The reality of the situation is that putting one's name behind what one says in our modern world, even if it's true and/or not meant to be hateful, can get people blackballed/ discriminated against/ alienated from friends and family. Amongst those with whom we must have social interaction, we choose to reveal as much of our views as is prudent to the situation. Demanding that one identify one's self when leaving commentary removes one's ability to do this successfully in one's private life. What of an employee who expresses political views in this forum? What if his views are completely divergent from that of his employer or a *potential* employer? Mentioning anything regarding same-sex marriages could be damaging to anyone on either side of the issue for a variety of reasons. There are a number of similar issues which can bring unintended division and strife one's personal life is mentioned publicly with one's name attached. So many will remain silent -- even in the face of injustice -- to protect one's livelihood, one's reputation, one's family. Politically correct/culturally popular ideas are more likely to go unchallenged and unexamined. Fortunately, there are other outlets online for freedom of expression, but I'm duly noting the Sun Journal forum will not be one of them. And, to the person accusing SJ of right-wing tactics -- please remember Communism is not an expression of right-wing ideology, but the very opposite. Censorship -- subtle or overt -- is a highly prized tool of social control in this regimes.
If your issue was the printing of the article, then your words should have been privately directed to the editors of the Sun Journal, not to a public forum this young mother's friends and family (and the young lady herself) are likely to read. There is a time and a place for everything; this was neither the time nor the place for your words, much less your manner of expression.
Why crush spirits upon an occasion that is joyous? Nothing turns people away from God faster than hostile condemnations from "religious" strangers. Truth without charity is judgment. Morality without mercy is cruelty. If one is to win hearts for Christ, one must speak to the heart of God's love and mercy -- of the future and hope that comes from His ready forgiveness. This occasion was an occasion to rejoice in what is truly good/miraculous -- the birth of a child.
Being pridefully judgmental and uncharitable anonymously in a public forum toward real feeling persons is not wrong? This article is not a celebration of illegitimacy or single parenthood or sin. Rather, it is a celebration of motherhood, which is always a noble state to be revered. It is a celebration of new life which is *always* joyfully miraculous event. And, it is the celebration of another soul created in the image and likeness of God, created to live with Him forever in Heaven. A gift so beautiful words fail to describe it.
You cannot read this young woman's heart or her future, nor that of her baby, nor her baby's father. St. Augustine was the father of an illegitimate child and a drunkard before he met St. Ambrose of Milan; St. Martin de Porres was himself an illegitimate child.
I'm completely in favor of chastity, but charity toward all is a greater, and far more necessary virtue. Prideful and judgmental attitudes such as yours would have this woman strapped with a big red letter A for the rest of her life and drive her to despair. Your "opinions" as expressed generate a cultural atmosphere where young women "in trouble" come to believe abortion is their only option.
God's mercy is always greater than man's -- don't put yourself above Him. “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.” (Matt 21:31) Notice to whom Jesus was speaking, the chief priests and elders of the people (Matt 21:23).
The church is "crooked" in the traditional architectural style of Gothic churches. Further adjustments to the building plans may have exaggerated the slant, but a slant in cruciform Gothic churches is standard. It is intended to mirror the way in which Christ's head fell at his expiring upon the Cross.
Funny - you never hear the outrage over separation between church and state when the churches are supporting liberal causes like gay marriage. And, you always hear it from people who can't tell the difference between clamoring for the imposition of sectarian doctrine and standing up for common issues of morality. Jews, Christians, Muslims, even atheists, are represented by groups opposing abortion. In essence, you all are saying that if a person ascribes to certain religious beliefs, he is not allowed to have and express political opinions. Well, geez, that eliminates more than 85% of the US population. Could you be any more ridiculous or ignorant of American history or politics? I think not.
If you continue to call the majority of voters ugly names and hurl your vitriolic speech up on comment boxes and blogs because of your anger and disappointment, you're not going to get very far in changing hearts and minds. Passion for a cause is one thing; I certainly can appreciate passion. You don't even have to respect my opinions - just my person and my right to have an opinion. But when you insist that your cause is to overcome hatred and then you use words of hatred against those who dared disagree with you, you don't make a very good case for your motives.
Abandon it when it's convenient. How nice. You're not only a judgemental fellow - you're a liar bent on smearing those who disagree with you. You asked me in a previous thread why I left the state and I told you my husband's job required the move. There's a major difference between convenience and livelihood. And since this vote affects the lives of my immediate family, it sure as heck affects me. And, as you the saying goes, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation." Are you really so insecure about the strength or rigteousness of your side of the issue that you have to decry someone's right to speak about it in comment boxes?
Thank you! I'm glad someone gets it! Because I don't believe the purpose of marriage is to give societal advantages to two people *solely* because they are "in love" and want to make a public relationship commitment to one another - not even for heterosexual couples. Marriage exists for the purpose of giving stability to families and society. Our rights as individuals within society are related to our duties. Heterosexuals have a duty to procreate for the sake of the propagation of humanity. They have a right to marriage (which is intended to be until death do part) to see to give stability to the family unit and by extension, society.
But homosexuals may adopt, and these children by adoption need a stable family unit. I agree they do need a stable family unit. But I do not agree with placing children with homosexual couples. I grew up in a family with one parent because one of my parents died when I was still young. The effects of growing up without a father in the house or even a father figure was pretty seriously detrimental. It was unfortunate that my father should have died. But to choose not to give children parents of both sexes purposely is wrong. Human beings need the influence of complementary sexes to grow up pyschologically and emotionally.
There are heterosexual couples I wouldn't let adopt a dog, and persons with same sex attraction I would wholeheartedly trust to babysit my child. But fundamentally, I believe the duty of raising children requires mothers and fathers.
My apologies. I sincerely thought it less depersonalizing to use a name. And, since internet conversations can get out of hand when we fail to realize the person on the other end of the screen reading is indeed a person, I prefer to personalize as much as possible. No disrespect meant.
I find your repeated assurance that I am indeed, without doubt, "homophobic" as mean and judgemental as it is irrational. People who disagree with you are not necessarily at heart hateful people. I'm sorry for you that you see me and others in the world so inflexibly.
Subtle Intimidation - Exactly
The reality of the situation is that putting one's name behind what one says in our modern world, even if it's true and/or not meant to be hateful, can get people blackballed/ discriminated against/ alienated from friends and family. Amongst those with whom we must have social interaction, we choose to reveal as much of our views as is prudent to the situation. Demanding that one identify one's self when leaving commentary removes one's ability to do this successfully in one's private life. What of an employee who expresses political views in this forum? What if his views are completely divergent from that of his employer or a *potential* employer? Mentioning anything regarding same-sex marriages could be damaging to anyone on either side of the issue for a variety of reasons. There are a number of similar issues which can bring unintended division and strife one's personal life is mentioned publicly with one's name attached. So many will remain silent -- even in the face of injustice -- to protect one's livelihood, one's reputation, one's family. Politically correct/culturally popular ideas are more likely to go unchallenged and unexamined. Fortunately, there are other outlets online for freedom of expression, but I'm duly noting the Sun Journal forum will not be one of them. And, to the person accusing SJ of right-wing tactics -- please remember Communism is not an expression of right-wing ideology, but the very opposite. Censorship -- subtle or overt -- is a highly prized tool of social control in this regimes.
Not Exactly
If your issue was the printing of the article, then your words should have been privately directed to the editors of the Sun Journal, not to a public forum this young mother's friends and family (and the young lady herself) are likely to read. There is a time and a place for everything; this was neither the time nor the place for your words, much less your manner of expression.
Why crush spirits upon an occasion that is joyous? Nothing turns people away from God faster than hostile condemnations from "religious" strangers. Truth without charity is judgment. Morality without mercy is cruelty. If one is to win hearts for Christ, one must speak to the heart of God's love and mercy -- of the future and hope that comes from His ready forgiveness. This occasion was an occasion to rejoice in what is truly good/miraculous -- the birth of a child.
Done Nothing Wrong?
Being pridefully judgmental and uncharitable anonymously in a public forum toward real feeling persons is not wrong? This article is not a celebration of illegitimacy or single parenthood or sin. Rather, it is a celebration of motherhood, which is always a noble state to be revered. It is a celebration of new life which is *always* joyfully miraculous event. And, it is the celebration of another soul created in the image and likeness of God, created to live with Him forever in Heaven. A gift so beautiful words fail to describe it.
You cannot read this young woman's heart or her future, nor that of her baby, nor her baby's father. St. Augustine was the father of an illegitimate child and a drunkard before he met St. Ambrose of Milan; St. Martin de Porres was himself an illegitimate child.
I'm completely in favor of chastity, but charity toward all is a greater, and far more necessary virtue. Prideful and judgmental attitudes such as yours would have this woman strapped with a big red letter A for the rest of her life and drive her to despair. Your "opinions" as expressed generate a cultural atmosphere where young women "in trouble" come to believe abortion is their only option.
God's mercy is always greater than man's -- don't put yourself above Him. “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.” (Matt 21:31) Notice to whom Jesus was speaking, the chief priests and elders of the people (Matt 21:23).
"Crooked Axis"
The church is "crooked" in the traditional architectural style of Gothic churches. Further adjustments to the building plans may have exaggerated the slant, but a slant in cruciform Gothic churches is standard. It is intended to mirror the way in which Christ's head fell at his expiring upon the Cross.
Funny - you never hear the
Funny - you never hear the outrage over separation between church and state when the churches are supporting liberal causes like gay marriage. And, you always hear it from people who can't tell the difference between clamoring for the imposition of sectarian doctrine and standing up for common issues of morality. Jews, Christians, Muslims, even atheists, are represented by groups opposing abortion. In essence, you all are saying that if a person ascribes to certain religious beliefs, he is not allowed to have and express political opinions. Well, geez, that eliminates more than 85% of the US population. Could you be any more ridiculous or ignorant of American history or politics? I think not.
If you continue to call the
If you continue to call the majority of voters ugly names and hurl your vitriolic speech up on comment boxes and blogs because of your anger and disappointment, you're not going to get very far in changing hearts and minds. Passion for a cause is one thing; I certainly can appreciate passion. You don't even have to respect my opinions - just my person and my right to have an opinion. But when you insist that your cause is to overcome hatred and then you use words of hatred against those who dared disagree with you, you don't make a very good case for your motives.
Abandon it when it's
Abandon it when it's convenient. How nice. You're not only a judgemental fellow - you're a liar bent on smearing those who disagree with you. You asked me in a previous thread why I left the state and I told you my husband's job required the move. There's a major difference between convenience and livelihood. And since this vote affects the lives of my immediate family, it sure as heck affects me. And, as you the saying goes, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation." Are you really so insecure about the strength or rigteousness of your side of the issue that you have to decry someone's right to speak about it in comment boxes?
Thank you! I'm glad someone
Thank you! I'm glad someone gets it! Because I don't believe the purpose of marriage is to give societal advantages to two people *solely* because they are "in love" and want to make a public relationship commitment to one another - not even for heterosexual couples. Marriage exists for the purpose of giving stability to families and society. Our rights as individuals within society are related to our duties. Heterosexuals have a duty to procreate for the sake of the propagation of humanity. They have a right to marriage (which is intended to be until death do part) to see to give stability to the family unit and by extension, society.
But homosexuals may adopt, and these children by adoption need a stable family unit. I agree they do need a stable family unit. But I do not agree with placing children with homosexual couples. I grew up in a family with one parent because one of my parents died when I was still young. The effects of growing up without a father in the house or even a father figure was pretty seriously detrimental. It was unfortunate that my father should have died. But to choose not to give children parents of both sexes purposely is wrong. Human beings need the influence of complementary sexes to grow up pyschologically and emotionally.
There are heterosexual couples I wouldn't let adopt a dog, and persons with same sex attraction I would wholeheartedly trust to babysit my child. But fundamentally, I believe the duty of raising children requires mothers and fathers.
My apologies. I sincerely
My apologies. I sincerely thought it less depersonalizing to use a name. And, since internet conversations can get out of hand when we fail to realize the person on the other end of the screen reading is indeed a person, I prefer to personalize as much as possible. No disrespect meant.
I find your repeated assurance that I am indeed, without doubt, "homophobic" as mean and judgemental as it is irrational. People who disagree with you are not necessarily at heart hateful people. I'm sorry for you that you see me and others in the world so inflexibly.
d
d