www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Moral Voting

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The answer to some of your distress can be found in a marvelous quote from Charles Papazian.

"Relax. Don't worry. Have a homebrew."

With Bush in power or a Kerry administration, nothing is going to change. It will not be until the hearts of Americans are changed concerning abortion that anything else will.

Congress has powers, the judiciary has powers, the president has powers . . . If it was up to the president alone, Reagan would have already made it illegal.

But even legality won't change reality. If abortion was made illegal tomorrow, doctors would still sell their "service" and people would still seek them out.

You can change the president, you can change congress, you can change the judiciary, you can change the law, but it won't make a difference until you change people's minds.

Further, in a democracy, you won't be able to change anything politically until you've changed the people.

So listen to Mr. Papazian. Relax and have a homebrew. Then, when you are sufficiently de-stressed from this thread, go out and show folks the link I started a thread with two days ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3846525.stm


This isn't an anti-abortion website and it's from the UK, so people will be less likely to be offended and guarded if you send it. You don't even have to mention abortion. Just read the story. It doesn't take a hard sell to make it an effective sell.

Walnut40,

Sorry but I disagree. I never suggested that Bush was perfect. Only that he will further the pro-life cause more than any other presidential candidate that has a chance of winning.

Regarding removing abortion from the jurisdiction of the judiciary, it�s just not that simple. One cannot interpret the exceptions clause in isolation. This provision coexists with other constitutional guarantees, like equal protection. No, the only achievable way to enact change regarding abortion in the coming generation is to elect presidents who have the best chance of appointing Supreme Court judges who will overturn Roe vs Wade. It might even be necessary to appoint a pro-abortion judge who will overturn Roe vs. Wade simply because it is bad law and because the Democrats in the Senate have vowed not to confirm anyone who might be Pro-Life. That is a start.

Again, where do you wish the country to be 10 years from now? You can support a candidate who meets your standards perfectly but has no chance of winning and speak of moral purity or you can support a candidate who will further the pro-life cause and perhaps limit some abortions as the next step. I do give this administration great credit for the ban on partial-birth abortions. I hope it survives when it gets to the Supreme Court. It is not enough but it is a start.

BTW, where does your nickname �Walnut40� come from? I think of my mother�s delicious nut roll every time I read one of your posts.

Admin

The same old strategy is stale and ineffective. We need some radical change of approach.

When 186 US scandal chastened Catholic bishops still vote to give communion to pro-abortion candidates, the culture will not move, it is placated. The culture insipidly affects them like a virus as well. The American Life League March is unwelcome by the bishops in many northeastern cities.

We are a republic, not a democracy. A republic has a responsibility to protect life and nullify any court ruling to the contrary. In the words of President Andrew Jackson, let the Supreme Court try to enforce its own decrees.


Viva Cristo Rey

Dear Administrator:

Of course there would be great variance in time-on-welfare. Your anecdote considers the long-term tail, which some folks like to dwell on. In any case, whaterver the reasons for this tail, it cannot be considered to have occured without choice, and it therefore very, very different from slavery. Your choice of words is unfortunate.

What works and what is a fair share depend on our expenses and resources. I suppose, for example, that the costs of bio-medical research was comparatively modest in biblical times.

Democrats even before Kennedy did not eschew Keynesian pump priming to jump-start a sluggish economy. But tax-cuts as a central component of fiscal policy is a novelty that has, in its years of practice by Reagan and Bush pere & fils, consistently given us deficits. At some point, it would be nice to incorporate this reality in policy outlook.

btw, I am glad you agree. Cheney, OTOH, views the policy as pay-back to financial supporters, and feels the defecits don't matter - according to the administration's first Sec. of Treasury.

This idea is totally naive. The loopholes loom large enough for anyone one who wants an abortion to get one. The abortion numbers are unlikely to appreciably change. And the downside is that we bite the awful apple that says government has authority to define good versus evil abortions. The status quo of government withdrawal is bad enough. This principle is substantially worse. It is a step in a philosophically horrifically wrong direction, and is unlikely to have the practical advantages that you hope for.


The meaning of "support" in this sentence undergoes such a huge swing that my head is spinning. This is the key point; it cannot be swept under the rug.

And thus, notwithstanding the greater gravity of this issue compared to all others, taking it as the decisive issue for voting is, ISTM, ill-conceived.

to the best of my recollection, I have not asserted that the Church herself is opposed to the death penalty. If I have given the impression of saying that, I apologize and withdraw whatever words gave such an impression. I have, of course, strongly implied that I personally am opposed to the death penalty, which is indeed true. But this is one of those questions on which good men may and do differ.
Incognitus

Incognitus,

Thank you for getting back to me. I greatly value your perspective and opinion.

My friend, apparently you haven't spent a great deal of time at Byzantine Catholic parishes in the city of Pittsburgh. Here in Pittsburgh the Democratic Party and the Catholic Church are one in the same. I know this from experience.

Every Sunday morning I drive into my parish's parking lot and am greeted by John Kerry bumperstickers. When the word leaked out that I am not supporting Kerry, I was literally cornered by several angry parishioners who demanded an accounting. As far as I can tell, I am only one of a very small minority in my parish who is not vocally supporting Kerry.

On a personal note, my grandfather was an important official in the local Democratic party. My mother also worked for the party, and for the election of President Kennedy (a great president, in my opinion). My godfather, who is also my cousin, is still a party leader.

The Democratic party that my family believed in was all about looking out for the poor and defenseless. That was a good thing. Unfortunately, today (on the national level) they have forgotten about the most defenseless of all, and have effectively become the arm of the powerful and wealthy abortion lobby. On the local level, though, there are still some wonderful pro-life Democrats who are worthy of our support. But the party won't let them rise to national level. Senator John Breux, a fantastic and dynamic pro-life Democrat from Louisiana, looked into the possibility of running from president several years ago. He has the stuff to make a good president. Unfortunately, his exploratory committee concluded that while he could possibly win the general election in November, he would never have a chance at winning the Democratic primaries.

At any rate, I hate political parties. People become so blinded by inherited loyalty to one political party or the other, and this causes them to vote for candidates whom they would otherwise never consider. I have absolutely no loyalty to any political party.

Again, I am not advocating voting for Bush. I too have serious disagreements with him, especially over the war in Iraq, which was the wrong thing to do. But Kerry also supported this war, and gave speeches on the floor of the Senate urging his fellows senators to vote for it. Thus, I fail to see how Kerry is any more pro-life. If anything, it seems to me that Kerry is more intent upon advancing the Culture of Death.

I have to give Bush credit where credit is due, though. He has nominated an impressive number of pro-life judges to the federal judiciary. Several of them were stopped by a Democratic fillibuster, unfortunately, which was directly aimed at stopping "anti-choice" judges. Many of them did manage to get appointed, however.

Ultimately, the judges are where the action is. Roe vs. Wade came into being by a judicial fiat. Kerry has promised to appoint only pro-abortion judges, who will serve for life. We will also see more judicial decisions persecuting groups such as the Boy Scouts who refuse to cave in to the radical homosexual agenda. Presidents come and go, while judges and their decisions last a lifetime.

Also, as was previously pointed out, Bush's executive order only allows research on already created stem cell lines, and prohibts the creation of new lines (by creating and killing babies). While that is something of a compromise, at least more babies aren't dying because of it. Senator Kerry, unfortunately, has come out strongly in favor of using federal funds to create new lines by these means.

I fear that government recognition of homosexual marriages will have major repurcussions for the Catholic Church, though. Already, in California, Catholic Charities has come under judicial attack for refusing benefits to homosexual spouses. With the kinds of judges that Kerry has pledged to appoint to the benches, these kinds of decisions will spread nationwide.

Also, what would you as a pastor do if a gay couple wants to rent out your church's social hall for their wedding festivities? With gay marriage defined as a legal right, you could be sued for discrimination if you say no.

God bless,
Anthony

djs,

Thanks for your post.

I�m sorry you disapprove of my choice of the word �enslavement�. Since we regularly sing about Christ freeing us from enslavement to passions I don�t equate it only with the slavery of the 1800�s. Plus, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a liberal Democrat, used the same term regarding welfare so I feel like I�m in good company. There is no doubt that many elements of the welfare system enslaved people to that system because it was easier to stay in it and not work than to work and receive about the same amount of income.

No. That�s socialism. A �fair share� cannot be dependent upon one�s ability (and free choice) to work and create wealth. It also cannot be dependent merely upon one�s perception of societal needs.

No. Tax cuts do not give us deficits. Too much spending gives us deficits. There is a fairly inverse relationship between tax rates and tax revenues (the lower the rates the higher the revenues). This has been proven numerous times in our own short history and has just been proved again with tax revenues at their highest amount ever.

Many people fail to understand that lower tax rates generate higher tax revenues. Tax rates are directly linked to behavior. Let�s look at an example using possible weekend overtime for a worker making $20/hour. If this worker can work 10 hours on a Saturday and is taxed at the rate of 20% he takes home $160 (an after tax wage of $16/hr). But if his tax rate is 80% he will only take home $40 (an after tax wage of $4/hr). At some point this worker decides that it is not worth his while to work for $4/hr and so he chooses not to work. The government, which could have had $40 at the 20% tax rate now gets $0 at the 80% tax rate because the worker changed his behavior.

That is not an accurate assessment of Cheney�s stated position. Cheney puts deficits into perspective. A person who has a $25,000 debt on credit cards at a 21% interest rate and makes $30,000/year has a big problem. Another person with a similar $25,000 debt but who makes $100,000/year has a far smaller problem. Someone who makes $500,000/year may have no problem at all. What Cheney has stated [publicly at least] is that the national debt is way too large, but as a percentage of GDP it is smaller than ever (or, in other words, our ability to pay it (assuming we rein in spending) is far greater than it ever has been before).

It is not naive at all. I certainly don�t expect President Bush to get a few secret pro-lifers past the Democrats and appointed to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade and then pass a law immediately outlawing all abortions except the so-called �hard cases�. I do expect he or some future pro-life president to appoint judges who are hopefully pro-life but who definitely consider Roe vs. Wade bad law and overturn it. Then the issue will go back to both the states and to Congress. The changes will come over the next generations, but not without much prayer and effort.

There are no good vs evil abortions and there never can be. Educating society about the evil of abortion and getting the government to ban at least some abortions while working towards banning all abortions is not a bad principle. There is nothing wrong with saving lives wherever possible.

No need for your head to spin. I cannot fathom how Incognitus (or anyone else) can give a pass to Senator John Kerry�s support of legalized abortion which murders 1,400,000 humans each year in our country and yet does not give a pass to President Bush�s support of the use of the death penalty in a manner that the Church says is moral.

I could not disagree with you more. All of the other issues do not add up to a greater gravity than the need to establish and respect the right to life. All social justice is rooted in the right to life. To dismiss the right to life as one of many issues is to dismiss the right to life. That, IMHO, is both ill conceived and sinful.

One of the saddest things I see in the Democrat Party today is that there is no need for it to be staunchly pro-abortion. There are many Democrats like former Pennsylvania Governor Casey who are pro-life but are currently shut out of the party. If Democrats voted only for pro-life Democrats in the party primaries within 10 years the Democrat party could easily go from pro-abortion to pro-life. But that�s not going to happen as long as Christians like you give a pass to pro-abortion candidates and support abortion with your vote.

Admin

Why is it that "pro-life" has come only to mean anti-abortion, and SOMETIMES anti-death penalty?

In the US, you can kill people with a fair degree of impunity as long as you are an employer. Willfully disregard even the most basic safety requirements, laws (both legal and physical) and standards of decency. Have a history of workers dying in your employ. It might cost you a couple thousand dollars now and then, but you are unlikely ever to face criminal prosecution, no matter how many people your willful actions or inactions kill. Especially if the dead workers are Hispanic - the statistics on mortality for Hispanic workers is shameful. OSHA used to have some teeth. It used to be interested in seeing that the law was followed. Training programs of peer-reviewed value used to go to the worker at the worksite, and teach safety in hazardous occupations to the people most at risk. (The Susan Harwood training grants) This administration has consistently de-funded those efforts. It killed the TB standard (and a nurse recently died of TB which could have been prevented). It sent the thoroughly researched proposed ergonomics standard back for "more study." It loaded the lead committee with lead industry apologists, some of whom have gone on public record as stating that lead is not harmful to children. It's trying to bury NIOSH within the CDC, counter to the statutes that created it - and the plan was presented without any input from the occupational health professionals. These things don't make the headlines, especially since they go on behind the scenes - an appointment here, a regulation changed there - but there has been a consistent trend under the current administration so subvert the rights of law-abiding, taxpaying Americans to a safe workplace.

I'm sure that I'm "factually incorrect" again.

I'm sorry I gave in to the temptation to post on this thread in the first place.

Sharon
(who has great respect for Bishop John Michael. I wish he would quit smoking - we need men like him to live a long time.)

Sharon,

You obviously don't live in California. Cal-OSHA has some of the strictest standards and highest fines in the country. Maybe the other states should take a look, instead of relying on the federal OSHA to regulate their businesses.

Tammy

Sharon,

While you use a quite a bit of hyperbole you do raise some valid issues. I do disagree with the current administration on some aspects of the workplace safety rules. I do not see this as an attempt to kill off workers. I see it as an attempt (maybe a poor one at times) to do the most good with a fixed amount of money. Do we spend $100,000 million on testing workers for TB to find a relatively small number of cases per year or do we spend it on other aspects of workplace safety? [OSHA withdrew the 1997 standard on Occupational Exposure to Tuberculosis because it was determined that the procedures were not actually reducing the transmission of TB in the workplace. Better results were being obtained with efforts in getting hospitals and other similar work places to comply with Federal guidelines for preventing the transmission of TB. Yes, I know that this means nothing to the family of your nurse friend who died from TB.]

ISTM that the entire issue of workplace safety needs a rethinking. There are so many rules that cost a lot but provide little actual improvement in worker safety while at the same time there are large holes that could be at least partially filled with a small amount of money. The problem is the politics of the whole thing.

Regarding that proposed ergonomics standard from a few years back, I read good portions of it and discussed it quite a bit with people who work in the arena of worker safety. Much of it was decent but much of it was downright silly. It would have been prohibitively costly while yielding only mediocre improvements in workplace safety. It was right that it be sent back for review.

Yes, I do agree that there are some industry apologists who don�t just manipulate facts but outright lie about them. That is all the more reason for those seeking improvements in workplace safety to make sure that the proposals are rooted in solid science.

You are absolutely correct that �pro-life� is much more than abortion. But issues like medical care and workplace safety pale next to the killing of innocents.

Admin

My thanks to Anthony for his gracious response to my posting. He is correct in thinking that I have not spent much time in Byzantine Catholic parishes in the Pittsburgh area. Come to think of it, I haven't spent a great deal of time in the Pittsburgh area at all. But at its best Pittsburgh can be quite an enjoyable place.
Funnily enough, my family's political history in the USA sounds similar to Anthony's, though I won't go into detail. Sociologically, I rather think that the Democratic Party was an important path to greater participation in American life on several levels. But people who are much better informed than I am and who have devoted far more time than I have to the study of the American political system could tell us all much more about that aspect of things than I could.
As to what I would do if a same-sex couple wanted to rent the parish hall for their wedding festivities (!), my advice would be that in general it's best to have someone other than the pastor serve as buffer - he or she is in charge of the hall rentals and thus, for instance, gets to tell prospective customers that we don't allow people to rent the hall for meals unless our caterers do the food service, that we don't permit certain kinds of activity, etc. etc. The issue of discrimination can often be resolved by exercising great care in advertising - rather than place ads in the media, simply let it be known that the hall MIGHT be available SOMETIMES for private parties, but under stringent conditons. But since I don't have a hall at the moment, this is a purely hypothetical question, and not one that I expect to be called upon to deal with in the preactical realm! For that matter, what's to be done if the couple are heterosexual, Catholic, and entering into a purely civil marriage (it happens every day)? I suppose I might consult the diocesan legal advisor if I had any reason to fear complications.
Incognitus

And its absorbed Ohio . Wow! Ethan Allen would be proud

Many years,

Neil

I talked wrote about "our" expenses and resources - what we as a people through our representatives incur and discharge. You change it to "one's" ability, "one's perception" etc. Naughty. We incur bills; we should pay them.

We should pay our bills, rather than foisting them off on the next generation. If we as a people decide that we will spend $, then we ought to secure the revenue to support the purchases that we have decided to make. The stubborn facts are that the tax cut and spend policies have not lived up to the hype that we can have our cake and eat it too. After sixteen years, give it a rest.

Paul O'Neill's assessment, not mine. There is a major flaw in your analogy, as it does not differentiate between debt incurred for investment versus for living expenses; neither does it take into account who will ultimately pay the debt. Shifting payments for expenses to another generation is not sound stewardship. And what on earth makes you assume that spending will be reigned in, whatever that means?

Again you assume, erroneously IMO, that lives will be saved. If this assumption were correct I might agree that the practical benefits outweight this horrific idea of a government arrogating this moral authority. But as I mentioned, I don't expect a decline in numbers, just a huge increase in the numbers of purported hard cases. And if my assumption is correct, then we've taken a terrible step backwards for nothing.

Consider that by voting for candidate X, one is, by some people's thinking, "supporting" abortion and the killing of 1.4 Mpeople/yr. Suppose that that same person "supported" the murder of his neighbor by direct action, killing the neighbor in cold blood. I would lke to think that we agree that the nature of "support" is crucial for determining the graver offence.

Please show me the church's endorsement of the manner in which Bush used the death penalty. I think that if you could find a direct comment it would criticize the gross excess at the very least.

Huh? I stipulated this very point. However, following Cizinec's point, if the impact of your vote on this issue is essentially zero - a big if to be sure - then it is ill-conceived to inform your vote by this issue, rather than by those where there is a real likelihood of a real difference.

I think you have this entirely backwards. I think that this transformation will come, because the basic ethos of the party, through its long-term history is the championing of human rights. And IMO it is crucial that it comes from this perspective, so that this issue can addressed at a societally transforming level of social consciousness - a level at which the other side has little credibility; it thus will never persuade the 75% of Americans who want abortion legal (and may not even want to - the continuing vitality of this issue is very much to their electoral advantage.)

But this transformation is retarded by people who adopt a litmus test and abandon the fight, where it can, IMO, make the crucial difference. The consequence, then, is that Democrats are increasingly beholden to pro-choice advocates, and the pro-life influence is diminished. The transformation and the solution to this problem is delayed. An unintended consequences no doubt. (Except for those who are just shilling for Republicans.) But good intentions by themselves are not going to solve the problem.

Neil - Whoops - college vs. home/birthplace!

(Ethan Allen might not be that proud - the next town over just got voted most polluted in the nation, IIRC.)

-Peggy

Kerry's voting record has led to a complaint filed in the Ecclesiastical Court of the Archdiocese of Boston. See my post at:

Heresy Complaint Filed against Kerry in Ecclesiatical Court