Beliefnet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
This time Kerry is not flip flopping--he did support such a ban. But the 1997 bill (in my opinion and that of pro-life experts) was an utterly meaningless piece of legislation. That is why it won no backing from genuine pro-lifers. "Debate might be less about abortion than politicking," noted a USA Today headline at the time (available in the USA Today archives).
According to the story, questioned whether such a ban would be constitutional, most legal experts agreed that it would have relatively little impact because doctors would get to determine viability. "For many politicians, it's become a fight for political cover,"the story said.
There is a reason the pro-life community rejected the Daschle amendment. "The biggest loophole [in the Daschle proposal]," Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee explained to me, "is the one that the press usually entirely ignores--they would not have applied at all before provable 'viability.' Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months. Thus, these amendments would have left the great majority of partial-birth abortions subject to no restriction at all, not even a phony restriction. After the point of provable viability, these amendments would have empowered the abortionist to perform an abortion based on any degree of 'risk.'" Risk applies to any pregnancy, and normal risk could be used and exaggerated as a reason for an abortion.
"While it is important to understand that the Daschle language was really completely hollow," Johnson added, "it is also important to know that Kerry voted for other substitutes that would have codified a right to third-trimester abortions for mental 'health' in a more naked fashion."
Oh, We Can Do the Reporting Later
Well, there's nothing like breaking a story and then having the reporting
done--as CBS and the New York Times seem to be doing these days. I refer of course to the forged documents and 380 tons of death escapades. As I write, the
munitions story is unfolding, with a U.S. Army officer stepping up to say that
his unit removed 250 tons of munitions from Al-Qaqaa. (Here are two reports of
the press conference: Fox News and The Washington Post.)
These escapades are just one more indication that big media is arrayed against George Bush, along with Hollywood, George Soros, and all the supposedly intellectual citizens. I agree with Gerald Baker, who writes in the Weekly Standard that George Bush deserves to win because of who is enemies are:
"The list of those whose world could be truly rocked on Tuesday is just too long and too rich to be ignored. If you think for a moment about those who would really be upset by a second Bush term, it becomes a lot easier to stomach.
"The hordes of the bien-pensant Left in the universities and the media, the sort of liberals who tolerate everything except those who disagree with them. Secularist elites who disdain religiosity except when it comes from Muslim fanatics. Europhile Brits who drip contempt for everything their country has ever done and long for its disappearance into a Greater Europe. Absurd, isolationist conservatives in America and Britain who think the struggles for freedom are always someone else's fight. Hollywood sybarites and narcissists, self-appointed arbiters of a nation's morals.
"Soft-headed Europeans who think engagement and dialogue with mass murderers is the way to achieve lasting peace. French intellectuals for whom nothing has gone right in the world since 1789."
Episco-pagans: Fussy about Copyrights
Ace blogger Ted Olsen of Christianity Today seems to be in a tussle with the
"women's Eucharist" crowd in the Episcopal Church. As you may recall, I also
blogged on CT's report that pagan-flavored rituals are being developed for women by trendy Episcopalians.
Now, Olsen notes that the women have withdrawn some of the material in Olsen's piece, citing copyright issues. Olsen comments:
"So the problem with 'A Women's Eucharist' is not that it directly sides with idols condemned in the Old Testament and idol worshipers, nor that it's a 'Eucharist' with no mention whatsoever about the death or body of Christ, nor that it very deliberately takes the focus of worship off of God and on to woman. No, the problem is that it wasn't properly sourced."
Golly, let's hope they don't have a hexing ritual.
Aloha!
"Hawaii elects Republicans about as often as the Red Socks win the World
Series," political activist Andy Blom writes in the Weekly Standard.
But the state is suddenly in play, and there is a chance that Bush could take it. What gives? Hawaii, notes Blom, was one of the first states to confront the gay "marriage" issue. Activist judges made it legal, and then voters made it illegal.
Writes Blom:
"Hawaiians have voted as liberals for nearly half a century. They have voted conservatively in large numbers just once: against same sex marriage. With that issue on voters' minds, it may contribute to a Bush victory in the state, which could also be the first time Hawaii has ever had an influence on a presidential election."
Salvation and the European Union
Will the intensely secular European Union bring new hope to the embattled Christians of Turkey? Few names are as redolent of early Christian history as Ephesus, where St. Paul preached and founded a church, or Nicea, where Church Fathers laid the basis for Christian theology. Both are in modern Turkey, and both have seen their churches almost vanish. Christianity Today has a terrific piece on the perils and hopes of the beleaguered Christian remnants in this part of the world. Oddly enough, Turkey's entry into the EU may be their salvation:
"Many Greek and Armenian Christians in Turkey suffer the double ignominy of religious and ethnic marginalization. Though the government is officially secular and many Turks are only nominally Muslim, conversion to Christianity is considered a betrayal of heritage and homeland. Persecution stemming from this perspective has stunted church growth and crippled the small Christian community.
"But for these Christians, EU admission offers hope. A handful of Greek Christians remain in Turkey, holdovers from a bygone era of Hellenistic influence in Asia Minor. Their hope is that increased trade activity with Europe will invite Greeks to return to Istanbul, where they can broker business and diplomacy between Western Europe and the Muslim world.
A Sinister Popish Plot?
It's been quite a while since anybody seriously alleged a Catholic plot to take over the government--like, oh, about four hundred years when England's Guy Fawkes, of Gunpowder Plot fame, really did conspire to blow up King James and all those Protestants in the House of Commons. But columnist Margaret Carlson today advances the novel notion that the bishops who have reminded Catholics that they must give thought to the Church's teachings on abortion when voting are part of a plot against John Kerry.
Carlson traces it to disgraced former Crisis magazine editor Deal Hudson (he was semi-toppled when predatory past sexual misconduct surfaced):
"Early on, Bush strategist Karl Rove enlisted Catholic academic Deal Hudson to advise the White House on how to get more of the Catholic vote. When it turned out that Bush would be facing a Catholic, Hudson set upon a brilliant scheme: Rather than appeal directly to the laity, he would get the bishops to condemn Kerry for being a secular Catholic at odds with the Church on abortion."
Hudson was indeed a Catholic adviser to the Bush campaign, but I hope and pray that our bishops didn't need a missive from Deal Hudson to tell them to do their jobs. By the way, no bishop has "condemned" Kerry (that job was left to poor old Loose Canon). They have raised the issue of his stand on issues such as abortion, and that's what they're supposed to do.
Carlson writes as a cradle Catholic who obviously has a beef with the Church. She pulls out the stops, including mentioning divorced granny who couldn't take Communion.
Meanwhile, Joseph Bottum of the Weekly Standard argues that, despite all the media ballyhoo, there's really no such thing as the Catholic vote:
"Catholics form the largest religious denomination among elected officials in America," Bottum writes, "but the Church's pro-life agenda would be more successfully advanced if those Catholic officeholders were all replaced tomorrow by Mormons or Muslims. In 2003, a newspaper advertisement designated twelve influential Democratic senators--Kennedy, Harkin, Kerry, Daschle, Dodd, Collins, Reed, Murray, Landrieu, Leahy, Mikulski, and Biden--as the 'deadly dozen': openly pro-abortion Catholics."
Bottum also has a funny dig at Deal Hudson--Bottum regards Hudson, a former Baptist preacher, as a tone deaf choice for Catholic outreach.
Axis of Confusion
I'm beginning to wonder if Iran's mullahs are swing voters. Yesterday when I posted a Reuters story saying that the rulers of Iran would prefer a Kerry victory, several eagle-eyed Beliefnet members pointed out an earlier AP story that had them supporting a Bush win. No word that I know of on how they feel about Nader.
October Surprise: It's a Dud
O, Swami, a man of faith art thou. Great Swami, how to you hang onto your belief (against all evidence) that the New York Times' missing munitions "scoop" is true?
Like Swami, the Kerry campaign is still relentlessly pushing the story, even though it has been pretty much exposed as a dud by NBC, which had embedded reporters with the 101st Airborne.
Investor's Business Daily has a scathing editorial on what the missing munitions story says about the MSM (mainstream media):
"Both the Kerry camp and its big-media arm warned of an October surprise. But they didn't say that they - and not Bush's operatives - would be behind it. ...
"There's no polite way to put it: This story was a lie, apparently cooked up to serve the Times' partisan ends. It's not the first time. .CBS, which also acts as if it were a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, was lucky it got beat on the arms story. It had planned to run it on '60 Minutes' just two days before the election. But it bailed after the Times got the 'scoop.'"
Tech Central Station's James K. Glassman argues that the missing munitions story actually gives more ammunition to us hawkish Bush supporters who believe that the decision to invade Iraq was the right one:
"But far more important, Kerry's complaints about Bush only enforce Bush's reason for invading Iraq. Think about it.
"Kerry and Edwards say that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the disappearance of the explosives, which could be used against Americans here at home. But the very existence of such explosives--whether defined as weapons of mass destruction or not--was the reason Bush led the nation into Iraq in the first place.
"Why did we invade Iraq? Specifically, so dangerous weapons would not be used against us here at home--either by Saddam Hussein's forces or by his terrorist friends. Did we miss some of these weapons? Of course. But we got a lot more than we would have gotten if we had not gone into Iraq in the first place.
"If we had followed Kerry's strategy, Iraq today would have far more than 380 tons of explosives to use against us."
The Mullah Vote
We aren't supposed to say this, but a Reuters story says it for us:
"Iranian officials like to portray U.S. presidential elections as a choice between bad and worse but there is little doubt they would prefer Democratic challenger John Kerry win next week," Reuters reports.
Left Behind with My V-Chip
Loose Canon isn't necessarily against having a V-Chip with all her medical information implanted. But Rod Dreher, one of the funniest writers I know, is, and he believes that only a coalition of the ACLU and fundamentalist Christians can save him from the V-Chip:
"As a teenager, I left behind - ahem - dispensationalist eschatology, but if you've ever had the bejabbers scared out of you by the more lurid expressions of that religious vision, you never quite get over it. I don't believe in the Rapture anymore, but I still harbor a healthy fear of techno-totalitarianism.
"So when I hear about things like the VeriChip, I am genuinely grateful for the fundamentalists and evangelicals who believe that stuff. If we are going to be spared the Orwellian society portended by this technology, it will be in large part due to the political efforts of a strange-bedfellow coalition of hard-core civil libertarians and the 'Left Behind' crowd, nonconformists who will not stand meekly by while the rest of us cud chewers amble into the corral for our VeriChip injection."
Episcopalians Going Pagan?
Why wait for Halloween? If you're a female Episcopalian, you don't have to. At least, that's the impression I get from reading about the pagan-sounding rituals my former communion is developing for women. As Christianity Today's weblog puts it: "Episcopal Church Officially Promotes Idol Worship," noting that pagan deities will be invoked in a new "women's Eucharist."
Here's a tidbit from the inimitable website of the Episcopal Church's Office of Women's Ministries:
"These [rituals for women] can include but are not limited to liturgies/rites pertaining to: menstruation, menopause, conception, pregnancy, any form of pregnancy loss, childbirth, forms of leave taking, and many others. Although traditional liturgy acknowledges little of these aspects of women's lives, many women have taken up the task of creating and writing such liturgies for themselves or others."
Is this what you get after thirty years of ordaining women to the priesthood? Thanks to Open Book for spotting this latest evidence that God's formerly frozen people are now hip beyond belief.
Bookshelf: Kinder, Gentler Crusades?
Loose Canon is delighted to report that a new, revisionist book about the Crusades has come out in England. There is an emerging school that says (pace David Hume and the eighteenth century) that the Crusades weren't unmitigated evil. "Fighting for Christendom: Holy War and the Crusades," by Christopher Tyerman, sounds like it might be one of those books that takes a kinder, gentler look at the Crusades. The Spectator
gave it a pretty contentious review, but it made the book sound intriguing to LC:
"[Tyerman] has now set out in this short but stimulating book to attack the kind of ahistorical posturing to which these attitudes lead, and to debunk the myths which are implicit in some of them. He offers a brief summary of the historical facts, and a discussion of their implications. The crusades, he argues, were not a colonial movement. They were not driven by land hunger. They were not a form of economic exploitation. They were not only wars against Islam. They have nothing to tell us about the modern world.
"This is the best kind of historical analysis, and it will have served a valuable purpose if it makes readers think more carefully about historical analogies, in or out of the Middle East. But careful thought will not necessarily lead them to the same conclusions as Mr Tyerman."
The Real Story of the "380 Tons of Death"
Yes, of course, Loose Canon is delighted that the "380 tons of death" (as my pal
the Swami dubbed it) story
is blowing up in the New York Times' face. Somebody's been sitting on the
"story" waiting to blow up George Bush's reelection bid for quite a while.
But NBC, which had journalists embedded with the 101st Airborne, is reporting that the deadly explosives already were gone when American troops arrived in Baghdad (perhaps our long attempt to persuade the United Nations to grant us permission to topple a tyrant afforded an opportunity to appropriate the deadly munitions?).
"Yesterday, the New York Times did a fine service for the Kerry campaign by publishing a carefully timed hit piece describing how tons of explosives have gone missing from a site in Iraq. This morning, the story is imploding, with NBC News leading the charge," writes N.Z. Bear of The Truth Laid Bear, which has an excellent dissection of the Times's shoddy reporting.
Comparing the latest development at the credibility-starved New York Times to the historic fiasco of Walter Duranty, the Times scribe who won a Pulitzer Prize for ignoring starvation in the Ukraine, Roger L. Simon writes:
"It is through [blogger on the Belmont Club] Wretchard, whom I have come to trust greatly, that I found confirmation for what I already suspected--that the New York Times report of 380 tons of escaped explosives published this morning was so much progandistic drivel timed to encourage the defeat of a sitting president in favor of a candidate, I am almost certain, the paper's publisher and editors do not even care for in the first place. How pathetic is that! How deeply reactionary! This kind of distortion during an election is a worse disgrace than the Jayson Blair affair."
A blogger after LC's own heart, also on the aforementioned Belmont Club says the true saga of the missing explosives "makes you wonder what would have happen in OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom] had there been a quick resolution for war, instead of the sidestepping created by our 'allies' France, Germany, and Russia. So much for the element of surprise."
Coming on the heels of CBS's forged documents scandal, the explosives story also makes you wonder if John Kerry isn't muttering "with friends like these...."
Roy's Rock Tour
Whenever people protest putting the Ten Commandments in a public space, I want
to ask: Which one do you not like? That said, "Ten Commandments Judge" Roy Moore
of Alabama had no right to put a massive monument bearing the Ten C's on public
property, and I don't like to hear him talk about alleged persecution. Still,
I'm both dismayed and amused by reports of
clashes between atheists and Christians around Roy's Touring Ten Commandments.
But can't we find a better Moses for today?
Hear, O Israel
Israel is our staunchest ally in the Middle East, an outpost of Western values
in the place that gave birth to Western values. I worry excessively about what
will happen to Israel if John Kerry is elected.
I've been meaning for days to point out columnist Charles Krauthammer's alarming assessment of what a Kerry administration would mean for Israel:
"Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?
"The answer is obvious: Israel.
"In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places like Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.
"No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines. ..."
In a similarly alarming piece, the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol says Kerry will "put more pressure on Israel." Kristol recounted that in an appearance on the O'Reilly show "Holbrooke segued into an account of how Kerry would improve the situation in the Middle East: 'He [Kerry] has said already he would start intense talks with the allies ... and he would reach out to the moderate Arab states. He'd put more pressure on Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia above all.'"
Above all, Israel doesn't deserve to be lumped with Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Shocking Report: Bush Sometimes Goes to Church Across the
Street from the White House!
The New York Times today makes yet another pre-election bid to portray George Bush's religious faith. This time he's presented not as Dr. Strangelove with a Bible (the Ron Susskind approach in an earlier New York Times magazine piece) but as a moderate (read: guy who
fakes it for the religious right):
"When it comes to understanding the president's religious convictions and the role they have played in his presidency, there appears to be a disconnect between Mr. Bush's personal beliefs and his public policy.
"On his personal faith, the president appears to be far from doctrinally dogmatic, and even theologically moderate. It is not hard to find evidence that he is out of sync with the conservative evangelical Christians who make up his political base."
Much is made of his "surprising choice" to attend the relatively liberal St. John's Episcopal Church "when" he goes to church. Surprising? Oh, come on. It's right across the street from the White House. It's known as the Church of the Presidents. Maybe the president just doesn't have a litmus test for houses of worship. (Oh, and by the way, members of the Religious Right--note that "when"--our heathen president doesn't go to church every Sunday).
The popular religion blog The Revealer calls the Times opus a "profoundly disingenuous piece" aimed at assuring Bush a second term (yes, that's ardently wanted by Times scribes). Relapsed Catholic has more, including Catholic and Enjoying It's Mark Shea's take-down of those who, in a reversal of the popular he's-a-scary-Christian ploy claim Bush is a fake Christian:
"There are lots of legit critiques of Bush's vague theology and strategic employment of Evangelical lingo to marshal the conservative Christian troops. But the notion that some dimwit reporter can magisterially declare that Bush's manifest, albeit woolly, faith is non-existent and then issue a bull of excommunication with the finding that he is 'not really a Christian' and that Mr. Sharlet [of the Revealer] can anoint this 'first-rate journalism' is preposterous. The only thing I can think is that the Revealer is hoping to pass itself off as an arbiter of credible religious journalism for ignorant MSM religious journalists, because he certainly isn't kidding anybody else."
Now We're Getting Somewhere
Loose Canon can find a silver lining in the cloud that is John Kerry's pro-choice candidacy for the presidency: the I-accept-the-Church's-teachings-but-won't-impose-my-views dodge (pioneered by Mario Cuomo) may finally be running out of steam.
Did anyone notice that in his visits to churches on Sunday that John Kerry for the first time (that I know of) said not that he can't impose the Church's teachings but that he disagrees with his Church?
From a Washington Times report on Kerry's speech about his faith and church attendance yesterday:
"He did not give a moral defense of his pro-choice stance on abortion and his support for embryonic stem-cell research, but he acknowledged the contentious debate within the Catholic Church about his public role in these matters. "'I love my church, I respect the bishops, but I respectfully disagree,' Mr. Kerry said, to one of the wildest ovations of the speech."
I disagree. That sounds like the truth to me. Even John Kerry might hesitate to vote for abortion rights if he really and truly believed (as he has said he does) that life begins at conception. Of course, if you don't believe what the Church teaches, are you still a practicing Catholic?
Interestingly, the speech on his faith was one of the shortest--30 minutes--Kerry has given. A politician who has voted against banning partial birth abortion might feel funny reciting, "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me," (from the Gospel of Matthew) but Kerry apparently did not.
Didn't He Learn Anything in Altar Boy Class?
John Kerry may like to mention that he was an altar boy, but he seems not to have learned one of the basic rules of canon law. From the aforementioned Washington Times article:
"Reporters traveling with Mr. Kerry said he appeared to be munching chips and salsa and drinking iced tea throughout his stop at the Red Rooster Cafe, which he left five minutes before the beginning of the 6 p.m. Mass. He took Communion 50 minutes later, at about 6:45 p.m.
"Catholic canon law says that those who are to receive Communion must 'abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion.' This rule actually relaxed the requirements from when Mr. Kerry was an altar boy. Overnight fasting was required then."
Bring Back the Old Andrew!
It's been distressing to watch the emergence of the new Andrew Sullivan. The old Andrew, the much vaunted "gay-Catholic-conservative" was one of the best apologists for the Iraq war in the blogosphere. Loose Canon has always loved reading the old Andrew, but the new Andrew, who seems to be changing his whole political philosophy because of his single-minded support of gay "marriage" is anti-war and pro-Kerry.
John Leo has written a terrific piece on new Andrew's disappointing endorsement of Kerry:
"Many of the doubts that hover over Sullivan's case for Kerry are rooted in the value system widely shared among Democrats: Most people are basically good; wars are caused not by evil motives but by misunderstandings that can be talked out; conflict can be overcome by more tolerance and examining of our own faults or by taking disputes to the United Nations. As a personal creed, these benign and humble attitudes are admirable. As the foundation of a policy to confront terrorists who wish to blow up our cities, they are alarming."
Satan Goes to Sea with the Royal Navee
Well, Satan has a follower on the deep blue sea--and in an outburst of ecumenism, Satan's follower has been granted the right to practice Satanic rituals on his ship and, should he perish at sea, to have a burial performed in accordance with the rites of Church of Satan.
"From a military perspective, I believe in vengeance," [Satanist Chris] Cranmer told the [London Telegraph]. "I don't consider Satan to be an intelligently external force in my life; instead I consider it an empowering internal force. If I were asked if I were evil, I would say yes--by virtue of the common definition. However, if you asked my family and friends you would hear a resounding 'no.' I get a massive amount from my career, while sacrificing little."The Church of Satan was founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey, author of the Satanic Bible, the Church of Satan, in San Francisco. Some Navy veterans are complaining about having a Satanist aboard. This is probably not as funny as it sounds at first glance. (Many thanks to Relapsed Catholic for spotting this item.)
Too Close for Comfort?
An ad campaign attacking anti-Semitism in France has hit a raw nerve--the ads depicted Jesus and the Virgin Mary with the two words "Dirty Jew" scrawled across the images. The ads were meant to imitate anti-Semitic graffiti, but they have provoked widespread criticism.
"We have to accept that something strong is needed today to fight against anti-Semitism," [president of the Union of Jewish Students of France, the sponsoring organization] Yonathan Arfi said. "And we thought these advertisements were good. We thought they were strong."
Nevertheless the group has decided to alter the artwork because they think the outrage might obscure the point they were trying to make. There has been an upswing of anti-Semitism in France since 2000, when Palestinians launched a new round of hostilities against Israel.
Cardinal Hickey, R.I.P.
Cardinal Hickey, who died Sunday, was a prelate in the Catholic Church at a time of turmoil. He wasn't always popular with conservatives in his archdiocese, but he was holy. Is there anything better?
Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, has a nice tribute to the cardinal on National Review:
"[A]s a prelate, Hickey proved dogged, even fierce. He compelled officials at Catholic University to ensure that those licensed to teach the faith taught the faith, ultimately forcing Fr. Charles Curran, who disavowed Catholic sexual morality, to leave the University. When the Jesuits at Georgetown University began celebrating special masses for 'Dignity,' a homosexual organization, Hickey forced them to stop, and when Georgetown funded a pro-choice student group Hickey not only insisted that the University reverse itself but dedicated the masses celebrated throughout his archdiocese one Sunday to reparations to Our Lady for the offense that Georgetown had caused. The abuse of children by priests? When cases came to Hickey's attention, he turned the matter over to law-enforcement officials, making the name of each priest public."
Are We Headed for an Avignon Presidency?
No, I'm not referring to John Kerry's famous affinity for things Gallic. I'm referring to the period when there were two popes, one in Rome and one in Avignon. Will the U.S. end up with two presidents on Nov. 3?
Seems the Associated Press has reported that John Kerry is "bracing for a potential fight over election results [and] will not hesitate to declare victory Nov. 2 and defend it, advisers say. He also will be prepared to name a national security team before knowing whether he's secured the presidency."
Columnist Jonah Goldberg got a glimpse of how Kerry will do this if the election is close from Democrat Eric Holder:
"...Eric Holder, a member of the Democrats' "Election Task Force," told Chris Wallace of 'Fox News Sunday,' 'If every vote is allowed to be cast, and if every vote is counted, John Kerry will be president within a day of that election.'"
This sounds fair-but, wait, do you hear some buzz words? What's afoot? Here's what's afoot:
"[I]n Missouri the Democratic front-group Americans Coming Together hands out fliers depicting an African-American on the receiving end of a fire hose blast," writes Goldberg. 'This is what they used to do to keep us from voting,' the piece reads. On the back are a list of alleged incidents of recent voter intimidation, with the line, 'This is how Republicans keep African-Americans from voting now.'"
"Let's just skip over the fact that odds are the guy ordering the fire hose treatment was a Democrat."
"The Democrats' voter manual instructs party operatives to 'launch a pre-emptive strike' by charging voter intimidation even if there is no evidence any such thing is taking place."
All of this, of course, is predicated on the notion that African-Americans were disenfranchised in Florida in 2000. Ironically, as Goldberg points out, the Wall Street Journal's John Fund has asked for real evidence of disenfranchisement in the 2000 election to no avail:
"Indeed, John Fund, the author of the eminently comprehensive and thoughtful book 'Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud is Threatening Democracy,' has implored the NAACP, the ACLU and the Democratic Party to provide him with real life examples of blacks--or anybody else--who were specifically disenfranchised. Alas, like the 'real killers' O.J. Simpson is still searching for, Fund's quest has remained unfulfilled."
The papacy, of course, survived the Avignon Schism. Let's hope the United States of America will prove similarly durable.
In Good Faith
For all of those who are struggling with the issues of faith, voting, and abortion, the most important thing you can do today is read Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput in the New York Times.
Chaput addresses the anomaly of pro-choice Catholics who say they accept the Church's teaching but can't "impose" it on others (he doesn't name names):
"People who support permissive abortion laws have no qualms about imposing their views on society. Often working against popular opinion, they have tried to block any effort to change permissive abortion laws since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. That's fair. That's their right. But why should the rules of engagement be different for citizens who oppose those laws?
"Catholics have an obligation to work for the common good and the dignity of every person. We see abortion as a matter of civil rights and human dignity, not simply as a matter of religious teaching. We are doubly unfaithful--both to our religious convictions and to our democratic responsibilities--if we fail to support the right to life of the unborn child. Our duties to social justice by no means end there. But they do always begin there, because the right to life is foundational."
Lesbians of the Right
Gay conservative Tammy Bruce, noting that surely Kerry knew some lesbians who might have actually shared their thoughts on why they were gay with him, says his decision to use Mary Cheney shows something ugly that "lies behind John Kerry's Potemkin face:"
"While the Kerry behavior seems bizarre at best, there is a method to his and Leftist madness in general.
"First, Mary Cheney is hated by the Gay Elite. There are direct efforts to make life uncomfortable for her. Why? Because she dares to be different. She has made the same mistake as I--she refuses to have her sexuality be the singular defining aspect of her identity, and she has had the gall to be her own person and not bow down to the leftist agenda. Yes, she commits the fatal mistake of not conforming to the conformist Gay agenda."
And You Call This a Family Newspaper?
This is how the Washington Post's Reliable Source column chose to deal with Arnold Schwarzenegger's not very funny to begin with quip that his staunchly Democratic wife Maria Shriver had abstained from wifely duties after his firebrand speech at the Republican convention: "Should we call him Onan the Barbarian? (Sorry, we couldn't resist.)" Sorry, but you should have. Can you imagine any newspaper in America running with this a decade ago?
Oh, That's Not Funny
Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, James Bowman says that satire is back--but unfortunately people are relying on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" not for laughs but for their news: "The consumers of TV satire 40 years ago were assumed by the satirists to be pretty well-informed people already. Now there are indications that a lot of people, especially young people, are skipping the regular news and going straight to the satire."
LC Misfires
I'm afraid my tendency to confuse Washington's two Catholic intellectuals named Novak got the best of me yesterday--I attributed a column on the Catholic vote to the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Novak. The author of the piece was actually syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Mea culpa.
Why I Love Teresa
Those of us who support George W. Bush are beginning to realize that there are two key ingredients to victory: We must keep talking to God, and Teresa must keep talking to reporters.
No, I'm not actually arguing that God will be voting on Nov. 2, but on Teresa, I'm dead serious. I quoted James K. Glassman quoting Michael Kinsley's definition of a gaffe yesterday: "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."
Yesterday, Teresa Heinz Kerry told the truth to USA Today in an interview that kausfiles says "Rhymes with Cupid." Yes, she quickly apologized, but she had already told the truth: Teresa Heinz Kerry (and by extension John Kerry?) thinks that women who stay at home to raise children don't have "real jobs" and are less than those who have glam careers.
Hugh Hewitt says that Teresa made a triple gaffe--you're not supposed to say anything uncomplimentary about the opponent's spouse or children (the Kerry campaign has already had trouble on this front), she denigrated teachers and librarians, and she revealed her view of full-time mothers.
Hewitt adds:
"The worst part of the Ms. H-K triple feature was failing to mention Laura Bush's 'real job' as a mom. The apology crafters were no doubt in a bind when it came time to deal with that oversight. It would be hard to claim that Ms. H-K had 'forgotten' the twins, the status of mom not being that of a real job. So they said nothing."
"One wonders what a 'real job' is in the THK book--but we can imagine (something to do with servants writing a six-million-dollar check to keep your husband's campaign afloat?)," says former Department of Justice spokesman Barbara Comstock. This time it's not just us wingers who are criticizing Teresa. "For one thing," writes Hanna Rosin of the Washington Post, "no one says 'real job' anymore. The correct term these days, and for the past 20 years, is 'a job outside the home.'"
May I be shameless and refer you to my own profile of Teresa, "Let Them Eat Pumpkin Spice Cookies," in the current issue of The American Spectator? I try to point out why it is unfair to compare her to Marie Antoinette (unfair to Marie Antoinette, of course).
Are We At War?
As we knew it would, the election boils down to a contest between those of us who think we are at war and those of who don't. A terrific piece in the Weekly Standard on what John Kerry's first 100 days would be like by Marc Ginsberg, a former Clinton ambassador, talks about how Kerry would reverse the Bush Doctrine and the idea of "good nations pitted against bad nations."
"The buzzwords of the Bush Doctrine would be swept away," writes Ginsberg. "Gone would be the 'axis of evil' and 'preemptive doctrine.' Gone, too, would be 'coalitions of the willing' and 'old Europe.' There would be a total housecleaning of ideologues who consider 'alliance' a dirty word. Bush's 'take it or leave it' unilateralism would give way to the greatest diplomatic charm offensive since Jackie Kennedy wowed Charles de Gaulle. Air Force One and Air Force Two would log a lot of global miles, particularly to Europe and a hostile Muslim world, in an effort to reverse the rising tide of anti-Americanism and put a new, fresh face on America's tattered world image."
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
I must admit that I stunned myself the other day by saying that Kerry should be excommunicated, but I felt better after reading Robert Novak's great column today on what having him in the White House would mean for the Church:
"In a largely unpublished interview with the New York Times, [Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput] said: '"If the church challenges a President Kerry on 'destruction of unborn children through embryonic stem cell research,' it will appear to be interfering. If the church remains silent, it will appear cowardly.'' In a monograph ('Should Catholics Vote for Kerry?'), Golden [a Catholic legislator in Massachusetts who opposes Kerry] writes that Kerry rejects protection of life ''through humane public policy'' and that ''his frequent declaration that he 'was an altar boy' is not enough to dispel Catholics' concerns.''
"Those concerns are intensified by the campaign of the first Catholic nominee for president since John F. Kennedy. While Kennedy 44 years ago did not want to call attention to his religion, Kerry stresses his Catholicism--an emphasis not apparent in his Massachusetts campaigns the last three decades. He says he accepts the Catholic doctrine that ''life begins at conception'' but will not impose it on others."
Anti-Semitism Watch
One of the scariest things happening in the world today is the rise of anti-Semitism. Loose Canon was glad to read that President Bush has signed law to "monitor and combat" anti-Semitism around the world. The bill was put forward by Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, the only the only Holocaust survivor in Congress.
According to one report:
"The State Department had opposed [Lantos'] proposal, saying it would send the wrong signal around the world to single out anti-Semitism for special treatment over other human rights problems and stressing the department was already reporting on the issue."
Who's the Ladies' Man?
For a while it looked as if this election was going to be the one to close the so-called gender gap. National security concerns were making women vote more like men. The gender gap was vanishing.
The New York Times reports today that it's back, and women are now returning to the Democratic fold. John Kerry has been striking a tougher pose on national security, but the gender gap is back for another reason:
"[Anna] Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, said Mr. Kerry had gained among women by focusing on economic issues and particularly health care in his stump speech and in his advertising in swing states.
"'I'd say probably half the ads running right now coming out of Kerry and the D.N.C. are health care ads,' Ms. Greenberg said, referring to the Democratic National Committee. 'I think that's a response to seeing that he's weaker with women than he should be.'"
In other words, women voters of the gender-gap ilk want to make Uncle Sam a Sugar Daddy, albeit one who finances his "generosity" out of our own purses. As an antidote to the return of the gender gap, I can do no better than to refer you to a paper by my colleague Carrie Lukas, on how expensive programs that many feminist groups call "for" women are, in fact, harmful to us. I also suspect that John Kerry's misinformation on the so-called "wage gap" between men and women, cited in the last debate, has helped him. Again, it's Carrie Lukas to the rescue with a National Review piece entitled "No Ladies Man."
While we're on the subject of women, columnist Michelle Malkin talks about a particular set of distaff Kerry fans--"hysterical ladies for Kerry." They aren't at all like Ms. Rosie the Riveter and other redoubtable ladies who stepped bravely forward during an earlier war:
"But Rosie is gone. And in her place, we have Hysterical Women for Kerry. They are self-absorbed celebrities who support banning all guns (except the ones their bodyguards use to protect them and their children). They are teachers' union bigwigs who support keeping all children hostage in public schools (except their own sons and daughters who have access to the best private institutions). They are sanctimonious environmentalists who oppose ostentatious energy consumption (except for their air-conditioned Malibu mansions and Gulfstream jets and custom Escalades.)
"They are antiwar activists who claim to love the troops (except when they're apologizing to the terrorists trying to kill our men and women in uniform). They are peace activists who balk at your son bringing in his 'Star Wars' light saber for the kindergarten Halloween parade (but who have no problem serving as human shields for torture-loving dictators). They are ultrafeminists who purport to speak for all women (but not the unborn ones or the abstinent teenage ones or the minority conservative ones or the newly enfranchised ones in Afghanistan)."
Where Do We Get Our Rights?
Everybody has been fixated on John Kerry's Mary Cheney hari-kari, but James K. Glassman says we missed John Kerry's real debate gaffe. Using the Michael Kinsley definition of a gaffe ("A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."), Glassman reveals that the more serious one took place when Kerry discussed the source of our rights:
"In answer to a question about gay marriage, Kerry said: 'Because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.'"
Glassman writes, "The key phrase was 'rights that we afford people.' This was no mistake. He said it twice."
Glassman continues:
"Kerry believes that the United States government, through the Constitution, 'affords' rights to Americans. My dictionary defines 'afford,' in this context as "give, grant, confer." In other words, we fortunate, benighted Americans have a country, a government that grants us rights.
"That's an utterly inaccurate reading of the great documents of the founding of this nation. Our government does not grant us any rights at all. On the contrary, Americans start off with rights, and it is we who grant the government certain limited powers to protect those rights.
"Where do our rights come from if they don't come from government? They come from God--which may be why John Kerry doesn't get it."
Be Not Afraid--They're Lying
No matter what demographic group you belong to, John Kerry wants to scare you into voting for him. William Safire has a great column on the Kerry campaign's use of fear-mongering. If you're old, here's how they do it:
"The fearmongers' pitch is that President Bush is plotting to snatch your Social Security check. Bush's sound idea of setting aside a small portion of your payroll tax as a personal nest egg for your retirement is twisted by the fearmongers into the dread word 'privatization.' Many older Americans safely covered by Social Security now needlessly worry about being thrust out into the snow."
"You a youngster? The fearmongers noticed an urban legend floating around the Internet about a 'January surprise' to bring back the draft and throw you into the first wave into Falluja. Never mind that it won't happen, because the military knows that a volunteer army works best; the scare tactic is sure to whip up the old fears in the young voters."
Vatican: Excommunication Guy Is a Liar
Loose Canon has gone out on a limb, tendering to the Archbishop of Boston unsolicited advice that John Kerry should be excommunicated after the election (timing so that it will be a pastoral rather than a political act). Just for the record, Marc Balestrieri, the loose canon lawyer in California who has been mounting a campaign to have Kerry excommunicated, turns out not to be the best bedfellow. A Catholic News story quotes Vatican officials saying that Balestrieri is simply not telling the truth about his claim of contact with the Vatican:
"'The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has had no contact with Mr (Marc) Balestrieri,' said Congregation undersecretary Fr Augustine DiNoia.
"Fr DiNoia told Catholic News Service: 'His claim that the private letter he received from (Dominican) Fr Basil Cole is a Vatican response is completely without merit'."
Lioness of Judah?
A recent New York Times piece on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a nice touch that had the justice speaking about religious underpinnings of her philosophy:
"Ginsburg described artworks in her chambers that are inscribed with a command from Deuteronomy: 'Justice, justice shall you pursue.'
"'They are ever-present reminders of what judges must do,' Justice Ginsburg told the International Lion of Judah Conference of the United Jewish Communities. The Supreme Court is to decide whether displaying the Ten Commandments on government property is unconstitutional.
"Justice Ginsburg, who made no mention of the case, said: 'I am a judge, born, raised and proud of being a Jew. The demand for justice runs throughout the Jewish tradition.'"
The Times piece pointed out that Ginsburg will hear Judge Roy Moore's case involving his decision to put a massive monument of the Ten Commandments on public property. Something tells me that the justice's hanging a quotation from Deuteronomy in her office won't signal that she thinks Moore had the right to unilaterally redecorate public spaces. I realize Moore would have been a hero if instead of the Ten Commandments he'd put up a condom statue, but that doesn't give him the right to treat public property as if it were his own.
Not Prepared for the Worst
Loose Canon believes that George W. Bush will be the next president of the United States. Still, she has been trying to prepare for the worst. She does not want to be a bitter person who is the mirror image of Michael Moore.
So far she has not been able to cultivate an attitude of calm about the prospect of a John Kerry administration. Unfortunately, this scenario of what would happen if Kerry became president, by the American Spectator's William Tucker, seems too real for comfort:
"All the pretty plans of the campaign were evaporating and President Kerry now found himself facing the basic contradiction of his position. Was Iraq the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time? Or were we actually undermanned? For two long weeks, Kerry mulled the problem while fierce debate was waged in Congress. Half of Kerry's constituency called for a pullout and peace demonstrations took place in New York and Washington. Many Democrats in Congress said our troops were endangered, however, and call for a draft.On a brighter note, New York Times columnist David Brooks says that John Kerry is so crude he may turn off the public before they go to the voting booth:
"Kerry solved the problem by going to the United Nations. ...Like the Indians watching the British march out of Fort William Henry, however, once the terrorists saw their enemies defeated they could not restrain themselves. Before the American soldiers had even begun to pack their bags, they were under daily attack. General fighting broke out in several cities, even as the U.N. panel continued to meet. Then a suicide bomber rammed the home of Prime Minister Allawi and killed him. The elected government collapsed. Civil war broke out between Sunni and Shi'ite militias, both claiming religious authority, while the Kurds withdrew completely, declaring their own state...."
Advertisement
Advertisement
|
About Beliefnet Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet. |
Help |
Media Kit |
Subscribe |
Legal Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet. |
Advertisement
|
| beliefnet |
Comments
Add Comment »To comment on this content you must be a registered user:
Sign-Up or Log-In