Will voting for Liberals lower poverty, unemployment and the deficit?

[Al_Moritz]

Here’s a quote from Pope Benedict’s book, Without Roots.

“In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine, and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.”

Thanks for that. I checked, and it’s true. Source:

firstthings.com/article/2008/04/europe-and-its-discontents—50

But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.

(Essay ‘Europe and Its Discontents’ by Pope Benedict XVI, in the book ‘Without Roots’)

 

[Pugsly]

We know the answer as far a lowering abortion

St Paul warns against adopting a worldly philosophy that has a form of godliness but denies the power thereof. Liberalism…or (I call it) Leftism is just such a philosophy. And, many Catholics in the West have melted into the secular “religion” of Leftism today.

What is Leftism? Leftism is primarily a way of seeing a world that evolved randomly, with no apparent purpose or meaning, a world “red in tooth and claw”, and reacting in ways that keep one SAFE. It is, therefore, a fear-based philosophy. Leftism “knows” that there is no overarching creator or created order or moral code to restrain the manipulations of men. There is an exhilerating sense of liberty here, we are free to do whatever we want! That’s also the problem…we are also free to harm each other without restraint. Thus, Leftist tend to divide the world between the Dangerous (manipulators and the stupid people who empower them)…and…the Empathetic.
Leftism has 3 empathetic responses to such a dangerous, god-free world.

1. Survival ethic…there is no morality higher than my survival. There is certainly no cause worth dying for and few things worth suffering. Many Leftists sincerely want to rid the world of sharp edges. Hence, health and safety concerns explode as Leftism takes over. We get rubberized playgrounds, no smoking (even outdoors) laws, food labeling worries and even mayors telling us how big a soda we can drink. One school actually threw a lil girls home-packed lunch in the trash as unhealthy.
2. Victim ethic…with no overarching moral basis to keep us from manipulating each other, the Strong rule the day unless the Weak can herd together and control them. Thus, Leftism encourages herding into groups to control the forces of manipulation. Victim groups explode under Leftism–we get defensive racial groupings, defensive women groups and organizations, people with disabilities band together, gay groups, teenage acne support groups…etc. Leftism sees a world that is out to manipulate and abuse UNLESS we band together to keep the Strong in check. Thus, there is a great fear of big business, big banks, people with big money…heck…these people fear WALMART.
3. Nature ethics…if all the world really did evolve randomly and without apparent order…then all of Nature is equal. There really is no difference between killing a dolphin and a baby boy…everything is of equal meaning and worth. Thus, Nature ethics is composed of an absolutely flat view of reality and despises hierarchical views of reality for two reasons. One, all of our Natural world is either equally meaningless or sacred TOGETHER. Two, seeing a “created order” and a natural “hierarchy” is obviously a manipulative view of the Strong.
   Now, Christians buy into Leftism for a lot of reasons. I think the most compelling is that the Bible tells us to care for the “anawim” (a Hebrew word for the “poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger in your land”. Caring for the anawim (the weak) is what Leftism seems to be concerned.

Now…your question as to wether Liberalism…(or Leftism)…will actually help the anawim is a good one. Historically, Leftism has led to immense human misery…not peace. The Obama record is to inflate the currency and borrow trillions to give the illusion that we can have MORE goodies…and the whole thing is going to collapse into misery soon enough…with Republicans getting the blame from a Leftist media no doubt.

 

[estesbob]

Thanks for that. I checked, and it’s true. Source:

firstthings.com/article/2008/04/europe-and-its-discontents—50

But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.

(Essay ‘Europe and Its Discontents’ by Pope Benedict XVI, in the book ‘Without Roots’)

Surely you are not suggesting there is anything even remotely similar between the Democratic Socialism of the 18th century and the agenda of the modern Left???

 

[Al_Moritz]

Surely you are not suggesting there is anything even remotely similar between the Democratic Socialism of the 18th century and the agenda of the modern Left???

Now, if you would care to explain the difference, or alleged difference, between the Democratic Socialism of the 18th century and the modern one?

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Surely you are not suggesting there is anything even remotely similar between the Democratic Socialism of the 18th century and the agenda of the modern Left???

You again have missed the point entirely. The democratic party is not the democratic socialism party. Certainly you read the quote from the Pope’s book?

“In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals.”

Incase people didn’t know this, the Republican party is comprised mostly of Protestants.

It seems to me (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) that there’s this justification for conservative/Republican policies that don’t involve abortion/contraception, etc. As if, because they are right on those issues, they automatically are right on every other issue. This is wrong. You shouldn’t use God to justify your political inclinations.

Also, the dominant parties, while comprised of individuals, works as a collective, and should be judged as such.

This is copied verbatim from the book Life in Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, printed by ACTA publishing. Section 33, bullet 16, p 249

"What are the acts of mercy?

The works of mercy are: to feed the hungry, to admonish the sinner, to give drink to the thirsty, to instruct the ignorant, to clothe the naked, to counsel the doubtful, to visit those in prison, to comfort the sorrowful, to shelther the homeless, to bear wrongs patiently, to visit the sick, to forgive all injuries, to bury the dead, to pray for the living and the dead.

Often we fail to see opportunities to practice the works of mercy because we fail to understand them properly. ‘The naked’ are not only those who have no clothes at all but also those who do not have enough clothes. ‘The homeless’ are not only displaced persons but also families who cannot find a decent place to live because landlords refuse to rent to couples with childern or to people of certain races.

The words of St John, ‘If someones who has wordly means sees a brother [or sister] in need and refuses…compassion, how can the love of God remain in [that person]? - 1 Jn 3:17’, apply to nations as well as individuals. Yet today there are countries where abject poverty is so widespread as to be the rule, countries which need financial and technical aid in order to feed and cloth their people. Christians, mindful of these words of St. John, may not close their eyes to such conditions nor condone a policy of apathy or opposition to measures which would help those in need in these counties"

~

You cannot justify voting for Republicans on moral grounds, because they are immoral also. THERE IS MORE THAN TWO PARTIES, PEOPLE. IT’S NOT A CHOICE BETWEEN THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS. As the single largest religious denomination in the United States, Catholics have the power to bring an obscure party into prominence.

 

[estesbob]

Now, if you would care to explain the difference, or alleged difference, between the Democratic Socialism of the 18th century and the modern one?

Benedict did it quite well in the paper you quoted:

By contrast to Europe’s denial of its religious and moral foundations, Asia’s great religious traditions, especially the mystical component expressed in Buddhism, have been elevated as spiritual powers. The optimism in European culture that Arnold Toynbee could still voice in the early 1960s sounds strangely antiquated today. “Of the twenty-eight cultures that we have identified . . . eighteen are dead and nine of the ten left—i.e., all except our own—already appear to be mortally wounded.” Who would repeat these same words today? Above all, what is our culture, and what has remained of it?* Is European culture perhaps nothing more than the technology and trade civilization that has marched triumphantly across the planet? Or is it instead a post-European culture born on the ruins of the ancient European cultures?**

There is a paradoxical synchrony in these developments. The victory of the post-European techno-secular world and the universalization of its lifestyle and thinking have spread the impression (especially in Asia and Africa) that Europe’s value system, culture, and faith—in other words, the very foundations of its identity—have reached the end of the road and have indeed already disappeared. From this perspective, the time has come for the affirmation of value systems of other worlds, such as pre-Colombian America, Islam, or Asian mysticism.

At the hour of its greatest success, Europe seems hollow, as if it were internally paralyzed by a failure of its circulatory system that is endangering its life, subjecting it to transplants that erase its identity. At the same time as its sustaining spiritual forces have collapsed, a growing decline in its ethnicity is also taking place.
*

 

[Erich]

"Thread Title:

Will voting for Liberals lower poverty, unemployment and the deficit?

As far as I’ve been able to determine, socialism has never improved the quality of life of any society, anywhere on earth, for any length of time. But a committed leftist isn’t daunted by a little thing like a 100% failure rate. “Failure is not an option,” as long as fantasy is an alternative.

The liberals might lower poverty by government handouts. They will not do much for unemployment and will likely increase the deficit.

From this 2009 report:

• “Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).”
• “Around one-third of the U.S. population” is eligible to receive welfare benefits.
• “If total means-tested welfare spending were simply converted to cash benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line.”
• Job training comprises less than 1% of anti-poverty spending. (Chart 2)
• “If poor women who give birth outside of marriage were married to the fathers of their children, two-thirds would immediately be lifted out of poverty.”
• “The War on Poverty created a destructive feedback loop: Welfare promoted the decline of marriage, which generated a need for more welfare.”
• “In terms of reducing the causes rather than the consequences of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed utterly.”

And that report was written before Obama added nearly as much to the debt held by the public as his 43 predecessors combined.

 

[estesbob]

You again have missed the point entirely. The democratic party is not the democratic socialism party.

It seems to me (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) that there’s this justification for conservative/Republican policies that don’t involve abortion/contraception, etc. As if, because they are right on those issues, they automatically are right on every other issue. This is wrong. You shouldn’t use God to justify your political inclinations.

Also, the dominant parties, while comprised of individuals, works as a collective, and should be judged as such.

This is copied verbatim from the book Life in Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, printed by ACTA publishing. Section 33, bullet 16, p 249

"What are the acts of mercy?

The works of mercy are: to feed the hungry, to admonish the sinner, to give drink to the thirsty, to instruct the ignorant, to clothe the naked, to counsel the doubtful, to visit those in prison, to comfort the sorrowful, to shelther the homeless, to bear wrongs patiently, to visit the sick, to forgive all injuries, to bury the dead, to pray for the living and the dead.

Often we fail to see opportunities to practice the works of mercy because we fail to understand them properly. ‘The naked’ are not only those who have no clothes at all but also those who do not have enough clothes. ‘The homeless’ are not only displaced persons but also families who cannot find a decent place to live because landlords refuse to rent to couples with childern or to people of certain races.

The words of St John, ‘If someones who has wordly means sees a brother [or sister] in need and refuses…compassion, how can the love of God remain in [that person]? - 1 Jn 3:17’, apply to nations as well as individuals. Yet today there are countries where abject poverty is so widespread as to be the rule, countries which need financial and technical aid in order to feed and cloth their people. Christians, mindful of these words of St. John, may not close their eyes to such conditions nor condone a policy of apathy or opposition to measures which would help those in need in these counties"

~

You cannot justify voting for Republicans on moral grounds, because they are immoral also. THERE IS MORE THAN TWO PARTIES, PEOPLE. IT’S NOT A CHOICE BETWEEN THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS. As the single largest religious denomination in the United States, Catholics have the power to bring an obscure party into prominence.

Archbishop Chaput put it quite succinctly. It is not a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils-it is the matter of voting to lessen evil. you are correct that those who didn’t vote or voted for a non-viable third party candidate did not waste their vote-they helped Elect Obama.

Unfortunately too many Catholics helped empower this evil and too many did nothing-letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, letting the slaughter of the innocents continue while they stood on the sidelines throwing stones at everyone who made the tough decisions and voted.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Benedict did it quite well in the paper you quoted:

By contrast to Europe’s denial of its religious and moral foundations, Asia’s great religious traditions, especially the mystical component expressed in Buddhism, have been elevated as spiritual powers. The optimism in European culture that Arnold Toynbee could still voice in the early 1960s sounds strangely antiquated today. “Of the twenty-eight cultures that we have identified . . . eighteen are dead and nine of the ten left—i.e., all except our own—already appear to be mortally wounded.” Who would repeat these same words today? Above all, what is our culture, and what has remained of it?* Is European culture perhaps nothing more than the technology and trade civilization that has marched triumphantly across the planet? Or is it instead a post-European culture born on the ruins of the ancient European cultures?***

There is a paradoxical synchrony in these developments. The victory of the post-European techno-secular world and the universalization of its lifestyle and thinking have spread the impression (especially in Asia and Africa) that Europe’s value system, culture, and faith—in other words, the very foundations of its identity—have reached the end of the road and have indeed already disappeared. From this perspective, the time has come for the affirmation of value systems of other worlds, such as pre-Colombian America, Islam, or Asian mysticism.

At the hour of its greatest success, Europe seems hollow, as if it were internally paralyzed by a failure of its circulatory system that is endangering its life, subjecting it to transplants that erase its identity. At the same time as its sustaining spiritual forces have collapsed, a growing decline in its ethnicity is also taking place.

I don’t see any economic argument here. What is the alleged economic difference between the Democratic Socialism of the 18th century and the modern one?

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Benedict did it quite well in the paper you quoted:

By contrast to Europe’s denial of its religious and moral foundations, Asia’s great religious traditions, especially the mystical component expressed in Buddhism, have been elevated as spiritual powers. The optimism in European culture that Arnold Toynbee could still voice in the early 1960s sounds strangely antiquated today. “Of the twenty-eight cultures that we have identified . . . eighteen are dead and nine of the ten left—i.e., all except our own—already appear to be mortally wounded.” Who would repeat these same words today? Above all, what is our culture, and what has remained of it?* Is European culture perhaps nothing more than the technology and trade civilization that has marched triumphantly across the planet? Or is it instead a post-European culture born on the ruins of the ancient European cultures?***

There is a paradoxical synchrony in these developments. The victory of the post-European techno-secular world and the universalization of its lifestyle and thinking have spread the impression (especially in Asia and Africa) that Europe’s value system, culture, and faith—in other words, the very foundations of its identity—have reached the end of the road and have indeed already disappeared. From this perspective, the time has come for the affirmation of value systems of other worlds, such as pre-Colombian America, Islam, or Asian mysticism.

At the hour of its greatest success, Europe seems hollow, as if it were internally paralyzed by a failure of its circulatory system that is endangering its life, subjecting it to transplants that erase its identity. At the same time as its sustaining spiritual forces have collapsed, a growing decline in its ethnicity is also taking place.

He’s talking about Europe, not democratic socialism. I see that you are trying to apply this to democratic socialism, but really it doesn’t. You are grasping for justification and coming up with nothing. You do realize that the Europe he was talking of was not a democratic socialist Europe, right?

 

[LisaA]

Some data to support my claims

9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf (in regards to my assertion that the attacks were the result of bad foreign policy, also known as “blowback”)

consortiumnews.com/2012/01/23/reagans-hand-in-guatemalas-genocide/ (In regards to the Reagan administrations hand in genocide)

www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB32/vol2.html (In regards to the Reagan administrations hand in genocide; these are the official government documents that the author of the above article used as a resource when writing.)

Also, I read your entire post and it only perplexed me further.

Why are you living in the past? I adored Reagan but he was elected decades ago. Trying to blame him or to claim that because you think the Reagan administration was associated with a failed policy that we can’t vote for a Republican in 2013 or in the future is totally without merit.

As to reading my post, I noted that the word “love” is used to describe positive feelings or actions toward a variety of elements of life or society. If one loves pizza does that mean they are unable to simultaneously love God? You seem to have a completely all or nothing approach. One can love God, music, fast cars, your children, your Parish all at the same time. The issue is the hierarchy of those loves and which compel you toward what action. What’s so perplexing about that? Or are you of the mind that one can have only singleminded love of God and thus any other love detracts from that focus? Talk about perplexing…

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Archbishop Chaput put it quite succinctly. It is not a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils-it is the matter of voting to lessen evil. you are correct that those who didn’t vote or voted for a non-viable third party candidate did not waste their vote-they helped Elect Obama.

Unfortunately too many Catholics helped empower this evil and too many did nothing-letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, letting the slaughter of the innocents continue while they stood on the sidelines throwing stones at everyone who made the tough decisions and voted.

Exactly right Estes Bob and to you purists who simply couldn’t vote for Romney because he wasn’t perfect, well thanks, you’ve now assured that the pro abortion philosophy will be front and center for another four years, we will get a couple more low flying ducks in the USSC and the economy will continue to decline.

But hey Romney wasn’t perfect so we “couldn’t” vote for him…

Lisa

 

[estesbob]

He’s talking about Europe, not democratic socialism. I see that you are trying to apply this to democratic socialism, but really it doesn’t. You are grasping for justification and coming up with nothing. You do realize that the Europe he was talking of was not a democratic socialist Europe, right?

The Democratic Socialism he praised was in 18th century Europe. It is obviously nothing like what passes for liberalism in Europe today which he unabashedly condemns in the harshest terms.

 

[estesbob]

LisaA:


Exactly right Estes Bob and to you purists who simply couldn’t vote for Romney because he wasn’t perfect, well thanks, you’ve now assured that the pro abortion philosophy will be front and center for another four years, we will get a couple more low flying ducks in the USSC and the economy will continue to decline.

But hey Romney wasn’t perfect so we “couldn’t” vote for him…

Lisa

And better yet they get to stand back and criticize everyone who voted for Obama or Romeny-meanwhile the laughter of the innocents continue and the culture of death tightened its grip on our country

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Archbishop Chaput put it quite succinctly. It is not a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils-it is the matter of voting to lessen evil. you are correct that those who didn’t vote or voted for a non-viable third party candidate did not waste their vote-they helped Elect Obama.

There’s no reason in your logic. Not voting for Obama… helped elect Obama? If it is a matter of voting to lessen evil, then voting Republican is not a viable option. They claim to be the pro-choice party, but that’s just so you’ll vote for them. Golly gee, is their strategy ever working.

Link to Romney surrogate saying Roe v Wade would not be overturned during their administration:

huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/mitt-romney-roe-v-wade_n_2042922.html

It also seems to me that there’s a lot of misplaced hate for President Obama. As if having Romney or any other Republican president would automatically abolish abortion forever. The country is not a monarchy, it is a democracy…

Lastly, the Pope clearly states 19th century, not 18th century.

 

[estesbob]

There’s no reason in your logic. Not voting for Obama… helped elect Obama? If it is a matter of voting to lessen evil, then voting Republican is not a viable option. They claim to be the pro-choice party, but that’s just so you’ll vote for them. Golly gee, is their strategy ever working.

huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/mitt-romney-roe-v-wade_n_2042922.html

It also seems to me that there’s a lot of misplaced hate for President Obama. As if having Romney or any other Republican president would automatically abolish abortion forever. The country is not a monarchy, it is a democracy…

I have worked in the pro-life ministry for 40 years, Ive counseled women considering abortion and support groups for men who’s child had been aborted. The only political officials who would give us the time of day, who would sponsor our bills and show up at are fundraisers were Republicans, yet you would dismiss me as a “dupe” because I dont embrace you political views

I dont hate Obama-but a man who supports unrestricted taxpayer abortion on demand is so morally flawed he should not hold any position of trust from dogcatcher to president.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

I have worked in the pro-life ministry for 40 years, Ive counseled women considering abortion and support groups for men who’s child had been aborted. The only political officials who would give us the time of day, who would sponsor our bills and show up at are fundraisers were Republicans, yet you would dismiss me as a “dupe” because I dont embrace you political views

I dont hate Obama-but a man who supports unrestricted taxpayer abortion on demand is so morally flawed he should not hold any position of trust from dogcatcher to president.

Yes, you have been duped, no, it is not because you disagree with my political philosophies. Republicans are only pro-life in theory, not in practice. Moreover a vote for the Republican party is an endorsement for genocide (Reagan) and unjust war (both Bushes). But I’m glad you mentioned your work, it is at the heart of this issue.

St Thomas Aquinas famously spoke of how laws that outlaw certain vices are dangerous and in turn create more evil than they are intended to stem. The catechism calls for protection against certain ills (pornography, drugs, abortion, contraception) but does not define the proper means to do so. Moreover, the actions of the Church are not infallible, only the teachings are. Therefore it is entirely possible that the Church’s efforts against laws pertaining to abortion, homosexuals or drugs may be misguided. Education and counseling are the only way to stop abortion, not a law banning it.

Take, for example, the success of Portugal’s drug law reform. They decriminalized the possession of all drugs (with an emphasis on treatment and recovery, which is much closer to the teachings of Christ than jailing an addict), and many conservatives expected disaster. In fact, the opposite was true, and Portugal now has a lower percentage of drug users than any other European nation, and considerably less than the United States (yes, the figures are adjusted per capita).

Link for some information on Portugal’s successful drug law reform:

thefix.com/content/decrim-nation-portugal-ten-years-later

Education and counseling are the key, not banning laws. But republicans don’t want you to realize that because then they’ll lose your vote and won’t be able to wage all the wars that have bankrupted this country. Oh my.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, you have been duped, no, it is not because you disagree with my political philosophies. Republicans are only pro-life in theory, not in practice. Moreover a vote for the Republican party is an endorsement for genocide (Reagan) and unjust war (both Bushes). But I’m glad you mentioned your work, it is at the heart of this issue.

St Thomas Aquinas famously spoke of how laws that outlaw certain vices are dangerous and in turn create more evil than they are intended to stem. The catechism calls for protection against certain ills (pornography, drugs, abortion, contraception) but does not define the proper means to do so. Moreover, the actions of the Church are not infallible, only the teachings are. Therefore it is entirely possible that the Church’s efforts against laws pertaining to abortion, homosexuals or drugs may be misguided. Education and counseling are the only way to stop abortion, not a law banning it.

Take, for example, the success of Portugal’s drug law reform. They decriminalized the possession of all drugs (with an emphasis on treatment and recovery, which is much closer to the teachings of Christ than jailing an addict), and many conservatives expected disaster. In fact, the opposite was true, and Portugal now has a lower percentage of drug users than any other European nation, and considerably less than the United States (yes, the figures are adjusted per capita).

Link for some information on Portugal’s successful drug law reform:

thefix.com/content/decrim-nation-portugal-ten-years-later

Education and counseling are the key, not banning laws. But republicans don’t want you to realize that because then they’ll lose your vote and won’t be able to wage all the wars that have bankrupted this country. Oh my.

*Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.
*

Archbishop Charles Chaput
Read more: blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2008/08/while-cardinal-george-the-pres.html#ixzz2K2uRhJEI

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

Archbishop Charles Chaput
Read more: blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2008/08/while-cardinal-george-the-pres.html#ixzz2K2uRhJEI

This doesn’t dispute any of the claims I’ve made. I fail to see how education and counseling attempts to cover anything up. In fact it would serve to reveal the horrors of abortion. The teachings of the Church are infallible, not the actions of it’s leaders. The idea that overturning Roe v Wade would stop abortion in its entirety is wrong.

Moreover I find it intriguing that you chose not to comment on the link I provided where, by their own admission, the Republican presidential platform said their supreme court would not overturn Roe v Wade. How then do you justify voting for them?

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

For the record, I am not pro-choice, I am pro-life. But being pro-life is not synonymous with wanting abortion to be banned, a law which is effectively impossible to enforce (same applies to drug laws. Drugs are illegal, and yet now more than ever people in this country become addicted to them).