www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall American Politics: a modest proposal

All but party hacks seem to agree that this election year is shaping up to be an even worse-than-usual choice between two evils. To say there is little enthusiasm for either candidate is an understatement.

At the same time, something remarkable is occuring: among non-mainstream folks of the Left and the Right there is a growing convergence of opinion on a range of issues. Read Chronicles or The American Conservative on questions of global corporatism, concern over loss of American jobs, the dangers of the so-called Patriot Act and opposition to what is perceived as an imperialist war, and you would think you were reading something from the Green Party or the anti-globalist Left.
However, the nonmainstream Right and Left are neither of them able to field more than symbolic candidates, and they are unable to unite because of what divides them: attitudes toward the so-called "cultural issues" such as abortion, homosexuality, and even things of personal taste like fashion.
What I propose for discussion is this: What if populists of the Left and Right agree to a temporary truce on the things that divide us and set out to take the country back from the oligarchs? We could emphasize the thinkers both sides admire, like EF Schumacher and Wendall Berry and heck, Thomas Jefferson. Our fundraisers could be the sorts of music that both sides enjoy, like bluegrass , blues and gospel music. How about a Buchanan/Nader ticket? After we have reclaimed our country from the global oligarchs we could duke it out over the divisive issues. Hey, perhaps if we worked together on the things that unite us, we could even discover common ground on these issues, or at the very least, come to respect one another as people instead of demonizing one another.
I know it is a long shot, but in today's political scene it is the only thing I can see developing that would hold out the least bit of hope for our country.
What do you all think? I do not have daily access to the computer but will check back in when I can to see what is brewing.

Amazing; I got no response to my proposal in 36 hours. If I had posted something on pews vs standing or some arcane liturgical practice I would have 5 pages of discussion by now. Oh well...

I think it's a wonderful idea, but it will never happen. There is too much voter apathy, and too many little groups who are only interested in their own agendas. Does anyone really believe that either major party cares about the country? This is about the response I expected to your post. Now if you had the audacity to insult some bizarre, arcane Slavic custom, Hell would have no fury like you would experience.

I would vote Buchanan-Nader in a hearbeat!
I read Chronicles and The Nation and listen to NPR. How about Pat Buchanan-Michael Moore?

We can fight the culture war after we win back our democracy.

Greens and Constitutionists need a left-right punch against established power.

Hey Walnut- you're all right in spite of your misguided hostility to baseball.

Anybody here remember Bloom County?

Remember when Hodgepodge and Portnoy suggested the dream ticket? Jesse and Jesse - Jesse Helms and Jesse Jackson. Let's offend everybody!


Most of the Founding Fathers couldn't get elected under our current system......


Holdin' mah nose but votin' anyway,


Sharon

Careful, Sharon. Voting either way this November is liable to get you excommunicated - or at least blasted on the board.

Yours,

hal

HOW CAN ONE SET ASIDE ABORTION?

Can a Christian Be a Democrat?
Jimmy Moore
July 10, 2003

I already know the answer to the question I used for the title of this article. I have a good friend and another political acquaintance who are both Christians and Democrats. Additionally, both are exceptionally intelligent thinkers and call themselves Christians. Therefore, the answer to my question at face value is �YES.�

But let�s take a closer look at it for just a moment. If someone calls himself a Christian (defined at Dictionary.com as �one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus and lives according to the teachings of Jesus�) and believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ, I cannot fathom how that person can choose to be a Democrat in 2003.

The Democrat Party has been extremely critical of Christian morals and values for as long as I can remember. I have little doubt in my mind that the Democrat Party sold their soul to Satan many years ago. They have become a political party focused on anything and everything that goes against the Bible and its teachings. The Democrat Party has no problem with the cruelty of abortion and allowing the spread of homosexuality to permeate modern society.

On the issue of abortion, the Democrat Party believes that a woman has the right to choose to kill that unborn child or not because she can do with her own body what she wants to. But what about prostitution? Do women have the right to choose whether they can engage in that activity or not? Nope. Or how about illegal drug use? Is it a person�s right to choose whether they can engage in that activity without any consequences? Absolutely not. Then how are they able to get away with using that argument in the case of abortion?

You don�t have to be a doctor to know that a baby who is growing in the womb of his mother is a separate human being with unique human characteristics and DNA. Does anyone really believe that an unborn baby is just a mass of tissue anymore? Science proves verifiably that the thing growing in a mother�s womb after conception is a living and breathing baby.

And yet the Democrat Party violates one of the basic laws found in the Old Testament (�thou shalt not kill�) when it actively promotes the idea of women having the right to an abortion. The Democrat Party has long heralded Roe v. Wade as their symbol of victory for individual rights and civil liberties. But with 40 million babies sacrificed in the name of choice, the Democrat Party is the one with the blood on their hands for this.

Pro-abortion advocates often respond to critics by claiming that a baby in the womb of a mother is not fully developed and that most abortions take place in the first trimester. And yet science proves that a baby�s heart begins beating within four weeks, brain activity begins within six weeks and all of the human body parts are formed within eight weeks after conception. An abortion stops that beating heart and sucks the life out of that baby for good.

Abortion supporters in the Democrat Party say that since the baby doesn�t feel anything, there�s no harm done. Okay, using that argument, if a patient is given a shot that causes him to not feel any pain, is it okay for someone to murder him? How about that guy in Arkansas who just woke up for a coma after 19 years? Would it have been acceptable for him to be murdered just because he was unable to feel anything? This line of thinking is simply illogical.

Then, when members of the Democrat Party get tired of that point, they claim that a baby is not fully developed until birth. But once again science (yes, the same science that people say is better and more accurate than religion) shows that a baby continues to develop even after he comes out of his mother�s womb. Bones in the head continue to take shape and vision is not complete when a baby first enters the world. Newborn babies also have heart murmurs as their heart valves continue to develop. With all of this evidence, would the Democrat Party think it is okay to kill babies after their mothers have given birth to them since they are not yet fully developed?

Most Democrats couldn�t tell you why they support abortion other than the fact that they have been bought and paid for by pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood, NOW and NARAL. I�m just waiting for a few brave Christian Democrats to stand up for the rights of the unborn and proclaim that abortion is wrong. Do enough of them have the courage to do it?

Science shows that a baby is created when the sperm fertilizes the ovum at conception. The joining together of these two creates a double set of chromosomes, with half coming from the male and half from the female, that will form the genes of the baby. This is called the zygote and is a brand new human being with his own DNA. All of this is scientifically proven fact. There are no conservative Christian opinions in this paragraph. And yet Christian conservative teach these facts as well. Nevertheless, the Democrat Party refuses to look at the facts.

And, so did the U.S. Supreme Court back in 1973. How could they ignore what both science and the Bible proved to be true that life actually begins at conception? And yet they did exactly that. That was the greatest injustice in American history that still lingers on to this day.

If a Christian looks at himself in the mirror and is honest with himself about what the Democrat Party believes, then he cannot possibly call himself a Democrat. Besides abortion, the Democrat Party has no problem embracing the gay lifestyle.

Yet, how can a Christian ignore what the Scripture says in Romans 1:27:

�For their women have exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature, and in like manner the men also, having abandoned the natural use of the woman, have burned in their lusts, one toward another, men with men doing shameless things and receiving in themselves the fitting recompense of their perversity.�

With loads of money coming into the Democrat Party from Hollywood and liberal organizations, the Democrats turn a blind eye to the moral decay that is happening in our culture day after day. Gay activists are pushing their agenda on the American people through movies and television. If groups like these decided to stop funding the Democrat Party, then it would cease to exist as a viable political party immediately. But the millions of dollars that come flowing in help keep the Democrats in business.

As I stated in my previous article, the favorite target of the Democrat Party are born-again Christians. While I will concede that there are Christians who believe the teachings of the Bible line up with the message of the Democrat Party, most Christians lean conservative. And Democrats call us bigots and attack us for believing differently than they do. While the Democrat Party will stand behind the rights of minorities and gays, they leave Christians dangling in the wind. Why would a Christian want to be a Democrat with all the criticism?

Here�s an interesting conversation starter: Do you think a pro-life Democrat would ever be elected President of the United States? Not hardly! That explains why Al Gore changed his position before he ran in 2000. But how is it possible for someone who believes in the Word of God and lives by its teachings embrace the ideology of a political party that does nothing but mock everything that God stands for?

Finally, here�s another thought-provoking question for you: If abortion was made illegal for good in America today and completely removed from the arena of political and public debate, then what would happen to the Republican Party? Chew on that one for a while and let me know what you think.

Oh, now that's a good one!

-- Ed

Since you ask, my opinion is that if the abortion issue were completely removed from public debate and the political agenda, the Republican Party would find something else to be two-faced about.
I think abortion is mortally sinful, murderous of the innocent, and irredemable. But in the case of George Bush I'm willing to consider an exception - he qualifies for a post-natal termination program, complete with federal funding.
Look, folks, I know this is an election year. But the attempt to convince the rest of us that only ultraconservative Republicans have any claim to be called Christians is seriously offensive. It is also seriously counter-productive and could drive people away from the Church (many people object to being told whom they should vote for on theocratic grounds). Do you think abortion is morally intolerable? Good; we agree. Now forget the two major parties, don't waste time with a pro-life third party; go out and convince people in your church, your labor union, your social life, and everywhere else that you find the opportunity that abortion really is utterly wrong. Get the solid majority of the American people in back of that piece of sound morals. But don't expect the politicians to do it; they won't.
I am a convinced, practicing Christian, regardless of how that sits with the Republicans. I do not belong to any political party. I've alrady said who is getting my vote this autumn; I am not campaigning for any candidate for anything (except of course myself - I aspire to the post of Metropolitan of Luna City, Exarch of the Moon, Patriarch of the Planets and the Spaces Between).
Incognitus

When it comes to moral issues about human life,liberals are strangely willing to sacrifice the lives of the innocent(especially the old and unborn)but not the guilty (the murderer on death row or the soldier of an aggressive enemy).Conservatives tend to the opposite selective morality,opposing abortion and euthanasia but eager to keep guns,capital punishment,and military force as the quick-fix solution to international problems.I have never understood how the sacred absolute of life becomes a secular relativity just because it changes its address from a battlefield to an abortion clinic or vice verca. The saints transcend these two little illogical boxes. they are consistently moral,consistently reverential toward all human lives,and therefore they get into trouble with both Left and Right.Just as Jesus did.The Pharisees were the Right of His time and the Sadducees were the Left.They agreed about nothing except Him.Jesus did'nt buy into their little boxes.He was dangerously big. The New Testament does not lay down a detailed blueprint for a Christian Society,either a Left one or a Right one.Yet it gives us enough hints to transcend and offend both little boxes.There is an emphasis on charity,a"preferential option for the poor,"a condemnation of private and public greed,and even a voluntary socialism-communisim of property.On the other hand ,there is an equally strong emphasis on authority,obedience,and tradition,on fidelity,family,and work,and on theological orthodoxy.No one of the typical American Left or Right can read all this without feeling uncomfortable.Of course.As Chesterton says,there is one angle at which you stand upright,many opposite angles at which you fall-to the left or to the right.If the New Testament is indeed divine revelation,the mind of God,then we should expect the mind of man to naturally depart from this in opposite ways.When the human train has gone off the divine track in both directions,the track will seem threatening to both parts of the train in opposite ways. One of the secrets of the saints,as opposed to the Left and the Right,is suffering.Saints put themselves on the line. They don't argue,they offer themselves up for others,as Jesus did. Little boxes are safe.Following Christ is not safe.His promise is:"In the world you will have tribulation."When you don't crawl into the world's little boxes,you suffer;I have overcome the world." When making moral choices,the only consideration is to make the right choice,not the Right choice or the Left choice.The world invented Left and Right;God invented right.We American conformists are tempted,more than people in most other societies,to let our world,our society,do our thinking for us.But we are commanded:Do not be conformed to this world,but be transformed by the renewal of your mind,that you may prove what is the will of God,what is good and acceptable and perfect.(Romans 12:2)That is the rule for Christian moral decision-making. In Christ,Wizdom

I detest partisan politics in this country anymore. Whenever the news coverage comes on, I leave the room. It's really that bad. I also detest that I have come on this forum to add my two cents, being that both candidates seem to me to have struck a deal with the devil.

But here comes the great big, HOWEVER: I can't bear to imagine what happens to the Supreme Court with a Democrat in charge of appointments. It seems that we have to keep prolife judges there, even if they all get chewed up and spit out once selected by a Republican president.

As far as the presidential role is concerned, I can't see where it has made much difference at all in the abortion issue in the last 30+ years. Except that some justices have played a part in restrictions being placed on this "procedure."

You are right that education is primary. This more than anything is helping to turn the tide in America. Pregnancy assistance, counseling, consent laws, etc. have all played a part in decreasing the annual numbers.

I am confessing to all of you that I have always voted prolife. If that is shocking to you, so be it. My conscience will not allow me to do otherwise as long as I believe it might make a difference. The difference it might make is in who the judges are who may be appointed. I have to settle for that bottom line.

If Pat Buchanan were up for President, I'd vote for him. I did in the primary a few years ago!

I still can't believe I am actually posting on this thread!

Lord have mercy!

Posted by Wizdom:

"When it comes to moral issues about human life,liberals are strangely willing to sacrifice the lives of the innocent(especially the old and unborn)but not the guilty (the murderer on death row or the soldier of an aggressive enemy).Conservatives tend to the opposite selective morality,opposing abortion and euthanasia but eager to keep guns,capital punishment,and military force as the quick-fix solution to international problems.I have never understood how the sacred absolute of life becomes a secular relativity just because it changes its address from a battlefield to an abortion clinic or vice verca. The saints transcend these two little illogical boxes. they are consistently moral,consistently reverential toward all human lives,and therefore they get into trouble with both Left and Right.Just as Jesus did.The Pharisees were the Right of His time and the Sadducees were the Left.They agreed about nothing except Him.Jesus did'nt buy into their little boxes.He was dangerously big. The New Testament does not lay down a detailed blueprint for a Christian Society,either a Left one or a Right one.Yet it gives us enough hints to transcend and offend both little boxes.There is an emphasis on charity,a"preferential option for the poor,"a condemnation of private and public greed,and even a voluntary socialism-communisim of property.On the other hand ,there is an equally strong emphasis on authority,obedience,and tradition,on fidelity,family,and work,and on theological orthodoxy.No one of the typical American Left or Right can read all this without feeling uncomfortable.Of course.As Chesterton says,there is one angle at which you stand upright,many opposite angles at which you fall-to the left or to the right.If the New Testament is indeed divine revelation,the mind of God,then we should expect the mind of man to naturally depart from this in opposite ways.When the human train has gone off the divine track in both directions,the track will seem threatening to both parts of the train in opposite ways. One of the secrets of the saints,as opposed to the Left and the Right,is suffering.Saints put themselves on the line. They don't argue,they offer themselves up for others,as Jesus did. Little boxes are safe.Following Christ is not safe.His promise is:"In the world you will have tribulation."When you don't crawl into the world's little boxes,you suffer;I have overcome the world." When making moral choices,the only consideration is to make the right choice,not the Right choice or the Left choice.The world invented Left and Right;God invented right.We American conformists are tempted,more than people in most other societies,to let our world,our society,do our thinking for us.But we are commanded:Do not be conformed to this world,but be transformed by the renewal of your mind,that you may prove what is the will of God,what is good and acceptable and perfect.(Romans 12:2)That is the rule for Christian moral decision-making. In Christ,Wizdom "


Dear Wizdom,

In what you have written there is indeed wisdom. The challenge is to be as Christ is and not as President Bush or Senator Kerry would have us be.

Our judgements of course become more difficult once we move from this principle to making decisions on what will allow us to more closely be as He would have us to be in the political arena. Decisions on how to find Christ's wisdom in our choices about how to vote become complex as this thread and others here have made clearer and clearer. There is a tendency to cling to the simple and unnuanced because it is easier to do that then to examine issues and positions.

Simple sloganeering and simplistic doctrinaire political mantras on either side in actuallity offer little help in our political duty as Christians. It is good to read your reminder of the fact that it is the law of love, including tough love, exemplified in Jesus' work among us that should provide the razor to cut out our path.

Your posting reminded me of Christs statement that He came to bring not peace but a sword. May the sword of His truth cleave from us our preconceived political notions and lead us to know what we, each of us, need to do to bring His love to men and women of today.

Sometimes the path is not clear. Sometimes it will lead us in the gray area between the extremes. There is a danger in simply knowing theological principles and moral mandates and applying them without looking into the gray areas to understand their nuances.

"Wisdom, be attentive," I think is pertinent to what you have said.


Thank you for your posting.

Steve

Posted by Incognitus:

"Look, folks, I know this is an election year. But the attempt to convince the rest of us that only ultraconservative Republicans have any claim to be called Christians is seriously offensive. It is also seriously counter-productive and could drive people away from the Church (many people object to being told whom they should vote for on theocratic grounds). Do you think abortion is morally intolerable? Good; we agree. Now forget the two major parties, don't waste time with a pro-life third party; go out and convince people in your church, your labor union, your social life, and everywhere else that you find the opportunity that abortion really is utterly wrong. Get the solid majority of the American people in back of that piece of sound morals. But don't expect the politicians to do it; they
won't."


Amen!

This is a sound piece of advice for all issues having to do with the so-called culture wars, it seems to me!

There is danger of bringing grave injury to the Church by seeming to confer infallibility on the moral or social teaching of any political authority or party. There is equally grave danger, in my estimation, in reading into the gospels or the official teaching of the church an endorsement of the political agenda of a particular political institution.

When I was younger, I remember that Catholics were suspect as to our ability to be good Americans because of the notion that we considered the Pope's teachings to be infallible. Thus many other Americans thought that we could be ordered by the Pope to vote for one party or the other and that we would follow his direction on the matter because it would be infallible for us.

Our leaders worked long and hard to change that perception. Some actions on the part of some of our Church leaders today seem to be aimed at resurrecting that perception in the mind of non catholic, and possibly catholic, Americans today.

The suggestions of some of our fellow believers about the necessity of voting for one or another candidate or risk not being a good Catholic Christian indicate that the idea is taking root. What those other Americans thought not so long ago is true for some among us, I fear.

Those times are not so far gone as I'd thought, it seems.

There is another pattern of thought arising today which is related though inverted. A political leader has tried to enlist a Church, the Catholic Church in the United States in union with Rome, as a proponent of its political social agenda.

Frankly I am less troubled by the first misperception. We dealt with that once and can do so again.

I am more troubled by the notion that our Church can be made an adjunct to a political party. The reason is that some Catholics seem to be buying into that position.

When the President recently asked the Pope to direct the American Bishops to support his (the President's) social agenda, it scared the bejeebers out of me. It scares me even more when my brother and sister believers jump on the bandwagon and cannot see the difference between that and the teaching role of the bishops.

Our Bishops are charged to teach Christ's position or the Church's position on social issues. It is our responsibility to determine how that agenda should be reached in the political arena and work to make that so. It is not the role of the bishops to tell us to vote for either President Bush or Senator Kerry in the Presidential election.


The old axiom that there is more than one way to skin the cat, while distateful, suggests that there may be spiritually honest disagreement about means to reach the same end. This is especially true in the political arena.

The simplistic idea that the truth is always crystal clear and without nuance is untrue. The discussions of dogmatic and moral theologians on various issues is replete with examples of that fact. It was quite legitimate until Vatican I to disagree with the notion of infallibility as expressed by the Council, for example.

Also simplistic is the idea that the method of achieving an end in the political arena is going to be determined by politicians who then give us our mottos and packaged positions and that the party is what determines its morality.

Even more simplistic, in my opinion, is the attemt by some believers, evidently even some bishops, to present one candidate as a good Christian or another candidate as a morally reprehensible based on his or her political decisions about what is the best way to build the body politic in a secular and pluralistic society.

I say what follows with great trepidation.

Sometimes I am frightened by good religious people!

I am speaking of the "true believers" who see only the black and white of absolute truth or absolute error and the absolute right or absolute wrong in most issues. They appear to do so based on what they "know" to be contained in Revelation or in the teaching of the Bible or in Church teaching.

Forgive me for saying so but the unerstandng of faith that many of these adults exhibit is that of Christian children when they are being called to live the Faith as adult Christians with the heart of children. They seem to repeat what they have learned uncritically without a deeper examination of what makes this or that particular action moral or immoral.

Their behaviors scare me.

They condemn other religious people and non religious people. They will not listen or grant any validity when these people explain that many times the truth emerges by walking as fellow pilgrims through the gray with patience and charity with the understanding that the fog makes clear vision difficult, yet it is that joint journey that leads to clear perception of the nuances where truth is often found.


Sometimes it is difficult to find the law of love present in their words or their understanding of the world around them.

I deeply believe that a theocratic approach to political decisions about for whom to vote is both unamerican and contrary to the mission of the church. It is one thing to present principles to use when making up one's mind. It is clearly another to tell people for whom to vote. It verges on abuse of authority, in my opinion, when a bishop threatens voters with excommunication for voting for someone in good conscience.

It is indeed counter productive.


Thanks for hearing me out and letting me vent! I look forward to hearing what others think.

Steve

Dear Steve,

I agree with your ideas in spirit. The aligning of any group, whether Catholic or any other, behind one political party is exceedingly dangerous. I don't expect solutions to our varied and many worldy crises from the hands of ANY politician. None of them ever will give us a perfect world. Let us look to the Second Coming for that fix.

But as a practical matter, we still have to walk into that booth. I agree with the bishops that we have a responsibility to vote, to be salt and light in this world. So what is a Catholic to do?

Are you saying that there is no hierarchy of Catholic issues? That abortion is not more important than war, or gun control, or capital punishment?

I do believe we have to look at the moral issues first as Catholics. That we need to figure out which candidate aligns more closely with moral truth, and economic policy becomes second tier.

I heard a priest give a talk on how Satan demands blood sacrifice in every age. Whether through war, human sacrifice, or abortion, the evil one looks for blood as a means of gaining power. Ours is a truly evil age, but I am hopeful that through prayer and sacrifice it can still be redeemed. I suspect the views expressed by Hollywood, the single biggest contributor to our moral laxitude, fit in well with the evil one's plan, don't you?

This forum is a great place to go to learn from those whose opinions may differ, even though they are part of the Body of Christ. So I respect the views presented here and trust they come from right motives.

Please, let us continue this discussion, with honest searching for truth.

In Christ and the Theotokos,

Tammy