Here we go again…

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013, certain parts of the secular press – read conservative – finally posted a few articles on the intention of the Obama Administration to remove the U.S. Embassy from the grounds of the Vatican and place it and its staff in another building three miles away outside the country limits of the Vatican in Rome, Italy. The stated reason is due to “security concerns.” Yet, there has been no effort by the State Department to increase security at any of our embassies in the world since Benghazi. Rather, daily operations continue as if nothing has happened. Thus, I posted a link from the Washington Times to my Facebook account with the following commentary:

The outright hatred shown by this regime to my religion (Yeah, my religion. You got a problem with that?) proves exactly the motives and intentions.

One of the first responses made was:

It sounds like the embassy is moving, not closing, and that discussions about this started with the Bush Administration: http://www.catholicculture.org/comm…/the-city-gates.cfm…; there’s another link within this article to the full story. I always double check stories from the Washington Times, as they often have some accuracy issues.

Frankly, I’m used to the snarky comments about the Washington Times by self-professed liberals. It is usually a case when articles or topics are brought up that are at odds with their opinions, they will fall back to a position where they will attempt to claim they know more because they have done “research” or they “know” the source provided is “untrustworthy.” So I responded, not against the person, but to address the opinion put forward.

Semantical bullshit like “we’re just moving people for security reasons” is a slap in the face to Roman Catholics.

First, the Vatican is a sovereign state. It is the world’s smallest country.

Second, to remove personnel from a sovereign state to a separate location in another country – contiguous or not – is no different than “recalling ambassadors” from countries whose governments have taken actions that are fundamentally against the principles and beliefs on which this country has been founded.

Third, If “security” is such an “issue,” then why was Benghazi permitted to happen even after legit reports were presented clearly defining those safety risks.

As for the issue of “accuracy” in reports. Try doing the same first with the Lapdog Press that has been around since at least the Wilson Administration who has been far more interested in claiming how “fair and balanced” the Leftists are while doing everything to deride and dehumanize those who are willing to advance humanity without making sure that there will always be some humans who are more equal than others.

* * *

At this point two individuals jumped into the thread. Because there is some significant interaction among two other people and myself, I’ll identify each of us in this way:

Person 1

Person 2

Me

The next individual to respond was an individual with whom I had had an extensive discussion some weeks prior which can be found here. This is Person 1.

How does this affect anyone at all? If you didnt [sic] read this article, would you ever have even known or felt the repercussions of this ever?

Both the left and right in this country complain about the dumbest things. Thats why we are so polarized as a country and get ZERO done. If both the right and left only complained about things that actually affect them things would get done, but instead they are busy fighting fights and making arguments about things that have zero affect in most peples lives. Like the closing of the embassy…who cares??? This goes for both the right and the left. Next time someone makes a comment they should really ask themselves, does this affect me or my family. If it doesnt, [sic] than leave it alone. This country would get a lot more things done if we all did this.

As this point, Person 2 entered the discussion with the following comment:

Well, this is well-known conservative hack Cheryl Chumley quoting Breitbart’s zombie “news” organization, so yeah, some fact-checking might be in order.

From here on out, I will simply reprint the individual posts prefaced with the designation of who made them.

Me

[Person 1], you’ve said the same thing three times with different words, yet made no foundational argument to support your opinion. Regarding the embassy’s closing, it’s not the impact on the individual that is concerning. It is the impact on the United States and how that reflects on the people of the United States that is concerning. We went though this same baseless argument you are making now and I bested you on it then. I’ll be more than happy to go through that again if you want, though I think the quote I posted earlier today on my wall today would be sufficient to explain reality to you.

[Person 2], when you cycle through the link provided by Phil Lawler, it actually proves my point. But carry on.

Person 1

You bested me? Your complaing about our president and government again just to complain. This has zero impact on you or your family. If bush or a republican president did this you would not have said anything.

Person 2

Proves your point? I’m having a hard time figuring out what that point is. Is the point that our Kenyan-born Muslim President hates your religion? Is it that the United States needs to have diplomatic relations with the Vatican due to the national security added by them? I don’t know, man – it’s confusing to me. What I DO know is this – Breitbart and Chumley are both hacks. As is Jim Nicholson. So what really IS the point, beyond the fact that you don’t like Barack Obama? I get that, and you’re entitled to not like him, for whatever reason you choose. Just don’t expect anyone else to care beyond calling these sources out for being over-the-top hacks.

Me

[Person 1], do not ever presume to think for me. It’s really harmful to you health. My issue is not with Obama doing this. My issue is with the entire group of individuals who are in power taking such an action. I don’t give a damn about whether a D or an R is after their names. what I am most concerned about is how this action affects the country and the interactions of people from this country with those from other countries. 

As a side example, the blob masquerading as the governor of the State of New Jersey has no support from me, not because I don’t like the party he is from, but because of the actions he has taken which have harmed my alma mater and significantly and adversely impacted the ability of this State to actually grow and develop without the need for people to be “known” on one side or the other. The fact you still cannot get this concept through your cranium speaks volumes as to where your ongoing problem with this world is found.

Person 1

Again your crying about a stupid issue that nobody cares about. You hate Obama, are probably a racist and will complain about anything and everything you can. Again, this stupid thibg [sic] with the Vatican is a non issue but a few whiny Catholics are upset they have no power anymore in this country. We were founded by non religious people and that’s how it should stay. We lose nothing by moving an embassy from vatican city. But keep crying if it makes u feel better.

Me

[Person 2], pre-conceived notions on your part are where the problem lies with Leftists today. I’m not interested in opinions as I am in facts and the reality of how those facts harm and degrade this country. The fact that I have to go to a “conservative” news site to be able to post a link about what should be presented as part of the daily news stream speaks volumes as to how far the Lapdog Media has gone to suppress the actions they recognize are going to inflame certain voting bases. 

To be perfectly blunt, if there is nothing wrong with this actions then why the fucking hell aren’t The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, the Chicago Sun Times, The Detroit Free Press, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, and the sundry other news outlets that are supposedly open and “fair and balanced” putting ANY story out about this? I went through no less than 35 supposed news sites beginning around 0730 to find an article about this when I first heard of it. As I had work responsibilities, I ceased that search at 0830 and took it up again at 1530 and finally found the article I posted at about 1550. Why? Is the Leftist Elitist Media (LEMmings) hiding something?

[Person 1], when you start attacking the person, you’ve lost the argument.

As the international traveller you are, you would know the value of having a US Embassy in the country where you are conducting business, no matter how small that country may be. Moving or shifting its location does harm to diplomatic relations. I’m surprised you are unaware of that given how many countries you have traveled to.

At this point, I wish to jump in and apologize for the use of foul language. That type of emotional outburst may be acceptable in bars or among friends, but needs to be curtailed when among the general public.

Person 1

Again, this is a non issue. The Vatican hasnt even protested the move. Ireland did the same two years ago. Are you gonna say they are against their Catholics? I’ve been to many countries and aside from South America and some Middle east countries the Vatican has little to no power. This changes absolutely nothing except to piss off a few conservative Catholics who hate Obama and will find anything to keep up the good fight against him. Keep fishing, maybe one day youll [sic] actually find something worth complaining about…this isn’t one of them. Although I always enjoy arguing with close minded knkw [sic] it all conservative Catholics.

Person 2

[T]he reason you had to look on conservative sources is because that’s where you tinfoil hat people go. There is no “open season” on your religion or anyone else’s beyond the fact that you’re being told you can’t persecute others with impunity. I didn’t serve in this country’s Armed Forces for 20 years and serve in combat zones to protect your right top bash people who aren’t like you. But I’m not asking for your support our thanks. I would rather you leave politics to those who are acting in the best interests of the country, not a given religion, state, or university. You, sir, are what is wrong with conservative thought today – long on rhetoric, sorry on experience or service.

Me

[Person 1], the Vatican has not expressed any concern because the Vatican does not view the USA as a significant world partner anymore. Isn’t that what the Leftists have been lusting for since Wilson? Straight up, the whole drive has been to marginalize the United States any way they could. So now they’re going to get their wish. Too bad they aren’t really going to have the skillset to manage the domino effect that has already been set in motion for 2015-2016, and I don’t mean the election either..

If you took the time to understand the reason for Ireland’s withdrawal of their corps, you would understand there were multiple underlying reasons including a pedophilia scandal in the Diocese of Cloyne, the on-going discord between Dublin and the Vatican on a variety of social issues. What was surprising about that withdrawal was the fact that Ireland has such a significant population of Catholics.

As for the matter here, this is not about “power” or “pissing off a few conservative Catholics.” This is about maintaining relationships that are not visual, but structural. Ambassador Hackett is welcome to state publicly that relations between the Vatican and the US are quite good and that such a move does not diminish overall relations. My frustration is with how this is viewed within the larger international community. It puts the United States – NOT THE VATICAN – in a weakened position specifically because The Vatican has made it clear since the election of the new Pope that its focus is moving towards hot-botton socio-economic issues including poverty, healthcare, and social status. Supposedly the Leftists (and the front man Obama) are all about these topics. If they are, why would they take an action to shift the United States’ diplomatic mission outside of the immediate territory of the country that has the potential to significantly and positively impact these issues. Oh, I forgot. Would it be because this may potentially be a social movement that doesn’t require the government to be involved?

If the real issue is because of “security” as everyone is supposedly claiming, what the hell is the big deal in sending over a detachment of Marines to maintain security? Or is it just a way to piss off conservative Catholics who have been bashing the Obamacare website too much?

Person 2

Wow. I need some tin foil.

Me

[Person 2], I whole-heartedly appreciate the service you have provided in our country’s Armed Forces as I do for all veterans. If anything, it is very disconcerting that anyone who has served for 20+ years in the military would be that statist in a worldview. But it is not my position to call people out on their opinion, only on the facts that are provided. I’m sorry to see, however, that you could not answer my question as to why the article did not show up on the “Mainstream Media” sites I noted. Yet you are quick to attack me personally and deny me the opportunity to state fact based on research in light of how it completely destroys the opinion you have fashioned based on personal will and desire rather than what is going to support and advance this country to the Exceptionalism it has built and maintained for over 200 years.

If you wish to discuss “persecution” by religion, feel free to talk about Scientology or the televangelists of the ’80’s and the clear effort of the Masonic Order to do such. We can also talk at length about the secular efforts of the KKK (founded by several prominent Democrat supporters) to strike fear in the hearts of freed African slaves and balkanizing the efforts of Republicans to initiate legitimate policies to equalize race relations. Before you hit the “conservative hack” button again, do know this is established fact in a multitude of history books not from recent times, but through historical research dating back to the period.

How has the Catholic Church “persecuted” anyone? The Church is respectful of all people because it recognizes all people as made in the image and likeness of God. What the Catholic Church has provided is a list of Commandments that we have accepted without change from the original Judaic teachings and have simply applied them to the actions of today’s people. We do not “target” people. We do not force or require people to believe what we state. We merely ask that our views be respected in the public square as an understanding of our view of the world. We ask those who agree with us and join the Church to agree to abide by the Commandments and the precepts of the Church. How is that persecution?

“Long on rhetoric, sorry [sic] on experience or service.” Again, attacking the person instead of recognizing that your opinion has been DX’ed based on fact. But my creds are not what matters. It’s the facts and the fact they are still presented clearly and plainly.

Person 1

The church as persecuted millions of people since its inception by Rome to keep control of its crumbling empire. It also did everything possible to suppress science and independent thought. It is now nothing but a puppet figure holding on to a few Arabic countries and south America. To persecuting gays to many other things its failed to change with the times and adapt to the changing world. God or jesus or whatever u called that guy who lived 2013 years ago would be discusted at what Catholicism is now.

Person 2

No, what matters is the stylish nature of your tinfoil hat. How has the church persecuted people? Pick up a history book, or perhaps Mel Brooks’ ” History of the World Part One.” I’m actually a fan of the current Holy Father, but am not a religious man by nature. I guess there ARE atheists in foxholes after all. I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking a viewpoint that you represent – that the poor church is under attack here in the United States. It’s not. It is, however, finally being forced to adhere to separation of church and state. That’s not the Bilderbergers, the Freemasons, or the Pentavirate. It’s how the nation was designed. We in the military swear an oath to the Constitution, not a king or a god. If this is truly this much I’d a hot-button issue for you, you have too much time on your hands. 

And just a thought. If your idea of being accepted in the public square is being trying to deny others their rights based on religious choices they never made, then you are in favor of a theocracy. That’s not America.

Me

[Person 1], the Vatican has already moved far beyond the Inquisition in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s when the College of Cardinals avowed the inhumanity of the actions taken in the 1600’s and set out clearly defined rules of what is acceptable action to identify heresy within the Church Proper, not within the larger society. Of course, those who have actually taken the time to study history recognize that the Church was an integral part of society in the period of time after the Fall of Rome and through the Medieval Period. 

During the period of time when efforts were made to suppress science and individual thought, the Catholic Church was in the throes of the run-up to Renaissance. Of course you are going to have a suppression of thought that is deemed to be dangerous to your power base. In the same way today, Leftists are intent on suppressing the Catholic Church because its teachings on how to care for and help the poor, how to act in a chaste and mutually respectful manner among each other through the help and guidance of God and Jesus Christ are directly at odds with the need they see for a governmental structure in which all are beholden to the government and, ultimately, them which gives them power. Of course, the Church recognized the value of science and independent thought within the larger realm of society because it presented opportunity for people to advance themselves through the use of the skills and knowledge the Church recognizes has been given to them by God.

The biggest difference between the Leftists and the Church is that the Church will admit when actions have been taken that have harmed people and retarded the open growth of society in a positive manner.

I thought you would have taken note by now that attempts to rile me by mocking and degrading God, Jesus Christ, and the other significant figures within the life of the Church do not work. But feel free to continue if you need to to justify yourself to yourself.

Me

[Person 2], why the continued need for using “tinfoil hat”? Is that the way you try to degrade the person you are debating when you don’t have any real facts to refute their statements? In my prior comment, I already defined how the Church has recognized the errors of its ways. Sure we can look at history texts and clearly define where bad decisions have been made. That has already been done. But if the Church is willing to do that, why isn’t the Democrat Party willing to do the same about the actions of the KKK? But I digress.

“History of the World Part I”? You’re really going to use that in a philosophical debate? I think Mel screenplayed a masterpiece – but in humor only. Sort of like the penultimate scene in “To Be Or Not To Be” – “Excuse me! Is this England?!” Great line, but history never happened that way.

I have no problem if people are not “religious.” Most of the people I tailgate with and a number of my friends on FB are not religious either. I know a number of veterans from WWII, Iraq, and Afghanistan who are atheists. But even with them, they recognize when an attack is underway. These actions being taken in relation to the Embassy location have nothing to do with the “Separation of Church and State.” These actions have everything to do with driving ALL religions, not just the Catholic Church, but ALL religions – Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Islamics, etc. – out of the public square to ensure all of their teachings, beliefs, or concepts on the actions of people within society are denied involvement, not just “separated” from the manner in which the United States Government functions. 

Please, please when will people get it straight? The First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states: 

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The valued word is “of“, not from. Bluntly put, this horse hockey that keeps getting thrown around by Leftists about the Catholic Church or some other group stating that it wants its viewpoints heard on a topic of discussion and accepted is not an establishment of a religion. It is part of the overall debate that takes place in the public square where it has come to be accepted. When the viewpoint is recognized as legitimate because it s based in fact and not opinion, the value of the teachings of the religious entity is seen and made part of the rules of law that govern society.

Straight examples: the murder of another human being, thievery, and perjury. If you are so scared of the establishment of religion, why aren’t you and all the others who think A1 refers to separation of church and state clamoring for these laws to be overturned? After all, they are right from the 6th, 8th, and 9th Commandments. And those are from a Judeo-Christian text that has been clearly recognized as the teachings of God through Moses and Jesus. Oh, yeah. But society recognizes these “laws” as being useful in the civilization of society.

When countries remove their diplomatic corps or otherwise separate themselves from a country, a severing of access to the public square takes place. That act is detrimental to the larger world society.

My idea of the public square begins first with mutual respect shown among the people involved in the debate as human beings. It continues with a discussion about the topic based on facts that have been researched and presented without the current effort to shift public opinion to the opinion that works for that time and whoever is the current puppet on stage. The public is provided the opportunity to express their beliefs – gasp! even if they are based on a religious theory that has been around since 33 A.D. – and identify how those beliefs on the topic will support and advance the society.

Legitimate discussion in the public square is not about suppressing or denying someone the opportunity to speak because they have a point of view that is counter to the one you want to be accepted. It is about identifying legitimate facts – as I have done regarding how the standing of embassies within countries are seen throughout the world – and presenting a rationale as to why a certain action should or should not be taken. 

Just because my thoughts, beliefs, and ideas are based on religious premise, backed up by fact, does not make my desire to be heard in the public square a desire for a theocracy. It makes me want to be heard as a human being because I offer to the larger society. That is America.

Person 2

OK, here’s our basic difference of opinion – you believe that laws against murder, thievery, and the like do not and cannot exist without a deity. I believe that they can – and SHOULD. These laws are how societies protect themselves and their members. They are all based on one principle – that no human should be able to deprive another of his or her rights as a human being. Their right to be alive, their right to maintain their own property, etc.

Dangit – I’ve been typing this on a mobile device and completely forgot that FB on a computer takes a hard return as “post”. Anyway, to continue… I believe that anyone has the right to be heard. Hell, I spent a lot of time in some pretty crappy places to ensure that people have that right. However, here’s the rub. Let’s say that a majority of voting Americans believe that, say, schools should be segregated. And let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that their belief is rooted in religion. Sure, their voice should be heard. And then discounted, because they are in favor of depriving a segment of the population of their rights. Wait a minute! That actually happened! Hmmm, and John F. Kennedy (who had to face some fairly ridiculous scrutiny over the fact that he was a Catholic) was instrumental in making it happen. But let me back to the question at hand – the moving of the U.S. Ambassadorial presence to the Vatican to the U.S. Embassy in Rome. It moves, according to Google Maps, a little bit less than three miles. Now, around 29 countries currently do not have U.S. Embassies in them, many of which do not simply because those services are provided by an embassy located in a different country. This is a very cost-effective solution to ensuring representation. We’re talking three miles here, man! What kind of a slap in the face is THAT? Also, the tin foil hat designation is only derogatory if you’re not a hypersensitive paranoid. QED.

Me

[Person 2], your argument regarding laws against murder, theft, perjury, etc. fails on a simple point of logic. You made the decision that these laws were acceptable based, initially, on taught theory as a child presented either at home or through your schooling or both. You did not “decide” that you agreed with that. You were taught that these are the established laws within civilized society. Where did those laws come from? They were handed down from the Judeo-Christian teachings to the larger world. My point is, the majority of established “laws” are in fact based in the teachings of either Judaism or Catholicism of some form. Therefore, you are welcome not to believe in God if you wish. But do not deny where the Laws of Man originate.

As for the whole segregation thing, you do realize the argument you just used implodes on itself, right? Any connection to “religion” dumps right back on the Southern Democrats (Leftists) who sought to maintain power in the southern states and used their local churches as power bases to draw together other like-minded people through fear and hatred. Absolutely it took a conservative Catholic Democrat in the form of JFK to address another of the social justice issues that has long been a problem within the Democrat Party: namely, smokescreening the power grabs through the use of localized and state-level efforts as aforementioned. 

As for the issue of the Embassy, my frustration remains that this is a removal of the physical location within a sovereign country under the guise of “security.” Three miles is nothing in a purely geographical sense. Yet when man-made borders are imposed, we see the reality of what is occurring. This is similar in form and effort if your polling pace was removed from your voting district and put in another district , but the district profile retained because of “security.”

BTW, what psychology program did you graduate from and is your license up to date to make a diagnosis like that? If not, then you are still name calling which goes right back to my commentary on that issue.

Person 2

You know, I figured a churchy guy would know what QED means.

Me

And I do. But do you understand what you are trying to demonstrate?

I’m sure there will be more to follow. But for now, we are here…

Advertisements

About VigilantKnight

Living life on my terms.
This entry was posted in Catholic, Class Warfare, Debating, Media, Morality, Religion, Responsibility, Social, The Press. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s