Politics

Reading the various political coverage and news of the day I noticed something that I found interesting, the religious identification of politicians who are Catholic. I have seen many stories where they will put the persons name followed by “a Catholic”, yet rarely have I seen the same thing done for other religious beliefs. Have you ever seen the words Al Sharpton or John Edwards followed by the words “a Protestant?” Yet I have seen thousands of references identifying Kerry and Clark as Catholics. Much has been made of President Bush’s faith and that he is a Methodist, yet with President Clinton little mention was made of him being a Methodist even though he would also recite biblical verses (usually in defence). Possibly the Catholic tag is often used since the reporter takes some pleasure in mentioning the identification of the politician when their voting record is in direct opposition to their professed faith. Maybe this is a back-handed compliment since the reporter knows exactly what the Catholic Church’s stand is on many issues even if they disagree with them.

[Link via Sirman on the Mount][Created by Right Wing News]

Secretary of State Colin Powell blasted Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe on Friday for claiming that President Bush went AWOL from the National Guard in 1972, saying the DNC chief’s attack was “scurrilous.”

What I find most interesting about this charge is the fact that they think it would have any traction. This same charge was made four years ago in the last election cycle and it never picked up any real momentum and no new facts have surfaced since then. So to have to go back into the Democrat attack toolbox and come out with a ploy that was ineffective four years ago I think really says something about what they think are winning issues. Are they also going to rehash President Bush’s DWI just days before the reelection again? If they keep this up, then this election will be labeled a rerun in the TV Guide.

CNSNews.com) – Here come the “Ex-DeaniacsForClark” — a web-based movement dedicated to former Howard Dean supporters who have switched their allegiance to General Wesley Clark. The website announced its official launch on Monday, touting a “NH Final Push” campaign. According to a press release, the website is attracting Dean converts in “multiple states.” “Ex-Deaniacs for Clark.com isn’t an anti-Dean site, it’s a pro-Clark site from a Deaniac’s perspective,” said Josh Lange, co-founder and webmaster of the effort. “We respect Howard Dean and the movement he inspired, but we have come to believe that General Clark’s progressive beliefs, Southern electoral strength, and Presidential temperament make him the right candidate for America in 2004.”
[Full Story]

On the Catholics for Dean site.

Dear all Catholic Dean sympathizers,

You are under attack by fellow Catholics who do not even recognize our right to support Dean as Catholics. I will post links to blogs and other active debates about the very legitimacy of this site here and update it frequently. Please visit and post links to relevant parts of this site and offer your own arguments and knowledge of Catholic teaching. Fellow Catholics have declared war on us–let’s respond to them with love, reaching out to them with understanding as well as careful argumentation.

My site and others are listed under this paragraph. I love the hyperbole here “Catholics who do not even recognize our right to support Dean as Catholics.” I would like to know where myself or others made such a silly statement. I also don’t remember the declaration of war that I made. Everybody must vote according to their conscience, but their consciences should be formed by Catholic teaching. If I criticize the prudence of voting for Dean in light of Catholic teaching, then how have I attacked or declared war? I have not asked people to go to his site and posts comments critical of his opinion, but the opposite is not true. Why should I be attacked because I think that President Bush overall will advance Catholic teaching in many areas here and worldwide? Don’t I also have the right to support Bush as a Catholic? I also liked the superiority of “let’s respond to them with love.” I would like to know where my statements were not in the bounds of charity? Because I question the underlying facts and prudence of supporting Dean does that make me uncharitable?

One thing I found puzzling that one of the sites Tim listed after the above statement was A Catholic Blog for Lovers. I find this odd since Gerard was kind enough to put Tim’s Catholics for Dean web site on his listing of Catholic blogs. Gerard made no comments himself about Tim’s site, though a couple people in comments questioned him adding this site. I don’t think that this was a loving act.

Another site he specified was Relapsed Catholic, they will have lots of luck responding to her criticisms considering she doesn’t have comments. Out of the two hundred plus active blogs in St. Blogs I doubt if there would be more than one or two that would see the prudence of voting for Dean to advance Catholic teaching.

I am sure everybody has heard Dean’s strange sounding outburst. I thought it would be fun to use it in an interactive Flash movie. So simply click on Mr. Dean’s finger to enjoy the Dean Simulation or Mean Deanulator. I keep waiting for Dean to Hulk out. Oh well, maybe in New Hampshire.

*The term Dean Dongs comes from a listener of the Hugh Hewitt show.

From an article titled The end of Catholic politicians

By barring Holy Communion to Catholic politicians in the La Crosse, Wis., diocese, Bishop Raymond Burke drastically changed the focus of discussion. Now, the bishop is challenging not only the morality of abortion but the morality of American citizenship.

..To the bishop, the morality of abortion is plain: It is a grievous sin. He and others are under pressure from some of their flocks to take harsher action against Catholic politicians who waffle. He acted. He placed politicians between the rock of their oath to uphold the Constitution and the hard place of his decision. The Supreme Court, the semifinal arbiter, has held that the Constitution bars governments from interfering in a woman’s choice to have an abortion.

That leaves women free to choose, which is not all that different from the way the creator left them when he made them. “Choose life,” he commanded, but the verb indicates that another choice is left open. Like the creator himself, the Constitution permits defiance.

Well actually the full quote from Deuteronomy is:

I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,

The consequence to not choosing life is in reality spiritual death. He actually placed politicians between the rock of following God’s will or that of promoting an unjust law. The Supreme Court at one time also equated slaves with property in the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. All of us including politicians that declare themselves to be faithful Catholics must fight unjust laws.

Bishop Burke and many others would like to change that, but practicing politicians know it’s not so easy. A government that has the power to ban abortions would have the power to command them for specific cases or races. Until fairly recently, some states commanded sterilization for some people, to which right-to-lifers would object, and New Jersey has flirted with effectively requiring welfare mothers to seek abortions. Government regulation in this case is a can of worms that a smart politician would be wary of opening.

Not a very good argument. A government that has the power to say that abortions are legal also has the same power to require anything that he also mentioned. His definition of a smart politician is a spineless one.

Additionally, if Roe vs. Wade were to be simply overturned by the Supreme Court, the law would revert to the pre-1973 status quo. Then, abortion was regulated on a state-by-state basis, and some states had legalized it, while others were moving toward legalization. That’s not what Bishop Burke is looking for, either.

A situation where the American people could directly vote on the matter of abortion is a lot more preferable to a situation where abortion is permitted in all circumstances. The United States is also not the same as it was prior to Roe v. Wade and the general population is pro-life. I believe that overwhelmingly most states would make abortion illegal if it was up to them. But this is also a good reason to amend the constitution with language that specifically bans the killing of children in the womb.

In October, in a document called “Faithful Citizenship,” the U.S. bishops outlined positions on a whole range of political issues, including better pay for farmworkers. The question that non-Catholics will ask is: On how many of those issues would a Catholic face excommunication for failing to vote the bishops’ way?

If you are going to write commentary pieces against the Catholic Church it would be a good thing to read what the Church actually teaches. The issue of excommunication is not even mentioned by Bishop Burke. He banned them from participating in communion if they continue to obstinately hold to promoting abortion. Every time you read one of these pieces you know sooner or later they get to the point of comparing abortion with another issue in Catholic social teaching. This time it is farm worker’s pay being equivocal to the support of abortion.

Bishop Burke’s action puts his friends as well as foes at risk in elections if the general public asks that question. In the Jesuit magazine America, Bishop Burke is reported to have been asked what will happen if his position disqualifies Catholics from running for office. He replied, “Then there won’t be any more Catholic politicians.”

I could find no such quote in the magazine America so I can’t vouched for the veracity of this statement. I don’t see how the boogeyman of not having pro-abortion Catholic politicians is suppose to scare me. If they can’t even determine that the child in the womb was infused with a soul by God at conception, I am not much concerned that their Catholicity was going to be such a bonus to having them in office in the first place.

WIth the FCC Chairman seeking to reverse the F-Word decisionn for television it got me thinking about another story.

If Margaret Cho showed up on television with a F-word ban, people would think that she was mute. I know that it would reduce this couple hundred word rant against the Catholic Church to about five words.

In light of the Democrat’s MoveOn.org MorOn.org deciding to associate with this questionable comedienne you see just how intolerant the party of “Can’t we all just get along” can be.

[Link Via Southern Appeal]

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean on Friday issued a statement deploring terrorist groups, including Hamas, which he called “an unrepentant terrorist organization.”

Dean also said he is committed to Israel and its security.

“In my presidency, the United States will remain firmly committed to its special, long-standing relationship with Israel, including providing the resources necessary to guarantee Israel’s long-term defense and security,” he said.

Dean’s statement came after he was asked in a Canadian television interview to clarify a comment he made in an earlier interview on The Editors, one taped in January 1998, that it could be “good or bad” if Hamas took control of the Palestinian leadership once Yasser Arafat had left the scene.

“The bad, of course, is that Hamas is a terrorist organization. However, if they have to run a quasi-state they may actually have to be more responsible and start negotiations. So who knows what will happen?” he asked.
[Full Story]

Of course earlier he had also said that the United States should not “take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” and later Dean told reporters that the U.S. has to “take an even-handed role” in the region. When asked about these statements at a Democratic party debate he said “Of course I don’t mean any such thing, that we’re going to take a stance that belies our historic relationship with Israel. We’ve had a special relationship with Israel since 1948 when we were the first country to recognize Israel. What I do mean is we need to be a credible negotiator, a facilitator for peace in the Middle East. And that means we have to be trusted by both sides. “

There is a joke in Florida (and probably other states) that if you don’t like the weather, wait a couple of minutes. The same goes for Dean’s statements, if you don’t like what he says wait a bit and it is sure to change. Maybe Dean needs an official translator of what he meant to say. A continuous ticker tape running over his whole campaign to translate whatever he says. So that saying that Hamas might be responsible if it ran the Palestine leadership could be instantly translated into Hamas is an unrepentant terrorist organization.

The old Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times” doesn’t apply to bloggers as a curse. With Dean we are definitely living in interesting times.