Posted on 06/15/2002 11:40:18 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
Um, I live two doors down from a convicted sex offender. But his name isn't on the website maintained by the state, and his name doesn't appear in the lists (with mugshots) frequently printed in the newspaper, because his crime was committed in 1982. He gets visits from teenagers of both sexes......the neighbors are watching him like a hawk, but the kids are from farther away, and nobody knows where they live. They come in on bicycles, or they walk, or they come in a car. Traffic comes and goes late at night. The police are aware of the situation, but as the city's budget games intensify and police attrition isn't replaced, the "neighborhood policing" storefront station is used increasingly to cover calls formerly answered by beat cops and detectives. We regularly see "our" storefront cops on TV, looking at bullet holes in the ceiling at the K-Mart, or in the glass doors of the local Stop-N-Rob, or milling around at some outdoor crime scene. Nothing is being done.
Some parents in our city decided to drag out a city map and start marking the addresses where these sex offenders lived. They noticed that numbers of them were clustering together......near schools and churches. Some of them were living in the same apartment complex. They knew each other.....they were collaborating.....the parole and probation authorities were clueless; they had no idea, they told the papers.
Do you think they cared a lot? With 40-50-100 releasees to watch, how would they keep track of them? And, too, like Montana, my city is a "destination" city for state parolees. We have been outraged to find out that when violent offenders get paroled or released for lack of space, no matter where they're from, they automatically get put on a bus for our town. Same deal as Montana -- we're a dumping ground.
>>They're deploring Moloch to cast out St. Peter in the name of Lucifer.<<
Could you be intending to say "deploying Moloch?" I want to be sure because I would like to quote you if you don't mind. It's an appealing concept that you observe, here.
It reminds me of liberals who accuse others of "intolerance," and do so repeatedly, with the intended agenda of making their opponents more accepting of liberals' views. But liberals are always intolerant of any views but their own. By repetition of the claim, they would hope to redefine the word; however, when their own, new definition is pronounced, they have no response. They would never commit the folly of being clear in their own definition, because clarity and precision of truth is destructive of their agenda.
So, why was Vatican II so devoted to avoiding definition? "This is not a defining council...It is a 'pastoral' council."
I think we ought to call it "Pastoral One." And follow it up immediately with the expression, "And I hope there will never be a Pastoral Two."
No, I really meant "deploring", rather as if they were going about crying "scandala, scandala"; but they do it only to scandalize the faithful of the RC Church against their church and clergy.
An analogy from the world of film is all the old silent movie spectacles like Ben-Hur that portrayed orgies, pretending to deplore while pausing to explore.
"Ulterior motive" pretty much captures the spirit of the writer of this article.
This thread is old. At the time it was posted, the link was good. Watch out for old links.
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.