terminally ill? I guess that would be ok because a few elites on the Supreme Court agreed, right?

Stupid logic. But then again, stupider things were decided by people in high places. Careful what they demand. They may just get it and it may just affect you next time. And if you think that can't happen, think again.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

Don't make me quote the constitutional debates. I can make you look like a further fool very easily.

pfinley said...

Actually, since you mentioned women have the right to know, if they do, then why do not more pro choice people fight for bills that encourage women to be educated, wait, discern, etc an abortion? By your own arguement, you point out that on the choice side things are stacked too. Its truly frightening to watch the lobbyists for planned parenthood fight so hard bills like that, which they do too often.

Again I will point out that the "Law" is consitutionally illegal, as it was NOT voted on of the people, for the people, and by the people. It was "forced" on an ill equiped public by the court. This is no different then the supposed forcing of religious ideaLism that the left always likes to put on the pro life crowd. In a sense, its more wrong, as it cannot be easily ignored in our society, where as if I am "forcing" my religious views on someone, they can easily walk away. Yet, the forcing of views in the abortion case, that being the judicial sanctioning of the act, cannot be so readily and easily ignored, with out serious consequence, or extreme prejudice to the person involved.

Now the greater issue here is life. Life is a fundamental right. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. But its more then life at one stage. We have in this country lost a fundamental regard for the human being. We treat the poor as a burden, only to parade them when we think we are helpping them. We put our old into "homes", because we as a people are too lazy to deal with them. Also, might I add, we were one of the last "powers" at the time to get rid of slavery.

So I would argue we have always struggled with the quality of the human person and their dignity in this country. My point, If we cannot respect and fight for the vulnerable and weak, then we cannot ever hope to solve any of our other problems. Helping others, charity, involves coming to the earth shattering realization that you arent the most important being around, and there are others who could benefit from your assistande. Who better to assist then the most vulnerable.
Also, being a Catholic who loves Holy mother church, and a Brother Knight of Dr. Keyes (third degree), allow me to truly explain why it is such a big deal here. The greater scandal is on Notre Dame's part, or rather one person at notre dame, who unfortunately has a great bit of sway. Their job, is to teach authentic catholic teaching. Its pure arrogance to think that this is purely a political attack. People spend good money to get a catholic education, they are entitled to it.

Now as far as not wanting to "push your views" on someone else, someone pointed out what they thought true catholic teaching was, and they couldnt be any further from the truth. True catholic teaching involves getting up and well, teaching, by example, and if necessary, words. Also, scripture later on tells us that if someone is in error, it is our duty to correct them, to protect. I cant find the exact passage from paul, but it is in there. Also the very notion of "Credo" that is "I believe", implies you think you are right.. you think what you believe is right. It is only natural to share that with others. In fact, it would be hypocrisy to not. As a catholic, it is my God ordained duty to spread his message. So that is going to happen, for I would rather be damned by the secular world, and be given paradise, then have my paradise now, and be damned for all eternity for lack of effort.

zapem said...

Speaking about Benjamin Franklin:

At the age of eighty-four, just previous to his [Franklin] death, in reply to inquiries concerning his religious belief from Ezra Stiles, the President of Yale College, he [Franklin] wrote as follows:

"Here is my creed: I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this."

Wikipedia is not a valid source anyway. Anyone can put their spin to any article written there and plus, it's run by nothing but liberals. Try a history book and then try taking into account their conclusions, not just idle thoughts when they were younger and rambling. Widsom comes with age.

Start here. You seem to need some help.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_4.html

Proud_Conservative said...

John, Please point out to me where in the Constitution is the "right to privacy." If there were a right to privacy, wouldn't all crimes committed in privacy therefore be legal? I think the Founding Fathers knew better then to include a right to privacy in the Constitution.

zapem said...

Mike, I can say it because the Bible tells me I can.

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you."

The angel didn't say a FETUS is with you! Her cousin Elizabeth affirmed, "Blessed is the fruit of thy womb". She affirmed the angel's words.

What you just did was denounce the Bible. You praise a man who not only endorses abortion at any stage, will kill a baby that survived an abortion. Don't tell me what I have to think about it. Catholics don't have a choice what to think. They're supposed to KNOW that Obama is wrong and they have a duty to say so.

I don't think you know what it means to be Catholic anyway, Mike. I've been to those mediocore Churches you attend: Parents who come in screaming that their children were taught about the devil and all that, but then go out and think it's ok to vote for the likes of someone who endorses killing the born and unborn. I see no difference. Evil is evil. Sorry you can't handle it, but evil does exist. You either endorse it by voting for it, or you don't. Simple as that.

You may love Obama's socialism and power grabs. I don't. Don't paint him out to be a Savior with me. It won't fly. I know better. It's not freedom what he's doing. It's slavery -- all over again. Throwing a few crumbs to the people while he squanders their wealth is sickening. He has no right to do the things he's doing under the Constitution, that's why he calls it "flawed". But I think you knew that. That's why you had to excuse him for abortion while claiming you're a Catholic.

John said...

zapam-

I did not say they were atheists, in fact I explicitly said they were not (ctrl-f and search "nor atheists", for you untrusting types). I pointed out that many of the popular figureheads were deists, an I followed up with biographical links. You're the only one who needs to do their homework, a deist is someone who believes a god created everything and the abandoned it. Essentially, they were free thinkers. Christian influences were heavily intertwined with early America, but that does not mean everyone during that time conformed to it. I was pointing out some very prominent names who may have happened not to or were skeptical, in order to debunk this "Christians are supreme, then they single handedly created America" attitude. Concerning your follow up: It just seems to me like you are just ignoring everything that contradicts you, attempting to patronize me in the process, as if you can prove that all the founding fathers suddenly become Christians before they died. Also, you saying that a site that is freely open to edit by anyone is somehow only written by liberals is laughable.

You have the idea of Atheism all wrong and there's no way you can accurately describe it from the other side, but for the sake of disclosure I will say right now that I am an Agnostic (which means I believe that it is simply unknown whether or not a divine influence exists, and I'm open to answers based on new information). Atheists and other non-religious people, unless they have a completely selfish interpretation of the ideology, do not assert themselves as any sort of supreme being as you assumed. Just because freethinkers obviously value free will does not mean we are open to acting in morally deplorable ways as you so imply, in fact I would have to think being good-willed as a non-religious person is *theoretically* more pure than behaving so as a theist, because it is done simply out of the good of one's heart and not out of fear of some supernatural punishment or the greed of wanting to go to a paradise when you die (read: I said theoretically because it usually doesn't apply on the religious side, I know plenty Christians who don't operate on such artificial means). You see the abortion issue as so important and threatening however because of your catholic paradigm in which fetuses at any stage inarguably count as lives.

On the "ND is a private institution" argument, I understand what you are getting at. Notre Dame is a private religious teaching authority, which can disregard free thought and speech if it so chooses, but it didn't, and that contradicts religious doctrine on the issue. Notre Dame recognizes our intrinsic values as Americans by inviting Obama, someone with an alternative stance on a controversial issue, to speak and receive an award; I applaud their respect of the democratic values which this country was founded on over less fair rules which are simply in compliance with a group. I know their relations are not my deal, but that's my interpretation.


ultra_conservative-

that's debatable and it doesn't say it outright, but here's something
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html



And to a number of the posters here:

You probably think I'm some kind of antichrist by now, simply because I don't agree with you on this issue and hold a religious perspective which is scarce, if not non-existant among your brand. In this case you are too indulged in your own delusions to accept rational diplomacy or unfamilar opinions and can only throw out empty words and phrases such as "You're ignorant" to try to bring down my perceptive intelligence in the eyes of others viewing this blog. This has gone on long enough. So now I am certain I won't get very many mutually respectful opposing responses here (with the exception of Mike, ultra_conservative, and maybe some others who were fine), and I have better things to do that quabble with people like you.

Cheers

(PS- In before a deluge of responses quoting me out of context, preaching fire and brimstone, calling me uncreative names, or otherwise acting in a condescending manner in a futile attempt to marginalize my opinions and statements. I probably won't bother to read them anyways so you all can either not waste your breaths or completely flame on)

chiu_chunling said...

Okay, I have to point out that the visit of the angel Gabriel was before Mary was with child by the Holy Spirit. The point about the personhood of the unborn can be made better with other scriptures anyway. But of course the basic problem is that those who permit abortion do not believe in the scriptures, whatever they might claim. And that includes any who claim that it is somehow contrary to the Gospel to call men to repentance. I can't even begin to imagine where I'd try to make a scriptural case that Christianity implies tolerating gross evil. And those who make such an argument are generally rather shy about giving specific references.

Of course, I'm not Catholic, as I mentioned. But I find an argument about Catholic belief based on scripture and the writings of the Church fathers far more persuasive than vague generalizations about tolerance. That said, while I recognize that there is a unique issue within the Catholic community, the actions of Notre Dame as an institution theoretically committed to the dissemination of knowledge should disturb everyone who cares about freedom of speech, as well as the right to life.

As a side note, I found the wikipedia project interesting and informative before it became so committed to leftist censorship and so-called "deletionism". There are many good wikis out there, but it is sad that wikipedia should have become what it is now.

Anyway, I could make a persuasive argument that attempting a total ban on all abortion will do more harm than good. I don't bother because the simple fact of the matter is that what we now face is much closer to a ban on anything except abortion. Don Quixote was made a fool by jousting with windmills...but at least the windmills were really there. I'm pro-choice, but it takes a pretty severe disconnection from reality to not see that being in favor of liberty means curtailing the pro-abortion agenda. Right now America is only a few steps shy of China when it comes to abortion...and anyone who thinks we should be more like China on anything needs to spend time in a work camp (not as a guard).

Of course, even a total ban on abortions can only do so much harm. The opposite is...not the case. The worst thing that could happen with a total ban would be widespread scofflawry and a few unfortunate woman being prosecuted for having miscarriages. Not my idea of fun times, but hardly the end of civilization. If I had a choice between banning abortion outright and going down the road American is on right now, I wouldn't dither about choosing a ban.

Yeah, I'd rather have better choices, but as it is I don't even get that one, so I can just cry me a river...oops, out of tears. Well, thanks anyway John et al, I hope you had fun completely wrecking American. Cleaning up won't be all that pleasant, but at least we won't have to put up with your idiocy anymore at that point.

seekyetruth said...

Notice how pro-abortion posters vary in their personal beliefs about when "they" believe life begins? That is the huge problem with the pro-abortion argument; who gets to decide at what point life begins? You can't compromise on the life issue. Anytime you compromise life, you get death. And when you start compromising, the line between life and death moves. Pres. Obama has moved it all the way to the point that he believes that babies who survive a botched abortion who are fully born and delivered outside of the womb should die. There is only one Author of life, and as inconvenient a truth it may be, when God begins that creation process, life has begun! When man takes that life, it is murder.

Coffee Crazed said...

I want to thank Dr. Keyes for this wonderful blog. We completely support him through prayers.
I also would like to thank everyone for their comments. I have two children (15 and 13) reading this blog and all of your comments with me. It has been a wonderful teaching tool for all of us.
May you continue to enjoy all the many blessings the Lord bestows upon you each and every day.

Terry Morris said...

A word on "tolerance" if I may:

Perhaps it needs to be pointed out to some in this conversation that people don't tolerate that which they agree with, they embrace it. Tolerance implies disagreement, thus those who embrace a thing and (self-righteously) count it as the highest form of tolerance are simply lying to themselves. Likewise, people who say that a person is intolerant because he expresses opposition to, or non-embrace of a thing, indict themselves. But if anyone can show me an ideology that is more intolerant (not to mention destructive) than liberalism in any case, I'd sure like to see it.

Then there's the liberal fallacy that says "we cannot legislate morality."

For our purposes here, let's throw the illegitimate word "amorality" on the ash heap where it belongs and act like adults with some semblance of common sense. As if moral beings can be morally neutral.

But if it's true that we cannot legislate morality, as liberals are so fond of saying, then why do liberals (they're the ones that incessantly make the statement, and I'm including among them right-liberals), well, legislate morality, liberal morality?

Whenever you make a distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, you've just taken a moral position. Does anyone know of any law on the books that is not founded in a moral position, someone's moral position?

Let's take abortion as our example since this thread is about abortion. Correct me, but isn't the argument, at bottom, that it is wrong, thus immoral, to deny a woman's right to choose? Isn't that what we constantly hear from the pundits, the talking heads, and our illustrious liberal politicians ("Republicans" included)?

Finally, speaking of things in this thread that are "laughable," John wrote:

"(PS- In before a deluge of responses, blah, blah, blah, I probably won't bother to read them anyways so you all can either not waste your breaths or completely flame on)"

Then what was the point in including your parenthetical post script in the post?

Rolls eyes.

danl1985 said...

John, just because they were deists doesnt mean they were not inspired by the spirit of God. when i read the constitution, I see the wisdom of God. I simply don't think it is possible for men to have written it completely of their own doing. Believe what u will, but i simply have to believe that God (of the bible) had a huge hand in the formation of this nation and we have destroyed His beautiful works.

Justin said...

John-
You sir are a typical Liberal moron, as displayed by the numerous failed attempts at logic and intelligence you have attempted to display here. In response to your response, of course I *must* have cut and pasted such big words, if you truly know what they mean, as you state you do, then you would have no doubt whatsoever that is when life begins-You can rest assured if the scientific community found ANY organism on mars or the moon exhibiting half of these characteristics they would be screaming about life outside of earth. And as far as my comments you *claim* I put in your mount, I stated because those are typical Liberal responses. Do not like it? Then do not argue from a Liberal point of view. All one needs is Jennine Garafolo's comments on the attendees of the tea party's for your proof. As far as Bush goes, I will not engage you in a debate on him, as I said-Bush Derangement syndrome, which you also appear to suffer from. And the person you claim is doing such a great job-I truly feel for you at the depths of your inability to properly analyze what is going on in Washington. First of all, do not quote Mccamnisty as he is some standard for conservatives, he is not, you guys on the Democratic and Liberal side and gladly have him. take Snow and Collins with you please. Secondly, Obama did NOT win by a huge majority, he won by a SLIM majority-53%, hardly a landslide, oh and his real approval rating-lower then any president besides Clinton in his first term. I know this is all very troubling to hear as all you good progressives think since your *messiah* is in office the world is all happy go lucky now ( Shall we talk about the proposed carbon tax that will destroy the coal industry and add thousands of dollars in taxes to every household in the country or save that for next time?)(Or shall we talk about his complete failure on his apologize for America tour in Europe were every leader there refused to offer any aid or go along with his crazy financial debacles-Merkel and Sarcozy are two that come to mind?)but this country is not, will not and has not become the *glorious* if it feels good do it socialist nation you good liberals think* it is.

Justin said...

Oh and one more thing John, pray tell, when is the speaker of the House going to get her story straight on what she apparently did not know about water boarding? (Which is NOT torture, just an FYI)

tom calarco said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tom calarco said...

Hey, Alan, why haven't you been so passionate about the countless lives being lost in the dirty wars being fought in the Middle East?

Those aren't just foetuses with the potential for life; those are real, live human beings.

Hypocrite.

Terry Morris said...

Tom Calarco wrote:

"Hey, Alan, why haven't you been so passionate about the countless lives being lost in the dirty wars being fought in the Middle East?

Those are [sic] just foetuses [sic] with the potential for life; those are real, live human beings.

Hypocrite."

Amazing how such a thread can degenerate into such abject stupidity (liberal stupidity -- it knows no bounds!). It really makes me question how 'intelligent' some of us 'intelligent' beings really are. Hmmm.

What you're saying, Tom, is that Mr. Keyes should concern himself equally, if not more so, with what happens completely outside of his control and influence, than with what happens within it. That's what you're saying as you call Dr. Keyes a "hypocrite," right? Right.

Apply the principle to yourself and get back to me, jackass.

Justin said...

Is anyone aware where all the enlightened progressives infecting this site are coming from?

Tom Calarraco-It is because of "Dirty Wars" in the middle east that you enjoy the freedoms you do. You make me sick you commie liberal piece of garbage.

Terry Morris said...

Justin,

It doesn't matter where they're coming from. Liberalism dominates and rules American society. Until we come to grips with that reality, we're completely and utterly hamstrung in our attempts to negate it.

Only a return to Balanced Constitutional Government will suffice to end the undue influence of liberalism in America. And I'm sorry to say that that can only come [now] in an all-out civil war.

Time will prove me correct.

Justin said...

I unfortunately have to agree with you, on all counts. However, I must continue to voice my opinion to the lies and depraved propaganda they continue to push.

Justin said...

On a side note I just wanted to say that I am so proud of RUSSIA for how they handled the gay rights protests in Moscow, the govt officials got it right when they said "Gay rights protests undermine the moral fabric of society".......Russia 1 USA 0


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D987C7D01&show_article=1

silus dogood said...

it is a sad comment about our country,that mr.alan keys has come under attack for standing up for his principles,and moral standards we as a nation used to have,before the school systems of america started teaching liberalism,and took out samuel adams,and the other patriots who made this the great country it was.people need to take the pill that will let them see the matrix for what it is.
several weeks ago,i wrote letter to father jenkins,asking him to consider the beliefs of the catholics,and uninvite the antichrist,but looking at the number of so called believers who attended the commencment speech,i now realize,a lot of catholics are so hypnobamatized,they can,and do forget their religon,put aside principles,and i weep for the future of our country.
if you are lukewarm,i will spew ye from my mouth. look it up,its written down.as ye do unto these,the least of my bretheran,ye do also unto me. you blind guides,go ahead,and swallow your hopee changee camel.

Jackie Smith said...

John----When you finally meet your creator.....I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE YOU!!!!

Save Our Liberty said...

Let me first begin by thanking you Mr. Keyes for your continual "briding the gap". I pray that the LORD will bless you and give you the strength necessary to continue to fight good fight. I myself am not a Catholic nor do I consider myself a true Protestant. Despite not claiming Catholicism or Protestantism I do Hold that the words and person of Christ are indeed divine. I also am rather shocked that more Protestants have not joined their brothers in Christ in fighting this battle against murdering the innocent. It is clear that what we have here is not a political disagreement but rather a intrinsically moral failure of our once christian nation. God bless you Mister Keyes and continue to fight in the trenches and soon as more people get of their rumps maybe you will need bigger trenches.

BDub said...

This had to be among the most peaceful protests I have ever seen, what has happened to our Bill of Rights freedoms regarding peacable assembly?

Rachel Hollis said...

Dr. Keyes,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on your recent experience at Notre Dame. You are a real inspiration to me and I draw strength from the example you have set.
Roxie Hebson

HistoryWriter said...

Dr. Keyes:

In the United States of America, a secular country founded on secular principles, no person is above the law. You were warned beforehand that if you entered the Notre Dame campus you would be arrested for trespassing, but chose to ignore that warning. You may have been praying the rosary and pushing a baby stroller, but the fact remains that you violated private property. I have no doubt that your intentions were the best. However, need one remind you that "Caesar" needs to be "rendered unto, besides God? Stop complaining and accept the punishment you brought upon yourself through civil disobedience. That, after all, is the true spirit of the act.

zapem said...

HistoryWriter, he's not complaining that he was arrested. He's saying that the Church called him a trespasser for praying. That's the hypocrisy here or are you that dense?

The Catholic Church does NOT call Catholics trespassers for praying against abortion and/or those who promote it, which Obama does regardless how he spins it. It's an oxymoron. I've never heard of such a thing. Until now. That's the part you seem to excuse while quoting the Bible.

moniquemonicat said...

Today it's the blue cap and gown, tomorrow it's clothed in bright orange, swimming in the lake of fire surrounded by all his followers who will curse him for eternity for leading them to follow him THERE.

moniquemonicat said...

History writer, and need I remind you that we are not in ROME, we have NO EMPEROR, nor are we the Jews that Jesus was specifically speaking to, a religious race of people who were conquered by an empire. We are a democratic republic for the people BY the people. Please do not twist scripture.

Ref: Luke 20:19-26

Better yet, why don't you go tell the millions of dead babies that it was Alan Keyes' error for protesting the event whilst wanting to defend their God-given right to be born.

Sometimes a Christian must be arrested in doing the work of the Lord. Just ask John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, John, Matthew, Mark, and every other martyr who ever died in the line of DUTY.

With your "logic," it was John the Baptists' fault he got arrested and got his head chopped off, after all, he did break the law protesting Herod's sin.

That will not hold up in God's court. The only court that matters.

FulghumInk said...

In the Scriptures, God makes it quite clear-"I knew you before you were born." This Christian would not want to stand before God Almighty, and have to answer to Him for the murder of someone He knew before they were born.

This country has now willingly engaged in the murder of over 47,000,00 unborn and born alive of our defenseless citizens.

Anyone who supports this ungodly, unholy evil is not a Christian. Their consciences are seared with a hot iron. The iron influence of evil.

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

FulghumInk said...

Is it HistoryWriter or HistoryRewriter? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, pal. It was not a secular country as you have so stated.

Our founding documents, the founder's intents and purposes, the preamble to all of the states' constitutions, and so on allude to God in thankfulness, and even praise.

Save it pal. It won't work here. Go back to sleep.

chiu_chunling said...

The Deism of the Founding Fathers (and it was not even a majority of them who were even deist in this sense) had nothing to do with rejection of the Bible or Christianity. It was defined simply as the position that reason was sufficient for men to distinguish all religious truth. This statement could be read various ways, and certainly there was a wide latitude among deists as to what was inside or outside the limits of reason. But nearly all of those early deists were explicitly Christian and certainly none were agnostic (which would have been directly contrary to the central premise of deism, that reason is sufficient to discover religious truth).

I am not a deist, and I actually think it a rather overly optimistic position even after granting the (logically untenable) premise that reason is somehow independent of other means of revelation. But at least I have troubled myself to try and understand what it says. Unlike those who constantly claim that "the Founding Fathers were Deists rather than Christians". First off, most of the Founding Fathers weren't Deists, and secondly it isn't like Deism denies Christianity.

Jefferson is often criticized for creating a version of the New Testament stripped of all references which would be called "unreasonable". His point in doing so was to show that, even taken as an ordinary historical document, the scripture proves that Christ taught supernal and correct doctrine. The point was not that there are no miracles (which would be an odd point for any of the Founding Fathers to make, let alone Jefferson), but that Christianity was not based on miracles but on the doctrines taught by Christ.

I have trouble accepting that argument because the simple fact that Christ being able to teach such doctrine is just as obviously miraculous as anything else that happens in the scriptures. But there have always been--and were also at that time--those who claim that nothing miraculous can ever occur. Jefferson showed that such a belief was no excuse for refusing to believe in Christ. I would shorten the argument by pointing out that rational thought is itself a miracle, thus any person claiming to disbelieve miracles logically is rejecting rationality as well. The writer of proverbs understood this, at least.

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." How interesting a road to progress we have paved, that now men praise themselves for their wisdom in being willing to spout such nonsense publicly.

Personally, I value human life for what might be termed it's "moral potential" rather than any intrinsic quality of life or humanity. This means that innocent life counts for more with me than does concupiscent or murderous life. I thus find a greater tragedy in the destruction of a single unborn child than in the deaths of any number of terrorists. It may be more difficult to count the thousands of terrorists killed in the Middle east than to count the millions butchered in abortion clinics, but I don't see how being more difficult to count makes their lives more valuable.

If it comes to that, there is no practical mechanism whatsoever for counting the thousands of innocent lives that are saved by fighting terrorists (who are after all in the habit of killing innocents). Shouldn't the genuinely uncountable lives saved by military operations suppressing terrorism count for something? Or do they not count because we really can't count them?

It may not be very Catholic, but I find it impractical to value all lives equally. A vicious mass murderer shouldn't be thought equal to a tiny little baby, or a schoolchild, in my view. But even granting that we did value them equally, it would seem that abortion is definitely more evil than killing terrorists to stop them from murdering children, just on the numbers.

Justin said...

HistoryWriter
Please change your name to REVISIONIST History Writer. Like all good liberals, you are trying to rewrite History to suit your own twisted warped view of reality. Way to fail. As for what Mr Keyes did-he has every right to be as vocal as he is, I admire his courage and dedication to such an upright and Godly cause. The fact that the church persecuted ONE OF THEIR OWN, for standing up for not even a fundamental tenant of cannon law, but a biblical law is a sad, sad tribute to the false teachers in society. I truly believe that God is using B.O. and others like him to separate the wheat from the chaff, and I sincerely hope that all these so called "Catholics" and "Christians" come to see the error of their ways before it is to late.....they may be free now to live in hypocrisy but the day will come when they will be exposed, and it will not matter to the King of Kings what their reason was, the fact of the matter will remain that they were silent and thus silently approved of ghastly, demonic murder of the most precious and defenseless members of our society.


On a side note here is even more proof directly from the Bible that a baby is a Human being, precious to God before it is born.

Galatians 1:15

"But when God, who had set me apart, EVEN IN MY MOTHERS WOMB and called me through his grace was pleased"

(Disclaimer-I added the caps)

zapem said...

chiu_chunling, he attempts to disqualify the principle of Christianity by offering a Deism argument, which is exactly why I stated that the framers were not atheists. He argued he never said that, but technically, what he was trying to do was destroy the Judeo-Christian principle this nation was founded upon which states that each and every man has a soul, created by God.

The framers affirmed this belief by stating that every person is endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights that are not within the domain of another human being to control. The soul belongs to God and God alone and is infused into the human person. In order to crush the individual and subjugate him, the totalitarian must remove the rights of man given by God and take it for himself. He must destroy the belief in the soul.

Abortion does just that. It focuses the argument upon when the full formation of the flesh begins and completely disregards the soul which is a part of God and does not require human intervention and time to be classified as "independently viable".

In 1943, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen wrote, in "The Thing We Are Fighting Against" - http://www.fultonsheen.com/Fulton-Sheen-articles/The-Thing-We-Are-Fighting-Against.cfm?artid=3

"The basic principle of democracy is the sacredness of the individual as a creature endowed by God with inalienable rights. The basic principle of Nazism and other totalitarian system is that the individual has no rights except those given him by the Party or the State."

Archbishop Fulton goes on to illustrate the ideology of the German, Karl Marx, who understood quite clearly the objective of totalitarianism. Marx said, "That each man has a value as a sovereign being is an illusion, a dream and a postulate of Christianity which affirms that every man has a soul."

Once one defines the soul as an illusion, only then can it disregard the sovereignty of the individual and do what it wants with them. Abortion is only the beginning. The objective is complete and total subjugation of a dictatorship under the State. This is the ultimate slavery and Marx was well aware of the ends he sought to achieve it. The complete and utter dismantling of the idea that rights are God-given, not man-made. In doing so, Marx intended to give himself rights reserved for God to give.

Obama and his ilk are of the totalitarian Marxist mindset. They believe in the man-made power over the rights of the people and not the God-given rights of the people, which begin, as stated, upon "creation", which is conception, not birth. Once this is in place, a system that picks and chooses the value of a person can be effectuated.

Remember too, Obama's father was a Marxist. Obama himself sought out Marxist professors in college as his mentors and so admitted in his book, "Dreams of my father". Source: http://rirepublican.com/2008/10/28/barack-obama-sought-out-marxists.aspx

Obama is well aware of the Marxist ideology and what needs to be eradicated in the Catholic faith in order for him to succeed in his totalitarian goals. THIS is the "thing" we fight against as Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen illustrates. This is what Sean Hannity harps on when discussing the ties Obama has with Marxism and why Obama hates it when Hannity brings it up. But Hannity's take on it is no different than Archbishop Fulton. They both understand what the Marxist ideology is born from and where it leads to.

In the secrets of Fatima, the Virgin Mary disclosed that the Catholic Church would be infiltrated from within. That has and is coming to pass. Those who understand what was said find it no surprise to witness what Fr. Jenkins has done. He is one of those Mary spoke of. It's evident in the denunciations spoken by the true Bishops against Fr. Jenkins. They understand it, too, and believe me, so does Fr. Jenkins and so does Obama.

The objective is clear: To get rid of the belief in the soul, to question the power of God and break the faith of spirituality through convolution and use of charismatic words. The clear indication that these words are lies is the undeniable demonstration of actions that don't comport with said charismatic, carefully planned, teleprompted speeches. Confuse, divide and conquer.

There is a solution in Archbishop Fulton's words. I recommend everyone, Catholic or not, read them. It will illustrate clearly what was happening then and how "the thing we are fighting against" is happening even now.

Archbishop Fulton says, "Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, and the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops, and your religious act like religious."

The recourse the Archbishop gives us is through prayer and fasting because alone we are no match for the "thing we fight against". That is exactly what was done here - prayer and fasting - and for that they were arrested BECAUSE Fr. Jenkins so ordered it, USING trespassing as his vehicle. Fr. Jenkins might want to comment on the solution Archbishop Fulton prescribed, prayer and fasting, and then try to argue why it was he gave the edict to arrest. And why it was in the Church's best interest to set such a bad example by honoring a man who is responsible for the atrocities the Catholic Church condemns? The solution was NOT in having a discussion at all as Fr. Jenkins and Obama alleged - the solution was in prayer and fasting, because you CANNOT have a discussion with evil. Yet this is what Fr. Jenkins advises in direct opposition to Archbishop Fulton whose words were sanctioned by the Vatican.

Rick said...

Dr. Keyes, I was very impressed with your protest at Notre Dame, an action that showed a sacrificial service to the pro-life cause. I, along with my family, believe that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is a barbaric practice not fit for a civilized society.

INFIDEL JOE said...

The Obama/Notre Dame "connections" are numerous.

http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_18408.php

The Notre Dame Board of Trustees is more interested in protecting their "Standing" in the elite club, than the mission of Notre Dame.

HistoryWriter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HistoryWriter said...

FulghumInk: If you can find God mentioned anywhere in the United States Constitution (other than indirectly in the notation "A.D." following the date), you win a cigar. The United States of America was established as a secular deomcratic republic. I think it's YOU who may need to wake up, and to start reading history books other than Dave Barton's.

HistoryWriter said...

Moniquemonicat: The allusion to "Caesar" is, of course, to the secular authority, and would not be taken literally by anyone who understands the Bible contextually. Dr. Keyes was arrested not for praying, but for trespassing upon private property as an act of civil disobedience. When one engages in an act of civil disobedience one is also expected to accept the consequences (as did Dr. Martin Luther King). It is an integral part of the process. I think it unseemly that Dr. Keyes has complained about his arrest as if he had somehow been wronged, when it was his intention to engage in the act, and when he knew full well what the likely consequence would be.

HistoryWriter said...

Zapem: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is part of the Declaration of Independence --- an apologia for our breakaway from Great Britain. It is not part of the Constitution.

The Constitution is this country's principal operating document. You will find it a totally secular document --- one, in fact, that specifically forbids the establishment of any official religion or any religious test as a condition of holding office, and which establishes the right to practice one's religion (or lack of it) as one wishes. You will find no mention of the Deity in it. I think you should become better acquainted with the Constitution before castigating others for their ignorance. As a final thought, while the Bible has many good things to say, it has no legal standing in America that trumps the 14th Amendment's determination of "personhood" under the Constitution.

I know it is difficult for many people to separate their religious beliefs from the realities of law, but unless one learns to examine issues logically and dispassionately he's destined to feel frustrated and marginalized --- and to think that nobody "understands me." If you're going to argue religion, argue religion, and if you're going to argue the law, argue the law. But try not to mix the two; it's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

HistoryWriter said...

Justin asks us to look up "bloastocyte" {sic} and "uteran" (sic). I think he means "blastocyst" and "uterine" so I can't blame him for avoiding defining terms that he can't even spell. But aside from that, I wonder if Justin realizes that by claiming that "all four of the scientifically accepted definition (sic) of life" --- whatever those may be --- are present as soon as implantation occurs (in other words, only AFTER implantation), that he has just presented us with the argument by "Plan B" supporters that their drug is not an abortifacient?

Zapem said...

HistoryWriter, that has nothing to do with what I said and you know it. You haven't addressed anything I've written or the sources that are relevant to Catholicism or the writings of Archbishops, sanctioned by the Vatican, who some priest decided to usurp the authority of.

You are also wrong. The three founding documents are integral to each other. The Supreme Court has cited the Declaration of Independence alone in at least 100 cases in its opinions, deeming that document extremely relevant.

In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the Court stated:

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

See also:

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796)
The Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 (1841)
Thurlow v. Com of Mass, 46 U.S. 504 (1847)
In Re Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
Gulf, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897)
Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)
Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 (1976)
Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 513 U.S. 265 (1995)

The Findlaw references go on and on and completely rip your argument apart that suggests that the Declaration of Independence is irrelevant to the Constitution. All of them state that it's quite relevant and an integral part of all three founding documents.

So while you're trying to avoid answering my points by changing the subject and conjuring up unfactual statements of your own, you were just proven wrong there too.

I suggest you go back and actually read what I wrote and then, if you're going to respond to me, don't change the subject and address the points made in it. I have no interest in debating you on points of dicta that have already been made by people much more educated than yourself in that area; none of said justices of which align themselves with your irrelevant conclusions anyway.

Terry Morris said...

History Writer,

Interesting you should cite the primacy of the fourteenth amendment; an amendment that has been used to destroy the foundations of this country far more often than it has been to uphold them. But that's beside the point...

Let's see, the fourteenth amendment was added to the Constitution following the civil war, over which Lincoln presided. In the opening statements of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address he refers back to an historical event "four score and seven years ago."

Question: What event was Mr. Lincoln harking back to? Was it --

(a) the Constitutional Convention,

(b) the ratification of the Bill of Rights, or

(c) the American Declaration of Independence.

Take your time.

P.S. "It's like bringing a knife to a gun fight." Cute.

HistoryWriter said...

The Supreme Court's obiter dicta are nice, however the Constitution remains the operating document. All the cases cited were decided on Constitutional grounds, not because they violated the precepts of the Declaration of Independence. Since you seem to be so sure, I'd suggest you try a case in Federal Court citing violation of the Declaration. You'll set a record for being tossed out.

Justin said...

Revisionist Writer,

You know how to use a spell check and as such come off as more of a pompous, liberal, windbag then you did originally, congratulations, want a cookie?

You still do nothing, NOTHING, to refute the many arguments against the fallacies you, other then spout more illogical and meangingless gibirish then you did originally. As far as a "Plan B", no I do not consider that to be an abortion. God is not only the supreme being in the Universe, everything in the Universe supports what is written in the bible. Thus since a baby does not exhibit the four recognized forms of life until it attaches to the utirine wall, no I would not consider that an abortion, even if that is condradictory to the life begins at conception argument which is a very compelling, both for religious and moral reasons, argument.
Another fascinating thing I find that you did, like a good liberal of course, is to pounce on anything you even closely beleive would resemble a perceived victory in your very, very small, closed mind. What, is the fact that the majority of writers on here presenting so many logical rational, factual arguments on here overloading yoru pathetically small Liberal brain?

The bottom line is, you are on this site to argue and attempt to buldoze your openion onto the rest of us. Their are two issues with that.
1) No one on here will buy your revisionist, erronous arguments no matter how much you try.
2) The belief you hold is an evil, murderous, flawed world view, one in which the majority (from what I have read) of people on this site will not agree to.
Two final things, which I am sure you will attempt to produce some warped court ruling to dsprove.
1) Most judges now a days are politcal activists. they legislate their morality and openion from the bench, circumventing the will of the voters. Thus any court case you present will be non viable as an argument. (Prop 8 being decided twice by voters and it is STILL in the courts, as well as Roe V. Wade, which the Supreme Court from then not only admitted to ruling in favor of beacue they wanted to, but they had no constitutional right to do so.) In addition, the supreme Court in the case of dred Scott suing for his freedom ruled that he could not sue due to the fact that the color of his skin made him not a uman Being, the moral of both desicions is that when we have Liberal activist judges, unpopular minorities are singled out for horrendous desicions which run contrary to the constituiion, the fact that EVERY person in this country has the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Now, I know I have written a lot for your piddling little underdeveloped Liberal mind, but get it through your useless skull that court cases do nothing for your argument.

chiu_chunling said...

What a meaningless argument.

The Constitution is designed to protect the rights and dignity of the individual. The essential conception of individual worth and importance are derived from the Judeo-Christian world-view, in which every individual is of unique and transcendent interest to God.

We could get into a historical debate about how well governments founded on humanist/atheist philosophies treat the individual, but it suffices to say that when the future of the race as a whole trumps all other considerations, one of the first considerations trumped is individual freedom. This is the essential tension between socialism and individualism, where the purpose of society is regarded as anything other than the nurture of the individual as a free entity.

The architectual plans for a church do not mention God, there is no point in it. But that hardly means that the design is intended to exclude religious considerations.

Zapem said...

It is a meaningless argument, but what would you expect from an atheist who is obsessed with the denigration of the founding documents and religion itself? I think if you read his profile, you will see the lack of maturity and education to be found there. He needs a job instead of strolling from blog to blog wherever he can get attention, which is exactly what he's looking for. He seems to make quite the habit of being an ignorant pest. He has no knowledge of dogma and a very weak understanding of history.

Terry Morris said...

Zapem,

You're contending that 'History Writer' has too much time on his hands? I imagine you're probably right about that. Good call.

As they (used to) say, "Idle hands is the devil's workshop." But that was before liberalism became the dominant ideology in America.

HistoryWriter said...

Justin: PLEASE learn to use spell check; then at least you won't look like an ignoramus from both your spelling AND your arguments.

HistoryWriter said...

Folks: sorry to say --- I have so much time on my hands because I'm independently wealthy and retired. Tough for those of you whose educations condemn you to sweeping up at McDonald's.

Terry Morris said...

Well isn't that special.

Justin said...

RevisionistWriter:
You sir, are a troll of the lowest order. As such I will no longer be feeding you, as your last comment cemented the sheer inanity of your general responses. And besides, I wouldn't dream of arguing with such an elogent, sophisticated retired (Hows that capital Gains scheduled increase working out for ya under Osama BTW?)gift to humanity like yourself. Thank you, oh thank you for showing me the error of my Mcdonalds ways. I would have been lost without your infinite wisdom oh great one.

........Do everyone a favor and go /wrists you pompous, arrogant, good for nothing bombastic tool.

HistoryWriter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HistoryWriter said...

Zapem: Somehow you've gotten the idea that I'm an atheist because I disagree with conservatives' opinions. I find that truly amazing. Do you really imagine that God speaks to humanity through politicians? As for education, I'm sorry to say I was never able to progress beyond obtaining a law degree from NYU in 1962. What are YOUR credentials?

HistoryWriter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HistoryWriter said...

Thank you, Justin, for your good Christian response. BTW since my investments are largely in municipal bonds, I have very little concern about taxes. I probably pay less tax than you do. I'm sure it rankles you to discover that there are rich people who don't drink the Republican Kool Aid, just as it amazes me to discover that there are members of the lower classes who think that proclaiming Republicanism is going to impress their betters. Poor deluded fools.

chiu_chunling said...

How...revealing.

Yet again we see the innate class consciousness that has been the core of the "Democrat" movement since the days of slavery.

Republicans value and understand the design of a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, and that everyone derives basic rights from that equality. Democrats not only disdain such a principle, they don't even have the ability to comprehend it. The idea of class structure is so firmly embedded into their psyche that it is impossible for them to think of anything except in terms of social standing.

"I'm better than you."Screwtape himself would laugh.

groovsmyth said...

If Sharia Law is allowed to supercede the First Amendment Constitutional Right of Free Speech where a gathering of Muslims occupies public land, why then is Canon Law not applicable on private property owned by an institution which identifies itelf as Catholic?

Christian Evangelization of Muslims at Festival in Dearborn, MI

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090617/METRO/906170360/1409/METRO/Christian-group-sues-Dearborn-over-Arab-festival-access

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.