Mao wrote:

Dear Friends;
A. We ?re All Proselytizers.
Firstly, Rich- I have never subscribed to the idea that one should not proselytize. And in fact we all do it all the time. It basically means trying to bring people around to your point of view. It is, to my mind, the other side of the coin of seeking. We each try to figure out the mystery of this existence and if it means anything and if there is such a thing as good and evil, right or wrong.
The Cynics were a cult in ancient Greece but have followers everywhere at every time who sneer or yawn and say there is no truth. The objection to proselytizing is like the objection to talking about politics. Religion and politics are the most intense and meaning of all topics. True, one needs to give it a rest at time or even limit it. But not ban it.
The word itself, btw, is from ancient Greek (????- (pros-, toward) and the verb ??????? (?rchomai, to come) in the form of ?????????? (pros?lytos, a new comer).[3] Historically in the Koine Greek Septuagint and New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a gentile who was considering conversion to Judaism. Though the word proselytism originally referred to Early Christianity(and earlier Gentiles such as God-fearers), it now refers to the attempt of any religion or religious individuals to convert people to their beliefs, or any attempt to convert people to a different point of view, religious or not. Proselytism is illegal in some countries.
I don?t know but I have a theory about the anti-proselytizing point of view. It sort of took the Victoria rule to never address controversy or heated subjects. I think this is true when you have a guest. My Jewish, Protestant and Muslim friends are not subjected to sermons when they come to my house or if we are eating socially- unless they bring it up. But this does not apply to neutral ground, the public square, the office water cooler, etc. One just needs to respect others and not drive them nuts with your beliefs.
I think too there is a bizarre fallacy that exports concepts from the screwed up First Amendment jurisprudence on Church and State. In 1971, SCOTUS in Lemmon v. Kurtzman required that activities that the government support be secular, not religious. Leaving aside the myriad problems in this area, people someone think that one must reserve one?s religious faith to the private sphere. The opposite is true. The First Amendment protects Americans so that each of us can proselytize as well as pray. The US is the best at this. I suppose a place like North Korea is the worst.

B. Right to Be A Private Ninny
Dr. Riveria, you are correct. And I find Dan Falcone? approach regrettable but it is absolutely his right. It makes no sense, however. I wonder what it takes to put something like this up? JCLIST has been around and has a purpose. Things like Next Door are pretty good. I have mostly avoided Facebook as it seems like a hole. Is there a more open forum now that I might find congenial. Btw, it took 48 hours for the press to admit the weekend bombings were Islamic terror. The press is private and they can censor too. Strange thought that things seem less open than they used even with all the new media. I spent Sunday with a friend who has been in China for 30 years. He asserts that the internet has made the government more tyrnaical than ever and that the average Chinese knowns nothing that the government does not want it to know and, on the other, the government knows everything about anyone who approaches dissidence. I asked my wife?s friend what she thought about the situation of Christians in China (I did not say persecution because I did not want to offend her). Although her English is pretty good (and even though she?s raising her kids Jewish), she said ?what is a Christian.?

C. The Cross a Scandal, a Stumbling Block- and now, a Joke
Your joke ridicules the most sacred symbol in Christianity. To believers it is the sign of the incomprehensible love of the infinite and almighty God for each of us. To non believers, it represents a Jewish Rabbi cruelly executed 2000 years ago. Why the myrth in either case? You paint me and all Christians with the brush of neurotic self absorbed masochists. You should read Candida Moss, the Notre Dame tenured professor who makes her living denying the cult of martyrdom that is central in the Church?s understanding of itself. And, of course, you somehow reserve your wit from commenting on Islam.

D. Real and Objective Value of Catholicism
There has been other criticism that I am carried away or delusional when I assert the independent value of Catholic culture apart from the truth question. Rich, I think, thought my statement that Catholic music was without parallel to be ethno centric and wrong. It may be wrong but there is, nonetheless, a strong argument to be made for it. The entire system of modern tonality- intervals, the scales, the ideas of harmonic progression and the contemporary rejection of these all comes out of Catholic music. A music PhD from any top place spends half his time studying the Catholic Mass (pre 1970). Virtually ever great composer seeks to compose a Mass. Palestirina, Monteverdi, depress, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, e Vaugh Williams, etc. I was dropping my sone off at his Ivy league college and remarked how pleasant the Catholic architecture was. He was bewildered. I explained that his dorm followed the design of a mediaeval Benedictine cloister. Modern philosophy and its rejection of realism can?t really be understood unless one understands the 13th century synthesis that Aquinas achieved. Europe may be dying but I hope European culture finds root in emerging countries perhaps, Africa above all and it can carry on what had been true, as expressed by Belloc, ?Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe.?
This value of Catholicism has always been recognized and even if one found its dogmas ridiculous or abhorrent, one still grudgingly gave credit where credit was due.

Yours,

Dan

RichMauro wrote:
Agreed.

Discussion is one thing, proselytizing is quite another.

And if you feel the need to be enlightened on a topic try Google.

RichMauro wrote:
Mao,

I just thought it was a bit much for a secular discussion board. I asked you -- no one else-- to examine your posting.

A detailed history of the exhumation of the cross?

As to music, I really don't think that Catholic music is "recognized by all as without parallel".
That also, is a bit much.

Small, ignorant and intolerant?--yes, I recognize those qualities extant herein.

Free thinkers??--covers a lot of territory.

Mao wrote:
Webmaster!

So first you take down a post that linked a NJ.Com story about a Muslim who had descrated Our Lady of Victories on JFK Blvd- ostensibly because by drawing attention to this violent Islamic terror in our midst, I was committing hate speach. Oi vey. Where does one begin.

Then a posting about a Sung Latin Mass for the Exaltation of the Cross is removed. Why? Rich Mauro wrote and wondered if this belonged on this board. I was going to ask him, what possible grounds could there be for not allowing it? As Yvonne pointed out, Catholic music is recognized by all as without parallel and as the font of all art music in the West. A significant number of our singers and instrumentalist are not believers, many of them being Jewish. The Mass itself has been termed by many anthropologists and cultural historians to be the "perfect drama" in the words of TS Elliot.

Proust, a free thinker, writing when Chartres Cathedral was threatened wrote a defense in which he provided one of the most moving accounts ever made of Catholic liturgy.

Your continued censorhip is offensive, ignorant and regretable.

Yours,

Mao