Can a Catholic Vote for Obama?
July 15th, 2008 at 05:20am Mark Noonan
Deal Hudson writes an open letter to Prof. Doug Kmiec, a prominent Catholic who has endorsed Obama:
…Abortion, infanticide, and marriage — Obama’s positions on these issues alone make it impossible for me to support him. McCain, on the other hand, is reliable. His position on embryonic stem cells does not create equivalence between him and Obama on the life issue – the difference between the two candidates on life and marriage is stark.
I have noted, of course, your concern about the Iraq War. You argue that Catholic voters should reevaluate their support for President Bush, the GOP, and John McCain because of the war. You have come close to saying, but not quite, that support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq weakens any claim that Bush, McCain, or the GOP are closer to Catholic social teaching than the Democrats or Obama.
On this, once again, I cannot agree. President Bush has been the most committed pro-life president since Roe v. Wade. The abortion rate in the United States is at its lowest since 1974. The achievement of Bush and the GOP controlled Congress in limiting abortion cannot be offset by the Iraq War.
Whatever you think of the war, it is within the prudential prerogative of the president and the Congress, according to Church teaching, to make this decision (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2309). At the time of the invasion, Democrats as well as Republicans supported it.
There is no official Catholic position for or against the Iraq War…
…Some Catholics have argued that if Obama and McCain were compared on prudential matters only – health care, poverty, minimum wage, energy, taxes, immigration, national security, war & peace – Obama would be their choice. If Obama and McCain held exactly the same positions on abortion and marriage, I would still opt for McCain on prudential grounds, but that is not, I believe, where the argument lies.
The argument between us is about those positions the Church has taught should not be compromised by our political judgment. In all that you have written and said, I still have not found a compelling reason that justifies your public support for Barack Obama.
Much is made in Democratic attempts to woo Catholic voters about how Democrats care about the poor and in keeping with the “seamless garment” urged by the US Bishops on such matters, the fact of Democratic support for abortion rights pales in comparison to an alleged GOP disdain for the poor. This is an arguable point, but my contention is that the social spending Democrats wish to apply to poverty actually deepens poverty - it takes the suffering poor and makes them the parasitic, suffering poor. A brother or sister who needs a hand is magically transformed by the welfare State into a shiftless leech.
Given the failure of the Democrats’ poverty plans to actually alleviate poverty, we’re left then with the Democrats views on abortion, marriage and infanticide - without a counterbalancing reality of helping the poor, the evil of Democratic support for the Culture of Death is just that much more stark, and Obama’s fawning devotion to the most extreme of pro-abortion positions makes it impossible for me, as a Catholic, to ever consider casting a vote for him. It doesn’t at all surprise me that many Catholic Democrats are backing Obama - these are the same Catholics who yammer on about women priests, married priests, birth control and other positions in direct opposition to Church teaching. Its expected - but what wasn’t ever expected was someone like Kmiec falling for the Obama delusion.
In the end we all must do what we think is best - I hope that Kmiec has thought this through carefully and that his decision is based entirely upon his convictions about what is best for society in accordance with Church teaching. My conscience, instructed by our mutual faith, leads me to a very different conclusion, and I do wonder if any Catholic who fully considers everything in relation to the whole can really justify a vote for Obama.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Religion, Republicans
98 Comments Add your own
1. congressive | July 15th, 2008 at 5:38 am
Ah, yes. here we go again. The church can’t tell you who to vote for, but you’ll burn in hell if you vote for the pro-choice guy.
Well, a vote for McCain is a vote for pro-choice, according to McCain circa 2000:
“But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations.”
Oh sure, there’s a lot of spin on this one, and depending on the time of day, McCain has flipped and flopped on this countless times. But he clearly stated that, after careful discussion, he would give his own daughter the choice to abort or not, even if she was underage at the time.
Doesn’t get more “pro” than that.
Hey, can a Catholic vote for an admitted, repeating adulterer? Just asking.
2. Magnum Serpentine | July 15th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Congressive, thats called the great flip flopper. Besides we don’t want to give george a third term.
Your also right. The church cannot tell you who to vote for or threaten you with hell (Many bible verses on threats and judgement as in judge not or you will be judged for example, etc) Jesus does not preach ex-communication either.
3. Tuneup | July 15th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Yes
4. Pain | July 15th, 2008 at 8:29 am
“and I do wonder if any Catholic who fully considers everything in relation to the whole can really justify a vote for Obama.”
We think the answer to this is resoundingly yes because even if Mccain wins and serves two full terms and hia VP is elected and serves two terms abortion will still be legal in the US.
The question sir is moot on that foundation.
5. Aitch | July 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Yes, Catholics can vote for Obama. The Constitution gives citizens the right to vote for whomever they choose.
6. Tractatus | July 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am
these are the same Catholics who yammer on about women priests, married priests, birth control and other positions in direct opposition to Church teaching
Meanwhile, you yammer on about creationism and war in direct opposition to the Church. I believe there’s some Bible verse about a plank in your eye….
A brother or sister who needs a hand is magically transformed by the welfare State into a shiftless leech
That is a pretty magical transformation indeed. I assume there’s further magic in play in that if the same person receives the same assistance from a church, he somehow does not become a leech. Hmmmm….
7. Reasonist | July 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am
The posting above contains the following statement:
“There is no official Catholic position for or against the Iraq War…”
This bald statement is quite simply a lie, and it would be extremely surprising if Catholic fanboy Mark Noonan did not know it to be. Perhaps he missed the following relevant points RE the Church’s position on Iraq:
Source
Source
Source
Mister Noonan, you are a Catholic and have frequently written on this blog about the great need for humanity to submit itself to the laws of God and to God’s authority. The Pope is the supreme interpreter of God’s law on earth and in some matters is considered to be unfallible. He, along with all his senior advidors, and his successor, the current Pope Benedict, have all condemned this war in very unambiguous language. Yet you are prepared to quote from a source which would give any reasonable observer the impression that the Church does not have grave objections and refutations to the justice of the war in Iraq. You have done all of this, it seems, for partisan reasons, simply because you object to the democratic candidate for the presidency.
I would say that you are putting petty temporal concerns over your professed spiritual ones. You need to take a long look in the mirror and perhaps medidate on the concept of hypocrisy.
8. yekepyt | July 15th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Abortion rates are lowest when abortion is safe, legal, and affordable, and women have access to universal heath care and paid maternity leave.
Although a vote for Obama will not get us all the way there, it’s certain to result in fewer abortions than a McCain administration.
9. Reasonist | July 15th, 2008 at 11:42 am
PS
As a Catholic you are quite entitled not to vote for Obama due to his pro-choice policies. However, Obama’s pro-choice stance does not allow you to then switch your allegiances to another candidate (McCain) who himself has demonstrated a willful disregard for life by supporting a war which is not morally or legally justified (in the Pope’s words). The war in Iraq has cause the deaths of at least several hundred thousand Iraqi’s. Those were living, breathing, functioning human beings until George Bush launched his escapade in Mesopotamia. To have extinguished their lives without any pressing need is a great moral evil.
It is the position of the pro-life lobby that abortion does not terminate a life but that it merely terminates the potential for a life. Catholics firmly reject this belief since they believe that life begins at conception. However, there is a genuine ethical and spiritual debate regarding when life begins. Polling shows that the majority of people in the modern world do not, for instance, consider a fetilized egg or an early embryo to constitute life in any meaningful way. Thus, while there is a genuine debate about whether or not abortion is indeed wrong there can be no debate that the deaths of civillians in Iraq is wrong and that those responsible for this conflict (mainly neoconservatives) are themselves following a morally evil course.
John McCain has repeatedly stated that he feels the war in Iraq was the right thing to do despite all the evidence, both earthly and spiritual, which demonstrates that it wasn’t. Given this, it is my belief that practising Catholics cannot vote for McCain. Simply put - his policies are incompatible with their beliefs.
10. js | July 15th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
you dont even know the concept of just war by the church reasonpiss…you really look like a total fool sputtering all your cheap on the fly excuses….
“All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.”
Despite this admonition of the Church, it sometimes becomes necessary to use force to obtain the end of justice. This is the right, and the duty, of those who have responsibilities for others, such as civil leaders and police forces. While individuals may renounce all violence those who must preserve justice may not do so, though it should be the last resort, “once all peace efforts have failed.” [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 4]
As with all moral acts the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which as noted earlier must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. An act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can be sinful by reason of imprudent judgment and execution.
In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:
“1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition” [CCC 2309].
they say its better to keep you mouth shut and not thought of at all…than it is to have opened it and proven that you are a fool….
11. test » Blog Archive&hellip | July 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
[…] a Catholic Vote for Obama? fredshelm wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIt doesn’t at all surprise me that […]
12. Jeremiah | July 15th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
yekept said:
Abortion rates are lowest when abortion is safe, legal, and affordable, and women have access to universal heath care and paid maternity leave.
Well that’s the way it is now are there are a little over million tiny unborn babies ruthlessly murdered.
If the law was made so women have to have their babies at the exception of extreme health condition…then there would be less murder of the innocent unborn. That’s why we have the law……to prosecute evil, so you have LESS evil……Abortion is an EVIL that needs to be stopped……some times the ballot box won’t cure the problems that ail society, because you have a states rights issue where people take the path of least responsiblity, thus, the more evil path.
This is where people if they desire good to become more prevalent to get up off their couch and fight for what they say the believe, you can’t expect anything good to happen when you allow it to continue. Just like Iraq, al qaeda is evil……we fight it don’t we? Hows come we can’t fight abortion then? Get some guts people!!!!!!!!
13. Some Assembly Required | July 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
“1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
When did Iraq Attack the US? 9/11 was not an Iraqi attack!
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
UN sanctions and no fly zones were effective against Saddam. Seeing as how no WMD’s were found, I believe this also pokes holes in not only #2 but also #1 above.
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
There never was any question the US military would kick their A$$. It’s the after math thats the mess. But I’ll give this one too you.
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition” [CCC 2309].
We went into eliminate Saddam and rid weapons of mass destruction. We created AQ in Iraq, a civil war and ethnic cleansing. So in going in we effectively produced more disorder and graver evil.
So js, 1 out of 4. Is it really a wonder why the church is against the war?
14. js | July 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
death rates are lowest in the general population when human beings dont do drugs…yet…we are not arguing the justification of alchohol and cigarettes…like we do abortion….and would totally ignore the deaths attributed to both….yet…when we talk about individual responsibility….women would not be getting pregnant and having abortions…and people would not die of lung cancer…drunk drivers would not have killed anyone…if we just do something about it…and stop the irresponsible behavior….
15. Reasonist | July 15th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
js,
It’s fair to say you just sputtered a load of nonsense. Nice use of vulgarity at the beginning of post 10. And interesting to note that you feel you have a better understanding of the Catholic Church’s concept of just war than the Pope does. You should surely write him a letter.
16. js | July 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
SAR
you really didnt think about what you wrote…i can tell…not a single point you made is legit….its pretty obvious why i call you lemming, halfwit…stooge…and stuff like that because you dont even have a grasp on reality when you come and make an ass of yourself like you just did.
17. Reasonist | July 15th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Js, before starting your little lecture on ‘just war’ perhaps you should have acquainted yourself with the following information regarding the current Pontiff’s views:
Source
Who has been shown to be “sputtering nonsense” now, JS?
Sigh, I’m sure none of these facts will sway you from the certainties of your ideology. You have shown yourself to be a relentless partisan who has never let external reality interfere with your opinions.
18. js | July 15th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
yes resonablepiss…it am abrupt and direct and to the point…failing in the social graces that you and your kind think make the world a better place…while your lies make people into sheep following the ignorant that you spout…..
do you have reasobable grasp on reality…reasonable enough to be capable of not only understanding what you read….but being able to integrate it into the bigger picture? if you did, then you will note that its the churches duty to oppose war…period…as it stated “Despite this admonition of the Church, it sometimes becomes necessary to use force to obtain the end of justice. “…despite the admonition of the Pope…it was our duty….to obtain justice…as voted so by our entire congress….to commit to hostilities…
which…as a fact….was merely suspended…and a cease fire agreement was in force…and violated by saddam hundreds, if not thousands…of times….such is the reality we live it…that just war….which began in 91…..was still a war in process…in 2003….and after totally exausting about every means possible to insure saddam was disarmed…as he agreed…it was just to resume hostilities….
and sar…i just want to point out…you and reasonpiss….must be about equals as far as ignorance goes….its a toss up here….figureing in its really you or another stooge from ignamous land where you lemmings come from….
19. Patrick | July 15th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Kudos to Reasonist for his well-researched evidence regarding the Church’s position on the Iraq war.
JS’s response is pretty pathetic… Sure, the Vatican can support a just war, as could most liberals… But the Vatican’s position regarding whether the IRAQ WAR has been obviously stated, and obviously the Vatican did not feel it was a just war. It isn’t like their position was unknown.
20. Reasonist | July 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Do you even read the nonsense you write back to yourself before you hit the post button JS? You sound, quite literally, mentally unbalanced. Insulting people and calling them names without presenting any logical counter arguments to their viewpoints is not generally considered good debate. I take the fact that these tactics seem to be the only ones you are capable of as a sign of complete desperation on your part.
Just to clarify: essentially what you are saying is that the current Pope and his predecessor and all of the senior clergy of the Catholic Church do not understand THEIR OWN DOCRTINE and are wrong in their pronouncements about the justice of this conflict in the context of that doctrine.
Wow.
You must need one hell of a large parking space for your ego when you leave the house JS.
A little more background information:
Source
21. Reasonist | July 15th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Source for above quote:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=361
22. Some Assembly Required | July 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
16. js | July 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Reasonist is doing a pretty good job of making you look like a fool. The fact that the only response you have to it is personal insults speaks for itself.
One more thing,
18. js | July 15th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I’m not one to pick grammar or spelling, but this post just made no sense. Run on sentences and “…..” in between two and three words make it almost impossible to sift through to get a point. Just saying….
23. yekepyt | July 15th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Jeremiah,
If you want to reduce abortions, making it illegal won’t achieve your goal. Draconian laws making abortion illegal do not result in reduced abortions.
The combination that demonstrably works is:
- access to safe, legal, affordable abortion
- universal health coverage for women and their babies
- quality sex education and availability of contracetption
- paid maternity leave
Put these three factors into place, and watch the number of abortions drop.
How can you advocate making abortion illegal, when that will cause more innocent babies to die?
I get the sense that the “outlaw abortion” crowd just wants some smug or pompous satisfaction, knowing that women must get their abortions illegally. They don’t seem to care that the same laws that punish women also lead to a society where more abortions are performed.
If Jeremiah genuinely wanted to reduce abortion, we’d see him working to advance a progressive agenda around health care, family planning, sex education, and maternity leave.
I am left wonder about his real agenda — reducing abortions certainly ain’t it.
24. js | July 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
1. raa raa does squat to promote a lie as the truth…no matter how much you want to uphold the lie that the resumption of hostilities in an ongoing war in iraq as not fitting the terms and conditions of a just war is nothing more than the ignorance of immaturity….
2…the infalibility of the pope resides strictly in matters of faith and religion…and the right to declair war does not fall within his realm of authority..
3…you both ignore the fact that a state of war already existed…a fact that was duely recognized on the floor of congress when they voted to resume hostilities…
4…the contention that the pope has any authority directing or regulating war between states is pure hogwash…and the fact that the right to declair war lies solely in the hands of a state…and not the church…is declaired as a perfect right by the church….as is the right to inflict damage in the excercise of the act of coersion against another state…as the source of the right of war is a natural law of nature…
5…the mutual toleration of a wrong under the laws of nature do not set aside the right of war…as was noted by our congress when it was duely noted to congress that the violations of the cease fire agreement by saddam had and continued to exist for a period of no less than 10 years…or even more so…the right of nations to seek just conclusion to such war when the cease fire is violated and its terms become a futile excercise in diplomacy….
so take your lemming butts back to your liberal lying masters and ask them to please make up some more lies so you can come back and get your butts kicked….again…..
25. js | July 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
The primary title of a state to go to war is:
first, the fact that the state’s right (either directly or indirectly through those of its citizens) are menaced by foreign aggression not otherwise to be prevented than by war;
secondly, the fact of actual violation of right not otherwise reparable;
thirdly, the need of punishing the threatening or infringing power for the security of the future.
From the nature of the proved right these three facts are necessarily just titles, and the state, whose rights are in jeopardy, is itself the judge thereof. Secondary titles may come to a state,
first, from the request of another state in peril (or of a people who happen themselves to be in possession of the right);
secondly, from the fact of the oppression of the innocent, whose unjust suffering is proportionate to the gravity of war and whom it is impossible to rescue in any other way; in this latter case the innocent have the right to resist, charity calls for assistance, and the intervening state may justly assume the communication of the right of the innocent to exercise extreme coercion in their behalf.
26. Reasonist | July 15th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Uh, JS, do you realize you just posted a load of meaningless, nonsensical gibberish which has virtually zero relevance to any of the points raised above?
Way to go.
27. js | July 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
23. yekepyt
by giving a woman a chance to say no, i am not going to get pregnant, you give that woman the right to chose….but once she has concieved…and created a human life…her rights are substantially affected by her responsibility….
restricting abortion to the cases of absolute necessity does not remove a womans reproductive rights at all…by allowing unlimited access…it actually removes a womans sense of responsibility…
so effectively…once a woman makes a choice…and get pregnant…with abortion on demand…there is no consequence…hence…it promotes irresponsible behavior…
the execution of 50 million american children asserts that fact beyond arguement…
28. js | July 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
26. Reasonist
i understand exactly what you are pointing out reasonpiss…
the fact that you are not mentally competent to enter into a debate of this nature is well noted…
now please…go back to your stoooge headquarters and get help…
you need it…
29. Reasonist | July 15th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
When confronted by reasoned arguments why do you feel the need to resort to either insulting invective or to create strawmen JS?
Nobody said that the Pope has any authority to dictate whether or not states can go to war or that his judgement is infallible in regard to whether the Iraq war was just or not. Nice try at deflection, but nonsense like that will not work with me, JS.
If you had taken the trouble to ready and actually process my posts above you would see that they served to demonstrate that Noonan’s original article contained a blatant lie when it said “There is no official Catholic position for or against the Iraq War…”.
I have demonstrated repeatedly above using the Pontiff’s own words that the Church does indeed have a policy regarding the Iraq war: both recent Popes regarded it as unjust, wrong and a great mistake. John Paul II tried repeatedly to disuade George W. Bush from going to war. All I did was demonstrate the lie contained in Noonan’s original piece.
You have failed to offer any evidence to show that I was wrong, so I’m sure you will join me in asking Mr. Noonan to retract this posting since it seriously misstates the expressed policies of the Catholic Church.
30. js | July 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
boy you are really screwed up if you think that the pope cant make a statement unless its official church doctrine..
mark is absolutely correct….as i pointed out…the pope can take no official position as the head of the church to determine the just or unjust nature of war..because such determination is claimed to be a natural right of each individual state…granted by natural law…hence…John Paul II really didnt have any business interfering with the situation in iraq…period….it was nothing more than the flesh of the man…not under the weight or conviction of God….
otherwise the Pope would have had the right to intervene militarilly when saddams omissions killed 1/2 of a million children….or against the government in sudan for its execution of millions of christians in the last 30 + years….and thier blatant policy of turning christians into slaves to sell for booty….
now…as far as your shallow mind goes…you have not done anything but demonstrate your ignorance through the use of half witted gossip…you have a leg to stand on.
31. Reasonist | July 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
JS said:
“he pope can take no official position as the head of the church to determine the just or unjust nature of war.”
Really? So even though he is the head of the Catholic Church and is chosen (via God’s Grace) as HIS chosen representative here on earth, he cannot determine the just or unjust nature of war in the context of Catholic doctrine? Do you really believe this?
You are absurd.
32. Reasonist | July 15th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
JS said:
This has got to be the single dumbest paragraph of text I have ever seen on this site, and that’s saying something.
Among many other absurdities in the above post it is interesting to see that a supposedly religious minded person such as JS feels that the head of the Catholic Church has no business interfering in the affairs of men or advising his flock on ethical issues. It’s also revelatory to see that JS believes that natural law should supercede canonical law.
All verrrry intersting stuff…
Mark, you have nothing to say about any of this? Are you prepared also to state that the Catholic Church has no official position vis-a-vis the war in Iraq?
33. Some Assembly Required | July 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Reasonist, it stands to logic that js truly believes that his beliefs are more Christian than the Pope. Seeing as how he can defend Iraq as a ‘Just War’ while the pope himself speaks differently. This version and set of beliefs are no different then Islamic fundamentalists.
js, I know you’ll cite suicide bombings here. The problem being you undoubtedly grew up in a fairly safe environment. Switch places with a fundamentalist who grew up in a war torn country or somewhere in the middle east and you become no different. The straw that divides you is you have not lost anything personal to you as a result of the other side. Remove that straw and I suspect you and Jeremiah would probably be the first to board a bus.
34. js | July 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
you dont have to take my word for it…you can try to pick and chose parts of doctrine all you want…but until you grow up and understand what they actually mean…you have no basis to argue about it…..
so bluntly….you are about as ignorant of church doctrine as you are stupid for arguing what you are clueless about….
you are a lemming…an ignorant…mindless…halfwit….who uses gossip as fact and stuborn stupidity as a guiding light….
and didnt you qoute marks statement?
“Noonan’s original article contained a blatant lie when it said “There is no official Catholic position for or against the Iraq War…”
so why do you want him to repeat it, even after you have proven your ignorance…by trying to push your gossip as fact?
35. js | July 15th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
actually SAR…my arguement is based factually in Church documents…
so you have, once again, opened your mouth for no other reason than to prove how much a halfwitted fool you are…
36. Reasonist | July 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Gossip?
So ALL of the quotes from John Paul II and Benedict XVI above, plus all of the statements from various Archbishops and papal emissaries etc. stating that according to Church doctrine the war in Iraq is not a just war, all of this is “gossip”.
You really, really, are pathetic.
37. js | July 15th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
its pretty obvious that you never read the church’s doctrine on war…why is it that you are trying to represent yourself as an authority? you also havent paid attention, as i pointed out in no uncertain terms, that if the church had any official authority to determine just or unjust wars between states….then it missed its calling when saddam let 1/2 of a million children die of dysintery while he built massive, disney like complexes for his friends…..
dont sputter your ignorance repeating gossip over and over again…it serves no purpose except to justify yourself as the cl ass clown….a typical halfwit standing next to SAR….
38. Some Assembly Required | July 15th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
“actually SAR…my arguement is based factually in Church documents…”
Even if this was 100% true, your application of documents to not apply to the situation in which you use them. For example, when you cite the criteria for a ‘just war’ a 6 year old could easily see the Iraq war does not meet at least 2 of the 4. Since all 4 MUST be met, the war is therefore unjust. In addition, your arguing against the pope. As I said, fundamentalist.
39. Reasonist | July 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I’m a Catholic JS and as such I turn to the leader of our Church for guidance on these matters. I have never claimed to be an expert on Catholic Doctrine, I have merely quoted the repeated statements of the current Pope, His predecessor and the leaders of the Church regarding the injustice of the war in Iraq.
Intellectually dishonest people are not worthy of debate, and you JS are extremely dishonest in this regard as you have repeatedly made straw man arguments misstating the points I have raised above. I take these tactics as nothing more or less than a sign of your complete desperation, a desperation that is not surprising given the barren nature of your claims and the preponderance of evidence I have presented.
I would direct you to read the following quotes before making any further pronouncements. The first one contains the current Pope’s strongly stated position that the preemptive strike on Iraq was “certainly not” a conflict which could be considered a Just War.
And by the way JS, just as a fyi, Cardinal Ratzinger was considered the Church’s leading intellectual on matters of Doctrine before he ascended to the Papacy. Among other things he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 to 2005. Yet you apparently know more about Church Doctrine than he does. Great stuff JS, you’ve outdone yourself.
Source
Source
Source
40. Some Assembly Required | July 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
oh my js, judging by that assertion, we should have went to war in Rawanda. We should be in dafur (sp), we basicly should police Africa, etc. Your grasping at straws.
41. Some Assembly Required | July 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Reasonist,
My hat is off to you. I am not a religious man myself, but it is encouraging to know there are Christians with a well rounded understanding of their faith who do not attempt to force it on others via fear tactics.
42. Reasonist | July 15th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Thanks for the kind words SAW. One of the things that upsets me about blogsforvictory is the impression that it might give to secular people that all religious followers are doctrinaire partisans who never miss an opportunity to berate and insult the other side. I was raised to value humility and not to be too quick to judge. Of course, it isn’t something I always live up to, like most Catholic precepts these are ideals to be struggled with on a daily basis.
I will say that I am more of a Graham Greene Catholic than a Mark Noonan one…
I would be VERY surprised to learn that JS was raised a Catholic, his whole approach to the Church is very strange to me.
43. Jeremiah | July 15th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
The define the “Church” as one sect…would be the heighth of arrogance….The Church, my friends, is all those who have accepted Christ into their heart and life…Christians, who believe in Christ’s saving grace.
Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Presbytyrian……Doesn’t matter……..If you’re a Christian…then you won’t vote for Barack Obama, because true Christians do not support those who are pro-abortion.
44. js | July 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
really, if you think about it, heresay from columns in the daily paper really dont have anything to do with it either, reasonpiss, and that, is your best shot…
boy that sucks….
meanwhile, while you are sar are sniffing each other cracks instead of trying to document that I am wrong, based on the summa theologica that the church issued..relating to this issue…you are doing what simple minded lemmings do…that is…to sniff each others cracks instead of documenting facts as evidence of purpose….
lol…two stooges…where’s number three?
here, an education is hard to come by, not that you could use it mind you, because lemmings normally falter and drop once they hit the edge of the cliff instead of soar like an eagle…they drop like a gooney bird they do!!!…
youve not answered a single charge i have placed before you, but instead retire to repetition, you oft repeat the same nonsense like it were a revelation and inspiration for your principal, however, such principal being void by the fact that the even of war was established as a just war in 1991 when Saddam invaded kuwait, to which that war was still commencing in 2003, well beyond a decade it was….under a mere cease fire….no peace accord was struck…only the cessasion of hostilities…based on terms of surrender…which were violated…
and whence such violation cannot and was not resolved…after well beyond a decade…not by reason of the winning party…but by the connivance of saddam and his regime…then it is…and was…the right of the state…which was not the UN…not the Pope…but only kuwait and its ally states…to resolve the issue with further hostilities….
so…mark was right on…dead right…in that both the ongoing war was just…and that the recommencement of hostility was just…and that point in your contention…as i well spelled out from the position of the church herself…the Pope was neither practicing faith nor religion nor did the Pontiff make any official doctrinal statement as to a citation of his official capacity…of infallibility in matters of the church..as i pointed out earlier…
so it doesnt matter what the pope said…his statement was that of a man…not of the official head of the church…and as that man…is not infallible…and he can make mistakes…
fact.
just like the fact that you two lemming ran off this cliff long ago….like the two halfwitted idiots that you both are…
45. js | July 15th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): “To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority.” On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to “take the sword,” but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.
46. Some Assembly Required | July 15th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Ok js, since you believe that this is a ‘just war’ and everything either Rationalist or myself has said is ‘Gossip’. I’ll ask you to prove to me how this is a just war via the 4 conditions you have stated above.
Seeing as how anything we say you refute as BS or Gossip and you yourself have made the charge. Prove to me I am wrong and brainwashed. I will give you the time. Prove each one of the 4! Don’t forget you need all 4, not just one, or two or three, but all 4! I want hard concrete evidence too. As you have said,
really, if you think about it, heresay from columns in the daily paper really dont have anything to do with it either,…
so I expect some multi-sourced links to credible journals and papers. In other words, biblical references and Fox News will not suffice. Good luck
47. Fredrick Schwartz | July 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
28. js | July 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
kinda sucks to have your own religious leaders make you look like a fool for going against their own beliefs dunnit?
Call all the names you want it just makes you look even more falsely pious than you were the second before. You lose this one js, your support of the Iraq war will not be shielded by hiding behind the teachings of the Catholic Church. Even trying to do that just makes you another body and Soul flung on the pyre of hypocrisy. So much for your so called beliefs!
48. js | July 15th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
ahhh…the 3rd stooge…
and still both of you have you head in your duffs….obviously SAR, your inability to address the points i presented excede your ability to sniff crack, eh? and freddy…so the pope said he opposed war…thats his job…but he didnt make an official doctrinal statement to that point..because it was beyond his authority….the church vests absolute….the perfect right…to each state…in this matter…so making a stooge of yourself by defending SAR’s and reasonpiss’s imagination and gossip mongoring really doesnt change anything….you were already on the stooge squad…!!
49. James | July 15th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
If you’re Catholic, how can you justify voting for McCain when he violated the sacrament of marriage by divorcing his first wife after she shrunk two inches? How can you support a candidate who the Catholic Church would not allow to be married in its church (which is the only church that can properly bless a union in the eyes of the Lord) because he had gotten a divorce from his wife after she shrunk?
You may argue that as a civil matter it’s acceptable to divorce a wife after she shrinks - - and when you throw in the fact that he married a nice looking much younger babe, it becomes even more acceptable! - - but as a Catholic, I would think that violates some pretty strict rules, and would disqualify McCain from receiving your vote.
50. js | July 15th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
just to expound on your ignorance sar, the following is from the summa theologica on the topic of war;
In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): “He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): “Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner”; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.”
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.”
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine’s works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.” For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.”
having posted these issues, that are 3, and not 4, the first being is there a sovern right to just war…which answer is yes…both the original war which was just…as kuwait was invaded…and iraq was defeated….yet no peace treaty ended such war…meaning that the two nations were still in a state of war as of 2003….so the resumption of hostilities due to breach of agreement which created the cease fire in the ongoing war….was also just…to enforce the terms of surrender which had been violated hundreds, if not thousands…of times…. and next is the second requirement as to a fault existing that justifies hostilities…which there was…as indicated in the first part….through a breach of the terms of surrender and cease fire agreement by the offending party (iraq)….and third is quite simple…rightful intentions…that being demonstrated when our assembled congress elected to resume hostilities based upon the breach of trust by saddams regime…and its failure to comply with its solemn agreement that brough the cease fire and iraq’s surrender into existence…
” Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord “came not to send upon earth” (Matthew 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.” “
51. js | July 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
49. James
hows that go…he who is without sin…
52. Jeremiah | July 15th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Yekept says:
I am left wonder about his real agenda
Well, look no further, here you have it…
No abortions….Period.
In order to reduce abortions, we have to break the chain connected to Pro-Roe individuals, and there’s only one way that I see we can do it…
I’ll first say…John McCain whom I am backing fully this November, while he would be a great help in the fight for life through his agenda of cutting off all funding to the abortion mills and restricting them to extreme health…..yet, as far as I know, it will still be a states rights issue so this wouldn’t reduce the number of babies murdered enough to say that we are “helping” the situtatoin … this is a greater struggle than most realize ….. Pro-choice (same as pro-abortion, pro-murder) is first an idea, and this idea of pro-choice, must be halted……the only way for those who are pro-life to put a stop to this, is overthrow the pro-choice people in whatever state they may be found….get them out of the way, and then you can start to rebuild from scratch with a solid foundation of pro-life people. See, you eradicate evil first, then you rebuild…….just like we did in the Civil War, just like we did in Germany, just like we did in Japan, Just like we did in Iraq, just like we’ve been doin’ in Afghanistan, just like we been doin’ all over the world.
You see, people, when they have a choice between right and wrong, they will most usually choose wrong because it’s the path of least resistance, no responsibility…….so, people in essence begin to suffer as a result, unnecessary suffering…this is when good people must step to the plate, and say, “We’re no gonna have it!” So war ensues. And this is bravery, you see, because a man with sense about his head will fight for good, and eliminate evil wherever it may be found. So he puts the whammy on evil people.
Violence is sometimes necessary to eliminate evil……if not, then evil takes over, ya see.
‘It is no time to confound liberty with lawlessness. We cherish the dearest boon of freedom with jealous vigilance, but remember that true freedom can only continue under restraints, and exist at all as guarded by law.
God needs willing hearts and hands!
And that’s all you need to end the evil that is abortion.
53. Some Assembly Required | July 15th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
js, every post in which you throw personal insults instead of back up your charges further proves our point. Or did the 12th grade home school teacher inform you of this?
Source
The article goes in in length, you may want to read the entire thing. That was an exert from roughly the middle
54. Some Assembly Required | July 15th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
js, your definition of just-war needs to be refined to the 20th century
There are Four transitions of just war thinking throughout history to date. The first is the one you cite so I have provided a very brief exert, along with the modern thinking.
Ephasis Mine
Source
There is still very much a heated arguement going on between just and un-just wars as well as how they can interchange. However, the Iraq war is anything but a Just one. Taking into consideration the pretext was false and preemptive. Combined with the face there is now ethnic cleansing, it can not be deemed as a jus ad bellum (just war).
55. Some Assembly Required | July 15th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
For some reason that source is not working, so here it is
56. js | July 15th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
wow sar…i was right…dead right…you have stuck your head so far up your duff that you can even stick to the same topic about the church….
it must suck to be you…
57. js | July 15th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
make that cant…to be certain…your drawing on international law in an arguement about the church fool…
58. Jay Gaultieri | July 15th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
The last time abortion came up for a vote anywhere was a referendum to ban abortion in South Dakota in 2006. It would have immediately gone to the courts if it had passed. But it didn’t. Roe vs. Wade’s going on 35 years and it’s not going anywhere. Anyone who votes to for someone who esposes being pro-life and thinks that will end abortion is a chump.
59. js | July 15th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
a chump is someone who backs killing defenseless human beings….
60. Some Assembly Required | July 15th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
js, if you cannot understand how they relate I cannot explain it to you. Get your mind out of the Old Testament. Theories evolve. Augustine’s theories are far to basic to be applied to todays ever changing and complex society.
Also, your argument about the church has been debunked. I asked for proof how the US is fighting a ‘Just War’. In order to provide it you first need an up to date definition. Then you need to provide me with specific circumstances and events which prove the definition valid. I’ve already done half the work for you and all you have is call me stupid and point to the bible.
61. Jeremiah | July 15th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Theories evolve.
Maybe with you, they do.
But God never changes.
62. Jeremiah | July 15th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
SAR,
God never excused evil yesterday, He doesn’t excuse it today, and He will never excuse it.
Read in the book of Joshua. Read what God done for Joshua, and how he conquered those places through God’s help.
God’s people rise…and He brings the wicked down.
He sets a clear definition of what His requirements are for a Nation to succeed, and if they don’t do it, then He destroys them.
63. Mark Noonan | July 16th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Tract,
Precisely.
You’re learning. Congratulations.
64. Mark Noonan | July 16th, 2008 at 12:36 am
James,
The Catholic Church does not allow divorce - if McCain had a sacramentally valid marriage with his first wife and did not obtain an annulment, then in the eyes of the Church his current marriage is invalid.
On the other hand, McCain’s relation with this ex-wife, his wife and God are not within my purview - I hope that McCain will do, if necessary, everything he can to ensure his marriage is sacramentally valid, but in the end it is up to him and God will judge his heart on the matter, not me.
65. Mark Noonan | July 16th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Reasonist,
And it is a bit dishonest on your part to present the statements of JPII and Benedict XVI as if they were obligatory on Catholics when even a cursory examination of the facts reveals that the positions expressed are personal opinion - and understandable opinion when coming from two Popes who lived through the catastrophe of WWII and wish that all war be banished from the earth. The choice to go to war is always a prudential judgement of the political leaders, never something for the Church, as an institution, to definitively condemn or approve. And please note the warm relationship between Benedict XVI and President Bush - hardly the relationship one would expect if Benedict was really determined to make opposition to the liberation of Iraq a major moral issue of the day.
And far more important than the decision to go to war is the decision on whether or not to seek or permit the taking of an innocent human life - in Obama’s case, he has clearly ranged himself on the side of those who hold the murder of an unborn child to be an acceptable practice. You can never, ever square that circle - no matter how many times you dance around it, the costs of the liberation of Iraq will never total up - in numbers or morality - to the tens of millions of mudered children, and the deep and lasting scars those deaths have placed on our society.
66. Mark Noonan | July 16th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Reasonist,
And nice try with that opinion piece from our brothers and sisters at Catholic Worker - but a more authoritative statement on just war is available:
Our liberation of Iraq is well within these parameters - one can debate and disagree, but there is no way to place a blanket moral condemnation on our Iraq effort. I also find it interesting that Our Lord never condemned war, in and of itself, and some of his fondest commendations were directed towards Roman soldiers…
67. Fredrick Schwartz | July 16th, 2008 at 5:50 am
On the other hand, McCain’s relation with this ex-wife, his wife and God are not within my purview - I hope that McCain will do, if necessary, everything he can to ensure his marriage is sacramentally valid, but in the end it is up to him and God will judge his heart on the matter, not me.
64. Mark Noonan | July 16th, 2008 at 12:36 am
How is it that this alleged sin isn’t something you see as important but the alleged sin of homosexuality is? If a GOP candidate’s wife had had an abortion would that disqualify the candidate in your eyes? You see this opens many cans of very active worms.
This is funny, McCain gets a pass for being divorced which is a sin to you and he would be the only president ever to have been since Reagan was the first. How exactly do I get in line for this buffet?
68. William Black | July 16th, 2008 at 7:26 am
On marriage, Obama has the stronger case.
He has been married once and never cheated.
McCain dumped his old wife as soon as he met a younger richer woman willing to take him.
69. js | July 16th, 2008 at 8:23 am
60. Some Assembly Required
thats why i lable you “mental midget”…you walk into an arguement about the pope and his statement of opposition to the war…and i give you factual information in church doctrine showing that the popes opinion is not official church policy…and that mark was right
and you want to argue about international law…
its pretty basic…stooge number 2….
70. js | July 16th, 2008 at 8:29 am
68. William Black
too bad obama sent his whole family to a black supremacist church though….
so does it really count? obama’s pastor teaches black supremacy from the bible…is that what you think was Jesus message?….nope…so obama really didnt go to a christian church….instead he belonged to a black supremacist organization for years…and when it was inconvenient…he tries to denounce it….
funny…does that effectively erase what was in the minds of these folks for years? nope….does it suddenly make the lessons his children learned about black morality and evil whitey christian? nope…
shoot…the only thing it does is show us exactly what obama really stands for….his failure to do something about it for 20 long years…supporting black supremacy…shouts out far, far louder than the fact that a black supremacist mascarading as a man of the cloth presided over obama’s marriage.
71. js | July 16th, 2008 at 8:33 am
so whats worse…electing a man who was divorced and remarried…or electing a man who was a member of a black supremacist organization…
its not even worthy of debate…
72. Some Assembly Required | July 16th, 2008 at 9:17 am
ugh, js, my challenge to you was to prove the Iraq war was a just one (Through actual events and not biblical passages). Using the criteria you and now mark has stated. Your debate with Rationalist was about the pope. Which rationalist has pretty much proved you and mark were in fact wrong. So you labeled his/her sources as ‘gossip’.
The definition of just war has evolved with the times. It started out in the biblical sense but has helped to shape international law. What may have been considered a just war when battles were fought with tremble shays, greatly differs from a just war fought through terrorism and with weapons of mass destruction. Wouldn’t you agree?
Face it js, you cannot provide me with well sourced proof that going into Iraq was ‘just’ or that staying there is ‘just’. No WMD’s have been found. Though Saddam was an evil ruler, removing him has created even greater evil in the country and further destabilized the region. It has helped to tank our economy and increase oil prices. No matter what way you slice it, Iraq is not a Just war.
What could be argued is that the soldiers on the ground are fighting a ‘just war’ themselves or as best they can given the circumstances.
73. James | July 16th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Mark:
A sacrament is a sacrament. You can’t excuse the violations of some but not others. If it is important to you that a candidate not violate sacraments, then as long as you have proof that the candidate has violated sacraments, one or more, you shouldn’t vote for him.
And you know that if McCain had gotten an annulment from his first wife due to her shrinkage, he would have let Catholic voters know by now. He would have come out and said something like “When I married my first wife I did not know she was subject to shrinkage. If I had, I would not have married her. When I found out she had deceived me, I got the local bishop to annul our marriage and I asked out this hot younger blonde who happened to be a rich heiress - - not necessarily in that order - - and the rest is history. ”
If you can show me that McCain got an annulment, I’ll back off and support him since I will believe that he has not violated or supported the violation of the sacraments, except for his support of capital punishment, which is an OK exception since it’s supported by Republicans.
Deal?
74. js | July 16th, 2008 at 10:15 am
you really are ignorant SAR…
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq .
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq ;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq , in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm
the war was only a continuation….not a new declaration of war…the cease fire was violated…idiot….
75. Jay Gaultieri | July 16th, 2008 at 10:59 am
js’s response to me pointing out those who continue to vote for politicians based on the abortion issue have little to show for it and are therefore chups:
“59. js | July 15th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
a chump is someone who backs killing defenseless human beings….”
Here’s several definitions of chump
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chump.
In the context of this isue I was using definition
#4 (a gullible person; a sucker; someone easily taken advantage of; the target of a scam).
There is no listed definition of chump meaning “someone who backs killing defenseless human beings”. I’d like to hear where js heard that definition. And js, if you’re trying to state that I’m “someone who backs killing defenseless human beings” than you’re wrong because I don’t support abortion. But I know voting Republican isn’t going to change the Roe vs. Wade decision.
76. Some Assembly Required | July 16th, 2008 at 11:08 am
js, inspections resumed after in 2002. No WMD’s have been found since the occupation of Iraq. As the inspectors reported to the UN prior to the invasion.
Source
Oh, the site you referenced your information from, a couple paragraphs later claims this
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq ;
This has been debunked as well. Thank you for playing.
77. yekepyt | July 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Jeremiah,
If your goal was zero abortions then you wouldn’t be supporting McCain. McCain’s policies will result in more abortions than Obama’s will.
Your goal of Zero Abortions Period is unattainable. Women will have abortions whether they are legal or not. The number goes down when we have people like Obama pushing (ever so slowly) toward universal health care, safe access to abortion, maternity leave, and access to contraception.
Really want to reduce abortions? Really, genuinely wan to move the number of abortions closer to your goal of zero? Then THINK THINGS THROUGH and vote for Obama in the fall. What’s more, you’ll save even more babies if you encourage your friends and neighbors to think things through and arrive at the same inescapable conclusion: a vote for Obama helps protect the unborn. A vote for McCain allows you to feel pompous and smug, but actually creates an environment where more unborn babies are aborted.
Look inside yourself, look honestly at your own motivations, do some research, and I’m sure you’ll do the right thing in November.
78. Tractatus | July 16th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Tract,
Precisely.
You’re learning. Congratulations.
Well, thank you for admitting your dishonesty and hypocrisy on this matter. That’s certainly a first.
79. js | July 16th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
so whats that got to do with “just war” SAR…the more you go on and on the more of an idiot you prove yourself to be….and you even lie to get it done…al quada really was not the reason that congress passed the resolution…so you didnt even comprehend the subject matter….
and then…you gloat for what….not proving squat? you are truely a figment of your own imagination… you are arguing about just war…yet you refuse to acknowledge that we didnt declair another war…and then you detract with some BS about AQ…
its pretty obvious why i tagged you as a mental midget….
80. js | July 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
A deputy prime minister of Iraq yesterday offered a sharp contradiction of the conventional wisdom here that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection before the 2003 war, flatly contradicting a recent report from the Senate’s intelligence committee.
In a speech in which he challenged the belief of war critics that Iraqis’ lives are now worse than under Saddam Hussein, Barham Salih said, “The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told.” He went on to say, “I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam’s regime.”
A Kurdish politician who took his high school exams from inside a Baathist prison, Mr. Salih said he was the target of the alliance between jihadists, Baathists, and Al Qaeda in 2001, when a group known as Ansar al-Islam tried to assassinate him. In 2002, envoys of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of the two Kurdish parties sharing sovereignty over northern Iraq between the two Iraq wars, presented the CIA with evidence that the organization that tried to kill Mr. Salih had been in part funded and directed by Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqi-official-testifies-to-links-between-saddam/39631/
funny sar/stooge #2…even when you lie about stuff…you are wrong…
lol…
81. Jeremiah | July 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
universal health care, safe access to abortion, maternity leave, and access to contraception.
Yekept,
No. Universal healtch care will only increase the number of abortions, because it will fund for abortions.
Increased funding for contraceptives will increase the number of abortions, because they increase promiscuity.
Sex education will lead to more abortions, because it increases promiscuity encouraging young adults to indulge in fornication.
STDs will increase under funding for sex education.
At present, there are a little over a million babies murdered each year, this would increase with Barack Obama by possibly double. 2.1 million per year, that’s approximately 20 and half million in 10 years.
……….
Under John McCain, abortions will decrease somewhat. But not enough.
I don’t want war, but war there will be provided people are motivated to continue as pro-abort.
Now I’m serious, and not only will abortion be the cause for war here in America, but other things, other evils will add to the cause for war, homosexuality, criminial justice…things like that…
82. Some Assembly Required | July 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
You really make this too easy. From the same article you just referenced…
Emphasis Mine
Then there is this interview from August 2001,
Emphasis Mine
Source
What I did find Interesting, When I searched ‘Barham Salih’ with a small quote from the ‘NY Sun’ I found nothing buy a slew of Right wing blog websites.
Yet again you fail to prove the US is in a Just War. Your latest defense is that the gulf war never ended which is truly a straw man if there ever was one. Also, you seem to be forgetting under Clinton (1998) US, German and British forces destroyed a nuclear plant in Iraq without invading. Keep calling me a mental midget, maybe if you do it enough those facts will go away… heres to hoping!
83. FmrMarine | July 16th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
someASSrequired;
>>>Also, you seem to be forgetting under Clinton (1998) US, German and British forces destroyed a nuclear plant in Iraq without invading. Keep calling me a mental midget, maybe if you do it enough those facts will go away>>>
Really???
I thought klinton bombed an ASPIRIN factory, and THESE guys took care of ole sadam’s reactor.
At 15:55 on 07 June 1981, the first F-15 and F-16’s roared off the runway from Etzion Air Force Base in the south. Israeli air force planes flew over Jordanian, Saudi, and Iraqi airspace After a tense but uneventful low-level navigation route, the fighters reached their target. They popped up at 17:35 and quickly identified the dome gleaming in the late afternoon sunlight. Iraqi defenses were caught by surprise and opened fire too late. In one minute and twenty seconds, the reactor lay in ruins.
“A senior Iraqi official in Baghdad last weekend admitted for the first time what U.S. and U.N. officials concluded years ago: that Iraq was only six months or so from assembling a workable nuclear device when Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. The attack led to the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and the subsequent U.N. effort to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction”.
84. js | July 16th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
nuke plant? HAHAHA@@@!!!!
stooge…you didnt read the whole article…you didnt read the whole resolution…and you certainly deserve to be called a stooge
did you pay enough attention to the resolution because it just said that AQ was in Iraq…moron…NUCLEAR PLANT?? HAHA
did your mom drop you on your head?
what did congress really say?
“Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq ;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens; ”
you are grasping at straws SAR
You lose an arguement…you change the topic
you lose that topic…then you change it again…
that spot on your head must be the scar, eh? dropped ya pretty hard she did…do ya blame her for making you a halfwit? and what about the stooge part…is that what you think a real “man” acts like….some pathetic examples you must have had….
85. yekepyt | July 16th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Jeremiah says that “[u]niversal healtch care will only increase the number of abortions, because it will fund for abortions.”
Unfortunately, Jeremiah’s misguided opinion is representative of a common misconception among otherwise well-meaning pro-life voters.
If Jeremiah took the time to carefully research worldwide abortion rates, he would learn that they are at their absolute lowest when abortion is safe, legal, and affordable, women have access to universal health care and maternity leave, and everyone has access to contraception and basic sex education.
It may seem counter-intuitive to Jeremiah and others, but careful research, performed honestly, will drive even the most hard-core “outlaw abortion” proponent to the inescapable and singular conclusion: the types of progressive policies that an Obama presidency would lead us toward are the most effective way to reduce abortion rates.
A vote for McCain is a vote for more abortions. Do you want to protect the unborn, like I do? Then vote for Obama in November. Seriously.
86. js | July 16th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
ya right yekepyt…and the easter bunny just left hollywood….and santa is waxing his runners cause christmas is a comin fast…..
its beyond possibility to determine the number of illegal abortions…as a matter of fact…there is no “careful research” that shows what you claim….because it has to be based on conjecture…so its not a true study…but propoganda…
stop lying…its that simple….its obvious that you just copied what you learned from somewhere else…
87. js | July 16th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
some nut job is trying to tell us that he can certify that there were less than 50 million abortions in the 35 years prior to wade vs roe in the USA….
he isnt the first one either…lets see….can ya document that? solid facts please….not propoganda statements from planned parenthood…them lies dont fly here….
88. js | July 16th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
His voting record as an Illinois State Senator shows just how pragmatically progressive he is. Rather than to vote “yes” or “no” on life bills, he voted “present.” It was later discovered that Planned Parenthood had actually orchestrated that voting model to protect him from pro-life voters who may have defeated him in future elections.
who do you think “he” is?
However, in 1997, Obama voted against SB230, which banned partial-birth abortion. He also voted “yes” in 2007 on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
In July of 2006, he voted “no” on notifying parents of minors who get out of state abortions, thus opening the door for Planned Parenthood and other organizations to transport a child across state lines for an abortion without the parents knowledge.
are you talking about THIS MAN yekepyt? the guy that wants to let CHILDREN cross STATE LINES with the CHILD MOLESTER THAT GOT THEM PREGNANT and get an ABORTION?
boy that really sucks….i children are getting pregnant….obama wants to help hide it from thier parents…
“he” would make a VERY BAD LEADER…and a VERY BAD PRESIDENT too….
89. Some Assembly Required | July 16th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Js, Still waiting for that unwaivering prove that Iraq is a Just War. What you gave me was the Iraq War Resolution, which has already been proved to be based on erroneous intelligence. I’ve given you a current definition of a Just War, shoot I’ve even given you the paper provided to congress regarding WMD’s in Iraq. I tried to re-butt your attempts at deflection but apparently Rationalist was right not to take the bait. I will hand it to you js, you truly are gifted at the straw man argument.
If you read back you will see it is not me who has changed the subject via ‘just war’. What I have stated, questions the credibility of your sources. I was not intending to deflect or change the topic. If you were a smart man you would realize this.
Incidentally, the ‘Asprin’ factory is a lot more then what Bush found after invading Iraq. I note with interest of my entire post you pretend what I have sourced doesn’t exist and jump on what I mentioned about Clinton. You see, this is the sign of a losing position in an argument. You cannot provide facts of the contrary so you wait for me to mention Clinton and then jump on that as if nothing I said before existed. Karl Rove has taught you well. The problem, anyone with half a brain realizes what you are doing and doesn’t give you the time of day for it. Me on that other hand, I figured I’d try to reason it out with you in a calm collected manor. What has it gotten me, insult after insult, biblical references and some sources which anyone can poke holes through with a quick google search.
It has become very apparent that either you yourself are a child or have an education of about there level.
FmrMarine, if thats what you are…
someASSrequired, very nice but don’t knock the ass. You see, your mother is like a sleeve of a wizard and “some” of her ‘ASS’ is ‘required’ to get my rocks off.
P.S. Clinton bombed ’suspected’ WMD sites in December of 1998. You know, sent planes in to destroy them instead of say, the US military to invade the country. Sheesh
Source
90. Jeremiah | July 16th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
and everyone has access to contraception and basic sex education.
Yekept,
We are the largest condom producer in the world.
More than 9 BILLION PER YEAR. Get that?
Over 9 9 BILLION per year. Has AIDS decreased? No, it’s going up!
Oral contraceptives for women, do they help? No, they give women cancer.
And unborn children are in the cross-hairs of such dilemma.
Common sense works best when avoiding unwanted pregnancies.
91. Jeremiah | July 16th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
…..and STDs.
92. Mark Noonan | July 16th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Fredrick Schwartz,
Well, first off you err in regard to homosexuality - being a homosexual is not a sin. Engaging in disordered sex is a sin - and any sex outside the marital bond is disordered. Marriage being for one man and one woman in Christian teaching, any sex which is not heterosexual and contained within marriage is a sin.
As to John McCain’s divorce - its not for me to judge. McCain has stated that he is the culpable party in his divorce and his ex-wife, from what I understand, has forgiven him. Has McCain asked God’s forgiveness? I don’t know. If he has, was it with that sincerely contrite heart necessary for forgiveness? I don’t know. Its all between God and John McCain. Meanwhile, as far as this year’s election goes, John McCain’s sins pale in comparison to Obama’s ardent support for the Culture of Death. You on the left can try to spin it all you want, but McCain is for the Culture of Life, Obama is for the Culture of Death.
93. Mark Noonan | July 16th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
yek,
That is absurd - the number of abortion in the United States in 1972 (when plenty of States already had liberal abortion laws, but before “Roe” made the United States an “abortion on demand” nation) there were 586,000+ abortions, in 1976 988,000+, 1990 1,429,000+…making abortion legal and easily accessible massively increased the number of abortions. Which fact you would have immediately figured out just by thinking about it, if you’d actually think for once…
94. Jay Gaultieri | July 17th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Pain’s response should have ended this on post 4.
“We think the answer to this is resoundingly yes because even if Mccain wins and serves two full terms and hia VP is elected and serves two terms abortion will still be legal in the US.”
The end.
95. js | July 17th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
89. Some Assembly Required
ya know
i sat down and read this whole thing over and realized something pretty basic…
i gave the answer way way back…you just are not intelligent enough to figure it out…
but then…i knew that..
so..
i leave you hanging as a representation of your ignorance…
and i really enjoy it…
it doesnt make me feel bad at all.
96. James | July 29th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
A well informed conscience and a well informed voter could not support Barrack Obama for President. There is much more at http://catholicsagainstobama.blogspot.com/
97. cam | July 29th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Wow,
Amazing. Although both the current and previous pope have come out against the Iraq War the right wing nuts argue as if they are more informed than both popes on this issue.
98. Sex Girls Having Sex Roug&hellip | August 15th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Sex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>