MaCain is not wasting his anti-abortion lead with the choosing of Sarah Palin as Presidential running mate. The Democrats are currently bleeding support from the 25% of American voters who are Catholics (see drop of 11% from July to August).
Those same voters have traditionally determined who wins the Presidency, and with the Democrat's Nancy Pelosi's attempt to justify abortion as an ok Catholic choice, Catholics have over the last week heard strong refutations from their Bishops as to the wrongness of that stance.
The Democrats have attempted to shore up the Catholic vote by Obama's choice of Catholic Joe Biden as his running mate, but Biden also has a real problem with understanding Catholicism's absolute stance on the evil of abortion.
So choosing Sarah Palin is giving Catholic voters in America a real choice between those who would support life and the family and those who would destroy life and the family. Awesome!
Exceptionally good article on the pro-abortion politician issue ~ What does the prayer really say?
Those same voters have traditionally determined who wins the Presidency, and with the Democrat's Nancy Pelosi's attempt to justify abortion as an ok Catholic choice, Catholics have over the last week heard strong refutations from their Bishops as to the wrongness of that stance.
The Democrats have attempted to shore up the Catholic vote by Obama's choice of Catholic Joe Biden as his running mate, but Biden also has a real problem with understanding Catholicism's absolute stance on the evil of abortion.
So choosing Sarah Palin is giving Catholic voters in America a real choice between those who would support life and the family and those who would destroy life and the family. Awesome!
"The inspired choice of Sarah Palin highlights the radical views of Obama- Biden on life and marriage. Catholic voters couldn't have a starker contrast this November," said Burch.Related Links: Palin a natural choice for Catholics ~ MarketWatch
"Catholics, like most Americans, are cautiously optimistic that the troop surge has calmed Iraq. Catholics will naturally turn their attention to which candidate will stand strong on behalf of families," said Burch."Barack Obama is not that candidate. Barack Obama wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. His first act as President has nothing to do with energy or Iraq. He wants to enshrine the right to abortion in federal law by signing the Freedom of Choice Act," said Burch.
"Barack Obama is so extreme on abortion that he thinks that babies who survive an abortion and are miraculously born alive should be refused food and water and be left to die," said Burch.
"John McCain, together with Sarah Palin, is a natural choice for Catholics. McCain has a strong pro-life record and he has made a commitment to selecting judges who will respect the Constitution. McCain has even bucked his own party on immigration and torture. We think these positions align John McCain closer to Catholic teaching and we are proud to stand with him as he prepares for a very difficult election ahead," said Burch.
"The stakes of this election are too large to ignore. Abortion supporters are awaiting the opportunity to eliminate years of progress on pro-life legislation by electing a President who supports abortion. There are six justices on the Supreme Court over the age of 68, and granting President Obama the opportunity to fill possible vacancies would be disastrous. America needs the experienced leadership of John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Exceptionally good article on the pro-abortion politician issue ~ What does the prayer really say?
After reading all that one would have thought she was a Catholic!
ReplyDeleteQuite apart from the abortion issue, I think Sarah Palin is a wonderful choice of running mate.
ReplyDeleteA strong, principled woman with a realistic view of those issues voters have to deal with every day and a fierce opponent of corruption and pork-barreling.
What's not to like?
It's an unending source of depression for me that the leadership of the world's most powerful country is chosen on the basis of peripheral issues like this. I guess if your standard of living's high enough, you can afford to indulge the temptation to devote yourself to trivia.
ReplyDeleteThe murder of the unborn is 'trivial', huh? Well, bring on the trivia, then!
ReplyDeleteThe "murder of the unborn" will continue as always, regardless of the views of the presidential candidates. On that basis, it seems a shameful waste of democratic privilege to base your vote on it.
ReplyDeleteYup--don't waste your vote on moral issues, folks!
ReplyDelete(unless those "moral" issues are such things as gay marriage etc which exercise the left so much)
You truly are a despicable little man PM.
Good article you linked to on NRO Lucyna. I am unaware of the furore over Pelosi's remarks but it just beggars belief that as a practising Catholic she would say “The point is, is that it [when life begins] shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.”
ReplyDeletePsycho Milt - I agree with "The "murder of the unborn" will continue as always, regardless of the views of the presidential candidates. " This is also true even if abortion became illegal.
But I don't think "it seems a shameful waste of democratic privilege to base your vote on it." is fair. Now not voting all is more of 'a shameful waste of democratic privilege' but voting solely based on an issue close to Lucyna's heart means at least she is sending a message even if it doesn't save one life. And if it does save just one life, I am sure that will make Lucyna pretty happy. Afterall: "What ever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me."
Also an interesting commentary from the wdtprs.com link ("Exceptionally good article on the pro-abortion politician issue"). Pelosi's and Biden's comments are regrettable.
ReplyDeleteI make one point though. I don't agree with those who think that such Catholics politicians should have Communion withheld from them. And I say this for 2 reasons. Firstly, while their political views are disappointing, they haven't actually committed abortion, or had their unborn child aborted. And secondly, while these politicians have a stronger influence on legislation, it is not up to these people advocating a refusal give Communion to pass judgment. God will do that. In the meantime these people should recall John 8:7 "Whichever one of you has committed no sin may throw the first stone at her".
KG: your response might make some sense if there weren't just as many American liberals basing their vote on peripheral issues like this as American conservatives. Not everything fits in your little "righties good, lefties bad" box.
ReplyDeletePsycho - you may consider such issues as 'peripheral' or 'trivial' but I think there is some danger in treating them as such. Note this commentary from (Democrat I assume) Glenn Greenwald in March 2006:
ReplyDelete"We hear that Republicans are in serious trouble because of issues such as Iraq, the port controversy, corruption problems, Katrina ineptitude, and a general dissatisfaction with the direction of the country.
All of that may be true, but issues like that are only one level on which these elections are fought and decided. Karl Rove has specialized in winning elections by waging battle on an entirely different level that has little to do with substantive issues and everything to do with cultural symbols and religious divisions -- a level which Democrats want to ignore and seem to be afraid of engaging. But those who want to end the one-party rule under which our country is suffocating have no choice but to engage those levels, and there is no reason at all why they should fear doing so."
How can
ReplyDeleteHow can the unborn be murdered?
ReplyDeleteOn a lighter note, good the see Mexico joining the enlightened nations and keeping god out of the law.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/29/mexico.humanrights
Fugley, it can be via drugs, with forceps that crush the skull and break the body parts and a whole bunch of other ways.
ReplyDeleteAnd I find it interesting that when it comes to discussing ethics and morality you are finding it to be inseparable from God. Interesting that the law should not have an ethical or moral dimension to you.
fugly trapped in a lefty moral muddle, but what else would I expect from a such a lefty troll. Oh look, Donny Osmond Lefty Sean recently sacked from No Minister is lurking over here as well.Oh my why is the left so moronic?
ReplyDelete@ fugley - I suspect the answer to your 'unborn murder' question is - the killing of a human is murder at any stage of life, and a human is alive when unborn. Just different stages of life. Rough analogy would be a tadpole and frog being the same creature, but in different stages of life.
ReplyDelete@ Sean - wouldn't church leaders have a responsibility to refuse communion to those who fundamentally break with their church's teaching? That seems obvious... Another rough analogy - church leaders would surely refuse communion to that US professor who wanted to desecrate a host, right?
Those issues aside, I wonder how much commitment to the pro-life issue Palin will bring if elected. That is, is Palin just window dressing to get the Christian vote out for Republicans?
Of course, she won't have to do much for her pro-gun cause if elected, as they pretty much flood the US already ;(
Squaredrive, I suggest you take a basic course in biology.
ReplyDeleteA tadpole is a living creature in a way that a foetus is not.
A better analogy would be that a foetus is at a similar stage of life to that of the egg that produced the tadpole.
What Ardent Practicing Catholics Do (1)
ReplyDeleteBy Fr. John De Celles, 9/1/2008
"Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is … a grave and clear obligation to oppose them … [I]t is therefore never licit to … "take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it."
In other words: it is always a grave or mortal sin for a politician to support abortion.
Now, some will want to say that these bishops-and I- are crossing the line from Religion into to politics. But it was the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) who started this. The bishops, and I, are not crossing into politics; she, and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians, regularly cross over into teaching theology and doctrine, And it's our job to try clean up their mess.
But there's something more than that here. On Sunday, before the whole nation, she claimed to be an "ardent, practicing Catholic." Imagine if someone came in here and said "I'm a mafia hit man and I'm proud of it." Or "I deal drugs to little children." Or "I think black people are animals and it's okay to make them slaves, or at least keep them out of my children's school."
Are these "ardent practicing Catholics"? No, they are not."
And neither is a person who ardently supports and votes to fund killing 1 to 1.5 million unborn babies every single year. Especially if that person is in a position of great power trying to get others to follow her. Someone, for example, like a Catholic Speaker of the House, or a Catholic candidate for Vice President of the United States, or a Catholic senior Senator who is stands as the leading icon his political party. Like the proud and unrepentant murderer or drug dealer, they are not ardent Catholics. They are, in very plain terms, very bad Catholics."
But the reason I say all this is not because I want to embarrass them or even correct them — they’re not even here. It’s because of you. Because back in the 1850’s when Catholic bishops, priests, and politicians were either silent or on the wrong side of the slavery debate, they risked not only their souls, but the souls of every other Catholic they influenced. I cannot do that, and I won’t do that.
Some would say, well Father, what about those people who support the war in Iraq, or the death penalty, or oppose undocumented aliens? Aren’t those just as important, and aren’t Catholic politicians who support those “bad Catholics” too?
Simple answer: no. Not one of those issues, or any other similar issues, except for the attack on traditional marriage is a matter of absolute intrinsic evil in itself. Not all wars are unjust — and good Catholics can disagree on facts and judgments. Same thing with the other issues: facts are debatable, as are solutions to problems."
-----------
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) "stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows":
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." (2)
(1) "What Ardent Practicing Catholics Do: Correcting Pelosi", National Review Online, 9/1/2008 6:00AM
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTY1MzAwOTc5MmViMzUyYzM5YmY3OWFkYzdkMzY0YzM=
(2) "More Concerned with 'Comfort' than Christ?", Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: Catholic Online, 7/11/2004 http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php NOTE: Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and delivered this with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
sean writes:
ReplyDelete"In the meantime these people should recall John 8:7 'Whichever one of you has committed no sin may throw the first stone at her'."
Well, not exactly. Here are three reviews RE: John 8:7
I. Sister Helen Prejean: “It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical proof text in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus’ admonition “Let him without sin cast the first stone”, when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) - the Mosaic Law prescribed death - should be read in its proper context. This passage is an entrapment story, which sought to show Jesus’ wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment . Sister Helen Prejean, Dead Man Walking.
II. What about the woman caught in adultery?
From “Why I Support Capital Punishment”, by Andrew Tallman
sections 7-11 biblical review, sections 1-6 secular review
andrewtallmanshowarticles.blogspot.com/search?q=Capital+punishment
In John 8:1-11, the Pharisees bring Jesus a woman caught in the act of adultery to see if He will authorize her execution. After He famously says, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her,” they all depart, and Jesus sends the woman on her way, saying, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way; from now on sin no more.” Of all passages in the Bible, this one most clearly shows that Jesus opposed capital punishment.
First, we should note that this passage is textually dubious. The best manuscripts don’t include it, and both its placement and style controvert its authenticity.
Even so, the Christian community has long considered this an iconic story of Jesus’s mercy. So, to merely throw it out would be inappropriate. Besides, it may well be a legitimate story, just not one included in the John autoscript. Hence, an interpretation would be more helpful than a dismissal.
The trouble is that most people wildly misunderstand this story. The Pharisees’ only reason for bringing this woman to Jesus was to put Him in a dilemma. On the one hand, He couldn’t call for her execution since Roman law prohibited anyone other than a Roman court from doing this. The Pharisees proved they knew this when they later brought Jesus to Pilate rather than killing Him themselves. On the other hand, He couldn’t oppose her execution because this would have proven He was a false prophet for contradicting God’s Law. The passage even explains this in verse 6, “they were saying this, testing Him, in order that they might have grounds for accusing Him.”
So, the Pharisees wanted to make Jesus a heretic for opposing capital punishment, but He evaded their trap. The tremendous irony is that now, two thousand years later, people who claim to love Jesus teach that He was precisely the heretic His enemies wanted to paint Him as. If Jesus was in fact repudiating capital punishment in this story, then He was neither the Divine Son of God nor even a true prophet. As I’m apparently more reluctant than others to embrace this conclusion, I can’t interpret Jesus as rejecting the Old Testament here. Had He been, His enemies would have left jubilant rather than ashamed. There are many theories on the meaning of this story, but the one thing we must not do is use it to say Jesus overturned God’s Word as His enemies intended.
III Misuse and misunderstanding of John 8:7 is quite common. See Forgery in the Gospel of John
www(dot)religioustolerance.org/john_8(dot)htm