President Obama, Sherlock Holmes, a Dog and Irish Catholics (And U.S. Media)

Dof in the Night TimeSherlock Holmes is no longer a world-renowned name, nor is his detective novel genre the mass market it was but there are still those who know what the dog did in the night-time. As Dr. Watson responded to Holmes’ question: “The dog did nothing in the night-time” was a turning point, so too is today’s media response to a speech by President Obama, in Ireland, of all places.

The President apparently stated clearly and in public that Catholic education is divisive and blocks peace and therefore, has to end. And the media  emulated the famous canine, doing nothing. Maybe tomorrow? For now, ho-hum, not news. The news, is the death of an actor at age 51, which received lengthy coverage. (I presume he was a Democrat.)

The President and by association, the Democrat Party, has now declared war on the Roman Catholic church, long one of its major supporters (more fools they) with its Obamacare abortion and birth control mandates for Catholic institutions, gone on to add gay marriage orders for military chaplains (and since dithered but not given up on that) and has now started its first serious new battlefield with this threat to religious schools, started quietly, courtesy of U.S. media, in Ireland. Anti-Catholic Belfast, of course.

I seem to recall that the …what did they used to call it? Ah, yes, the old Constitution was supposed to be a barrier against government attacking the churches but of course, to the President, that’s out of date. Only Tea Party extremists support such stuff as that, right? so our President continues to bring his promised changes and his historic Catholic voters continue to vote for him as he chops down their Church. Change, indeed though what is to be hoped for from it seems uncertain.

That the media operate as government flacks now can’t be honestly argued anymore; an actor’s death versus an overt attack by the President on the Catholic Church and its right to educate (which includes, you notice, your right to be educated) is overt tyranny of intent, even if the act is withheld for now. The Prez wants only one, common-doctrine source of education, apparently. So do all who uphold the all-controlling State. Reduces trouble, you know.

But not to worry; it’s not even worth news space. Much more important that poor actor died too young. Even tonight, on Fox News, the Lefts’ favorite hate and the reputed Scourge of Democrats and all that’s good and holy.

One can visualize an IRS review of the tax exemptions for religious schools pretty soon, if the gradually leaking news of the Presidential sentiment continues in its placid calm. I leave what will likely follow to your imagination, while you ponder what famous actresses will attend the Gandolfini funeral and what they will wear… And if a fuss does work up, the Prez can always claim he was only referring to Irish Catholics…

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much)
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Catholics, Christianity, Constitution, Culture, Democrats, Domestic Policy, Education, Foriegn Policy, Freedom, Liberty, Media Bias, Politics, Public Schools, Religion, Tea Party and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to President Obama, Sherlock Holmes, a Dog and Irish Catholics (And U.S. Media)

  1. “The President apparently stated clearly and in public that Catholic education is divisive and blocks peace and therefore, has to end.”

    Can you quote this directly?

    • Jack Curtis says:

      Can’t quote directly; wasn’t there. But the Scottish Catholic Observer had this to say:

      In addition to which, you may follow the link in the post for another source.

      • No, I did do the research, I was asking you to put in on paper to show context.

        For example, this is what was said…

        “Ultimately, peace is just not about politics,” he said. “It’s about attitudes; about a sense of empathy; about breaking down the divisions that we create for ourselves in our own minds and our own hearts that don’t exist in any objective reality, but that we carry with us generation after generation.

        “And I know, because America, we, too, have had to work hard over the decades, slowly, gradually, sometimes painfully, in fits and starts, to keep perfecting our union,” said Obama. “A hundred and fifty years ago, we were torn open by a terrible conflict. Our Civil War was far shorter than The Troubles, but it killed hundreds of thousands of our people. And, of course, the legacy of slavery endured for generations.

        “Even a century after we achieved our own peace, we were not fully united,” he said. “When I was a boy, many cities still had separate drinking fountains and lunch counters and washrooms for blacks and whites”

        In context, the claim that the President was attacking Catholic schools, is silly. He also mentioned Protestant Schools, and I have not seen Protestants up in arms.

        He discusses sectarianism, and mentioned that when different groups stick to themselves, in terms of Catholic/Protestant, Shia/Sunni, Hindu/Muslim, North/South, etc… it helps to exacerbate problems.

        No one can particularly argue with this.

        But this was not about what was said, it was about creating false outrage and grasping an insult from a completely innocuous statement.

      • Jack Curtis says:

        “If towns remain divided — if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden — that too encourages division and discourages cooperation,” seems to be the offending statement. Some are calling it a ‘gaffe’ while others consider it an attack. That’s not so unreasonable, considering the Obamacare birth control/abortion mandate and the gay marriage events to date.

        Whether or not intended, the President said clearly that religiously segregated schools are divisive. Maybe he said it accidentally, regardless, he’s he President and that’s what he said. If it was a gaffe’ I suppose there will be correction published, considering the fuss in Europe.

      • But that is not what he said. He said that divisions, be they political, religious, ethnic, etc… are bad. A country that has divided itself along Protestant/Catholic lines for a century will not be served by education that continues to divide people. A country that has suffered 100 years of ethnic strife will not be served by restricting all interactions to their own ethnicity.

        The uproar about Catholic schooling is an attempt to be outraged for the sake of outrage, not a reasoned analysis of the comment.

      • Jack Curtis says:

        On review, I believe you’re correct that I overreacted in my post. But I remain convinced that the Prez needed to be called on his statement, too. But in a less indignant fashion.

      • What does the President need to be called on? He said that sectarian divisions are bad, I cannot think of any reason why this should be criticized at all. If anything it is a dumb statement, because it should be obvious, he should not need to say it, but unfortunately he does need to voice the criticism. I do not see why this is bad on his part. I think it is bad that some people continue to see sectarianism as a viable alternative to cooperation.

        What about the statement do you object to?

      • Jack Curtis says:

        Religious history is a bloodbath not yet entirely repudiated. Government has often been the agent of that. Our Constitution, as we’ve discussed, is shaped by it. I believe that any time a powerful political leader expresses a negative view that fits into that, it must be accompanied by a recognition of that or expect to be evaluated as suspect, an indication of intention. The Prez said sectarian education is bad and he’s the President, a representative of a larger, competing institution: public education. The hens worry when the wolf asks why they have so many chicks…

        The President was preceded by a cleric who praised the parochial school system. He could have said, ‘Yes, there are those benefits and the price we pay for them is in a segregation’ or some such. Instead, he just said they are bad and that should not go unremarked in my opinion.

      • Because he did not say that sectarian education is bad. He said sectarian divisions are bad. I suspect he would be indifferent to Catholic education in Iowa, but in a place where Catholic/Protestant education was used as a tool to further sectarianism divisions in the culture, the existence of the sectarian divisions would be bad.

        Can you quote where he said that the education was bad? Or can you quote where he said the divisions were bad. Context is everything and every comment you have made is designed to avoid context, rather than work with it.

      • Jack Curtis says:

        I believe that I have quoted his statement in a previous comment. Your belief that I consciously avoid context is a new one to me; I will have to watch myself to determine whether it’s a fair observation, which I will do. We all, I think, ten to fall into patterns…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s