The May 2010 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter can now be found at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Newsletters/Newsletter108(May2010)(RGB).pdf Bill C-384 was soundly defeated by a vote of 228 to 59. Check how the Members of Parliament voted at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/HowTheyVoted.pdf On June 5, 2010, we are co-hosting the US/Canda Push-Back Seminar at the Radisson Gateway Hotel at the Seattle/Tacoma Airport. The overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384 proved that we can Push-Back the euthanasia lobby in the US and Canada and convince people that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a dangerous public policy. Register for the Seminar at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/2010SeminarFlyer(RGB)(LetterFormat).pdf The Schindler family are being attacked by a Florida television station and Michael Schiavo. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is standing in solidarity with the Schindler family. My blog comments: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/05/att
Reflections from the pastoral ministry of an Evangelical Catholic Priest.
Lorne Gunter is spot on! Unfortunately, recently I have experienced this type of intolerance from my liberal neighbors who were supposed to be my friends. They said I had no right to free speech. Since I haven't been associating with them anymore, I now have a closer relationship with God.
ReplyDeleteI loathe such labels as, "left-lib," "right-of-center," etc. What are they, anyway? And what the hell do they do besides stir up anger among those who hate being labelled, especially when the labels are wrong? First and foremost, people are people All are different. Even among members of a group, each one is different from every other. And I would just love it if lazy "journalists" (which is pretty much all of them, these days) would actually put their educations to work and come up with something besides cute and clever and bloody, bloody irritating!
ReplyDelete*whew* Okay...I don't really know what he means by "liberal," but I suspect it has nothing to do with politics and has everything to do with social interactions with and expectations of others. And from what I can glean from other commentators of the same stripe as he, that which he scorns as "left" or "liberal" is probably "laissez-faire" when it comes to their social interactions. They are prepared to like everybody and they don't want to control anybody. Similarly, they have no great desire to allow anyone else to do the controlling, either. People are free to come and go, form relationships, families, partnerships, pretty much as they please. And nobody's underwear gets in a knot if someone else's personal and private life happens to be not one's own flava! Everyone else's religion, culture, personal preferences, and sexuality are fine because no one is into forcing anyone else to partake in that which he might find distasteful. No one in this particular club wants to impose on anyone else anymore than they wish to be imposed upon, so they tend to operate with an arm's-length kind of polite courtesy. They live and let live. Until it's time not to.
What he calls "right" (which has nothing to do with being "correct"), however, wants rank-and-file, everything under control, and that control within the "right" group because they know best for everyone. Everyone has to have the same religion, the same culture, the same sexuality, the same everything, because that means order and order is paramount. It's actually more than a little OCD, this particular mindset. It hates different, can't handle unpredictable, and really despises individuality.
So...I'm probably more in what is called the "left," than the "right," as far as this kind of classification goes (which, to be frank, is way too far), even though I'm neither. And I take it Gunter is to the "right." That makes him controlling, and I refuse to be controlled.
See where this is going, Tim? I'm in the middle of a somewhat similar discussion on another blog, and the problem that the "right" has is that the "left" won't stop "persecuting" them for their persecutions of others!
It's late, and I've got an injured paw which is aching something fierce at the moment, but I wanted to get some of my thoughts down here before I forgot them all. I think I'm probably being pretty rambly right now, and I do apologize for that. If I've got you too confused, I'll come back later and see what I can do to clear it up, okay?. 'Night...
"They said I had no right to free speech."
ReplyDeleteCareful, Teresa. Did they actually say that in so many words? Or did you simply re-phrase what they said and then translate it into what you wanted to hear? Would you give a precise quote? In context?
@Lady Janus
ReplyDeleteFirst, we were talking about the proposed Koran burning, and then about the mosque being built near Ground Zero. Somehow the person mentioned how much I earn from my job and said that I don't have a good job because I don't earn a certain amount of money. Then, he said because I don't earn a certain amount of money that I had no right to free speech. Because I was in shock, I asked him three times "Did you say that I have no right to free speech?" in which he answered "Yes" three times. If he had meant something else or if I had misinterpreted him I would have thought that he would have corrected me after one of the times I asked for clarification. I hope this helps put it in context.
So...this person with whom you were talking said you have no right to free speech because you don't make enough money? That just makes him an idiot, not a liberal!
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. From what I understand, those who are what you call "liberal" are not all that concerned with money...either theirs or yours. Why would you call him a liberal? And if you were hanging out with him, wouldn't that make you a liberal, too?
ReplyDeleteNot so. Just because you happen to hang around some person or people doesn't automatically mean you follow their views. I am pretty conservative. My husband and I are probably the only consrvatives in the apartment complex. My husband and I moved to Pittsburgh about four years ago, didn't know anyone and met these neighbors, hung out and put differences aside for the most part until it became obvious that they no longer respected us or our views.
ReplyDeleteThat may be true (about the money) but I think that he did that in order to provoke me. Those people would consistently on occasion make accusations and provoke me on purpose just to see me get upset or to get a reaction (this was usually done when my husband wasn't around).
ReplyDeleteI forgot to mention that while I have always held conservative Catholic views I wasn't active politically (other than voting) until about 2 and half years ago.
ReplyDelete"...hung out and put differences aside for the most part until it became obvious that they no longer respected us or our views."
ReplyDeleteWell, that's unfortunate for you, but it doesn't make him a "liberal." It sounds very much like he's just someone who may have already heard too much of your views and wanted not to hear any more of them. If they were actively provoking you, it's just possible that you weren't paying attention to their more subtle hints. It also puts a different spin on what he said about your not having enough money to have the right to free speech. He was goading you, trying to get you to leave them alone without actually being blunt about it, and making you angry was one way to accomplish what they wanted...putting the final decision to leave on your shoulders.
Would you call being pro-choice, pro-big government, pro- single-payer system healthcare, pro-Socialism, anti-corporate and being against anything any consrvative says a liberal?
ReplyDeleteAnd, their views actually dominated the conversations and I usually had to fight my way in to be able to speak when we talked politics which I tried to avoid. I am sure they were fed up with my politics, as was I with theirs. I was not normally the one to bring up politics because I knew how much that we disagreed. I ignored much of their jabs or comments, and tried to ignore more of there political talk as to not to cause any conflict but there is only so much one person can take.