Calm

I understand, but it saddens me.

There are two that are used the most from what I have seen, the second is the brain power or lack thereof one.. I don’t know if the ellipsis leaves out anything. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs#:~:text=If we would have said,go be taken somewhat seriously.

ChatGPT states Catholics estimated numbers of members based off of sacraments, but it looks more like the estimates are for areas that can’t communicate easily with the Vatican. https://www.catholicsun.org/2018/06/07/big-book-of-numbers-vatican-volume-tracks-church-statistics/ ”The figures are the result of information requested annually from every diocese and church jurisdiction. Collecting and compiling the figures takes more than a year. The volume with statistics valid as of Dec. 31, 2016, was published this spring. Worldwide, there are more than 1.29 billion baptized Catholics, according to the volume, and that means the Catholic population is holding steady at about 17.7 percent of the global population. In addition, it estimated that another 4.9 million Catholics live in church jurisdictions with which the Vatican has no “regular exchange of information.” Most of those 146 dioceses, prelatures and prefectures are in mainland China. Thirty years earlier, the 1986 yearbook estimated there were as many as 15 million uncounted Catholics living in 214 jurisdictions that did not or could not report to the Vatican. The figure included Catholics in China and in most of what was then the Soviet Union.” https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/host-sacramental-statistics-vatican-tracks-practice-faith

I got the impression Tacenda is surprised because in the past it was often the conservatives being canceled and protesting “cancel culture” (quoted as a frequently used label, not scare quotes), but now she believes the conservatives are doing the same thing. If both the liberals and conservatives push for cancel culture when offended and corporations go along with both, that is how she sees democracy and free speech disappearing…no one is truly defending it. But she can correct me if I have misunderstood.

If this was actually from the shooter to the group, then it doesn’t sound like he thought the group would applaud him. https://abcnews.go.com/US/students-utah-valley-university-return-charlie-kirk/story?id=125663166 I can’t remember if someone has posted this already, the charging document… https://utahnewsdispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/TJR-Information-1.pdf

Maybe you were speaking of criminal liability, I was focused on how such would impact the greater dialogue going on. I don’t see that ambiguous phrasing as increasing understanding, but contributing to confusion, which seems the me to also be leading to more conflict.

That is not the implication of what Duncan wrote (“worshipping Charlie and denigrating the "left"”). The shooter made that much, much worse, imo. (Not saying all responses from Kirk’s supporters fall into that category). Serious question… Is poking/lashing out at each other….is it making either of you (or anyone else doing it) feel any better overall and not just in the few moments after you write it and hit send… I will keep my mouth shut if it’s actually contributing to feelings of peace or at least a lessening of struggles, but not seeing improvement of people’s vibes who are striking out imo the last few days, though I get that it’s likely more to do with what’s happening elsewhere. It’s a pity imo this board won’t be seen as a refuge from the upheaval by some. I would like to see that for both Duncan and Ken and anyone else struggling right now.

At worst no response at all I would think…from either of them.

High probability on that one, imo. If he’s not, I hope the penalty for obstruction is on the maximum end to discourage such games in him in the future.

Except he didn’t know who the shooter was and why he did it. I agree he was supportive of the shooting itself, but agreeing he was defending the shooter would require me to know his current feelings. There is too much easily inferred that could be inaccurate in the ambiguous phrase “defending the shooter” and in this atmosphere I think we need to be very careful in describing or even just implying possible motivations. How about he was defending who he thought the shooter was?

Maybe because he is the President, someone who is supposed to represent the US and the others weren’t well known to the vast majority of people out there?

Is he an actual defender or just someone who craves attention given his past behavior?

I would say that is what is triggering the overall level of anger, but now they are angry simple disagreement can help maintain the anger. They are more likely to misinterpret civil comments as insults as well…but that’s human nature and is not restricted to this one group (those who are angry) in this broader discussion.

Since I posted in agreement with Tacenda…. I applaud him for that. People are complex, they can do bad and good things for bad and good reasons. I hope his words calling for civility even in disagreement and forgiveness are the ones that are remembered the longest and are the most influential rather than the ones that are concerning to me. I do hold him and others like him no matter what beliefs they hold to a higher standard since he is actively seeking publicity and has chosen to make a living by doing so, being an intentional influencer rather than just someone casually sharing ideas because they enjoy it.

It’s not like people were silent before about not liking him.

And that would include me. Do you think I should lose my membership because I don’t attend these days even though I am a devout believer? Are you really encouraging the Church to make decisions based solely on how it looks for the Church or do you mean something different here?

That is my position too.

Too often we incorrectly assume that someone else’s desire for such things prevent us from having health, shelter, safety, etc when the reality is if we worked towards helping them get it, that would increase the chances of us being healthy, sheltered, safe, etc. Often taking less for ourselves now and giving more to others means more for us in the long run (such as supporting medical research when we are young and healthy). Not saying this should be the primary reasons for helping others, but just that considering this could help with the fear of losing out when looking at the short term.

I would not judge how sacred something is to a community based on how the critics and bigots treat that something. As far as level of reactions, maybe centuries of enduring such has resulted in Catholics realizing protests typically lead to more mocking of such things. Doesn’t mean it still doesn’t hurt if so. Added: from what I am reading such robes and other vestments are consecrated, so they seem to align in level of sacredness for Catholics with garments for LDS. The various pieces are full of sacred symbolism. Hopefully Catholic posters will see this and add their beliefs. https://holylandartcompany.com/blog/the-significance-of-linens-and-vestments-in-the-catholic-church https://ascensionpress.com/blogs/articles/what-does-the-pope-wear-a-guide-to-papal-garments-and-their-meanings?srsltid=AfmBOopdK9aE229zj3jfJQMWYVl8cOOzodB8bBsi_iJrGWjIcuBQEa-z

I don’t have a problem with condemning a behaviour in a generic way, but to present a rumor you have not yet verified yourself as part of that condemnation isn’t helpful imo. Given how I have seen some comments criticizing Kirk’s methods and positions or expressions of understanding why there is hate for Kirk (not saying this means I understand why there is such hate nor that there should be or it’s okay there is) out there as interpreted as celebrating his death even when the individual included strong condemnation of resorting to violence in general and of Kirk’s murder specifically, I don’t think assuming accuracy in such reports without seeing actual examples is wise (just as I don’t believe assuming vague accusations of Kirk of bigotry, etc are accurate is wise).

Edward Bernays in 1928

I feel that way to begin with and then when the adrenaline fades, it leaves me nauseated. Not everyone reacts to adrenaline in the same way. Yelling can get rid of built up body tension too in my experience, so if you do have someone who sees such encounters as fun, maybe it could work. Would have to be careful not to let your internal permissions to let go in this way cross into other engagements. I think having a good physical workout that can provide a high or rush is better in the long run and you don’t need a very good friend either (to do it, it’s always good to have very good friends for other reasons). My husband’s mother was a wonderful, loving woman, but came from a less educated family with unhealthy ideas of discipline. She would let loose with her temper with the kids to the point it was abusive. By the time I knew her, she knew better and controlled herself, but it’s left its mark on my husband. We will not ever have yelling matches even if I could probably handle it (there is a part of my brain that is always detached, so the rare—now very rare—times I yell, I am always getting this self appraisal happening, so I doubt I could actually lose myself in it). I used to intentionally trigger his anger to get him out of sulking because he couldn’t express his anger and other negative feelings, but have since discovered the longterm effect wasn’t good (he was still fearing I would leave him after 20 years of marriage, I mean a bone deep primal fear that the abuse had left in him and my yelling triggered).

Kirk was charismatic, well spoken, attractive (all excellent qualities for politics) and as far as I know no personal scandals or hints of corruption (controversy was about what he said and promoted), so I think if he had lived a normal life span he could have done very, very well for his movement for decades to come. While his murder may have mobilized people who he might not have reached eventually, the influence will slowly fade in strength, though likely still be strong for decades to come. In all ways, I see this as a great loss for his people. I would not be the least bit surprised to see several documentaries shortly on him, hopefully at least one quality one. Eventually there will be dramas and some may be willing to get an R rating for violence, but there is a massive difference imo between the shooting and the Passion of Christ as Christ’s torture went on for sometime. Whipping could be said to be more graphic than shooting and I would rate a crucifixion as more violent than the one shot, even with how the blood is described, which certainly qualifies as traumatic. If they focus solely on him, the violence would be quite limited, though they might add violence depending on the context they add, such as mass shootings or protests get portrayed as violent. But maybe I have gone off on a tangent and the level of violence so to lead viewers to really ‘feel’ his suffering is not what you were thinking of?

No, the logic is an apple only becomes food when someone eats it or maybe when someone wants to eat it God is not God’s personal name with this logic, but a title for his role as our God, a role which only begins when we are present in some way. Similar to my kids calling me Mom. Me being called Mother didn’t make sense until I became a mother.

Seems like the idea is to help them feel comfortable and be more open to the idea of inviting missionaries to their own home, so very smart to do in the local style and not one size fits all, meaning probably generic American style….