Sometimes A ComBox Posting Takes On A Life Of It's Own
This is one of them
Amy, the original Cave-Babe, smacked this one outta the park in her comment concerning the Liberal attitude towards... well... just about everything.
The reason Democrats will never understand the war on terrorism, or terrorism in general, is that they are the party of no moral convictions or compass.
They do not believe in God or, if they do, their "God" is a wishy-washy, androgynous, feel-good spirit being who expects no sacrifice, no self-control, and no dedication to concrete moral principles.
Therefore, the Democrats cannot fathom the notion that there are people (read: radical Islamists) who are not only so grounded in their convictions they are willing to kill for them, they are also willing to die for them. They cannot fathom the notion that radical Islamists see themselves not as the end-all-be-all of existence, but that they (the radical Islamists) are slaves to Allah and doing Allah's will through Mohammed's teachings.
In short, Democrats do not take radical Islamists seriously, so they are blinded to the threat terrorism poses to the West (and, ironically, the "values" Democrats and liberals hold most dear - feminism, abortion, gay rights, etc. would all be verboten under radical Islam).
So blinded are the Democrats to this notion, that rather than face the real, true, enemy with the same brute force said enemy is willing to use against us they instead turn their sights towards combating the least harmless of all: Catholics and (conservative) Christians. They take us seriously because we're far more present than radical Islamists and (since they don't really believe radical Islamists are serious) fear that we will strip them of their beloved freedoms (abortion, gay rights, etc.) and impose a "theocracy" on America.
They see us as easy targets because we are not as agressive or violent as radical Islamists - we do not use car bombs, or behead people - therefore we must be pushovers. Because the Democrats (and liberals in general) dispise our conviction to the One True Faith, and because we are not inherently violent, they feel they can bully us out of existence.
Mind you, I'm no where near advocating we should remotely be like radical Islamists...but we need to be far more agressive in proclaiming our faith, fighting for it in the public square, and evangelizing our neighbors and our nation.
This is one of them
Amy, the original Cave-Babe, smacked this one outta the park in her comment concerning the Liberal attitude towards... well... just about everything.
The reason Democrats will never understand the war on terrorism, or terrorism in general, is that they are the party of no moral convictions or compass.
They do not believe in God or, if they do, their "God" is a wishy-washy, androgynous, feel-good spirit being who expects no sacrifice, no self-control, and no dedication to concrete moral principles.
Therefore, the Democrats cannot fathom the notion that there are people (read: radical Islamists) who are not only so grounded in their convictions they are willing to kill for them, they are also willing to die for them. They cannot fathom the notion that radical Islamists see themselves not as the end-all-be-all of existence, but that they (the radical Islamists) are slaves to Allah and doing Allah's will through Mohammed's teachings.
In short, Democrats do not take radical Islamists seriously, so they are blinded to the threat terrorism poses to the West (and, ironically, the "values" Democrats and liberals hold most dear - feminism, abortion, gay rights, etc. would all be verboten under radical Islam).
So blinded are the Democrats to this notion, that rather than face the real, true, enemy with the same brute force said enemy is willing to use against us they instead turn their sights towards combating the least harmless of all: Catholics and (conservative) Christians. They take us seriously because we're far more present than radical Islamists and (since they don't really believe radical Islamists are serious) fear that we will strip them of their beloved freedoms (abortion, gay rights, etc.) and impose a "theocracy" on America.
They see us as easy targets because we are not as agressive or violent as radical Islamists - we do not use car bombs, or behead people - therefore we must be pushovers. Because the Democrats (and liberals in general) dispise our conviction to the One True Faith, and because we are not inherently violent, they feel they can bully us out of existence.
Mind you, I'm no where near advocating we should remotely be like radical Islamists...but we need to be far more agressive in proclaiming our faith, fighting for it in the public square, and evangelizing our neighbors and our nation.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
3:54 PM
21 Comments:
By the words of Ron Simmons, "DAMN!"
Amy--dang that girl is smart! What a gift from God--write on Amy!
Thank you, thank you very much. ;-)
Takes a bow
Clever as the comments may be, it is important to recall that being anti-democrat should never compel one to automatically be pro-republican. The Faith has no party allegiance, no personal endorsement and no campaign donations. The Faith directs us to vote on the basis of policy alone - "regardless of his/her party, will this person work to do what is right?"
For the record I am an Australian, and as such am interested in your politics only in as much as your country presently rules the world. The example you set on moral issues such as war, abortion (infanticide), divorce and religious freedoms sends shockwaves through the entire English speaking world, sadly including mine.
American Catholics, fight the good fight. Fight long, fight hard, fight dirty. The world is with you, watching from Sydney, watching from London, watching from Rome.
We shall, Robert. Keep us in your prayers.
Well said, indeed, Robert, but being people of faith does pretty much require being anti-Democrat.
It does not, of course, mean being pro-Republican, as you rightly point out.
But to vote my Catholic conscience, I first rule out all the Democrats, and then I rule out many of the remainder, before I find an acceptable candidate (if there's one at all).
There's a problem with "fighting" the current culture, because most of what I hear from "fighters" of all stripes is that we have to "fight" with "charity".
Basically, what we have here in America is a defensive fight. We're trying to just limit what the government and the culture does to us. Rather than striking back, we maintain a defensive position. "Charity" limits our effectiveness.
Right on Robert. That is really impressive comment by the way. I should point out that I was a conservative and voted for Bush in 2000. Bush, fake conservative that he is, reminded me of all that is wrong with conservativism and all that was right with libertarianism of my college days.
I think the cave-dwellers would be shocked at just how conservative I am, with the exception that I think monogamous gay relationships are preferable to promiscuity, and that its OK for charismatics to do their thing, so long as I have my traditional church too. In fact, I bet there are a lot of traddies out there who wuld agree with me.
And there again is why I think Obama has the clearest, most rational, sane voice right now. That's not to say a good Republcian candidate coldn't materialize, just that it seems very unlikely. To me, Obama looks like the best bet.
Maybe we can hope that his is secretly pro-life. Since not a single candidate seems to be pro-life, that's the best we can hope for.
is why I think Obama has the clearest, most rational, sane voice right now.
Never mind the fact that he's in favor of butchering millions of unborn babies.
Sheesh... what awas I thinking!!
Hi VSC, but is there a pro-life candidate? I suppose one can at least give bush some credit for his supreme court nomination on that.
WC,
I believe I've already answered that question in a response to you. I believe it was on the posting concerning Barack "The Baby Killer" Obama.
By the way, on a different post, you stated the following; This pooh bear thinks we ought to tolerate monogamous unions of some kind in light of that data.
Are you reff'ing to heterosexual out of wedlock "monogamous unions" and/or homosexual "monogamous unions"... or both?
The bear was relating his thoughts on gay unions but now his thinking is a bit muddled (which you woul surely claim it was all along but that is OK). He is having trouble finding an LGBT website that actually insists on monogamy as an ethic. There seem to be two polarities...
Courage- demands celibacy. Approved by the vatican.
Dignity- all mushy and relativistic, anything goes.
Conservatives in general- all ranty and uncharitable, full of unkind names and bad language towards LGBT people.
So the bear, being of a bear of very little brain, is currently still looking for the right website to bop you cave people over the head with.
Did you see the neurobilogy video I referenced? It is here:
http://reform-catholic.blogspot.com/2007/05/biology-of-love.html
Deat Little Bear,
Is Conservatives in general- all ranty and uncharitable, full of unkind names and bad language towards LGBT people an example of mush-headed liberal charity?
But even as you admit, Little Bear... you're of very little brain. That's because you're a Liberal.
And as everyone knows, a Liberal is defined as someone who is so open minded, all of their brains have fallen out.
But you keep searching Little Bear.... you keep searching.
Dear Cavey,
Yor response is not much of an argument. It's just an ad hominem attack of the 'you're a dumb liberal' variety. But that's OK.
The bear is forgiving.
The catechism declares uncharity towards gay people to be a sin, in the same spirit that homosexuality itself is a sin.
LGBT persons have a heavy cross to bear. If you want to help LGBT persons I am sure you could volunteer to be a friend and mentor at Courage.
You mean your little passive-aggressive third person rant was suppose to be taken seriously!!?? *insert evil grin here*
WC, since when is being proven wrong an ad hominem attack?
But anyhow... I must ask (again); is "Conservatives in general- all ranty and uncharitable" an example of liberal charity? I couldn't help but notice that all I got was some whining response to my definition of liberal.
Oh, you mentioned "Courage". Do those good folks also adhere to the same dillusional fantasy about homosexuals living in a life-long, Church approved, monogamous relationship... all sans sex? Even though you stated on another post that (essentially) "all human beings are orgasm seekers"?
Gee, that kinda blows your argument outta the water, huh?
Courage International is a pope-sponsored LGBT outreach program fully endorsed and supported by the catholic church since Vatican II.
There is no 'mushy charity'. Charity is a virtue as important as Chastity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_International
I sense we have a closet bigot here who doesn't know that his church calls him to act charitably towards gay persons.
I agree with WC (not the water closet) in as far as "charismatic catholicism" is not unacceptable to the church - as long as it is implemented in an appropriate context. The proper liturgical worship of the Church always has and will be solemn and reverent. Christian folk music and other such occurrences are acceptable and proper to a lively faith-filled community, but those who participate in this form of devotion must be mature enough to set that aside for the proper and perpetual solemnity of the liturgical sacrifice. Charismatic "praise and worship" concerts are a great way to express your love of the lord in a private or public capacity, but that style is proper to this age alone. The Mass, on the other hand, is timeless - and must remain so.
Regarding homosexual relationships, these I feel are under all circumstances fundamentally immoral - even monogamous. This position is supremely espoused by JPII's Theology of the Body, but can be summarised in terms of the phrase "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". Man and Woman, Masculine and Feminine are fundamentally and ontologically different (that is, by the very essence of their being). They are equal in dignity and in God's love, but they are not interchangeable. They are complementary, with one another, but not within themselves (ie female complements male and not another female).
I won't go further, as it would make this comment longer than an average blog post - just wanted to quickly give my position and a taste of the reasoning behind it.
You don't know the suffering they endure or the cross they bear, you don't even know how your own church reaches out to them with a call to celibacy through the organization Courage. You think Romans 1 is infallible church doctrine. You call them names and point out the most absurd behavior of their worst elements, meanwhile leaving your brothers and sisters in christ who struggle for celibacy feeling less than human.
I read over your blog and I am baffled. How can a guy be sensitive about capitalizing God be completely hard of heart with regard to Gays?
The liberal gays hate the celibate gays. The chaste gays have no friend in their church other than the most compassionate priests. And here you are tossing about words like "Butt Pirate" though the catechism expressly forbids you to behave that way. Meanwhile you call yourself 'conservative' and battle dissenters.
It baffles the mind. One wonders if divine justice isn't in order somehow. If you're suddenly struck with a big SSA disorder in middle age, or your kid has SSA or something. Well, I hope that doesn't happen. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But it would be ironic.
Anon,
Did you even bother to read the comment I just posted a few hours ago?
Again with your whining about how I disregard those involved with Courage.
But this comment from you has me realizing that you are not to be taken seriously;
It baffles the mind. One wonders if divine justice isn't in order somehow. If you're suddenly struck with a big SSA disorder in middle age
Ahhh.... because I have the bad manners to believe that The Holy Bible is correct when it states that those who are active in homosexuality are depraved individuals and are an abomination to The Eyes of God... that makes me some type of middle aged queer in the making.
Because I have enough common sense to understand that there is absolutely NOTHING normal about some guy sloshing his penis around in another man's feces filled colon... that means that I now have a SSA, right?
Anon, your argument is juvenile, at best. Stick with your sophomore psych class... and dreaming up ways to defend the sin of acting upon the homosexual urges.
BTW, any thoughts on your part on Swimming the Thames? I'm sure McGreevey would welcome you with open arms.
Anon from Mass.,
One other small thing, also....
You state You don't know the suffering they endure or the cross they bear.
First off, you have absolutely no idea what I have had to deal with in my personal life in the past. You don't know what I've gone through with things that the Church considers sinful.
So possibly it would be best if you kept your mouth shut when it comes down to you wagging your finger and sneering down your nose to me about "understanding what people have to go through".
You see, that's the big difference between people like you and me. You sit there in your ivory tower and look down at the rest of us who have the bad manners to expose those who are obstinant in their sin, and those who support them.
People like me who have struggled with alcohol and physical violence in the past realize that these are NEVER urges and inclinations that we can EVER act upon again. And we certainly don't "tsk, tsk" and look the other way to those who do.
Unlike you apologists and defenders of active homosexuality.
Come on now! Let's all hold hands and sing "Kumby yah mah Lord...Kuuuumby yaaaaah..."
(That was meant to make you laugh. I'm not SERIOUS.)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home