Politics

When the 113th Congress is sworn in today, its new members will include the first Hindu member of Congress and the first Buddhist to serve as senator. Also for the first time, Congress will welcome a member who describes her religion as “none.”

Democratic Arizona Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, who was raised a Mormon, is religiously unaffiliated but does not describe herself as an atheist. Her campaign was unavailable for comment to Whispers due to the swearing in, but spokesman Justin Unga told the Religion News Service in November that Sinema favors a “secular approach.” He told the New York Times the same month that Sinema “believes the terms ‘nontheist,’ ‘atheist’ or ‘nonbeliever’ are not befitting of her life’s work or personal character.” (source)

Now that is a very odd answer by her spokesman. Not fitting of a life’s work or personal character? What in the world does that have to do with anything? How about fitting of belief? Although the term “believer” seems to usually only get applied to theists, really atheism, theism, and agnosticism is a form of belief – an act of the will based on your knowledge and conclusions.

Atheism, agnosticism, and theism seem to me to be the acceptable choices that pretty much cover the issue of God’s existence. Unless I am missing something here you don’t get to vote “None of the above” and agnosticism covers a lot of the muddle in between. When she votes does she get to choose, yes, no, and present? Perhaps since she also says she is bisexual maybe she is just covering all the bases – male, female, theism, agnosticism, and theism.

On the other hand I can appreciate a politician caller themselves a “None” to some extent. Too many describe their religion as being something that is not apparent in their actions. I would suspect many more to be in the “None” category or honestly in the atheist/agnostic category. She does replace the only admitted atheist in Congress – Pete Stark.

Every election cycle we get stories about people upset by Catholic voting guides or strong statements from some bishops. The narrative is almost always that “somebody is telling me who to vote for.” The fault is with the bishop or the voting guide.

No doubt one or more of the Israelites griped something to the same effect when Moses delivered the Ten Commandments. “How dare you dictate to me denying my right to (insert favorite sin).”

“The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden.” (G. K. Chesterton)

Now really it is the case that when these guidelines are given regarding moral principles and voting it is not about telling you for whom you can vote for. It would be more accurate to say they help you to determine who you can’t vote for if the candidate meets some disqualifying criteria. In what is mostly a two party system like ours the idea that one candidate is eliminated does not mean that you must choose the other. This is a prudential judgement and act of your conscience where you might decide to go all Don Quixote instead of just choosing the other dominant candidate with whatever certified lesser evil rating.

Those that do get mad about voting guides and staunch bishop statements have been misdirected from the real problem. The real problem is politicians who endorse and cooperate with intrinsic evils. The fact that with Catholic help we are putting forth morally unqualified candidates is a big part of the problem. In one political season we had usually five non-negotiables listed in voting guides. This time around we added religious freedom. It makes me wonder what intrinsic evil we are going to be adding next time?

The reason people get mad about moral guidelines regarding voting is that they are attached more to their political party than to their faith. Go ahead an put your trust in princes.

One of those bishops that party first Catholics get upset about is Archbishop Chaput who recently said:

“We’re Catholics before we’re Democrats. We’re Catholics before we’re Republicans. We’re even Catholics before we’re Americans because we know that God has a demand on us prior to any government demand on us,” … “And this has been the story of the martyrs through the centuries,”

One of the indicators of the party first Catholic is that they will quickly diminish whatever flaws their favorite candidate has. The flaws of their candidate fade in the glare of the other candidate’s flaws. This can also happen with those who choose a candidate not because they really like them, but because they have determined they would be a lesser evil that would more contribute to the common good. In the current political situation I have seen this with some Catholic supporters of Gov. Romney and that even though he was nowhere near their preferred candidate, the also seem to gloss over his flaws. That somehow a lesser evil is just really not all that evil.

I bring this up because in my own political examination of conscience I have to keep reminding myself of this fact. Gov. Romney is a seriously flawed candidate who just really is not a social conservative. His answers to social conservatives are reflexive and don’t really show any serious commitment to the pro-life cause or other important issues regarding the family. I would certainly love to be proved wrong. Now President Obama has done some really bad things, but one more that sticks in my craw is having to support Gov. Romney as a deterrent. While I will give my vote to the Governor, I will not give my soul to him in ignoring his flaws and ignoring any intrinsic evils he does support. It is natural that when we support a candidate we really want to like them even in the case when we are really voting against the other guy. This is one reason I really liked Dale Price’s Romney for President. Sigh. He stated his reason for support while not diminishing serious problems with him.

What is frustrating is that if Gov. Romney does win it means that at least for eight years we are stuck with a morally compromised candidate. If he wins he is the GOP candidate next time and the Democratic candidate next time will no doubt be totally morally unacceptable. The candidates we have available is a case of garbage in garbage out as we go from the Primaries to the General election.

I seriously doubt that within my lifetime in a Presidential election I will ever have a choice between two candidates based totally on prudential decisions. Wow wouldn’t that be nice to not have to choose which candidate supports less intrinsic evils when playing Catholic voting guide Bingo.

The Obama campaign’s new video directed at Catholics.

“The American people should know this: In a changing world, my commitment to protecting religious liberty is and always will be unwavering. As America’s religious diversity grows, we have the chance to reaffirm the pluralism that has defined us as a nation. A pluralism that is expansive enough to protect the rights of all to speak their minds and to follow their conscience.”

That is directed at Catholics who have no idea that they are under attack and that the President cares as much about religious liberty as he does about the massive debt. Though to be fair he might have some care about the political ramifications of the debt that get in the way of him being reelected. You can follow your conscience just as long as it is an Obamafied Catholic Conscience that is formed by the Culture of Death and where the Magisterium might be a cool band name, but nothing else. His idea of pluralism is “We force you to pay for contraception, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs and you will like it because not everybody is Catholic.” A pluralism that ignores actual God-given rights and replaces it with mock-rights. When you pick losers and winners when it comes to rights – you are doing it wrong.

Surely the President is trying to be funny by producing this irony-ladened video – though I’m not laughing.

Via Thomas Peters

When Fidel Castro wanted Elian Gonzalez the Clinton Administration complied.

When the President of Egypt wanted a filmmaker arrested:

Though to be fair he is only being taken in for an “interview” which obviously is an operation involving lots of police officials.

The crafted narrative that some obscure negative film concerning Mohammed and Islam is typical political misdirection. As Ross Douthat amply explains It’s Not About the Video. We are suppose to believe according to the Obama Administration that the assaults on our embassies and subsequent deaths were just crowd dynamics that occurred on the spur of the moment. That somehow directed and coordinated assaults from multiple directions involving rockets was just mad crowds upset about a video on YouTube. “Hey lets go down to the U.S. Embassy and protest that video! Oh and bring a rocket launcher just in case.” The extend they are trying to push this obviously false narrative is frankly sickening. To ensure no blame is attached to them the State Department, Ambassador to the U.N., and the Obama Administration are treating us as fools and lying to us.

The attack on free speech is just another attack on the 1st Amendment by the Obama Administration. The fingerprints on the taking in of this filmmaker have the Justice Department all over it since they were involved in hunting him down. The call by Gen Dempsey to the Florida Pastor Terry Jones is just another branch of this attack amplifying a false narrative. That Muslim-baiter Terry Jones had little or nothing to do with the film is of no concern to an administration that would trample our rights to smooth gened-up bad feelings.

The total incompetence of the President just makes matters worse. Here is a man who probably really thought that his election would smooth over anti-Americanism among the radical Islamists. That really the hatred of America was all about George W. Bush and previous foreign policy. He was not only going to “heal the oceans”, but heal this hatred. That bowing down to foreign dictators and never talking about radical Islam that all the problems would just go away.  That hobnobbing and partying with the Hollywood elite was going to impress Muslims who see the social corruption? Unfortunately the President naiveté was note just limited to him. Sec. Hillary Clinton first responded by saying “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate.” I am not sure what world they are living in, but I heard many people warn that the so-called Arab Spring could turn into the same situation that occurred in Iran in 1979. There were many people that warned about what could happen and indeed did happen.

Remember when Candidate Obama talked about having a “Humble foreign policy”?  I guess that means bragging about killing Bin Laden whenever politically opportune.  They were even chanting it at the Democratic Convention.  I guess killing Bin Laden and killing many radical Islamist via drones has no effect, but a video on YouTube does.

It is sad that when Catholics across the land peaceably demonstrate against the HHS mandate the Obama Administration has no time for them and is totally unwilling to remove one jot or tittle form the mandate.  Yet the pretext for violent riots which kill some of our citizens is met with the hunting down of and anti-Islam filmmaker.  Whatever happened to “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death of your right to say it.” Yet an Ivy League professor called for the mans arrest along with others.  That so many are willing to go along with this sham is a defining point in the direction this country is going.

Mocking of religion is fine, just as long as it is not Islam. Liberal kowtow to radical Islam because a bully respects another bully.  They will raze the 1st Amendment to suit them.  It is even sadder when Google has more of an idea on protecting free speech than the President’s administration has.  If they move to remove anything that insults Islam, the Islamists will move the definition of what insults Islam.  No doubt not accepting that Mohammed is the only messenger is an insult to Islam. Well we have a lot of work to do to make this world a safe place for radical Islamists to keep them in a reality bubble and not have to grow up.