AmericanPapist Comments
What possible explanation is there for Kmiec's endorsement of Sen. Obama?
We are possibly one vote -- and maybe even just one decision with the present Court -- away from dealing a fatal blow to Roe v. Wade.
There are plenty of issues (legal and otherwise) in this election, but there is nothing more important than the protection of innocent human life, and there is no case that does more violence to that principal than Roe.
How can anyone who calls himself pro-life endorse Sen. Obama?
I don't get it.
Can anyone explain?
I may not vote in this election, as there is no lesser evil to choose from. We are yet to see who the Libertarian candidate is, maybe they will be decent... But I cannot compromise myself to vote for any of these pro-death anti-freedom candidates.
The fact that people court any of these 3 at all to be leaders in any moral capacity is disgusting.
brassband, everyone (well, everyone whose opinion matters) is wondering the same thing. i don't know either. i do know intellectuals who become so enamored of "an idea' that they forget to test that idea against reality.
scar3crow, i might not vote either, but it will NOT be 'cuz there is no "lesser evil" in the race. McCain is indisputably less outrageous than either Demo here.
I don't find his desire to continue war, along with his avoidance of any other life issue, and lack of concern for the nations financial state to be significantly different from Clinton and Obama. Keep in mind this is the man who just years ago was courted by the Kerry ticket, and who was greeted by The Daily Show as the democratic republican at one time. I say that as a registered Democrat, who at one point was proud of that aspect, and followed McCain closely as he was a 'convert.' I have since stopped being a partyarch, but am yet to change my registration.
I will not support in any way a candidate who is pro-war, be that war take place in Iraq, Iran, Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, the womb, the marketplace, the forests, or in the streets of America.
Brassband –
A can’t speak for Kmiec, and you may want to read interviews with him, but a few thoughts on why a pro-life Catholic might support Obama. Just for your consideration; not saying they’re right or wrong reasons.
1. The pro-life voter believes McCain would appoint similar judges regarding Roe v. Wade.
2. The pro-life voter believes that abortion should be addressed not primarily as a legal or judicial problem.
3. The pro-life voter believes that overturning Roe v. Wade is necessary but of minor significance in the ultimate goal of establishing a culture of life.
4. The voter believes Obama would be better on the abortion issue that McCain.
That a Catholic voter should work to end abortion is non-negotiable, but the means that voter takes are matters of prudential judgment.
I’m not an Obama supporter, in case you’re wondering.
scar3crow, I'm no McCain supporter, but all your post does is repeat the same old, quite erroneous, reductionist approach to assessing various moral issues. If you really don't see a NOTABLE difference in the degree of "objectionableness" between McCain and OBAM/CLINT, I don't know what to say.
Clinton's best hope for political capital from the papal visit
If memory serves me correctly, wasn't there a time when Bill Clinton came out, after meeting privately with Pope John Paul II, and claimed that the Pope said a lot of things that the Vatican later said were never discussed? In other words, Clinton lied about the meeting for political gain?
As for Kmiec, maybe he takes Obama at his word when he calls for a "new tone." (Scandalous, I know, that we should presume the best intentions of people.) And maybe, because he believes that Obama is speaking and acting in good faith (perhaps naively), Kmiec believes that Obama would be open to changing his heart on a few things. (Converting opponents? I know, another scandalous idea!)
Obama's record on abortion is abysmal.
While one may be concerned that a President McCain might appoint another Souter, one can be certain that a President Obama would appoint another Ginsburg.
Inexplicable and inexcusable, in my opinion.
I agree with both Kyle and Bender, but also agree with brassband. I am perfectly prepared to believe that Obama is sincere about his pro-choice views (i.e., it is grounded in his honest, albeit perverse, understanding of right and wrong, rather than rank selfishness or political calculus) and Kmiec is sincere in believing that Obama has an open mind (and at some level he probably does). But at the end of the day, Obama will be the most pro-abort president in history and will indeed appoint another Ginsberg. Count on it.
right guys.
you know me, i want to get at what's behind the sloppy thinking all around us, and reductionist moral evaluationism is a biggy: all goods are equally good, all evils are equally evil. it's 'moral democracy' run amok. and it really confuses people. you need not be Xtn to understand it; Aristotlean is enough.
"As we approach the "Ides of April", when Pope Benedict will begin his five day visit of the United States ..."
The Ides of April is April 13, not Apriil 15. The Ides falls on the 15th in March, May, July, and October, and on the 13th in all other months.
As I learned in elementary Latin:
In March, July, October, May,
The Ides are on the 15th day,
The Nones the 7th, but all besides
Have two days less for Nones and Ides.
Hmm, no wonder I was the first person to use the phrase - it's wrong. "Ides of April plus two" doesn't have the same ring to it, either. Thanks for the correction.
Commenting by HaloScan
