How ironic that an Administration accused of abusing power for political advantage is claiming that the criticism of that behavior is ... "political!"

Well, this is an interesting conversation on its own. It calls for reflection on a topic that Jesuits (among many others) spend a great deal of time on. I posted about it a few months ago.

We can start by looking at a word Jeff used above: "yet." That word is disjunctive. It says that whatever came before it is contradicted by whatever comes after. The assertion, then, is that the pursuit of the truth is contradicted if you must hold what the church holds.

That can only be asserted if you also hold that an individual has a right to withhold judgment until the truth has been proved to him personally, i.e., to his individual satisfaction.

That's a debatable proposition.

I loved that show, but I see your point. As I recall, Burke was trying to argue that these small innovations lead to bigger innovations, which make bigger discoveries possible. So far so good.

But these small innovations happen when something causes us to look at our assumptions and question things we hadn't questioned before. The willingness to go back and question assumptions, of course, is the essence of philosophy - that's probably why I loved that show.

Still, the best you can do is be prepared for discovery when it comes. You can't manufacture it. Donald Rumsfeld was right, we don't know what we don't know. We only learn it through experience, of re-examining assumptions when things break down.

We're hard-wired for prejudice, assumptions, and taking a lot for granted. That's because with the sheer volume of things we need to know, we can't re-examine every idea, every time we need it. We don't have time. Assumptions are necessary time-savers.

I have no trust in creating a universal assumption tester, because it can't possibly work. We don't have time.

I will testify to the idea that the notion of the Evil One and the prince of this world is part of Jesuit spirituality.

I just went through a book by the great theologian Karl Rahner reflecting on St. Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises (called, of all things, Spiritual Exercises.) It's a book I recommend; I've read it a handful of times, and each time, I discover something new and useful.

Throughout Ignatius' Exercises, The Enemy plays an important role. So much of Ignatian spirituality is based on the believer's role in the world, and the world's role in the believer's soul. That's a highly dynamic relationship, and the devil's role in trying to unravel that dynamic is worth reflection.

[Note: Francois Guy's comment in #11 is much appreciated.]

By the way, we used to laugh; why didn't anyone make a movie out of being lector, or porter, or altar boy? 

It's not that big a deal. 

As some of you might know, the Catholic church has the sacrament of Orders. The holy orders are bishop, priest, and deacon.

But there are other orders, most notably the four minor orders, that of acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter. If you don't know the names, they basically translate into the modern world as "altar server," -exorcist-, "reader," and what we now call "ushers."

In the early days of the church, they were much more important than they are now. For instance, our mass has two combined services, the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of the Eucharist. If you weren't baptized, you weren't allowed to attend the liturgy of the Eucharist ... and so, someone had to throw you out. That was the porter's job, i.e., the doorkeeper. Back then, it was a big job; you had to know everyone in the community. 

When I was in the Jesuits, I received the minor ones. Yes, I was an exorcist.

The movie made exorcism a big deal (it featured Jesuits, of course). But it really isn't a big deal. Reality is more than the movie.

People wonder why some conservatives don't entirely embrace every pronouncement of the global warming community - why, it's settled science!

Ah! Yours was a better one then mine ... explains the point perfectly!

In the transcript, it's obvious that the FEC lawyer feels entitled to go anywhere and ask anything, and expects the witness (Ollie North, of all people) to answer every question.

I have been asking you a series of questions about your relationship with Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition. . . . It is relevant to this inquiry what relationship you had with Pat Robertson andI have asked you whether Pat Robertson had indicated to you that he was praying for you.

I'll bet Ollie North was going to admit that Pat Robertson was praying that Ollie kick a heroin habit, or stop sleeping with prostitutes, or gasp, that Ollie would campaign for Robertson on the GOP ticket. (Sure. Right.)

Doesn't matter why, of course, that the FEC lawyer asked the questions. The point is that the lawyer felt empowered to ask anything.

I still think credit has to go to the original Benghazi whistleblowers, and the committee Republicans who gave them a forum. They deserve some appreciation.

Brave emotional rhetoric, but let's face facts. By your own definition, stated on this thread, millions of babies are indeed being killed.

Funny. I don't see you taking up arms against the government.

And your straw man is itself a straw man. "Taking up arms to prevent mass infanticide does not require killing everyone in favor of abortion. That's just a straw man." I suppose that was silly of me to suggest that we'd be killing all abortion opponents. But then again, you can't logically take up arms and then not expect to kill anyone. So I guess it'll be just some of them?

Where to begin? This is utter nonsense.

I wrote a post saying that the global financial crisis and its effect on the poor can't be measured by income. You somehow interpret that as admitting I was wrong about income statistics.

I wrote several posts, earlier on, about the pope's point that the poor shouldn't be treated merely as pawns in an economic theory. You responded, absurdly, hilariously, that we should forget about what the pope actually said and instead treat is as an economic analysis.

Then you leap entirely into bubble-dom by saying that I "seem" to have formulated the point that life is more than economics to save face. Never mind that I had been making that point from the beginning.

You want to see some "calling out?" The pope criticized capitalism and you freaked out. Talk about hitting a nerve ...

I'll leave you to your bubble.

Because ... and this is the essence of conservatism ... we believe that the government's authority comes from the consent of the governed. And if the governed doesn't consent, then we have no moral right to employ the powers of government, even when it's a grave and serious matter.

The other option is to go completely radical, and start killing people who disagree, on your own, without the government. Which is to say that the response to killing should be more killing. But if you're  actually pro-life, that's hardly a coherent position.

The only way to stop abortion without killing all the abortion opponents is to energetically and ceaselessly participate in the democratic process. 

Do you think I'm happy or passive about where abortion is? Then you don't know me at all. (Obviously - this is the internet, why should you?)

But the first step in a persuasion fight is to make an argument. Connect the dots. Answer the objections. 

What do I claim to know? (I think I may have lost track of this thread in the conversation - been a busy day!)

If I understand you correctly (please correct me if I don't), you're asking where to draw the line.

I say that the impulse to draw a line in the first place is the false assumption. Why do we have to draw a line somewhere? The only evidence for anything is that there's life. Human life. 

But to justify abortion, one has to invent a boundary that imagines that on one side of the boundary is personhood and civil rights, but that on the other side it's just uterine material with no rights. 

Where did we get the idea that there must be a line in the first place? Why isn't life enough?

No, that's not the answer. That's simplistic.

We don't live in a democracy where everyone's opinion is tolerable, unless it's about something really important, in which case we're entitled to rage murderously through the country. Neither the seriousness of the matter, nor the urgency of your belief, is an excuse. 

It is one thing to believe strongly that something is morally wrong. It's another thing to deny that others might have a different view, and that our commitment to democracy isn't just a pleasant platitude. This is the cost of democracy, to accept that others have a different view, even on grave matters. 

Well, I know what you and Salvatore are saying, and I understand the numbers. But we have to wrestle over more than just the income numbers.

The pope's speech was entirely about not treating the poor simply according to numbers. They're not just just consumers.

You often hear people argue that the poor are better off because they now have cellphones. Great. But their education sucks, their unemployment is much higher, and their ability to move upward -- to make a better life -- is that any better? And that's just in North America; put yourself in other countries that don't have our traditions.

Again, if the pope's criticism is that life is more than economics,  citing economic statistics really isn't a reply.