There's probably a faction inside the PQ that disagrees with this - Macleans.ca
 

There’s probably a faction inside the PQ that disagrees with this


 

**********

Also true: Catholics aren’t big fans of abortion, soccer players occasionally fake injuries, and fat people can’t do backflips.


 
Filed under:

There’s probably a faction inside the PQ that disagrees with this

    • Sadly, not a real fat man back flip, though.

      Great link, though.

    • The internet is an awesome thing.

      Thank you, Al Gore!

    • I don't have time right now to look for it on You Tube, but John Belushi, who was certainly not a slim man, routinely did backflips as part of the Blues Brothers on Saturday Night Live and later in the movies. He was on a mission from God so that may have had something to do with it.

        • *Sigh* From Wikipedia:

          "A common error made by journalists and theologians is interpreting the texts of L'Osservatore Romano as if they were of official value for the Magisterium. They cannot have such a value unless a high-ranking bishop is writing a more solemn text, and not a mere theological opinion. Otherwise, L'Osservatore does not have the authority to write or approve encyclicals and papal allocutions."

  1. Hey, given a pool and a diving board, those backflips are still in my (fat) wheelhouse.

  2. "Sovereigntists pursue independence, Catholics aren't big fans of abortion, soccer players occasionally fake injuries, and fat people can't do backflips.

    … the Leafs can't buy a Cup, Harper will break another promise or abandone a fundamental conservative principle, the media will report on Liberal infighting, the government will waste our taxdollars for perks and pork, an American will get elected as the next US president, the Jays bullpen will blow the next 5 run lead in the late innings…

  3. "Sovereigntists pursue independence, Catholics aren't big fans of abortion, soccer players occasionally fake injuries, and fat people can't do backflips.

    … the Leafs can't buy a Cup, Harper will break another promise or abandone a fundamental conservative principle, the media will report on Liberal infighting, the government will waste our taxdollars for perks and pork, an American will get elected as the next US president, the Jays bullpen will blow the next 5 run lead in the late innings…

    • Who says there's no such thing as a sure thing!

    • The Leafs do not NEED to buy a Cup (well, Stanley's, anyways), because they will perpetually sell out to the moronic GTA fans who keep rewarding this turkey of a loser franchise, and laugh all the way to the bank. There, I said it.

      • Yeah, like GTA fans can get their hands on tickets to Leafs games.

  4. "There's probably a faction inside the PQ that disagrees with this"

    Great line: Just as deserving of the "Catholics aren't big fans of abortion, soccer players occasionally fake injuries, and fat people can't do backflips." reatment as the the CBC's Sovereignists pursue independence.

  5. "Catholics aren't big fans of abortion…"

    I wish that was universally true. Unfortunately, us Catholics have a pretty mixed historical record on when it comes to standing up for the weak and vulnerable.

    EDIT: "We" Catholics….before MYL comes in here and goes all Conan the Grammarian on me.

    • Of course, it arguably has a lot to do with how one is defining "Catholic" as well (or, for that matter, how one is defining "big fan"… I'm not sure there are many people of any persuasion who are really "big fans" of abortion…). On the "Catholic" definition, in comparing the views of most "Catholics" I know to my understanding of the views of the Pope, either most "Catholics" I know aren't Catholic, or the Pope isn't.

      Also, a question for myl. Should it be "I wish that was universally true" or "I wish that were universally true"? Or, are both OK (or, neither?).

      • True 'nuff. There are Catholics by culture and Catholics by belief. And in any case, opposition to abortion spans every religious affiliation.

        As to was/were, I wondered the same thing as I wrote it. That is the kind of psychological damage one incurs by spending too many hours on these boards. I think "were" would probably have been better. Past subjunctive and all that.

        • "Were" sounds better to me, but that doesn't always amount to anything whatsoever.

          • Good lord. Whatever I did to deserve the title of resident linguist after Jack walked off, I'm sorry!

            And, it pains me to sheepishly confess that I did schoolmarmly mouth out "WE Catholics" as I read G's missive above.

            As for was/were, I vote for were. But I must do something to shake the grammarian title. Why do I feel a bit like Ignatieff? Really guys, I'm cool! I'm cool! Look! I can misspell and utter a colloquial malapropism within the proletarian mean literacy level, if circumstances require it. At least, I am reasonably confident of that possibility.

          • I'd like to say it's a good effort. Do you know, most of us don't understand "colloquial malapropism within the proletarian mean literacy level" and if we did, we would never speak like that?

            I'm sorry, but you just cemented your grammarian label for eternity with that little gem.

          • I'm still working my way through syllables 8 and 9 of that phrase. Does it get better towards the end?

          • How the heck would I know? You don't think I could pronounce all that, do you?

          • you just cemented your grammarian label for eternity with that little gem.

            Ah, the dolorious burden of one's gifts and talents, bringing to mineself not grateful adulation, nay; rather, in an altogether inglorious fit of pique, mere heapings of scorn from one's alleged peers of whom no more need be expected than such uneducated taunts, for they know not any better… D'OH!

          • I don't know about "resident linguist" but if I were you, I'd embrace the title "Conan the Grammarian".

      • A journalist in the U.S., Terry Mattingly divided Catholic voters up this way.

        Thus, let me once again share the four-pronged typology that a veteran priest here in Washington, D.C., gave me a few years ago. There are, he said, four kinds of Catholics in this country and, thus, four “Catholic votes” on almost any issue. Any news report that lumps these groups together isn't worth very much.

        * Ex-Catholics. Solid for the Democrats. Cultural conservatives have no chance.

        * Cultural Catholics who may go to church a few times a year. This may be one of those all-important “undecided voters” depending on what's happening with the economy, foreign policy, etc. Leans to Democrats.

        * Sunday-morning American Catholics. This voter is a regular in the pew and may even play some leadership role in the parish. This is the Catholic voter that is really up for grabs, the true swing voter that the candidates are after.

        * The “sweats the details” Roman Catholic who goes to confession. Is active in the full sacramental life of the parish and almost always backs the Vatican, when it comes to matters of faith and practice. This is a very small slice of the American Catholic pie.

  6. Echoes of Little Milton:

    "…grits ain't groceries,
    eggs ain't poultry,
    and Mona Lisa was a man."

    • "eggs ain't poultry"

      I think that one ties in with the one about Catholics and abortions too.

      • Of course, eggs from the grocery store aren't fertilized either.

        • Yup. Anyone who's cracked open a grocery-store egg only to find the remains of a dead chick inside knows that certain eggs are poultry, and certain other eggs aren't. Has something to do with the rooster, or so I've been told.

          I think your earlier point about the fairly significant lack of understanding on these boards concerning basic biology is what's most relevant here.

          • Just so we're clear though, I'm pretty sure that according to the Pope's Catholicism, doing something to the Rooster so that he can still have sex with the chickens without creating more poultry would also be a problem. So, arguably, the unfertilized egg could be considered pregnant with ethical dilemmas as well.

            (Also, again just to be clear, my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek for my whole "eggs ain't poultry" comment… it wasn't "ha ha" funny, but when the pitch is right down the middle of the plate like that…)

          • You don't need a rooster for hens to lay. The only reason to keep a rooster around is to make more chicks. Otherwise you eat them. That's why some people embrace veganism, because the only way to enjoy eggs is by being complicit in the slaughter of roosters and older hens who don't lay very well anymore.

            Laying eggs is analogous to menstruating, and the Catholic Church has never considered menstruation immoral. There was a continuation of Roman and Jewish ideas of the impurity of blood (including menstrual blood) that prevented them from approaching the nave or taking the eucharist while menstruating (or bleeding from a cut or sore), but that hasn't been the case in the RC church for quite some time. It is still the case in certain traditional Orthodox congregations however.

            As well, the Catholic Church has no problems with sterilizing animals. Nor does the Church object if the sterilization is done for reasons of health, rather than for its own sake.

          • the slaughter of roosters and older hens who don't lay very well anymore

            If the roosters are dead, who's making the assessment that the older hens are no longer a good lay?

            (and thus end my attempts to reel this whole section of the comment thread back from what has somehow – I maintain through no fault of my own – turned into a serious discussion of the Catholic Church's ethical stands regarding the sex life of chickens).

          • Of course it is your fault. You made a claim that demonstrably false about the nature of Catholic doctrine on reproductive ethics. How can an apologist refuse?

          • Oh come on, throw me an emoticon at least!

            I feel like you winked at the end of the apologist line, but I can't actually see you!

          • I don't like emoticons. ;)

            But yes, I was also teasing.

          • Excellent. :-)

            I was worried my last comment might start a new and heated debate over the existence of lesbian chickens.

          • Of course the chickens are lesbians. They mount each other for dominance reasons.

          • Also, I'll take responsibility for this turning into a discussion of the Catholic Church's ethical stands regarding the sex life of chickens.

            However, I take no responsibility for it turning into a SERIOUS discussion thereof.

          • Riiiight. Poke a tease at Catholics with an eggs-ageration of their world view by poaching from their abortion stance to discuss ovine non-reproduction, and you eggspect a serious debate not to get hatched? Seriously, which came first, the funny one-liner or the serious theme underlying it? The fowl yolk's on you, pal.

          • You would think that.

            Grammarian.

          • Hey! I eat ounces and pounds, too!

          • Bad puns are bad.

          • Bad puns are bad.
            Error: redundant phrase. Suggested correction, which achieves a certain level of thought-provoking profundity:
            Bad puns are.

            Final score: 3/4 = 75%.

          • That was an entirely intentional parallelism and I regard it as rhetorically appropriate given the humorous nature of the preceding conversation. The phrase is arguably a type of pleonasm, however given that I believe that the overall effect of the phrase was as I intended, I do not see it as an error, per se.

            This particular phraseology is an example of a colloquial tradition found frequently in modern conversation (particularly here on the internet) in which the obvious redundancy is used both for poetic and humorous effect, as well as for deliberate emphasis (eg. "Lame boy bands are lame", or "Stupid rules are stupid").

            Still, given the effort the phrase took me to come up with, I'll take 75%! I think in most provinces that's around a B+.

            Score!

          • I suppose so. Of course on the flip-side, I think even the Pope of Poultry would view Rooster-modification as a matter of conscience rather than a matter of law, unlike shelled-chickicide (?) which doesn't go over so easy.

          • To that end, it is also considered a violation of human dignity to get elective plastic surgery, though you don't see the church in open protest against that either.

          • Well, knock me over with a feather! poor G's been cooped up for so long, his thinking is getting mighty scrambled.

          • Scrambling's the only acceptable option. It's bad enough that he got laid; as a lifestyle choice, he avoids situations that would lead to him becoming fried, hard-boiled or devilled. ;-)

          • Om, let me see: in one thread LKO flips from the sad fact that Catholics are just as likely to be turkeys as other folks to the moral dilemmas faced by lesbian chickens, and I'm the one whose thinking is scrambled??

          • Not a critique of your thinking so much as an opportunity for bad puns. As for LKO, I assume he was brainstorming a dynamite "Chicken Lady" sketch for the next Kids in the Hall reunion.

          • Chaste. The chickens are chaste (well, hey, there's another debate on catholicism if anyone's game…). Whoever said they were lesbian? Not, I hasten to add, that there would be anything wrong with that. (Why, the roosters might pay good feed to line up at the peephole…)

            Really, G, your defense here just cracks me up. What you've cooked up here could use a few grains of salt. And bacon. Mmm… Bacon…

            (But yeah, it was yer punning that brought you the "scrambled" accusation.)

          • Terrific. Now we've got chaste chickens. Or at least they would be chaste by the roosters if there were any of those.

            "(But yeah, it was yer punning that brought you the "scrambled" accusation.)"
            Just beakause a guy cracks a bad joke or two (or five) doesn't mean he should get tarred and feathered.

          • Yeah, well, good luck, sir: All the king's horses and men are on their way.

          • Or at least they would be chaste by the roosters if there were any of those.

            Oh, great. From opposition to the aborting of unfertilized eggs, we now get the condoning of sexual assault by non-existent perpetrators who have already suffered preemptive capital punishment for this uncommitted crime. Really, G, are there no depths…?

          • I never actually brought up lesbian chickens directly. TTE mentioned that some people become vegans "because the only way to enjoy eggs is by being complicit in the slaughter of roosters and older hens who don't lay very well anymore". I then asked "If the roosters are dead, who's making the assessment that the older hens are no longer a good lay?".

            "Lesbian chickens" would seem to be an implied answer and I was worried that that's where we'd end up going.

            And now we have…

          • I told you it was your fault.

            It is also the fault of vegans, because everything is.

          • Lesbian chickens don't face any morale dilemmas, at least not with regards to their lesbianism. Every lesbian chicken I've ever met was entirely comfortable with her sexuality. If YOU have a problem with chickens loving who they love, and being free to do so, then that's YOUR problem.

          • I don't think I'll look at Swiss Chalet's "two-leg special" the same way ever again.

          • Anyone who's cracked open a grocery-store egg only to find the remains of a dead chick inside knows that certain eggs are poultry,

            Looks like somebody has been counting his chickens before they've hatched!

        • Well, sure, but that just ruins my whole analogy!

          • Nonsense, it perfects it! But anyway, we should stop egging you on.

          • we should stop egging you on

            LOL Thank you for that! I was starting to worry that I might have inadvertently stumbled into the literal net.

          • Thanks all for a good laugh this morning. But still, somehow, I think I need to apologize.

            :-)

          • Just you wait. We haven't even gotten started on yer grits or that Mona Lisa fella.

          • "we haven't even gotten started on yer grits"

            I don't care what happens from here on out, I ain't kissin' anybody's grits.

  7. Besides stating the obvious (that's our tax dollars at work, folks!), the CBC has failed to mention how pathetically, thinly populated this march was. I bet if I took a post-dinner digestive walk down the street with my in-laws we would be more, but it would not make the news.

    • Well, then, you and your in-laws might like to chant "Le Québec aux Québécois!" rhythmically as you stroll, if you would like your CBC-granted 15 minutes of fame.

      • Or march dressed up as lesbian chickens. I'd consider 6:00 CBC news coverage of THAT march to be well worth the investment of my tax dollars.

        • Hadn't you heard? The Pride Parade lost a couple thousand in federal taxpayer grants so the whole thing's been called off.

      • I find chanting that to be incredibly offensive (not to mention unfavourable to proper digestion), so my stroll will not be on CBC.

        My point remains: separatists being for separation is not news, nor a march so small.

  8. I'd just like to point out that I think an excellent barometer of the seriousness (or at the very least the perceived seriousness) of the separatist threat to Canada in 2010 might be the fact that 27 of the 48 comments to this post (so far) are primarily focused on the sexual escapades of chickens and the morale implications of said escapades, particularly from the perspective of the Catholic Church.

    Add in the posts on whether or not fat people really can do back flips, and whether or not the Blues Brothers really WERE on a mission from God, and I think one gets a pretty good picture of how scared we all are of the separatists.

    • What is there to be scared of from Separatists? They've been bought and paid for by the money flowing in to Quebec from the rest of Canada.

      I mean that in all the ways my second sentence can be interpreted.

      • Wait just a minute here, there is but one way to interp– oh, I get it!

    • So to summarize, some 15 years later our view of the separatist threat is the same as Chretien's in the summer of 95.

      • I'm not sure that's entirely true. Chretien wanted to go in, but it was the federalist politicos in Quebec at the provincial level who told him to stay out, and luckily, in the end (true, arguably the VERY end) he decided to ignore them.

        More importantly, that seemed awfully close to me to an attempt at a serious discussion of the separatist threat. Have you not been following the comments???

        • The ability to counter the contrarian nature of my personality eludes me. However, on the plus side it makes the conversation more interesting when I talk to myself.

  9. So, imagine you are Mr Maudit Gohier. You provide a post about the newsworthiness of separatists embracing / not entirely avoiding / fondly recalling separation. You go to dinner. You come back. You check your inbox. Can it be? Upwards of sixty comments on the virility of the mouvement souverainiste. Can it really be? What sort of enlightened debate has erupted over the Canada-Quebec question in so short a time? Quick, good netbook, open up Intense Debate, and hurry! And you find, well, the above.

    With a tear welling in up in your left eye, you realize it is time to click "Start" to "shut down" and head off to a Montreal terrasse for some mighty fine people watching. Then, one table over at the bistro's sidewalk spread, the gentleman of the couple decides that he should order an omelette for dinner.

    I think I heard the scream all the way over here.

    • So, wait, he's screaming over the slaughter of the chicken eggs even though the eggs used for the omelette were never fertilized?

      I'm so confused at this point.

      • Shh! Did anyone else hear it? I could swear that scream just happened again.

    • Don't drink and type.

    • Awesome…Thanks for the morning laugh. Coffee really isn't that bad coming through the nose.

  10. Cab Calloway had a tune called "A Chicken Ain't Nothin' but a Bird." Great tune but I have always missed the whole point of it. Who was claiming that a chicken was anything else?

  11. I didn't read all the comments so forgive me if someone already made this point, but actually, there is indeed such a faction, and it's called the leadership.

    • When you do read all the comments, you will realize there was very little risk of repetition. You see, you made the bold move of responding to the original post.

      • See, maybe I'm just in too deep, but I read "I didn't read all the comments so forgive me if someone already made this point" as a joke.

        • Either you're in too deep, or I'm not in deep enough. At this point I have no idea which would be worse.