Tim Huegerich of Catholics for Dean emailed me and a couple other bloggers with this.
In posting on various Catholic blogs and forums over the past few months, I have been surprised to find strong resistance to Dean’s positions on almost every issue, not just his positions on abortion or GLBT issues. This is the first part in a series specifically addressed to the Christian Right concerning these “other” issues.
Part I: Children
The phrase I hear over and over again is “personal responsibility.” Dean’s policies are labeled socialism and denounced as discouraging personal responsibility (or as contrary to the Church’s understanding on subsidiarity–a charge I will examine at a later date).
The strongest answer to this is that the Right has forgotten about poor children. One in six American children live in poverty. Millions have no health insurance, to cite one specific disadvantage, which means they have to wait for hours and hours in the emergency room just to have their flu or sore throat checked out. Really try to imagine what that’s like for a child. In addition, these children usually must avoid playing sports to avoid the risk of injury, and they may have to forego treatment for more serious medical problems. Another urgent concern is the striking lack of quality education in poor communities throughout America, which perpetuates the cycle of poverty and denies children of hope for a better future.
Should we hold these children responsible for their parents’ poverty? The question of whether their parents are responsible for their own poverty becomes irrelevant (I will examine this issue at a later date). The question becomes whether to act to help these children–whether we, the people of the richest nation in history, care enough to ensure these “little ones” access to the mere basics of life: food, quality education, and health care, for starters. This is a moral question, not an ideological or political one.
While I am in no way a apologist for the GOP who Mark Shea accurately calls the Stupid Party, I will try to lay out some of what I believe to be the answers to the questions raised. The first part of this response will deal specifically with why I don’t think the Democratic Party has the answers for these problems. The second part deals with what I think the true solution is and it has nothing to do with donations to the GOP. I am also glad that Tim wonders at the negative response he has gotten in support of Dean’s agenda in these areas.
I support the general social conscience of most Democrats and their concern for the poor. Though I think that the very policies they advocate do more harm then good and in many cases it is like using water to put out an oil fire. Not only is the fire not put out but it spreads and causes even more damage.
The GOP errs when it places a total reliance on “personal responsibility” and the whole self-made man concept. I invite those who have not read what Chesterton had to say about self-made men in Orthodoxy to do so. The Democrats abandonment of “personal responsibility” and repercussions for actions is even worse. There are many times even when we are trying to be responsible that we need help from others. Conservatives often cite the saying about “giving a man a fish and teaching a man to fish” as an illustration of the difference between them and the Democratic Party. Unfortunately few Republicans are willing to give of their time to “teach a man to fish” and are against any government program that would do so.
Since I am not being very curt today I will place the rest of this in the Extended Entry.
1. The number one cause of poverty here in the U.S. and the Western world is fatherless homes. Children born outside of marriage and the divorce rate are the prime factors for poverty. Knowing this what answers do the Democrats advocate? There is no moral ethic displayed by this party that does anything to discourage sex outside of marriage or any measures aimed to prevent divorce. If you are serious about the welfare of children than you also want a stable family consisting both of a mother and father. You would also be a strong advocate of life to ensure that no harm comes to children and would say that all life is precious. You would do everything you could to discourage sex outside of marriage. But instead what has the Democratic party historically done in the last four decades? More liberal divorce laws and the hideous no-fault divorce. Sex education taught without any moral values that also teaches the use of contraceptives. They have also fought against abstinence education. Support of the demeaning of life through abortion. The support of the right to abortion at all costs only helps the attitude that sex is for pleasure only and children should be avoided at all costs. This attitude only leads to the hatred of virginity and children and when they do allow one to be born, their selfish attitude in no way helps the sacrifice needed in raising children. How can you care about the welfare of children and at the same time murder them in the womb? The Democratic party never cries out against sex outside of marriage since their ethic is sex is always okay between consenting adults. They also support the demeaning of marriage through same sex unions/marriage and are not willing to say that marriage is between one man and one women.
My parents divorced when I was in high school. I won’t go into details about my downward spiral as a result of this, but I will say my experience is not uncommon. This destruction of families through divorce creates a culture that knows nothing about love or sacrifice and the highest motives are pleasure.
Now I am not going to turn around and say the Republican Party is the paragon of virtue and that they have not helped lead us to where we are today. At least they are wiling to speak about moral values and the pursuit of virtue without the fear of offending someone. They have supported traditional marriage, but have not fought very hard to prevent the liberalization of divorce laws. Rush Limbaugh, one of the conservative icons has been married three times. They have been opponents of abortion, but have turned their backs on the abortafacient effects of most contraceptives. In many ways the ideals promoted by the GOP properly reflect what our views should be towards sex and marriage, yet their implementation and hypocrisy have not helped to advance the ideals they profess.
2. Now as to health insurance. I think I can speak specifically about my experiences with socialized medicine. I don’t have to talk about how it doesn’t work in other countries. Both as active duty and as a retired veteran I have received my health-care through the military hospital system. While there are many good doctors, nurses, and corpsmen they are hamstrung by this government run system. If I need to go to the emergency room I will wait many hours to be seen. If I need a flu shot I have to take off from work and spend a couple hours waiting to get one. While active duty the taxpayer paid for any treatment I received and as retired military the taxpayer still subsidizes my health-care with me paying only a relatively small part of it. The military system is socialized medicine. Military hospitals for the most part are not on par with their civilian counterparts. They do not have the latest equipment and training. Have you ever heard a veteran brag about the care they received from a V.A. hospital? The money for care in the military is controlled by Congress, and there has been a cut back in care and a heavier reliance on care provided by non-doctors. Since the care is provided free for active duty you also have the costs associated with what we called “sick bay commandos.” I remember having to go to the dispensary on the ship once and on the doctors wall was a long list of people that shouldn’t be seen. These people always seemed to get sick right around the time there was physical work to be done. Since they weren’t paying for their visits they had no problem wasting time and money to be seen. What is seen as “free” gets abuses. There is no concern about the waste of taxpayers money. I firmly believe that socialized health-care in the U.S. will fail just as it has in other countries and our own efforts through Military hospitals proves that we wouldn’t do it any differently.
As to waiting a couple hours to get seen. What is the big deal about that. Should our health-care be seen like the fast food culture. I learned in the military to always bring a book along with me. We should not be worried at all about waiting to be seen. We should be happy that we are seen and taken care of.
I would like to know what real children who are poor are truly concerned about not getting injured? I went to a high school that we affectionately called “Ghetto High.” We were mainly made up of families that would be considered poor or lower middle class. Yet we played just as hard playing sports as anyone else. I had a couple of injuries playing sports and never had a concern about my parents being able to pay for it. True this was selfish, but most kids don’t live their life believing they are going to get injured and worry about how their parents are going to afford it. Usually when you are young you think you are almost indestructible.
Millions have no health insurance because they have not put heath insurance as a priority in their lives. The majority of the people living at what we call the poverty level or above it also are able to afford many of the trinkets of our consumer market. I have traveled all over the world and have seen true poverty. Families living in temporary structures made out of plywood and cardboard. Families crowed into a small apartment to get by. I have not seen the same type of poverty here. People make choices to spend their money on fast food, alcohol, tobacco, entertainment, and junk food. The last choice they usually make is on health care. Now I am not speaking about those in desperate means who need health-care. I just find the statistic of millions without health-care being disingenuous, as if millions had no opportunity to buy health-care if they wanted it.
3. I found it especially ironic for a Democrat to be complaining about the education given to poor children. Who is one of the largest donors to the Democratic party? No surprise it is the teachers unions. The Democrats have a virtual lock on what goes on and is taught in our public schools. I would like to see just one example where the increased school budget resulted in the increase of education. Washington D.C. has some of the worst schools, yet we spend around 10,000 dollars per child for that inferior education. Atlanta spends a lot of money per child for public education, yet again they are ranked among the lowest in education. If Democrats were serious about the education in public schools they would be advocates for a true liberal education which was not heavily peppered with politically correct dogmas and environmental junk science. They want to do nothing about the lack of discipline and violence going on in the schools. Instead we are installing video cameras on school buses so we know who to arrest when the fights invariably break out. I know from my own experience in public school that I was robbed. I was not so much educated as brain washed. I have spent most of my life as an adult unlearning the inaccurate history I was taught and replacing it with true education. The situation has only got worse since I last attended public schools.
4. Reading the Gospels concerning what Jesus said about the poor I see such statements as :
“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind
“Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold.”
for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
The common thread is our personal actions towards those in need of help. Our reliance on government programs to fix problems ultimately removes us of the responsibility of being the ones to help. We decry that there isn’t a government program when we see someone in need. We totally forget that we ourselves can help that person. For I was hungry and the government gave me food does not appear in the Gospels. The St. Vincent de Paul society and the Salvation Army has done more for poor people than the multi-trillion dollars spent on Great Society programs ever will or could. Almsgiving is part of the Gospel. Almsgiving by proxy is not. To say something like we should tax rich people another five percent and give it to the poor, because they won’t miss it is also not part of the Gospel. Jesus praised the widow’s charity in given most of what she had because she voluntarily gave of what little she had. He did not say that she shouldn’t have given it and that a rich person should do so in her stead. He condemned those who gave large amounts of money as a pubic show. Our society should do all it can to encourage personal almsgiving to those in need. Not only because it helps those in need, but because it also leads to our personal sanctification. Nobody will ever be sanctified by a large tax bill, mortified perhaps. It is no surprise that the more one relies on government solving the problems the less they donate themselves in almsgiving. This is not just because they are taxed at a level where they can’t afford to give in charity. Some of the richest areas in average income are also some of the worst areas for charitable donation.
We need to treat the poor as fellow humans in need of help instead of a problem to be cured by the government. The check routing number on an account for a welfare check does not make up for us giving of ourselves sacrificially through our time and talent. We should work towards a society where not only the rich give out of their excess, but that every single one of us does the same. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta in her second vocation did not work tirelessly to get the Indian government to help the poor. She gave tirelessly of her own time and her very example encouraged others to do the same.
The destruction by liberalism of religious life in our country has done much to remove access to low cost health-care and low cost quality education. We no longer have the quantity of those in religious life that can give of themselves in our Catholic hospitals or Catholic schools. We should be praying for vocations and doing all we can to support religious life. But again this is no substitute for our own time and efforts to these same causes. We can make the mistake of replacing what the government can do with what those in religious life can do. It is definitely another case of Both/And.
We should be working at the community level and not have our tax dollars sent through Washington where by the time the money gets back to our same communities it has been much reduced by bureaucratic programs. Toss your dollar upon the waters of the Government and about twenty cents might actually go to helping someone. In contrast to the bumper sticker that says “Think Globally,” I say “Act Locally.”
5. Oh and by the way Tim. You have left many comments throughout St. Blogs, but on your own site you only allow comments that have been vetted first. So much for the Democrat’s love of free speech.
32 comments
It is suprising to me that the same Democratic party that is always preaching compassion for the children is the same party that is consistantly ready to abort them. No it is not wonderful that these children may have to wait for medical services–but the first and highest good should be life.
The measure of a politician is how he treats the most hlepless–and if he decides to abort them–then I cannot trust his judgment on any other matter.
Well I’m pea green with envy that Tim didn’t e-mail me!!!
However, I want to comment on his children/poverty/health insurance thing.
My family lives below the poverty line and we get by pretty well thank you very much. We would get by much better if my self-employed husband didn’t have to send such a healthy chunk of change in employer taxes every month AND if we didn’t have to pay over $400.00 a month in health insurance to cover hyperinflated medical costs as a result of the mandated Medicare and Medicaid systems. Guess which party supports both of those?!
By the way Tim, my children participate in soccer, swimming, T-ball, ride bikes, everything else they were interested in despite our under insurance. Yea, we were insured – with a $2000/person/year deductible but sometimes you just have to let go and trust.
Now go away, your candidate is out of the race so you should be too!
i still contend that democraps and repubelicans want basically the same ends, they just insist on getting to that end in in two diametrical manners. problem is, the dems are dangerous, short-sighted and, well, need i say it? icky.
Jeff, excellent point about the military and socialized medicine. I have seen all those trends as a dependent. My father was in the military, and when I was growing up in the ’70’s and early ’80s, dependents were still seen at military hospitals. I remember how any doctor’s or dentist’s appointment would mean losing at least half a day of school to waiting…. and waiting…. and waiting…. just to be seen, and then another long wait at the pharmacy!
Things got tighter and tighter in the ’80’s. First we were seeing a Nurse Practitioner (a Colonel) for our primary care; finally they introduced Tricare (to replace CHAMPUS) and we were sent out into the civilian world to find dentists and doctors who would accept it.
I remember my sister calling me with amazement in her voice once she’d graduated and gotten private health insurance. “They just wrote my name down! They could see me that day! I wasn’t there all day! I don’t remember it being this easy when we were kids!”
My parents are now retired and they still have a time finding doctors who will accept Tricare. My mom has gotten second-rate treatment from doctors who don’t want to exert themselves because Tricare’s reimbursement is so low, and from office staff who think Tricare is “welfare.”
Who says that Republicans don’t help anyone? Most do privately and judiciously beginning with their families and neighbors. Since they tend to do it quietly without getting a march organized or demanding that government start a program, the work is never publicized — just as Christ wanted.
Also, Republicans are not the Stupid Party, most do well because they are smart and disciplined.
Be careful of your generalizations.
Briefly, free speech is not threatened on my site. I only remove hateful or vulgar comments, and I place most of those in a section of my site reserved for them, where all may see them and request that they be restored.
Sheila, it’s not surprising to me that your only answer is to go back to the escape of “well, Dems are still bad because they support abortion!” Of course they are, but that’s not the topic at hand, you want to avoid.
Elena, when my dad went on strike and lost his health insurance, I was not allowed to play catcher on the baseball team. I know for a fact that I am not alone.
smockmomma, what do Republicans propose to do for the children of the lazy and unproductive?
Margaret, “judiciously” is the key word. Did not Jesus teach to give to those who are unable to give back to us?
Curt,
Re #4,
I wholly agree with your opposition to gov. bureaucracy replacing personal self-sacrificing charity. (This is a central tenet of the Catholic Worker Movement, which I greatly admire.)
However, the Bible does not say “all you who have two health insurance plans, give to those who have none” or “all you with secondary education, give to those with no quality primary education.” That doesn’t make sense. So your analysis works for food, to an extent, but not for health care or education. (Well, that’s not entirely true. As you well point out, nuns have heroicly provided low-cost health care and education for many many years. I wish their numbers had not declined, too, but in the meanwhile we sure as heck better do more for children without health care than just praying for a gradual increase in vocations! (important as that is)) These are goods that must be provided in a systematic way for a whole society. There’s more than enough money in our current gov. budget (even more so before the recent irresponsible tax cuts) to pay for basic health care and basic improvements to education in the poorest areas.
But, again, I strongly agree with your thoughts in favor of people taking personal responibility for the needs of others. What you may not realize is that this requires rejecting our society’s notion that any work that pays the bills is honorable work. People who design or make superfluous weapons, people who shuffle papers to no discernable good end, and people who use their creative ability to convince others to buy things they don’t need are just some of those who need to take a good look at themselves and ask how they are contributing to the common good. They are called to take up their crosses and follow Christ.
For Tim:
“Judiciously” was meant that sometimes good-hearted people get used. We have to learn to discern why someone is needy and may have to chose to withhold help. I have had a situation where I parted with hard-earned money to a family member only to find out later the person gave it to a daughter who used it to party with friends.
Not all the down and out are that way because of circumstances beyond their control. Some are in the spot they justly deserve and need to learn from those painful consequences to chose another course of action.
Many of the homeless have been helped and helped and helped again until their family and friends have had to give up in sheer frustration. You only see the consequences, you don’t know the story behind those consequences. Compassionate behavior can be another form of enabling.
If this hasn’t yet happened to you, you are either lucky or you haven’t reached out to enough people who are in trouble.
That is why I believe that help should be person-to-person, not relying on costly and bureaucratic government bodies who are forced to give to all who are needy regardless of the cause.
I am assuming most of the posters here (Margret especially) are either not Catholic or do not either know or follow Catholic teaching. I will quote some encyclicals:
“There are needs and common goods that cannot be satisfied by the market system. It is the task of the state and of all society to defend them. An idolatry of the market alone cannot do all that should be done.
The Hundredth Year (Donders) #40″
“A consistent theme of Catholic social teaching is the option or love of preference for the poor. Today, this preference has to be expressed in worldwide dimensions, embracing the immense numbers of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without medical care, and those without hope.
On Social Concern (Donders), #42″
“The complex circumstances of our day make it necessary for public authority to intervene more often in social, economic and cultural matters in order to bring about favorable conditions which will give more effective help to citizens and groups in their free pursuit of man’s total well-being.
The Church in the Modern World (#75)”
“[The Catholic tradition calls for] a society of free work of enterprise and of participation. Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied.
The Hundredth Year, (#35)”
“As for the State, its whole raison d’etre is the realization of the common good in the temporal order. It cannot, therefore, hold aloof from economic matters. On the contrary, it must do all in its power to promote the production of a sufficient supply of material goods, “the use of which is necessary for the practice of virtue.”[7] It has also the duty to protect the rights of all its people, and particularly of its weaker members, the workers, women and children. It can never be right for the State to shirk its obligation of working actively for the betterment of the condition of the workingman.
Mother and Teacher (#20)”
“The economy cannot be run in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum: the state has its role to play, guaranteeing personal freedom, a stable currency, and efficient public services.
The Hundredth Year (Donders) #48″
Stop following the politics of today, but follow the politics of Christ, if you are a Catholic find out what the church teaches and be humble and follow it!
Jesus said “give to those who ask of you”
Not if they ask 100 times stop at that number. We are not called to judge anyone. You are called to help those in need, and not to pass judgment on them.
As for the role of government programs–the teaching of the church are loud a clear, pick up some encyclicals. Publically opposing the Catholic faith is a dangerous thing to do.
And if you are only opposing Catholic faith because you don’t know it, well get over it and find out. The social teachings of the Church are just as important as any other of it’s glorious teachings.
“Human rights are the minimum conditions for life in community. In Catholic teaching, human rights include not only civil and political rights but also economic rights…. This means that when people are without a chance to earn a living, and must go hungry and homeless, they are being denied basic rights. Society must ensure that these rights are protected.
Economic Justice for All (Pastoral Message), #17″
Church speaks and I listen, I pray for all Catholics that they will also.
Tim,
The United States is already a welfare state, in the good sense of that term. We have a safety net here. It doesn’t always work perfectly, and it’s subject to abuse, and many of us would like to reform it to make it work better, but at the end of the day, most Americans, Republican and Democrat and Independent, are willing to suffer a little abuse to help people. George Bush isn’t trying to eliminate the safety net, and never has. He’s actually pushed to increase it substantially in Medicare. Hardly any Republican or Democrat would eliminate the extra-market safety net; they differ on the balance they would like to achieve.
You seem to be arguing — and this is a general impression, since I don’t have time to go track down specific citations — that if we don’t adopt ever more and bigger social programs, we are failing to meet the church’s teachings. Yet none of your citations above demonstrates any such thing. The church notes, correctly, that the market alone is not sufficient, that it must be regulated and that government has a role to play in meeting the needs of the less fortunate. Yet as in most of its teachings, the church recognizes cultural differences — the Catechism talks about working through a given culture’s institutions. Ours tend — not exlusively, but tend — to be market-based. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, provided we recognize the caveats, which virtually every politician from both major parties does.
That’s not idolatry of the market. Even most of the most market-oriented Americans like the fact that unemployment insurance and Social Security, for instance, have their back should something terrible happen.
But in America, we couple this with free clinics and private charity. You are concerned that children of parents without health insurance had to wait for hours to get seen for a flu — not that they had no access to care, but that the wait was uncomfortable. It’s nice of you to empathize, but you seem to lack empathy for those of us who are trying to support a family and pay a mortgage and still try to survive the annual attack of the IRS. Wait until you have spent a few hours sifting through your 1040s. Wait until you spend every hour wondering if your job is going to go away. Personally, I’m very pleased those kids can wait in line for access to care that is the envy of most of the world, in part precisely because we have not adopted a European-style universal health care system that so stifles profits for medical companies that research and development is hampered.
And that’s just one example of a very real concern. The more left-wing an economy gets, paradoxically the less able it seems to be to keep its promises of social programs. Examine the crises facing some of the most generous European countries right now, or take a look at California, to see what I mean. The ultimate example is socialism, which was an economic disaster, creating widespread poverty. It had the notable feature of having the best of intentions.
The market is not the only answer, but it is one tool that works well. I grew up fiscally liberal, extremely so, as a matter of fact, but when I finally actually took the time to try to understand the opposition’s arguments, I came to realize that the vast majority of conservatives did not want to cut taxes because they hated poor people — rather it was because they believed poor people are better helped by jobs than by government programs. They believe if they have more money, employers will hire more people and pay them better.
One can recognize the need for government programs at one level or another without missing that quite accurate point.
Bill Clinton, in fact, is a good example. Many liberals are keen to point out the alleged prosperity he produced, but they are not so keen when one asks exactly what he did. I am of opinion that presidents deserve far less credit or blame for the economy than they get, but if Clinton’s policies were successful, they were conservative ones — free trade, not taxing the Internet, reforming welfare, balancing the federal budget. Food for thought.
Just one other thought on this long reply, Tim: As I’m sure you are aware, the starkest contrast between the two major parties is on social issues, particularly those relating to the family. The family is God’s ordained plan for our stability and security, economic and otherwise. It’s where the safety net is supposed to start. Divorce, “illegitimacy,” scorn for the institution of marriage itself, attacks on it with gay “marriage anarchy,” children without one or both parents — these are problems fed by the moral relativism of the Left. See Dean, Howard.
It ain’t conservatives that are bringing Planned Barrenhood into your kids’ schools to teach them “the truth” about sex.
These are hardly child-friendly policies.
Sorry, one more point. You know how some politicians say they’re personally opposed to abortion but think it should be legal anyway, because they can’t impose their moral values? Of course, that’s nonsense — the only reason to oppose abortion is because it’s murder, and if you believe that, it’s not something one compromises on. But accepting it for the sake of argument for a moment, isn’t it funny these same politicians never apply it in other areas? I keep waiting for the day I hear this from a Democrat running for president:
“You know, I’m personally opposed to hoarding all of my money and not giving it to the poor. I’d never do it. But I can’t impose my moral values on my constituents. So I’m going to vote against this tax increase.”
Margaret,
What you are talking about has happened to me, and I grant your point. Yet what are we to say about the children of those who refuse to be helped? What you and so many others have done is forget them, ignore them when they don’t fit in with your argument.
Kyle,
Trust me, I’m not for the gov. getting any larger than it needs to be. But until every child has access to health care, what we have is simply not adequate, according to what the Catechism explicitly says:
“Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.” (2288)
A couple brief responses:
-while Bush has increased Medicare funding, which gets him senior votes, he has decreased Medicaid funding for the poor who don’t vote as much.
-Bush has also cut emergency unemployment benefits when unemployment was higher than when the emergency was declared, cut overtime pay and advised employers on how to avoid paying overtime when they are required to by law, drastically cut funding for housing programs, hasn’t seemed to notice that one in ten American families are struggling with hunger, and introduced tax cuts that have been completely ineffectual in creating jobs (note: high unemployment is good for employers)
-Howard Dean is an exemplary family man–look it up (and there are more important threats to the family than gay marriage, for goodness sake, which hasn’t seemed to have much of an effect on my family, for one)
Tim, the verb in the catechism passage you cite is “help.” And I didn’t say gay marriage was the biggest threat to the family, although your dismissal of the threat is altogether too glib.
Here’s an instance of Howard Dean’s love for families: He has has publicly stated, on Meet the Press — and lied about an anecdote to bolster his ghastly argument — that parents shouldn’t even be notified when their minor children murder their unborn grandchildren. If that’s a family man, I don’t know what you would define as being anti-family. I could give other examples, but you quite clearly are intent on not hearing them. I trust him to know about families approximately as much as I trust him to pick out the books of the New Testament for me.
There’s a reason porn king Larry Flynt tries to smear conservative Republicans. There’s a reason the Madonnas of the world support Democrats. There’s a reason Banned Parenthood and NOW, with their radically anti-family and anti-child agendas, support Democrats. Democrats like Howard Dean.
I mean, name one group or organization that is based on the view that Christians are too uptight about premarital and extramarrital sex or too rigid about divorce or too down on homosexual couples adopting children. Which political party does the group support?
You want to help kids? Help the family first.
I don’t see Republican’s as being any more religious or moral that Democrats. Arnold the body builder, porn guy who is now governor of California (and openly supports abortion as well as about everything else contrary to Catholic teaching) is a Republican.
The Republican’s basically are contrary to all Catholic Teaching on every single issue that I can think of, except gay marriage. Most Republican’s even support abortion, or support it in many cases (like Bush supports it in the case or rape or incest). It is also the Republicans who are trying to get the morning after pill more widely distributed. And wasn’t it Bush who ultimately approved RU-47 or he sure didn’t do anything to stop it.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/012004baldwin.html
There are faithful Catholics who are Democrats and there are faithful Catholics who are Republican’s. I am a Catholic and I plan to vote for Kerry, because I do not want Bush in office. I have no special love or support of Kerry but I believe Bush is probably the most unethical presidant that has been in office in recent history.
He lied about WMD in Iraq and led us into a war the the Pope and the Vatican opposed, and a preemptive war goes against all Catholic ethics. He supports China and the one child killing policy. He supports outsourcing and welfare to work which forces poor mothers to leave the care of their children and work minimum wage jobs.
I am a Catholic and I am not voting Republican. Sure you can feel yourself morally superior, but I have spend a lot of time reading what the Catholic faith is all about and I hold fast that I am doing what I think is best.
I don’t pass judgment on those who vote Republican (while I don’t agree with them) I find it odd that people who vote Republican seem to have a hissy fit when ever any faithful Catholic comes around who doesn’t.
And trust me if for one second I thought Bush was really anti-abortion instead of lying about it to get votes, he would have my vote. So far he had 4 years to convince me, and while I voted for him 4 years ago, I just re-registered to be a Democrat.
Want to tell me I am a bad Catholic? Go ahead I am a horrible sinner but it has nothing to do with my not liking Bush the lier and thief.
Follow,
Yes, in four years Bush has only managed to:
* Sign the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act
* Sign a ban on partial-birth abortion
* Cut funding for abortion in foreign aid
* Cut funding for the UN agency that supports forced abortion in China and elsewhere
* Appoint pro-life judges, despite the despicable, unconstitutional filibuster put in place by the Democrats
* Opposed cloning in all forms
* Opposed stem cell research that requires killing a human being to, vampire like, harvest his or her parts
* Speak out on national television about how pro-life changes are advances for human rights
By contrast, John Kerry will:
* Continue to stack the judiciary with pro-death ideologues
* Take more of your tax money and use it to kill babies
* Veto every bit of pro-life legislation that comes along — parental notification, waiting periods, right-to-know laws
* Portray himself as Catholic while supporting even the most vicious forms of abortion on demand, vocally, from the White House
* Give financial aid to China’s coerced abortion program through the UN
* Push to legalize therapeutic cloning and stem cell research.
You may think this is equivalent to “they’re just the same.” But that’s just plain wrong. The judges issue alone should put your contention to rest. With Bush, there is a chance of stepping toward judicial sanity. With Kerry, it’s a slam dunk that we’ll have another generation — at least — of Roe v. Wade, the gravest evil ever produced by the Supreme Court.
As for the idea that Republicans are just the same as Democrats on porn and family issues and abortion — well, it’s just silly. The Republican platform is pro-life. Two-thirds of regular churchgoers vote Republican. By contrast, 2/3 of secularists vote Democrat. Either you’re wrong or Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, every wack job in Hollywood, the ACLU and People for the American Way don’t know what’s good for them in who they have chosen to endorse.
You didn’t like the Iraq War? Me either. But is is a matter of prudential judgment, and we did liberate 25 million people from a guy who liked to use rape and plastic shredders as punishment. We’re still digging up his mass graves.
I hope you were equally bothered by the Kosovo liberation, and I hope you’re equally troubled by Kerry saying he would have used military intervention in Haiti just last week.
And for the record, I’m not a knee-jerk Republican apologist either. I’m often critical of Republicans, and I would never vote for an Arnie.
I am just of the opinion that 3K to 4K murderers every day in American abortuaries is the most pressing issue on the agenda, and it’s a simple fact that there is a stark, stark difference between the two parties when it comes to that.
Yes, Bush has to throw a few bones to his anti-abortion voters, since they make up 50% of the population.
And you forget he approved embroy research on existing embroys.
He approved the abortion pill.
He supports the Morning After Pill being more widely available.
He supports relationship with China.
Iraq was a pro-life country, abortion was illegal, now he is busy allowing “choice” to take place there.
He lied to a nation about our need for a pre-emptive war.
How is that Pro-Life.
And hey, I don’t think Kerry is all that great, I don’t care much for him.
But Bush is worse, in my opinion, and what I don’t get is why other Catholics can’t respect that.
They are both horrible, but I think Bush is a hair grain MORE horrible, so I don’t plan to vote for him.
I can respect your opinion–why is it so hard to respect mine?
Trust me I am 100% pro-life, I have never used contraception in my marriage, and we are open to life in ever regard. And we are active in our local pro-life movement. If we believed Bush was really pro-life we would vote for him, but we don’t. We believe he is even worse than Kerry or Dean for that matter.
Why can’t people understand there are faithful Catholics who do not like Bush? Why are people so fanatical about him?
And if he really believed in the sacredness of life, why in the world does he think abortion is okay in the case or rape and incest?
So is it not a child if you were raped?
To me it is always a child, including the embroyes he approved for scientific testing. So some people believe Bush is anti-abortion and some don’t?
Why can’t we all just be respectful and try and see we are all trying to follow our faith.
I will vote Democrat in the next election, because according to my faith I can not vot for Bush. If people chose to disrespect me all I can say, is Jesus never said it would be easy to follow what you believe is the truth.
Abortion is a complex problem as we all know. There are disagreements among many people about how we can best fix this inhumane problem. I personally do not believe just passing a law would fix it. People would still find ways to have abortions, even just as many people. Also I don’t see any anti-abortion law coming any time soon (with anyone no matter how pro-life for Presidant).
I believe Regean (unlike Bush who could care less about the issue) was truly anti-abortion. Yet, abortions only increased under his term in office.
Why?
He cut social programs. If women can not provide healthcare for themselves or their children I believe they will seek out abortions, even illegally.
If women can’t fead or cloth their children thy will also be tempted to take “the easy way out”.
Abortion is a complex issue. I don’t see any presidant no matter how pro-life he really is having much of an inpact on it, unless he also gives women an incentive to keep their children.
Benifits increased for the number of children you have, better education, help for th 40 million Amercian’s who have no health insurance, more safety nets to help women with unplanned pregnancies, will all help.
Anyone who does not support these programs is only encouragning the problem (in my opinion). My wife has a close friend who had an abortion, she did not want it but lost her job and did not have health benifits. She felt lost and helpless, she took the “easy way out”. She is now very outspoken in the Pro-Life movment (she converted about 4 years ago), she tells us often the way to help is by helping society change so we offer more support and make it easier for women to keep their children.
Not all women want to have abortion some feel forced into it, it is to those we need to reach out the most. The ones who could care less, will always find a way, law or no law.
Just random thoughts, when I should be working!
Good URL for how Bush has lied and gone against the Pro-life movment:
http://dutyisours.com/50+a.htm
Talks about such things as:
BUSH FAILURE TO BAN RU-486 YIELDS 130,000 NON-SURGICAL ABORTIONS
“Doctors used RU-486 and similar pills to perform about 6 percent of abortions in the first several months after the drug was approved in the United States, researchers reported [January 151. “The study, by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, is one of the first to account for the number of abortions using RU-486, or mifepristone, since it became available in 2000. The study estimates that more than 37,000 abortions were performed with pills in the first six months of 2001.”
IS THAT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A “PRO-LIFE PRESIDENT”?
“In all more than 130,000 women in the United States have used the pill to obtain abortions since doctors were able to distribute it, Pam Long, spokeswoman for Danco Laboratories of New York, the maker and distributor of RU-486, said [January 15].”
PRESIDENT BUSH WORKED IN FAVOR OF HUMAN CLONING
On June 17, 2002, the Bush administration blocked legislation (S.Amdt. 3843 [to S.2600], cloture motion, 6/17/02) which would have prohibited the cloning of human beings. It would have been much harder for an Al Gore to stop this legislation in the face of concerted Republican support and broad-based popular backing. But it was Republicans in the Senate, prodded by the Bush administration, who killed this legislation.
DESIGNATE JOHN ASHCROFT ECHOES BUSH POSITION ON ABORTION: EXCEPTIONS TO ABORTION OKAY
“On nine occasions in the Senate I have voted for pro-life legislation that provided exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.” Senator John Ashcroft, the Associated Press, Nov. 3, 2000 (as reported in The New York Times, 12/23/00, p. A9)
According to The Los Angeles Times (latimes.com, 1/19/01), “Laura Bush said Friday that while she thinks more can be done to limit the number of abortions, she does not believe the landmark Roe v. Wade pro-abortion ruling should be undone.
�No. I don�t think it should be overturned,� she said in response to a question in an interview broadcast on NBC�s �Today.~~~
“Her husband, President-elect Bush, said during last year�s campaign that while he opposes abortion, he does not believe the nation is ready to overturn the 1973 decision….”
Bah, he is about as anti-abortion as Clinton in my own opinion and certianly not any worse than Kerry or Dean.
Follow,
I am not fanatical about Bush. I’m critical of some of the things he’s done. But to say Kerry is better, particularly on abortion, simply cannot stand. Everything you said negative about Bush goes double for Kerry. He thinks abortion should be legal for any reason, not just rape or incest.
Bill Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion ban twice. Clinton stacked the Supreme Court with its wackiest pro-death zealots yet. And Kerry will do the same.
The entire question, from a legal standpoint, goes to judicial nominees. That is the entire abortion issue, from a legal standpoint, in a nutshell. And the difference between Bush and Kerry (or Dean) is so absolutely crystal clear and so entirely in favor of Bush that it should really end the discussion if abortion is your main issue, as it is for me.
I’m sorry if you take this as disrespect of fanaticism, but it is simply beyond the pale for me to even think of voting for a so-called Catholic who will add maybe two pro-death Supreme Court justices, ensuring the slaughter of innocents remains protected in law for another generation or more.
The same way I feel it would be betrayal to my faith to vote for someone who I believe is soley responsable for the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and hundreds of US soldiers because he lied to the US about WMD and led us into an unjust war.
If someone takes human life so casually in that regard I just don’t see how they can respect the life of the unborn (besides showing they could care less my their many actions).
It is just a difference of opinion. All I am trying to say is there are faithful Catholics that will not vote for Bush, so it is not to be assumed that anyone who votes for Kerry Dean or anyone else is not doing so because they are trying to follow their faith.
I just wish more people would see that. As I said previously if for one second I though Bush was truly pro-life he would have my vote, I voted for him four years ago, because of the exact reasons you mentioned. I have been greatly disappointed in what he has accompolished (both for the anti-abortion cause and other reasons), and now it is the time of reconning. And if I thought he would preserve one more life by being Presidant he would have my vote, but my fear is that he will only destroy more life.
I do see why you and others vote for Bush, and I do not critisize that. All I am trying to say, is please see that there are those of us who will not, and we are not any less “pro-life” than those who do. We just don’t happen to think Bush will do anything good in office. And yes, maybe we are wrong.
The posters who insist that they alone know how to best help the poor, with government programs being the best method, have lost the point that it is best left to individuals or churches to help the poor.
The command to help those less fortunate covers a broad spectrum of needs — to visit the sick, the lonely, the grieving, not just handouts from the welfare state.
When we defer to government the responsibility for assistence to those in need, we waste tax money on a vast bureaucracy that must be served first before any benefit trickles down to the needy.
Also, we free ourselves from the need to personally sacrifice time and cash (hopefully anonymously) for another’s benefit.
Finally, we create the welfare state which degrades eventually to either a totalitarian state (to extract ever more of the working people’s money as fewer people work) or to a state where no one bothers to work because they are better off not working — see the unemployment rate and stagnating economy in Germany , for example, where there are generous subsidies to the unemployed.
A vibrant society is the result of free people geting educated and fending for themselves as much as possible and for as long as possible — and good people taking care of their own and their neighbors as necessary.
You forget the said poster posted a list of Church encyclicals and quotes to back up what they were saying. Please listen and obey the Catholic church–unless of course you are not Catholic. What you are saying goes against traditional Catholic teaching, go up and read what the Church says, or if you don’t know what the Church has to say, then maybe don’t say anything.
Again, if you disagree with the Catholic church please go back read what I quoted from encyclicals and explain why you know better than the Pope.
Good grief so many Catholic’s so much pride.
Just be faithful and if you can’t stop calling yourself a Catholic. There is so much infidelity it is frustrating.
By the way, the word is that Bush plans to nominate pro-choice White House counsel Alberto Gonzales for the Supreme Court the first chance he gets. I’m not happy about it either, but it’s a fact–look it up. He also neglected to mention in the State of the Union what is obviously, in his supposed view, the gravest evil facing our nation today. He did not mention abortion even once. He knows he already has most naive Christians wrapped around his finger.
You also may not know that George W. Bush was pro-choice when he first ran for Congress (and lost).
Pointing out Bush’s failings really doesn’t address the point, Tim. With Dean or Kerry, there is, literally, zero chance of a Pryor or an Estrada being nominated for jack. They will stack the judiciary with pro-death drones who consider abortion a moral good, and unlike in Bush’s case, the Dem base will cheer what a good guy he is for ensuring the War on the Unborn continues for another decade or two.
I don’t see what is so hard to understand here. In the political realm, it is all about judges. You think Bush is half-hearted? A faker? Well guess what: Dean and Kerry aren’t. With Bush, there’s a chance — based on his previous nominations a pretty good chance — of making a dent in the judicial oligarchy that allows the slaughter of unborn children by the thousands every single damn day in this country. Kerry or Dean is a flat-out guarantee the opposite will happen.
It really is that black and white.
No, it’s really not too black and white at all. When you start talking about just a chance of a known liar doing something, you’re going to have a really difficult time convincing the 45 million uninsured Americans, the millions without enough food, without adequate housing or education, the millions who have lost their jobs, to say nothing of the billions around the world who shudder at the thought of another 4 years of Bush’s arrogant and oppressive foreign policy, you’re going to have a hard time convincing them that voting for Bush because of a chance that he will do something is the only acceptable option for Catholics.
The fact is that changing the judiciary is not the proper way to address this problem in the first place. Our Constitution is ambiguous about whether the unborn legally count as persons, like it or not (and I don’t). As long as it remains so, we will just have shifts in judges every few decades going back and forth and the unborn will never be safe for long. What we need is a Constitutional Ammendment. Is this difficult to understand? We need to patiently and persistently make the case that it makes no sense to define passage through the birth canal as the start of human personhood, and we will soon enough have enough of the country understanding this issue well enough to see that an ammendment is entirely appropriate and is in fact the proper way to address the issue of the legalization of abortion.
Meanwhile, we have a heck of a lot of work to do to make it easier for women to choose life, or to avoid unwanted pregnancies naturally in the first place. 4000 times a day, a woman somewhere decides that her situation is desperate enough to merit an abortion. They should not be legally allowed to do so, but nor should their desperation be ignored or forgotten–we have a lot of work to do to help them.
Basically, it comes down to one thing. A vote for the Demoncrats is a vote for abortion.
Tim, I suggest you re-read what I wrote carefully. What I did was contrast the chances of what the candidate you oppose will do with the CERTAINTY of what candidate you support has promised to do. I’d also like to see where I suggested ignoring anyone’s desparation — oh, but you mean any plan for addressing it but a Deanish one is “doing nothing.”
Then re-read Evangelium Vitae. I suggest particular attention to the parts about how politicians who obfuscate the truth about the right to life deform the conscience of a culture and what a grave evil that is. You might consider what implications this message holds for your own advocacy efforts. Read the part about the corrosive effects of anti-life legal structures on the genuine freedoms of democracy — on even the existence of democracy. Read, for instance, around paragraph 70.
Changing the Supreme Court is not only a perfectly valid way to address the abortion issue, it is a necessary one, as your own words demonstrate. If the Constitution were truly ambiguous about the right to life for the unborn as you say — it isn’t, as church teaching suggests, but I’ll play along for the sake of argument — then repealing Roe and sending abortion regulation back to the states is the only decision consistent with the Supreme Court’s mission of interpreting the Constitution. All other powers revert to the states. Yet it’s the one thing you think we shouldn’t be worried about doing? That’s telling.
And you seem to skip lightly around church teaching, for instance in EV, which suggests advancing pragmatically toward pro-life legal structures in situations where the whole enchilada can’t be accomplished at once. Clearly in this case, correcting the travesty of Roe is the most near-at-hand and attainable constitutional remedy in the short term of this presidential election, and in the long term doing so would be an advantage in trying to attain a Human Life Amendment — unless you disagree with church teaching that the existing law influences society’s views positively or negatively. In that light, it is even clear that doing justice to the unborn under the law is a step toward advancing the other social justice concerns which you seem to believe are of higher import.
On the other hand, if you believe, like me, that the right to life of every innocent person is presupposed by every other right found in the Constitution, and if, consistent with church teaching and, say, an embryology textbook, you believe that the personhood of the fetus is an objective fact derived from science, philosophy, common sense and the natural law, then you can conclude one of two things: 1) the Supreme Court has erred massively or 2) it has willfully imposed on our society a false view of reality and of the very Constitution that binds its rulings in order to advance a social agenda. In either case, fixing the Supreme Court is a required solution — either impeaching the judges responsible, limiting the court’s authority or replacing justices through attrition with ones who will do justice. That last is the least radical, most pragmatic step — and the one you explicitly reject. What makes you think that the blind, arrogant justices who pervert that court now would follow an amendment any more justly or faithfully than they follows the rest of the “living” Constitution?
I have already addressed your social justice concerns above at considerable length and don’t feel like repeating myself on them. I don’t mean to be uncharitable, but you seem to resort to changing the subject when caught on unfavorable ground. I have to say that it’s absolutely hilarious to witness someone supporting Howard Dean — who lies and distorts incessantly about abortion, which is to say the murder of innocent children — huffing indignantly about the lack of integrity in another candidate. Let alone another candidate’s arrogance, of all things. Didn’t you chastise me on another thread for “demonizing” Dean and his supporters. What in the world do you call what you just wrote?
I am a former Democrat. But a vote for that party in this election is a vote for death.
My congress man has done nothing significant in his twenty years in office. And thats probably the best we can hope for from these politicians.
Comments are closed.