Keep hearing on radio--Kennedy

[coadie]

No word from THE POPE
Hello!! Any body work in the Vatican?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2009082...08599191906400

And there are the infamous episodes in his life that showed a man not quite in control of his demons.

"Here in Rome Ted Kennedy is nobody. He's a legend with his own constituency," says the Vatican official. "If he had influence in the past it was only with the Archdiocese of Boston and that eventually disappeared too."

Boston gave off bad vibes

As the shock waves dissipated following yesterday's Vatican announcement that Cardinal Bernard F. Law had resigned, a sobering reality emerged: His departure does little to resolve the legal quagmire now gripping the Boston Archdiocese, including the nearly 500 pending legal claims and lawsuits brought by alleged sexual abuse victims.


Even with Law gone, ''there's a mess, a real mess,'' said the Rev. John P. Beal, a professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America. ''You've got all those lawsuits out there, and that's going to be expensive. You've got the possibility of the diocese being forced to file for bankruptcy, and what that will mean, God only knows.''

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Irreligious

I doubt Senator Kennedy would see the bashing as a party and you know what they say about "Do unto others"! ; )

Those are two different scenarios--what TK would think compared with what *I* would have others do unto me. If I had chosen 40 years of public life, and wielded power to change so many lives and laws, I would not expect my political enemies to change their tune upon my death. Public life extends for as long as my legacy affects people, IMO. Death or beyond, that's what I signed up for, and would take it like a MAN, albeit a dead one. (Hypothetically.)

[Irreligious]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Those are two different scenarios--what TK would think compared with what *I* would have others do unto me. If I had chosen 40 years of public life, and wielded power to change so many lives and laws, I would not expect my political enemies to change their tune upon my death. Public life extends for as long as my legacy affects people, IMO. Death or beyond, that's what I signed up for, and would take it like a MAN, albeit a dead one. (Hypothetically.)

I'm always amazed at how the "Golden Rule" is so easily explained away. Oh well, your statement about taxes was still funny.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Irreligious

I'm always amazed at how the "Golden Rule" is so easily explained away. Oh well, your statement about taxes was still funny.

Explained away, really? Thought I was a believer in the Golden Rule, if nothing else. You are apparently trying to invalidate my description of how I really WOULDN'T MIND being treated in death if I had chosen 40 years of powerful public service. The voices of my philosophical and political enemies rehearsing my record of actions (that they didn't like) would be a badge of honor.

In this case, the way my culture tells me to treat the memory of the dead probably exceeds the Golden Rule. I haven't bashed TK, unless you count ironic headlines as a bash.

[ManOfWord]

I wish no ill will to anyone and I certainly hope that God does, indeed, have mercy upon his soul. I mean that in the most sincere manner that I can. (He's going to need it, IMHO) But so will we all.

[Irreligious]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Explained away, really? Thought I was a believer in the Golden Rule, if nothing else. You are apparently trying to invalidate my description of how I really WOULDN'T MIND being treated in death if I had chosen 40 years of powerful public service. The voices of my philosophical and political enemies rehearsing my record of actions (that they didn't like) would be a badge of honor.

In this case, the way my culture tells me to treat the memory of the dead probably exceeds the Golden Rule. I haven't bashed TK, unless you count ironic headlines as a bash.

It seemed as though you endorsed the bashing that others were doing. Maybe I misunderstood.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Irreligious

It seemed as though you endorsed the bashing that others were doing. Maybe I misunderstood.

Posting a review of Kennedy's deeds and headlines is more along the lines of self flagelation and far from bashing.

No one has commented on worship of the dude as an icon.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Irreligious

It seemed as though you endorsed the bashing that others were doing. .

So I'm supposed to refute everything I don't like here? And what I don't refute, I have therefore endorsed? I catch maybe 1 or 5% of postings any day. I pick and choose what to open, but I do at least read a thread I start! --except for one onminpresent, onmiscient poster I have put on ignore--unless someone else quotes him, (then he shows up. )

Originally Posted by Irreligious

Maybe I misunderstood.

Or maybe not, depending on how you define "bashing" and "endorsement." So please concisely define bashing. My "bash means party" reference was supposed to imply that "bash" is SO subjective that it's possibly a pointless term to use here.

If someone reports DEMONSTRABLE evidence, complete with a Youtube clip, or actual in-context quotation, or a book citation, do you consider that bashing? Was Judas Iscariot or Herod "bashed" when their TRACK RECORD was rehearsed (presumably) shortly after death? Is it a biblical, or rather more a culture practice to always speak well of the dead?

Seems to me bashing is the word used when someone takes offense. The question should be, was the "bash" fair, in context, and adequately informed? And since "fairness" is subject to personal judgement, and saints are supposed to be able to "judge the world" acc. to Paul, it's pretty easy to just "mark them" which cause divisions without good cause. See above "pick and choose" comment, and the ignore function can help too. (You mentioned the bashing was "driving you batty," but maybe none of my business.)

[coadie]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

So I'm supposed to refute everything I don't like here? And what I don't refute, I have therefore endorsed? I catch maybe 1 or 5% of postings any day. I pick and choose what to open, but I do at least read a thread I start! --except for one onminpresent, onmiscient poster I have put on ignore--unless someone else quotes him, (then he shows up. )



Or maybe not, depending on how you define "bashing" and "endorsement." So please concisely define bashing. My "bash means party" reference was supposed to imply that "bash" is SO subjective that it's possibly a pointless term to use here.

If someone reports DEMONSTRABLE evidence, complete with a Youtube clip, or actual in-context quotation, or a book citation, do you consider that bashing? Was Judas Iscariot or Herod "bashed" when their TRACK RECORD was rehearsed (presumably) shortly after death? Is it a biblical, or rather more a culture practice to always speak well of the dead?

Seems to me bashing is the word used when someone takes offense. The question should be, was the "bash" fair, in context, and adequately informed? And since "fairness" is subject to personal judgement, and saints are supposed to be able to "judge the world" acc. to Paul, it's pretty easy to just "mark them" which cause divisions without good cause. See above "pick and choose" comment, and the ignore function can help too. (You mentioned the bashing was "driving you batty," but maybe none of my business.)

You weren't bashing. It was a trumped up and false accusation.

In typical classless Chicago fashion Barack Obama took a pot shot at Nancy Reagan for holding seances, something that is her right under the first amendment, during an address to the media. For a man who spent years going to a church full of degenerates whose sole goal was to make the rest of us Black folk look bad it’s hypocritical indeed to take a swipe at another person’s religious views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59XB6..._embedded#t=18

the Dem party uses bashing as a campaign methodology.