| « | Freedom Of Speech |
»
|
|
Saturday, February 04, 2006
De Mortuis
Comments
But sayeth the pundit:
Don’t you understand what’s important here is NOT that this man dedicated his life to peace and the improvement of mankind; what’s important is MY OPINION.
(Well, you know what people have besides opinions...)Posted by on 04/05/2005 at 08:29 AMFrancis-
If there were still such a thing as common decency we would not be affronted daily by the sight of globby mid-sections of females with so little sense as to not know hip-huggers and crop-tops are not their friends.
If there were still such a thing as common decency, mothers, the formerly traditional purveyors of such customs, would be telling their little down-loads to cover their mouths when they cough or sneeze.
If there were still such a thing as common decency, women would not snarl at men who held open doors for them.
If there were still such a thing as common decency, we would not have permitted a woman to be dehydrated to death by her husband.
Better to be pissed-off than pissed-on, I always say, and that’s what the pundits are doing to the Pope with their petty bulls***.
Posted by on 04/05/2005 at 10:35 AMWhile I understand your annoyance, I think it’s fair to say that those of us who qualify our praise for the man—as I have done—do it not to dishonor his legacy, or remind others of our disagreements with him. Rather, we do it because the praise we have to offer him is great, but those disagreements were likewise great—and to offer the former without at least some slight reference to the latter might convince a listener that we agreed with the Pontiff (or more appropriately, with the Church) on all issues.
I do agree completely that the kind of cheap shots that the NY Times and other disreputable organizations have been taking—a few words of praise are followed with a long stream of damnation—are completely without class. But it does not seem unfair to put a faint, but polite qualifier with strong praise, in the interest of clarity.
Posted by Cypren on 04/05/2005 at 05:15 PMGah. That should teach me to post without proofing. What I meant to say in the first statement was not that a qualifier did not remind listeners of disagreements, but of the *specific* disagreements. A laundry list of issues on which one may differ with the man is uncalled for, but a reminder that the speaker admired him without being a devotee is not, in my mind, indecent.
Posted by Cypren on 04/05/2005 at 05:17 PMHooray! Thank you Francis, for saying what I’ve been wanting to say for that last couple of days.
Blogging a link as we speak - everyone has to read this one.
Posted by Rebecca on 04/05/2005 at 10:27 PMFrancis. Thanks for this post. My wife suggests the snarling and sneering from our press demi-gods is them realizing the true Authority John-Paul II had and has. By comparison, their self-annointed importance is found wanting. It irks their egos ceaselessly, and, unable to respond with prayer,charity or silence, they speak in typical fashion, with spittle and ash.
Posted by Kerry on 04/06/2005 at 06:52 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
