Obama would be a disaster from a pro-life perspective. NARAL has endorsed his candidacy, and he has used his opposition to the partial birth abortion ban to raise funds. How any Catholic who pretends to care about ending abortion could support Obama, is beyond me.
By comparison, the only two posts of which Obama is the subject have treated him with what one might call "kid gloves," and taken an approach that I can only describe as "laudatory."
For what it's worth, I believe I wrote the first post on Obama at Vox Nova. In it I criticized both his and John Edward's health care platforms.
Also, for what it's worth, Gerald Campbell is the only contributor at Vox Nova who appears to support Obama. Morning's Minion has praised Obama's charism and rhetorical style, but to my knowledge no one else at Vox Nova has expressed support for his candidacy.
I know that Rick Garnett has expressed his support for Fred Thompson and Katerina for Mike Huckabee, and Jonathan Jones praises John McCain rather frequently. Michael Iafrate has explicited stated that he supports no candidate from either party. The rest of us, to my knowledge, have kept our support for a candidate private.
For what it's worth, I believe I wrote the first post on Obama at Vox Nova. In it I criticized both his and John Edward's health care platforms.
As far as explicit opposition to Obama, yours was a exception (back in July, wasn't it?)
Also, for what it's worth, Gerald Campbell is the only contributor at Vox Nova who appears to support Obama. Morning's Minion has praised Obama's charism and rhetorical style, but to my knowledge no one else at Vox Nova has expressed support for his candidacy.
It was not so much that anybody else explicitly supported Obama's candidacy besides Gerald as the lack of any criticism whatsoever in the combox by members MOST vocal in their criticism (and derision) of the GOP's pro-life record, and the pro-life movement in general for being "duped" by the GOP on abortion.
I would have thought that, having solidly exposed the deficiencies in McCain's pro-life record in the past (duly noted with approval on this blog) you would have seen right through Gerald's philosophical white-washing and called him on it.
Is Obama's candicay "exciting to anyone who has an interest in transcending Cartesian dualism, particularly as it impacts culture and policy"?
Does Obama really herald "a new kind of politics is beginning to emerge, one that transcends the narrow and fragmenting dynamics of interest group politics"? -- this coming from a candidate who on the very anniversary of Roe v. Wade praised the court decision and BOASTED of his strong support for "reproductive justice" and his 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America?"
To even criticize the GOP or conservative Catholics for playing up abortion as a "wedge issues" is ludicrous.
And from Katrina, also having been rather vocal in her criticism of McCain's nebulous on the matter of ESCR, and the GOP's less-than-perfect record on life, we get her fawning adulation: "I love how you write [Gerald]. I want to be you when I grow up."
Please tell me, had any one of us (Jay, Donald, Tim) defended a Republican candidate with the rhetorical gymnastics that Gerald did Obama, would we get the same beneficial treatment? Would you have let it slide?
Sorry -- Morning's Minion's response was predictable, but I honestly expected a little more from others.
Actually, what Jay said.
It seems that in the political sphere, dualism runs supreme. People are made to be either "good" or "evil" (I know those words are not used but come on, the implications are all over the place). IF they are "evil" any praise you say of them makes you "evil." So if you say Obama has great charisma and his speeches are second to none, that alone makes you "evil."
Come on, this is exactly the problem which makes it next to impossible for any progress to ever be made. Why can't people approve of different qualities and positions of different candidates even if they don't approve all of them? Of course, many who are single-issue and that issue is abortion do that, too; but as I pointed out in my newest blog post, often the root behind abortion is the same as other anti-life positions (such as approval of an unjust war). And that is why the pro-life cause if it is only anti-abortion and ignores the rest will never be pro-life NOR get any changes -- because in their heart, they don't really see the sacredness of life.
Now, back to whether or not the blog is liberal. First, define liberal. Second, explain how the whole blog fits. Third, don't make any strawmen -- did Gerald approve of Obama's abortion stand? No? Then it is not the reason why he is approving of Obama and if that is the case, you can't use the abortion card against him to call him liberal.
Liberal is supporting a 100% pro-abort because you like his liberal stances on other issues. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
I would like to raise one more issue. Several candidates portray themselves as pro-life; when they do, is it not valid to look at their record and show if they are or are not pro-life? And, unless one discounts what being pro-life is about, abortion is not the only NOR central concern; the concern is the dignity of the human person and the recognition of the sacredness of life. Abortion as well as any other kind of murder is an evil and against the nature of being pro-life. Approval of any unjust killing is fundamentally anti-pro-life.
Now, that is where VN seems to be looking at the records of those who claimed to be pro-life. If Clinton or Obama claimed to be pro-life, then an examination of that record would be more needed. People, however, know they are not. It is mentioned from time to time, but it is not as eye opening as the revelation of those who claim to be pro-life are not.
As it is, if you read carefully, VN has been consistent in pointing out abortion is wrong -- however, VN insists, as with the Church, that politics are not to be followed by engaging single issue ideologies; you can gain a victory at the expense of so much more if you do that.
Millions of deaths from abortion each year in this country since 1973 make it the central life issue. Catholics who state that they oppose abortion and then support a 100% pro-abort candidate, have, in the immortal phrase of the old "I Love Lucy" show, "a lot of 'splainin' to do".
Several candidates portray themselves as pro-life; when they do, is it not valid to look at their record and show if they are or are not pro-life?
Indeed it is.
And, unless one discounts what being pro-life is about, abortion is not the only NOR central concern; the concern is the dignity of the human person and the recognition of the sacredness of life. Abortion as well as any other kind of murder is an evil and against the nature of being pro-life. Approval of any unjust killing is fundamentally anti-pro-life.
Indeed. I'd add that policies that undermine the family are anti-life as well and note that abortion is a fundamental life issue. If someone can support the killing of society's most vulnerable, they can support any other injustice if it so suits them - and it certainly will, whether it be ESCR or euthanasia, etc.
Now, that is where VN seems to be looking at the records of those who claimed to be pro-life. If Clinton or Obama claimed to be pro-life, then an examination of that record would be more needed. People, however, know they are not. It is mentioned from time to time, but it is not as eye opening as the revelation of those who claim to be pro-life are not.
Hog wash, Henry! That someone doesn't claim to be pro-life their positions on life are not to be considered? Or there is some virtue in their consistent anti-life positions? Please.
As it is, if you read carefully, VN has been consistent in pointing out abortion is wrong -- however, VN insists, as with the Church, that politics are not to be followed by engaging single issue ideologies; you can gain a victory at the expense of so much more if you do that.?
It means nothing to say abortion is wrong and then turn a blind eye to it. Especially when citing "greater goods" like how good a candidate makes you feel about yourself or the future. It's not that pro-lifers are "single issue" when it comes to abortion, it's that we're central issue - fundamental issue - and we are in keeping with the Church when we put the right to life of societies most vulnerable at the forefront of our political decisions. Ideas about handling health care, minimum wage, farm subsidies are all areas where there can be legitimate disagreement on the proper course of action. And even if one thought that candidate A was better on those things than candidate B, it doesn't mean a bean of difference if candidate A supports a society built on the principle that the strong can destroy the weak at will and that the ability to do so is a good - a right even. The rest is just dust...
Rick
I am not turning a blind eye to it. But I think token gestures such as voting for "this guy" because "he is against abortion" and politics continue as usual, abortion continues as usual, and the walks for life with only a reflection on abortion being bad without any progress continue as usual, ends up being the one who is causing the greatest harm to the cause. Pro-lifers have become just a token group with only lip service given to them and that lip service amuses them enough that they think everyone has done their duty. Instead, it just means they have given over to flattery.
And again, if people read, the anti-life position of the Democrats have been pointed out on VN. It's not something which is not done. Of course, such posts don't get as much discussion, and people act like "oh, you don't really mean it" and then they become forgotten. It's easier to build up strawmen then it is to deal with the reality of VN and its position. It's easier to think abortion is the end all of all discussion -- although if one looks deeper, one sees those so vehemently writing against abortion seem to ignore the Gospel of Life as it really stands.
I think that is the real issue. So many people do not like their own litmus test is shown to be the farce it really is. So they find all kinds of fallacious argumentation -- guilt by association, strawmen, etc -- to muddy the water.
Many of us have seen through it. Now get up and actually DO something for life.
There's something a trifle pathetic about all of the high-minded spiritual and philosophical rhetoric being rolled out in that comment thread in an attempt to explain how behind a party which provides the home for those who support infanticide, euthenasia, same sex marriage, cloning, etc. lies somehow a view of the human person which is much more optimistic and truly pro-life than the worldview of Republican candidates.
Goodness knows, neither party presents a fully coherant understanding of the human person from a Catholic perspective, but I think it perhaps underlines a few things about the basic human assumptions of the two parties that when you look at the demographics of their support, the Democrats find by far the most support among those who are single, divorced, and those who do not attend any sort of religious services, while Republican support rises with marriage, number of children and church attendence.
This is reflected, I think, in a progressive mentality which seeks a close, adoring relationship with political figures who will fix everything, with its extreme edge shown in Gerald Cambell's apparent belief that an Obama presidency would change the whole political landscape of the nation. Republicans, on the other hand, seem often to prefer a national government which does it's business and stays out of sight -- probably a reflection of that group's already being rooted in their most important relationships to family and church.
I am a Catholic and proud Obama supporter -- as are most of my Catholic friends and family. Interestingly, my wife, sons and daughters-in-law all wear Obama buttons to Mass-- and receive thumbs up from our pastor and other parish staff!
"Interestingly, my wife, sons and daughters-in-law all wear Obama buttons to Mass-- and receive thumbs up from our pastor and other parish staff!"
Actually, that's not "interesting" at all. It's a sad comment on how you and yours view the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It's also a sad commentary on your parish's pastor and staff - a reminder that, for many, liberation theology is alive and well.
I've never so much as worn a pro-life sticker to Mass, never mind making a blatantly partisan statement like wearing pro-candidate paraphernalia to church. Nor would I ever dream of doing so.
For a little perspective on my last post, there was some debate in the Catholic blogosphere several months ago about the appropriateness of displaying a U.S. flag in the sanctuary and the singing of patriotic songs as hymns during Mass. I believe there was something of a consensus that these things were inappropriate for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
I can't imagine that outright political advocacy during Mass should be viewed any differently.
Given the drama queen rhetoric often employed by certain members of the Vox Nova crew, it's not surprising that Obama's rhetorical skills would be found appealing by some.
I'm sorry, but has everyone but the VN crew missed something? Obama would destroy ALL restrictions on abortion, in fact he has promised as much to NARAL and Planned Parenthood. That's a little more serious than you might realise. Yet somehow, in the ivory clad towers of Vox Nova, such a promised reality doesn't matter all that much, because to them, abortion is just as wrong as war, but no less.
So then, you wise men and women of Vox Nova, would you support Obama if he promised to unleash any restriction on the waging of war? How about if he advocated the abolishing of the START agreements or the Geneva Protocols? Me thinks you all have been infected by a grand case of Obamatitis, which can be very fatal if you happen to plan on living wombside in the next four years.
PS - You're all Catholics I assume, so what's with the readiness to support someone who supports the spread of what Vatican 2 called the unspeakable crime?
"Drama Queen" -- ad hominem tactics might make one feel superior, but they never deal with the questions.
Colm: I don't support Obama. VN doesn't support Obama.
It didn't make me feel superior, just accurate.
Check out the website
www.onenationundergod.org
Sign up for the weekly newsletter and begin to educate yourself and your catholic friends about all the important things for cathoics.
This election will decide whether America will have a pro-life Supreme Court and repeal Roe v. Wade...a majority can be attained and stop the genocide against millions of innocent lives killed by abortion; snuffed out because some irresponsible couple decided to have sex and doesnt want to be accountable for their actions...so they throw the life out like you do trash in the garbage.
Obama is the most Anti-Catholic Presidential Candidate. Obama has a 100 percent pro-abortion rating from NARAL, supports partial-birth and living-birth abortion, supports spending tax dollars for abortion, voted against notifying parents of minors seeking out-of-state abortions, and supports homosexual marriage.
Obama voted against a law that would have protected a child once it was born and outside the womb -the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
I don't think a Catholic that truly cares about the teachings of the Church and the sanctity of life could vote for Barack.
McCain is not really pro-life, either, he has voted twice (2004 and 2007) to support and fund stem-cell research.
So can Catholics not vote at all in this election? Or is McCain's voting record just a little bit evil?
Commenting by HaloScan
