Hardly a false accusation.

But, if you feel it was more than that, I apologize.

Thanks for answering my questions.

As for:

“why would you think it wrong of me to bring up the teachigns and tradition of your own sect, but you’re free to just say “Catholic Catholic Catholic” when Dean’s the subject?”

Frankly, I don’t believe you know anything about my sect. You THINK you do. You think it’s just some radical, fundamentalist, Bible-only fringe group that you can paint in the same colors you do pretty much any Protestant sect you disagree with, but, as far as Ive seen, you’ve stopped thinking up to that point.

You went with me to Canada that one time but you did so in a heart of judgment. You decided long before you got into my car that you were there to see where they were wrong, not where they might be right.

But, hey, free country. Say whatever you like. I can’t stop you. But I will point out I’ve never seen you give them a fair shake. Certainly not the time and consideration you’ve given, say, Islam.

However, if I’m wrong, if you have seriously looked at what I believe, and still have come away with the belief it’s wrong, I’d love to hear what you have to say. And I’m talking about specific points on my specific sect too – not things nearly any Protestant would disagree with a Catholic on.

If you know my faith, what we believe, I want to hear what you have to say because I’m constantly examining it. Testing it. And if there’s something I’ve overlooked, something I cannot defend, I want to know what it is. And if you’re in the position to show it to me it would only be a blessing.

Considering the fact that there’s a ton of references to musicals, sitcoms, and other culture references that an 11 year old wouldn’t even know about; I am guessing 11 year olds are not the guy’s target audience. Also as far as the references to certain people not getting jokes aimed at hem. Blacks, Jews, and other “unteasables” get made fun of all the time on that show.

Some of the show is a bit droll but a lot of the episodes have very interesting non-sequiturs that poke fun at a number of cultural artifacts almost long forgotten. It’s a good show, but if it isn’t your cup of tea that’s okay. But, having shows like that go off the air and be replaced by what you would find entertaining… now that would be a terrible crime and more likely a sign of the end of America.

Yeah, there’s a ton of shows I hate. Shows like the Bachelor and Survivor, and most of network television to be honest. There’s a great solution to dealing with programing you find objectionable. It is awesome and it works. You’ll never have to worry about offensive programming ever again!

Turn it off.

You can’t have it both ways. You can either state that our respective theologies are fair game, or you can declare that they aren’t. Is my faith open for scrutiny but yours isn’t? Or what?

As professing Catholic I find it strange that you buck the Church’s stance on homosexuality, the Church’s stance on man’s fallen nature, you’re pro-Choice, right?, also in violation of Church teachings…

Hoo boy. In one sentence, three gross mischaracterizations. Let me try to unravel this:

1) I do not buck the church’s stance that homosexuality is a sin, and I’ve responded to you on numerous occasions that I agree that it’s a sin. As I’ve explained before, I simply don’t find it necessary to outlaw or persecute gay people. I also feel that the Church is correct to deny sacramental marriage to gay couples, but I disagree with the current Pope’s personal opinion that there should be no legal protection for such unions.

We are allowed to disagree on matters like this with the Church. If I said homosexuality wasn’t a sin, I’d be “bucking the Church” (and probably excommunicated). If I say I think Benedict’s reached a wrong conclusion about a secular matter and that simple Christian charity says we should probably give these relationships some legal protection, I’m not “bucking the Church.” All I’m doing is asserting that I disagree with His Holiness on a fairly mundane matter of public policy. Which I’m not just allowed to do, but I’m actually expected to do as a good Christian. Because one of the Church’s teachings is that if you are truly in your heart of hearts convinced that the leaders of the Church are wrong about something, it would be a sin not to speak up about it.

2) Good Lord, where, where, where, where, WHERE have I EVER contradicted the Church’s stance on man’s fallen nature? If you think I did that, can you please show it to me? I consider man’s fallen nature to be one of the bedrock beliefs of Christianity. I don’t know what the explanation is for this bizarre charge, but it’s annoying all the same. The only thing on this subject that I reject is the Calvinist doctrine of “Total Depravity.”

3) I’m pro-life. To get me to be a part of any plan to abort a baby would be extremely difficult. If the mother’s life’s on the line, I’ll think about it. Otherwise, I’d see it as my duty to help any woman who finds herself pregnant at a bad time with food, shelter, clothing, emotional support, whatever I have to do to help her. On the other hand, on a pragmatic level, I do admit that I think having an abortion 4 weeks after conception is less disturbing than having one 8.5 months after conception. I also think that on a practical level, we should overturn Roe v. Wade and allow the states individually decide how to regulate abortion.

Anyway, that’s three things, to my mind, where you grossly mischaracterized my views. In areas where I am quite certain I already answered those charges, only to get silence from you. How can I respond to that appropriately? I’m sorry if I allowed my annoyance to treat you badly, but, seriously Kev, where are you getting this shit?

Now, you claim you asked me three specific questions. I don’t remember what those were, can you give them to me in bullet-point form? In any case, you said this:

If you want to start somewhere tell me how you can say Catholic tradition is binding, I and others like me are wrong in rejecting it, but then you hold personal beliefs contrary to the long-standing decrees of that body?

This, again, gets to something that annoys me because I’ve explained it before. There is a vast difference between lower-case “t” tradition (the tradition of men) and the Sacred Tradition of God. The Church is full of traditions of men, as it should be. Traditions of men are good things, so long as they are not confused with the Traditions of God. So, you know, we may have this tradition that we eat donuts the day before Ash Wednesday. Which is cool, there’s nothing wrong with it. But if I try to say that God requires us to do this, I’ve gone way beyond my authority.

I’m actually stymied by this, because I think I’m giving perfectly logical answers only to be accused of believing things I don’t believe.

So, what the heck am I missing here? Can you distill your questions down into bullet-points, so I can try to figure them out?

I concur with much of what you’ve said. On the subject of Demography being Destiny I think that is a profoundly accurate concept, much more so than people realize. BUT it is not the end-all, be-all of history because on occasion cultures morph. They morph from internal or external causes. My hope is that as “Western Culture” fades, it is replaced with a comparable culture in terms of personal freedom and rational thought. I think such a result is inevitable, but I would rather see it sooner rather than later.

I read your post and you didn’t answer my question. Instead, you dismissed it and made false accusations against me and gross generalizations about whatever group you think I’m involved with.

For someone so concerned about facts and history, you seem unwilling to put your money where your mouth is and answer my questions and what I see as hypocrisy on your part. If there is an answer, I want to hear it. I said I wanted to hear it.

Instead, you decided to hear your own bigotry, ignore my words, fire randomly in my direction, then accuse me of not bothering to read your post anyway.

Nice setup you got there: You can take the moral high ground and never have to explain yourself because, well, those asking you to account for yourself are too closed-minded to read the response anyway.

If you didn’t think I was going to read it, why’d you even write it? Verbal masturbation or something?

No, you knew I’d read it and you instead took it as an opportunity to attack me and the people you disagree with.

I listed three SPECIFIC things I wanted you to explain and you chose to flail about.

I wish I could avoid answering specific questions about my beliefs and still say everyone that doesn’t agree with me is wrong…

Interesting (and very fair) question. I’d broadly define it, in the context of what we’re discussing here, as the values and concepts (e.g. classical liberalism) that sprang from the Enlightenment of ca. the 18th Century onwards.

I do think you have a point about demographic influence on the ongoing decline and eventual death of those values and concepts, but I’d note that the changing genetic landscape of the West isn’t necessarily a root cause – rather, I’d blame the cultural and religious obstinacy (and I mean that technically, not pejoratively) of some of those demographics rather than anything else for this.

I don’t think increasing our birth rate is the answer, though. We’ve got too damn many monkeys on this ball of dirt as it is….