Wednesday, May 09, 2018
Points to Ponder:
"The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine...
When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, 'si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,' [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.
Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt...
[I] deplore...the conduct of so many...who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls." [Pope Saint Pius X: Allocution (circa November 18, 1912)]
"The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine...
When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, 'si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,' [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.
Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt...
[I] deplore...the conduct of so many...who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls." [Pope Saint Pius X: Allocution (circa November 18, 1912)]
To Protect Free Speech We Must Demand This Professor Be Fired
To quote the most salient passages from this article:
"...I believe in free speech. I also believe in reciprocity. If conservatives are being shut down by de facto university actions–when the Federalist Society’s Josh Blackman lecture on, oddly enough, free speech was shut down, the dean of the CUNY law school said that demonstrations to stop a lecture were protected speech–then it is suicidal to go along with this lemming-like devotion to free speech. If free speech is transactional, I don’t have a problem playing that game...
We are not engaged in a war of ideas where we debate over a glass of chilled pinot grigio. We are engaged in a fight for freedom of speech and freedom of conscience with people who openly admit they are trying to deprive us of those rights. How is me supporting the right of this bloated bolshevik to say whatever she wants going to help guys like Josh Blackman, and Ben Shapiro, talk about conservative ideas? It won’t. In fact, it will just make the job harder as we’re fighting for get-out-of-jail-free cards for these 'people' while they are classifying us as Nazis. Why in the name of heaven would I line up to march silently into the gas chambers based on some abstract principle that, apparently, only my side is bound by? Not. Going. To. Happen.
No. I want this noxious troll fired. No. I will not support her right to say whatever she wants to. And no, none of this means that I don’t support free speech, it just means that I believe in social compacts and my support of your rights is directly linked to your support of mine."
If you had asked me back during this site's original run, I would have taken the classic stance of conservatives to stand up for free speech even if I do not like said speech. I still in principle have that view but the political and social realities have changed so dramatically the last decade or so{1} that I have come to the same view as the above writer at least in a macro sense. I can no longer however stand for the right of those who quite evidently would try and take the same rights from me. While not a complete left field development insofar as I have long recognized this principle in other areas{2}, it is the first to my knowledge explicit application of it to the principle of free speech in general.
And while I may write more on this in the future, at the moment, that is all I plan to say on the present issue in question.
Notes:
{1} And while the degree of concurrence of my current views with past views across the general spectrum of outlooks has remained remarkably consistent; I would be remiss in not noting there have been a few changes: the most significant of which can be read here in a recent posting on the subject of immigration.
{2} For example, my stance on the Israeli-Palestinian discussion. I am no huge booster of Israel but I have long said I do not accept the validity of dialogue on their part with Palestinians because you cannot dialogue legitimately with those who operate from the presupposition that you should not exist and they would exterminate you if given the opportunity. In essence, I have expanded my principled stance on this matter to the subject of free speech in general out of logistical survival one might say. Now, I will not only not support the right of such persons to speak but I will actively advocate for their silencing until such time as they can reciprocate in the area of free speech where I am concerned. Bottom line: if you stand for free speech, do not think this only works one way.
To quote the most salient passages from this article:
"...I believe in free speech. I also believe in reciprocity. If conservatives are being shut down by de facto university actions–when the Federalist Society’s Josh Blackman lecture on, oddly enough, free speech was shut down, the dean of the CUNY law school said that demonstrations to stop a lecture were protected speech–then it is suicidal to go along with this lemming-like devotion to free speech. If free speech is transactional, I don’t have a problem playing that game...
We are not engaged in a war of ideas where we debate over a glass of chilled pinot grigio. We are engaged in a fight for freedom of speech and freedom of conscience with people who openly admit they are trying to deprive us of those rights. How is me supporting the right of this bloated bolshevik to say whatever she wants going to help guys like Josh Blackman, and Ben Shapiro, talk about conservative ideas? It won’t. In fact, it will just make the job harder as we’re fighting for get-out-of-jail-free cards for these 'people' while they are classifying us as Nazis. Why in the name of heaven would I line up to march silently into the gas chambers based on some abstract principle that, apparently, only my side is bound by? Not. Going. To. Happen.
No. I want this noxious troll fired. No. I will not support her right to say whatever she wants to. And no, none of this means that I don’t support free speech, it just means that I believe in social compacts and my support of your rights is directly linked to your support of mine."
If you had asked me back during this site's original run, I would have taken the classic stance of conservatives to stand up for free speech even if I do not like said speech. I still in principle have that view but the political and social realities have changed so dramatically the last decade or so{1} that I have come to the same view as the above writer at least in a macro sense. I can no longer however stand for the right of those who quite evidently would try and take the same rights from me. While not a complete left field development insofar as I have long recognized this principle in other areas{2}, it is the first to my knowledge explicit application of it to the principle of free speech in general.
And while I may write more on this in the future, at the moment, that is all I plan to say on the present issue in question.
Notes:
{1} And while the degree of concurrence of my current views with past views across the general spectrum of outlooks has remained remarkably consistent; I would be remiss in not noting there have been a few changes: the most significant of which can be read here in a recent posting on the subject of immigration.
{2} For example, my stance on the Israeli-Palestinian discussion. I am no huge booster of Israel but I have long said I do not accept the validity of dialogue on their part with Palestinians because you cannot dialogue legitimately with those who operate from the presupposition that you should not exist and they would exterminate you if given the opportunity. In essence, I have expanded my principled stance on this matter to the subject of free speech in general out of logistical survival one might say. Now, I will not only not support the right of such persons to speak but I will actively advocate for their silencing until such time as they can reciprocate in the area of free speech where I am concerned. Bottom line: if you stand for free speech, do not think this only works one way.
Tuesday, May 08, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)