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

Incognitus, are you serious in your proposal that federal funding be directed to the assassination of President Bush? Are you really capable of such hated that you would vote to murder someone? Given this comment I am hard pressed to believe that you are actually pro-life. Please consider withdrawing these comments.

There are several political parties that have a claim to upholding Chrisitan values regarding the respect for life. Walnut40 has already spoken to the pro-life beliefs of the U.S. Constitution Party.

The issue here is not that Republican Party is sinless. It�s not.

The issue here is that the Democrat Party has made the right to abortion one of the main elements of its platform. The Democrat Party has also attempted legislation to require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or loose federal reimbursement for the Medicare/Medicaid patients that are treated in Catholic hospitals. The presidential candidate for this party, Senator John Kerry, has consistently voted pro-abortion as well as to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Because of this he is an unacceptable candidate. It is, in my opinion, sinful to vote for such an anti-life candidate.

The Church has placed before us the teaching that the right to life is the primary right that must be respected, and that all other issues combined to not outweigh the right to life.

I hope that most of us are already evangelizing the pro-life message to all that we meet, through the example of our lives and through direct testimony of the Gospel.

I believe it is wrong to advocate the removal of the abortion discussion from the political arena. It is in within the realm of our government that we will someday re-enact legal prohibitions against the taking of innocent human life.

Modest Proposal was an Anglo-Irish satire.
It is a ruse, praise-G-d
In 12 years of Catholic schools we did nothing for the Pro-Life cause.
The lottery ticket buying vicar(He won) feared for his precious tax exempt status. 2 students out of hundreds were sent anually to the DC rally as a token.
I had the good fortune of knowing the President of New Jersey Pro-Life Democrats. I was for years a pro life Democrat. Unfortunately, The President moved to Nebraska and left NJ with no pro-life Democratic politicians.

We have to move beyond the Civics 101 propaganda.
The Democratic Party has many highly religious people, particularly minorities, that oppose abortion. The problem is a highly educated, highly literate secular intelligentsia, what I would call the "Sex in the City vote" that donates much $$$$ trumps the religious working class in the eyes of party elders. "Deer Hunter" Democrats that go to Divine Liturgy don't write fat checks, single Manhattenites in $500 Prada heels do. It is not a numbers game of majority rule, it is "quality" donors.

The other problem is media and public education, both militantly promote the "dogma" of abortion. You tell me the views of the talking heads and I will tell you the view of the non-reflective majority.

the Administrator asks if I am really serious in my proposal that federal funding be directed to the assassination of President Bush?
The form of argument I am using is known as "reductio ad absurdum".
Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

Thank you for the clarification. There have been more than a few liberal politicians and activists who have publicly expressed the desire for a �post-partum abortion� of President Bush. Others have expressed a wish that Mrs. Barbara Bush would have had easy access to abortion when she was carrying George W. Bush. Sadly, some no longer consider such a proposal absurd.

Admin

President Bush is not my favorite person in the world and clearly not the brightest bulb in the socket, but given the fact that the person in the Oval office is always at risk for being assassinated by a 'kook', terrorist, or 'glamour wanna be', it is perhaps best not to joke about the matter.

I do agree the abortion issue should not be considered when voting. If the supreme court were to be stacked with anti-abortion judges and they were to outlaw the procedure, the crime would still take place - in Canada, Mexico, the 'Islands', in 'a back alley', or 'clinic of questionable reputation'. IMHO, you can't legislate the policy, you will only drive it underground where peoples health will be put at risk.

As Catholics and Christians in general it is best to continue preaching against abortion, but perhaps even more importantly, elect a government which is truly pro-family. The party that would get my vote would be the one to promote such family oriented benefits as universal health care for children (up to age 21) and chronically ill adults (in the event that the parents fit the category), significant incremental tax benefits for multiple children, subsidized child day care in small home settings (for parents who both MUST work), child maternity leave (mother or father) for periods ranging from 6 to 12 months, significant tax credits for children's tuition with tranferable government education vouchers. I could probably think of a few more, but I think that you get the picture.

Hritzko

This is a cop out. Remember the truism that �All that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing?�

The test of logic is whether it makes sense if you apply it to a similar issue:

Euthanasia:
I do agree the euthanasia issue should not be considered when voting. If the supreme court were to be stacked with anti-euthanasia judges and they were to outlaw the procedure, the crime would still take place - in Canada, Mexico, the 'Islands', in 'a back alley', or 'clinic of questionable reputation'. IMHO, you can't legislate the policy, you will only drive it underground where peoples health will be put at risk.

Infanticide:
I do agree the infanticide issue should not be considered when voting. If the supreme court were to be stacked with anti-infanticide judges and they were to outlaw the procedure, the crime would still take place - in Canada, Mexico, the 'Islands', in 'a back alley', or 'clinic of questionable reputation'. IMHO, you can't legislate the policy, you will only drive it underground where peoples health will be put at risk.

I can think of other examples. The fact that there are always people who will commit murder is no reason to make murder a non-issue in elections. I wonder if Hrtizko realizes that the number of women who die from botched legal abortions is greatly higher than the number of women who died from �back alley� abortions.

Hritzko�s willingness to make murder a non-issue is a prime example of how evil triumphs when good men are willing to not just do nothing, but to cooperate in the furtherance of the culture of evil.

Come to think of it, the very title of this thread appeals to a historic satire which is relevant to our discussion: Jonathan Swift's immortal "A Modest Proposal" - the "Proposal" was that Irish babies should be fattened and served up for dinner at English tables. Swift, of course was writing to mock the English abuse of the Irish, not to propose cannibalism.
I'm no Jonathan Swift but the purpose of my own contribution was to mock the argument for "legal" abortion with the suggestion that if the state can declare it legal to murder one group of people (unborn or partially-born children), then the state can presumably declare it "legal" to murder anybody else (Jews, Catholics, Communists, opera singers - there's no limit to the possibilities. Try C.S. Lewis "That Hideous Strength"). I didn't know that apparently some super-loony abortion crowd has actually made up posters demanding the Bush receive a post-natal abortion!
Maybe it's time to head for the hills. Unfortunately (for me) I'm a city dweller and unlikely to flourish in Montana or somewhere real far away from urban comforts.
Life was simpler in the Good Old Days. I remember the time - one of Nixon's presidential campaigns (1972, I believe) when his slogan was "Nixon's the One!". A substantial number of heavily pregnant black women stood outside the entrance to the Republican convention, each of them holding up large signs with that campaign slogan on it!
The best example I can think of at the moment of delicoius political satire from the Republicans is Bill Buckley, with whom New Yorkers are surely familiar. When he ran against Lindsay, Lindsay proudly announced that he wrote all his own speeches. Buckley immediately commented "I feared as much"! Anybody who has not yet read Buckley's account of that campaign "The UnMaking of a Mayor" has missed a delightful literary experience and has a real treat coming - if there is a copy to be found.
Incognitus

Satire, huh? I wouldn't be surprised if someday some writer on some very un-PC comedy show came up with a parody entitled "Catholic Land" - a former US State to which all former US Catholics moved and promptly ceceded from the Union because the Vatican came out with an encyclical saying it was a sin to pay taxes into the Treasury of the "morally challenged" US government.

Yours,

hal

Incognitus,

I like sarcasm more than anyone else, and that is perhaps why I had so many Jewish friends in Montreal (they love it), and so few French Canadian friends (they do not understand this Anglo literary concept).

Dear Administrator,

I do not support abortion, however, it is not a cop out to say that the procedure will occur even it made illegal in the United States. I simply believe, that if you have a 50-50% split the way you do today in this nation, and that if the procedure will be available in every neighboring country, and even with the USA, then you will have accomplished nothing other than to say that you LEGISLATED THE PROCEDURE OUT OF SIGHT.

What I have noticed about the United States is that (1) there are only two political parties, and (2) each party can attract 80-90% of it's electorate based on one 'hot issue'.

The Republicans 'hot issue' is anti-abortion. It seems that 80-90% of the electorate are blinded to almost everything else they have presented as part of their platform.

My belief is that you should compare the parties in terms of what they can offer to average families to encourage their well being, growth, and hapiness. Once you have done this, it should be clear that the Democrats are the winners.

There is nothing social Christian about the Republicans. They seem to have hypnotized their electorate into believing that they are for 'family values' because they are 'anti-abortion'. Other than their anti-abortion stance, the Republican's platform is incongruent with social Christian values.

Again, IMHO since you will not be able to legislate anti-abortion laws, it is perhaps time to look at other alternatives, such as forming a third major USA political party (ie: Christian Social Democrats) which would promote social programs which would encourage families to have more children. An alternative would be working within the Democratic party to take a less 'laisser faire' attitude with the abortion agenda. This may be more problematic.

Hritzko

PS: The war issue does not seem to be a 'hot issue' it seems to be more of the 'cold issue' (secondary).

Hritzko,your assessment of dubya's intellect,("clearly not the brightest bulb in the socket")is a bit presumptuous.Unless of course you feel your own intelligence is far superior,and then your statement becomes merely pompous,and rude.If you are makeing your judgement on his poor oratorical skill,I would remind you that Arron older brother of Moses served as interpreter due to Moses speech impediment,(not a diminishing factor of leadership,or lack of intellect).If you are suggesting that we should seek out the brightest bulb,(the most scholarly)person we can find,allow me to offer a quote by William F. Buckley,or bill buckley as he has been recently reffered to,"if I had to choose between being ruled by the first five hundred names in the Harvard faculty directory or the first five hundred names in the Boston telephone Directory, I would unhesitatingly choose the latter."We are snobs if we call people who have been educated by life,tradition,experience,and family "backward"or"primitive."
Buckley's choice is a democratic one,for it prefers the judgment of the majority.It is also democratic because it prefers more traditional opinions,and tradition is simply "the democracy of the dead"(as Chesterton put it),giving the dead a vote too.
In Christ,Wizdom

It is this sentence that I consider to be a cop out. Anyone who professes to be a follower of Jesus Christ should put the right to life first - not consider it to be a non-issue - when choosing people to represent us in our government. As long as good people like you consider murder to be a non-issue when voting the Evil One wins.

The majority of Republicans are pro family on abortion, stem cell research (bio-tech?), definition of marriage, vouchers, and child tax credits. Bush in 2000 doubled the child tax credit. Tax dollars should not be used for day care centers where stay at home families subsidize the life choices of two parent incomes.

The one good deed of Bill Clinton was family leave, we have it already. Abortion trumps all others issues as stated by Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs. ByzCaths can not be lukewarm on abortion.

Wizdom,

Thank you for the pearls .

I certainly did not mean to offend, but the president is no intellectual. To his credit, he has confirmed this on several occassions himself.

Living and working in Boston's hightech field, I would very much agree with Buckley's statement about Harvard educated people (even more so with the MIT folk). However, you should note that Bush is a Yale graduate which would put him in the elite basket that Buckley seems to have little esteem for. The president does not come from the 'first 500 list' of Boston's (or New Haven's) Verizon book (probably more of an unlisted number ).

Hritzko

Dear Administrator,

You may be happy to know that I can't vote in this great Republic.

Hritzko

Hritzko,I am aware that both Kerry,and Bush are Yale Grads.,and skull and bones!I am not campaigning on anyones behalf.
A high school senior running for class president ask John F. Kennedy for advise on how he might win,and Kennedy responded:"find out what it is that your classmates want most,and whether or not you can provide,promise them you will."The politicians creed.

"It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man".Psalms118:8

Pray for whoever wins

In Christ,Wizdom