Tag Archives: politics

The Great Divide

The
Politics of Partisan Neutrality

Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio
Copyright (c) 2004 First Things 143 (May 2004): 9-12.

“Americans who want to understand conflicts between Democrats and Republicans
during the election season have received precious little help from the media. While
reporters usually recognize that there is some sort of problem about ‘values’ and
about ‘faith-based’ principles, and that the Democrats and Republicans are often
on opposite sides, writers and editors tend to publish news and analysis as if the
situation were as follows: The Christian right, having infiltrated the Republican
Party, is importing its divisive religious ideas into our public life, whereas the
Democratic Party is the neutral camp of tolerant and pluralistic Americans.”

This gives me some insight into what’s happened to the Democratic Party. I was raised
by staunch Democrats and I voted as a Democrat for 7 years. Now I’m independent
and I register either Republican or Democrat depending on which primary is more
crucial to my beliefs (such as the Toomy vs. Specter race). I used to the think
Republican party was just a bunch of redneck Evangelical yahoos. I’m starting to
understand why so many of my Christian brethren vote Republican. The party still
does things that disgust me, so I won’t declare myself a Republican anytime soon,
but I’m more open to their point of view.

Sneaky

Kudos on the Patriot Act authors for this little bit of sneakiness. If it wasn't so despicable, I'd be rather amused by its genius.

Patriot Act Suppresses News Of Challenge to Patriot Act
By Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 29, 2004; Page A17

"The American Civil Liberties Union disclosed yesterday that it filed a lawsuit three weeks ago challenging the FBI's methods of obtaining many business records, but the group was barred from revealing even the existence of the case until now."

Calling Volunteers

What happens when the government wages a war that did not derive from a mandate of the people? The approval rating for this war is probably about 50%. Should that half of the country bear the burden of a war the other half wanted? Should they be pressed into service if the volunteers run out? Hmm…

Military Expert Says No Draft Necessary; Bush Should Call for Volunteers
By Chad Groening
April 29, 2004

"(AgapePress) – A military readiness watchdog says despite recent suggestions by a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member, America has not yet reached the point where it is necessary to reinstate the draft."

Free Will

Nancy Pelosi has joined John Kerry in his public defiance of the Church, on the
grounds “that every person has a free will and has the responsibility to live
their lives in a way that they would have to account for in the end.” This
is not an untrue statement, but it neglects to mentioned informed conscience and
obedience. Scripture and Tradition are pretty clear on correct response to doctrine.
Here’s a repost of a relevant article. I’ve spewed enough vitriol for now. I’ll
leave it in the hands of the Church and pray.

What
Vatican II did, and didn’t, teach about conscience

Elections and voting booths are never `faith-free’ zones

“Vatican II must be the most widely praised and rarely followed council in
Catholic history – at least when it comes to candidates and voters.”

Catholics who appeal to the “spirit of Vatican II” and claim to be following their consciences when they ignore Catholic teaching on issues of vital public importance would be wise to revisit what the council actually said.

Real Choice

A cliched phrase keeps coming back to haunt me: “It’s better to be safe than
sorry.” I can’t help but wonder why it doesn’t seem to apply to the abortion
debate. Roe v. Wade decision said that the government can’t say when life begins.
It doesn’t say a fetus is or isn’t a person. It seems to me (and this idea was the
main reason I stopped being pro-choice) that if we can’t be certain, we ought not
kill it. Why don’t people wish to err for life rather than death? If an action has
an unknowable outcome that kills (and let there be no doubt about that part) either
something or someone, shouldn’t that action only be taken in the most
dire of circumstances, lest a person be killed unjustly?

Continue reading