tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post8255187376485889316..comments2024-03-29T08:14:32.748-04:00Comments on Bonfire of the Vanities: What Palin on the GOP ticket means...Fr Martin Foxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-3097200230349056422008-09-10T22:47:00.000-04:002008-09-10T22:47:00.000-04:00Mark,Some good points. There is still some tooth t...Mark,<BR/>Some good points. There is still some tooth to the Mexico City Policy.<BR/><BR/>Tim LangAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-30637447548008626552008-09-08T20:09:00.000-04:002008-09-08T20:09:00.000-04:00Tim,Mexico City policy has already been largely re...Tim,<BR/><BR/>Mexico City policy has already been largely rescinded. Look up the information. Bush did this to allow pro-death "family planning" organizations to distribute condoms to third world countries with high percentages of HIV infection. This frees up funds which these organizations use for abortions. <BR/><BR/>As to the Freedom of Choice Act, two things must happen for its passage. First, unless a Democratic controlled Senate has the resolve to change the cloture rules, (i.e. the Nuclear Option) 60 votes will be needed before the FOCA will be brought to a vote. Second, the Democrats would have to be far more sincere than the Republicans have been regarding actually bringing bills to the floor. <BR/><BR/>In every Congress since 1995, a Right to Life act has been presented. This act simply defines the term human person as including each and every member of the species Homo Sapiens at all stages of life including the moment of fertilization. In the 109th Congress (before the Republicans lost power) this bill had 101 co-sponsors in the House. As in several of the previous years, the Republicans held both Houses of Congress and the Presidency and had strong majorities in the committees. The Bill was never allowed out of Republican controlled committees, nor was it allowed to see public debate. Especially cynical was the 109th Congress after they had lost the elections and were a lame duck Congress. Despite the pleas of pro-life groups and a letter campaign, the Republicans still would not allow this bill to leave committee, see public debate, or be put to a vote on the floor. <BR/><BR/>As to your concerns about Obama increasing funding to Planned Parenthood, this would be no different than any of the previous administrations since the start of Title X funding. That is correct; Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr.(all of whom I voted for) allowed year in year out large increases to Title X and Planned Parenthood funding. This is no different than their Democrat counterparts. Since Planned Parenthood usually runs large surplusses, no abortion is ever denied due to lack of funding. <BR/><BR/>I am no fan of the Democrat party. I trust they will be as disingenuous to their constituents as Republicans have been to Pro-lifers. It profits both parties to keep this contentious issue unresolved. <BR/><BR/>MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-72995660538856992202008-09-08T11:23:00.000-04:002008-09-08T11:23:00.000-04:00COMMENTS FROM ANOTHER ELECTION HOUSE:Here in Canad...COMMENTS FROM ANOTHER ELECTION HOUSE:<BR/><BR/>Here in Canada, no one party is even discussing the abortion issue. Since we have NO abortion law at all that means no discussion.<BR/><BR/>Although the Tories are pro-life, they have absolutely no intention of introducing any kind of abortion law. The Tories have yet to do anything about requesting the GG of revoking Morgentaler's Order of Canada. <BR/><BR/>As for the Grits and NDP and Bloc, well they already have what they want - no law period. Gay "marriage" is a fait accomplis, and no party is going to revisit it so.... That leaves us looking at finances and environment. <BR/><BR/>Where does that leave the average Catholic Voter in Canada? - Either spoil the ballot, or vote for the candidate representing the party whose leader is least "suckish"<BR/><BR/>Maybe Americans should consider this same criteria when voting for the Presidency. Who Sucks the least? Put an "X" beside that name. Or spoil your ballot and say that, in good conscience, no one deserves your vote.Puff the Magic Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12933610369789734303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-79108273443476622122008-09-06T11:07:00.000-04:002008-09-06T11:07:00.000-04:00Fr. Fox,Have you thrown in the towel?OhevinFr. Fox,<BR/><BR/>Have you thrown in the towel?<BR/><BR/>OhevinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-29014780156806366692008-09-03T23:11:00.000-04:002008-09-03T23:11:00.000-04:00A factual correction.Obama was a state senator fro...A factual correction.<BR/><BR/>Obama was a state senator from 1997 to 2005; then a US senator from 2004 to now. He had previously been a professor of law at the University of Chicago.<BR/><BR/>Palin was the mayor of an Anchorage suburb (pop. under 7000) for eight years after serving six years as a city councilor. She had previously worked briefly as a sports announcer, and then in her husband's business.<BR/><BR/>So Palin has been governor half as long as Obama has been a US senator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-28169156828029662302008-09-03T15:39:00.000-04:002008-09-03T15:39:00.000-04:00It makes me crazy when politicians are given credi...It makes me crazy when politicians are given credit for being pro-life when they're not. <BR/><BR/>Making an exception for the use of abortion in cases of rape or incest is NOT pro-life. <BR/><BR/>The baby is still a baby, despite the circumstances of conception. <BR/><BR/>And, that baby is just as dead, when abortion is chosen, no matter the circumstances of conception.<BR/><BR/>The only thing that makes one pro-life is support of ALL life - from conception to natural death. <BR/><BR/>It's impossible to justify a vote for either of these candidates, if you choose life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-23618513165290792362008-09-02T11:32:00.000-04:002008-09-02T11:32:00.000-04:00Mark,Obama has said that the first piece of legisl...Mark,<BR/>Obama has said that the first piece of legislation he will sign is the Freedom of Choice Act. I believe this would not only codify Roe but supercede the Hyde Amendment. He also said he will rescind the Mexico city policy that restricts U.S. funding to non-governmental organizations outside the U.S. that perform and promote abortions. He has the authority to rescind that on his own. Support from Congress is not necessary on that one. <BR/><BR/>An Obama victory will mean an immediate(within the first two or three days of his presidency)increase of dollars for Planned Parenthood's overseas operations.<BR/><BR/>I,like you was very disappointed by the election of McCain as the Republican nominee.<BR/><BR/>I had not decided who to support in the primary as of the republican debate at the Reagan presidential library. That night I decided my primary pick.<BR/><BR/>When the moderator first asked Huckabee and the others about Ronald Reagan's appointment of Justice O'Connor to the supreme court and if that had turned out to be a good decision or not I felt I would get the final info I would need for the primary.<BR/><BR/>Huckabee cowered away from the question and McCain toadied up to Reagan saying how he would not second guess Reagan, he was proud of Sandra Day O'Conner etc. but he would nominate strict constitutionalists. I was not impressed.<BR/><BR/>I thought if someone had the guts to say, " Wrong Choice? It was a damn wrong chice that helped cost millions of innocent lives and even more upsetting is the fact that we now know by his own hand that Reagan ignored pro-lifers pleas not to nominate her because she was PRO_ABORTION! He nominated her despite her recorded vote to REPEAL Arizona's Ban on abortion."<BR/><BR/>The icing on the cake would have been if that was followed up with, "though less evil but still tragic was lying about nitwit Nancy's use of astrology as a means of decision making".<BR/><BR/>Ron Paul simply said "I would not have nominated her..." so he got my vote. <BR/><BR/>Even aside from the supreme court issues an Obama presidency will result in a lot more money for Planned Murderhood for more abortions and the spreading of more grave evil.<BR/><BR/>Tim LangAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-4798101584945316472008-09-02T00:05:00.000-04:002008-09-02T00:05:00.000-04:00There has been some discussion about voting third ...There has been some discussion about voting third party to send a message to the GOP. Exactly what message is it that pro life people will send in voting for a third party when the other major party has nominated Obama and you still cannot give your vote to McCain? If no form of baby killing is allowed in a candidate to gain the vote of Catholics who are strict in this area such as you are holding to be true Catholic teaching, then we cannot vote for a candidate that does not follow the teaching on contraception because that kills babies and is a grave evil. I suspect in the end that to find a candidate worthy of a Catholic vote, you would have to make them non-electible in this country. So what message are you and others taking your position sending? If the pro life vote is so stringent that to follow it means you cannot be elected, I suspect you will find few politicians who will ever pay attention and we will become marginalized. The fact that there has been some movement in abortion rights over the last 20 years at all has been that politicians have learned that they have to move in that direction or lose elections. By favoring the republican party based on its pro life leanings in general has been a good thing in this regard. Had the Catholic bishops, cardinals, and priests lined up solidly behind this movement, it would have had even greater impact. However, we have some old line liberation theology die hard liberals in these positions that have given the flock a lot of wiggle room to find other reasons to vote for democrats because of supposed favoring of the poor or open border immagration. Anything sent out by the bishops is so wordy that it holds no meaning. Even when it lists issues that are of great importance, the liberals change the wording to add things list racist attitudes in the same sentence and paragraph. I think this ultimately gave us candidates that are pro choice catholics in both parties. However, until there is a common voice in the church on these teachings, having a few break off in a protest movement does nothing but further weakens the pro life cause. I suspect that if 10% do not give the party their vote, you will see a much more pro choice position taken to fight with the dems for the independent middle that has little religious values. <BR/><BR/>I would rather see you holding up a position in public articles calling for the bishops to take a firm stand than in a blog encouraging the flock to vote third party and that is the impact of your writing. <BR/><BR/>You say that your one vote does not matter or count so what difference is made. I would bet that in Ohio, 2-3% for a Barr could end up deciding this election. By the way, I have looked at the third party candidates and for the life of me cannot see why you would want any of them to be president of our country. <BR/><BR/>I think you vastly underrate what an Obama presidency will mean to this country especially with large majorities in congress in that baby killing party. This type of event could take the country 50 years to heal. Proof??? Look at how much was done under FDR that became a major problem enhanced by LBJ and the war on poverty. The welfare nanny state is still here today and that is over 75 years ago that it started. Obama believes that government should give us everything and politicians know that the more they give, the more control they have. It is the working middle class that is under threat and has to pay for all that will come and that will lead to a communistic state. The others posting on this are very accurate. One day, when they come to arrest you for saying homosexual lifestyle is a grave disorder per church teaching as a hate crime, I suspect that you will then see the error of allowing this guy to get into office.grampshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15458042134293544734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-45575223973944658392008-09-01T23:41:00.000-04:002008-09-01T23:41:00.000-04:00Father,Thank you so much for this blog. I had som...Father,<BR/><BR/>Thank you so much for this blog. I had somehow made myself comfortable with McCain who I had found repugnant during the primaries(as had many of my friends and the Republican "Talking Heads".) I remember, in particular, Rush Limbaugh predicting various forms of doom should he receive the nomination. He has now found himself able to support McCain's candidacy. I would not be suprised to find that some of those posting here are in a similar position and a few may, like Dr.Dobson, have earlier in the primaries had the moral courage to say that they would not vote for McCain if he was the Republican nominee. I can not respect Dr. Dobson for his loss of moral courage. I won't condemn him, however as I ,too, had a similar failure of my moral courage.<BR/><BR/>But let's not forget how we got here. One of the two parties had a strong candidate with some of the strongest fundng early on and was the most strongly supported by our troops (in terms of dollars and actual number of contributors.) This candidate was right on all the non-negotiable issues and agreed with both the present and previous Holy Father concerning the war in Iraq. He is also the only candidate to propose a bill that would have reversed Roe v Wade by using the Constitutional right to take that issue out of the hands of the Supreme Court. <BR/><BR/>He was rejected for several reasons. Many did not vote for him because they were led to believe that the tiny nation-state of Iraq , which our army had previously defeated in 100 hours, posed a mortal threat to our nation. More disappointing for my bride were the comments on blogs, newsletters, and even from some of our friends, that they would not actively support him because he had no chance of winning. She feels that we will never throw off the yoke of the nearly identical two party system if we don't vote for what we want instead of what we think we can get. <BR/><BR/>Everyone understands, though I may not qoute it accurately, the old saying,<BR/>"They came for the gypsies, but I didn't say anything because I am not a gypsy, etc."<BR/>To sacrifice a few qypsies would seem to be a morally acceptable compromise because the numbers were very small compared to numbers of Jews and Christians for whom they came later. <BR/><BR/>The point is you can compromise an idea out of existence. We know that John McCain is in favor of very early abortions (ESCR) and based on recent rhetoric, we hope he is not in favor of all. In any event, his postion in favor of ESCR will dramatically increase the number of abortions, not reduce them. On prolife issues, this is the worst candidate we have had to accept from the nominally prolife party. <BR/><BR/>Remember too, as great a candidate as Palin is (and I do think she is wonderful) she was an unknown dark horse until very recently. I would not be surprised if the nomination of Palin and the strengthening of the Republican platform were the direct result of Obama's choice of Biden and the stubborn, foolish big mouth of Nancy Pelosi, and perhaps in no way represents a real conversion on McCain's part. <BR/><BR/>Thank you Father for your wisdom. My wife and I are through compromising away our non-negotiable principles<BR/><BR/>MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-26975362213854602172008-09-01T21:50:00.000-04:002008-09-01T21:50:00.000-04:00What great comments. I appreciate Carol's intelli...What great comments. I appreciate Carol's intelligence and wit throughout this thread. Thanks, Father, for letting us in on your compelling thoughts. However, my conscience tells me to vote McCain...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-5084960351711117362008-09-01T20:47:00.000-04:002008-09-01T20:47:00.000-04:00p.s.You are a breathtaking gift to Christ's Church...p.s.<BR/><BR/>You are a breathtaking gift to Christ's Church - that you love the truth and Christ so much to watch you fight the urge to compromise has been a blessing to me personally to taste. How lucky your parishioners are...<BR/><BR/>Would that we have this kind of dynamic in the wiles of Boston. But, the days are coming!<BR/><BR/>I truly hope you don't give up on your political fodder.TTChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08738875888053745269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-42813166805434891502008-09-01T20:34:00.000-04:002008-09-01T20:34:00.000-04:00Father,First, I also want to say thanks for explai...Father,<BR/><BR/>First, I also want to say thanks for explaining your position so thoroughly.<BR/><BR/>>>It is my understanding that there are hundreds of thousands of unborn children in suspended animation (or whatever the technical term is) in "clinics" around the country, that were a result of "in vitro" fertilization techniques.>><BR/><BR/>Correct. But now you are talking about McCain's position in in vitro fertilization, not ESR. <BR/><BR/>IV embryos are not fodder for ESR. They were obtained from infertile women whose intentions were/are to be implanted in their own wombs. The hundreds of thousands/millions belong to women who so valued life that they underwent rigorous treatment. They are not disposed to handing over those lives for Frankenstien experiments and they never will. It's the nature of the beast. <BR/><BR/>In fact, there are relatively few labs in the US working on ESR and they are so desperate for embryos, irrespective of the embryos in suspended animation that they can't get their grubby little hands on, they are placing ads for college age women to undergo massive doses of estrogen, produce eggs and it's been pretty much a bust and the funding is drying up, scientists are moving onto adult stem cell research and umbilical cord research. I'm telling how this operates on the ground, which few people actually know and it's important to understand the number of people exploited and destroyed if we don't get the right information before people to make informed decisions.<BR/><BR/>Cloning is in even more dire straights. The most fringe scientists have gotten off the bus.<BR/><BR/>Unless you're suggesting McCain going to take the embryos against the will of these mothers, it's a straw man's argument to say McCain is going to ramp up cloning - and for sure, the people surrounding McCain are going to be discouraging him - while the people surrounding Obama are going to be encouraging this. I don't really know of anybody in our camps who are giddy for ESR and cloning that will be surrounding McCain.<BR/><BR/>At some point, the strict calculus application to an election burns out every candidate because you have to include contraception, invitro fertilization, condoms for HIV and every other teaching of the Church - or alternately, you have to take a look at the gravity of people's positions and the outcome upon civilization and get your booty to the voting booth. <BR/>There is no contest between McCain/Palin administration and an Obama/Biden.<BR/><BR/>In fact, this week, the Repugs conformed their platform to include the strongest language ever against abortion.<BR/><BR/>http://www.lifenews.com/nat4222.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>We handed Romney back to the GOP and told them to suck wind and McCain was their nominee by attrition. Looks to me like the lesson has been learned. Let's not ride the tails of victory to conjecture based on misinformation or beat a dead horse.<BR/><BR/>:)TTChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08738875888053745269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-32387837534524294172008-09-01T18:58:00.000-04:002008-09-01T18:58:00.000-04:00Carol:It is my understanding that there are hundre...Carol:<BR/><BR/>It is my understanding that there are hundreds of thousands of unborn children in suspended animation (or whatever the technical term is) in "clinics" around the country, that were a result of "in vitro" fertilization techniques. Sen. McCain has said, as have others, that they will "go to waste" since their parents have no plans to carry them to full development. These are being pointed to by advocates of "embryonic stem cell research" as the source for more stem cells.<BR/><BR/>In addition, this is why the same advocates also favor cloning -- they know as they ramp up this abominable industry, they will run out of the human "commodity" -- so they want to clone an endless supply. Now, I don't know where McCain stands on said cloning, but to ramp up the industry is to make such cloning vastly more likely.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-794189382405761592008-09-01T17:34:00.000-04:002008-09-01T17:34:00.000-04:00Father,Thanks for your in depth responses to me an...Father,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your in depth responses to me and everyone else who has posted on this thread.<BR/><BR/>I want to make clear that I never said or implied that you are obligated to vote for McCain. I admire your no compromise stance even though I won't share it this election. <BR/><BR/>It is actually what I have learned from you about politics that has helped me come to the decision to support McCain!<BR/><BR/>You once advised me over a beer to avoid putting faith in politicians and suggested instead to use politicians to achieve political ends. I hope my memory is accurate because I believe that to be very good advice.<BR/><BR/>I am certain that except for death or disabling illness or injury either McCain or Obama will be our next president. <BR/><BR/>I believe that it is very likely that the next President will appoint one and probably two supreme court justices. Most likely two liberal justices who support Roe will be leaving the court. Obama will replace old pro aborts with young pro-aborts and will have a very likely chance of getting them confirmed.<BR/><BR/>Why I believe thinks will be different with McCain.<BR/><BR/>Earlier you wrote(regarding McCain being anti-abortion but pro-ESCR) "the two ideas do not coexist rationally in the mind of someone who really gets why abortion is wrong." I agree completely. I would be much more comfortable if McCain was right on ESCR and wrong on another of the non-negotiable issues instead.(I am using the non-negotiable scorecard and also prioritizing the non negotiables.) Abortion and ECSR are so closely related, actually being just different types of the same moral evil. <BR/><BR/>That being said I do think he will nominate justices who will vote to overturn Roe v Wade, EVEN IF THOSE SAME JUSTICES WOULD RULE HIS SIGNATURE MCCAIN FEINGOLD LEGISLATION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!<BR/><BR/>Using YOUR healthy cynicisim I believe that signature legislation does not mean squat to him any more if he is now president. He got the ultimate in US politics! McCain Feingold so what? He nominates strict constitutionalists because he has said over and over again that he would. It would be more EMBARRSSING for McCain to have Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Dobson, Malkin, Ingraham etc. ripping him on T.V., in print, over the internet, on the radio for betraying, for lying. It would be brutal. Youtube clips, tape etc being played over and over again with McCain saying over and over again that he will appoint strict constitutionalists like "Roberts and Alito", "like Scalia and Roberts".<BR/><BR/>McCain is a tough guy but he does not want his integrity challenged and proven to be a liar. That is much worse than having the court nix his signature legislation. Hell he could use that to his advantage.<BR/>He could then say " Though I am disappointed the court found McCain feingold to be unconstitutional I defer to and respect the constitutional expertise of this court and am still very proud to have nominated blank and blank" and McCains supporters can say "only a man as big as John McCain would have nominated such jurists even after he was advised of the likelyhood of such an outcome".<BR/><BR/>It is simple, nominating liberal "living document" pro-aborts would be worse for McCain than nominating strict constitutionalists.<BR/><BR/>EVEN if McCain replaced TWO liberals with ONE strict constitutionalist and ONE liberal <BR/>that would still be enough to overturn ROE.<BR/><BR/>What McCain said back in 2000 regarding ROE won't bite him in the ass like contradicting what he has said over and over, published etc about Roe in 2008.<BR/><BR/>Now why I think McCain can get his picks through the senate.<BR/>McCain will remind his liberal and moderate Dem buddies that as one of them he not only reached across the aisle he voted to confirm clinton's liberal nominnees like Ruth Bader Ginsburg even though he disagreed with their judicial philosophy he believes that it is the president's right to choose the justices and if a jurist has the proper credentials must be confirmed regardless of ideology and judicial philosophy. He can sell his case to the American people who often buy into "fairplay" and "John confirmed their guys now they should confirm his." A former senator should have a better chance of getting his long time buddies to confirm his choices than an outsider like a governor.<BR/><BR/>time to start the grill.<BR/><BR/>Tim LangAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-3726232644300898692008-09-01T17:29:00.000-04:002008-09-01T17:29:00.000-04:00Father, I enjoy your enthusiasm.>so now you'...Father, I enjoy your enthusiasm.<BR/><BR/>>so now you're not claiming Obama will establish a "communist-like dictatorship"? That's a big shift there...><BR/><BR/>Beg pardon, there is no shift at all. I restate that the cult of personality and policies portend a communist-like dictatorship. We would be heading into an abyss with Obama.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>I vigorously reject your characterization of McCain's support of the killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of unborn children via embryonic stem cell "research" as having the moral equivalence of a "vasectomy" in relation to "ethnic cleansing." You may think the entire argument very clever, but I think it is fundamentally flawed. For one, vasectomies, while gravely immoral per Catholic teaching, do not kill anyone.>><BR/><BR/>I am interested in your sources on the numbers of hundreds of thousands and millions of embryos being used. Could you cite them? Last I knew, as I said, the number of women who were willing to donate their embryos were miniscule which is making the entire scientific experiment collapse. This is germane.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, vasectomies, interfere with, intercede, intercept the direct creation of proposed life from God. If you want to cite numbers, I would say over history the number of lives prevented from being fruitful far exceed ESR and perhaps abortion itself. Add contraception and the numbers game you play is trumped.<BR/><BR/>You state so long as the two candidates fail a "strict calculus" regardless is the morass and gravity of the second candidate upon civilization, Catholics are called to throw their vote down the wind in face of civil anarchy when both candidates are polling at 50/50. There are conclusions drawn by such suggestions. Cartoonish drama aside, everyone is disqualified in your premise regardless of the gravity of moral corruption.<BR/><BR/>You are confusing your role as a prophet's call to repentance to that of the secular election where we weigh policies to project what the best outcome is under the circumstances. We are not electing the Pope.<BR/><BR/>My line of argument suggests that Obama will appoint and push agendas that align with his outrageous disregard for human life. This is what administrations do. Then, those policies and appointees hand down policies that affect Joe and Nancy America. The impact of a President is the most influential in the country and in the case of the United States, in the entire world itself. Such outrageous disrespect for life reflects something gone terribly awry in the hatrack. A man making life and death decisions for all of us perhaps on the spur of the moment - that is germane.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>Actually, I think I have offered nothing but praise for Palin.>><BR/><BR/>Yes, I noticed. For the record my enthusiasm for having to vote for McCain to avert an Obama Administration was less than stellar. I believe we will have to hold his feet to the fire, as we did occasionally with Bush. <BR/><BR/>>>Is there any difference to you between a candidate who sees that a punishment for sexuality that must be aborted and a candidate who embraces that life?<BR/><BR/>Well, since you ask the insulting question, I'll let you answer for me--do you think I, as a presumably moral, rational Christian, see any such difference?>><BR/><BR/>Father, as a newcomer here, reading only these blog entries, I can say with conviction that if you see the difference and hold that there is no way to predict a difference in a Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin, with all due respect, I'm stumped.<BR/><BR/>Peace of Christ be with your spiritTTChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08738875888053745269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-39261056415273792992008-09-01T16:55:00.000-04:002008-09-01T16:55:00.000-04:00"all the more reason for me to move on from politi..."all the more reason for me to move on from political topics on my blog"<BR/><BR/>Father,<BR/>Please don't do that! I appreciate the forum andyour guidance on these matters. They are hard to come by anywhere else!<BR/><BR/>TheresaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-89022687362450710282008-09-01T16:32:00.000-04:002008-09-01T16:32:00.000-04:00Carol:I'm going to intersperse your comments, whic...Carol:<BR/><BR/>I'm going to intersperse your comments, which appear below in italics, with my own, in normal type.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't see the benefit of my enumerating how Obama's visions of civilization...</I><BR/><BR/>so now you're not claiming Obama will establish a "communist-like dictatorship"? That's a big shift there...<BR/><BR/><I>are similar to Joe Stalin...</I><BR/><BR/>maybe because the comparison is ridiculous?<BR/><BR/><I>...because you don't see...</I><BR/><BR/>so what? Others presumably here can "see," surely they would like to know your basis for saying Obama will bring a "communist-like dictatorship" which you label "Obamageddon."<BR/><BR/><I>...the difference between a candidate who has a vasectomy (or ESR) and a candidate who believes in ethnic cleansing (or ESR, abortion, witholding medical care from survivors of botched abortions, abolition of God in education and public policy, etc)...</I><BR/><BR/>I vigorously reject your characterization of McCain's support of the killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of unborn children via embryonic stem cell "research" as having the moral equivalence of a "vasectomy" in relation to "ethnic cleansing." You may think the entire argument very clever, but I think it is fundamentally flawed. For one, vasectomies, while gravely immoral per Catholic teaching, do not kill anyone.<BR/><BR/>Second, you say, "you don't see the difference...." I see many differences; but I do not minimize the moral gravity of McCain's endorsement of evil, nor of cooperating with it, even if materially.<BR/><BR/>Yes, if two candidates run, one openly admits being in favor of murdering all left-handed people, and the other vigorously objects, and says, it's the right-handed people who I will murder...I will grant that the latter favors killing more people, if you will grant that neither one belongs in public office.<BR/><BR/>Also, since you persist in this line of reasoning, the facts are that abortion is <I>already</I> legal, as is stem-cell research; euthanasia is still mostly illegal, although likely happening in problematic ways. You seem to think Obama is going to impose a policy of letting babies die after they survive an abortion, despite federal law saying otherwise--what will he do? March his army into the Capitol, kill Congress, kill the Supreme Court, and suspend all such laws? <BR/><BR/>The fact is, that neither McCain nor Obama is going to make such a sweeping difference as your "Obamageddon" rhetoric suggests Obama will make. They can do some things, if they can get the votes in Congress (a big if, either for worse or better policy), they can make appointments and issue executive orders which their successors can replace, they can issue lots of rhetoric. Your whole line of argument depends on vastly overstating how many lives Obama can help destroy, or McCain can or will save.<BR/><BR/>My argument, on the other hand, has never been that; only that people who hold certain positions are morally disqualified.<BR/><BR/><I>and our duty to the victims of such policies (stewards of the earth).<BR/><BR/>For the record though, we were discussing the subsidiary of a political hierarchy and how that affects the moral compass of the inhabitants. You equated the Clinton and Reagan administrations as morally equivalent and pro-life equivalent...</I><BR/><BR/>No, I did not. I note you chose not to copy and paste anything I actually did say, and put quotes around it, to prove this assertion. What I actually said is above, and it's a little more subtle. Too subtle?<BR/><BR/><I>- as you are doing with McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden in spite of their respective moral compasses and prolife records and positions.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, I think I have offered nothing but praise for Palin.<BR/><BR/><I>Are you aware that Briston Palin is pregnant?<BR/><BR/>Is there any difference to you between a candidate who sees that a punishment for sexuality that must be aborted and a candidate who embraces that life?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, since you ask the insulting question, I'll let you answer for me--do you think I, as a presumably moral, rational Christian, see any such difference?Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-89277430661271755462008-09-01T16:18:00.000-04:002008-09-01T16:18:00.000-04:00FatherOn this blog, you have stated unequivocally ...Father<BR/><BR/>On this blog, you have stated unequivocally that you find Obamas position on abortion to be a grave moral evil and McCain's position on ECSR to be a grave moral evil. You also said "For my part, I plan to vote for a candidate who does not support any of these evils, because I refuse to have anything to do with their endorsement of evil". I see no other way to interpret those words other than you plan to vote for a 3rd party candidate for the presidency who has no chance of winning. I did not twist your words or take them out of context. I simply equated the action that you plan to take, based on your own words as tantamount to sitting out the election on the presidential level. There is nothing deceitful or self serving in that. Finally, this is your blog and I am just a guest here. I believe that we have both made our feelings clear. Enjoy what's left of the long weekend.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097678668716356910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-85420260506787823642008-09-01T16:03:00.000-04:002008-09-01T16:03:00.000-04:00Father,I don't see the benefit of my enumerating h...Father,<BR/><BR/>I don't see the benefit of my enumerating how Obama's visions of civilization are similar to Joe Stalin because you don't see the difference between a candidate who has a vasectomy (or ESR) and a candidate who believes in ethnic cleansing (or ESR, abortion, witholding medical care from survivors of botched abortions, abolition of God in education and public policy, etc) and our duty to the victims of such policies (stewards of the earth). <BR/><BR/>For the record though, we were discussing the subsidiary of a political hierarchy and how that affects the moral compass of the inhabitants. You equated the Clinton and Reagan administrations as morally equivalent and pro-life equivalent - as you are doing with McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden in spite of their respective moral compasses and prolife records and positions.<BR/><BR/>Are you aware that Briston Palin is pregnant?<BR/><BR/>Is there any difference to you between a candidate who sees that a punishment for sexuality that must be aborted and a candidate who embraces that life? <BR/><BR/>:)TTChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08738875888053745269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-23014097847540619572008-09-01T15:55:00.000-04:002008-09-01T15:55:00.000-04:00Jim:And, I'm sorry, but I simply reject your impli...Jim:<BR/><BR/>And, I'm sorry, but I simply reject your implied assertion that voting third party doesn't count. I accept that you feel differently about your own vote--that's fine--but kindly do not insist that your view of things must prevail in all cases.<BR/><BR/>You see, your argument seems to assume that my vote counts more if cast for a D or an R, than it does if cast for anyone else. But your argument is flawed.<BR/><BR/>In my entire life, voting for 28 years, I have yet to determine the outcome of an election. I don't expect to, alas, but it would be enjoyable--and frightening--if it ever happens.<BR/><BR/>My vote counts as exactly one vote, no more, no less. <BR/><BR/>My vote will make such a microscopically minimally <I>more</I> next-to-no difference if cast for McCain or Obama, than it will if cast for Barr or Baldwin. I agree, the latter two (Libertarian and Constitution parties, respectively), are unlikely to win; but I will bet a tidy sum that <I>none</I> of these will be elected because of my vote.<BR/><BR/>Yes, it is ever so slightly more probable my vote for a major party candidate will be decisive, and I admit I don't know probabilities, but my gut sense is the difference in probabilities here is vanishingly miniscule. To me, that makes your contention that it only "counts" if cast for Obama or McCain fallacious. <BR/><BR/>Am I saying my vote doesn't count at all? No; it counts in several ways: it counts as <I>my</I> vote--it stands for my values, judgment and choice--and as such, it is very precious to me. To cast a vote for someone I cannot abide holding the office is unacceptable to me, all the more if he actually gets elected! Then I live with the knowledge that he holds office with the little help from me that I controlled--and gave. <BR/><BR/>Second, my vote counts <I>in the aggregate</I> -- I become one of a many, whether a large many or a small many. When that 3rd party candidate is defeated, there will be a group of Ohioans who attached their vote to him, and that will send a message, and I will have helped.<BR/><BR/>Now, each election decision is <I>sui generis</I>. Sometimes I may <I>choose</I> to vote as you recommend, if I can live with associating myself with the result. But I feel no obligation to do so.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you may respond (as many do), what if everyone thought the way you do? Then your whole argument would collapse, because then we really could elect a third-party candidate!<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, because the vast majority of people do <I>not</I> think that way, then the idea that my refusal to vote for McCain or Obama actually hurts them (and it would have to, if casting it for them would "count" as you assert) is wrong. <BR/><BR/>Thus, since my vote will count for only a tiny bit in any case, I choose to apply it in the way most meaningful to me--since it is <I>my</I> vote.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-63755937042015762812008-09-01T15:24:00.000-04:002008-09-01T15:24:00.000-04:00Jim:You can call it "sitting out the election," be...Jim:<BR/><BR/>You can call it "sitting out the election," because that's what it means to you, but that doesn't make it so. <BR/><BR/>To cite the famous story about Lincoln's asking some politicians, "if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have?" They reply, well, five. "No, four--because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."<BR/><BR/>For one, I plan to vote up and down the ballot; you may think only the presidential race makes an election, but if so, therein lies a huge problem. I suggest you broaden your focus. <BR/><BR/>Second, being involved in an election begins long before Election Day. How did McCain and Obama get to be the nominees? I've been involved to the extent I can. I've been writing about problems with McCain since the primaries (and if you actually had read my entire blog as you say--I think you meant you read the entirety of this post--you would know that) doing what I could to help the cause.<BR/><BR/>Your mode of referencing my "own words" is--sorry to say--deceitful and self-serving. I'm sure you don't intend that; but it is. <BR/><BR/>Instead of saying what you did, and now justifying it based on <I>your interpretation</I> of my actual words (just who said you get to decide my words mean what you say they mean?), all you had to do was actually cite my words in your earlier comment, and then add your interpretation. That would have been fair, as both what I did (and did not) say, and the meaning you subsequently applied to them, would have been clear for all.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-642783691566129022008-09-01T15:12:00.000-04:002008-09-01T15:12:00.000-04:00Carol says:"Agree with a lot of what you say but t...Carol says:<BR/><BR/>"Agree with a lot of what you say but the distinction that the moral compass was equivocal between, say, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan and their pro-life leadership all balances out in the wash, is not justified by history."<BR/><BR/>I did not say "the moral compass was equivocal between say, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan" nor did I ever refer to Clinton's leadership as "prolife." That you would say that suggests you aren't reading me very carefully, or that this is too subtle a discussion for a blog; it may well mean I am failing to express myself; in any case, all the more reason for me to move on from political topics on my blog.<BR/><BR/>As to how <I>events</I> and decisions associated with each man's presidency will work out in history, none of us can evaluate it; but it is far more complex as I noted: Reagan whether he intended it or not, played a key (negative) role in sustaining Roe (by appointing not only Kennedy but also O'Connor), and Clinton, certainly without intending it, nonetheless presided over a time of the prolife movement's greatest progress since Roe, as measured by the volume of legislation passed among the federal and state legislatures.<BR/><BR/>And I have no idea where you're getting the idea that Obama will bring about a "communist-like dictatorship," and I don't know what you mean in your reference to "stewards of the earth." But a "communist-like dictatorship" strikes me as, well, a wee bit much...to say the least!Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-3020643402328997902008-09-01T15:07:00.000-04:002008-09-01T15:07:00.000-04:00Father I read your entire blog. You stated"For my ...Father <BR/><BR/>I read your entire blog. You stated<BR/><BR/>"For my part, I plan to vote for a candidate who does not support any of these evils, because I refuse to have anything to do with their endorsement of evil. I realize others calculate the matter differently, but that's how I see it, and I have to answer for my conscience--not yours."<BR/><BR/>Voting for a 3rd party candidate who may garner 2 or 3 percent of the vote is for all intents and purposes sitting out the election, (at least on the presidential level). I'm not making things up, I'm just taking you at your word.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097678668716356910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-81320357356926951232008-09-01T14:59:00.000-04:002008-09-01T14:59:00.000-04:00Father,Agree with a lot of what you say but the di...Father,<BR/><BR/>Agree with a lot of what you say but the distinction that the moral compass was equivocal between, say, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan and their pro-life leadership all balances out in the wash, is not justified by history.<BR/><BR/>Anyhoo - We'll have to agree to disagree on the communistic-like dictatorship of Obama and our duties as stewards of the earth. Luckily, this appointment has confirmed McCain's bent & it appears prolifers are energized and proactive!TTChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08738875888053745269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-2113679564687876162008-09-01T14:02:00.000-04:002008-09-01T14:02:00.000-04:00Carol:If you read more of my blog, you'll see I am...Carol:<BR/><BR/>If you read more of my blog, you'll see I am very familiar with politics.<BR/><BR/>With respect, "Obamageddon" says in one word all I have been saying about a vast over-reaction to what the election of any one candidate to public office. We somehow survived Nixon-geddon, Ford-geddon, Carter-geddon, Reagan-geddon, Bush(I)-geddon, Clinton-geddon, and Bush (II)- geddon.<BR/><BR/>And for those who saw Reagan and Bush (II) as the great saviors and heroes of the prolife cause (and I think highly of Reagan), I point out that they did not bring salvation in our time, no one but the actual Messiah will. In fact, a lot of damage was done to the prolife cause under our "friends": the original Roe Court was mostly Republican, the majority that upheld Roe in 1993 was 100% appointed by Republicans, Reagan gave us O'Connor and Kennedy, Bush (I) gave us Souter, and while Alito and Roberts are promising, they have yet to be counted on overturning Roe. Let's see what they actually do before we decide how to count them.<BR/><BR/>In fact, quite a lot of progress was made for the prolife cause during the Clinton terms--the Partial Birth Abortion Ban (which is very modest accomplishment) was passed under Bush (II) after being brought to the floor of Congress repeatedly under Clinton; when did it come up before? Lots of prolife policy came into being at the state level during those years. <BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, under Bush (II), we've made only minimal progress, and we've gone backward in other ways. When he had GOP majorities in both houses of Congress, only sure-to-pass, minimal prolife legislation was brought forward; other legislation--such as the Life at Conception Act that would overturn Roe legislatively (little known fact that it can be done, the Roe Court told us how) never came to a vote--where were the great prolife Bush et al. on that? <BR/><BR/>In addition to vastly overstating what one president can do ("Obamageddon"), many vastly underappreciate the harm the wrong guy, on "our" side, can do: if McCain doesn't want legislation voted on, the GOP will be hard-pressed to advance it; if he puts forward another Kennedy, GOP Senators will be hard-pressed to oppose him. If he sides with moderates against conservatives in primaries, the way the Bush White House did (don't you wonder why Congress became less conservative during his term? It didn't just happen all on its own), the GOP will be less prolife than it is now. Don't assume Palin automatically gets the nod in four years. What became of Vice Presidents Rockefeller and Quayle?<BR/><BR/>My bottom line: it is such a mistake to focus so much on the presidency!Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.com