Everything to Democrats is moral except for the one issue that’s not. The left portrays everything except abortion as a choice between good and evil. Any mention of abortion opens you to accusations of forcing your morality on others. But it is the left which forces their version of morality upon the country.
Taxes – The poor and middle class are suffering and the rich are simply raking in money off the backs of the poor.
Iraq -The war is “an unjust war.” America is an invasionary and imperializing force.
Capital Punishment – Absolute adherence to life, no matter what crime.
Immigration – There are no illegal persons. They’re just people who are being discriminated against by racists.
Gay Marriage – Who could possibly oppose two people being in love?
So much of every policy issue for the left seems to be motivated by a moral imperative. The left complains of the religious right’s moralizing while the left itself is a moralizing secular force that demonizes its political opponents as amoral money-grabbers who want to tell women what to do with their bodies.
In this political season, the left has made headlines as the party attempting to make inroads with the religious of America. They say they’re learning the language of religion as if the right combination of words will unlock the key to the religious right’s votes. But until they speak to the basic underpinning of Christianity which is human dignity and the right to life I think their message will be largely ignored.
August 13, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Yes…
I was in a debate on another blog about birth control and abortion. One commenter pointed out that – to liberals – handing out contraceptives and educating kids about abortion is making them “safe” and “informed” when it comes to such things. But when you do something like try to teach kids about responsible gun use (i.e., hunting), the liberals freak out because you’ll turn kids into violent killers.
So everything they support is always moral – anything else is just wrong.
Or, like Barack Obama said, his definition of “sin” is anything that’s not in line with his values…
August 13, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Matthew — you are completely right. Check out this blog:
http://www.catholicsforobama.blogspot.com/
One blogger there ‘Katherine’ refuses to publish my challenging comments and I am quite sure refuses many others.
This blog is beyond the pale. They use images of the Holy Father and the Blessed Mother as if they would ENDORSE Obama!
She (Katherine) especially did not like me pointing out (on a blog entry about McCain’s ‘blasphemous’ ad calling Obama ‘THE ONE’ that it was the height of moral relativism to condemn John McCain for running an ad while at the same time she approves of infanticide. She didn’t print THAT comment.
August 13, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Rather than morality, it seems they use emotions. And they do this because the rational arguments just don’t hold any water.
August 13, 2008 at 11:50 pm
No, it is not.
August 14, 2008 at 3:37 am
Isn’t it the official position of the Catholic Church that the war in Iraq is unjust?
No – for something to be an official teaching, a document would be issued, an ex cathedra statement might be made…in other words we’d *know* about it if it was.
Otherwise, we have the Catechism to guide us and it sets pretty clear parameters for war.
August 14, 2008 at 3:57 pm
In my opinion, Mr. Archibald has oversimplified and even mischaracterized “the left.” I fail to see homoginized entities that can be labeled either “the left” or “the right.”
In most circumstances, such polemics are not helpful and I would posit, certainly not helpful in furthering the pro-life cause. One lesson I never forgot from my debating days is that you will never win an argument by oversimplifying or disrespecting your opponent’s positions.
Just briefly may I point out some of Mr. Archibald’s oversimplifications?
1) Taxes: Please recall that one of the most contentious budgetary items during President Bush’s administration were his tax cuts. Senators on both sides of the aisle actually opposed the tax cut, and if memory serves, only Zell Miller of GA broke the Democratic ranks of rejecting the tax cuts. Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama were on record as having opposed President Bush’s tax cuts.
2) Iraq War: The morality of this conflict is contested by so many that its opposition cannot be contained by one ideological group. I read the Congressional Quarterly fairly regularly. There are quite a few G.O.P. members who are very critical of the war in Iraq: Sen. Chuck Hagel of NE in January of last year stated “To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong. It’s, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. It’s tactically, strategically, militarily wrong.” I recall Senators Voinovich (R-OH), Warner (R-VA), Brownback (R-KS) among others suggesting there were problems with the U.S. being in Iraq. Even Henry Kissinger (whom I’ve never considered left of anything) in a BBC interview came down heavy on the U.S. involvement in Iraq.
3)Capital Punishment: “Absolute adherence to life, no matter what crime.” I cannot say that I have ever heard this argument. The arguments which I have heard/read against capital punishment usually focus on a) the inequality of its employment [there seem to be statistics supporting and denying this proposition] b)it does not deter crime [again, there seem to be statistics supporting and denying this proposition] c) the extent of a state’s power over its citizens should not extend to execution (i.e., if the state executes someone in error, there is no avenue for redress).
Again, this is not a liberal or left cause. I would like to point you to an excellent paper written by Archbishop Chaput, available in both English and Spanish on the USCCB website http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/Chaput05web.pdf
4)Immigration: Again, I cannot state that I have ever heard the argument put forth by Mr. Archibald. It seems quite flippant. I would like to know its source or who it is that he is paraphrasing. As with the war in Iraq, I see members of Congress on both sides of the aisle seeking leniency and both Republicans and Democrats seeking harsher restrictions and penalties in immigration issues [generally the politicians are reflecting their constiuency’s mindset].
Most of the US Bishops (some considered liberal, some considered conservative) have been opposing much of the severe immigration legislation that has been drafted in states such as CA, AZ, OK, VA, just to name a few. In my estimation, the USCCB Migration Committee has done some fine work in this field, seeking balance and charity in immigration legislation.
5) Gay Marriage: Apparently I missed something. It would seem that a large portion of the Catholic population in this country has gone “the left?” Forgive me, now I am being flippant. An April 2008 Pew Report on U.S. responses to gay issues indicated that despite the USCCB position on the issue 42% of the Catholics in this country approves of gay marriage, 48% disapproves, and 10% don’t know.
Interestingly enough, of those who identify themselves as conservative Republicans, 11% still approve of gay marriage, and of those who identify themselves as liberal Democrats 26% oppose gay marriage.
The arguments forwarded in support of same sex marriage have to do with the state irregularly distributing rights to differing segments of the population.
As I hear/read the arguments on the above topics, I seldom find anyone other than the Bishops (or someone quoting the Bishops, directly or indirectly) taking morality as the core of their argument. The core of the argument has to do with political rights and liberty under the law and the relationship of the individual/community to its governing body. Of course, the irony is that civil rights and justice ARE moral issues.
And this is why, I believe that we are at an impasse on abortion. We can know with every fiber of our being that the unborn are endowed by their creator with the right to be born, but that right is not recognized as a civil right. Abortion will continue to be legal in the U.S. until the majority of Americans can convince their legislators that the unborn deserve constitutional protection. It will take a constitutional amendment and perhaps further legislation, just as it took the 13th and 15th amendments, plus the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1964, 1968, 1981… to work towards the protection of persons of every race (though if I remember correctly 13th amendment excluded native americans).