Comments on: Notre Dame Faculty Earn “F” in Rhetorical Criticism

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 07 May 2012 21:00:57 +0000

For those who want to support Bishop Daniel Jenky’s religious free speech rights, please encourage him and sign this petition http://tinyurl.com/supportjenky

By: Richard M

Richard M — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 21:59:02 +0000

Hello David,

“Also, there is no “clear violation” of First Amendment rights. If Bishop Jenky is talking about the “contraceptive mandate,” it hasn’t even been written yet.”

Actually, it has. It went on the federal register officially in February – intact.

It’s true that President Obama has proposed a possible modification of that. But as you say, that modification has not been written,n or is there any guarantee that it will be. The rest of us might be rightly suspicious that the pressure to do so will be quite a lot less after he is re-elected.

Moreover, what the president has proposed really does not solve the problem of material (or formal) cooperation with evil for religious institutions, especially those that self-insure.

By: Blake

Blake — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:27:00 +0000

Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.

Has there been any effort to replace religious schools by state schools?

No, but there has been an effort to control religious schools – specifically, to strip religious entities as a group of their religious freedom re: sexual teachings (to mandate Unitarian Universalist beliefs on sexuality, gender, family, etc. as the required teachings for all children, regardless of whether the parents are UU or humanist).

How is that any different?

By: William Tighe

William Tighe — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:52:50 +0000

Felapton wrote:

“The tax exemption for religious entities rests on the requirement that they not engage in partisan politics.”

Well, only since 1965 has that been a requirement, and the tax exemption for religious entities goes back much further than that; and I think that anyone so rash as to wish to prove that the reason for that tax exemption was to keep “religious entities” out of “partisan politics” will have a hard row to hoe.

I think that that 1965 requirement was a brazen attempt to muzzle the churches, especially as “partisan politics” and “religious doctrine” overlap in many ways. In 1962 the Catholic Archbishop of New Orleans excommunicated the Catholic politician Leander Perez for opposing the archdiocese’s decision to desegregate Catholic schools. Was that engaging in “partisan politics?” Today, I wish that Catholic bishops and archbishops had the moxie to excommunicate those “pro-choice” Catholics — I need not name them, for their name is legion — who occupy prominent elective and appointive political offices, and also clearly and explicitly instruct Catholics that it is contrary to the duty of any faithful Catholic to vote for such persons. If an attempt is made to strip the Church of its tax-exempt status, it should be followed all the way to the Supreme Court, on the argument that it is a fundamental aspect of the Faith of the Catholic Church that it has the authority and duty to instruct its faithful on all matters of faith and morals, and that “morals” don’t stop on the frontier of “politics.” And if it loses the case at that level, it should abandon its tax-exempt status, rather than to be muzzled by an immoral regime.

By: TXW

TXW — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:29:05 +0000

Just list the pre-war laws and actions and quotes of the Nazi’s towards the church, where’s Doino or Rychlak when you need them?
Things were whittled gradually, Hitler didn’t just one day say let’s kill the Jews, there were precedents. Liberty needs eternal vigilance , and this bishop is being vigilant.
But never fear, if David Nickol says things will be OK, then it will be OK. Jenky should have just played “nice”.

By: Donald R. McClarey

Donald R. McClarey — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:13:35 +0000

The statement of the Bishop is completely accurate. Under the vision of the Obama administration the Catholic Church, and all churches which oppose him, are to be restricted to conducting services and submitting themselves to government control in all other matters. The point that the Bishop was making is that this type of “religious freedom” was granted to some churches by both Hitler and Stalin, which is also completely accurate. Of course critics of this part of the Bishop’s speech conveniently overlook the references to Bismark and Clemenceau since those references make clear the point the Bishop was making and spoil the fake outrage of historically illiterate critics to the mention of Hitler and Stalin.

By: Martin Snigg

Martin Snigg — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:51:33 +0000

Turf the lot of ‘em. They make my blood boil. What are they even doing in Our Lady’s University? They insult the lives and sacrifices of the men, women and religious who built the place – and terrifyingly – the Mother of Our Lord.

Why are we given these people as scourges?

By: Heraclitus

Heraclitus — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:16:55 +0000

Apparently Felalpton thinks using tired old “Enlightenment” cliches is a substitute for actual thought. And his so-called “historical facts” are really secularist ideology mascerading as such. Even predominantly secular historians of the Middle Ages now almost universally concede that the period hardly consisted of anywhere near “theocratic” rule. Indeed, the situation was mostly the reverse: in almost all countries through the entire medieval period the Church was constantly struggling to assert its independence vis-a-vis the secular powers, who were always trying to control and intimidate the Church to do its bidding. Moreover, Inquisitions had very limited juristictions and in many cases, such as in Spain, became a useful tool for the state to dominate the Church (though, shamefully, many clerics acquiesced in this). Even a casual student of the Middle Ages also knows that witch trials did not occur until the very end of the period – it was not even recognized as a crime in England until 1542 – and that they occured during the Reformation almost exclusively in lands where the political, social, and religious order were breaking down. Ironically, witch trials were the fewest where inquisitions were the strongest.

In short, the tale that left-wing secularists tell themselves – that today’s left-wing attacks on religious freedom are only “pay-back” for the past “oppressions” of the Church – is only a comforting (for them) fairy-tale.

By: Jan Seidenberg

Jan Seidenberg — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:58:26 +0000

I think we all need to just step back from the ledge a bit. Or as my 17 year old son might say,”Take a chill pill.” The discourse in this country has become so poisoned with hyperbole,rage, and name calling. Saying that our country under Obama’s leadership is on a path similar to that of the Third Reich, or that the Republicans are “waging a war on women” are both ludicrous assertions that darken rather than enlighten debate. I also think that men and women in positions of leadership such as the bishop, have a unique responsibility to be measured and sensible in what they say. One can agree or disagree with various political positions from the left or right, and we do have some serious problems facing our nation and some very strong disagreement about what to do about them. But for goodness sake, we are not anywhere close to being an oppressive and cruel dictatorship, nor is the sky falling.But if we do not do a better job of talking to each other without resorting to harmful assertions and exaggerations, our ability to solve our problems and work out our differences will be forever damaged. I for one am counting on the inherent wisdom of the American people, and believe in the end,”cooler heads will prevail.”

By: harry

harry — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:08:19 +0000

Either the state exists for humanity or humanity exists for the state. Either humanity bestows and withdraws the state’s rights and its very right to exist, or the state pretends to have the authority to bestow and withdraw humanity’s God-given rights and its very right to exist.

When the state deifies itself and pretends the inalienable rights of humanity come from itself, it officially adjusts the hopelessly subjective meaning of legal “personhood” according to it whims, such that it excludes the segment of humanity that is the victim of contemporary bigotry. Its version of the meaning of personhood, since the concept is entirely subjective, can never be proven correct or incorrect, yet it does have the state’s official approval, so bigotry prevails.

This leads to situations where corporations can be legal persons while the biological humanity of the child in the womb does not merit it legal personhood, where the biological humanity of the Jews in Nazi Germany did not merit them legal personhood, and where the biological humanity of Blacks in the Old South did not merit them full legal personhood. The child in the womb is the victim of contemporary bigotry, just as were the Blacks of the Old South and the Jews of Nazi Germany.

Presidents who are as vehement and vocal as Obama in defending and promoting this inherently unjust situation are bound to be compared to leaders of other regimes who were hostile to theism, and were hostile when objection was made to the state’s claiming to be the source of rights theism insists do not come from the state. Get used to it, folks. It is only beginning and will continue until the natural, inalienable, God-given rights of all humanity are restored.