Will President Obama Turn Notre Dame Students Against The Church?
If not, why all the protests about Obama’s upcoming graduation speech? At least six demonstrations are planned by anti-abortion activists. Graduating students will be entering a world where they will confront all kinds of views, and they’re probably strong enough to withstand them. Should every view of every potential speaker be examined to make sure it conforms to church doctrine?
NotreDameScandal.com has registered 362,608 online signatures on a petition calling for the school’s president, the Rev. John I. Jenkins, to withdraw the invitation for Obama to speak.
“Notre Dame has chosen prestige over principles, popularity over morality. Whatever may be President Obama’s admirable qualities, this honor comes on the heels of some of the most anti-life actions of any American president, including expanding federal funding for abortions and inviting taxpayer-funded research on stem cells from human embryos,” the petition states.
How about the pro-life positions of getting combat troops out of Iraq, of working toward national health care, of ending policies of torture? And why have they never objected when politicians were honored who favored the death penalty?
In a new Quinnipiac University survey, 60 percent of Catholic voters said they would oppose a decision by Notre Dame to rescind its invitation for Obama to speak; 34 percent said they would support such a move.
Barack Obama seems to be singled out for protest. Among those who not only spoke at Notre Dame, but also received honorary degrees, are President Jimmy Carter in 1977, who supported legal abortion, and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2000, even though he was accused of promoting abortion as a means of “population control.”
It seems pretty clear as to why these folks might not want BO on their campus. Why should they have to endure a pro-abortion speaker if they are anti-abortion? I would think they’d reject an atheist speaker for the same set of principles.
OldLefty Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Is Bill O’Reilly coming too?
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
And that would be a sad day for Notre Dame, when discussion, debate, or positive interaction is shut down in favor of a wedge issue that will never be resolved.
The Catholic Church also holds a dim view on divorce and birth control. Perhaps future speakers should be weeded out accordingly.
Better yet, maybe it should follow evangelist and fundamentalist examples, and only have Catholics (who disfavor the death penalty, don’t use birth control, are anti-choice and never been divorced) speak at their graduation ceremonies.
I’m getting really tired of an anti-abortion faction in this country that boils down a person’s worth as to whether they’re anti-choice or pro-choice.
OldLefty Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
In 2004:
MANY FSU students were unhappy with Dick Cheney.
Many anti war students at BYU protested Cheney
In 2007:
Students at Cheney University refused to go to their graduation because Santorum was the speaker.
So what?
Kregg Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I’m sure you’re not going to please all of the people all of the time but I’d think graduation exercises are NOT the appropriate forums to invite controversial speakers.
Kregg Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Sarah said: And that would be a sad day for Notre Dame, when discussion, debate, or positive interaction is shut down in favor of a wedge issue that will never be resolved.
K: Why should graduates have to use their celebration day to listen to a ‘wedge issue’ kind of speaker? Do you advocate that racists be allowed to speak at graduations for black colleges? Would you advocate an atheist speaking at a christian college graduation? Would you advocate a rapist speaking at a girl’s school? The fact is that apparently a large number of people feel strongly about inviting a pro-abortionist to speak at a pro-life college campus.
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
He’s not pro-abortion. He’s pro-choice. Hardly anyone is pro-abortion, which is an insulting mischaracterization.
As to your other questions, I can’t think of any publicly-acknowledged, high-profile, or inspiring racists or rapists who might be invited to speak at a college graduation, but I find it of extreme interest that you categorize them with atheists.
Perhaps they could concentrate on the fact that THEY are a Christian school, and Obama is a Christian as well. Perhaps they could concentrate on the fact that he believes strongly in the importance of education, the unity of our country, and in the very Catholic tenet of loving one’s fellow man and doing good works.
Not to mention “loving the sinner, hating the sin.”
Kregg Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Sarah said: He’s not pro-abortion. He’s pro-choice. Hardly anyone is pro-abortion, which is an insulting mischaracterization.
K: He most certainly is. On the campaign trail he specifically said he wouldn’t want his daughter to ’suffer for a mistake’. He’s pro-abortion. And, I think you are disingenuous when making the ‘hardly anyone is pro-abortion’ because you KNOW what is comprehended by the term. Being ‘pro-choice’ is being ‘pro-abortion’ because one must support the concept of killing fetuses in the womb to be ‘pro-choice’.
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Kregg, please refer to my post above, to Daddio.
Just as anyone is rarely “pro-war,” most people are not “pro-abortion.”
It would be the same as saying that YOU are “pro-conception by rape or incest,” or “pro-death” because you support war and capital punishment.
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Oops! I mean, please refer to my post to Daddio, BELOW.
Daddio Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
You mean pro-life or pro-abortion, right Sarah.
OldLefty Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I think YOU mean pro-choice or anti-choice.
I seems that a lot of people (particularly men), hate women making the choice to have an abortion, while the they love to support the Chinese government who take away the choice of women who DON”T want abortion.
It seems like a lot of men just like cheap crap from China, and American poor women barefoot and pregnant,(because rich women will ALWAYS have a choice).
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I think, Daddio, that “pro-life” is an inaccurate appelation for the majority of anti-abortion rights subscribers.
Many, if not most, abortion opponents support capital punishment, American involvement in wars, or even instances of euthanasia. In fact, many abortion opponents would SUPPORT (albeit reluctantly) abortion in cases of incest or rape.
average james Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Sarah,
I agree. Pro-life is what I consider myself. I am against the taking of human life, be it in a war, in a clinic, or in a prison.
Anti-abortion seems more accurate a description of those who advocate war and the death penalty while decrying abortion.
Daddio Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Well, pro-abortiion people usually hold candle light vigils for murderers who are about to be put to death. And pro-abortionist usually protest wars because people will die. And pro-abortionist usually support euthanasia.
Then after protesting war or the death penalty they will go and support the murder/abortion of a totally innocent, totally defenseless little unborn baby. I JUST DON’T GET IT.
Daddio Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
James,
I don’t advocate war or the death penalty, but as I have said in the past, wars are sometimes a necessary action against those who do evil against the innocents or those who attack one’s country.
And I am pro-life.
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Average James, that’s what I admire about you. We do disagree on the abortion issue, but you really are consistent in your pro-life stance. For that, you have my deepest respect. You and the Rev. Larry Rice in St. Louis are the only ones I know of who think this way. Although I do know of a guy who is anti-abortion and has adopted quite a few kids, which constitutes (in my opinion) putting his money where his mouth is.
Daddio, for the same reason the pro-CHOICERS you cite protest war, capital punishment, and sustaining life artificially, they are not necessarily pro-abortion.
But thinking that way might justify marginalizing them to suit your own purposes.
All the Republican women with whom I’ve chatted about this issue (and there have been plenty) have at least supported choice when it comes to rape and incest.
As another put it, however, “I’m not for abortion, I think it’s sad. But if a woman has several of them for birth control, then eventually it will destroy her chances to have children at all. And that’s probably a good thing.”
If all the men who wanted to make abortion illegal again, would instead start their own Million-Man March to increase awareness among boys about how NOT to get women pregnant, then abortions might actually become a moot point.
OldLefty Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I don’t discuss the ACTUAL issue of abortion with men, because it’s not their issue, and I become more and more cov1nced that it is nothing but contempt for women, but many of those who hold candle light vigils for murderers who are about to be put to death, (many who turn out to be innocent), and protest war, are ALSO opposed to stem cell research and abortion, like Pope JP11.
Until those who are so anti choice for women, are as concerned for the lives of the born, even to care as much about our infant mortality rate being higher than Cuba’s, or the forced abortion in China, while scooping up that cheap, I’m unconv1nced of any concern for “life” other when it involves controlling women.
And sometimes an abortion is necessary.
Kregg Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Sarah said; If all the men who wanted to make abortion illegal again, would instead start their own Million-Man March to increase awareness among boys about how NOT to get women pregnant, then abortions might actually become a moot point.
K: Sarah, they could start by not allowing their boys to attend high school proms that sponsor mating-dance types of entertainment. ;-)
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Kregg the Stanky Legg: “Sarah, they could start by not allowing their boys to attend high school proms that sponsor mating-dance types of entertainment. ;-)”
Shoot! As if boys even danced. Please! :)
On second thought, maybe dancing in the gym should be encouraged, rather than dancing in the sheets.
On THIRD thought, the dirty-dancing these days is practically like HAVING sex on the dance floor!
Running Man, Twist, Alligator and Cabbage Patch, whither thou goest?
EricG Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Daddio – “pro-abortiion people usually hold candle light vigils for murderers who are about to be put to death. And pro-abortionist usually protest wars because people will die. And pro-abortionist usually support euthanasia.”
Nobody is pro-abortion. Obama and I are pro-choice.
Basically your a fascist. You want to dictate what a woman can and can’t do with her body based on your arcane reading of scripture.
It is a lie told by people far from the grace of God that Obama is a murderer or that anyone is supporting death in any form.
There is no such thing as pro-life because we are all pro-life. There is anti-choice and pro-choice.
Or Americans and Fascists, if you prefer.
Daddio Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I don’t want to tell any woman what to do. I just think the unborn, defenseless infant needs a voice. Who speaks for the defenseless infant?
You want to dictate which infant baby dies and which infant lives. You are dictating what that infant can do with it’s body, kill it or let it live.
If a woman doesn’t want a baby then they shouldn’t put themselves in the position to get pregnant. What is so hard to understand about that?
average james Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Sarah,
I am with you 100% on male responsibility in this whole issue. If we fathers took more seriously and less selfishly our role in the sexuality/reproductive education of our sons, it could change so much in our culture. Good role models are few.
Lefty,
I am very reluctant to spew my beliefs onto others, especially females, concerning abortion. One reason(probably my foremost reason) is, I have no idea what being a woman is like. I have no idea what carrying a child is like. I have no idea what the birthing experience is for a woman. I have never walked in your shoes. I (try to always) respect women. I cannot see things from a female perspective.
OldLefty Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
“. I just think the unborn, defenseless infant needs a voice. Who speaks for the defenseless infant?”
More than those who speak for defenseless child who picks up a bomblet left by a cluster bomb, or who sees their mother blown to bits while they die in the rubble of bombing, or the baby whose mother unknowingly has rocket fuel found in her breast milk, unbeknownst to her, (found in 18 states).
Who will speak for the 13 year old impregnated by her abusive dad, or the abused woman who has to get out and can NOT tied to him, through pregnancy, or the 20 year African who was forced into marriage and has seen 2 of her 6 children die, and is already ill herself?
Remember, not all women “put themselves in the position to get pregnant.”
You own conservative woman, Phyllis Schlafly said, “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape,”
So according to you guys, men should have NO responsibility, while should have no choice??
There are probably 80% more reasons than your promiscuous woman, which lends more evidence to the theory that it really is about passing judgment on women, than concern for embryos or the fetus.
average james Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Lefty,
I see your point.
OldLefty Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
“in the womb…smiling, hiccuping, fingers wiggling, toes wiggling, kicking, burping, pooping, eating…”
That is rarely if ever a stage where abortion happens…I know of no one in the medical field who confirms that that ever happens,, only 18 %.
Abortions after that 2 months are rare…..but the ones who should decide are not women and doctors, but a bunch of holier than thou men, and the government,
As for Tiller, Kansas law allows abortions after a fetus can survive outside the womb only if two independent doctors agree that it is necessary to save a women’s life or prevent “substantial and irreversible” harm to “a major bodily function,”, the rest is spin.
As for BUSINESS, it’s called war profiteering, the Marshall plan was designed to prevent it. Anyone who claims to hold life sacred should find it appalling.
Ask Gen Smedley Butler.
Again it seems like…Love the fetus, Hate the child.
If you guys cared half as much about the suffering of the born, as you do about what is part of someone else’s body , or didn’t throw in with those who also don’t believe in contraception., :
‘Tony Perkins, President of the formerly anti-abortion Family Research Council, admitted to the Associated Press that the organization’s previously stated mission of saving the “unborn” had been ceded to other priorities. Perkins, who opposes preventing abortion through contraception, says, “The issue is whether taxpayers should fund, and thereby encourage, behavior that’s risky and morally questionable,” by which Perkins means having sex’.
I might think this was about more than sanctimonious busybodies knowing what’s best for what one poster called “the host”.
Kregg Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Sarah said: Shoot! As if boys even danced. Please! :)
K: This is true. However, I’m guessing they are simply distracted by staring down girl’s blouses…
S: On second thought, maybe dancing in the gym should be encouraged, rather than dancing in the sheets.
K: I think dancing in the gym encourages dancing in the sheets – or the back seat of the car…
S: On THIRD thought, the dirty-dancing these days is practically like HAVING sex on the dance floor!
K: And, this is exactly why we should applaud that school who reached a common sense agreement not to antagonize teenage hormones by holding – or permitting their students – dances that emulate having sex on the dance floor.
Running Man, Twist, Alligator and Cabbage Patch, whither thou goest?
EricG Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Daddio – “You want to dictate which infant baby dies and which infant lives. You are dictating what that infant can do with it’s body, kill it or let it live.”
Not true. The dictation of rights is the desire of the so-called “pro-life” movement that wants to create a country where the Bible is law.
Women have the right to be educated on what abortion is and how to avoid it. Women have the right to not have their rapists baby.
This gets ugly before it gets clean.
Someone like myself is no fan of end the life of a zygote. What you call abortion or “murder.”
But I also know the people personally who face these decisions.
How many of their children can I wrote you down for taking? Two? Three? That would be the real “pro-life” position.
The woman must ‘dictate’ what will happen with this fetus (you said infant, that is incorrect) because they are linked in organ functioning. She and the fetus are one being, at least legally speaking.
We want the woman to be the all-powerful factor in this situation. Not the state.
And frankly I find the whole anti-choice movement to be nothing but an excuse to spread fundamental religion and degrade the poor and / or disabled women.
No “pro-lifers” ever take homeless into their homes, none of them ever counsel young women. They don’t do anything but spit on people who go into Planned Parenthood. I sit in those rooms and offer support. I give advise to young women and try to avoid the whole situation before it comes to past.
Notre Damne is shameful and ungodly in this move.
Alan Keyes is shameful and ungodly in this action he took.
Barack Obama is right in his belief that there musty be freedom of choice and not fascism of state.
Kregg Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Lefty said: So according to you guys, men should have NO responsibility, while should have no choice??
K: What an encompassing global statement. Just who ARE the miscreants that you know who think like this?
EricG Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Kregg – “Why should they have to endure a pro-abortion speaker if they are anti-abortion? I would think they’d reject an atheist speaker for the same set of principles.”
Do you live in America? Or do you live in Russia?
Because it sounds like you live in Russia.
Why should anyone have to ‘endure’ the opinions of others … hm … maybe because we are free?
Maybe?
Or do you stand with a country where the voices of the people are silenced and replaced with the state-motto?
I shouldn’t have to ‘endure’ the liberal-bashing on FOX Network. I’m going to ban all conseravtives from ever speaking, ever again.
Notre Dame is being un-American and un-Christian.
And so is anyone who supports this.
Bernie-in-Michigan Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Lefty, your reasons for condoning the murder of innocent human life seem well thought out. Perhaps they help you sleep better at nite, at least I hope so.
However murder of innocent life remains murder regardless of the motive.
We Americans are an odd lot. On the one hand as a society we tolerate abortion. On the other hand, I assume, we are all content with the fact our mothers didn’t have one while preagent with us.
average james Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Bernie,
We americans are an odd lot indeed. Viva freedom !
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Bernie, how many of the innocent have you adopted because the mother couldn’t take care of them by herself? Would you let the mothers visit the children you’ve adopted?
Or does your conscience stop worrying about the “innocent human life” once it’s born?
OldLefty Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Bernie-in-Michigan,
Many people don’t consider it “life” until it is viable outside the womb, 80% of abortions are done in the first trimester, when most people would not even notice a miscarriage.
Later abortions are rarer and what they call late term are done for the life of the mother, and no one has the right to pass moral judgement on others.
In ancient Jewish law,
An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person (Heb. nefesh lit. “soul”) until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition (childbirth). In fact, until forty days after conception, the fertilized egg is considered as “mere fluid.” These facts form the basis for the Jewish legal view on abortion. Biblical, talmudic, and rabbinic support for these statements will now be presented.
On the other hand, perhaps calling the civilian deaths in Iraq, while private contractors made money, “Collateral Damage” helped the pro war crowd sleep better.
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Old Lefty, men would be clamoring for abortions if THEY got pregnant.
Here’s a list of religious groups that are either pro-choice or are relatively silent on the matter.
Pro-choice groups:
American Baptist Churches-USA (see below),
American Ethical Union,
American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee,
American Jewish Committee,
American Jewish Congress,
Central Conference of American Rabbis,
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),
Council of Jewish Federations,
Episcopal Church (USA),
Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot,
Moravian Church in America-Northern Province,
Na’Amat USA,
National Council of Jewish Women,
Presbyterian Church (USA),
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
Unitarian Universalist Association,
United Church of Christ,
United Methodist Church,
United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism.
Religious groups other than denominations: Catholics for Free Choice,
Episcopal Women’s Caucus,
Evangelicals for Choice,
Jewish Women International,
Lutheran Women’s Caucus,
North American Federation of Temple Youth,
Unitarian Universalist Women’s Federation,
Women of Reform Judaism,
Women’s American ORT,
Women’s Caucus Church of the Brethren,
Women’s League for Conservative Judaism.
Secular organizations: A number of secular organizations promote the right of women to have free access to abortions. These include: American Humanist Association
NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation™
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
YWCA
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
OLD LEFTY,
I keep hearing this same old argument: Life begins once outside the womb…but nobody wants to address the obvious humanistic characteristics of the fetus while in the womb…smiling, hiccuping, fingers wiggling, toes wiggling, kicking, burping, pooping, eating…
And you’re right…MOST late term abortions are done for the mother’s safety…shhh…don’t let Tiller know…however, there are some done purely for convenience of the mother’s social life.
ah…jeez…here we go again with the “deaths in Iraq” argument…although the difference between the two being fairly obvious…
And I really wish you’d get off your “while private contractors made money” kick. They are a BUSINESS. and BUSINESSES go into BUSINESS to make money. That’s what BUSINESSES do. Or can’t you grasp the concept?
Daddio Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Because “Many people don’t consider it ‘life’ until it is viable outside the womb,…” doesn’t make it the right thing to do.
How can it not be considered a life. It is a living, growing human being Lefty. I cannot understand your thinking on this. The life inside the womb has it’s mothers and fathers genes and is growing.
Lee Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Abortion is a tricky issue for me. I’ve long been pro-choice in a kind of passive way but I also believe in the right to life and get troubled over how/when to draw the line here.
It’s probably true that a lot more men are the advocates for banning abortion but my guess there is thats more to the prevalance of religious patriarchs versus matriarchs as opposed to some general masculine trait of ‘wanting to control women’. I do resent a bit the generalizations of ‘you men’ being used in some of the comments here as I know that in my case at least, I have no ulterior motive to ‘control women’ etc..
I remain pro-choice because I feel thats the appropriate position to take when in doubt. I know women are entitled to the right to control their own bodies and I’m not sure what rights a foetus should have if any, therefore pro-choice seems logical.
EricG Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
“However murder of innocent life remains murder regardless of the motive”
Abortion is not murder. No matter how hard you try to redefine everything to fit your political agenda the truth remains.
The fetus or zygote is not a person, yet. They are alive and should be protected. But taking the rights of women away is not the way to protect the unborn. It will only hurt and even possibly kill women. Thus killing the zygote or fetus you sought to protect.
In my belief the fetus and zygote are so close to God that they can be worried about in the aftermath of taking care of the homeless, poor and crippled. But that’s Jesus’ message.
I’ve noticed many years back that Jesus is not involved in the “pro-life” movement. Not even slightly.
Murder is when a person takes the life of another away from them. A zygote or fetus doesn’t have a life yet to take away. Unless you call floating in a mush and being half-conscious a life. Even still, they go straight to God … no waiting.
So the urge to call abortion “murder” is just founded in hate and ignorance. This whole matter seems like nothing but an excuse to divide us and push us all further apart from one another.
EricG Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
“On the other hand, I assume, we are all content with the fact our mothers didn’t have one while pregnant with us.”
Oh I don’t know. You don’t know my life story and the way I view the life and death cycle.
Being born to a different body in a different time would suit me just fine.
This irrational fear of death makes no sense.
The idea that a person is locked into this flesh and has only one chance to exist is part of why so many think abortion is terrible.
Well, allow me to burst that bubble.
You get recycled. We all get recycled. So just relax. If you die today your going to be fine tomorrow and the same is true for the unborn.
I don’t want to be morbid but death is really not so bad. What is not okay is working toward causing more death than the world makes on it’s own. And frankly that’s what “pro-life” boils down to. these women are having abortions and they are having them in Mexico if not America.
All we can do is try to provide situations where they can avoid the pregnancy and be informed about their decisions in the matter should they get pregnant.
That’s life. That’s how you save lives. Counsel young women and take in the lost children of the world to your home.
trees are people too Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
If death is no big deal, and you claim that it isn’t…….
Then this next point is, well, rather pointless…..
Wow….that was so deeply profound…..
I’m curious….just how much pot do you smoke in a day???
May 15th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Let’s pass a reg prohibiting any government employee from setting foot on Notre Dame property, and then let’s declare the trustees of the university “enemy combatants” and ship them off to prison.
Hey, we don’t need no friggin’ warrants. This is America. And George Bush showed us the way.
In fact, let’s declare the RNC “enemy combatants,” and Rush Limbaugh too!
EricG Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
You know… it sounds crazy … but I’m getting there, rocky.
These so-called political enemies of mine are going past the line of sanity and crossing into fascism and tyranny and I see no reason to tolerate it in a free nation.
Perhaps we do need to declare the partisan few of the media ‘enemy combatants’ … give them something to think about next time they spread fear and hate.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Oh and hey, IRS! Time to audit Notre Dame.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Why not pick a popular president to protest against so that you get the most publicity for your little cause? Sure, why not. You will notice that the institution has the wisdom not to vary from offering the invitation. You’ll notice that the president has not said anything about the whole contrived uproar? It is simply another example of the radical right attempting to find something that might gain traction against the prsident…unfortunately for them, over 60% of catholics polled don’t give a damn about the protests.
average james Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Mr. Blair,
I do believe you’ve hit upon something. The right is trolling for something that will stick to Obama. Anything will do, it seems, as long as the perception can be painted as negative.
Lily Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Let’s just hope Obama remains faithful to his wife throughout his term.
average james Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Good one Lily.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
In the radical right’s defense, they have had to endure several years of Bush bashing, so let them have their moment :)
TDro319 Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Yes, but we gave Bush at least 2 years to prove himself. I personally didn’t vote for Bush, but I figured he’s in office now, let’s see what he can do. The right jumped on Obama the minute he was elected.
average james Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
They jumped on him before he even took office.
Miska, I agree, fair is fair.
They do seem soooo desperate though, it is sad….and funny at the same time.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 19th, 2009 at 12:39 am
TDRO,
es, but we gave Bush at least 2 years to prove himself.
Wrong…again…
I seem to remember the whole “he wasn’t elected…he was appointed!” drivel that came out of the left-wing constantly…
Nah…you sure didn’t give Bush 2 years to prove himself…
May 15th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Look, is this really something to have a contoversy over alan, really?!!!! You want to know what the big deal is about a pro-abortionist speaking at a university sanctioned by a church. I bet you would be mad if a person who was all for creationism wanted to speak at a charles darwin conference. Or why doesn’t the KKK speak at the nearest predominately black church. Why doesn’t a skin head go speak at a jewish gathering about what he thinks. Why don’t those things happen? Because either liberals would have a problem with it, or it would be absolutely absurd. But now that some young people may be corrupted by the left wing conspiracy, the left of course wants to know why “oh my God, what could possibly be the problem?” I am so sick and tired and fed up with the left’s crap, give me a break. Look around and get real, in case you haven’t noticed people are fed up with your crap!
Daddio Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
The left had a cow when Bush spoke at Bob Jones University in 2000.
average james Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Daddio,
I do remember some flack about BJU with Bush. Bob Jones is ….yuck.
The right can have a cow if they like. It’s still trolling.
Daddio Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Bob Jones may be “yuck” but should that forbid any president from speaking there?
average james Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Nah,
Just be ready for the flack to follow.
I doubt that BJU would have anything to do with any left leaning ….anybody, to appear or address at any function of theirs. That is their right, so be it.
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Uh, BJU forbid interracial dating when Bush made his speech. And didn’t drop it until way after everyone had a cow about it.
And didn’t apologize for forbidding interracial dating until 2008.
Daddio Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Notre Dame forbids abortion. So Obama shouldn’t speak there according to your logic.
That should not have forbade Bush from speaking there Sarah. Just as Notre Dame’s position on abortion should not forbid Obama from speaking there.
OldLefty Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Notre Dame can not forbid abortion, they can only advise against it.
Daddio Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
You know what I mean.
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Abortion is legal. Discrimination on the basis of skin color is illegal.
Bush would have been wise to avoid speaking at a university which required its students to “stick to their own kind.”
The good thing is, BJU dropped that antiquated policy shortly after the “left” (uh, and centrists) created a ruckus. They apologized 8 years later for even having the rule in the first place.
Lily Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I am so sick and tired and fed up with the left’s crap, give me a break. Look around and get real, in case you haven’t noticed people are fed up with your crap!
Posted by xavier1227
——————————
Obviously you’re not, or else you wouldn’t be here.
And out of curiosity, what is the “left wing conspiracy?”
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Jesus, calm down, Xavier.
EricG Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Xavier, you are dead wrong.
You should look around and realize that most the people you see in a day support Roe v. Wade being legal even if they tell you the opposite. It’s because not everyone is brainwashed into thinking that taking away freedom is the way to solve a problem.
Religion is dividing this issue even further. Shame on the church for failing to outreach and same on all church-goers who tolerate this injustice against young women the poor. There is no excuse for this kind of hypocrisy.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
When I attended my daughters graduation from college in 2001 they had a left wing speaker.
Now Bush had only been in office for three and a half months by then but this speaker blamed Bush for the sluggish economy and blamed Bush for global warming. Of course in later years Bush was blamed for Katrina.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Notre Dame is wrong. This is not acceptable behavior and should be challenged by those who truly love the message of Christ.
Obama is singled out and lied about in regards to being pro-choice because many religious persons do not want to address reality and refuse to hear logic.
It is a scandal that this is taking place in a supposed ‘free’ country.
Once again, religion is the dividing force causing hate and segregation bewteen us and not love and not peace.
Daddio Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
See my post above Eric? I said Notre Dame’s position on abortion should not forbid Obama from speaking there if Notre Dame invites him.
You cannot clump religion and Christians together. Many bad people claimed to be religious.
What logic are you talking about Eric?
Lily Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Although you can clump religious fundamentalists together.
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“Many bad people claimed to be religious.”
And even more “bad” people claim to be Christians.
EricG Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Daddio – “What logic are you talking about Eric?”
Be happy to explain. It is rather simple.
There is a need to counsel the people who do not have medical problems causing their unwanted pregnancies so that they will be able to make better decisions and hopefully not get pregnant before they want to be, thus eliminating many abortions.
Also the fact that we live in a society where a child can be adopted easily and readily is another lack of logic in the conservative argument against abortion being legal. It is illogical to demean those who have abortions or support them legally while denying the many homeless children of the world access to your home.
The last leg of failed logic is that our Constitution and our entire system is built on no state-approved religion and nothing less than this could possibly change the laws to reflect the anti-choice movements desires. Legislating from the Bible and claiming to love American Freedom is illogical.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
And why have they never objected when politicians were honored who favored the death penalty?
Yet another startling line from you, Alan (cynicism implied). If you need me to explain the difference between abortion and the death penalty…just let me know.
michael Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Doesn’t matter Jared. The Catholic Church is (supposedly, anyway) just a strongly against the death penalty as it is against abortion. The Church is also strongly against the Iraq War. John Paul II called it a “defeat for humanity.” The point is that I, and Alan, seriously doubt that the right would be in such an uproar had Notre Dame invited someone who was against abortion but support the death penalty, war, et al.
Now, we can certainly have a debate about the death penalty, but that doesn’t change the fact that the right is being hypocritical.
infidel Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:54 am
No Jared, it does matter. You cannot put an innocent baby in the same basket as someone that commits a crime deserving of the death penalty. An innocent baby is NOT the same as fighting in a war where the objective is to kill or be kill. I would think if a person defends someone facing the death penalty, that has been proven guilty in a court of law, they would support the most pure & innocent thing we have in this world. But, as we all know……the pro-abortion side doesn’t. Jared, where is the hypocrisy truly at?
average james Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Hey there Infidel,
“Jared, where is the hypocrisy truly at?”—-Never use a preposition to end a sentence with.
Hehehehe
infidel Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 3:26 am
average,
Try to defend your hypocrisy instead of trying to give english lessons.
average james Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Just a little fun infidel, that’s all.
You could pick any number of my posts and correct me sometime. I can laugh at myself.
EricG Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Alan’s point was valid.
Show me the speaker silenced from Notre Dame for being pro-war (that’s you if I remember correctly Jared) or pro-death penalty. Never happened.
Because Notre Dame is not standing with the message of tolerance and love but rather the message of of fear and retribution.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 18th, 2009 at 4:59 am
little ERIC,
you DO NOT remember correctly. No one I know is pro-war…
May 15th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
(I’m not Catholic.)
Bishop Charles Chaput: “The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends upon it.”
Ecuadorian Federation of Societies of Gynecology and Obstetrics: “Science teaches that human life begins at conception. If it is also true that it is affirmed by religion, it does not for that reason cease to be a strictly scientific truth, to be transformed into a religious opinion. He who denies that human life begins with conception does not need to contend with religion, but science. To deny this certainty of biology is not to express a lack of faith, but a lack of basic knowledge of human genetics, something that is even known by the general public.”
It’s sad that the Democratic Party is on the incorrect side of one of the most important moral issues of our day. To deny reality, to deny that abortions past viability (or even further back) are not killing a human being, and/or to ignore/condone it, is to spit in the face of science, morality, and much of what we hold dear in this country. It’s a shame. It taints the Democratic Party. This should NOT be a political issue.
michael Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
That’s no reason to denounce the entire party or the President. You can disagree with him on abortion as vehemently as you please, but what about everything else? Abortion isn’t the only issue!
EricG Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“Science teaches that human life begins at conception”
No it doesn’t. The EFSGO is wrong or misleading you. There is no scientific empirical evidence of when life begins.
trees are people too Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Is it living tissue or dead tissue at the moment of conception?
Does dead tissue grow and mature, or does dead tissue decay, and decompose??
Life begins at the moment of conception, Eric. We are either alive or dead, and death is not the opposite of life but the absence of it.
We can be barely alive, fully alive, or somewhere in between, but death is final. We can empirically verify when something is dead, dead is the absence of life……….
There is living tissue at the moment of conception, and we know this for a fact.
And so, when was a fetus anything other than human, and when was it anything other than alive??
Killing is the termination of life…….abortion is the act of killing.
trees are people too Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Eric, right now you have living tissue that’s growing, maturing, and developing in your body. You are a living organism; if you commit suicide you will have killed yourself.
Should you be allowed to commit suicide if you should so desire?
EricG Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
“It’s sad that the Democratic Party is on the incorrect side of one of the most important moral issues of our day.”
Actually that’s the other way around. It’s a shame the Republican Party is supporting religious tyranny and squelching freedom of speech.
The wrong side of history is putting it mildly. More like the wrong side of humanity.
flap Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
The wrong side of humanity? When abortion is vehemently supported by Democrats, which actually snuffs out human life as it is beginning? Gimme a break.
May 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
[...] President Obama is headed to Notre Dame, but abortion activists want him to stay home. Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes explains why he’s willing to break the law in [...]
May 15th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
The Catholic Church I belong to respects every individual point of view and does not judge a person by their moral opinions. It shuns no one away, but welcomes EVERY brother and sister with open arms. Be whatever you might be. Do whatever you might do. Think whatever you might think. The Catholic Church will welcome you. Atheist. Jew. Evangelical Christian. Pro-choice. Pro-death penalty. Criminal. Whatever. Because God loves us ALL and you don’t have to be a perfect little Christian with ONE take on everything to belong.
Catholic means Universal.
THAT’S why President Obama will give his speech at Notre Dame.
flap Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Eh, abortion is such a core issue to the Catholic church, though, as well as humanity in general. It’s like if a President supported eugenics or extermination of Jews, should Notre Dame allow him to speak? And yes, I compare the horrors of abortion to the Holocaust.
But once Notre Dame extended the invitation, they should not consider rescinding it…that would be wrong.
michael Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Abortion is an issue that deserves to be talked about, but not at the expense of clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, walking humbly with God, peace toward with your brothers, love for your neighbors, etc.
VegasLib Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am
It might be a core issue, but it’s never at the expense of peace, as michael put it. Your comparison to the Holocaust is misleading, in my opinion. First, everyone killed in the Holocaust had already been born. What resides inside a mother’s womb is her own. No one else, besides that very woman, should have the power to tell her what happens with what is within her, be it as seemingly horrible to you as it may be. You cannot COMMAND a woman to continue sustaining what is WITHIN HER if it isn’t her will. It should be HER OWN power to decide that for herself.
Kregg Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Vegas said: What resides inside a mother’s womb is her own.
K: Thats funny, I thought 1/2 of it was the fathers…
Daddio Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Kregg, according to liberal think, the father of the fetus has absolutly no say in a womans so-called right to abort her unborn baby. Even though he is as much responsible for the baby as the woman.
Daddio Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
And even if the father wants to keep the baby.
I guess they would rather kill the baby than to let the father raise it.
Make sense? Not to me.
VegasLib Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Sucks, but sadly the mother is the one sustaining the baby within her, Kregg and Daddio, not the father. Abortions, like war, should be avoided at all costs, though. I would love a world without abortions, but, again, it isn’t up to me to dictate to a woman what to do with what’s within her; I don’t know what the burden of carrying a womb is.
Again, if it were up to me, there wouldn’t be abortions. If it were up to me, there wouldn’t be war.
trees are people too Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Hmm…then the mother bears sole responsibility for the child?
You see either the dad is seen as a coequal participant, and being such has rights and responsibilities to the child as well, or else he is completely immune from any responsibility in regards to the child.
It’s one or the other Vegas………
flap Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
If abortion stays legal, fathers should be able to opt out of child support. That’s the fair thing.
Mother wants the baby dead:
Mother: “I’m aborting the child.”
Father: “But it’s my baby, I don’t want you to kill it!”
Father wants the baby dead:
Mother: “I want you to pay for this child.”
Father: “I want you to have an abortion.”
The father essentially has NO say in whether the child lives or dies. If abortion were illegal it would be a moot point because the father would HAVE to pay. But in order to create some sort of feminist equality by allowing killing of offspring in utero it actually creates INEQUALITY because a father has no say in the matter. At least with an opting out of child support, a father has an “on-paper abortion” of his child.
May 15th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
“I am so sick and tired and fed up with the left’s crap, give me a break. Look around and get real, in case you haven’t noticed people are fed up with your crap!”
And nobody cares! Take your religion and your church-sponsored “universities” and move to Texas with the rest of the morons and secede from the union! You don’t know what America is and you never cared about it anyway! So just stick it!
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
…says ROCKY as he runs inside to tell his mommy…
Ahhh…it must be nice to look at life through an elementary lens…
EricG Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Jared, you continually put down people on this site who don’t say exactly what you want them to say.
I know how tempting it is to attack and name-call on the politics scene. But it’s counter-productive.
I’m not a Rocky-Defender but I am getting sick of all this conservative bashing of liberals on all the media and not isolated to this site by any means.
My question is this:
Can I just call up Limbaugh or Hannity and start swearing like crazy in a rant about how much they suck and how they hate America and hate freedom and hate humanity itself?
No?
Why not?
Maybe for the same reason it’s a good idea to try not to slam the other guy and just focus on our thinking on a issue.
It’s not easy. You bastard!
craig7120 Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Eric be easy on Jared, hes on this site 24/7. See he has no life, reality called but Jared wont answer. He hangs around a liberal site just to communicate with others. I suppose we could all just ignore him but then he would probably start yelling at the lil kids outside his window. Eric please keep acknowledging poor Jared, do it for the children. Me? yeah I ignore him but then again I dont like kids.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 18th, 2009 at 5:04 am
ERIC
I call out ignorance when ignorance is apparent.
You say you’re sick of the name-calling and counter-productive banter…
Have you read one of YOUR posts lately? Get back to me…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 18th, 2009 at 5:11 am
CRAIG,
Just to prove you wrong…I work at night…sometimes it’s a slow night…sometimes it isn’t.
I have internet access, so this is what I do…some people play games…some like to engage in something that stimulates the brain.
By the way…I’ve noticed you’re no slouch on time spent on this site yourself…
May 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Alan asks:
“Will President Obama Turn Notre Dame Students Against The Church?”
The church does a remarkable job of turning students against the church all by themselves.
They don’t need Obama to do it.
libpatriot Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
And really, it’s hard to see the President using the commencement occasion to promote views on abortion choice, anyway. It’s a big publicity coup for Notre Dame to have Obama speaking there.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Where was all this holier than thou outrage by all the Catholics during the pedophilia scandal in the priesthood a few years ago????
TDro319 Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Now Parrothead, everybody knows it’s okay for the church to promote and condone pedophelia, as long as they don’t allow a pro-choice person to speak at their school.
flap Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
TDro, that pedophilia crap borders on being just as evil as abortion in my mind. You do that to a child you ruin him/her for life. I don’t know what the Church is doing to make that stop, or to help heal those wounds, but they better.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:08 am
I hope to God that he succeeds in turning all the students against the church. We all know the church is against true Christianity…and the Jewish faith, too…you know, they killed that Jesus guy…just ask a priest…he’ll tell you. Besides, that is why he is going there…to destroy Christianity and the entire civilized world culture of the superior rational right that Pat Robertson will finally be recognized as the Pope of the Radical Right Followers of the Tea Bag.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:33 am
“And I really wish you’d get off your “while private contractors made money” kick. They are a BUSINESS. and BUSINESSES go into BUSINESS to make money. That’s what BUSINESSES do. Or can’t you grasp the concept?”
Wow! So you advocate killing for money but abortion is taboo? How Nazi-esque of you!
Now think of it this way Jared, the abortion clinics charge to perform the procedure so in effect you could call the clinics BUSINESSES,
” and BUSINESSES go into BUSINESS to make money. That’s what BUSINESSES do.”
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 18th, 2009 at 5:18 am
TDRO,
correct me if I’m wrong…but the businesses in Iraq aren’t killing people…suicide bombers are.
Now, think of it this way, TDRO. the abortion clinics charge to perform the procedure, so, in effect, you advocate businesses killing people.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I think this “protest” against President Obama coming to Notre Dame is much to about nothing once again. It’s a chance for people like Alan Keys to get some free TV time. If this school is rooted in making sure their students get a quality education they have to allow all views to be a part of the discussion.
I get so tired of this pro-life/pro-choice conversation in America. I can tell you as a woman I will have the final say in what does and does not happen to my body. Men need to stay out of this discussion because they don’t have a dog in this fight.
Couples should decide together if they want to bring a life into this world. But if the woman changes her mind what can a man really do about it? Nothing. I konw that sounds harsh but it’s a fact of life.
I hope the President keeps inline with his past speeches and provides these young people with words they can carry with them as they move into the grown up world as it looks today. Because it is a mess.
They need support from everyone in America. Not this attempt to turn their special day into some mass protest and a lot of un-wanted media attention. I wish every graduate from this great univ tomorrow the best that life has to offer as they move forward.
And I know our president wishes them the same.
flap Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
“Men need to stay out of this discussion because they don’t have a dog in this fight.”
Give me a break. That’s like me owning a slave and telling you that “you have no right to tell me what I do with MY property.” We’re talking human life, not an organ, for crying out loud.
I don’t give a crap what you do with your body. However, when a new life is procreated, it’s not YOUR body, it’s a human life INSIDE your body. It’s very, very different.
You can’t kill YOUR child when he/she is an infant or toddler, even though YOUR child lives in YOUR house and consumes YOUR resources…what is the difference between a late-term abortion and infanticide. NONE.
I’m not saying early term abortion should be banned…but ANYTHING past viability and even sometime before that is clearly, scientifically, factually terminating a human life and that should not be legal. Use all the weasel words and verbal gymnastics to justify keeping it legal but it is what it is.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Obama did a good job in handling the whole Notre Dame issue. He spoke eloquently today and it sure looked to me as though the audience was glad he spoke at the commencement program.
May 17th, 2009 at 6:20 pm