Saturday, May 05, 2007
For those who noticed a lighter gray colour to the weblog's layout, worry not, your monitor does not need an adjustment. Under the advice of Chris Blosser who offered me an "asthetic critique" of my weblog, I decided to implement a suggestion from him to go with a slightly lighter gray colour to make some of the lighter fonts used on occasion easier to read. I took the suggestion a step further and made all gray parts of the template lighter for a greater uniformity as well but the end result is a more aesthetically pleasing appearance and for that Chris deserves the credit.
In evenings when I have a bit of time, I am reading a military history of the United States which is in some respects quite iconoclastic. Among the theses{1} that the author seeks to sustain include the following ones (taken from the jacket of the book itself):
• Did America win its independence because British generals were too busy canoodling with their mistresses?
• Should America have annexed Mexico—all of it—and Cuba too?
• Did 1776 justify Southern secession in the nineteenth century?
• Should Patton have been promoted over Eisenhower?
• Did the U.S. military win—and Congress lose—the Vietnam War?
• Was it right to depose Saddam Hussein—and is it wrong to worry about a possible Iraqi civil war?
I went into this book agnostic on the first thesis, strongly inclined towards concurring with the second, not agreeing with the third thesis, pondering the fourth one but inclined against it{2}, concurring with the fifth thesis, and concurring with at least the first half of the sixth. As I read the book, I am willing to give more credence than I was before to the first thesis as probable{3}, definitely concur with the second thesis now{4}, still do not agree with the third thesis{5}, and as I am through the book up to November of 1941, have not read the parts of the book advancing the fourth and subsequent theses yet.
But I would be remiss if I did not note that H. W. Crocker III in this volume has written a magnificent work thus far and one which in the current climate should be given due consideration by those who are ignorant of the US military history. I was by no means ignorant in these areas before but the book has filled in a few gaps for me. It also revisited stuff I already knew and gave me some food for thought in other areas where I may not have considered certain other factors before. And it did all of this in an enjoyable and rather entertaining fashion for a subject which by its very nature involves matters of the most serious of import. I look forward to completing the volume as time allows for it in the coming week and recommend it to everyone reading this post.
Notes:
{1} A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument"... [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]
{2} This is said despite the fact that General Patton has long been one of our favourite generals.
{3} Certainly the British underestimated the colonialists but the author writes this book from a loyalist perspective to some extent; ergo I believe his take on this point may be a bit too biased even if he does make a good case for it (which he certainly does).
{4} If ever there was any lingering doubts in my mind on the matter which there may have been.
{5} To the credit of the author, he gives a strong argument in favour of the third thesis -and of particular interest is what is written about the bravery and tenacity of the Confederacy during the War Between the States and the genius of General Robert E. Lee which from any objective measurement is inarguable. (Crocker does this while not denigrating the Federalists generally speaking which is something that many who write from a pro-Confederacy standpoint do not succeed in doing.)
However, those points aside, I cannot accept the thesis due to my rock solid position on the fundamental rights of man (most recently synthesized and reiterated anew in this posting on common law and abortion) and how chattel slavery is such an intrinsic violation of said rights no matter how you slice it.
• Did America win its independence because British generals were too busy canoodling with their mistresses?
• Should America have annexed Mexico—all of it—and Cuba too?
• Did 1776 justify Southern secession in the nineteenth century?
• Should Patton have been promoted over Eisenhower?
• Did the U.S. military win—and Congress lose—the Vietnam War?
• Was it right to depose Saddam Hussein—and is it wrong to worry about a possible Iraqi civil war?
I went into this book agnostic on the first thesis, strongly inclined towards concurring with the second, not agreeing with the third thesis, pondering the fourth one but inclined against it{2}, concurring with the fifth thesis, and concurring with at least the first half of the sixth. As I read the book, I am willing to give more credence than I was before to the first thesis as probable{3}, definitely concur with the second thesis now{4}, still do not agree with the third thesis{5}, and as I am through the book up to November of 1941, have not read the parts of the book advancing the fourth and subsequent theses yet.
But I would be remiss if I did not note that H. W. Crocker III in this volume has written a magnificent work thus far and one which in the current climate should be given due consideration by those who are ignorant of the US military history. I was by no means ignorant in these areas before but the book has filled in a few gaps for me. It also revisited stuff I already knew and gave me some food for thought in other areas where I may not have considered certain other factors before. And it did all of this in an enjoyable and rather entertaining fashion for a subject which by its very nature involves matters of the most serious of import. I look forward to completing the volume as time allows for it in the coming week and recommend it to everyone reading this post.
Notes:
{1} A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument"... [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]
{2} This is said despite the fact that General Patton has long been one of our favourite generals.
{3} Certainly the British underestimated the colonialists but the author writes this book from a loyalist perspective to some extent; ergo I believe his take on this point may be a bit too biased even if he does make a good case for it (which he certainly does).
{4} If ever there was any lingering doubts in my mind on the matter which there may have been.
{5} To the credit of the author, he gives a strong argument in favour of the third thesis -and of particular interest is what is written about the bravery and tenacity of the Confederacy during the War Between the States and the genius of General Robert E. Lee which from any objective measurement is inarguable. (Crocker does this while not denigrating the Federalists generally speaking which is something that many who write from a pro-Confederacy standpoint do not succeed in doing.)
However, those points aside, I cannot accept the thesis due to my rock solid position on the fundamental rights of man (most recently synthesized and reiterated anew in this posting on common law and abortion) and how chattel slavery is such an intrinsic violation of said rights no matter how you slice it.
On Sedition and What It Consists Of:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Longtime readers of this weblog going back to early 2003 may recall that your host had no problem with certain kinds of public opinion prior to the definitive decision to go into Iraq{1} but began taking a less irenic stance both in the hours before March 19, 2003{2} and then after the date in question things tightened up considerably.{3} The reason for this should be obvious but some who give pretensions towards intelligence apparently do not get it. Therefore, it seems appropriate to summarize the principle in question by recalling a points to ponder thread from earlier this year which cited a US Supreme Court case which upheld the US Sedition Act in the following words:
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
The common knowledge involved here should be obvious but many do not get it and some of them have expressed anger at being referred to by us as poster children for why we need another sedition act in a time of war.{4} But before this position as recently enunciated by us is viewed as shocking, let us revisit anew what sedition does and does not consist of.
A definition of the term can come from any source but for the sake of convenience, let us consider what Wikipedia had to say on the matter as of earlier today:{5}
Sedition is a term of law to refer to convert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel.
Because sedition is typically considered a subversive act, the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where those legal codes have a traceable history, there is also a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological persecution.
The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
Put simply, sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state and has to do with giving aid to enemies or levying war. Sedition is more about encouraging the people to rebel, when treason is actually betraying the country. [From the Wikipedia Article Sedition]
From there, let us consider what constitutes seditions libel by the same source:
Seditious libel is a criminal offence under English common law. Sedition is the offence of speaking seditious words with seditious intent: if the statement is in writing or some other permanent form it is seditious libel. A statement is seditious if it "brings into hatred or contempt" the Queen or her heirs, or the government and constitution, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or if it incites people to attempt to change any matter of Church or State established by law (except by lawful means), or if it promotes discontent among or hostility between British subjects. A person is only guilty of the offence if they intend any of the above outcomes. Proving that the statement is true is not a defence. It is punishable with life imprisonment. [From the Wikipedia Article Seditious Libel]
By logical extension, since President Bush is the leader of the United States or the civil authority in question, his name can be replaced for that of the word "Queen" in the above citation as can the word "American" for the word "British." Now with that lens for viewing the matter in question, readers can consider if anyone this writer has said or inferred was engaging in sedition really did or did not do this. Frankly, the verdict here is such a slam dunk in a couple of cases that it is not even funny. For that reason, those persons ought to pray every night that there is not another sedition act in place right now though for the record, we at Rerum Novarum believe there is a need for one. History shows that wars can be lost if national resolve is compromised even if militarily they are successful.{6} This is why anyone who in any way whatsoever has contributed to such a situation as this is properly considered a seditionist and their words to be seditious libel.
By noting this, we have in mind a number of people here but in particular a so-called "apologist" who cannot keep their trap shut on matter of which they know so little and who has engaged in a weekly (if not worse) regurgitation of stuff on their weblog which by any objective standard{7} constitutes seditious libel and thus acts of sedition. As shocking as this may appear, let us clarify that not all criticisms of the president and the administration would properly constitute sedition. However, any criticisms that would bring into contempt the president, the lawfully elected government, or disrupt just public order and the common good of society during a time of war are properly viewed as seditious.
Readers can judge by the criticisms of certain parties if this criteria is met or not but one thing is certain: as much as President Bush has pissed us off at times, we have never been critical of him in a way that would fall under the criteria as denoted above. Would that many others could make a similar claim but that is their problem not ours and does not change our views on this matter an iota.
Notes:
{1} [A]fter the Presidents speech, my friends our path is now clear war-wise. And since war is now inevitable (barring Hussein's going into exile in the next 48 hours) we are no longer in the realm of speculation. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 17, 2003)]
{2} Though I sought to note conclusively in my stated position as detailed in early February that any attack by us would not be a new war but the legitimate resumption of the old Gulf War (as the terms of the ceasefire as spelled out by the UN have never been followed by Iraq), it does not appear to me that President Bush is for the most part approaching this from the angle that I suggested.
[W]hile [Pope John Paul II] appears to be personally opposed to this war, barring him making it a part of his magisterium, we are not bound to his judgment on the matter. And for those who in good conscience side with the pope on the matter, that is fine as I see it so long as they are in our corner when the war begins. And it will begin - barring extraordinary and unforseen diplomatic progress -within a few days in about thirty three hours from when this post is published. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 18, 2003)]
{3} Reflected most evidently in our posting on the subject of sedition from March 29, 2003 after observing some of the inexcuable actions of the msm on the subject in question. To wit (after quoting from the old US Sedition Act of 1917):
Is the major media in this country guilty of sedition??? When major news networks give away coordinates of where our military is stationed, relays information such as "the troops in my company are down to one meal a day because supplies are tight", or relates information such as "the troops have had to cannibalize their equipment for parts because there are problems with out supply lines", does anyone want to claim that this is not aiding and abetting the enemy??? Other examples could be listed but these are adequate to make the case I believe. If such reports continue I believe the government will need to cut off not only Al Jazeera's news broadcast but also the American media. (Or at the very least limit the access of the media and give everyone the same story to report.) I am sick and tired of reporters who would sell the security of our troops for a "news scoop". How this is not a form of the world's oldest profession is a mystery to me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 29, 2003)]
{4} Some of these sorts have angrily claimed that we referred to them as traitors when in fact we did not. There is a difference between sedition and treason whereas one gives the tools whereas the other acts it out.
{5} We are aware that Wikipedia can be edited by others; ergo our qualification as noted above.
{6} For example, the Vietnam War.
{7} On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Longtime readers of this weblog going back to early 2003 may recall that your host had no problem with certain kinds of public opinion prior to the definitive decision to go into Iraq{1} but began taking a less irenic stance both in the hours before March 19, 2003{2} and then after the date in question things tightened up considerably.{3} The reason for this should be obvious but some who give pretensions towards intelligence apparently do not get it. Therefore, it seems appropriate to summarize the principle in question by recalling a points to ponder thread from earlier this year which cited a US Supreme Court case which upheld the US Sedition Act in the following words:
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
The common knowledge involved here should be obvious but many do not get it and some of them have expressed anger at being referred to by us as poster children for why we need another sedition act in a time of war.{4} But before this position as recently enunciated by us is viewed as shocking, let us revisit anew what sedition does and does not consist of.
A definition of the term can come from any source but for the sake of convenience, let us consider what Wikipedia had to say on the matter as of earlier today:{5}
Sedition is a term of law to refer to convert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel.
Because sedition is typically considered a subversive act, the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where those legal codes have a traceable history, there is also a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological persecution.
The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
Put simply, sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state and has to do with giving aid to enemies or levying war. Sedition is more about encouraging the people to rebel, when treason is actually betraying the country. [From the Wikipedia Article Sedition]
From there, let us consider what constitutes seditions libel by the same source:
Seditious libel is a criminal offence under English common law. Sedition is the offence of speaking seditious words with seditious intent: if the statement is in writing or some other permanent form it is seditious libel. A statement is seditious if it "brings into hatred or contempt" the Queen or her heirs, or the government and constitution, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or if it incites people to attempt to change any matter of Church or State established by law (except by lawful means), or if it promotes discontent among or hostility between British subjects. A person is only guilty of the offence if they intend any of the above outcomes. Proving that the statement is true is not a defence. It is punishable with life imprisonment. [From the Wikipedia Article Seditious Libel]
By logical extension, since President Bush is the leader of the United States or the civil authority in question, his name can be replaced for that of the word "Queen" in the above citation as can the word "American" for the word "British." Now with that lens for viewing the matter in question, readers can consider if anyone this writer has said or inferred was engaging in sedition really did or did not do this. Frankly, the verdict here is such a slam dunk in a couple of cases that it is not even funny. For that reason, those persons ought to pray every night that there is not another sedition act in place right now though for the record, we at Rerum Novarum believe there is a need for one. History shows that wars can be lost if national resolve is compromised even if militarily they are successful.{6} This is why anyone who in any way whatsoever has contributed to such a situation as this is properly considered a seditionist and their words to be seditious libel.
By noting this, we have in mind a number of people here but in particular a so-called "apologist" who cannot keep their trap shut on matter of which they know so little and who has engaged in a weekly (if not worse) regurgitation of stuff on their weblog which by any objective standard{7} constitutes seditious libel and thus acts of sedition. As shocking as this may appear, let us clarify that not all criticisms of the president and the administration would properly constitute sedition. However, any criticisms that would bring into contempt the president, the lawfully elected government, or disrupt just public order and the common good of society during a time of war are properly viewed as seditious.
Readers can judge by the criticisms of certain parties if this criteria is met or not but one thing is certain: as much as President Bush has pissed us off at times, we have never been critical of him in a way that would fall under the criteria as denoted above. Would that many others could make a similar claim but that is their problem not ours and does not change our views on this matter an iota.
Notes:
{1} [A]fter the Presidents speech, my friends our path is now clear war-wise. And since war is now inevitable (barring Hussein's going into exile in the next 48 hours) we are no longer in the realm of speculation. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 17, 2003)]
{2} Though I sought to note conclusively in my stated position as detailed in early February that any attack by us would not be a new war but the legitimate resumption of the old Gulf War (as the terms of the ceasefire as spelled out by the UN have never been followed by Iraq), it does not appear to me that President Bush is for the most part approaching this from the angle that I suggested.
[W]hile [Pope John Paul II] appears to be personally opposed to this war, barring him making it a part of his magisterium, we are not bound to his judgment on the matter. And for those who in good conscience side with the pope on the matter, that is fine as I see it so long as they are in our corner when the war begins. And it will begin - barring extraordinary and unforseen diplomatic progress -
{3} Reflected most evidently in our posting on the subject of sedition from March 29, 2003 after observing some of the inexcuable actions of the msm on the subject in question. To wit (after quoting from the old US Sedition Act of 1917):
Is the major media in this country guilty of sedition??? When major news networks give away coordinates of where our military is stationed, relays information such as "the troops in my company are down to one meal a day because supplies are tight", or relates information such as "the troops have had to cannibalize their equipment for parts because there are problems with out supply lines", does anyone want to claim that this is not aiding and abetting the enemy??? Other examples could be listed but these are adequate to make the case I believe. If such reports continue I believe the government will need to cut off not only Al Jazeera's news broadcast but also the American media. (Or at the very least limit the access of the media and give everyone the same story to report.) I am sick and tired of reporters who would sell the security of our troops for a "news scoop". How this is not a form of the world's oldest profession is a mystery to me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 29, 2003)]
{4} Some of these sorts have angrily claimed that we referred to them as traitors when in fact we did not. There is a difference between sedition and treason whereas one gives the tools whereas the other acts it out.
{5} We are aware that Wikipedia can be edited by others; ergo our qualification as noted above.
{6} For example, the Vietnam War.
{7} On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(On Legitimate Differences of Opinion)
The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. [Pope John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram §71 (circa June 29, 1959)]
(On Legitimate Differences of Opinion)
The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. [Pope John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram §71 (circa June 29, 1959)]
Miscellaneous Musings:
Briefly on each as time is short...
--I must give credit where credit is due to the Seattle Mariners who thus far have performed above expectations. I am aware that it is early and not even a quarter of the way through the season but five years of crappy ballplaying on their part has me optimistic that this year they will make the playoffs again. I hesitate to say more than that in light of how poor my sports prognosticating has historically been.{1}
--I must admit that the idea of Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron's record does not sit well with me for one reason: he is a fraud. Whatever excuses one wants to make for Hank Aaron and whatever one wants to say about how great Babe Ruth was{2}, the bottom line is, Aaron broke Ruth's alltime record. Furthermore, he did it with style and class and he did not have to cheat to do it. When Bonds passes Aaron, the record will be held by a fraud and a cheater and that will sully baseball. Anyway, those are my opinions on the matter and all I intend to say at this time.
--In light of how the Congress is trying to play politics by attaching a bunch of riders to the Iraq funding bill, it seems appropriate to remind readers of what your host set forth over three years ago in the area of a rider reform proposal. Look for that before Monday if we have time as it seems opportune to revisit that subject anew in lieu of current circumstances.
Notes:
{1} It is basically the converse of my geopolitical track record over the years. In fact, so bad is my sports picking trackrecord that when I went 2-1 in the NFL Playoffs earlier this year, in the semifinals, I was so shocked that I wrote a post on the subject and titled it "Signs of the Apocalypse." Later on, my fourth prediction panned also and it was 3-1 but I digress.
{2} Babe Ruth being unquestionably and by any reasonable measurement the greatest baseball player in history: something I will brook no dissent on whatsoever so do not even try.
Briefly on each as time is short...
--I must give credit where credit is due to the Seattle Mariners who thus far have performed above expectations. I am aware that it is early and not even a quarter of the way through the season but five years of crappy ballplaying on their part has me optimistic that this year they will make the playoffs again. I hesitate to say more than that in light of how poor my sports prognosticating has historically been.{1}
--I must admit that the idea of Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron's record does not sit well with me for one reason: he is a fraud. Whatever excuses one wants to make for Hank Aaron and whatever one wants to say about how great Babe Ruth was{2}, the bottom line is, Aaron broke Ruth's alltime record. Furthermore, he did it with style and class and he did not have to cheat to do it. When Bonds passes Aaron, the record will be held by a fraud and a cheater and that will sully baseball. Anyway, those are my opinions on the matter and all I intend to say at this time.
--In light of how the Congress is trying to play politics by attaching a bunch of riders to the Iraq funding bill, it seems appropriate to remind readers of what your host set forth over three years ago in the area of a rider reform proposal. Look for that before Monday if we have time as it seems opportune to revisit that subject anew in lieu of current circumstances.
Notes:
{1} It is basically the converse of my geopolitical track record over the years. In fact, so bad is my sports picking trackrecord that when I went 2-1 in the NFL Playoffs earlier this year, in the semifinals, I was so shocked that I wrote a post on the subject and titled it "Signs of the Apocalypse." Later on, my fourth prediction panned also and it was 3-1 but I digress.
{2} Babe Ruth being unquestionably and by any reasonable measurement the greatest baseball player in history: something I will brook no dissent on whatsoever so do not even try.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Prayer Requests:
The following was sent to my email yesterday...
I would ask for prayers for the soul of 17 year-old Brittany Salzano and her family...she was hit by a car last weekend and killed instantly.
God rest the soul of Brittany Salzano and may she rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed.
Please also pray for the driver who hit her. Thanks.
I will and hope that readers of this weblog will be so kind as to remember them in their prayers as well.
The following was sent to my email yesterday...
I would ask for prayers for the soul of 17 year-old Brittany Salzano and her family...she was hit by a car last weekend and killed instantly.
God rest the soul of Brittany Salzano and may she rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed.
Please also pray for the driver who hit her. Thanks.
I will and hope that readers of this weblog will be so kind as to remember them in their prayers as well.
Guest Editorial Revisiting Catholic Apologetics and Cult-Style Deadagenting Tactics in the Twilight Zone:
(Written by Rod Serling)
For those who do not know, this is a followup to an earlier guest editorial sent to us which was posted on January 9, 2007. Without further ado...
#########
CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE, REVISITED
By Rod Serling
Last time, we explored the relationship between Catholic apologist Mark Shea and free-lance writer Joseph D'Hippolito, who are at such loggerheads that they probably disagree vehemently about what time it is. Our exploration included comments from newspaper editor Victor Morton about Mr. Shea's obsessively stalking Mr. D'Hippolito on various Catholic blogs for about three years.
It now appears that Mr. D'Hippolito is not the only target of Mr. Shea's venal obsessiveness.
Submitted for your approval: This post from Mr. Shea's blog concerning another blog that specializes in criticizing Rod Dreher, a commentary editor for the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Dreher vehemently criticized the Catholic bishops' response to the sex-abuse scandal that broke in Boston in 2002. In the process, he received tremendous vitriol from a wide variety of Catholics. Mr. Dreher was so sickened by the bishops' lack of concern for the innocent that he converted from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Here's what Mr. Shea said about the anti-Dreher blog:
I never felt a need to found an entire blog simply and solely devoted to reiterating again and again and again why Crunchy Con thinking is all wrong, to enumerating Rod's faults, to gabbing with fellow Rod despisers about his latest faults, sins, gaffes, and whatnot, to plunging back into his site for fresh reasons to complain about him, and to regroup at my obsessostalker site for a new round of the Same Old Complaints, followed by gleeful speculations in the comboxes of this calibre...
Yessirree. All perfectly normal there. Nothing malicious and creepy about that sort of stuff. They're all about serious intellectual criticism.
The folks at (We Really, Really, Really Despise Rod Dreher).com made their point about the problems in Dreher's thinking in about the first three posts of their blog. Dreher has a tendency to let his passions rule his judgment at times. Crunchy Connery can sometimes be an unwarranted elevation of aesthetic choice to moral principle. Dreher is way too hard on the Catholic Church and his reasons for becoming Orthodox are not very coherent. Rod, unlike, say, Kathleen Reilly, can sometimes be tart in his replies to critics. Duly noted. I have noted such things myself when the occasion has warranted it.
But normal people *move on.* Would that the folks at WRRRDRD.com would do likewise. Surely there is *something* else to talk about than the latest way Rod Dreher has made a jackass of himself (as you all agree in your Combox Star Chamber) for failing to like a TV show you like or enjoying bread that you don't enjoy.
Get a life!
To review, here are Mr. Morton's comments about Mr. Shea:Let us stipulate that Joseph's comments about nuking Mecca et al are something less than orthodox (they are not insane or Satanic, because, as I once repeatedly and without answer pointed out to Mr. Shea, the Church does not condemn any possession of nuclear weapons as a sin, which means SOME uses of them have to be moral despite the unquestionable fact they kill civilians en masse). Joseph did not attempt to engage Mr. Shea, did not attempt to hijack his blog, did not refer to him. So it's rather unconvincing to hear "I've spent a great deal of time avoiding you. You're like a bad penny. ... I keep running into your obnoxious and abusive crap on blogs I regularly read." Everybody has some people they don't like, or can't imagine engaging even for the sake of collegial disagreement, someone at St. Blogs whose orthodoxy they question. Tough titty.
Mr. Shea's disagreement (he is not a bishop and has no real authority in these matters, so nothing he says can ever rise above that) is not an excuse to try to destroy somebody's reputation by repetitively injecting himself wherever Joseph may go, talking about whatever subject Joseph may, and calling him Osama bin Laden or a mass murder advocate. This was NOT disagreement with somebody, but an attempt to demonize a human being, to make him anathema as such, to pursue him like a stalking siren. And Joseph is right to protest it.
Please keep both sets of comments in mind when you read this response to Mr. Shea posted on the anti-Dreher blog by "Bubba" the blog moderator:
When on his own blog Shea highlights, in bold lettering and mid-space, a purposely innocuous exchange between myself and a commenter from our blog, and claims that in it we make dire analyses of his buddy Dreher --- well, let's just say that with friends like Shea, Dreher needs no contras. It's also clear that Shea pores over this blog with great care, since he venomously spits back random bits with what is becoming frightening regularity. Which can only be the point of his reading it -- to cultivate his own anger. (Unless, on some level he doesn't wish to acknowledge, he's, um "enjoying it").
Shea wishes to silence us, of course, by implying -- no, proclaiming -- that we're the crazies. He loves to call us "obsessostalkers" which is interesting, because it seems to me Shea has done a great deal of obsessing and stalking of us. Shea has even christened our blog with his very own nickname, and even given that nickname an acronym. cute!
I'm still amused that Mark Shea runs a blog called Catholic and Enjoying It. I guess he is catholic, and in some perverse way enjoying "it", but I can assure him that other catholics -- in particular those who value sanity -- don't enjoy it, and for myriad reasons. Has it dawned on him that other catholics don't appreciate his fondness for vitriol and flame-throwing? Or the fact that Shea indulgently cultivates his anger while he simultaneously sells his services as a professional catholic apologist? It's not really that great for catholicism when the catholic apologist on TV calls to mind Michael Douglas with a crewcut, horn-rims, and an automatic weapon.
...the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up...
The comments, presented in sequence from the comments thread, poke even more holes in Mr. Shea's self-righteous facade (All references to Mr. Dreher will be edited out, since he is not the subject of our current study): The first is from a woman named Diane...
I could not agree more with the following:
the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up
Exactly. What the Marks ... want is the power to censor opposing views out of their own comboxes (which is their prerogative, of course) PLUS the power to censor those same views in other venues. Who the hay-ell do such folks think they are? If they won't tolerate dissent in their own comboxes (which, again, is their preogative), fine. But they certainly cannot expect the folks they have silenced there to docilely shut up everywhere else. It's a free Internet. Freedom of expression is enjoyed equally by all of us. It is not the exclusive preserve of a self-anointed few. Not on the Internet, anyway.
Mark's efforts to silence dissent even on other people's blogs is so transparently control-freaky that we shouldn't even bother taking it seriously, methinks. The Internet is for everyone, not just for would-be thought police. And there ain't nuthin' the control freaks can do about it.
Diane continues in a separate box:
Apparently, one is not allowed to disagree with ... Mark anywhere--either on (his) blogs or anywhere else. If one is censored off their blogs and then has recourse to one's own venue, then one is accused of "hatred"--even if one is simply discussing the issues...
Here are more comments from another thread on the same subject on the anti-Dreher blog, again, in sequence:
The following is a comment I posted to Mr. Shea's blog as Thomas a'Becket. I did this because I did not want him to discount my views outright as he always has.
Mr. Shea:
Let us say we follow your advice and move on. Who holds Mr. Dreher and his colleagues in the MSM accountable for what they say or do? They are great about holding Bishop X or Cardinal Y accountable for their actions. Why cant they hold the same standard for themselves? For instance, last year CNN aired video of Iraqi Snipers killing American soldiers which they obtained from the Insurgents. Talk about an advertisement for Liberal media bias. Do you know what Mr. Dreher and his colleagues said about that? Nada! Also, why is it no one covered the ethical lapses in the Democratic congress? Examples would be John Murtha of Abscam or how William Jefferson of Louisiana was elected even with $90,000 in his freezer? Yes people get carried away on the blog. However, people would not have the need if some balanced coverage was applied to the media.
Thomas a' Becket
To which Mark Shea reportedly responded to Jonathan as follows:
Jonathan:
Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you. Feel free to hold Dreher accountable all you like. But for cryin' out loud, use your real name and learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Also, try getting some perspective. You give me (and others) the creeps with your Dreher obsession.
Yes, this man sounds like a "Catholic and Enjoying It" doesn't he?
A woman named Kathleen chimed in with the following observations:
oh, that's a charming new thread on mark shea's blog, i see. still obsessing about us mark? obsessostalking in fact?
whatever beef you have with the quoted exchange between myself and demoslider is most certainly in the eye of the beholder. apparently, you too have some suspicions about dreher, or else you would wonder what the heck we are talking about. a soul as pure as the driven snow, clearly you are not.
talk about obsessostalkers getting "creepy".
To which Jonathan Carpenter responded as follows:
Kathleen:
It is not just smart women he does not like. It is more people who do not role in his same clique. It is like in High School if you are not with the "Cool Kids" (Mark, Rod, Dom B etc) you are a nobody.
Kathleen again, responding to Bubba, the blog's moderator:
Bubba, Shea displays a "tremendous amount of class"? tremendous? not quite. sorry, but i disagree. his tone and vitriol create the kind of atmosphere that egg-on sycophantic comboxers to make such threats in the first place. when it's a toss up whether or not Shea will approve of, tacitly approve of, or reject, such threats, then one has to put part of the blame on his blog-hosting.
Andy Nowicki enters the conversation and submits a link to a piece he wrote about Mr. Shea, to which one commentator said, everybody here should read Andy's great piece on his own "banishment"
Some excerpts:
Shea often reacts to intellectual challenges with prickly defensiveness. He is prone to what I have categorized elsewhere as the "How Dare You" approach to debate, wherein one starts from the premise that one's opponent can't be anything but evil or disingenuous. Thus his responses to defenders of torture, the war in Iraq, and other neocon staples often take on an ugly, smarmy tone, rife with question-begging evasions and snarky indulgences in ad hominem rhetoric.
Such was my assessment until recently. Now I realize I didn't know the half of it. I was little aware of the extent of Shea's smarm, snarkiness, and sanctimony until I (along with my identical friends, me and myself) was virtually arrested, and convicted, on the charge of being a member of a uniquely evil species, the "holocaust denier."
Of course, it wasn't and it isn't true. None of the separate identities jostling for control inside my head have ever doubted that Hitler and the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, among others. Nor do we, as adherents of the same Christian morality that (presumably) animates Shea, condone murder, much less mass murder. Yet Shea knows otherwise, because � like so many others burning to sniff out un-PC heretics and thus prove their own worth these days � he knows how to "read between the lines." ... If one pays attention to what I actually wrote, however, as opposed to what I was presumed to have "meant," no such conclusion could logically be drawn. But who needs logic when you're fired with hatred at those deemed to be "haters"?
Mark Shea's presumptuous arrogance and ungracious behavior, however, is hardly the most disheartening aspect of my experiences at his blogsite. Instead, it is the almost monolithic, sheeplike conformity of his "Catholic and Enjoying It!" fellow travelers. Of all the other posters on the board, only one brave and hardy soul, a man with the handle of "Seamus," questioned Shea's ham-fisted tactics and hinted, subtly, that some hypocrisy was on display:
Far be it from me to expose myself to accusations of defending the defenders of Holocaust deniers, but is it really the case that the man who quoted C.S. Lewis back in October on the subject of thinking your enemies as bad as possible (and being reluctant to entertain the possibility that they might not be as bad as initially thought) now holds that people can be banned, not just for questioning the Holocaust, but also for entertaining the possibility Holocaust deniers might merely be mistaken whackjobs (along the lines of those who believe the Apollo moon landings were all faked or that O.J. Simpson was innocent) rather than evil? And even conceding that Holocaust deniers are indeed evil rather than merely mistaken, must we now conclude that those who entertain a contrary view must themselves be evil rather than mistaken? If so, then we've certainly come a long way from October.
Shea never answered Seamus, of course. Why should he, when most of his readers appeared to be solidly in his corner?
Here are the comments from one of those who read it:
Whew. The Nowicki piece is indeed illuminating. Apparently reason and nuance count for nothing; one is condemned merely for suggesting that a whackjob may not be utterly evil, even if one does not personally share the whackjob's wacky views. Whew.
I will never understand people who hate, despise, insult, name-call, and take petty vengeance upon others in the name of opposing "hate." E.g., this lovely line: "Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you." Gosh. I can just feel the love.
And a woman whom Shea insulted tries to reason with him:
But Mark, may I ask you one simple question? :
Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?
I repeat:
Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?
Please try to understand, Mark. You may feel like name-calling's justified, but I assure you it isn't. It is unChristian. When wielded against women, it is also ungentlemanly and unchivalrous. It is also potentially deeply hurtful (not everyone on the Internet is thick-skinned). And it is immature. It is the favorite tactic employed by playground bullies in middle school.
Why, why, why is this so hard to understand? Why do you also, lately, do nothing but accuse and vilify, refusing to acknowledge that perhaps Jonathan Carpenter is a human being and not merely a whipping-boy object of your insults and name-calling?
Why can you, Mark, and Rod not see what is so obvious to so many (and not just to some of the comboxers here): The name-calling is the issue.Mr. Shea never responded to the woman's question.
In summary, a man who claims to detest obsessive stalking engages in it when it suits his purposes. A man who claims to defend a religion based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ effectively rejects those teachings when it suits his purposes.
Such are the obtuse twists and turns of the mind of one hypocritical Catholic apologist in the Twilight Zone....
(du-du-du-du, du-du-du-du)
#########
(Written by Rod Serling)
For those who do not know, this is a followup to an earlier guest editorial sent to us which was posted on January 9, 2007. Without further ado...
#########
CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE, REVISITED
By Rod Serling
Last time, we explored the relationship between Catholic apologist Mark Shea and free-lance writer Joseph D'Hippolito, who are at such loggerheads that they probably disagree vehemently about what time it is. Our exploration included comments from newspaper editor Victor Morton about Mr. Shea's obsessively stalking Mr. D'Hippolito on various Catholic blogs for about three years.
It now appears that Mr. D'Hippolito is not the only target of Mr. Shea's venal obsessiveness.
Submitted for your approval: This post from Mr. Shea's blog concerning another blog that specializes in criticizing Rod Dreher, a commentary editor for the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Dreher vehemently criticized the Catholic bishops' response to the sex-abuse scandal that broke in Boston in 2002. In the process, he received tremendous vitriol from a wide variety of Catholics. Mr. Dreher was so sickened by the bishops' lack of concern for the innocent that he converted from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Here's what Mr. Shea said about the anti-Dreher blog:
I never felt a need to found an entire blog simply and solely devoted to reiterating again and again and again why Crunchy Con thinking is all wrong, to enumerating Rod's faults, to gabbing with fellow Rod despisers about his latest faults, sins, gaffes, and whatnot, to plunging back into his site for fresh reasons to complain about him, and to regroup at my obsessostalker site for a new round of the Same Old Complaints, followed by gleeful speculations in the comboxes of this calibre...
Yessirree. All perfectly normal there. Nothing malicious and creepy about that sort of stuff. They're all about serious intellectual criticism.
The folks at (We Really, Really, Really Despise Rod Dreher).com made their point about the problems in Dreher's thinking in about the first three posts of their blog. Dreher has a tendency to let his passions rule his judgment at times. Crunchy Connery can sometimes be an unwarranted elevation of aesthetic choice to moral principle. Dreher is way too hard on the Catholic Church and his reasons for becoming Orthodox are not very coherent. Rod, unlike, say, Kathleen Reilly, can sometimes be tart in his replies to critics. Duly noted. I have noted such things myself when the occasion has warranted it.
But normal people *move on.* Would that the folks at WRRRDRD.com would do likewise. Surely there is *something* else to talk about than the latest way Rod Dreher has made a jackass of himself (as you all agree in your Combox Star Chamber) for failing to like a TV show you like or enjoying bread that you don't enjoy.
Get a life!
To review, here are Mr. Morton's comments about Mr. Shea:Let us stipulate that Joseph's comments about nuking Mecca et al are something less than orthodox (they are not insane or Satanic, because, as I once repeatedly and without answer pointed out to Mr. Shea, the Church does not condemn any possession of nuclear weapons as a sin, which means SOME uses of them have to be moral despite the unquestionable fact they kill civilians en masse). Joseph did not attempt to engage Mr. Shea, did not attempt to hijack his blog, did not refer to him. So it's rather unconvincing to hear "I've spent a great deal of time avoiding you. You're like a bad penny. ... I keep running into your obnoxious and abusive crap on blogs I regularly read." Everybody has some people they don't like, or can't imagine engaging even for the sake of collegial disagreement, someone at St. Blogs whose orthodoxy they question. Tough titty.
Mr. Shea's disagreement (he is not a bishop and has no real authority in these matters, so nothing he says can ever rise above that) is not an excuse to try to destroy somebody's reputation by repetitively injecting himself wherever Joseph may go, talking about whatever subject Joseph may, and calling him Osama bin Laden or a mass murder advocate. This was NOT disagreement with somebody, but an attempt to demonize a human being, to make him anathema as such, to pursue him like a stalking siren. And Joseph is right to protest it.
Please keep both sets of comments in mind when you read this response to Mr. Shea posted on the anti-Dreher blog by "Bubba" the blog moderator:
When on his own blog Shea highlights, in bold lettering and mid-space, a purposely innocuous exchange between myself and a commenter from our blog, and claims that in it we make dire analyses of his buddy Dreher --- well, let's just say that with friends like Shea, Dreher needs no contras. It's also clear that Shea pores over this blog with great care, since he venomously spits back random bits with what is becoming frightening regularity. Which can only be the point of his reading it -- to cultivate his own anger. (Unless, on some level he doesn't wish to acknowledge, he's, um "enjoying it").
Shea wishes to silence us, of course, by implying -- no, proclaiming -- that we're the crazies. He loves to call us "obsessostalkers" which is interesting, because it seems to me Shea has done a great deal of obsessing and stalking of us. Shea has even christened our blog with his very own nickname, and even given that nickname an acronym. cute!
I'm still amused that Mark Shea runs a blog called Catholic and Enjoying It. I guess he is catholic, and in some perverse way enjoying "it", but I can assure him that other catholics -- in particular those who value sanity -- don't enjoy it, and for myriad reasons. Has it dawned on him that other catholics don't appreciate his fondness for vitriol and flame-throwing? Or the fact that Shea indulgently cultivates his anger while he simultaneously sells his services as a professional catholic apologist? It's not really that great for catholicism when the catholic apologist on TV calls to mind Michael Douglas with a crewcut, horn-rims, and an automatic weapon.
...the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up...
The comments, presented in sequence from the comments thread, poke even more holes in Mr. Shea's self-righteous facade (All references to Mr. Dreher will be edited out, since he is not the subject of our current study): The first is from a woman named Diane...
I could not agree more with the following:
the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up
Exactly. What the Marks ... want is the power to censor opposing views out of their own comboxes (which is their prerogative, of course) PLUS the power to censor those same views in other venues. Who the hay-ell do such folks think they are? If they won't tolerate dissent in their own comboxes (which, again, is their preogative), fine. But they certainly cannot expect the folks they have silenced there to docilely shut up everywhere else. It's a free Internet. Freedom of expression is enjoyed equally by all of us. It is not the exclusive preserve of a self-anointed few. Not on the Internet, anyway.
Mark's efforts to silence dissent even on other people's blogs is so transparently control-freaky that we shouldn't even bother taking it seriously, methinks. The Internet is for everyone, not just for would-be thought police. And there ain't nuthin' the control freaks can do about it.
Diane continues in a separate box:
Apparently, one is not allowed to disagree with ... Mark anywhere--either on (his) blogs or anywhere else. If one is censored off their blogs and then has recourse to one's own venue, then one is accused of "hatred"--even if one is simply discussing the issues...
Here are more comments from another thread on the same subject on the anti-Dreher blog, again, in sequence:
The following is a comment I posted to Mr. Shea's blog as Thomas a'Becket. I did this because I did not want him to discount my views outright as he always has.
Mr. Shea:
Let us say we follow your advice and move on. Who holds Mr. Dreher and his colleagues in the MSM accountable for what they say or do? They are great about holding Bishop X or Cardinal Y accountable for their actions. Why cant they hold the same standard for themselves? For instance, last year CNN aired video of Iraqi Snipers killing American soldiers which they obtained from the Insurgents. Talk about an advertisement for Liberal media bias. Do you know what Mr. Dreher and his colleagues said about that? Nada! Also, why is it no one covered the ethical lapses in the Democratic congress? Examples would be John Murtha of Abscam or how William Jefferson of Louisiana was elected even with $90,000 in his freezer? Yes people get carried away on the blog. However, people would not have the need if some balanced coverage was applied to the media.
Thomas a' Becket
To which Mark Shea reportedly responded to Jonathan as follows:
Jonathan:
Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you. Feel free to hold Dreher accountable all you like. But for cryin' out loud, use your real name and learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Also, try getting some perspective. You give me (and others) the creeps with your Dreher obsession.
Yes, this man sounds like a "Catholic and Enjoying It" doesn't he?
A woman named Kathleen chimed in with the following observations:
oh, that's a charming new thread on mark shea's blog, i see. still obsessing about us mark? obsessostalking in fact?
whatever beef you have with the quoted exchange between myself and demoslider is most certainly in the eye of the beholder. apparently, you too have some suspicions about dreher, or else you would wonder what the heck we are talking about. a soul as pure as the driven snow, clearly you are not.
talk about obsessostalkers getting "creepy".
To which Jonathan Carpenter responded as follows:
Kathleen:
It is not just smart women he does not like. It is more people who do not role in his same clique. It is like in High School if you are not with the "Cool Kids" (Mark, Rod, Dom B etc) you are a nobody.
Kathleen again, responding to Bubba, the blog's moderator:
Bubba, Shea displays a "tremendous amount of class"? tremendous? not quite. sorry, but i disagree. his tone and vitriol create the kind of atmosphere that egg-on sycophantic comboxers to make such threats in the first place. when it's a toss up whether or not Shea will approve of, tacitly approve of, or reject, such threats, then one has to put part of the blame on his blog-hosting.
Andy Nowicki enters the conversation and submits a link to a piece he wrote about Mr. Shea, to which one commentator said, everybody here should read Andy's great piece on his own "banishment"
Some excerpts:
Shea often reacts to intellectual challenges with prickly defensiveness. He is prone to what I have categorized elsewhere as the "How Dare You" approach to debate, wherein one starts from the premise that one's opponent can't be anything but evil or disingenuous. Thus his responses to defenders of torture, the war in Iraq, and other neocon staples often take on an ugly, smarmy tone, rife with question-begging evasions and snarky indulgences in ad hominem rhetoric.
Such was my assessment until recently. Now I realize I didn't know the half of it. I was little aware of the extent of Shea's smarm, snarkiness, and sanctimony until I (along with my identical friends, me and myself) was virtually arrested, and convicted, on the charge of being a member of a uniquely evil species, the "holocaust denier."
Of course, it wasn't and it isn't true. None of the separate identities jostling for control inside my head have ever doubted that Hitler and the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, among others. Nor do we, as adherents of the same Christian morality that (presumably) animates Shea, condone murder, much less mass murder. Yet Shea knows otherwise, because � like so many others burning to sniff out un-PC heretics and thus prove their own worth these days � he knows how to "read between the lines." ... If one pays attention to what I actually wrote, however, as opposed to what I was presumed to have "meant," no such conclusion could logically be drawn. But who needs logic when you're fired with hatred at those deemed to be "haters"?
Mark Shea's presumptuous arrogance and ungracious behavior, however, is hardly the most disheartening aspect of my experiences at his blogsite. Instead, it is the almost monolithic, sheeplike conformity of his "Catholic and Enjoying It!" fellow travelers. Of all the other posters on the board, only one brave and hardy soul, a man with the handle of "Seamus," questioned Shea's ham-fisted tactics and hinted, subtly, that some hypocrisy was on display:
Far be it from me to expose myself to accusations of defending the defenders of Holocaust deniers, but is it really the case that the man who quoted C.S. Lewis back in October on the subject of thinking your enemies as bad as possible (and being reluctant to entertain the possibility that they might not be as bad as initially thought) now holds that people can be banned, not just for questioning the Holocaust, but also for entertaining the possibility Holocaust deniers might merely be mistaken whackjobs (along the lines of those who believe the Apollo moon landings were all faked or that O.J. Simpson was innocent) rather than evil? And even conceding that Holocaust deniers are indeed evil rather than merely mistaken, must we now conclude that those who entertain a contrary view must themselves be evil rather than mistaken? If so, then we've certainly come a long way from October.
Shea never answered Seamus, of course. Why should he, when most of his readers appeared to be solidly in his corner?
Here are the comments from one of those who read it:
Whew. The Nowicki piece is indeed illuminating. Apparently reason and nuance count for nothing; one is condemned merely for suggesting that a whackjob may not be utterly evil, even if one does not personally share the whackjob's wacky views. Whew.
I will never understand people who hate, despise, insult, name-call, and take petty vengeance upon others in the name of opposing "hate." E.g., this lovely line: "Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you." Gosh. I can just feel the love.
And a woman whom Shea insulted tries to reason with him:
But Mark, may I ask you one simple question? :
Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?
I repeat:
Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?
Please try to understand, Mark. You may feel like name-calling's justified, but I assure you it isn't. It is unChristian. When wielded against women, it is also ungentlemanly and unchivalrous. It is also potentially deeply hurtful (not everyone on the Internet is thick-skinned). And it is immature. It is the favorite tactic employed by playground bullies in middle school.
Why, why, why is this so hard to understand? Why do you also, lately, do nothing but accuse and vilify, refusing to acknowledge that perhaps Jonathan Carpenter is a human being and not merely a whipping-boy object of your insults and name-calling?
Why can you, Mark, and Rod not see what is so obvious to so many (and not just to some of the comboxers here): The name-calling is the issue.Mr. Shea never responded to the woman's question.
In summary, a man who claims to detest obsessive stalking engages in it when it suits his purposes. A man who claims to defend a religion based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ effectively rejects those teachings when it suits his purposes.
Such are the obtuse twists and turns of the mind of one hypocritical Catholic apologist in the Twilight Zone....
(du-du-du-du, du-du-du-du)
#########
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)