• Kathy
    Posts: 4,987
    A valid criticism from 1964 till the present.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,987
    Francis Cardinal Spellman, in his novel The Foundling, preached the same message. To paraphrase from memory, "Did our Lord preach 'tolerance?' Think! He preached love!"
  • Amen.
  • One of my favorite quotes of all-time! Would that we had more like our dearly departed Abp. Sheen!
    Thanked by 1francis
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 646
    "The only thing a tolerant man can tolerate is intolerance." Don't remember the source of the quote.
  • Woe are the lowly people like myself who speak out against such broadmindedness, who risk professional rejection and isolation if they dare to offer a different point of view. My husband was recently attacked on social media and called a "racist, sexist, xenophobic" so and so for sharing an article that gave reasons why people should trust and respect the police. Didn't mention recent events (ie Ferguson, NYPD, others), didn't mention anything about race or gender, it was just one person's reasons why Americans need to respect law enforcement. The person throwing the verbal stones only did so because she did not like the person who wrote the article. So much for "tolerance"...
  • R J StoveR J Stove
    Posts: 302
    A strange thing. Like many other people of late I have suffered, in a minor way, from online manifestations of those who scream the praises of "tolerance" but who actually act like a Girlie Gestapo. (Big deal.)

    In some ways, though, the Girlie Gestapo's hypocrisy is the least harmful thing about it. Recently I did what I should have done ages ago (and what I can recommend to everyone): deactivate my Facebook account.

    I realized that there is only a certain number of times one can "tolerate" being denounced by complete strangers as a "Nazi appeaser" through having dared to point out the obvious fact - scarcely involving historiographical revisionism, one would have thought - that Charlie Hebdo dealt in blasphemous porn. But I also realized something else.

    Oh, sure, Facebook's "authorities" might make vague protesting noises if one defended pedophilia or genocide in a Facebook post. Whether they would make even those noises on a more than perfunctory basis is doubtful. And on every issue involving behavior less obviously loathsome than kiddy-fiddling or than enthusing over Treblinka, Facebook's default mode is, by its very nature, that of an absolutely unfettered First Amendment.

    Me, I'll stick with the First Commandment.
    Thanked by 2eft94530 JulieColl
  • Woe are the lowly people like myself who speak out against such broadmindedness, who risk professional rejection and isolation if they dare to offer a different point of view. My husband was recently attacked on social media and called a "racist, sexist, xenophobic" so and so for sharing an article that gave reasons why people should trust and respect the police. Didn't mention recent events (ie Ferguson, NYPD, others), didn't mention anything about race or gender, it was just one person's reasons why Americans need to respect law enforcement. The person throwing the verbal stones only did so because she did not like the person who wrote the article. So much for "tolerance"...


    I've started speaking up more because of this. My wife and I were at a gathering, and someone said something about Ferguson, et al, and I said something to the effect of "Really, it's not hard; you assault a cop, expect to get shot." My wife said to me, quietly, "Remember, not everyone agrees with you."

    I said to her later, "You know what? The other side never ONCE shuts up, says to themselves 'I know everyone doesn't agree with me,' or allows any other view point but their own. They simply shout their point of view and if you don't agree with them, they scream that you are racist, ignorant, etc. So I'm going to start doing the same. My point of view is common sense and is held by more of 'middle America,' and I'm going to not be shy to speak up, and if they don't agree, I'm going to start screaming that they are lawless, a supporter of thugs and criminals, etc."

    Really, though. Why are sensible people always the ones biting their tongue, not wanting to cause controversy, and trying to keep the peace? It's about time THEY said to themselves "I don't want to start an argument or make things awkward, so I'm going to keep my mouth shut about Ferguson." (or whatever other hot button issue there is)
  • THIS^
    I'm so tired of the enemies of Christian Civilization setting the terms of the debate. I'm going to say what needs to be said.If they have a rational argument against it, bring it on. If they have an irrational verbal argument, I'll ignore it. If they have an irrational but effective argument (which usually involves lethal weaponry), well, it only hurts like Hell for a little, then I'm off to Heaven (in my case, via Purgatory)
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • Really, though. Why are sensible people always the ones biting their tongue, not wanting to cause controversy, and trying to keep the peace? It's about time THEY said to themselves "I don't want to start an argument or make things awkward, so I'm going to keep my mouth shut about Ferguson." (or whatever other hot button issue there is)


    I may go down in flames for saying this, but it's because the sensible ones are smart enough to know when it's time to remain silent. Combine that with the fact that sensible people are usually not interested in causing problems or drama, and you get people who stay quiet in the interest of not starting a fight with someone. For further discussion, I recommend Rev. Dennis Maynard's book When Sheep Attack, specifically the section on antagonists. That's what these types of people are: antagonists who want to cause drama and controversy for some reason. I wonder if people feel better about themselves having a cause to champion: makes them feel like they're important.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen R J Stove
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Me, I'll stick with the First Commandment.

    Precisely, Mr. Stove.
    The "global" reaction to the latest atrocity in Paris is truly a consternation. In speaking with my wife I couldn't help but remember the villification of beloved Benedict XVI for simply employing a 14th century quotation as a rhetorical exemplar in his 2006 Regensburg Lecture. No one marched with signs then declaring "Je suis Benedict." Sadly prophetic is it now in hindsight.
    And whether one's sentiments are bolstered by the likes of Bill Donahue or Al Sharpton, one has to be "for" something.
    For me, if Moses had spoken French to the Vox Dei of the Burning Bush, or if Our Lord had responded to Pilate in that tongue as well, it would come back as "Je Suis" period.
    I bow before "Je Suis."
    Thanked by 1R J Stove
  • CK, you may have a point about activists/antagonists. But there's another group out there: people who live their lives in a monolithic culture (e.g., academia), and really don't get that any other "proper" person might have a legitimate and sensible opinion, or that their own opinion might be found offensive, and for these folks a response might be liberating. Example: I met a guy in Ann Arbor in 1981 who was certain that the Republicans had stolen the Presidential election, on the grounds that nobody he knew had voted for Ronald Reagan.
  • Thanked by 1chonak
  • I may go down in flames for saying this, but it's because the sensible ones are smart enough to know when it's time to remain silent. Combine that with the fact that sensible people are usually not interested in causing problems or drama, and you get people who stay quiet in the interest of not starting a fight with someone. For further discussion, I recommend Rev. Dennis Maynard's book When Sheep Attack, specifically the section on antagonists. That's what these types of people are: antagonists who want to cause drama and controversy for some reason. I wonder if people feel better about themselves having a cause to champion: makes them feel like they're important.


    Yes, but the problem is that a new narrative is being shaped on these issues, precisely because both sides aren't speaking out: The cop haters and pro-thug people are starting to say "Look, you don't hear ANYONE saying what you're saying! Everyone agrees with us! Look how backwoods and racist you are!"

    Well in reality more people aren't speaking up because of what you just said. But they take that as affirmation, as having won.

    I've read "When Sheep Attack." If anything, my take-a-way is that they must be confronted and shut down, otherwise they do win. Which is why I've (controversially) advised people in real parish situations who don't agree with the antagonists to NOT be polite, to not sit down and shut up, but to escalate. Because the pastor, bishop, whatever needs to see that there really are TWO SIDES, and that no matter how the antagonists try to paint it, "the whole parish" doesn't agree with them.
  • @R J: you reminded me of a Bloom County comic "Night of the Mary Kay Commandos" ah, I will have to dig it out of the basement and read it again lol!

    You all are right, we should not have to be afraid to speak our mind about important issues. In general I find arguments with liberals tiring and not worth the hot air, so I stick to posting benign stuff on social media like cat videos and pictures of what I made for dinner. I "like" many Catholic and politically conservative pages and occasionally comment on them, and my friends can see those posts if they want to. But I refrain from sharing such posts or sharing political commentary, mainly for reasons like what happened to my husband. I don't need to stir the pot to make a point, even if I did happen to agree with an inflammatory pundit like Ann Coulter. Not worth the fight.
  • And besides, there are places like this forum where (I hope and assume) it is less risky to have such discussions!
  • R J StoveR J Stove
    Posts: 302
    FidemInFidebus, I must confess that I had never heard of Night of the Mary Kay Commandos, and now that I have looked up a Wikipedia article dealing with it, I am as clueless as I was beforehand of what it entails. Would it be possible for you to tell me how I remind you of Night of the Mary Kay Commandos (feel free to send me a private message if you want)?

    Of course, there is the danger, in the modern West, for all Catholics and for all non-Catholic Christians in subscribing to a "drama queen" concept of embracing "victimhood". (News flash: the consequences of being a Catholic in even the vilest parts of America or Australia, and of being a Catholic in even the nicest parts of Nigeria or Saudi Arabia, are not remotely compatible.)

    Meanwhile, and partly to reduce that danger, I commend the following George Orwell quote to anybody who has not read it. Orwell (who on his deathbed seems to have reverted to the old-fashioned decent Anglicanism his parents followed) is looking back with some fondness on the muscular Christianity of his youth:

    His [the muscular Christian's] outlook was summed up in the words of the Revivalist hymn: "Dare to be a Daniel / Dare to stand alone / Dare to have a purpose firm / Dare to make it known." To bring this hymn up to date one would have to add a "Don't" at the beginning of each line.


    This will be my last remark hereabouts, so without wishing to "make a window into men's souls", can I issue the most strenuous possible plea to everyone on this thread: if you have a television set in your home, why, in A.D.2015, have you not discarded it? For ever and ever amen?
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 1,724
    In general I find arguments with liberals tiring
    ditto Republicans ;-) FidemInFidebus makes an excellent suggestion!
  • @RJ you yourself didn't bring it to mind, your use of the phrase "Girlie Gestapo" did. Sorry for the confusion.
    Thanked by 1R J Stove
  • Precisely why I won't post on this forum anymore.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,065
    Why are sensible people always the ones biting their tongue, not wanting to cause controversy, and trying to keep the peace?
    teachermom24... say it like it is, and if people here don't like it, ignore them. your voice is important. i get a lot of flack here, but at least what i think needs to be said gets said. (btw... thank you chonak)
    Thanked by 2irishtenor canadash
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,527
    RJ makes the fair point:
    if you have a television set in your home, why, in A.D. 2015, have you not discarded it?


    One unfortunate effect of having such a vast apparatus of mass media before us is that our perspective gets distorted from an overexposure to outrageous events. For example, a 2003 study showed that people who watch more local television news have an increased fear of crime, independent of whether crime rates are rising or declining.

    I wonder if there's a similar effect from political talk shows: their business model is that they need to get attention, and the usual way to get attention is to find a constant stream of outrageous events to put in front of you. Some of the TV channels that are allegedly about news spend a lot of their time showing people quarreling with one another pointlessly. They have no aim of settling questions on a factual basis: they merely present conflicting opinions, as though that were a process leading to a sober judgment about the truth. I urge anyone who's exposed to that sort of thing to consider the effect the noise of constant conflict may be having on you. Society was a lot saner when people got their news about the world from reading.

    My pet theory about media is that some Catholics get an erroneous sense of how often and how grossly the liturgy is abused, based on how recently they've seen some awful video. Videos and reports of bizarre events that happened far across the country, or even on another continent, or even several years ago, give people the occasion to work themselves up about a problem that is bad when it happens, but which has diminished quite a lot in this country (thanks be to God, and thanks to wise popes and bishops).

    In short, if you catch yourself "working yourself up", making yourself suffer or making it harder to get through the day, look for ways you can "work yourself down".
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,065
    i deleted TV (cable) from our life a couple of years ago. don't miss it one bit and it saves me 600 bux a year and most of my sanity.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    We rarely ever put the antenna on our TV (in our pre-internet days!) and used it only to watch videos and DVD's. My boys grew up listening to the Yankees and Giants on the radio; we've put the antenna on once or twice to watch a few memorable things.

    Let me see now: a fuzzy edition of the 2002 Olympics (with Sarah Hughes!), Kathleen Turner announcing the results of the Florida recount, and the 9/11 tragedy. (I was expecting my sixth baby and was confined to bed rest, but a friend called up in a panic to tell me about the first tower going down and the plane headed for the White House so I thought that was sufficient reason to find the antenna and see if the world as we knew it was going to end.)

    P.S. I remember listening to the announcement of Pope Benedict's election on our portable, wind-up radio since the stereo didn't work. We kept winding it up every few minutes and through all the static heard the name "Ratzinger" and that was enough. : )
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I love that people are using the internet to talk about how horrible TV is.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,714
    I still have TV (cable) and find I watch only history, DIY, and financial channels. I think I could get that info elsewhere at a much lower cost. Cable will soon be history at my house.
  • I have to second what Chonak says. My favorite media tool is the poll taken after weeks of relentless (and often skewed) coverage where [insert hot-button issue the media has been hammering away at for the past weeks or months] inevitably gets rated high on the chart of important issues - thus reinforcing the dominant narrative.

    Then the next issue comes to the fore, and the next poll comes out, and so it goes. You would think there would be "outrage fatigue" by now,
    Thanked by 1R J Stove
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    LOL, Gavin! We got access to the internet in our house about 5 years ago. I much prefer our pre-internet days and am grateful my children could mostly grow up without it and network TV. We tried to manage with just the internet at the library, but it just didn't work with eight people needing different things all the time. Learning to manage it wisely is a constant challenge.
  • I have to say that I've never gotten the "shut yourself off from the world" mentality. I think that we should be immersed in information and take advantage of what the world has to offer. If you don't want to watch some stupid, tasteless TV show then don't, but I don't think you do yourself or your children any service by living in an Amish state.
    Thanked by 1Spriggo
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    HA, HA, dear PGA, if you think me and my crew are Amish. I can hardly type this I'm laughing so hard. Maybe "hipster" is more like it? I don't know, not knowing all the different genres out there that well---probably because I'm such a hermit. : )

    I know some Amish farmers personally and have visited their farms and homes. They're fine people (and very astute businessmen) and many of them have phone and internet in their barns, and they get along very well. Sometimes I get the feeling they're laughing up their sleeves at us Goyim who think we're so sophisticated and intelligent just because we have wires coming out of our ears and gadgets glued to our hands.

    Just because my family tries to limit our media use by a few tiny degrees compared to some people doesn't make us Luddites. In our pre-IT days we had the radio, for heaven's sake, and the newspaper and about ten different magazines and journals, and tons of books and maybe, just maybe, that was the best paradigm. The jury's still out on that one, I think.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    In short, if you catch yourself "working yourself up", making yourself suffer or making it harder to get through the day, look for ways you can "work yourself down".

    As someone who's privately helped me numerous occasions, Richard provides timely advice as well as describing my idiotic MO precisely. God bless you, RC. God help me.
  • HA, HA, dear PGA, if you think me and my crew are Amish. I can hardly type this I'm laughing so hard. Maybe "hipster" is more like it? I don't know, not knowing all the different genres out there that well---probably because I'm such a hermit. : )


    No, no, I was speaking a bit hyperbolically. I just meant that I don't get people with no TV, internet, etc.

    Hipster is a word that bothers me. I'm not sure why - but - I think it's because it seems to me that anyone can be one, as long as you become anorexic and buy the right clothes. Those of us who weigh too much and can't afford the clothes are out of luck I guess - no matter how very cool they are (supposed to be.)

    I know some Amish farmers personally and have visited their farms and homes. They're fine people (and very astute businessmen) and many of them have phone and internet in their barns, and they get along very well. Sometimes I get the feeling they're laughing up their sleeves at us Goyim who think we're so sophisticated and intelligent just because we have wires coming out of our ears and gadgets glued to our hands.


    Yeah, I have the same general impression of them - except for the fact that I can't help but have a nagging feeling that a lot are full of crap. I don't mean that to imply that they're not genuine - what I mean is a lot of it seems like a charade. Having phone and internet in their barns, as you mentioned, for example. Well I thought all of that was forbidden - except when it's expedient. How about when they load into vans to be driven to amusement parks? Sure, take part in all the world has to offer, just don't operate any machinery that uses electricity yourself.

    Just because my family tries to limit our media use by a few tiny degrees compared to some people doesn't make us Luddites. In our pre-IT days we had the radio, for heaven's sake, and the newspaper and about ten different magazines and journals, and tons of books and maybe, just maybe, that was the best paradigm. The jury's still out on that one, I think.


    I'm pretty split on this.

    I actually happen to agree with you, and often find myself saying "the internet should have been limited to government, law enforcement, and military." We are becoming a sick society that doesn't even SHOP anymore - that is done on our screens. Look at the death of the shopping mall. Why go interact with a human and pick out clothes when you can stare at a screen? And now, Amazon is announcing that they hope to have DRONES delivering things within 5 years. Oh, great. Now you won't even have to interact with a UPS delivery driver. We can SOLELY survive by interacting with machines and computers. What a great society.

    On the other hand - I don't know how we ever survived without it. Just doing this job, for example. What a pain, not to mention how expensive, it would be without CPDL. And of course there's this site ...
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,065
    .
    400 x 300 - 93K
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,282
    Luckily, we can take our screens outside.
    Thanked by 1Reval
  • BGP
    Posts: 206
    francis- thats brilliant I'm going to make it my desktop image... where did you get it?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,714
    Outside is...definitely out. Because of 3 skin cancer surgeries, the dermatologist says to only go outside long enough to get from my car to the house (or the reverse) between March and November. My Scottish and Austrian ancestors did not do sun. In fact, they rarely saw it. LOL.

    I am grateful for the Internet, but not so much for TV. Someone commented that with 24-hour news channels, there is a news monster that has to be continually fed. Much of that news is trivia, gossip, and generally not worth reporting. Highly paid people who fancy themselves journalists are often no more than scandal mongers.
  • Well I thought all of that was forbidden - except when it's expedient.

    The Amish decide, once a year, what technological practices that particular congregation will adopt (not, as my dad puts it, "what's a sin and what isn't"). Yes, they're getting less adept at keeping the world out. And Amish drivers seem a lot like "shabbos goys". But at least they're making decisions. Catholic parishes can barely decide on doctrine (not theirs to decide, but they try), let alone personal lifestyle.

    If it were up to me (and not my wife), I wouldn't have cable. As it is, we have basic cable (mostly local channels) and use a Roku box for a few other things. The big problem with cable is the pricing model: you may not be watching the perversion, but you're paying for it. And as long as people have to pay for it, they have no control over it.
    Thanked by 2R J Stove BGP
  • We have cable but just had an antenna and a Netflix subscription for several years. Cable is a ripoff and we only watch maybe ten out of the hundred or more channels we have, stopped watching the major news networks a long time ago. I enjoy my favorite shows and not all of them are available on Netflix, mostly cooking, home improvement, and Animal Planet shows lol. I don't see a difference between getting news on tv or Internet and getting it from a newspaper or journal. You pick and choose what you want to read and discard the rest. Maybe that's a generational thing, idk. I am the last generation to remember a pre-internet childhood, and now that I have kids of my own I see few differences other than my kids are far more capable of finding information and answers to their endless questions! They still play outside (and prefer it), they interact with each other and their friends, and they still have to abide by limits we set for screen time. I'm sure parents in the radio days did the same, no little orphan Annie unless you eat your dinner! And before someone says it, yes of course I talk to my children and attempt to answer their questions, but I don't have all the answers nor do I have time to go researching for them. Siri and Google search are well used and loved in my house.
  • Dial up internet ( and local, not-very-reliable WiFi)
    Television set (but no reception)
    Dumb phone (and don't want to change that!)
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,065
    Television set (but no reception)
    its a good thing.
  • I haven't watched the idiot box for about seven years. From what I hear about what's shown on it, I can't believe that I ever watched it. I haven't the slightest desire to see anything that's on it.... well, except maybe Downton Abbey, jsut for the fun of watching anything that Maggie Smith does. I manage to keep abreast of the news via the internet. Nor do I, nor will I, have any of these little portable communication devices that people talk to everywhere and at all times, even while they are causing an automobile accident.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl francis
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,282
    Why are sensible people always the ones biting their tongue, not wanting to cause controversy, and trying to keep the peace?


    Because that is the sensible thing to do.

    Also:

    It's worth keeping in mind that lefties are not the only obnoxious people who spew their opinions everywhere without thinking that anyone could possibly disagree. When I first moved to Texas, I was asked within 2 minutes of meeting one of my soon-to-be-neighbors what my thoughts were on Obamacare. It was clear there was only one correct answer to that question. And though I probably agreed with him about that particular issue, I felt it was an extremely impolite way to get to know someone. For all he knew, I could have been a die-hard socialist.

    One group of people is constantly shouting at others that they are racist, or sexist or whatever.
    Another group of people is constantly shouting about how people aren't American enough, or Christian enough, or conservative enough, or masculine enough (or some other damn thing.)

    As a very wise computer once said:

    image
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • that a lot are full of crap.


    I am amazed to read this. To criticize a religion-believing group that is strongly family oriented, which is also the basis for their shunning modern communications and reliance on the modern community?

    Today's Amish families are much more like the 1950's Catholic families than you think...and a difference today is that their community is growing.
  • To affirm Noel's observation - a wise man respects others' religion and what is holy to them, as well as their religiously informed culture. Holy Father Francis said as much today about that trouble in Paris. It is not free speech - it is foolishness to hold other people's holy men up to scorn. That doesn't mean that we agree with them, but we respect them; and, we respect them because of who we are.
  • Apparently you didn't keep reading after that line.

    I just find it suspect that supposedly technology is sinful, but you can partake of it to go to an amusement park. Seems to me that if it's sinful, then no amusement park is worth one's soul.

    No one is scorning them.
  • supposedly technology is sinful

    You suppose wrong. Amish are quite into appropriate technology. Anyway, it's not a matter of "sin" (which can't be voted on) but of church discipline. It's like the Eucharistic fast: if you do it for 2 hours, are you an overachiever, or a sinner according to previous norms? God won't get you for having a TV in the house. Your neighbors will.

    As for the crap-full-ness of the Amish, we tend to forget that they're sinners. Amish kids don't come out of the womb holy, any more than they come out knowing carpentry. There have been young Amish men with pricy stereos in their buggy, pulled over for DUI because while the horse knows the way home, the horse doesn't do red lights by itself. But their chances of flying right are much better than most young men's.I heard something on Kresta not long ago about the State of the Church at the Reformation actually being incredibly healthy, and it was that healthy ferment that boiled over into the Reformation and went wrong. The guest (forget who) described the Mennonites as practicing a sort of lay monasticism. That makes sense, and is not a bad idea.

    If I had to choose to trust either a random Amishman, or a random person claiming to be Catholic, I'm sorry to say that it would be no contest.
  • Oh, I see. So basically they can decide at any time to use whatever technology they want, because to them it's not a matter of sin, only church discipline? So their bishop/community tomorrow could decide that they can drive cars and have electricity?

    I suppose that makes more sense - although utilizing OTHER people to drive them places still strikes me as not being unlike Catholics who eat breakfast right before mass, and sit at the very BACK of the church, because by the time the Communion line gets to them, it will likely be past a full hour, whereas sitting in the front might put them receiving Communion at the 58 minute mark. (Yes, I've heard of this happening in seriousness.)

  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,065
    If wonder if one is eating in the hour before Mass begins that perhaps one's time going to communion is a bit... undervalued, for lack of a good word?
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • So their bishop/community tomorrow could decide that they can drive cars and have electricity?

    Actually, the Beachy Amish may own cars.
    You might find this interesting
  • I've sometimes said that if I didn't have to become Protestant, learn to speak really bad German and have dorky looking bowl haircuts, I might become Amish. But then, what kind of Amish would that be?