RT @TWERadio: Vanderbilt University stands firm against campus-ministry groups 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Catholic endorses Obama
Douglas Kmiec, head of legal counsel for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, has endorsed Barack Obama. In a Slate.com article this Sunday, Kmiec reaffirmed his belief that life begins at conception, his support for traditional marriage, his belief in a limited judicial role and in religion’s importance in the public square. Sounds like the beginning of a list of reasons not to back Obama, but Kmiec draws the opposite conclusion:
I am convinced based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.
Andrew Sullivan praises Kmiec’s integrity and open mind, but most conservatives find it hard to see how a president could accommodate both pro-life and pro-abortion positions, or how “understanding” a point of view is relevant if you’re going to oppose it anyway. Powerline blogger Paul Mirengoff deems it “one of the most vacuous statements I’ve ever read,” and Patterico calls it “one of the most puzzling pieces of writing I have ever read.”
Some conservatives, including Shannen Coffin on The Corner, already dismissed Kmiec as “off his rocker” when he published another piece saying Obama was a natural choice for the Catholic Reaganite vote. Like Reagan, Kmiec said, Obama has empathy and a desire to make Americans deserve to feel good about themselves.
Rod Dreher said he just didn’t get it: “I think the guy just loves the feeling Obama gives him … It wouldn’t require so much tortuous logic simply to say, “I’m a Republican who’s sick of the Republicans, and want change. Obama is a likable, decent guy, and I’m willing to take a chance on him.” But as Kmiec has noted before, Catholics do hold views that make them uncomfortable in either party. They’re pro-life, anti-death penalty, often anti-Iraq war, and concerned about global warming.
Will other Catholics follow Kmiec’s lead? So far, they’ve been voting for Hillary Clinton over Obama, but the New York Times says they’re a fickle group: “No other large group has switched sides so often, or been so consistently aligned with the winners.”
back to top34 Comments to “Catholic endorses Obama”
Kmiec has been conned by the best Democrat con-man since Clinton, Barack Obama.
The mark of a con-man: He smiles and says nice things while he picks your pocket or stabs you in the back.
HIs hypnotized victims (Kmiec, et al): I am convinced… [concerning his oppositon]…as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.
After all, he is such a nice man.
Right. If you believe that, among many other things, you also believe he really cares about children when he simultaneously supports their murder in abortion clinics. After all, he is such a nice man.
And your brain has been numbed by his nice words and pleasant smiles.
Report comment to moderator
McCain chased down “Hagee”. He calls the Catholic Church the “whore of Satan” and says Catholics worship the “anti-Christ”.
Does McCain share those views? He must. He sought Hagee’s endorsement. What about Parsley. He says America was created to destroy Muslims. McCain calls him “spiritutal advisor”. Expected.
Report comment to moderator
But he’s one person who happens to be a Catholic. The Catholics voting for Hillary also have no problem with abortion, so I’m not seeing the difference. The Pope would endorse neither one.
Report comment to moderator
Alisa Harris wrote: “Douglas Kmiec… reaffirmed his belief… in religion’s importance in the public square. Sounds like the beginning of a list of reasons not to back Obama…”
No. Obama strongly believes in religion’s importance in the public square.
* Obama told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, recently that the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He thus cited the Word of God to justify and advocate his political policies!
* On October 7, 2007, Obama addressed an evangelical congregation in South Carolina, saying: “I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.” He also asked them to “pray that I can be an instrument of God.”
* In Philadelphia, on March 18th, he said, “In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.” (don’t miss that last line)
I believe in the principles mentioned there, but it concerns me when he talks about being our “brother’s keeper” as a role of the government or a president.
His Christianity is his main motive for using political offices and institutions to move toward a “kingdom of God” and a nanny state in America. he has “Messianic President” syndrome.
Report comment to moderator
In fact, I think millions of Americans also have “Messianic Preisent Syndrome.”
Report comment to moderator
“Kmiec reaffirmed his belief that life begins at conception, his support for traditional marriage, his belief in a limited judicial role and in religion’s importance in the public square.”
World does a disservice to its readers (and to the truth) when it falsely implies that one cannot share Kmiec’s views and support a Democratic candidate. Millions of moderate Democrats hold these views, but remain Democrats because they disagree with the GOP on a whole host of other issues.
I’m not an Obama supporter. Nevertheless, Harris is also disingenuous in referring to his views on abortion as “pro-abortion.” Merely because a candidate is not pro-criminalization does not imply that the candidate is pro-abortion. The anti-abortion movement could do us all a better service by articulating its policy positions with greater specificity and particularity, including using terminology (e.g., pro-criminalization) that accurately comports with the group’s policy agenda.
Report comment to moderator
Is it any wonder? After what Hagee said about Catholics? I know. Who cares? He IS white.
Report comment to moderator
—-Hey, how come no one is talking about Hagee?
NEW YORK, N.Y. (Catholic League) – Mounting criticism of Sen. John McCain’s refusal to denounce Pastor John Hagee’s anti-Catholicism continued yesterday.
In addition to the Catholic League, several other Catholic groups criticized the Republican presidential nominee. Joining in the criticism was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party of Georgia, columnists, bloggers and religious websites. Tonight Bill Moyers will air a show on the controversy.
When asked about this issue yesterday, McCain said the following: “Pastor Hagee endorsed me. That does not mean I endorse everything Pastor Hagee said. All I can say is lots and lots of people endorse me. That means they embrace my ideas and positions. It does not mean I endorse them.”
—-Hey, read this again from McCain, “Pastor Hagee endorsed me. That does not mean I endorse everything Pastor Hagee said.” Sound familiar? This is what Obama said about Wright.
—-Hagee said the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Satan”. Hagee said the Catholics worship the “anti-Christ”. Did Wright say anything even close to this? No.
—-McCain refuses to distance himself from Hagee.
—-Number of conservatives on the WMB that criticize McCain for seeking the endorsement of Hagee? Zero.
—-Number of conservatives on the WMB that say “so what” when it comes to Hagee? Most if not all.
—-Number of conservatives on the WMB that see a double standard? Zero.
—-Does that suprise me? No.
Report comment to moderator
KIYOSHI wrote; “Merely because a candidate is not pro-criminalization does not imply that the candidate is pro-abortion.”
Would you say that about slavery? A lot of advocates for legalized slavery during the Civil War also did not want to be considered “pro-slavery.” But they were.
If Obama is not pro-abortion then the South was not pro-slavery.
Report comment to moderator
I would day that Messianic President Syndrome would definitely apply to the Bush fanatics, of which there are more than a few on here.
Fact is, Catholics vote all over the map. While there have been attempts to dictate to them that they have to vote Republican, the people in the pews have pulled the lever for politicians from both parties.
Of more interest to me is the fact that a former Reagan and Bush supporter is voting for Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, according to Hagee, the Catholic Church is the whore of Satan.
Report comment to moderator
Both Clinton and McCain are Judas’s to the American people…
“It’s tag-teaming Burson-Marsteller style.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/24/14518/22 13/544/463202
An excerpt…
Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist is Mark Penn, and Charlie Black, John McCain’s top adviser, is chairman of BKSH, the DC-based lobbying subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller — of which Mark Penn is CEO.
Yes, this is the same lobbyist Barack Obama was referring to when he criticized John McCain for allowing lobbyists to conduct their business on board his bus.
BKSH is a bipartisan lobbying firm. Black, the chairman is the top Republican. The top Democrat is R. Scott Pastrick, who like Penn, supports Hillary Clinton.
Mark Penn’s personal interests would clearly be best served by a Hillary Clinton victory.
A McCain presidency wouldn’t be a bad consolation prize, however. It would be far better to have the head of his lobbying be tight with the president than to have a president like Obama who sought to impose new restrictions on his lobbyist operation.
Both Clinton and McCain are Judas’s to the American people…
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #6: Would you say that about slavery? A lot of advocates for legalized slavery during the Civil War also did not want to be considered “pro-slavery.” But they were.
If Obama is not pro-abortion then the South was not pro-slavery.
If you want to use the Socratic Method, it’s better not to telegraph what you expect the answer will be before the person answers.
The difference is that the slave is very obviously a person. The personhood of the fetus is not so obvious.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Actually, in our history, the personhood of black slaves was, to some (sad to say), not so obvious. Even some Supreme Court members did not think it was so obvious as they acknowledged only two/thirds of their personhood.
And it is just as absurd to regard the baby in the womb as anything less than human too.
But with slavery (regarding humans as mere property), at least they let them stay alive.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.catholic.org
COMMENTARY: God is Not a Republican or a Democrat: But I Disagree with Doug Kmiec’s Endorsement.
By Deacon Keith A. Fournier
3/25/2008
Catholic Online
God has called each one of us into this real world, a world which he fashioned, and given to us the capacity to exercise our human freedom for the good. We make our choices and in those choices we change ourselves, as well as the world around us, for better or for worse. One of our choices is how we choose to govern ourselves and whether we will do so for the common good.
LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) – Today, I was greeted with the news that Doug Kmiec, a top notch pro-life Constitutional lawyer and a man whom I deeply admire for having stood for the rights of an entire class of persons, children in the womb, when so many have failed to hear their cry, has made a Presidential endorsement.
Professor Kmiec holds the distinguished Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University. He is a legal scholar of the highest order. He is also a dedicated and sincere Catholic Christian.
He has an accomplished record of public service. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He is the former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, and was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.
So, who did Professor Kmiec endorse?
Senator Barack Obama. His decision is sending shock waves throughout the Pro-Life community. (Read Doug Kmiec Article on Catholic Online)
I wanted to get out ahead of this story before all the discussion, both charitable and uncharitable, began. I also wanted to use it as a framework for a broader discussion. So, I grabbed your attention with this title, didn’t I?
I will probably get a lot more than just attention. I am sure I will receive angry E-Mails. Political discussion is all getting so, well, “un-civil” and we have not even made it through both major party conventions. I am tired of the stridency, the talking heads and the messiness of it all! I am also tired of the unelected talk radio hosts who have appointed themselves as the new oracles and I can barely listen to their wasted words.
Let me make myself and the title of this article a bit clearer, “God is not a Republican or a Democrat”. Nor is He a member of the Constitution Party, the Libertarian party… or any of a growing number of political “alternatives” that reflect a growing dissatisfaction with both major political parties.
Nor can God be placed within the numerous categories bandied about these days in the kind of “Balkanized” landscape of political discourse. You know the labels like “liberal”, “conservative”, neo-conservative”, “neo-liberal”, “paleo-conservative”, or any permutation of them.
Political parties are our creation, not God’s.
In fact, it seems like the political labels we currently use in our public conversation go through a change almost every twenty years. Yesterdays “liberal” is today’s “neo-conservative”. Or, are they actually? Most of yesterdays’ “liberals” would have opposed the initial decision to enter into Iraq with no justification.The “neo-conservatives rattled their verbal swords and led the charge. So, are yesterdays “liberals” more like the “paleo-conservatives”?
Well, you see the problem with all these labels.
God has called each one of us into this real world, a world which he fashioned, and given to us the capacity to exercise our human freedom for the good. We make our choices and in those choices we change ourselves, as well as the world around us, for better or for worse. One of our choices is how we choose to govern ourselves and whether we will do so for the common good.
We who live in this wonderful Nation call the United States of America will soon be faced with one of the most important choices in my lifetime, electing the next President of the United States. This is an election of particular importance for Christians because of the issues that most of us hold as vital to a truly just and humane society.
Over the years I have come to group those issues in categories around what I call “four pillars of social participation”; the dignity of every human life (from conception through to natural death), the primacy of true marriage and family (as the first vital cell of all civil society as well as the first church, first government, first school, first economy and first mediating institution); authentic and responsible human and religious freedom; and our obligations in solidarity with all the poor and the needy.
I have worked for decades to encourage Christians, indeed all people of faith and good will, to build a more just and human society around these four pillars. I have participated in, and helped to build, movements and associations oriented toward this vital work because I have long believed and proclaimed that my faith compels me to live a unity of life.
I reject the so-called “private/public” dichotomy of some Catholics and other Christians in public life as heresy. My faith is profoundly personal but it is radically and fundamentally public. It is not a coat that I put on when I enter a Church building but rather a center from which I live and a lens through which I view all of human and social existence. There simply are objective moral truths that must guide truly human behavior and authentically free and just social community life.
For example, the position I hold on the right to life and the dignity of every human life at every age and stage is NOT, in the first instance, a “religious” position; it is a human rights position and I know that it must become the polestar of all good public policy. Without the right to life and the freedom to be born, as well as the further right to live a full life and die a natural death, unimpeded by euthanasia, passive or active, there simply are no other rights or human freedoms.
If human freedom becomes reduced to a notion of doing whatever one “chooses”, including the intentional killing of children in the womb, the elderly, the “dependent”… it has been ripped away from its true meaning and reduced to some fabricated “right” to exercise a raw power over others.
This counterfeit definition of freedom of “choice” as a right to do what is wrong will not promote true freedom. It will inevitably lead us all to a new and profane form of slavery.It has already effectively consigned an entire class of human persons, children in the first home of their mothers womb, to the status of property to be disposed of.
Like most folks, I have tried to use my prudential judgment in exercising a treasured right, the right to vote as an American citizen. I believe that there is a hierarchy of values which should be applied in the application of this kind of judgment. I have sought to order the issues in deciding for whom I would vote. Of course, I will do so once again this vital election year.
However, it is getting increasingly difficult to live through the political chicanery and reinvention, the glitz and image, and the increasingly hostile responses of even good people to the growing hostility of our political dialogue and climate.
For example, every morning I receive several missives (that is what they are) by E-Mail telling me why one party is “evil” and implying the other party is somehow “good”. Frankly, I am growing sick of them all.
To any political “experts” reading this article, I am a “swing” voter. I write this article to give some insights into the issues that will determine my vote. Maybe the so called “experts” will pay some attention.
I officially left the party called Democratic years ago. The last Democrat that I enthusiastically supported was Governor Bob Casey. I could not be associated with a party that claimed to care for the poor and failed to hear the cry of the “poorest of the poor” children in the womb. Though I never “officially” switched my registration, I have been “lumped” with the other major party called “Republican.”
I have seriously considered trying to launch a new party, one that is pro-life, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-peace and pro-poor. I am still leaning heavily in that direction.Maybe some of the readers of this column have had similar thoughts.
I am whole life, pro-life. I absolutely oppose the taking of innocent human life in the first home of the entire human race, the womb. Science has confirmed what our conscience has long known; the child in the womb is out neighbor. It is always and everywhere intrinsically evil to take innocent human life. Senator Obama is wrong in his support of legalized abortion. It is also intrinsically evil to “manufacture” human embryonic life to then kill that life for spare parts.Senator McCain is wrong in his support for deadly research on human embryonic life.
I also oppose capital punishment, though on different moral grounds. I accept the refined teaching of the Catholic Catechism and the modern encyclical letters that insist it is no longer defensible in the West because it is no longer necessary to protect or preserve and promote the common good. Bloodless means are available to protect society and “punish” the criminal.
Also, as a former prosecutor, I know that there is simply no doubt that mistakes have been made in its application and we have executed the innocent. So, I believe that mercy should trump justice. Vengeance is never ours.
Marriage must be defended and protected from the current assault against the institution. Marriage is what it is and we all know it. There is a word used in Philosophical and theological discourse to speak about the nature of things. It is the word “ontology”. It refers to the essence of something. There is an “ontology” to marriage.
A cabbage is not a rock. A dog is not a human person. Homosexual relationships and the sexual acts accompanying such relationships cannot ever constitute a marriage. They are not capable of being open to the fullness of the love that is at the foundation of the unitive nature of marriage and for which even our bodies are constituted, that is the total gift of self to the other in faithful, lifelong love. Nor can such sexual acts, or the relationships formed around them, ever be procreative, open to new life in children. Social groupings built on such relationships are also not families.
There is an intense effort underway to categorize those who still support this objective reality as uncaring, bigoted or antiquated. We are not. Marriage and the family founded upon it are the future of freedom. Redefining marriage and family will not help anyone, including those who are self defined homosexuals. It is also destructive of the social order. Marriage and the family built upon it is the solid foundation of civil society. It is the first vital cell of that society.
Of course all persons must be treated with human dignity and not be discriminated against and that includes homosexual persons. However, there are other ways to protect against discrimination than the current efforts to redefine the fundamental social institution of marriage, the defining cornerstone of our social order.
To destroy marriage through redefining the word in some verbal form of alchemy, especially under the guise of “tolerance”, is dangerous and corrosive to the common good and horribly intolerant of those who feel as I do.
I opposed the pre-emptive war in Iraq. I rejected then- and still reject – any notion of a “pre-emptive” war as ever being acceptable under any analysis of the Just war teaching within the catholic tradition. Like all Americans, I believe that prudence and justice now require that we assist the people of Iraq in their hour of great need.
I do not see all that much difference between the two major parties on how we must act going forward in Iraq. Rather, there is a debate over whether we should ever have gone in. Perhaps this may speak to judgment, but I find the discussion to be wearying.
Now, a word to probably well intended Republicans; repeatedly telling people like me that one candidate opposed the war in Vietnam, as if that fact would make people like me feel more negatively disposed to him simply because of that, is not helping you with us.
I opposed that war also!
In fact, I marched in Washington against the Vietnam War. That’s right! I am a former “hippie” of sorts. My desire back then to reject materialism and unjust war was sincere. I believe it helped me to continue to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit and come home to the faith of my early childhood as a young man.
I believe the Catholic Faith is the fullness of the Christian faith and, when truly lived, is to actually be the true “counter-culture”, intended by its prophetic presence in the world to act as a leavening agent in the loaf of human culture.
Perhaps some of my ‘conservative” or “neo-conservative” colleagues have either forgotten their opposition to that Vietnam war or they have morphed into some sort of “Alex B Keaton” kind of “conservative from birth” caricature. I have not. War is always horrible and must be strictly evaluated according to an authentic application of the principles of the “just war” analysis.
At the outset of this last war, under the leadership of our last great Pope, John Paul II, the Church opposed the incursion into Iraq. Our current Pope has taken the same position. The efforts to change the mind of the Servant of God John Paul II by neo-conservative Michael Novak were ineffective. he actually went to Rome on some kind of lobbying mission.
Anyone who says that the Church did not oppose the intiail foray into Iraq is simply wrong, or engaged in verbal gymnastics masquerading as prudential judgment.
I am deeply concerned that in the wealthiest Nation on earth we still have not solved the real health care crisis. I personally dread the idea of a “nationalized” solution because big Government has not proven itself to be very efficient nor is it very good at compassion and care. That is part of why I have so strongly supported the “faith based” and community initiative of the current administration as a part of fulfilling our national obligation to the poor.
Churches and religious institutions ARE good at compassion and care and need to be seen as partners in solidarity! The principle of subsidiarity which holds that government is best when it is closest to those being governed and the principle of solidarity that reminds us of our obligations to one another and that we are our “brothers (and sisters) keeper” have found a wonderful meeting place in this great new (really quite old) initiative. It is fresh, creative public policy.
We MUST now find the creative solutions to providing health care for all Americans. We can not selay any longer. The “market” will not solve this crisis without leadership. I have an ever increasing disdain for what is called in catholic Social teaching an “economism”, an approach to economic issues which somehow posits “freedom” as best advanced through a kind of economic Darwinism.
Freedom is a good of the person.
Our market economy is a tremendous vehicle for freedom but it must always be placed at the service of the person, the family and the common good. We simply MUST hear the cry of the poor! We cannot ascribe to a notion of an “invisible hand” which may, if not guided, strangle the poor.
Expanding economic participation to all is a vital part of making sure that “free” is the operative description before the phrase market economy! That must be true in our international economic relationships as well.
You can see just from what I have written thus far, that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, neither “liberal” nor “conservative.” I am, however, very politically engaged. I am also not ready to join any of the current “Third Party” efforts, though, as mentioned,I have “flirted” with the notion of starting one, based on the great principles of Catholic Social teaching. I feel that it will throw away my vote at this time.
I also cannot “opt” to “not vote” -as a growing number of people whom I respect are choosing to do.
I will vote. Here is one of the main reasons why.
The next occupant of the Whitehouse will choose at least one Supreme Court Justice. That choice will, at least in this Constitutional lawyers mind, determine whether the current “culture of death” hiding under the profane precedent of Roe v Wade will take another generation of our children before they are able to breathe our air and be welcomed into our family.
The next President will be called upon to provide the genuinely moral leadership so desperately needed to prevent the new cultural revolutionaries from eliminating marriage and family from its favored social status by equalizing homosexual and heterosexual relationships outside of marriage and using the power of the State to enforce this new order.
The next President will be called upon to extract our troops from Iraq, while also ensuring that the Iraqi people, who have suffered so greatly from the War and what led up to it, are given the help they need to rebuild from the devastation of the last five years.
The next President will have an opportunity to solve the health care crisis, expand economic opportunity, bring our troops home from Iraq with honor and dignity and continue to open up our market, and our National embrace to the poor in all of their manifestations.
This is an extraordinarily important election.
God is not a Republican, nor is God a Democrat….and, neither am I. However, I will continue to follow this campaign with great interest. I hope we all do. And, I will vote. There is too much at stake.
On many important public policy issues I agree with my friend Professor Doug Kmiec. I also admire him and believe that he is sincerely pro-life. However, I respectfully and strongly disagree with his decision to support Senator Barack Obama.
In the application of issues in accordance with the hierarchy of values, I choose to hear the cry of the ones whom Blessed Teresa of Calacutta called the “poorest of the poor”, the children living in the wombs of their mothers. After all, they have no voice but ours.
Report comment to moderator
Obama was one of the few who refused to ban partial birth abortion. If he really believes that life begins at conception, he could not condone abortion. He certainly could not condone the murder of a fully-formed child…yet he does! Vote for McCain. He is not a true conservative, but he believes in life and will work to defend us against Islam.
Report comment to moderator
THE OBAMA AND THE LAWYER
“The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright —
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.
The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done —
“It’s very rude of him,” she said,
“To come and spoil the fun.”
The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead —
There were no birds to fly.
The Obama and the Lawyer
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
`If this were only cleared away,’
They said, `it would be grand!’
`If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year,
Do you suppose,’ the Obama said,
`That they could get it clear?’
`I doubt it,’ said the Lawyer,
And shed a bitter tear.
`O Christians, come and walk with us!’
The Obama did beseech.
`A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each.’
The eldest Christian looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Christian winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head —
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the Christian-bed.
But four young Christians hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat —
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn’t any feet.
Four other Christians followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more —
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.
The Obama and the Lawyer
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Christians stood
And waited in a row.
`The time has come,’ the Obama said,
`To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings.’
`But wait a bit,’ the Christians cried,
`Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!’
`No hurry!’ said the Lawyer.
They thanked him much for that.
`A loaf of bread,’ the Obama said,
`Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed —
Now if you’re ready, Christians dear,
We can begin to feed.’
`But not on us!’ the Christians cried,
Turning a little blue.
`After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!’
`The night is fine,’ the Obama said.
`Do you admire the view?
`It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!’
The Lawyer said nothing but
`Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf —
I’ve had to ask you twice!’
`It seems a shame,’ the Obama said,
`To play them such a trick,
After we’ve brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!’
The Lawyer said nothing but
`The butter’s spread too thick!’
`I weep for you,’ the Obama said:
`I deeply sympathize.’
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
`O Christians,’ said the Lawyer,
`You’ve had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?’
But answer came there none —
And this was scarcely odd, because
They’d eaten every one.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean – Has McCain attended Hagee’s church for the last 20 years? No.
You are being blatantly dishonest here. Or you are woefully misinformed. Or you are a moron.
By your standards, Obama should be getting labasted for Farrakan’s misdeeds (Farrakan/Obama being in a more analogous position to Hagee/McCain).
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
You, like most anti-abortion sycophants, choose to sidestep the policy question that is central to the abortion debate.
Obama, like many of us who are pro-choice, favors policy measures that would discourage abortion. Thus, we are not “pro-abortion.” We simply don’t believe that the use of criminal sanctions to discourage abortion is consistent with the policy objectives of criminal law. Even conservative criminal law scholars tend to agree.
But the anti-abortion crowd has become utterly obsessed with the one policy option that Roe/Casey has taken off the table. It makes many of us wonder whether evangelical “pro-lifers” are really interested in preserving life, or if they’re primarily interested in meting out punishment upon the non-evangelicals among them.
Report comment to moderator
Ah: Kiyosha’s pro-Death diatribe: The reduction of the act of delivering a fullterm child and jabbing a sharp instrument into her brain into – a POLICY ISSUE.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi wrote; “You, like most anti-abortion sycophants, choose to sidestep the policy question that is central to the abortion debate.”
Ahh, I merely stated a point of view. I perceived you trying to spin the issue with twisted terms of your choosing. Nice try, but I don’t buy it.
As far as policy goes, it is unconstitutional to defy the will of the people and use the force of federal law to mandate the legality of infanticide on every state in the union regardless of the will of the citizens. Drop Roe v wade and let the people decide on the policies we apply to abortion.
Again, if Obama is not pro-abortion, then the South was not pro-slavery.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #20: As far as policy goes, it is unconstitutional to defy the will of the people and use the force of federal law to mandate the legality of infanticide on every state in the union regardless of the will of the citizens. Drop Roe v wade and let the people decide on the policies we apply to abortion.
South Dakota did that in 2006 and the voters refused to criminalize abortion.
Do you accept the will of the citizens there?
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi is right, by the way. The problem with the “pro-life” contingent is their refusal to accept anything short of a total ban.
You reject those ideas that would reduce the number of abortions and demand a 100 percent solution that is not going to come for many years, if ever. That leads one to conclude that you’re more interested in being “right” than in working toward a real improvement. I’ve made this point before as well.
Joel Mark: Slaves counted as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of determining the number of Representatives a state could send to the House and how many votes it got in the Electoral College. It was a compromise between opponents of slavery (who didn’t want the slaves counted at all) and slavery advocates (who wanted them to count one-for-one) worked out in 1787.
The actual formulation is not that the slave is three-fifths of a person, but that taxes and Representatives are to be determined based on the number of free persons and “three-fifths of all other persons.” (That is, the count was three-fifths of the slave population, not that each slave was viewed as less than a full person.) That’s in Article One, Section Two of the Constitution if you want to look it up.
The debate was over how much power the slave-holding states should have. Because the slaves couldn’t vote, opponents of slavery argued that the slave states would be disproportionately powerful if they counted. It was not a slight to the personhood of the slave at all.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg prates that Kiyosha is ‘right’ – because it is somehow incumbent on pro-lifers to work with the death merchants to refine and make more efficient their killing fields.
The stinking hypocrisy of these pro-death individuals is exposed in a number of ways, but most plainly here by their unwavering and nauesating support for Obama – who has and continues to support ALL abortions, up to and including the live birth and subsequent brain-impalement of healthy screaming children. He (on this issue) even makes Hillary Clinton look better, if that can be imagined. And demands that we (the taxpayer) pay for it out of coerced taxation as well.
Come, let us sit down and reason together – let us COMPROMISE, find COMMON GROUND, they say, even as the saws are whining behind the clean neat facades of the abortion ‘clinics’ and the still twitching limbs are dropping into the bloody buckets.
If you work with us, they whisper, perhaps – just perhaps – we can REDUCE a bit the 100,000,000 abortions a year on this blood-soaked globe. Maybe to . . . 95,000,000 abortions.
So – if you just shut up about the 95,000,000 butchered, you can have bragging rights on the 5,000,000 ‘fetuses’ saved ; what a deal. We still get to kill, and you can feel good that you compromised. A real win-win scenario for a generation and a race that has sold its soul for nothing.
So there are 10% less death carts trundling to the Place of Execution. 10% less bodies to deal with. 10% less screaming victims. 10% less Jews to gas. 10% less Kulaks to starve.
Accept 90% of absolute evil and absolute evil will gladly reimburse you the 10% difference.
And the problem is, of course, that there is no 10% here. Again, just look at Obama’s unwavering and slavish support of the abortion butchers business – he has never seen a procedure in which a child is killed in an abortion clinic that he does not support. And we can rest assured that he will not disappoint his handlers now – or if by some incredible ill chance he becomes President of the United States.
I have little patience with those like Steveg and Kiyosha who, on this issue, refuse to just state what they actually support – and to be honest about what they support, and not to try to nuance away the murder in the business of chopping up a child, and then get on with the nasty business of furthering and supporting it as best as they can.
Report comment to moderator
Where are the Democratic ideas to reduce or discourage abortion that have been rejected out of hand by unreasonable conservatives? I’m looking for the really good ones, the ones proven to have an effect.
What’s a shame is that the Democratic party should be known for such ideas, but lost its way decades ago.
Report comment to moderator
Drill at #24:
The stinking hypocrisy of these pro-death individuals is exposed in a number of ways, but most plainly here by their unwavering and nauesating support for Obama – who has and continues to support ALL abortions, up to and including the live birth and subsequent brain-impalement of healthy screaming children.
Uh huh. What is your source for this smear?
Have it your way, Drill. I’d say reducing the number of abortions by half would be a good thing.
Your all-or-nothing attitude ensures that nothing will change.
Congratulations on being part of the problem.
Report comment to moderator
Serious George at #25:
Where are the Democratic ideas to reduce or discourage abortion that have been rejected out of hand by unreasonable conservatives? I’m looking for the really good ones, the ones proven to have an effect.
Comprehensive sex education.
Access to contraception, even for teenagers.
Public assistance for pre-natal care and adoption services.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg:
Obama, as you well know, supports the euphemistically labeled ‘procedure’ known as ‘partial birth abortion’, which in fact represents the most barbarous and completely indefensible of abortion ‘procedures’. He has received the coveted 100% rating from both main pro-death groups NARAL and PP and has been labeled as the most pro-abort major candidate for the Presidency of the US ever – this by both friends and foes. He was the single hold out on a bill designed to ensure help to LIVING ALREADY BORN AND VIABLE children from botched abortions – and has adroitly blocked similar legislation in the US Senate. His extreme pro-death positions on abortion make Hillary Clinton look almost wholesome, if that were possible.
You know all this and yet you pretend he is something other than he is – and unfortunately you with him.
Sorry. The problem is not what you pretend. The problem is people who would nuance murder. Period.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:
Trouble is, Obama’s not running on those ideas. Hillary begins to address them, but stops short of anything she can be held to.
Some are reasonable proposals, and have a degree of evidence for effectiveness (I think the educational arm of it is pretty weak). But no doubt you see that they each represent a potential impasse for large segments of the population. The most likely effective way to reduce unwanted pregnancy short of abstinence is consistent use of contraception. Can you imagine even the relatively liberal brand of American Catholics rallying behind a pro-contraception platform? Even Obama won’t do this, and if he has to address the topic, uses vague terms like “expansion of access” with no particular plan in mind. In fact, abortion doesn’t even show up on his radar except when as an issue where he can confirm his bonafides with pro-choice activists (googling “abortion site:barackobama.com” is illuminating in this regard)
So we can talk ideals, or we can talk about the realities on the ground around us. Looking around I can still honestly ask: Where are the Democratic ideas? Who’s really taking a believable stand to reduce the number of abortions and running to the polls with it. I know there are prolife (d)emocrats, but the (D)emocratic party is simply not convincing.
Report comment to moderator
“Do you accept the will of the citizens there?”
Sure. And my point about Roe v Wade also stands.
Report comment to moderator
Serious George at #29: Some are reasonable proposals, and have a degree of evidence for effectiveness (I think the educational arm of it is pretty weak). But no doubt you see that they each represent a potential impasse for large segments of the population. The most likely effective way to reduce unwanted pregnancy short of abstinence is consistent use of contraception. Can you imagine even the relatively liberal brand of American Catholics rallying behind a pro-contraception platform?
That’s precisely the point, though.
I understand many people have a hard time embracing these measures; but I also understand that these things would improve the situation, but not provide a total end to abortion.
The logical conclusion of this is that those people who insist on nothing less than a total ban are actually the least “pro-life” side of the argument.
Some of us say: It’s better to have 75 percent as many abortions next year as we did this year.
The “pro-life” people say: If we can’t ban it altoegther, we’ll have the same number next year as this year and that’s fine with us.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg wrote; “The problem with the “pro-life” contingent is their refusal to accept anything short of a total ban.”
That is, of course, totally false.
We wanted to put a stop to live-birth or partial-birth abortions, and Clinton vetoed that three times. Had he supported that measure, many abortions would have still been legal (sadly) in the USA. Obama will not relent even in the case of live-birth abortions. The intransigence is on the “pro-choice” left. They often refuse to brook even the most reasonable controls or compromises.
The pro-abortion left tries to stop even laws that call for a 24-hour waiting period for a minor to get an abortion.
The “pro-choice” left tries to stop even laws that call for counseling before young girls get an abortion.
The pro-abortion left resists laws that would at least call for parents of minors to be informed, let alone getting permission, before they can get an abortion. But girls do need parental permission to get an asprin from a school office.
___________
SteveG wrote; “It was not a slight to the personhood of the slave at all.”
Laughable! That they were counted as 3/5th a person? You beat everything, SteveG.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #32: SteveG wrote; “It was not a slight to the personhood of the slave at all.”
Laughable! That they were counted as 3/5th a person? You beat everything, SteveG.
As I already explained, they were NOT counted as 3/5 of a person.
The total population of the state was officially calculated using three-fifths of the total number of slaves to apportion Congressional representation.
Don’t play dumb on this, JM. The purpose was to keep the slave states from being over-represented in Congress, not to diminish the humanity of the slave.
It’s not even a debate. History speaks for itself.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
The whole slavery argument back then was greased by many with the presumption that blacks were less than human. And that is how the Supreme Court decision was seen and how it was taken and used. And that is my point. Al Gore took it that way too. Social Darwinists claimed the prestige of science for the argument that blacks were less human than caucasians. All to justify racism and slavery.
And today, we question the humanity of human beings about to be born. Hardly a difference, though with slavery, at least the dehumanized human beings were allowed to live.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!