Because?

 

Surely you aren't suggesting that he has made this "miraculous" rise to the top by the sweat of his brow. What flavor of Koolaid are you drinking?

 

Let's not get off topic. I say it is abominable that Notre Dame would invite anyone with Obama's views to speak at its commencement. It cannot be justified. Him being president is irrelevant. His agenda and beliefs are quite relevant and, in regard to our most vulnerable brothers and sisters, quite devastating.

I'm assuming from this comment that you are an authority on the general population's knowledge of Catholic Universities?[/quote

 

Which one do you think the general population is more familiar with? I'd say he's right.

I think the University is right to invite him to speak. I also believe the Bishop is right to not attend.

Surely you aren't suggesting that he has made this "miraculous" rise to the top by the sweat of his brow.

I know the guy started out poor from a broken family, got himself an Ivy League education and engineered a political career that culminated in his being elected President of the United States.

 

That sounds like a self-made guy to me. Now, sure, he didn't do it alone, but it isn't like he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and got somewhere because of his family connections.

 

Do you dispute that?

What flavor of Koolaid are you drinking?

Why is it that the other side always brings up "Kool-aid" when they have no other recourse?

Let's not get off topic.

Hey, you brought it up.

I say it is abominable that Notre Dame would invite anyone with Obama's views to speak at its commencement. It cannot be justified. Him being president is irrelevant. His agenda and beliefs are quite relevant and, in regard to our most vulnerable brothers and sisters, quite devastating.

That is your opinion, one that isn't shared by everyone. Live with it.

I think the University is right to invite him to speak. I also believe the Bishop is right to not attend.

Exactly ...

Neither analogy is appropriate here ...

 

Why?

Why?

For reasons I've already explained ...

 

Do you think it's appropriate? If so, why?

Sure I do and as I read the thread I saw your explaination.

 

I see it as an illustration of differing reactions between right and left rather then directly comparing Obama to eitehr Hitler or Duke.

 

Far left groups have been very vocal in their outcry when people with differing political or religious views have been invited to speak at college commencements and there have been instances where invitations have been recinded. I seem to recall this with people like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson. I see no difference with this, in fact the fact that Obama is POTUS makes it all the worse as far as I'm concerned because he has been so visible in his pro-abortion stance.

 

At some commencements I seem to recall visible student protests againd what some consider right-wing speakers. What if a Notre Dame graduate performs some visible act of protest over Obama's pro-abotion stance? I venture to bet that many and or most on the left will decry it as an afront to the office of president.

If you are not aware of this, I guess I am more of an authority on this subject than are you. Actually, you don't need to be an authority to know how Notre Dame is perceived by the general population any more than you need to be an authority on Catholic theology to know that the church and its true followers do not and should not bend on sanctity of life issues.

 

 

:lol: Would you be willing to share why you consider yourself more of an authority than me? Is it mere condesencion on your part toward me? Or is there something more tangible I could be missing?

 

As to your last comment...sanctity of life issues include war and the death penalty. What would your feelings be if a speaker who supported either or both of those, but was against abortion?

I guess we could start with "self made man".

 

The point is that he is an abortionist. He has no regard for the sanctity of human life. He should never be welcome at Notre Dame or at any other institution, Catholic or otherwise, that adhers to right to life tenets.

 

Some of these rationalizations are ridiculous. If you have deep held beliefs, you don't compromise by honoring (giving the commencement address is obviously a way in which the school honors the speaker) one who seeks to destroy one of your most sacred beliefs.

 

Using the logic of some of you, I would suggest that you would approve of David Duke delivering the commencement address (and receiving the honor that goes with it) at Kentucky State University or some other predominently black school.

 

 

I have deeply held beliefs on the sanctity of life. I find it completely and utterly hypocritical that many who support war and the death penalty rationalize their beliefs, while standing in judgement over the abortion issue. That doesn't mean I support abortion. It means I'm anti-hypocrisy.

So you're saying that every POTUS, regardless of how opposed his beliefs are to the beliefs of a private college may be, should be invited just because he or she is the POTUS?

 

Do you honestly think that if some racial bigot got elected to become POTUS, he/she would be/should be invited to speak at some traditionally African American college? I don't. Would we/should we honestly expect the adminstrators at that African American college to say to its students: "hey, have an open mind about racial bigotry and consider all view points" ? Again, I don't.

 

There are many issues and beliefs that we should have an open mind on. However, I do believe that there are some issues that are so central to certain institutions that there should be no room for consideration of opposing beliefs. With the Catholic Church, I thought that issue was abortion, but maybe I'm wrong and the Catholic Church is okay with some of its members supporting abortion.

 

No I do not honestly think that a racial bigot should be invited to speak at a traditionally African American college, but your hypothetical is a little extreme IMO. This country in this day and age would never elect someone like that so while I concede on the example I feel that it is apples to oranges. Obama and the Catholic church agree on about 98% of the other social issues like ridding the world of poverty, etc. So because Obama is Pro-Choice not Pro-Abortion as so many on here like to put it they should ignore all the academic achievements and prestige of the office he holds and not invite him. I don't get it and obviously they don't either since he was invited. By the way over 50% of the Catholics that voted in the election voted for Obama.

Isn't that what Hitler said?

 

An extreme analogy, yes, but certainly to the point.

 

You cannot disallow dissenting opinions. Its not healthy. In fact, I'd argue that allowing a dissenting opinion shows to the students how strong the Church's/school's belief is. It would actually send a positive message to the students.

 

Instead, now students are going to wonder who else isn't allowed to speak at ND simply because they are not in lockstep with the Church.

 

I wonder how a person who believes in Creationisn would be treated at a state university, or if they would be allowed to speak at all? I know what would happen, there would only be the political correct view allowed and the speaker would be told no thanks, but your views are not allowed here.

I have deeply held beliefs on the sanctity of life. I find it completely and utterly hypocritical that many who support war and the death penalty rationalize their beliefs, while standing in judgement over the abortion issue. That doesn't mean I support abortion. It means I'm anti-hypocrisy.

 

Lumping abortion with war and the death penalty is disingenuous. I have stated before that I oppose the death penalty. However, I do believe that there can be and have been just wars.

 

In regard to the abortion vs. death penalty argument, I do understand completely why some support the latter and oppose the former. Abortion destroys the most innocent who are afforded no defense or rights whatsoever. Those receiving capital punishment have been tried and convicted of heinous crimes and have received years and years of appeal after appeal. They violated the laws of a civilized society. they, most likely, took other lives in the process. What did the innocent preborn child do wrong?

 

Like it or not, there is a vast difference between abortion and capital punishment. If we equate the two, we are merely devaluing life and playing into the hands of the butchers.

Lumping abortion with war and the death penalty is disingenuous. I have stated before that I oppose the death penalty. However, I do believe that there can be and have been just wars.

 

I disagree that it's disingenuous. I believe it's absolutely equal in the issue of sanctity of life.

 

In regard to the abortion vs. death penalty argument, I do understand completely why some support the latter and oppose the former. Abortion destroys the most innocent who are afforded no defense or rights whatsoever. Those receiving capital punishment have been tried and convicted of heinous crimes and have received years and years of appeal after appeal. They violated the laws of a civilized society. they, most likely, took other lives in the process. What did the innocent preborn child do wrong?

 

Like it or not, there is a vast difference between abortion and capital punishment. If we equate the two, we are merely devaluing life and playing into the hands of the butchers.

 

I believe that in either case, someone who is not God is making the decision to end another's life. Whether the victim is a sinless fetus, or a sinful adult, I don't believe the choice is ours to make. I don't believe in murder, or "justified" killing (as in the death penalty). I don't believe in "collateral damage" as justification for the loss of life in war.

 

I am perfectly aware, by the way, of the derision this is likely to evoke. But I'm absolute in my belief on this matter.

No I do not honestly think that a racial bigot should be invited to speak at a traditionally African American college, but your hypothetical is a little extreme IMO. This country in this day and age would never elect someone like that so while I concede on the example I feel that it is apples to oranges. Obama and the Catholic church agree on about 98% of the other social issues like ridding the world of poverty, etc. So because Obama is Pro-Choice not Pro-Abortion as so many on here like to put it they should ignore all the academic achievements and prestige of the office he holds and not invite him. I don't get it and obviously they don't either since he was invited. By the way over 50% of the Catholics that voted in the election voted for Obama.

 

Somehow I don't see the racial bigot to be as dangerous as is the abortionist. Abortionists kill while the world is full of bigots of all kinds- racial and otherwise- and for the most part they are harmless. And, your president is pro-abortion in every sense of the word. You may step in manure in a cow pasture and want to call it lemonade but, nonetheless, it is still cow manure. Obama is unwaveringly pro-abortion.