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

 

 

 

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.

 

I understand the depth of your belief. You are so entitled. I am just surprised that you seem to discount the message being sent by Notre Dame in having Obama speak at its commencement particularly so soon after he has waged such a vicious assault against the rights of those sinless babies and, yes, they are babies.

You aren't serious, are you? Surely, you are merely trying to stir the pot.

 

I would also add that your discription of his "achievements" is a bit flowery. Are you actually Rahm Emmanuel, Oprah Winfrey, or Chris Matthews?

 

Yes I'm quite serious it's my opinion and obviously we disagree. I guess anyone who doesn't agree lock step with you is trying to stir the pot. I would like to clarify that my description of him was accuarate and also only included his personal life and academic achievements and nothing about his political philosophy.

 

Columbia

Harvard Law

President of Harvard Law Review

Constitutional Law professor at University of Chicago Law School

Illinois state senator

US senator from Illinois

President of the United States

 

I would have really enjoyed hearing someone with these qualifications speak at my commencement no matter what side of the political aisle they reside.

 

Are you Jerry Falwell, James Doubson or Pat Roberts?

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.

 

 

I don't think they should be invited to speak, but the problem here is Obama WAS asked to give the commencement address. Obviously someone thought it was a good idea.

 

Does anybody know what % of students at Notre Dame are actually Catholic?

Yes I'm quite serious it's my opinion and obviously we disagree. I guess anyone who doesn't agree lock step with you is trying to stir the pot. I would like to clarify that my description of him was accuarate and also only included his personal life and academic achievements and nothing about his political philosophy.

 

Columbia

Harvard Law

President of Harvard Law Review

Constitutional Law professor at University of Chicago Law School

Illinois state senator

US senator from Illinois

President of the United States

 

I would have really enjoyed hearing someone with these qualifications speak at my commencement no matter what side of the political aisle they reside.

 

Are you Jerry Falwell, James Doubson or Pat Roberts?

 

Would the last 2 be allowed to speak at a state university, at least without a howling protest. And it you hear the 1st one speak, there is bad news and good news, 1st your dead, 2nd congrats, you made it.

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.

 

So Obama has aborted a pregnancy he has been apart of?? Does he actively encourage or perform the procedure or does he like the majority of Americans support a woman's/family's right to Choose in the matter?

Would the last 2 be allowed to speak at a state university, at least without a howling protest. And it you hear the 1st one speak, there is bad news and good news, 1st your dead, 2nd congrats, you made it.

 

I would hope so, I wouldn't howl or protest. Senator Jim Bunning spoke at my highschool commencement and while I disagree with him for the most part politically I listened very attentively and gave the respect someone in that position should be offered.

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.

There is no reason to ever compare Obama to Hitler or Duke. Now if someone wants to make the Dobson-Falwell comparison, I'll pay attention.

To answer my own question. In 2008, 87% Catholic. The other 13%....are they accepted only if the are pro-life? Are all the Catholic students pro-life? The common application for Notre Dame doesn't ask your stand on abortion. Maybe a more detailed application does? Just throwing some questions out there.

Are you serious? Do you think they live locked in my basement without television or any other interaction? Heck, middle school is bad enough. My kids have already had to defend their faith at the ball park, soccer field, etc. They "learn" far more than just what I teach them.

 

It sounds, though, that you are not open to them being exposed to these other "sources."

I oppose abortion as much as anyone. Would you have an issue if Bush had been invited to speak? His policies on the death penalty and the war in Iraq were in direct opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church as well.

 

Heck, can't we find many priests that do not agree wholeheartedly 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 highly doubt that a state university would forbid the POTUS who happened to believe in creationism from speaking. That's silly.

Yes I'm quite serious it's my opinion and obviously we disagree. I guess anyone who doesn't agree lock step with you is trying to stir the pot. I would like to clarify that my description of him was accuarate and also only included his personal life and academic achievements and nothing about his political philosophy.

 

Columbia

Harvard Law

President of Harvard Law Review

Constitutional Law professor at University of Chicago Law School

Illinois state senator

US senator from Illinois

President of the United States

 

I would have really enjoyed hearing someone with these qualifications speak at my commencement no matter what side of the political aisle they reside.

 

Are you Jerry Falwell, James Doubson or Pat Roberts?

 

 

Well, I'll agree in advance that this post is a bit "snippy" but, then, it certainly won't be the first of that nature in this thread.

 

Columbia and Harvard Law School: Boy, I sure agree with you. It is amazing that one of such a humble and poor upbringing could have gotten into two such exclusive and expensive schools. How on earth did he afford the "pricy" tuition and the living expenses and don't tell us he lived in a car or a cardboard box for all those years?

 

President of Harvard Law Review: Well, that, for what it is worth, is true. However, one should not confuse this campaigned for and elected position with the prestigious title of Editor of the Harvard Law Review. They are quite different. In fact, I believe that you will find that Obama prepared no scholarly writings of any type while on the review. If he were editor, which he wasn't, that would not likely have been the case.

 

Constitutional Law Professor: Wrong. He was a lecturer. That is much more similar to being a graduate assistant than being any type of professor. Lots of people are lecturers and/or graduate assistants. He was no professor.

 

Illinois State Senator: True. He actually was smart (or devious) enough to get all of his opponents disqualified in the Democrat primary which meant he ran unopposed. Since this was an overwhelmingly Democrat district, the general election was just an afterthought.

 

US Senator: Quite true. Again, he was fortunate that, at a strategic time, the sexual exploits of his opponent were "revealed" and his opponent dropped out of the race. His opponent was well ahead in the polls at the time. The Republicans substituted a candidate who lived in Maryland (Alan Keys) so, in reality, Obama was unopposed in the general election. By the way, early on the Republicans tried to draft Mike Ditka to run. After some consideration, he declined. Just think how history would have played out if he had run. Obviously, he would have cleaned Obama.

 

President: Yep. He won the election. We'll see how that works out, won't we? Personally, since I am quite self supporting, I am carefully guarding my assets.

 

Notre Dame is a high profile representative of the Catholic Church. Regardless of the feelings of the student body, the faculty, or the administration, the negative message sent by allowing someone with his anti-life record to speak at the commencement at this Catholic institution is inexcusable.

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

 

I can agree with that. There is, however, always the risk when you invite someone to speak at a podium with your seal on the front or with your banner in the background; that is the risk of appearing to endorse that person's positions. It is troublesome.

 

Also, Clyde, when earlier you asked "Does the Church allow dissention?" The simplest answer I can give is "No." The more complicated answer I can give you is that it depends on the subject matter and the manner in which dissent is given. For example, personal belief is often considered to be matter of conscience and, by virtue of its privacy, is difficult to dwell or rule upon. It is when that belief is made public that the idas of dissention comes into the picture. The biggest concern for public figures is the idea of "scandal," that is, encouraging sinfulness in others. It seems to me that the sin of scandal can be committed passively as well, which is rightly a concern of the archbishop and local Catholics.

I understand the depth of your belief. You are so entitled. I am just surprised that you seem to discount the message being sent by Notre Dame in having Obama speak at its commencement particularly so soon after he has waged such a vicious assault against the rights of those sinless babies and, yes, they are babies.

 

 

I haven't actually weighed in with an opinion. I was merely trying to find out where people stood on the possibilities of others, with what I consider equally objectionable policies, speaking.

I haven't actually weighed in with an opinion. I was merely trying to find out where people stood on the possibilities of others, with what I consider equally objectionable policies, speaking.

 

Personally, I don't think anyone who holds very public views (and is in a position to turn those views into action) which are believed to be completely amoral by a college or by a group that supports that college should ever be invited by that very college to speak at its commencement.

 

By doing so, the college compromises the beliefs of itself and of its sponsor and sends a negative message to others.

 

This would be true even if the college were ultraliberal (as many are) and they invited Antonin Scalia to speak at their commencement.

 

The fact that we are talking about a commencement at which the speaker will obviously receive some sort of honor is a vital factor in this matter. If it were merely a speech in the fine arts building or the mock trial courtroom, I would have no problem.