tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 22, 2020 22:07:45 GMT -5
Catholics are part of a weird cult and do a fine job of demonstrating that themselves. Your anti-Catholic posts of the past were out of line on this board. Please exercise discretion to take these comments elsewhere. --Admin Admin Can I ask why a post like this isn't similarly flagged? hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/657389Is it because Georgetown is a Catholic institution so Catholicism is protected? Why is it not ok to call Catholicism a cult, but ok to say a Muslim boy is going to go fund Jihad because he's a follower of Islam ok? Not trying to start anything, just curious as to where the line is drawn here. 1. That post was from 2015 and no one pointed it out that I recall. 2. The poster in question has been insulting of Catholics on this board for a while now and has been asked to back off before. 3. Generally speaking, religious issues are governed tighter on the board than in 2015. If he said all Jews or all Muslims were in a cult, the same reprobation applies. --Admin
I think this is a great question to have asked. And, while the labeling is questionable, we crap on each other all of the time on this board. I only mention this because I was a suburban white kid, mostly isolated from religious diversity before I got to Georgetown (unless one considers a lapsed Lutheran mother and a lapsed Catholic father diversity). My two next door neighbors in St. Mary's freshman year (pre-air conditioning... brutal) were two guys from NJ. By lineage, one is Pakistani (born in Jersey) and the other is Indian (born in Tanzania and raised in Jersey). And, they both are Muslim. When we'd be hanging out in their room and it was time to pray, they allowed me to stay, sitting quietly, while they rolled out their rugs, side by side, and prayed. The first time they did it was in August. We had just met. I was a little confused, but I didn't say anything. I knew what was happening from Social Studies classes in middle school but I had never been witness to such a practice during a random Wednesday when chatting with new friends. I didn't learn more in all of my classes at Georgetown than I learned from those two gents because they allowed me my ignorance and rewarded me with patience and conversation. My only point is that, while I'm not religious (in truth, I'm an atheist), closely held beliefs tend to get people's anger up or, at a minimum, tend to get a bit caustic in discussion. But, maybe a measure of leniency is needed to further real conversations. I'm not saying that, in this case, a discussion was wanted on the merits/reasons for having or not having faith (I think it's clear that that wasn't the trajectory of the comments). I only mention it in case it does get a bit heated but the discussion is genuine in its curiosity. Also, it made me think of old friends and touched on a part of my education that I hold most closely and lovingly.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by hoya9797 on Sept 23, 2020 9:06:19 GMT -5
It’s hard to imagine what praying in a serious way means. Talking to an imaginary being is the opposite of serious. Second warning, see notes above.--AdminNo historical figure in the past 2000 years has had 34 documented miracles that were witnessed by others (in some cases thousands of others) and so impressive that the record of them was carried down through the years.No historical figure in the years prior to 0 AD has had this documented record of miracles. If this historic figure was imaginary how could all these events have occurred? It seems too fantastic to say that all this was completely made up and passed down through over 2000 years. Something to think about, seriously. I’ll refrain from commenting on this utter nonsense.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 23, 2020 9:14:34 GMT -5
No historical figure in the past 2000 years has had 34 documented miracles that were witnessed by others (in some cases thousands of others) and so impressive that the record of them was carried down through the years.No historical figure in the years prior to 0 AD has had this documented record of miracles. If this historic figure was imaginary how could all these events have occurred? It seems too fantastic to say that all this was completely made up and passed down through over 2000 years. Something to think about, seriously. I’ll refrain from commenting on this utter nonsense. If that were only true.
|
|
|
Post by flyoverhoya on Sept 23, 2020 9:18:09 GMT -5
"unless one considers a lapsed Lutheran mother and a lapsed Catholic father diversity"
That's a pretty scandalous "mixed marriage" in my neck of the woods.....
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 23, 2020 10:37:57 GMT -5
"unless one considers a lapsed Lutheran mother and a lapsed Catholic father diversity" That's a pretty scandalous "mixed marriage" in my neck of the woods..... Reminds me of the old Irish Rovers’ song “the Orange and the Green”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 12:23:24 GMT -5
Strangely , I agree. This whole Supreme Court fight takes all attention away from Covid. Additionally, the Republicans have a potential court nominee candidate who with her seven kids (two adopted from Haiti with its humanitarian crises), strong religious faith, impeccable academic and legal credentials, and past connection to Scalia is almost a real living saint. And a non-Ivy League saint that puts her on the side of great American middle versus the elites who are trying to take God out of their schools, 1776 out of the constitution , the police out of their communities and make Catholics look like a weird religious cult. If I were the Democrats I would punt on this one and focus on Covid, where they are winning. They say Never get in a Editeding contest with a skunk. I would have a new admonition-never get into a Supreme Court confirmation fight with a saint, particularly one with a Thomas More level IQ. Feinstein, Klobuchar, Coons, Harris, Whitehouse, Hirono etal once again looking like mean spirited bigots like they were in 2017 when Barrett was first confirmed is a recipe for disaster if played out on a large stage. In May 2009, President Barack Obama nominated a Catholic woman, Sonia Sotomayor, to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Her confirmation RAISED the number of Catholics on the Court to six, compared to three Non-Catholics.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Sept 23, 2020 15:00:32 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 15:13:20 GMT -5
Trump wants everyone to decide this election except American voters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 18:30:51 GMT -5
Can we please stop pretending this isn't a real thing. Giving this person power was a massive mistake. The man only cares about 1 thing and he will abuse everything and everyone who stands in his way.
He's splitting the country in half and radicalizing both sides.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by hoyarooter on Sept 23, 2020 20:16:45 GMT -5
Admin Can I ask why a post like this isn't similarly flagged? hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/657389Is it because Georgetown is a Catholic institution so Catholicism is protected? Why is it not ok to call Catholicism a cult, but ok to say a Muslim boy is going to go fund Jihad because he's a follower of Islam ok? Not trying to start anything, just curious as to where the line is drawn here. 1. That post was from 2015 and no one pointed it out that I recall. 2. The poster in question has been insulting of Catholics on this board for a while now and has been asked to back off before. 3. Generally speaking, religious issues are governed tighter on the board than in 2015. If he said all Jews or all Muslims were in a cult, the same reprobation applies. --Admin
I think this is a great question to have asked. And, while the labeling is questionable, we crap on each other all of the time on this board. I only mention this because I was a suburban white kid, mostly isolated from religious diversity before I got to Georgetown (unless one considers a lapsed Lutheran mother and a lapsed Catholic father diversity). My two next door neighbors in St. Mary's freshman year (pre-air conditioning... brutal) were two guys from NJ. By lineage, one is Pakistani (born in Jersey) and the other is Indian (born in Tanzania and raised in Jersey). And, they both are Muslims. When we'd be hanging out in their room and it was time to pray, they allowed me to stay, sitting quietly, while they rolled out their rugs, side by side, and prayed. The first time they did it was in August. We had just met. I was a little confused, but I didn't say anything. I knew what was happening from Social Studies classes in middle school but I had never been witness to such a practice during a random Wednesday when chatting with new friends. I didn't learn more in all of my classes at Georgetown than I learned from those two gents because they allowed me my ignorance and rewarded me with patience and conversation. My only point is that, while I'm not religious (in truth, I'm an atheist), closely held beliefs tend to get people's anger up or, at a minimum, tend to get a bit caustic in discussion. But, maybe a measure of leniency is needed to further real conversations. I'm not saying that, in this case, a discussion was wanted on the merits/reasons for having or not having faith (I think it's clear that that wasn't the trajectory of the comments). I only mention it in case it does get a bit heated but the discussion is genuine in its curiosity. Also, it made me think of old friends and touched on a part of my education that I hold most closely and lovingly. Fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing this.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 23, 2020 22:17:32 GMT -5
I think this is a great question to have asked. And, while the labeling is questionable, we crap on each other all of the time on this board. I only mention this because I was a suburban white kid, mostly isolated from religious diversity before I got to Georgetown (unless one considers a lapsed Lutheran mother and a lapsed Catholic father diversity). My two next door neighbors in St. Mary's freshman year (pre-air conditioning... brutal) were two guys from NJ. By lineage, one is Pakistani (born in Jersey) and the other is Indian (born in Tanzania and raised in Jersey). And, they both are Muslims. When we'd be hanging out in their room and it was time to pray, they allowed me to stay, sitting quietly, while they rolled out their rugs, side by side, and prayed. The first time they did it was in August. We had just met. I was a little confused, but I didn't say anything. I knew what was happening from Social Studies classes in middle school but I had never been witness to such a practice during a random Wednesday when chatting with new friends. I didn't learn more in all of my classes at Georgetown than I learned from those two gents because they allowed me my ignorance and rewarded me with patience and conversation. My only point is that, while I'm not religious (in truth, I'm an atheist), closely held beliefs tend to get people's anger up or, at a minimum, tend to get a bit caustic in discussion. But, maybe a measure of leniency is needed to further real conversations. I'm not saying that, in this case, a discussion was wanted on the merits/reasons for having or not having faith (I think it's clear that that wasn't the trajectory of the comments). I only mention it in case it does get a bit heated but the discussion is genuine in its curiosity. Also, it made me think of old friends and touched on a part of my education that I hold most closely and lovingly. Fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing this. Truly happy to share. Great memories.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 23, 2020 22:20:28 GMT -5
"unless one considers a lapsed Lutheran mother and a lapsed Catholic father diversity" That's a pretty scandalous "mixed marriage" in my neck of the woods..... At the time they got married, it wasn't exactly lauded by my dad's side of the family either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2020 11:50:05 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,493
|
Post by DanMcQ on Sept 26, 2020 18:12:45 GMT -5
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 26, 2020 22:15:27 GMT -5
Of course this was the way it was going to go but the juxtaposition between RBG and this nominee are glaring and stunning. It's a direct rebuke of all that RBG worked for in a life of service. Amy Coney Barrett benefited directly from the work of Justice Bader Ginsburg. The irony couldn't be thicker.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by hoyarooter on Sept 28, 2020 18:14:50 GMT -5
Of course this was the way it was going to go but the juxtaposition between RBG and this nominee are glaring and stunning. It's a direct rebuke of all that RBG worked for in a life of service. Amy Coney Barrett benefited directly from the work of Justice Bader Ginsburg. The irony couldn't be thicker. Well, yeah, but what does that mean, exactly? That she should take more progressive positions and not be an admirer of Justice Scalia? That's just not the way the world works. The fact is that this woman seems to be at least respectably credentialed (way better than Clarence Thomas was, for example). That doesn't mean the Republicans didn't steal Merrick Garland's seat. They did. But unless something crazy comes out on her, there's nothing the Dems can do to deny her this seat, except try to make her appointment into a major campaign issue, and then consider other alternatives if Biden wins and the Dems control the Senate.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 28, 2020 18:52:21 GMT -5
Of course this was the way it was going to go but the juxtaposition between RBG and this nominee are glaring and stunning. It's a direct rebuke of all that RBG worked for in a life of service. Amy Coney Barrett benefited directly from the work of Justice Bader Ginsburg. The irony couldn't be thicker. Is it any more ironic than RBG replacing Whizzer White who never sat as a Judge on a single case before he went on the SC bench? Who dissented in both Miranda and Roe? ] Really?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 20:31:48 GMT -5
Of course this was the way it was going to go but the juxtaposition between RBG and this nominee are glaring and stunning. It's a direct rebuke of all that RBG worked for in a life of service. Amy Coney Barrett benefited directly from the work of Justice Bader Ginsburg. The irony couldn't be thicker. Is it any more ironic than RBG replacing Whizzer White who never sat as a Judge on a single case before he went on the SC bench? Who dissented in both Miranda and Roe? ] Really? How did RBG benefit from the work of Whizzer White?
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 28, 2020 20:34:22 GMT -5
Is it any more ironic than RBG replacing Whizzer White who never sat as a Judge on a single case before he went on the SC bench? Who dissented in both Miranda and Roe? ] Really? How did RBG benefit from the work of Whizzer White? She didn’t. But she was anathema to White in philosophy as most suggest Judge Coney Barrett is to RBG.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 20:40:45 GMT -5
How did RBG benefit from the work of Whizzer White? She didn’t. But she was anathema to White in philosophy as most suggest Judge Coney Barrett is to RBG. Other than the fact that was one of the main parts of his comment I think you're taking a very narrow view of his philosophy, which seems very difficult to pin down.
|
|