What’s Wrong with the World

I've seen this sentiment a lot, and while it is absolutely right, we all know the real reasons they chose Obama, so why the dance?

Will we see host Doug Kmiec waving a bust of St Thomas More from The Vox Nova Parade Float as it traverses Pennsylvania Ave. on; A) January 20 2009 - Inaguartion Day or, B) January 22 2009 - 36th Anniversary of Roe v Wade, & the March for Life?

http://www.marchforlife.org/content/view/35/41/

I've seen this sentiment a lot, and while it is absolutely right, we all know the real reasons they chose Obama, so why the dance?

For keeping score when 2012 rolls around so we can remind anyone who goes into I'm-against-abortion-but mode.

Keeping score has saved so many lives hasn't it Scott W.? That's the bad thing about being a 3Pier.

Keeping score has saved so many lives hasn't it Scott W.?

It might if something comes of the reminder. But I have faith that all of us will come together and put our money where our mouth is. btw, "3Pier"? enlighten me please.

Third Partier.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the whole point of this entry by the Zipper was to get those folks to behave more like M.Z. Forrest (who intends to actively pursue such efforts as those discussed above by Zipper) and live up to the title of "Pro-Life" (at this point at least) as well as to unite all of us in thwarting whatever Pro-Abort policies Obama has in waiting?

Or was its purpose more towards galvanizing the "Us against Them" mentality in spite of those whose actions were more for than against?

Right, Zipp?

Third Partier.

Thanks.

"Keeping score" may be a perjorative term, but it is reasonable to document the inconsistencies if, in fact, they turn out to be inconsistencies. It is reasonable for many reasons: for one, because when the inconsistency is documented it destroys the appeal of the bad argument for others in future contexts. This is true of the work Lydia and I have done documenting the "disappearing embryo" effect within pro-life literature also. It will hopefully not be useful here, but the cynic in me thinks it probably will be. The credibility of the usual arguments in 2010/2012 will depend crucially on how Catholic Obama supporters start behaving right now and consistently behave from here forward. Bookmark this post.

As with a number of my arguments, I hope that at least some people are strongly motivated to prove me wrong through their own behavior, given how insufferable I can be when I am right.

10-23-2010: With mid-term elections a week away, social conservatives are fighting hard to make a comeback, while many "pro-life Democrats" remain conflicted. Widely-read Catholic blogger Zippy, ever one to put things pithily, stated the challenge this way: "Two years ago many progressive Catholics expressed hopes that Obama would be eager to work together with pro-lifers. It is now their turn to show whether they want to send enough pro-lifers to congress to give him a reason to do so."

This is true of the work Lydia and I have done documenting the "disappearing embryo" effect within pro-life literature also.

Yes, let's make sure we work hard at our unjustly undermining a villainous organization such as Right-to-Life. After all, it's not like they're doing important work such as saving the lives of innocent children, who undoubtedly won't be hurt by such scandal.

(Thank God at least Kevin stood up to take issue with this scurrilous charge first-hand.)

I just clicked on Darwin Catholic and appreciated very much the Douthat quotation (on the subject of Kmiec) he gave there. I'm not sure if this is more of an advertisement for Darwin Catholic or for Douthat. :-)

Ari:

You should devote your energies to getting the issues of ESCR and fetal tissue research re-established in pro-life literature rather than shooting the messengers, it seems to me.

Ok. "Keeping score" is a cynical way to put it. Pardon me as the effects of the last few months are still wearing off. I'm actually receptive to being kept honest about social justice and preferential option for the poor. And I'll be sure to keep others honest about the life issues. We can get a whole brother's keeper thing going. Assuming the Christians-must-be-banished-from-public crowd doesn't overrun us.

Zippy,

I don't have a problem with your monitoring such supposed inconsistencies; what I do have a problem with is the seemingly malicious conclusion you & Lydia had drawn.

Today's political & social climate is such that folks tend to shy away from organizations (charitable or otherwise) that carry even a hint of scandal. I don't blame them given several various corporate & government scandals that have become almost the typical weekly or even daily news.

It just seems to me that both you and Lydia have yet to establish the veracity of your claims against Right-to-Life and have neglected the repercussions in the sort of damage it may cause to it in spite of the rather scurrilous accusations.

Well, it seems the candidate comparison leaflet is about all the evidence there is. Clearly, it is circumstantial in the sense that RTL has not come out and said ESCR is off the table now. But circumstantial evidence can still get you convicted (rarely is there direct evidence).

So the absence of ESCR on the comparison leaflet can lead to at least two inferences - (1) they left it off because they thought it would hurt McC's chances of winning if pro-lifers learned he was for ESCR or (2) they figured everybody already knew McC's stand on ESCR, therefore there is no point in addressing those issues upon which the candidates agree. After all McC was crystal clear throughout his entire campaign about his exact position on ESCR.

"It just seems to me that both you and Lydia have yet to establish the veracity of your claims against Right-to-Life and have neglected the repercussions in the sort of damage it may cause to it..."

Well said, Ari. The focus should be on our pulling together to stop FOCA, not damaging the credibility and operational effectiveness of pro-life organizations. At this rate NRTL will be lumped together with Kmiec. Again, I understand the frustration we're all feeling, but this is getting absurd.

C. Matt, agreed.

At this rate NRTL will be lumped together with Kmiec.

Lydia and I haven't posted on NRTL/etc since the election. Ari keeps bringing it up. If he doesn't want the credibility problem there continually aired, he could start by not frequently raising the issue.

But if he raises the issue I'm not going to pretend it doesn't exist.

Funny, but I seem to recall folks posting things of that nature here and on their own personal blogs. Even further, several comments were made on other threads by those individuals as well here and elsewhere.

At any rate, I'm thankful that Kevin fought one source of those comments head-on at an earlier thread here at W4.

I'm also grateful to c matt for his rather charitable assessment of the subject brochure which was became the topic of one such blog entry at both places and by both individuals.

There's no better method of undermining an organization than spreading false rumours.

You of all people should know that, Zippy.

It's hard enough getting support for Pro-Life causes without this unnecessary and damaging scandal which is all based on but a false assumption.

Ari:

Neither Lydia nor I have spread any false rumors. Go away and give it a rest. Now.

c matt,
I can think of another reason for leaving ESCR off the Pro-Life literature...the literature was highlighting the differences between the candidates, not the similarities.

We must all come together in unequivocal support of the criminalization of abortion, criminalization of the medical cannibalization of embryos, and the banishment of fictions like "gay marriage" from any form of public legitimization: we must come together because opposition to the legality of those things is not politics but doctrine, doctrine to which we all owe religious and intellectual assent.

Tip of the iceberg, actually.

Remember, the proportionate reasons for voting for Obama included, inter alia, that he would cause the Federal government to provide more support for pregnant women, thereby reducing the number of abortions. Those programs must now be a legislative priority for you.

I don't think providing prenatal care and Big Cash Prizes for getting knocked up is the government's job, so you can't count on my support. Sorry! But no matter! You're the ones who assured us that Obama take concrete steps to reduce the number of abortions, so it's your responsibility to ensure that he doesn't make fools and/or liars out of you. Get cracking!

I don't think providing prenatal care and Big Cash Prizes for getting knocked up is the government's job, so you can't count on my support.

There's only one person keeping score. Fortuantely he is willing to erase the total with appropriate repentance.

Repentance and.....penance.

As with a number of my arguments, I hope that at least some people are strongly motivated to prove me wrong through their own behavior, given how insufferable I can be when I am right.

And when the Obama administration ultimately expands abortion programs throughout our country, implements industrial-scale destructive embryonic stem-cell research, normalizes gay marriages, reimposes the Fairness Doctrine to silence the conservatives once and for all, realizes the socialist dream of the Democrats in transforming our nation into the Welfare state they've always dreamed of and, contrary to the beliefs of then anti-war Obama supporters, engages Pakistan militarily (just as Obama indicated in the 1st debate); y'all will finally come to the understanding why some of us had voted against Obama rather than sitting on the sidelines and just allowing the greater evil to prevail!

I guess the US Bishops finally got their man Obama into the White House. I hope they feel proud of themselves. Now watch them come out and speak forcefully against abortion after the damage is done as if they care about the issue. We all know there is no chance in you know where that Obama and the Democrats will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will turn over Roe v Wade.

I guess the US Bishops finally got their man Obama into the White House. I hope they feel proud of themselves.

What U.S. Bishops are those that you're referring to here????

Most of the U.S. Bishops I know sent messages and, in fact, made public appeals that directed Catholic voters NOT to vote for Obama!

U.S. Bishops Come out Swinging against Abortion, Pro-Abort Politicians
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08101706.html

Friday, October 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In these final weeks before the American election, many US bishops are working hard to leave Catholics no doubt of where they must stand on the abortion issue when it comes to the ballot box.

Bishops Robert W. Finn of Kansas City, Robert Hermann of St. Louis, and Edwin O'Brien of Baltimore have all penned strongly worded columns on abortion in the last few days, calling on their flocks to vote pro-life and to support the pro-life cause more generally, describing the November election as one that comes down to "saving our children or killing our children." "This," says Bishop Hermann in the St. Louis Review, "is the overriding issue facing each of us."

Bishop: Vote Against Supporters of Freedom of Choice Act
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=30312

Bishop says that FOCA would "make null and void every current restriction on abortion in all jurisdictions."

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Zenit) - A U.S. bishop says people of good will should question a candidate's determination to reduce abortions when he also promises to immediately sign upon taking office the Freedom of Choice Act.

Texas Bishops Issue Letter Against Abortion Rights
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/125696.php

Roman Catholic bishops of the Fort Worth and Dallas, Texas, dioceses last week issued a letter calling abortion "intrinsically evil," the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports. The letter, written by Fort Worth Bishop Kevin Vann and Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell, said that it would be "morally impermissible" for Catholics to vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights over a candidate opposed to such rights.

Tidal Wave of Bishops Against Obama
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/tidal-wave-of-bishops-against.html

At last count, fifty bishops have said voters should cast their ballot entirely on the basis of abortion.
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/12189

Voting Pro-Abortion Called Cooperating in Evil: Texas Bishops Resolve Doubts
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=30188

DALLAS, Texas (Zenit.org) - Voting for a pro-abortion candidate when there is an alternative option is to cooperate in evil, and therefore morally impermissible, clarified two Texas bishops.

Thus, bishops Farrell and Vann stated, "we cannot make more clear the seriousness of the overriding issue of abortion -- while not the 'only issue'-- it is the defining moral issue, not only today, but of the last 35 years. […] This electoral cycle affords us an opportunity to promote the culture of life in our nation.

"As Catholics we are morally obligated to pray, to act and to vote to abolish the evil of abortion in America, limiting it as much as we can until it is finally abolished."

I have hundreds of more articles that range from even as early as 2 years ago!

Ari -

I approved your comments with all the links in them. (Comments with more than one link are automatically held for approval, I think). I can't tell, without going through them carefully side by side, if they are all basically the same. Do you want me to delete all but the first one?

Zippy,

THANKS SO MUCH!

Please keep the November 7, 2008 2:32 PM one; the rest you can delete (they were poor attempts at reconstructing the original).

Sorry for the tardy response; I just came back from lunch with various counsel for the firm who were waxing poetic about the failures of American Democracy and how unfit the general populace is to vote on matters of proposition (which they believe is more of a legislative responsibility than a matter for the people) let alone a candidate (or, more precisely, a representative voting for a candidate) for presidency.

God bless.

For those of you that agree with such sin and call yourselves Catholic must understand what you are doing. We must pray for all people and love everyone according to the 11th Commandment given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ. "A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another." Remember what the Lord has said in such things. Do what He says and we all will live a peaceful life. Luke Chaper 6 verse 27 - 49

27 But I say to you that hear: Love your enemies. Do good to them that hate you. 28 Bless them that curse you and pray for them that calumniate you. 29 And to him that striketh thee on the one cheek, offer also the other. And him that taketh away from thee thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also. 30 Give to every one that asketh thee: and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again. 31 And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner. 32 And if you love them that love you, what thanks are to you? For sinners also love those that love them. 33 And if you do good to them who do good to you, what thanks are to you? For sinners also do this. 34 And if you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what thanks are to you? For sinners also lend to sinners, for to receive as much. 35 But love ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby: and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the sons of the Highest. For he is kind to the unthankful and to the evil. 36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

37 Judge not: and you shall not be judged. Condemn not: and you shall not be condemned. Forgive: and you shall be forgiven. 38 Give: and it shall be given to you: good measure and pressed down and shaken together and running over shall they give into your bosom. For with the same measure that you shall mete withal, it shall be measured to you again. 39 And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? Do they not both fall into the ditch? 40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one shall be perfect, if he be as his master. 41 And why seest thou the mote in thy brother's eye: but the beam that is in thy own eye thou considerest not? 42 Or how canst thou say to thy brother: Brother, let me pull the mote out of thy eye, when thou thyself seest not the beam in thy own eye? Hypocrite, cast first the beam out of thy own eye: and then shalt thou see clearly to take out the mote from thy brother's eye. 43 For there is no good tree that bringeth forth evil fruit: nor an evil tree that bringeth forth good fruit. 44 For every tree is known by its fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns: nor from a bramble bush do they gather the grape. 45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 46 And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?

47 Every one that cometh to me and heareth my words and doth them, I will show you to whom he is like. 48 He is like to a man building a house, who digged deep and laid the foundation upon a rock. And when a flood came, the stream beat vehemently upon that house: and it could not shake it: for it was founded on a rock. 49 But he that heareth and doth not is like to a man building his house upon the earth without a foundation: against which the stream beat vehemently. And immediately it fell: and the ruin of that house was great.

I support Obama as President with prayer, prayer, and more prayer. But I do not support him in what he intends to do as President.

Just as a quick program note, my post is not an expression of support for Obama; it is a call for Catholic supporters of Obama (of which I am not one) to begin exercising their grave duty to vociferously oppose his abortion policies. Assuming that Catholic supporters of Obama were sincere (though in my view objectively wrong) in their reasons for supporting him, the measure of their sincerity will be how diligently they work to oppose the grave evil with which they have materially cooperated. And in their diligent efforts to oppose his policies they - that is, sincere Obama Catholics, presuming of course that they exist - will have a friend and ally in social conservatism. The measure of Douglas Kmiec' a sincerity will be the extent to which he vocally and unapologetically opposes the President he helped elect on that President's policies.

Indeed, if I were one of these high-profile Catholic Obama supporters, I would suddenly be getting mighty nervous. Oh no! I actually got what I asked for! After all, I'm on record as promising a massive reduction in abortions as an attending benefit of an Obama administration, the main justification of my controversial support for him--as a Catholic, my only justification, if it is even that. My credibility with pro-life Catholics is on the line. Obama, you gotta come through for me, man. Don't make me eat crow. I've played the prophet, now you've got to prove me divinely inspired.

"When it comes to opposing Obama's policies on abortion, ESCR, gay "marriage", and other strains of wickedness, you can count on us, that is, those of us on the unreconstructed socially conservative side of the house. Yesterday we may have been political enemies, but today there is no longer any justification for that; which is to say, your justification for opposing us no longer obtains. We must all come together in unequivocal support of the criminalization of abortion, criminalization of the medical cannibalization of embryos, and the banishment of fictions like "gay marriage" from any form of public legitimization: we must come together because opposition to the legality of those things is not politics but doctrine, doctrine to which we all owe religious and intellectual assent. Byegones being byegones, disagreement over proportionate reasons in the Presidential election now a figment of the past, we must all come together."

Its disgusting to see such ignorance among humanity.

Its always crocodile tears when it comes to the church. Oppress a group that you disagree with while claiming that your own way of life is being repressed. Sound a bit familiar, Happy Inquisition of the Gays!

Schwarzwald,

You are welcome to actually enter into the discussion, and perhaps venture to make an argument.

Its disgusting to see such ignorance among humanity.

Well, thanks for acknowledging our humanity, but wondering when you'll get around to doing the same for unborn babies.

What I’m afraid of is our brother and sister’s justify their vote even more and not go against Obama’s evil agenda.

CONGRATULATIONS, one & all -- anti-McCain people & Obama Supporters alike!

From InForum Blog by Sheila Liaugminas: 11.09.08 But did anyone think it would be so quick?

Senator Obama made the clear and firm promise to Planned Parenthood that he would act swirftly to loosen (or remove) abortion limits if elected president.

So it was not surprising when human rights activists worried, just after the election, that abortions would increase and even be exported under his administration.

The United Nations is expected to aggressively promote abortions worldwide with Barack Obama as the new president of the United States. One of the top pro-life lobbyists at the United Nations says he worries the floodgates will come open to perhaps make abortion an international right…

“It is likely the new president will work almost immediately to correct what his ideological allies like CRR [Center for Reproductive Rights] view as multiple mistakes of the Bush administration with regard to international social policy,” [C-Fam president Austin] Ruse writes in the Friday Fax.

Which is exactly what the Obama transition team announced today.

President-elect Barack Obama is poised to move swiftly to reverse actions that President Bush took using executive authority, and his transition team is reviewing limits on stem cell research and the expansion of oil and gas drilling, among other issues, members of the team said Sunday.

As mentioned in the post below, one of those “other issues” is “reproductive rights”.

“There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for Congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that,” John D. Podesta, a top transition leader, said Sunday. “He feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set.”

...Pro-life Democrats have no voice in decisions that never make it to Congress. Executive authority is being invoked to loosen laws and commit federal funds for abortion - a restriction that goes back to the hard-fought-and-won Hyde Amendment - under the claim of popular “mandate”.

It’s unpopular enough with the American people to allow all the power to sit with one party. It’s not going to sit well with the people that the pro-life Democrats they elected have no say in expanding access to abortion, and the funding to pay for it. That crosses the line beyond what ‘pro-choice’ advocates even support. Once federal funds are spent on abortion, and even on foreign land (overturning the Mexico City policy, if it comes to that), taxpayers no longer have a choice. Or a say. They’ve already spoken. But apparently, some don’t even know what they said….or how it’s being interpreted.