Threats against Mass. Church for Anti-Gay Marriage Sign.

[Kelfa28]

Would have posted yesterday but we just moved and got internet squared today.

Yesterday's Mass was wonderful and also uneventful. We attended the 8 AM Mass and there was nobody protesting outside.

Monsgr gave a lovely Homily that addressed everything that happened over the past week.

He was shocked at just how much hate mail they received and the threats against the church and everyone else.

Several of the employees were getting threatening phone calls at 3 AM. Monsgr showed many of the journalists that showed up some of the hate mail they received and the journalists were commenting that they couldn't show most of the images and threats because they were so violent and graphic.

He concluded by commending the news for painting the church in a fairly positive light explaining that they had every right to post what they posted.

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

For clarity, yes, I am saying that the response was predictable. I am also saying it was not as great as has been suggested (you are doing it again with your false pluralization of the single threat) and that elements of the response deserve condemnation, as the church is indeed entitled to free speech. But it is not entitled in logic to express surprise when its provocative messaging provokes. You seem to want me to say it is ok to attack people or burn buildings because you disagree with them. This is the opposite of my position, and I will not be drawn into debating as if it were.

The provocative message: Calling two men "friends".


OH, THE HUMANITY!!!!


That would certainly neccessitate smearing people of a different opine as "hateful" or "bigots".

“It might not have been in-your-face overtly hateful, but that is the type of subtle bigotry that can affect people,” said Evans...

The church’s anti-gay marriage sign was up for one day before it was changed. Church leaders say they received threats over the sign, but that they did not change the words in response.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/05/2...marriage-sign/



Someone better call the "false pluralization" police on this one.

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

For clarity, yes, I am saying that the response was predictable. I am also saying it was not as great as has been suggested (you are doing it again with your false pluralization of the single threat) and that elements of the response deserve condemnation, as the church is indeed entitled to free speech. But it is not entitled in logic to express surprise when its provocative messaging provokes. You seem to want me to say it is ok to attack people or burn buildings because you disagree with them. This is the opposite of my position, and I will not be drawn into debating as if it were.

Oh nos!

More false pluralization!!!

Acushnet Church Threatened After Posting Anti-Gay-Marriage Sign....

ACHUSHNET (CBS) – A controversial sign at a Catholic Church has prompted some violent threats from critics.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/05/1...-gay-marriage/

(NECN) - A Catholic parish in the Diocese of Fall River has become the object of threats of violence and vandalism after a sign posted on church property supported the 'traditional' definition of marriage.

http://www.necn.com/05/16/12/Threats...70&feedID=4206

[InSearchofGrace]

Originally Posted by Kelfa28

Would have posted yesterday but we just moved and got internet squared today.

Yesterday's Mass was wonderful and also uneventful. We attended the 8 AM Mass and there was nobody protesting outside.

Monsgr gave a lovely Homily that addressed everything that happened over the past week.

He was shocked at just how much hate mail they received and the threats against the church and everyone else.

Several of the employees were getting threatening phone calls at 3 AM. Monsgr showed many of the journalists that showed up some of the hate mail they received and the journalists were commenting that they couldn't show most of the images and threats because they were so violent and graphic.

He concluded by commending the news for painting the church in a fairly positive light explaining that they had every right to post what they posted.

Thanks for posting, Kelfa.

The bolded parts of your quote is for Hokomai:

What now, Ho, would you regard this report by a parishioner of St. Francis Xavier Church actual incidents as false pluralization?

[John1956]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

For clarity, yes, I am saying that the response was predictable. I am also saying it was not as great as has been suggested (you are doing it again with your false pluralization of the single threat) and that elements of the response deserve condemnation, as the church is indeed entitled to free speech. But it is not entitled in logic to express surprise when its provocative messaging provokes. You seem to want me to say it is ok to attack people or burn buildings because you disagree with them. This is the opposite of my position, and I will not be drawn into debating as if it were.

Who is expressing surprise? Certainly not me. Homosexual activists typically respond in drastic ways against those who merely express a different viewpoint from theirs. You on the other hand are talking out both sides of your mouth: You supposedly criticize the threat of violence while essentially excusing the threat by saying their threat should be no surprise, they were provoked, etc, etc. What if someone threatened to burn your house down because they didn’t like your viewpoint; would you try and explain their threat away as you are here?

John

[Kelfa28]

Originally Posted by InSearchofGrace

Thanks for posting, Kelfa.

The bolded parts of your quote is for Hokomai:

What now, Ho, would you regard this report by a parishioner of St. Francis Xavier Church actual incidents as false pluralization?

Your welcome!

Granted, I can't post a web link or anything to prove what he said. You'll just have to take my word for it but I assure you all...the threats were more then just one. There was a sign posted that said "Pray for death" and another message that threatened to burn the church down and those are just the G rated threats.

St. Francis Xavier does have a Facebook page that was swamped with messages and the staff only took down the very offensive ones.

Monsgr is a fantastic priest. He is funny, personable and quirky. When he first came to this parish, many other Catholics left this parish because he was so conservative and wasn't quiet about it either. My husband and I came back to the Church because of him.

[Dale_M]

Yesterday's protest outside the church sounds as if it were both peaceful and respectful towards the worshipers.

About a dozen protesters stood outside for two hours, never chanting or shouting. Many said the church had a right to post what they wanted, but that the protesters have a right to peacefully disagree.

“I feel like this is another step toward making history,” said former church member Erica Davignon.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/05/2...marriage-sign/

The [parish] sign now reads “Go out and proclaim the gospel.” It’s a message the church believes it has a responsibility to share.

“It’s all about love. But within that context, we must tell the truth. To preach the gospel doesn’t mean we cut things out,” said [Msgr. Gerard] O’Connor.

[Hokomai]

The false pluralization happened in taking the original report, and pluralizing it. It was false, because there was no evidence. Then, evidence appeared. So plurals are fine. Of course it is a regular media habit also. Some people seem to think that I really consider threatening to burn a church down is a good thing. I do not, of course, and I am sorry to disappoint those who wish I did. But I do not think there is any doubt that the sign was intended to provoke. The reaction was caused by the provocation, but is the responsibility of those who were provoked. Again, my apologies to those who take a more binary view of these things.

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

The false pluralization happened in taking the original report, and pluralizing it. It was false, because there was no evidence. Then, evidence appeared. So plurals are fine. Of course it is a regular media habit also. Some people seem to think that I really consider threatening to burn a church down is a good thing. I do not, of course, and I am sorry to disappoint those who wish I did. But I do not think there is any doubt that the sign was intended to provoke. The reaction was caused by the provocation, but is the responsibility of those who were provoked. Again, my apologies to those who take a more binary view of these things.

I suppose what people take exception to is the obfuscation of dwelling on the minutiae of "It was only one incident!!!", vs. condeming the threats, in the first place.

Of course the sign was meant to "provoke". The word's Latin root, provacare means "to call forth".

In this case, the sign was meant to call forth Catholic teaching in the matter towards is parishoners, and others who might see the sign.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by scipio337

I suppose what people take exception to is the obfuscation of dwelling on the minutiae of "It was only one incident!!!", vs. condeming the threats, in the first place. .

In the 'first place', that is, my first post on this topic, I did condemn the only threat then known to those of us reading the thread. I called it 'clearly a crime'. To what, then, was exception taken?

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

In the 'first place', that is, my first post on this topic, I did condemn the only threat then known to those of us reading the thread. I called it 'clearly a crime'. To what, then, was exception taken?

I didn't read that in your post:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

The word 'many' does not appear in your link, mdgspencer. Is this an addition by a later scribe? Apart from the threat to burn the church down, which is clearly a crime, I am at a loss to know what people are complaining about. Of course people will respond to provocation of this type. Of course they will get angry. It's called politics.

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....0&postcount=11

First, we draw attention to the "false pluralization" line, followed by a milquetoast "condemnation" ("clearly a crime"), concluded with the dastardly "provocation" charge.

[John1956]

Hokomai,

I notice a shift in your tone, for the better, namely, that you're not trying to excuse the threats of violence with the "they were provoked" type responses.

John

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by John1956

Hokomai,

I notice a shift in your tone, for the better, namely, that you're not trying to excuse the threats of violence with the "they were provoked" type responses.

John

Well, self-improvement is a continual goal - but when did I do the 'worse' thing?

[John1956]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

when did I do the 'worse' thing?

Already been through this, Hokomai...