Friday, June 6, 2014

Prayers for the three knife victims

Perhaps the most forgotten murder victims in America, since their deaths don't help advance a particular agenda.  Not only those stabbing victims, I also mean these stabbing victims.  And countless others whose deaths don't warrant significant attention because they don't help The Way.  I mean that, by the way.  Prayers should be our first reaction. Unlike Mark, however, you're free do disagree.  In what can only be seen as a step down the credibility ladder, prayers have been offered for the individual killed in Seattle.  That's a good thing.  But not before a post laying out a screed against anyone who disagrees with Mark over gun control, and then essentially threatening anyone who doesn't just come to offer prayers (or my hunch, agree with Mark) with banishment.  There's a point where, in my ministry days, we would do what was called an intervention with fellow ministers.  This would be about the time.  The quality control of the Catholic blogosphere being what it is, however, I wouldn't hold my breath.  Prayers for all victims of violence.  Prayers that we can find real solutions to the actual problems.  And prayers for Mark.

Update: Apparently Mark meant it.  Though a couple threw out a few observations in keeping with Mark's general viewpoint, regular commenter 'Peter the Greek' came by to offer prayers, but also correct Mark's strange assertion that this murderer in Seattle was 'Exercising his 2nd Amendment Rights.'  Not sure what to make of it.  It can't be a lie, since nobody is stupid enough to think it's true.  Bombast?  Perhaps.  Post-modern style disregard for facts and truth?  Perhaps.  Anyway, ol'Pete stepped in and tried to point out that this was no more an exercise of the 2nd amendment than butchering a virgin on a pagan altar would be an exercise of the 1st amendment.  And BAM!  Pulled.  So again, pray as Mark said, or agree with Mark.  Personally, keeping it at prayer is good enough at this point.  


  1. (ok, enough time has passed)
    Why bother leaving comments open on the post in the first place??

    This is all ironic for the author that once wrote a series of posts on another website about "arguments for arguing well". Let's take an example using the method he did on this post:
    Let's say I posted something talking about... oh Catholics stuffing a bunch of babies into a sceptic tank. And then said that this was so horrible, only prayers would be allowed in the comments.

    Oh what's that? You want to post a clarification and about how the story isn't what people think? Well you lack the elementary social skills necessary for grasping human emotions and want me to ban you.

    Never mind that whenever it's "late" enough to begin talking about the story again (and clarify), the association of Catholics == dead babies has become cemented enough into people's minds that almost all of the clarification will do no good.

    Like I've said before, Mark just gave the enemies of the church an instant "i win" button in the culture debate. I'll have sympathies for him later being clobbered by it.

    Also, I notice HornOrSilk (the FIRST poster) didn't get banned even though he didn't offer prayers. Bias? WHAT bias?

    (oh, and it's funny, Mark assumes the media should lose 50 IQ points when reporting religion, but nothing else? Maybe he should consider that if it gets RELIGION so wrong, MAYBE it gets other things it's lacking wrong - like guns)

  2. Ah here we go... Notice what the author says about trying to cement conventional wisdom.

  3. Yep. I consider that post a low point. I'm more and more convinced that one of the biggest problems is Mark's insistence that he is a 'conservative' Catholic, when it's clear to anyone that he has long shed his right leaning tendencies. Just the fact that he allows those on the Left almost (almost) a blank check. He's frequently praised Dan C's posts, who seems to think that there are stupid, evil people, and then there are those who aren't conservative. No, Mark doesn't tolerate people who attack the Church, so Jem was recently banned. But it's very difficult to see Mark as anything other than a pro-life liberal, but since he insists otherwise, it skews the balance and I think that's a huge part of the tensions.


Let me know your thoughts