Posted on 07/23/2008 2:47:21 PM PDT by Pyro7480
When Gov. Alfred E. Smith ran for president in 1928, his candidacy was derailed in large part by anti-Catholic prejudice. It has been nearly 48 years since John F. Kennedy became the first (and so far only) Roman Catholic president, but experts say that anti-Catholic sentiment — much of it originating in, or as a response to, immigrants in New York — remains an enduring force in American culture.
That was the consensus of a panel assembled at the Museum of the City of New York on Tuesday night to consider the question, “Is Anti-Catholicism Dead?”
...The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus — a leading conservative intellectual, a former Lutheran pastor and the editor of the leading Catholic journal First Things — offered a surprising view on the question.
“To be a Catholic is not to be refused positions of influence in our society,” he said. “Indeed, one of the most acceptable things is to be a bad Catholic, and in the view of many people, the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic.”
...He added that anti-Catholicism was as likely to come from the left — sometimes from commentators who believe that a “threatening theological insurgency is engineered and directed by Catholics,” with evangelical Protestants merely as the movement’s “foot soldiers.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com ...
I see that summer school may be required....
Let’s see:
Here’s what we had to work with:
“Show me one Catholic on this forum who has consigned any poster to hell....Even hedging your bets, I don’t think you’ll find one. And even if you do find a poster who said that, they are wrong and in conflict with the teaching of the Church.”
Now here’s Alex’s proof - after much waiting which shows this certainly is less common than Protestants attacking Catholics here:
“annalex: You are hell bound, generally speaking, yes, by the fact of your being separated brethren.”
Well, that doesn’t work. Hell bound is not the same as consigning someone to hell. So, your example fails immediately, Alex. Next:
“annalex: I know, for example, that as an anti-Catholic you cannot go to heaven.”
Well, some might say that not going to heaven is not necessarily going to hell, but even if taken in the most immediate sense this too is not a consignment to hell. Annalex is probably correct in that someone filled with anti-Catholic spirit cannot be right with God after all.
And the context of these statements would have been nice too, Alex.
I think you got close, but I still don’t see any automatic consignment to hell there.
Nicely done.
"...while you show only a meanspiritedness in attacking the Church every day and even going way out of your way to do it."
I think you didn't even show up to the right ballpark.
You wrote:
“I think you didn’t even show up to the right ballpark.”
From what I can see I’m on the field while you’re still trying to lace up in the clubhouse.
I move that Alex be named “Chief of GRPL Quote Attribution and Research.”
I can’t decide if there is evidence of intellectual challenge or intellectual dishonestly or would that be spiritual challenge or spiritual dishonesty?
I really think this is one more glaring example of some people’s understanding of context. They went looking for what they believed was true and in their definition of context, found it, while any intellectual parsing of the posts glaringly failed to prove the point.
Hydrophobia has many symptoms. The bacteria that causes it is often carried by rats.
One can make lots of quotes say what one wants as long as one gets to choose what to leave out.
The charge was a blanket charge -- a blanket that still has covered none of the data presented in support of it.
Unless terms like "all", "not all", "some", "one", and "none" are views as rhetorical flourishes, that is. To me they have meaning, so that if I am accused of consigning non-Catholics to Hell, I take that to mean "ALL" non-catholics WILL go to hell, because it is no scandal if I suggest that SOME MAY go to hell. But all the quotes adduced in evidence of the charge imply or explicitly state some exception.But that wasn't the charge.
To me, this is "bait and switch". One charge is made explicitly, another vaguer and implicit charge is defended. To those who see no important difference between "some" and "all" I have nothing of a logical or argumentative nature to say.
Where was the blanket charge? You are implying things that aren't there. If I added such words to a Catholic quote, you would chastise men. Besides the challenge by numerous posters was to find one example (not a blanket statement), and it was found. But not one will admit it, so there is no point on going further. Besides, I really did not intend to start such fighting, so I appologize for the uproar my initial post caused. I just meant to make the point that both neither side is innocent, which I think the constant hounding on this thread proved.
No sale, MD. Rebuke your own, publicly and by name, for not posting their own admissions of guilt "less than graciousness" to us.
I have publicly apologized for going over the top, and no I don't remember where or when. I thought I was bad at reckning up wrongs but I think I am indeed out of my league here..
Am I to understand that your position is that since some Catholics have been guilty of excessive language against some Protestants then no Protestant is to be held as having done the same thing? Or is it that we are to have champions for each side?
and here we go again:
I've never seen an admission or an apology from that responsible party of those comments being "over the line", with just one single, notable exception.
It may be hair-splitting to a Protestant, but to me that means that in fact you HAVE seen ONE notable admission or apology from that responsible party. I don't know the context, but it sounds like he's supposed to say it three times or something.
I got in this game because ALways Right said something which seemed to me to be untrue and then, when challenged, produced evidence which was not competent to answer the question. That's all.
Now that it has become bait and switch, and that Always Right's still unsubstantiated statement is being lost in "Am not!" and "Are too!" I think I'll go seek adult amusement.
And the first statement had "generally speaking" in it, which is importantly different from "categorically speaking". And the second post was about anti-Catholics, which is a class not identical with "Protestant".
Looks like crow's back OFF the menu, boys.
I did not mean to drive you to porn. ;-}
Quick, what year is this?
The only bait and switch is by you, by inserting 'all' into the equation.
Years ago a friend predicted that a whole generation of kids was going to think that "adult" meant "dirty".
Where did I insert "all"? You said implied "some" and we challenged you by asking for "one", since "one" would establish "some".
I think a google search on ‘Adult’ would prove that prediction has come to pass.
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.