Comments on Yes, God, please help us!TypePad2013-04-30T13:16:37ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2013/04/yes-god-please-help-us/comments/atom.xml/AnneD commented on 'Yes, God, please help us!'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2019101bab903970c2013-05-02T15:05:00Z2013-05-02T17:39:24ZAnneDAlso Troublesome Are Those Who Do Not Recognize That Things Are More True When Written With Capital Letters.<p>Also Troublesome Are Those Who Do Not Recognize That Things Are More True When Written With Capital Letters.</p>Nancy commented on 'Yes, God, please help us!'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2019101ba221c970c2013-05-02T13:10:39Z2013-05-02T17:39:24ZNancyMost likely those who profess to be Catholic but deny The Sanctity of Human Life and The Sanctity of Marriage...<p>Most likely those who profess to be Catholic but deny The Sanctity of Human Life and The Sanctity of Marriage and The Family believe that respect for the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the Human Person is not binding in public as well as in private.</p>Nancy commented on 'Yes, God, please help us!'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2019101ba1af2970c2013-05-02T13:05:17Z2013-05-02T17:39:25ZNancySean, the question is, what percentage of The Supreme Court and those who profess to be Catholic deny Christ's teaching...<p>Sean, the question is, what percentage of The Supreme Court and those who profess to be Catholic deny Christ's teaching on The Sanctity of Human Life, and The Sanctity of Marriage and The Family? (Catholic Canon 750)</p>
<p>"You cannot be My disciples if you do not abide in My Word." - Jesus The Christ </p>sean samis commented on 'Yes, God, please help us!'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017eeab4c9ee970d2013-04-30T16:54:29Z2013-04-30T16:54:29Zsean samisAh, yes. This explains why they've packed the Supreme Court with Catholics and Jews. Oh, wait--it doesn't. Hmm. Q. What...<p>Ah, yes. This explains why they've packed the Supreme Court with Catholics and Jews.</p>
<p>Oh, wait--it doesn't. Hmm.</p>
<p>Q. What percentage of government workers and administrators are Catholic? Does anyone have the numbers?</p>
<p>sean s.</p>Joe commented on 'Yes, God, please help us!'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201901bb6a61f970b2013-04-30T14:46:56Z2013-04-30T20:07:30ZJoehttp://joejp.blogspot.comThat's fairly detailed of a response and provides a balanced approach.<p>That's fairly detailed of a response and provides a balanced approach. </p>CK commented on 'Yes, God, please help us!'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017eeab3e51b970d2013-04-30T14:09:33Z2013-04-30T20:07:30ZCK"And, could Patrick be right - could it be that there is a developing pattern of government hostility toward Catholics...<p>"And, could Patrick be right - could it be that there is a developing pattern of government hostility toward Catholics and Evangelical Christians? Bob, is his thesis at least worth considering?"</p>
<p>Yes, but there is precedence which has deep roots in American history. See Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden (see the allies with Cologne) which were all Catholic Christian enclaves of enemy nations. See also WWI where the Wilsonians decimated the last remnants of Christendom. See further the recent Iraq War which decimated the Iraqi christian population, and also the current US government backing of Syrian (al queda) who make martyrs of Syria's remaining Christian population.</p>
<p>The Pentagon (or is it Pentagram) and the US war machine have done much to destroy and suppress Christian populations. </p>Paul Horwitz commented on 'Yes, God, please help us!'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2019101ac3a98970c2013-04-30T14:03:38Z2013-04-30T20:07:30ZPaul HorwitzI wrote a more detailed comment to Bob's post but it appears to have been eaten. So, with apologies, a...<p>I wrote a more detailed comment to Bob's post but it appears to have been eaten. So, with apologies, a shorter reply:</p>
<p>1) Weinstein's op-eds are unquestionably offensive. Indeed, even some supportive commenters on his group's own blog criticized them. I certainly find them objectionable. <br />
2) It is true that even if Breitbart is often a poor source, the story should be judged on its own merits. On those merits, it remains true that Weinstein wrote those offensive op-eds. Much of the rest of the story is irrelevant at best and poorly sourced besides. Unfortunately, the Quinn story is terribly written and not much further help.<br />
3) As far as I can tell, there is little evidence to support the idea that Weinstein is an "official consultant to the Pentagon" in any meaningful sense of the words. It appears, rather, that he was one of several invitees to a meeting at the Pentagon. One may reasonably question whether he ought to have been invited at all. But it is true to anyone familiar with government practice that such listening groups are held all the time, that they often consist of mollifying vocal interest groups with a meeting, and that they constitute no endorsement of the invitees. As I said, one may question whether he ought to have been invited; many other people and groups work on these issues. But neither should one inflate the import of that meeting too readily.<br />
4) It is also true that the kinds of proselytization that Weinstein complains of exist and have little to do with what we might think of as peer-to-peer proselytization; rather, they have involved harassment, overweening statements, and occasional abuse of authority, particularly in places with very junior folks like cadets. The military, to its credit, has attempted to address these issues in a way that makes clear that religious speech is allowed, especially peer-to-peer speech, while curbing some abuses. That doesn't make Weinstein's language any less offensive to me. But some context is important, especially because of Brennan's eagerness to draw broad conclusions. <br />
5) Michael's final question deserves a response. I would say, of course such a thesis is worth considering. But I would also say that the Weinstein story itself is ultimately poor evidence of the thesis; that Brennan (and the Breitbart story) exaggerate its import in a way that distorts the facts; and that both the hysterical level of his rhetoric and his apparent contempt for anyone who thinks this is anything less than proof positive of an emergency are misplaced. </p>