<p>IDmom, I really dont understand what the reference to Dorothy is supposed to mean, this was my closest guess, but I apologize to MoWC if I misrepresented her message (really!)</p>
<p>Btm are you familiar with the swirling undercurrents? If not, be careful as you may get sucked under and drown!</p>
<p>I believe btm is more than familiar with the “swirling undercurrents”. She swirls right on under!
I call things like I see them. I don’t play both sides. The Dorothy line is used often and in many different contexts to point out that someone isn’t on their home turf or familiar territory.</p>
<p>
I have brought religion into several discussions for the purposes of either indicting the imposition of sectarian beliefs on the public as a whole or to upon occasion dispel the notion that “Christians believe that…” or “Catholics believe that…” when no such implied unanimity of position exists. There has never been any intention of making a justification or analysis of my personal beliefs the focus of any post nor would I dream of subjecting anyone else to such public scrutiny. You’re right, it is none of your business and yet for some reason you have a habit of picking at my beliefs as if they were a scab on the arm, notwithstanding it’s not on one of your own arms.</p>
<p>As a Catholic…and it applies to any Catholic, fwiw…I am required to understand the teachings of the Church and then to consult my own conscience. As Fr. John Ardis said when one of the fat-head bishops (possibly Burke of St. Louis) suggested that John Kerry not receive Communion because of his stance on abortion, Communion is not a reward for “good behavior.” </p>
<p>Or, as framed by one my early priestly influences, “There are some who say the Church ought not be so Pharisaical.” Spot on, and I’ve noticed that many seem to confuse faith with Pharisaical-like observances. </p>
<p>
Cheers and whistles. Irrelevant side note, LDM: the first secretary I ever had was MSL and we had a number of interesting conversations. I regret that, this being some decades ago, I was pretty green in my first management job and I made her life unnecessarily more complicated than it had to be. I’m sorry, Shirley…I’d do better now.</p>
<p>
But you don’t know that it’s not good until you get there!
(Sorry, I have this teeny subversive streak…)</p>
<p>
Very true. The tension between faith and reason, most particularly in the Enlightenment period, draws me like the proverbial moth to a flame. Personally, I see no contradiction to the two and tend to find either without the other just a little bit hollow. Or like living in a world with some colors missing.</p>
<p>
Well, I do mind and I find the scrutiny of me to be creepy and off-putting. I don’t post on politics for your entertainment, nor, come to think of it, for anyone else’s.</p>
<p>
I’ve noted your explanation. I’m allowed to not take it at face value.</p>
<p>
I believe that I used the word only once, though another poster arrived at an identical conclusion, so your “keep calling me” is false and misleading. If one weren’t as charitable as I in interpretation, one could come to a conclusion that this represents an attempt to shade and frame an argument more to your liking.</p>
<p>
I’d direct that question to the Mod staff as discussing moderation is against the TOS. I remember the thread; I returned to the board after an absence of a couple of days and it was gone.</p>
<p>
Not quite. Hypocrisy is the matter of saying one thing and doing another; apropos of this board, teenagers are quite good at spotting hypocrisy and nailing it. Being disingenuous can take several forms but giving one motivation as an explanation while pursuing another would fit the bill. Not the same thing.</p>
<p>
I’m not sure where you learnt that but it’s patently false. I’m not inclined to apologize for giving offense of the likes of terms such as “would-be ayahtollah” or “Bushevik,” which is quite a different matter.</p>
<p>
A twisting of words which one could again interpret as a malicious re-framing if one were so inclined. There is a difference between general environment and political environment. And as a matter of fact, I seldom turn on the TV for news or so-called network entertainment, though I make a point of asking to change the channel if Faux News happens to be on in my mechanic’s waiting room or a inn’s lobby. Otoh, I read voraciously, both in print and on-line, gathering in more diverse sources that are dreamt of in Horatio’s philosophy and, yes, this current so-called administration has created an atmosphere that his hostile and abusive.</p>
<p>
I certainly use both phrases in face to face conversations as needed. People can choose to be offended by my terminology or not. I seldom–I’d say “never” but there may be an exception or two that escape my now-fuzzy memory–fire the first rhetorical shot. Most people know where I stand and if they disagree, they will avoid political subjects. The new car does not currently have a bumper-sticker on it but will as soon as the Democratic nominee is chosen; I’ve found that folks who are simpatico will often bring political subjects up while those that are not will talk about technology, science, art, or business. And certainly I would subordinate my expression to the needs of either fiduciary obligations–of which I have many–or the desire not to cause embarrassment to third-party who may be nothing more than an innocent by-stander or to whom I owe some other obligation…none of which applies on CC. And my brother and his wife know full well that, when they’re visiting, they bring up politics at their own risk. My sister in-law is rather more sensible than my brother.</p>
<p>
Congratulations.</p>
<p>
What an extraordinary claim of omniscience. But I take great care to attack positions–be they ideological or those of candidates–not posters. If a poster chooses to identify with that position and further chooses to be offended…shrug. As Kluge observed, there’s certainly been enough crap about “liberals” or “the Democrat party” or the “cut-and-runners” to which nobody has twitched an eyebrow.</p>
<p>
You get it! You really get it!!! <hug and=“” a=“” kiss=“”> The concept of a democratic pluralism implies that we all put up with things in society of which we don’t personally approve. Failure to do so, in the long run, leads to places like Lebanon and Iraq. I cite as historical precedent the Thirty Years War: war and the associated plagues and famines killed off something like a quarter of Europe’s population. Essentially, Protestants and Catholics looked at the wreckage, looked at each other, and each said, “You may be a heretic and destined for Hell, but in the mean time I will work with you and live with you in [relative] peace.” (Okay, that’s the short form in broad brush strokes with some simplifications but it’s pretty accurate.) </hug></p>
<p>I’ve seen it argued–and I found it compelling–that a “problem” with radical Islam in the contemporary world is that it has never experienced an equivalent to Reformation (where TheMom went to school it was “The Protestant Revolt”) and subsequent Enlightenment and that we’re stuck in a holding pattern until it works itself out from within. However, results and forward movement aren’t uniform and the authoritarians of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (see also, extreme Likud) have more in common with each other than they do with the broader masses they seek to subjugate. Combining narrow religious sectarianism with jingoistic nationalism or equivalent [e.g., notions of restoring the Caliphate] is particularly nasty.</p>
<p>
Yeppers, all the way.</p>
<p>
That would be an uncharitable conclusion.</p>
<p>
Careful, ZM…you know where some of those hugs & kisses can sometimes lead. As you say, it’s a slippery slope. 
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
Interesting observation. If I didn’t know better I might think that this thread was a game- it looks well-meaning on the surface, asking for cordiality and civility, but in reality the lollypop gang are keeping score, dissecting posts, making derogatory comments about some of the “players” and mocking the whole discussion elsewhere. That seems to be the essence of hypocricy. And it begs the question… “why??” </p>
<p>IMO, if poster #1 uses some expression, or turn of a phrase that poster #2 doesn’t care for or finds distasteful, poster #2 can, and perhaps should, mention this in a post. However, if the expression is not an overt attack on someone directly, IMO poster #1 can choose to honor the request of poster #2 and use a different expression, or poster #1 can agree to disagree with poster # 2 and continue to use the expression. Poster #1 is under no obligation to change their choice of a phrase just b/c someone else doesn’t happen to take a liking to it. Poster #2 then has 2 choices-- take it lor leave it. If poster #2 doesn’t like the comments or phrases used in a thread, IMO, perhaps that isn’t the best place for them to be posting. There are certainly many other threads in this forum and elsewhere to post on. I kinda like the fact that there are different personalities on this forum. Some posters would apologize to poster #2 for using a phrase that they didn’t realize might be offensive to some, and would stop, perhaps thanking them for pointing this out. Others may, even if perhaps bluntly, explain their choice of a phrase and feel completely justified in continuing to use it. I certainly don’t always like or agree with what people say, but they are entitled to their opinions. </p>
<p>Anyone remember the sea-tac christmas tree thread last year? One particular (ex) poster would not let go of their opinion that certain people or certain religions were against christmas trees! No matter how many people tried to explain or respond, that poster held fast to her belief. It was a cross between exhasparating and funny, occasionally veering off course and getting a bit mean, requiring some redirection to get back on track. Don’t remember if that thread remained standing or not. That poster was entitled to her unique opinion.</p>
<p>As I said earlier, I don’t spend a lot of time in political threads (and this thread, with the increasing side conversation about religion, politics etc, seems to potentially headed in that direction). But I digress. Anyway, if I stick my head in a political thread and find that I get sideswiped by some shrapnel being thrown about in there, I usually take my leave and move on. True for the CC cafe. Scary place down there sometimes. Civility isn’t the mission statement on the wall down there. I haven’t peeked in that thread in a long time. My choice to leave because I didn’t like it down there. </p>
<p>Well, off to go have my cup of morning coffee. Perhaps I will be less blunt and more diplomatic after I get some caffeine in me. I guess I’ll check back later and see how my post scored and is editorialized on in “that other” place. Oops, there I go being blunt again.</p>
<p>ya know TD…many things I love about the Lutheran Church, many things make me unhappy (reluctance to allow women to vote was one…I still ask “uh, Why??”). But I have to say …Lutherans know how to keep their sense of humor intact. My fave is the whole Dana Carvey Church Lady bit…lol…my gosh that was so spot on! I defy anyone to find a MSL congregation that doesn’t have a few of those Church Ladies buzzing around the parish hall kitchen.</p>
<p>Okay back on track…</p>
<p>jym - I have to agree. I’ll take a well-meaning lecture on ‘how to be nice’ any old day of the week…but I don’t think it’s appropriate coming from someone who spends their time on other public forums maligning others behind their backs. </p>
<p>Oh well…looks like I need a cup of coffee too…lol!</p>
<p>"Careful, ZM…you know where some of those hugs & kisses can sometimes lead. As you say, it’s a slippery slope. "</p>
<p>Are you talking dirty to me?</p>
<p>This thread wins my Wednesday award for “Discussion that has gotten farthest off-topic and is therefore most deserving of being locked.”</p>
<p>You would be locking a lot of threads WashDad…lol! They just seem to go where they go…</p>
<p>How so washdad? I thought this thread was about appropriate and inappropriate behavior in forums. Seems to meander a bit, as many threads do, but seems to be addressing the issue at hand.</p>
<p>Oops, crosspost!</p>
<p>haha…“like minds” strike again. (See…we are back on topic…lol)</p>
<p>
I think that this is the last time we should address this topic. I doubt that other posters are that interested in our theological debate.</p>
<p>The quotation above is the essence of our disagreement. There IS a clearly defined set of beliefs that make one Catholic – and there is an explicit view of respect for life that is opposed to abortion. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Conference</a> and Committee Statements of United States Bishops on Abortion](<a href=“http://priestsforlife.org/magisteriumusbishops.htm]Conference”>Abortion - Pro Life - Priests for Life Library of Documents and Articles)</p>
<p>I think it’s also important to point out that there is forgiveness of sin in the Catholic faith.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> Catholic Priest and Counseling Victims of Abortion](<a href=“http://www.priestsforlife.org/postabortion/shepherdingtheflock.htm]The”>Priests for Life Library: Shepherding the Flock After Abortion)</p>
<p>We agree that what you believe and how you live your faith are your business. But I will continue to point out that there is a Catholic doctrine, one that is not of the “cafeteria” variety.</p>
<p>I also agree with the poster who said that if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. As one who has felt burned on occasion, I think that’s good advice.</p>
<p>ETA: This post is probably OT! But now that I’ve written it, I guess I’ll let it stand. Sorry!</p>
<p>
Scored & editorialized? LOL! As my mother was fond of saying, “Don’t flatter yourself.”</p>
<p>
Absolutely true, sjmom. We are all free to believe whatever the heck we want, but a practicing Catholic, by defnition, follows Catholic doctrine.</p>
<p>sjmom2329 </p>
<p>Is my information correct that the RC church also opposes the death penalty .since Geo. W. Bush supports the death penalty and has in fact allowed people to die because of Bush’s personal support of the death penalty does that effect the way the both you and the RC church perceive him as a leader and if so how do you perceive him?</p>
<p>sjmom - I think many people are interested in the debate. Oftentimes, when two people convey their thoughts intelligently and succinctly on public forum, others feel as though someone is speaking on their behalf and will follow the discussion intently without feeling the need to post. I do think that is happening here. </p>
<p>Regarding the Catholic Church’s position on abortion (as well as other faiths) and the ‘cafeteria’ approach that you describe, I often wonder how people feel about elected leaders who ARE Catholic, but choose to protect a woman’s right to choose. Do you believe they are not true practicing Catholics and does the Church not believe this act is ‘formal cooperation’? Why does the Catholic Church not seek to excommunicate these public officials? This is a sincere question on my part.</p>
<p>(I know the abortion thing is touchy…so I want to make it clear I could be talking about any church and any formal church doctrine…and abortion is just the most convenient example.)</p>
<p>
Now isn’t that a sweet, kind, gentle response in the spirit of this thread. Believe me, nothing would make me HAPPIER than to be left out of that nonsense. I am more than tired of being misrepresented and misconstrued. Leave me out of that junk, please. Besides, if people are going to gossip, they should consider getting their facts straight. Enough said about that. Say what you want about forums, policies, what have you, but kindly LEAVE ME OUT of your chatter. If your comment means you won’t talk about me behind my back any longer, then I thank you.</p>
<p>Zooser- talking dirty on the internet would be a good topic for “that other place”- expertise abounds!</p>
<p>We’ve really run the gambit here- politics, internet behavior, religion, hugs.<br>
Time to discuss dumb athletes and drinking! As Cur would say, “I’ll mail in my post on that one.”</p>
<p>hmmm…dumb athletes and drinking…now that there’s some tricky territory m’am. ;)</p>