|
Published: August 6, 2008
He got in my face, was hitting me, and choked me
Pro-life sidewalk counselor assaulted by abortion doctor in Santa Ana
As more laws are enacted to protect abortion clinics and their customers from “dangerous” pro-life advocates, a pro-life sidewalk counselor has been assaulted -- this time by an abortion doctor.
On Saturday, Aug. 2, Tim Nissen, 31, a frequent sidewalk counselor at the Clinica Medica Para La Mujer in Santa Ana, showed up with a camera to find out who was going to be performing abortions that day. Nissen had been tipped off by a contact that Dr. Nolan Jones, the usual abortionist, would not be in that day. Nissen and other pro-lifers have been watching the clinic closely since the arrest last year of its manager, Bertha Bugarin, who is facing trial for allegedly posing as a doctor and performing abortions. Nissen and other pro-lifers were concerned that unlicensed or suspended doctors may be working in the clinic.
 Nissen waited until Dr. Howard Pfupajema, 66, showed up at about 10:16 am. “I tried to take his picture several times, but he covered his face with his doctor's lab coat,” said Nissen. “After a few pictures, he got in my face and pointed his finger, but did not touch me. He complained that I had no right to take his picture. I told him I had the right. (I said this in Spanish; even though he was talking to me in English, I was locked into Spanish mode). I think my speaking in Spanish discouraged him and he turned away and began to enter the clinic. I took one or two more pictures of him as he entered.”
Nissen saw Pfupajena leave the clinic around 12:45 pm. “I waited for him around the corner,” said Nissen. “As he came around the corner I snapped a shot of him. I then walked alongside of him and tried to explain why I was doing this -- because I had received a tip from someone that he might be an unlicensed doctor.”
As Pfupajena was about to enter his car, Nissen said, “I came around to the front of the vehicle (but still on the sidewalk) to take a shot. He then snapped and began to pursue me. He kept demanding the camera and reaching for it, and I kept backing off, saying, ‘no,’ and shielding it from him. At some point I fell over and slammed my back into a parking meter pole. This impact jarred the camera from my hands (or he might have kicked it out of my hands at this point -- my knuckles are scraped, so this is a real possibility) -- at which point he began to stomp on the camera. I went after the camera and was able to get it back into my possession, at which point he assaulted me again.”
Nissen continued that Pfupajena “got me to the ground and, seeking to jar the camera from my hand, was hitting me and, not finding success, put his knee on my throat and choked me. At this point I began to yell for help and for someone to call the police, since I was aware that there were many witnesses watching the episode. One man came up and attempted to remove the camera from my hand as I yelled for help. I did not let go and eventually the doctor stopped and made for his car as if to leave, but didn’t. This he did once or twice afterward, but stayed on the scene.”
As he and Pfupajena waited for the police, Nissen and he spoke to each other. “He defended his actions on the basis that I had no right to take his picture,” said Nissen.
Police arrested Pfupajema, cited him for assault and battery, and then released him.
Nissen said he is not interested in suing Pfupajema, but intends to press criminal charges. “If he’s only in jail for one week, that’s one week he isn’t performing abortions,” Nissen said.
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:06 AM By Dan
Tim, you have guts! I applaud you for exposing the darkness.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:15 AM By Fr. M.P.
You can bet the abortion industry won't be mentioning this one!
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:52 AM By St. Christopher
Of course you should bring a civil action him. His behavior is unacceptable and represents the fear that abortionists have that their activities will become publicized. If you win, donate any monies received to a pro-life charity.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:02 AM By Sick and Tired
I'm sorry, but you let your camera get stomped, then let yourself get stomped? A 66 year-old man causes you personal and property damage and your hope is that he's in jail for a week? You let him put a knee across your throat? How about defending yourself and restraining the idiot before the cops get there? Sheesh, what's happening to us? What if he attacked one of the women? Would you have just stood there like a spectator as well or just screamed louder than she did?
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:28 AM By Miguel
Violence against animal testing scientists is justified some said recently but try to take a murdering doctors picture you get assaulted. This is just the beginning. Meanwhile in beautiful San Francisco they are handing out FREE money to murderous, illegal felons. Satan is running a good play.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:56 AM By Protoobserver
I would like to see how many people will comment on this thread to justify the actions of this abortionist.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:59 AM By Laurette Elsberry
Absolutely, criminal carges should be filed. Pro-lifers still have some rights left in this corrupt society. All assaults on those who are trying to protect life should be documented. Pfupajena (note there is an "n", not "m" in the name) is a licenced MD, license #G29345. Googling his name shows primarily stories about this incident. One includes additional photos of Pfupajena (http://www.operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_itemId=4554). I also found that he plays golf with the Whittier Narrows Men's Golf Club. Beware of violent abortionists bearing golf clubs. whitepages.com indicates that Dr. P is the owner of Clinica Medical Santa Isabel in Baldwin Park and the Community Womens Medical Clinic in Santa Ana. There is a business name of Howard T. Pfupajena MD in two sites in LA. His MD license show 12065 Valley Bl., PO Box 2127, Walnut CA 91789, but these identifiers are inaccurate as far as I can tell. Anybody else know about this abortionist?
http://www.operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_itemId=4554
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:17 PM By John L. Sillasen
Protoobserver, perhaps he is justified by insanity. Or perhaps he is justified by criminal behavior. It's hard to tell what the politicians frame their justifications with. Maybe he is justified by a belief that photos capture the spirit of the one photographed (he might press counter charges for kidnapping his spirit). It's hard to say, but no doubt there is some justification ... hey, how about "we're all sinners, so it's ok"?
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:17 PM By Elizabeth
And to think the Governor (unfortunately he is) just signed a bill last week that PROTECTS the abortion mills from us the Pro-Life people!!!
What a mixed up world we live in.......
Onward Christian Soldiers!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:44 PM By Garvan
Now that the murderer of unborn babies has assaulted a peaceful prolifer, watch for assorted Catholic pastors and perhaps even His Eminence himself to scold the prolifer for inciting the abortionist to violence. Under no circumstances will this incident inspire a pastor to preach against abortion this coming Sunday, because they know that over 50% of "Catholics" are OK with abortion, and that to preach against it is to risk a smaller Sunday collection.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:37 PM By JPeterman
Tim..YOU THE MAN!! Thank you for keeping your cool while this demon tried to "abort" your picture taking. This is a great tactic, maybe we can get more of these "doctors" to snap while snapping their picture. I applaud your courage, may God bless you and protect you! I would think again and maybe sue him as well. The money could be donated to more anti abortion groups.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:11 PM By Eileen
The camera light is shining it's light on the dark deeds of these B-list doctors who are unfit to heal people in normal medical circumstances. Women are foolish about the jeopardy they are placing their lives in as well as their souls. These shameful abortionists are the bottom feeders of the medical profession. They only answer to a paycheck. This man whose last name is Pfupajena ( he does not deserve to be called doctor) is trying to hide from the camera light. He is uncomfortable to let the world see what he really is. He will not be able to hide from his dark deeds on his judgement day. He will have to face God!
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:29 PM By Protoobserver
Mr. Sillasen, those are not the kind of justifications that usually come from that crowd. I was thinking along the lines of someone claiming that taking a picture is a vicious form of "hate speech", a "hate crime", an egregiously vicious form of intimidation, or a violent assault on the "right to privacy" that is guaranteed in the constitution right next to the section that guarantees a woman's right to kill her baby. Sometimes they do surprise me, so they might come up with something that I never heard yet.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:51 PM By Ann Cinquina
Dear Tim:
How could you expect a murderer of the unborn to be civilized? You're lucky you weren't still in your mother's womb. God bless you.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:00 AM By Ted
This is just great. Provoking a doctor to anger is a really Christian thing to do. I would like to hear the doctor's side of the story and hear what you said to make him so mad, not withstanding the fact you were in "Spanish" mode. I hope he counters your criminal counts and you get to spend a week in jail too.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 7:58 AM By John L. Sillasen
Protoobserver, I didn't realize it was that close to being realized legally ... you've opened my eyes on it. But, reflecting on the use of cameras in public: There is a mood to shut down observation, so that reality can be scripted more effectively by those who prefer to make their own. Moreover, it would follow that everything is under the scrutiny of tyrants, as possible means to control the public, which is allowing itself to be put into a pickle jar.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:13 AM By monkeysmom
I don't blame the DR for getting angry. You deliberately provoked him and that is shameful. I agree that abortion is wrong but this sort of behavior is not helping the cause. You both should do jail time for being stupid.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:46 AM By John L. Sillasen
That "doctor" is an abortionist and has no side of the story ... he is a slave of Satan, the father of lies. So, Ted, listen to him with great attention and make believe you're being fair. BTW, Ted, there is no act on this earth that can mete out the due and just punishment owing to that abortionist.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:12 PM By Robert Gonzalez
I am a new prayer warrior, I believe that we must pray more than anything to end abortion. This Tim Nissen was in the wrong, he should have stuck to sidewalk counceling of those getting abortions. What happened to him was bad but it was his own fault, by ebbing on the abortionist with taking pictures and getting in his face.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:22 PM By Margie
Some of the comments lead me to believe that some of you have never been within a mile of an actual abortion clinic. If you had ever spent time outside a child-killing center, you would never make the thoughtless, judgmental remarks that you make.
Good news: your opportunity to stand on the sidewalk is coming up in the Fall 2008 Forty Days for Life. Taste and see!
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:30 PM By Robert Gonzalez
I am Catholic and I am apalled that Garvan could say 50% of Catholics believe abortion is OK. Garvan what is up with you? Are you working for Satan to try to out rage the Catholic Community or are you just stupid. Ted and monkeymom I'm with you, Tim Nissen got what he got at his own fault.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:47 PM By Protoobserver
Whoa...I am surprised it took them this long to get around to justifying the actions of the baby killer. They must be getting soft.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:43 PM By ssoldie
So who is being stupid? I think the the name you use "monkeysmom"says it all. I would like a picture of this MURDERER.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:42 PM By John L. Sillasen
Nissen would have been in his legal right to self defense to destroy the "doctor" who attacked him. Had it happened in either Florida or Texas, and the "doctor" picked on someone legally packing a firearm, the "doctor" would now be legal toast.
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 12:13 AM By John L. Sillasen
The most basic function of a police department is to prevent physical assault ... every other duty follows from this. In reality they cannot accomplish this goal. But not to worry, for the US Constitution guarantees people the right to protect themselves when the police don't or when the police abet the assault. So, for the self proclaimed Catholic, Robert "appalled" Gonzalez, who ex post facto is joining the abortionist (a man who Jesus teaches should be tied to a millstone and tossed into the sea) in a felony assault and battery and attempted robbery on and of a law abiding citizen ... well, from the tone of "appalled's" post, I'd say he is already suffering the physical health problems associated with hating God by loving abortion. Next time he stands in the Communion line he can tell God how wrong it is to stick up for the lives of unborn babies.
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 2:50 PM By scott
John, I left CCD because I didn't like the censorship, but I thought I'd check back to see how much praise the anthrax killer of five is getting here, now that it is known that he was a Catholic and a pro-life activist. . . John, someone questions your mental health in one of the posts, and while I don't have anything to say about that now, I will comment on what I see as a definite change in you from back in the days when almost every sentence you wrote had the word "sodomite" in it. I think you probably resent being called "St. Sillasen," and you resent it the most because you think it is demeaning: you think you should actually be Pope. You certainly do more pontificating than you used to. What's most worrisome, however, is your stating in more than one post that "discipline" is needed for those who don't think as you do and your sometimes subtle and sometimes not so subtle support of lethal punishment against them. I get the feeling that if you were to become Pope, before the white smoke had cleared the chimney you would already be thinking, "Torquemadas! I need lots and lots of Torquemadas!"
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 4:53 PM By John L. Sillasen
scott, I wonder if you left CCD because you don't have the desire or drive it takes to make factual arguments and seek what is true. You malign me without any substantive facts, and then you fantasize some absurdity about me. As far as my mental health goes ... well, you'll have to deal with that in your fantasies. As for changing my wording from sodomite to homosexualist, I did that in agreement with Fr. M.P., after he explained how it would be better that way.
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 5:00 PM By John L. Sillasen
But, scott, you've actually tossed up a good salad of ideas in your post. First, however, I didn't know that the anthrax villain was a God-fearing pro-life Catholic activist. Maybe that was just his cover, and he really is a mole for the Taliban. In any case, that situation involves the elite level of our benevolent and holy government ... which means that regardless of what the media reports, we simply have no inkling as to the facts in that situation. Those people live in another realm not accessible to peasants, commoners and such. Ivins, or whatever his name, may or may not be who the media report him to be, in other words, and there is no way for you or me to find out for sure. So, I suggest for your own sanity that you forget the relativist worship and faith in men, especially those in the government, and find your salvation in Christ.
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 5:19 PM By John L. Sillasen
scott, I just deleted a cynical but humorous reply, kind of jumping into that scenario you drew up. Let me ask you a question about Scripture: How do you recommend handling the hard teachings of Jesus Christ? Do you prefer to ignore them?
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 6:05 PM By JPeterman
For those that complain about taking pictures, get a clue, there is nothing illegal about taking pictures of anyone or anything unless you were illegally trespassing. I have real estate agents snapping photos of my home for their comps all the time and Google has even felt free to snap a photo of my house, all perfectly LEGAL. This murderer called "doctor" snapped, and in his black soul delusion thought he could use violence to end Mr Nissen's existence. These "doctors" slaughter and we should use all LEGAL means to stop their actions or disrupt their business starting with prayer outside the clinic which I have done. Everyone should give it a try if you have the opportunity.
|
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 8:33 AM By scott
Tsk, tsk, John, such an obvious ploy: "Let me ask you a question about Scripture: How do you recommend handling the hard teachings of Jesus Christ? Do you prefer to ignore them?" This will never work with me. You go through the Bible and then find, misinterpret, and incorrectly put greater emphasis on passages that you think reinforce your own ontological failures to understand yourself and life. You are alienated from your self; you are afraid to do anything about that; and then you use God and Jesus in your cynical attempts to promulgate your alienation far and wide. Someone once complained here that I attack people personally, instead of criticizing ideas. But what that idea overlooks is that almost everything we believe is generated by who we are and what we think and feel "personally." If we really want to understand the answer to your question above, we first need to go inside you to learn why you asked it, what you thought my answer would be, what you believe is "right" and why you believe that, and so on. Otherwise, it's just endless, superficial yelling at each other.
|
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 2:31 PM By Marion
JPeterman, man's law is not the standard of morality. Arguing that something is good because it's legal is a fallacy.
|
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 2:53 PM By John L. Sillasen
scott, your accusations are empty. You're just like the Sodomites who insisted on gaining entrance to the home of Lott and Abraham. You want what you cannot have. Jesus teaches parables, one of which has to do with demoniacs trying to gain entrance to a house once the evil is thrown out. A. You've ignored my admonition not to ignore the hard teachings of Jesus; B. You insist that the only way you can understand what I say is by entering my interior life -- go and read the mystic St John of the Cross and St Teresa of Avila who will instruct you on the nature of the interior life; C. Just like abortion "doctors" and homosexuals, you demand entrance into another person's being ... and without demonstrating any reason to trust you. Is that your modus operandi for seducing people? The House of the Lord is a house of prayer, and is unassailable; you will have to find your prey elsewhere; but now that your cat is out of the bag, you may go hungry for a while, perhaps forever.
|
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 10:49 PM By John L. Sillasen
Taking pictures is not immoral; committing abortion waives all moral rights.
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 9:40 AM By scott
Oh, John, you're great. Even when you try not to, you reveal stuff about yourself. Re: hard teachings of Jesus: I get the feeling that in your front room you have a large picture of Schwarzenegger or Rambo with all their muscles, but you've superimposed a picture of Jesus' head on it: "Hard Jesus!" Again, I think one of your main reasons for believing in Jesus and God is that you think it gives you permission to beat up on gays, those involved with abortion, and liberals. Also, Jesus' "second [commandment] is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." Judging you by this standard, John, you'd rate high in the hypoChristian category. - Men and women now are, as men and women have always been, trying to figure out themselves and life. For instance, looking at one very small part of this, is nudity normal and natural, or is it, as many people here believe, a perversion and shameful? The more insightful people soon realize that a large area of this life-wide quest takes place within us. But unfortunately, some people get lost in their search, and they soon feel as if they are floundering in a cesspool within themselves. These people then reject completely what is within us, and they adopt from outside themselves a whole value system and world view of who they are and what they believe. Of course, this is a strategy that is built on failure, and so--despite all their arguments to the contrary--quite a few other people recognize or sense that their beliefs are harmful to humankind in the deepest way possible.
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 10:31 AM By John L. Sillasen
scott, are you having a delusional episode? Or are you soberly and with malice libeling me? Or is it that you are using some imitation of me as a sounding board? As for insightful people, scott, I hope you realize your dream of attainment some day, but right now you're not close to it.
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 11:19 AM By Peter
Mr. Sillasen: "Just like abortion "doctors" and homosexuals, you demand entrance into another person's being ... and without demonstrating any reason to trust you." (Paranoia)
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 11:54 AM By Adrienne
"Taking pictures" can be moral or immoral, depending on the circumstances and intent, which cannot be determined from this story. No one has an absolute right to take pictures in every circumstance.
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 12:06 PM By John L. Sillasen
Peter, it's not paranoia, but accurate reading of scott's post. See it for yourself. Paranoia, btw, is an unfounded fear, in the realm of special knowledge that no one else has.
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 12:24 PM By John L. Sillasen
Peter, lest you forget your Scripture, that's what the citizens of Sodom did, demand entrance into somebody's home, somebody who did not want them there. It's what they do to one another. Also, Peter, lest you also forget previous posts you might have read, my distrust for homosexualists is not theoretical, but experiencial. As for abortion "doctors", that is what they do for a living, enter someone else's "home" against their will. And before you rant on about it the woman's womb ... no, it's the baby's womb, entrusted to the woman by God. Why else do you suppose the woman is created with a womb in the first place?
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 12:28 PM By John L. Sillasen
This "doctor" was on public property when he savagely and viciously attacked the guy with the camera. It is legal to take pictures in the situation under discussion. The "doctor" is guilty of assault and battery, and I'd call it felony level. He is also guilty of robbery, which is the attempt to steal by use of force. That is definitely a felony, and the "doctor" who may have previous felonies or misdemeanors on his record, should now have at least one more ... and approaching the "three strikes" life in prison condition. But not to worry if the camera guy does not press charges, for it is the typical way things happen that when someone gets away with one thing, they'll feel free to do something more grandiose the next time ... let's see down the road what this "doctor" does to land him in the slammer for a few years.
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 2:49 PM By scott
John, John, John: you've written hundreds and hundreds of comments, but you still don't seem to have gotten the hang of how debating ideas works. You frame an argument--"the hard teachings of Jesus"--but then I show you that by your own standards you do a terrible job with them. You accuse me of libel because, I guess, of my saying you are a hypoChristian. But according to the standards of many people you are: day after day you criticize people who don't believe in your absolute set of religious values, but a quick perusal of the Bible shows you are not even close to living the life Jesus wants us to. Even Catholics don't believe you: "An overwhelming 79% of the Catholics said that many different faiths could lead to eternal life." [ http://tinyurl.com/5bjy3v ] And finally, I say a critical part of the debating of ideas is how and why people develop them, but you want to put that whole area off-limits, despite the fact that all day long you are adamant in your telling everyone your ideas about how we should all live our lives. Unto thine own self by true, John, unto thine own self be true. (BTW, John, I don't want to continue this thread anymore, at least not right now with you. It takes a while to adjust to the kinds of ideas I brought up, and you need to spend some time, a lot of time, thinking about them.)
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 5:16 PM By JPeterman
Adrienne, you sound like all the liberal professors running around Catholic campuses these days, playing word games, taking every side, there is no right, there is now wrong, blah blah blah. It's the same old liberal story but as Father Coughlin once said "In this life you're either in the Church militant or get the hell out." Don't you think the police might have ticketed Mr Nissen or arrested him if they thought he had broken a law? Here you have a baby murderer, a cold blooded demon in the flesh who attacks a man and you're saying that it was because Mr Nissen was taking photographs? Adrienne, we're in a war as Father Corapi always says and you can't fight it if you don't even know it's going on
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 6:04 PM By John L. Sillasen
scott, is your "john john john" sung to the tune of "Chains of Love"? Libel, scott, because you caricatured me ... but I'll forgive you and write it off to the fact that you just don't know, and are hypothesizing, a formiddable means of discerning facts. But a religious forum is seeking truth beyond scientific facts. 79% is a statistic, and has no meaning ... only a stab at what might be. But seriously, scott, I have long since proved my ability to stand against any number of hostile people. April 87 Capital Mall, first Pro-Choice March for death. I faced 250,000 extremely agitated abortion fanatics by marching in their midst with a large sign proclaiming pro-life. The other eleven pro-life protestors were walking elsewhere among that massive crowd. It was like looking into the eyes of countless demons. scott, the ideas you bring up are elementary; you try to press me into a "fair" debate, but fair is not what you think it is; fair is the Word of God. Learn it and then we'll ask questions together, and find answers from the source, not guesswork from ourselves. St Paul showed Christians that it is not debate that advances the cause of Christ, but stating the truth delivered to the Church by Christ. I have to learn these truths, and I do, and you should be able to see this ongoing process. St Thomas Aquinas did not really debate, he merely showed how reason can be used to support the revelation of God to man. St Augustine, now he was into debate ... but it was anchored in the prayer of his mother and advanced in the faith that God is true. Science is one thing, and you'd do well to develop your talents at it, but faith is a whole nuther thing ... a little bit is more powerful than science in its entirety.
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 6:50 PM By Adrienne
JPeterman, the moral culpability of the photographer cannot be determined from the story. Your idea that absence of a ticket or arrest means he was in the right is profoundly ignorant. Is abortion right because no one gets a ticket for it? You shot yourself in the foot with that one, soldier. What army are you in?
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 8:32 PM By Harry
Wow, scott. You had all summer to play but you decided to wait until school starts to start messing around on the computer. I guess I can't blame you too much. If they spent most of their time lecturing me at school about the homosexual lifestyle, I guess I' d tune out too and look for other things to do instead of learning their crap.
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 9:33 PM By John L. Sillasen
Adrienne, you go with what you got. Common sense tells us all that there may be unknown information that is important, but this is not a court of law here; it's a blog site. The information posted is what the blogs are about, not the information that is not posted.
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 9:37 PM By John L. Sillasen
Harry is right, scott. You're too young and inexperienced to be debating people who know their faith. But you've forwarded good questions. Start with St Augustine; read his two major works. Let it settle for a decade or two, then think about it. In the mean time make a life for yourself.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:21 AM By scott
John, by your two comments I'm assuming you want to continue our conversation. And I can't blame you: you like to give the impression that you've created a magnificent mansion of religious truth, but in fact your mansion is a disheveled porta-John held up by countless rickety supports. And at some level, you are aware of this, and thus your interest in finding a way out of it before it all comes crashing down around you. I will keep commenting--at least for awhile--but not because I'm confident that you can change, which you may well be able to do. Instead, I'll comment to show all the centrist Catholics, or should that be "Catholicists," who come to CCD how repellent and alienating the agenda and lifestyle of many "traditional" Catholics actually are. -- As for Harry, he sounds like either a troll clown or someone's sock puppet; either way he has shown himself to be a waste of time. -- John L. Sillasen: CEO, Chief Cogitator, and Pope of the "1-seat Church."
|
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:29 AM By Grisha
Scott - John L. can't be Pope till we've held a conclave and elected him. We'll hold it at our parish sports bar after the 11:00 mass. David Bawdin (Pope Michael I) had six electors, including his mom and dad. We can get more, especally if his dogs get to vote. Let's do it early in 2009. John L. please start thinking about a name, a oat of arms (sorry Jan W. what's a peaceful name for it?) and what the papal website ought to look like. See y'all there.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:59 AM By John L. Sillasen
No, scott, any mansion of religious truth is not my creation. I do like to hang out by such a mansion, though, knock on the door once in a while for a handout, walk around it and feel its goodness, and so forth. It's sort of like the joy my dogs get from hanging around me, underfoot, etc. scott, that's quite a rap sheet you've designed for me; do you think you could manage the marketing aspect? We could go nationwide ... international with it ... YouTube productions and stuff ... I can see the money and fame rolling in already. On a more sober note: You say you are debating ... but I say I'm not so much that but rather making observations from faith and experience. For some unknown reason, you believe that debate is the foundation; whereas, I feel the foundation is truth, only some of which can be discovered through debate ... is this how you see the interaction at this point?
|
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:16 PM By John L. Sillasen
Grisha, let's see: I know I can get 4 votes from my 3 and the neighboring dog (who's spending a week at my place now), and I might be able to count on some votes from neighbor kids ... I'd have to trick them into it though, otherwise if they knew what they were voting for, they'd want their cut of the plate for an indefinite time ... geez, what if they have college ambitions ... I'd never get my fair share. And I'd have to get their parents' permission ... what would happen if the whole neighborhood realized I was running for pope?!! They'd make me stop yelling out the window to quiet down; I'd be extorted to cease and desist from cutting them off in traffic; no more making evil faces at old people around here; the local skydiving club would insist that I not hunt either ducks or doves, or shoot clay pigeons at the edge of their landing field (I don't see why, I always point the barrel down and stoop a little as the plane swoops right overhead to land; I'm beginning to realize that social position carries a lot of no-no's with it ... lot of pressure to change. This'll be tough. I gotta tell you this one: Last year as I was happily shooting clay pigeons up in a canyon, I spied some dirt bike dude about 3/4 of a mile away down on the flat land; he looked agitated (through my binos); soon he was talking to a black and white unit, which tried to drive up a dirt trail but only made it a short distance (very rough surface); then out of nowhere two women on horseback pop up fifty yards away. So I break the gun very visibly and set it on a mount in plain view, and then walk their way a bit, just into voice range (women can hear better anyway); they say they want to ride up around and over the ridge in the direction of my shotstrings. So, I say no problem, sit on my bumper and start chugging bottled water (danged hot that afternoon). I notice the cruiser off on a small knoll with no one in sight there ... undoubtedly glassing me and ready to call in the swat team.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:29 PM By John L. Sillasen
So, as I drift off into analyzing my clay busting performance, I lose track of time but only for a couple minutes. I look up to see the two women on horseback riding out the lower end of the canyon ... and figure they were just testing me to see if I presented a violence issue. The mystery of it is that I couldn't see where they had parked the horse trailer. Any way, with the cruiser badge still undoubtedly glassing me, I felt it reasonable to return to my activity and did so. I showed him some good shooting, I thought. And he undoubtedly was envious, but being professional did not come up to join me for a few rounds. Maybe I should have invited those two women equestrians, but I thought they might be on official business and didn't want to tempt them, so I didn't. I proceeded to finish out my box of clays and 100 rounds, and hit the trail. But of course several years earlier I had contacted the lokul yokuls and got the go ahead, so I knew I had a leg to stand on. Now, come 9/1/08 there will be the typical gathering of hundreds of guys bristling with mostly 12 gauge long barrel guns trying to knock down those ever delicious morsels called mourning doves ... ok, ever delicious to others, anyway. Point: This is to most people what it feels like to be on solid ground; but compared to faith it is sinking sand. So, scott, consider this, that debate, an example of which I just laid out, is little more than temporal, fleeting victories compared to the kind of faith that enables one to walk on water, or pick up a mountain and toss it into the sea.
|
Posted Thursday, August 14, 2008 6:15 PM By BobCatholic
Gee, you don't suppose this "doctor" will get any serious punishment? If a pro-lifer did this, you know the judges would throw the book at them. But the shoe is on the other foot and it doesn't smell as bad? Right....
|
Posted Sunday, August 17, 2008 5:31 PM By marietta
Did the photographer in this case get any sort of stipend for his contribution to the story about this doctor? Just wondering.
marietta
THE EDITOR REPLIES: No.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|