Why did a Catholic university ban a pro-life speaker?
posted at 9:37 am on April 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Here in the Twin Cities, conservatives have long been inured to the strange policy decisions made by liberal administrations colleges and universities in our community, but the University of St. Thomas may have surprised even the most resigned conservatives here. St. Thomas denied permission for a presentation by a young African-American woman to speak on abortion. Normally, this wouldn’t seem surprising for a Catholic university, but the woman wanted to speak out against abortion — and the university apparently believes that to violate its community standards:
Star Parker is a bestselling author who travels the country speaking to young audiences about the harmful impact of abortion, especially in minority communities. What better place than the University of St. Thomas — an urban, Catholic campus — for this dynamic African-American woman to bring her prolife message?
For almost two months, St. Thomas’ Students for Human Life organization looked forward to sponsoring Parker’s planned appearance on campus April 21. Her fee was to be split by the St. Thomas Standard, a conservative student newspaper, and the Young America’s Foundation, a Herndon, Va., group that brings conservative speakers and ideas to college campuses.
Students for Human Life applied to the university’s Student Life Committee for a campus site where Parker could speak. But the committee turned thumbs down. Star Parker, it seems, was not welcome at St. Thomas.
Katie Kieffer, an alumna who helped plan Parker’s visit, says that Vice President for Student Affairs Jane Canney, who oversees the committee, blocked the way. “She told me, ‘As long as I’m a vice president at St. Thomas, we will not deal with Young America’s Foundation,’” said Kieffer.
Why the hostility for YAF? The group brought Ann Coulter to their campus in 2005 — and the university still bears a grudge against YAF and Kieffer for it. The appearance caused plenty of dissent on campus, which spilled into premeditated disruptions of Coulter’s talk. Did university president Father Dennis Dease crack down on the provocateurs in his student body? Of course not. Instead, he launched a tirade directed at Coulter for criticizing Ted Kennedy and calling Barbara Boxer “learning disabled”.
Apparently, part of a Catholic university’s mission is teaching students how to hold a grudge. Not only did Dease and his administration declare Coulter persona non grata, but also every conservative speaker connected to the YAF in perpetuity.
Now, Coulter isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, and I’ve been very critical of her in the past. However, the notion that a university would ban all conservative speakers because they didn’t like Ann Coulter is akin to banning all liberals from speaking because of Ward Churchill’s “Little Eichmanns” remarks. It’s absurd. It’s even more offensive that Dease and Canney would insist on some sort of “speech code” for conservatives to sign prior to speaking on their campus.
Universities used to value intellectual diversity and debate. Catholic universities have a centuries-long tradition of this, in and out of the US, a diversity that includes staging “The Vagina Monologues” at Notre Dame, for example. Dease’s actions to stifle dissent at St. Thomas — and to demand the equivalent of a loyalty oath as a prerequisite to speak one’s mind — are not only un-Catholic, but also un-American and un-academic. He has turned St. Thomas into the Zimbabwe of American universities, most of which have already succumbed to a lesser extent to the stultifying grasp of political correctness.
All of this comes, as I have noted, because Dease and Canney feel that an appearance by a young woman speaking against abortion violates the mission of this Catholic university. If Dease and Canney truly believe that, then both need to find new careers, and the Catholic Church needs to reconsider St. Thomas and its entire administration.
Update: Never let it be said that I failed to listen to the Hot Air community. I replaced the front-page pic with one of Star Parker, but I failed to mention in this post that the two young women flanking Coulter in the original photo are Amie and Katie Kieffer. Amie has taken her older sister’s place on the St. Thomas conservative newspaper, and both have played an important part in this story.
Update II: Star Parker is 52? I had no idea. I thought she was much younger. I wouldn’t mind looking that young at 45, let alone 52.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
I love Catholics, my cousins are Catholic.
My best friend who will be my Maid of Honor, and my Catholic cousin who will be my Matron of Honor and her daugters - the flower girl, the jr bridesmaid and the jr maid of honor are all Catholic. The other flower girl is my Jewish cousin’s daughter and my fututre hubby’s nephew is our Jewish ring bearer. Out of the others, my 6 bridesmiads, 1 more is Catholic, 1 is Episcopalian and the rest are my sisters and my Jewish cousins.
The bestman is Jewish as well as my futre brothers-in-law and my brothers, but my Catholic cousin will also be a groomsmen, and my Catholic aunt will be singing at the reception.
So there are many Catholics in my Big Fat Jewish Wedding and we are glad and very thankful to have them, they are welcome!
(Sorry to go off topic, but I am getting really excited about my wedding, it’s going to be beautiful.)
AprilOrit on April 14, 2008 at 2:27 PM
One person’s opinion about a church that isn’t what that person had hoped isn’t akin to Catholic bashing. I understand we’ve had plenty of that here, but being hypersensitive isn’t going to help.
I think many conservatives agree with this up to a point. Hence the comments about Dobson and Huck.
But your points are well noted. It is easy to hold the view liberals have when looking at the Bible. I can see why they think the way they do. I just completely disagree. I read the Bible as applying to me personally rather than as a government policy.
It just seems to me that if Jesus had intended us to lobby the government that He would have done it Himself.
Esthier on April 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Right. Women feel just fine after being responsible for ending the lives of their unborn. It’s just the weirdos who feel any remorse.
We’re all liars for claiming otherwise.
Esthier on April 14, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Um…How is Jesus “quite clear” about taxes?
The thing is you’re leaving out the next line
All things are made by God,not by caesar.
SaintOlaf on April 14, 2008 at 2:34 PM
LOL, that is hilarious!
macblanegirl on April 14, 2008 at 2:42 PM
He prefaced his sentence by asking whose face was on the coin, to which the reply was, “Caesar’s.”
The implication is quite obvious.
Esthier on April 14, 2008 at 2:51 PM
I have seen the enemy and he is us.
Focus on our real enemies, folks, lest they be successful in dividing and conquering.
Connie on April 14, 2008 at 2:56 PM
The whole Bible is Holy Spirit inspired…including Paul’s writings.
SaintOlaf on April 14, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Esthier,
If everything belongs to God, what belongs to Caesar?
Nothing.
“and they marveled at Him” (He escaped their trap question while simultaneously telling them nothing belongs to Caesar)
SaintOlaf on April 14, 2008 at 3:03 PM
So your reading of it is that Jesus is telling the disciples to break the law and not give money to Caesar?
If that’s the case, then your Bible has a contradiction.
In Acts is says very clearly to obey the laws of the land.
Esthier on April 14, 2008 at 3:09 PM
(Sorry to go off topic, but I am getting really excited about my wedding, it’s going to be beautiful.)
AprilOrit on April 14, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Well, I suppose the thing that one should say is “Mazel Tov!”
I went under the Chuppah myself, over 10 years ago, in an Orthodox ceremony with circling and all b’Ivrit, of course.
Our 8 year-old daughter goes to a Jewish Academy and is quite a Hebrew scholar.
My best man was an old geology buddy from UT/Austin - a Presbyterian-turned-Catholic - it was quite a thing for him to see, standing on the bima!
btw- have you ever read any of Anita Diamant’s books? She was just out here in West Texas for a Mikvah event.
Remember: the absolutely first “commandment” of the Torah in Genesis - “p’ru oor’v'oo” - tells us to (marry and) have kids!
TexasJew on April 14, 2008 at 3:10 PM
You’re joking, right?
Please tell me you’re joking.
The Ugly American on April 14, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Esthier,
There is no contradiction.
The apostles always taught obedience to the laws of the land, but just as consistently declared that the law of God must take precedence over the laws of man.
SaintOlaf on April 14, 2008 at 3:17 PM
And where in the Bible did God make it a law not to pay your taxes?
Esthier on April 14, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Fine but you’re hardly claiming that in common parlance a woman too old to have children would be referred to as a young woman, are you?
aengus on April 14, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Esthier on April 14, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Mark 12:17… the same passage you used to indicate that Jesus was saying we should pay taxes to Caesar..Jesus clearly outlines that nothing belongs to Caesar.
SaintOlaf on April 14, 2008 at 3:25 PM
There not so much of it anymore but about a year ago one commenter called the Pope a Communist. Some commenters called him a pagan. (Both JPII) Another commenter recently called Benedict a Nazi. The libel against Pius that he collaborated with the Nazis was posted by at least two different commenters on separate threads, also recently.
aengus on April 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Thank you!!
OMG, my all time favorite is The Red Tent, my mom and my sisters also. We have passed that book around, given it as a gift to family and friends, my mom had it as a featured book in her book club.
My bridesmaids are each wearing a different shade of pink, starting with the darkest shade on the Matron of Honor with each tone becoming progressively lighter on each of the other members of the wedding party, including the bridesmaids. The flower girls are the lightest, a very pale but creamy pink. Their dresses are very similar to what Grace Kelly’s flower girls wore, but long with solid skirts. In fact my wedding is a modern version of her style. Except for those head pieces.
My gown has the cumberbund and the work that went into her’s. My aunt had a very similar dress because she and my uncle were married at that time, so my designer had her’s available to inspect. But of course mine has been fashionably updated somewhat to fit into the now.
I better stop, people are going to get pissed, but I do love my Catholics.
AprilOrit on April 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Your logic there is illogical.
Just because everything belongs to God, it doesn’t mean that God is given everything. Christians should and do tithe, but that doesn’t mean they have to (literally) give all of their money to God. We’re allowed to keep some in order to pay for things.
We’re supposed to give it to God in the sense that we care more about what He wants with it than what we want with it, but that’s not the same as literally giving it all away to God.
You can give it to God will still giving it to the government.
And your comment completely ignores what Jesus did when He asked for the coin. What was the purpose of asking whose face was on the coin? Was He being cute?
And honestly by your logic, since everything belongs to God, then even your neighbor’s belongings are God’s. So by that logic, you’re doing God’s will when you jack someone’s things and give it to God even though the Bible forbids stealing.
But then, that’s another contradiction in your Bible, since by your logic only God can own something.
However, if you’ve found that people can own something, it must be possible for Caesar too to own something.
Esthier on April 14, 2008 at 3:56 PM
And you’re not going to…I think most people are hoping the Pope will launch another Crusade!
The Crusades were the only thing that prevented the muslims from conquering all of Europe and the whole world almost 1000 years ago.
Personally I think we should convert the muslims to Christianity,not kill them all.
It is very easy to expose islam as a false, satanic cult.
Once enough muslims convert to Christianity en masse, they won’t be able to stop it….sharia law in islamic countries will end!
SaintOlaf on April 14, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Catholic? my fanny.
Provincial’s more like it.
Randy
williars on April 14, 2008 at 4:03 PM
No joke, and during the Easter season at Notre Dame.
Father Jekins, Notre Dame president, argued that the performance of the feminist drama was similar to the classroom discussion of authors such as Nietzsche, Luther, Gibbon, and Joyce, whose works clash with Catholic teaching on various doctrinal issues.
What a bunch of dung. I shut down my contributions. I wonder if other alums have done the same.
sheesh on April 14, 2008 at 4:04 PM
I don’t agree with the rest of what you’re saying but I’ll give you this:
Sure you can give your money to the corrupt government so they can spend it on indoctrinating entire generations with their non scientific state religion of evolution/secular humanism and maybe some of your money will go to funding abortions and to schools that teach kids homosexuality is perfectly fine…but don’t ask me to pay for it.
There are plenty of legal ways to completely avoid paying taxes.
SaintOlaf on April 14, 2008 at 4:06 PM
You’d be surprised, Bill O’Reilly and many noteworthy Conservatives, who shall remain nameless here, have railed against that play.
Since when does the party of small government censor?
AprilOrit on April 14, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Since when is railing against something censorship?
Also…since when has Bill O been a conservative? Maybe you aren’t aware of the fact that he has become a leftist?
Also since when has the republican party been the party of small government? Maybe you’re thinking of the party that has never controlled the presidency or congress ever http://www.lp.org/
SaintOlaf on April 14, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Sure, but it’s cheaper just to pay your taxes.
For all the bad things this government has done, it also does some pretty great things. Without our taxes, forget about nice roads and don’t bother complaining about how soldiers are treated.
Esthier on April 14, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Though I wouldn’t go so far as to call Bill a Lefty, I completely agree on your two points. He isn’t a conservative and has never claimed to be one.
And yeah, arguing against something isn’t censorship. I saw the movie and was far from impressed.
I wouldn’t want the show stopped by the government (which would actually be censorship), but it shouldn’t be shown at public universities funded with government money.
Esthier on April 14, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Umm Isn’t Star Parker a former violent criminal who still gives speeches that sometimes advocate incarceration and restrictions against gays. Lately she has not done so as she is now acause celeb, however, I’m somewhat skeptical of “changed” people - especially when they are cashing in on it so well.
Also asking a Catholic institution to have a serial abortionist to speak is pushing the limits
EricPWJohnson on April 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM
I don’t know anything about her, but Wiki says she was arrested for shoplifting once. It says nothing about being violent.
It does say she had four abortions, but since she is speaking against abortion now it makes no sense that a Catholic university would have a problem with it. Are you saying Catholics only judge a person by past misdeeds?
Esthier on April 14, 2008 at 4:37 PM
I’ve noticed that Coulter is so toxic that she’s rarely on Hannity and Colmes or other Fox Shows anymore.
THE CHOSEN ONE on April 14, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Completing my first point: I was referring to this post. But since you bring it up, with the limited description you have provided, how were those previous comments anti-catholic or hateful?
Second Point: I wouldn’t go as far to say JPII was a pagan but he was a demonstrated Universalist. If I have to I’ll demonstrate it with links tonight.
The JPII years were a difficult time for me to witness to Roman Catholics because arguing against Rome’s doctrine was like nailing Jello to a wall.
Thankfully, Pope Benedict is a traditional Catholic and has demonstrated this consistently. Since he has been in charge, he has made many “anti-Protestant” (Please note sarcasm. I don’t really think they were anti-protestant. I’m just comparing the use of the prefix.) statements. For example, according to Benedict (and likewise Council of Trent), Protestant churches were not true churches. His statement didn’t get me mad. I knew that was Rome’s teaching for centuries. But JPII’s “seperated bretheren” talk was ambiguous.
shick on April 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM
As a rival to St. Thomas (who, by the way, simply changed their name from College of St. Thomas to University of St. Thomas just to appear bigger), we Johnnies salute this latest stupidity.
Keep it up, Tommies, and let us see your true colors.
MAC
macummings on April 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM
O’Reilly may be a Populist or a Traditionist, but he is hardly Left Wing.
What you are intimating is preposterous.
AprilOrit on April 14, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Looks like the pro-abortion attack dogs are on to this blog defending the indefensible. What a bunch of horse apples.
If a person can’t change for the good and talk about it, then the thinking of these leftist petards fits right into their own failed lifestyles and mental illness.
wepeople on April 14, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Careful, schtick, your white sheet is showing again.
corona on April 14, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Didn’t she sell it last summer?
AprilOrit on April 14, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Okay I thought you meant in general, not just this post. Hoe were they hateful? Smearing Catholics as being Nazis, Communists and pagans and shilling for them (indeed as actually being a Nazi in the case of the smears hurled at Benedict) is hateful because these are groups that killed hundreds of millions of people.
I agree that he erred to much on this universalist side. So you could say he was too liberal. What does univeralism have to do with paganism? Did JPII perform human sacrifices?
You’re a relativist. Yes we all know Catholic and Protestant dogma. Stating Catholic dogma is not “anti-Protestant” (nor is sola scriptura anti-Catholic) but smearing Protestants as Nazis, Communists and pagans would indeed be anti-Protestant.
Use all the sarcasm you want. If these same statements were applied to Jews and you sarcastically joked that some people consider them “anti-semitic” you’d find no takers here. Type it out and post it if you don’t believe me.
aengus on April 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM
I don’t even get worked up about insults like Romanists, Papists and fish-eaters which I myself use sarcastically.
Communist, Nazi, pagan and anti-Christ are insults which when applied to the Pope or Catholics in general are grievously shocking and out of line.
If you can’t comprehend why I consider “those previous comments anti-catholic or hateful” then you’re either a relativist or nuts.
aengus on April 14, 2008 at 6:42 PM
HA doesn’t provide linked archives so I have to go by my memory.
aengus on April 14, 2008 at 7:00 PM
All the pro-lifers mention how tough it is for the woman to have an abortion and the emotional problems it brings.
It’s funny that they never mention the emotional problems that a woman has when she gives up her baby for adoption.
jim m on April 14, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Pfffft…just some sell-out black woman. Her opinion doesn’t matter.
/Left thought process
SouthernGent on April 14, 2008 at 7:31 PM
The Battle of Vienna 1683 effectively ended Muslim expansion, roughly 600 years after the crusades. The crusades did nothing to halt the expansion of Islam. The Moors were not driven from Spain until 1492, 400+ years after the crusades.
jdkchem on April 14, 2008 at 9:49 PM
I was unaware the left was capable of any form of thought process.
jdkchem on April 14, 2008 at 9:51 PM
That wouldn’t even pass muster as a headline in The Onion. The Crusades over several centuries saved the Western world from “Islamists”. The resistance to the siege of Vienna was also instrumental in saving the West from “Islamists” but it was like the cherry on the cake of 900 years of resistance to “Islamists”.
BTW, just so no one is offended I’d like to stress that the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was not a typical Muslim–he was an “Islamist” who distorted the teachings of Islam for extremist purposes. He is in no way indicative of the majority of Muslims who are peaceful and tolerant.
aengus on April 14, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Does it harm the baby?
Johan Klaus on April 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM
jim m on April 14, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Which is worse on tha baby?
Johan Klaus on April 14, 2008 at 10:16 PM
That was sarcasm, right?
Connie on April 14, 2008 at 11:30 PM
The debate about what we owe Caesar, and what we owe God has many dimensions, but the question of whether to pay taxes has been answered.
The real genius of the answer Jesus gave is that he shut down their attempt to draw Him into political issues, and left them scratching their heads and trying to figure out exactly what belonged to Caesar, and what belonged to God.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 15, 2008 at 2:22 AM
Of course!!!
I am studying the First, or Great, Crusade at the moment and jdkchem’s statement bothered me. I was tired and I somehow conflated it in my mind with the whole “Islamist” euphemism which REALLY bothers me because its so dishonest. My reference to The Onion was supposed to indicate my sarcasm.
Sorry for the confusion.
aengus on April 15, 2008 at 4:47 AM
White sheet as in a KKK robe? Thanks for the demonstration of insuating I am a racist rather than answering my objections. Classy.
I don’t know what a schtick is. If that was meant as an insult. I appreciate that as well.
Someone was complaining about one liners. Look at this one. Geesh.
shick on April 15, 2008 at 7:40 AM
Oh come on, the Catholic universities here in MN are anything but. I would have been suprised if they allowed her to speak.
Grafted on April 15, 2008 at 7:56 AM
Yeah, I’ve always thought the “I love my baby too much to give it away, so I’ll kill it instead” argument made a lot of sense. /sarcasm
Quisp on April 15, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Yeah, I had that discussion with a friend once. She was saying that it would bother her to have this piece of her somewhere in the world without her knowing anything about it.
But this was after she’d already had the abortion and the first time I learned she’d even been pregnant, so I saw no reason to argue with her.
jim m, no one is arguing that it’s easy to give your baby up for adoption. No one’s even arguing that it’s ever easy to give away your child, even at a wedding. It’s a tough thing to do, but it’s what you do if you love someone else more than yourself.
Esthier on April 15, 2008 at 10:00 AM
I fear that they may have accurately represented history and folks like yourself didn’t like it and called them smearers and haters.
It is not difficult to paint an accurate picture of Rome’s history and have someone call it a smeared because the content is ugly. For example, crusaders (I’m curious to know where you are learning about the crusdades from), soldiers slaughtered thousands of families in the name of Christ. Exposing this truth in history is a smear? Interesting. Exposing treachery, lies and plotting is a smear? And I guess all those molestation victims are hateful too. Oh, wait I must be hateful because I’m bringing them up. It’s not hate, it’s called righteous indignation.
I wasn’t linking universalism with paganism. You mentioned paganism and my purpose was to show he wasn’t that bad but rather bad enough being a Universalist. You simply blow it off with. “Ah, he was just liberal.” There is a significant diffence between a liberal and a universalist.
At least you recognize his universalist side. It’s interesting that a divinely appointed successor of Peter was a universalist.
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. - John 14:6
Do you know what a relativist is? I do. Please look up the definition and show how that definition fits with my statements.
I’m sorry, I know of no Protestant dogma. If you can find some please bring it to my attention. It might help if you used Rome’s definition of dogma first.
You’re start to get my point but then get confused. If Protestants purposefully went around trying to eliminate Jews or said they were the bane of society then those Protestants would be anti-Semitic or Nazi.
But to say that Protestants have ties with communism, nazism and paganism is not hateful.
The confusion lies in your definition of hate. First of all, there are perfectly acceptable things for us to hate like pedophilia, rape, lies, murder, swearing, perversions, falsly proclaiming the Lord’s name. I can also hate wicked beliefs, doctrine, behavior or philosophy without it being wrong.
God has told us that we should not hate those who were made in His image = people.
Red herring. I wouldn’t make that joke because it doesn’t follow with my argument.
shick on April 15, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Ahem. It probably was never your faith to begin with. It takes a strong person to be Catholic.
Politics and religion are very closely related. Both deal with systems of ethics, one for masses of people, and the other for both individuals and the community. What you do as an individual when you join a mass of people is where politics and the church cross swords, and where the church has a right to speak.
Liberals believe that the mass of people have the right to take away the property of individuals (to steal, as it were), while conservatives feel that it is the right of individuals to hold and keep their property, and to do with it as they please (including giving it away). Which position do the Ten Commandments support? Now, even things given away are taxed, including when given to the least rich of our bretheren (look at how the government deals with tips, for a prime example).
unclesmrgol on April 15, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Ok, shick,
Why did the Chief Rabbi of Rome become a Catholic after the war? What did he claim the Church did on behalf of his people?
What did Golda Meir and Albert Einstein both say about the Church?
What was the manner of Edith Stein’s death? Why was she killed?
What would have been the legally mandated punishment for Benedict’s publicly anti-Nazi family had they failed to enroll Benedict in the Hitler Youth upon his 14th birthday?
It’s interesting that revisionism can rear its ugly head in the face of incontrovertable proof. You are lying, using the Lord as cover.
unclesmrgol on April 15, 2008 at 11:52 AM
No they didn’t. You’re arguing on behalf of people who took part in discussions you haven’t read. I called them smearers because what they said was not true but intended to demonise Catholics.
I’m well aware of all the ugly stuff in the Catholic Church’s history. I only object to made up stuff being used as examples.
I’m well aware of that.
I didn’t say that. I took issue with the statement “The crusades did nothing to halt the expansion of Islam.”
No. A smear is a smear. I never mentioned the molestation scandals because the victims are telling the truth.
You’re trying twist what I said to mean that anything said that casts the Catholic Church is a bad light, whether true or untrue, is an anti-Catholic statement.
I clearly identified irrational insults, smears and untruths. Libel in other words.
But then again you “fear that they may have accurately represented history and folks like yourself didn’t like it and called them smearers and haters.”
You just assume for the sake of your argument that I’m lying based on no evidence.
I’m not arguing what you say I’m arguing. If specific false allegations are labelled against a group, that they helped murder millions of people, and used an example of how evil this group is then that is a smear. Only an unhinged or bigoted person would go around repeating lies of this kind.
I don’t disagree.
aengus on April 15, 2008 at 11:54 AM
and used as an example of how evil this group is then that is a smear
/correction
aengus on April 15, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Once you see the white sheet, asking questions is futile.
corona on April 15, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Without a quote it is hard to both defend or attack what was said. I think we agree on that. You are right to say that I shouldn’t asume you are lying based on no evidence. I didn’t. That why I said that I fear that they may have accurately represented history. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt. I was very careful in my selection of words.
But please see where I am coming from. I mentioned my fear because I have seen it done many times. My own parents label well known Protestants as anti-Catholic but refuse to call me one while I agree completely with Protestant arguments. Its a double standard I was trying to show.
Good. As do I.
I wasn’t trying to twist your words. Honestly speaking, from my experience that’s where it was going.
I didn’t mean to convey you were lying but instead quick to acuse someone of being anti-catholic. But after your last comment I can see that you were not. I apologize for not being clear enough and for asuming a great deal based on my experiences.
Corona, however, is demonstrating my very point.
shick on April 15, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Aengus,
I intended on bolding the “fear that they may have” in my last post. But I did it wrong.
I appreciate your level headedness with me on this. I truly did not intend to imply you were lying.
I’m glad I understand your position better.
shick on April 15, 2008 at 3:50 PM
corona,
I must admit. I was slow to consider that you may be a troll. I’ll stop biting now.
shick on April 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM
The only revisionism here belongs to you. I never said anything about post WWII.
shick on April 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Fortunately, schtick I already had a rabies shot, so am not afraid of you and the other bigoted hounds.
corona on April 15, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]