www.byzcath.org
Posted By: ebed melech Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/13/08 03:21 AM
An interesting issue with far reaching constitutional implications...if true. I'm curious how this court case will turn out.

Video on the Question of Obama's Citizenship
Is there a "rolls eyes" emoticon on here?

Ten minutes of my life I can never get back.

Alexis
I have read a presentation of that case. It seems a stretch, but I would like to see it decided in court.
This is absurd - and I write as one who knows a bit about dual citizenship (being myself a dual citizen of Ireland and the USA, although I have no ambition to become President of either country, let alone both).

Consider: the gentleman who is the star of the video argues that Obama and his sister do not seem to be thinking of the same hospital in Hawaii as Obama's birthplace. I can only speak for myself; I happen to know what hospital in New York my own brother and I were born in (with a ten-year interval between us), but I certainly do not remember my own birth, let alone such details as the street address of the hospital! Since I was too young to be allowed to visit my mother in the hospital at the time of my brother's birth, I have no memory of that event either (I do, however, remember his Baptism, if that's any help). During my adolescent and adult life, I've never had occasion to set foot in that hospital. None of this proves much of anything, and it certainly does not prove that either my brother (who is a lawyer in Connecticut) or myself are not US citizens.

To go further: it is not altogether unusual to find women from one or another of the Latin American countries arranging to deliver their expected child in the USA, so as to provide that child with American citizenship. In most such cases, the mother and child then go home to Costa Rica or wherever. However, the child is an American citizen. What's more, that child's children, regardless of birthplace, are also natural-born US citizens, by what is termed a "residual claim" (I learned this from a friendly conversation with US Ambassador Anthony Quainton, in Managua).

Whether Obama had or has a stepfather, and what connection that stepfather had with Indonesia, I don't claim to know. I do claim to know that a grade-school child is not competent to renounce his American citizenship.

Not to my surprise, this lawyer is slipping in the prematurely hoary charge that Obama is really a Muslim, producing what purports to be a registration for grade school in Indonesia as proof. Even if one assumes that the stepfather filled out such a form, it requires rather a "leap of faith" to assume that Obama himself even read it at the time, let alone signed it, let alone signed it spontaneously.

A little sanity would be appropriate.

Fr. Serge
Posted By: 70x7 Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/13/08 02:39 PM
Better yet, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) has records of everybody's family which go back centuries. Obama's records are there.

The Constitution must be adhered to otherwise it is not worth anything. There is an amendment process to be followed if Americans do not wish their presidential candidates to be born in the United States.

The attorney filing the case is Philip Berg from Philadelphia. BTW...Phil is a Democrat and wants to protect the Constitution. Here is his website. http://www.obamacrimes.com/

Pray for this nation...we need it!

Ray



"A little sanity would be appropriate."

I have to wonder if that lawyer is a spurned Clinton supporter.

Does it even matter ? The nomination of Barack Hussein Obama for president and his leading in nearly every poll, epitomizes just how far we've sunk as a Nation.
Posted By: Alice Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/13/08 03:31 PM
What annoys me and makes me not want to even vote anymore is that atleast half this country votes, not on issues, but on 'appearance'.

Who can forget how many women voted for President Clinton simply because they found him attractive...or young people who asked why they like Obama will say 'I don't know, he just seems cool'.

Or how about people who vote for someone just because he is of the same race, the same religion or the same ethnic background. (*for the record, I did NOT vote for Michael Dukakis) wink

The American public, and especially a large majority of our youngest voters, (Logos-Alexis excluded, I am sure) has sunk to such lows that it votes as if it was voting for High School yearbook popularity contests.

Voting for a party that one has traditionally liked the stands of (though those issues are continuously changing), is one thing and I can certainly understand it--especially in middle aged to older people. But voting because you like the charisma of, or because everyone your age is doing it, or the way someone 'looks' is ridiculous... The leadership which the Presidency demands bears much more responsibility than only those credentials.

And although I think that perhaps many people think that the law of abortion debate has become extreme and has overtaken all other issues, what MrsMW posted the other day about Obama's stand on overturning late term abortion (the most horrific of all horrors because those brutally murdered babies CAN be born and given up for adoption) and overturning any restrictions already in place by President Bush, upset me very much and I have to be honest made me lose any and all respect for him as a candidate and human being...and to think that one who has fathered two children can sleep at night with that, simply in order to promote an increasingly immoral and unethical agenda is mind boggling.

I just don't get it.

Alice

Sorry for straying off topic... I didn't even view the video yet!

--If Obama is a dual citizen, that doesn't really bother me..it is legal, and as Fr. Serge said, many good citizens are.


Not only that, Lawrence, but my vote here in downstate Illinois doesn't count for anything against the Megalopolis in the Northeast corner of my state. smirk

I think alot of it has to do with the Daycare Generation that grew up severely lacking in parental guidence. You know that in a room filled with gray haired people, you're probably not going to provoke a serious altercation, if you say that abortion is murder, homosexuality is an abomination, all sex outside of marriage is forbidden, we didn't evolve from Apes, our ultimate destination is either heaven or hell, and that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land and we don't have to consult the UN on anything. Say that in a room full of under 30 yr olds (apart from church) though, and watch the open hostility you'll immediately encounter.
Originally Posted by Terry Bohannon
"A little sanity would be appropriate."

I have to wonder if that lawyer is a spurned Clinton supporter.


Terry,

That was my initial thought as well. Clearly he is a passionate Democrat, at least based on the credentials he cites.

I have no idea whether this case has any merit or not. I can only imagine that for those who are running for public office they need a horde of attorneys to defend them from spurious litigation.

But the law is the law. I just wonder if anything will be resolved here in the courts before the election.

Fr. Deacon Daniel
Originally Posted by Serge Keleher
Whether Obama had or has a stepfather, and what connection that stepfather had with Indonesia, I don't claim to know. I do claim to know that a grade-school child is not competent to renounce his American citizenship.


That would seem to be the main issue in this man's case...
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
Is there a "rolls eyes" emoticon on here?

Ten minutes of my life I can never get back.

Alexis


Well, Alexis, here's 1 minute and 51 seconds that may be worth your attention as a devout Catholic.

Barack Obama Video

Fr. Deacon Daniel

PS: Here are the implications...

FOCA
Posted By: Alice Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/13/08 04:44 PM
...Just saw the video...

I don't really know if this particularly bothers me as much as the fact of his secrecy and his flip flopping lies about everything...I was most astounded and what I fear most is his 'spiritual mentor' and the rhetoric he spewed.

Honestly, I would have preferred if Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination. Atleast we knew what she stood for, what she was passionate about, and she was honest about it. She also seemed to have strong leadership qualities. This man's background and influences are shady, and thus, I cannot trust his presidential intentions.

Alice

Posted By: Alice Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/13/08 04:48 PM
Originally Posted by ebed melech
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
Is there a "rolls eyes" emoticon on here?

Ten minutes of my life I can never get back.

Alexis


Well, Alexis, here's 1 minute and 51 seconds that may be worth your attention as a devout Catholic.

Barack Obama Video

Fr. Deacon Daniel

PS: Here are the implications...

FOCA


This is exactly what I meant about voting about the issues vs. popularity, personality and appearance ...

Partial birth abortion is the most despicable form of abortion because the infant IS born, is viable outside the womb, the mother has gone through the birth process, and it can be given up for adoption. Lord have mercy!

Originally Posted by Alice
...Just saw the video...

I don't really know if this particularly bothers me as much as the fact of his secrecy and his flip flopping lies about everything...I was most astounded and what I fear most is his 'spiritual mentor' and the rhetoric he spewed.

Honestly, I would have preferred if Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination. Atleast we knew what she stood for, what she was passionate about, and she was honest about it. She also seemed to have strong leadership qualities. This man's background and influences are shady, and thus, I cannot trust his presidential intentions.

Alice



Agreed, Alice. I would much rather a Hillary presidency than an Obama one. Better the devil you know, as they say...

...and there is much we do not know (and he does not want disclosed) about this one.

Plus, she is far more of a pragmatist. Bill and Hill tended to govern more as left-leaning centrists.

I think we are in for some difficult times under this socialist, if he wins.

Fr. Deacon Daniel
My vote could have been washed out with 4,000 voting from the grave in Houston alone. I hope the registers are cleared by election time.
Posted By: Ray S. Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/14/08 12:23 AM
Its pretty simple. You can't be a Christian in good standing and vote for Barack Obama. His view toward Human life is not capable with Christianity.

Quote
Well, Alexis, here's 1 minute and 51 seconds that may be worth your attention as a devout Catholic.


Now, that, I can agree to! ...The distinguishing factor being that this YouTube video is half way rational. Thank you.

Alexis
Originally Posted by Ray S.
Its pretty simple. You can't be a Christian in good standing and vote for Barack Obama. His view toward Human life is not capable with Christianity.



...not when there is a viable pro-life alternative. This man favors infanticide, referring to infants born from botched abortions as "pre-viable fetuses". Anyone who holds that view is simply monstrous, whatever his views on fair taxation and social safety nets.
[quote=Terry Bohannon]My vote could have been washed out with 4,000 voting from the grave in Houston alone. I hope the registers are cleared by election time.[/quote]

People from Florida have a serious problem with 30,000 felons registered to vote there. Since many municipalities do not want to ask for the proper ID in an apparent attempt to prevent people from voting, voter fraud is on the rise everywhere, especially in California. It looks like Nevada is the only state that is trying to address voter fraud.
Can we be assured that abortion would decline under a McCain presidency? We've had 8 years under a Republican (a Republican who, by all accounts, seems decidedly more pro-life, or at least is decidedly more outspoken about his pro-life policies, than is the current Republican candidate), and to me it seems that, if there is any decline in abortion during these years, it is due to the trending of the country and not a result of presidential policies. That said, I will give Bush credit for that bill, whose name escapes me, that curtailed a lot of embryonic stem cell research; that was great.

But, despite Obama's reprehensible views on the permissibility of abortion - (of all kinds, not just partial-birth abortion) - I do believe, wholeheartedly, that he is committed to lowering the rate of abortion in this country, and he has publicly stated as much. The only reason I see for voting McCain in regards to abortion would be Supreme Court appointments, opening the way for the possibility of outlawing this holocaust. Aside from that, I frankly do not believe that abortion numbers would decline under McCain than they would under Obama.

Outside of the abortion matter, which I would classify as a gray area for me in terms of "Whose administration do I think would lower the number of abortion by the greatest number?", I prefer Obama in nearly every single way.

Am I worried also that a continuation of the War in Iraq leads to more death and destruction? Yes. Am I worried that the continuing divide between the rich and poor can, as history has shown, pave the way for events as gruesome as civil wars? Yes. The list could go on and on, but I have to take issue with Ray S.'s sweeping statement that good Christians can't vote for Obama. I consider myself to be a good Christian, believing in all the truths of the Church, and I want to see a decline in abortion as well as an improved quality of life for Americans and a renewed sense of what America is about...and I think we're about some really great things, things that have been raped and pillaged and left for dead on the side of the ditch during these last few years. McCain's record does little to sway my belief that many of these things risk being continued.

Despite my agreement with Obama on nearly every issue except abortion, and even though I am not at all convinced that his position on abortion would actually result in a different number of abortion than would occur under McCain, I would seriously reassess my support of the Democratic ticket if I could be convinced that under Barack Obama, the number of abortions would increase so much as to become larger than the number of lives I think would potentially be lost under a McCain presidency.

Now, you are all welcome to bite my head off!

Alexis
Alexis,

I think what you have said is well reasoned and I'm sympathetic. You and I though might be thrown to the lions for it!

Joe
Originally Posted by ebed melech
Originally Posted by Ray S.
Its pretty simple. You can't be a Christian in good standing and vote for Barack Obama. His view toward Human life is not capable with Christianity.



...not when there is a viable pro-life alternative. This man favors infanticide, referring to infants born from botched abortions as "pre-viable fetuses". Anyone who holds that view is simply monstrous, whatever his views on fair taxation and social safety nets.


I believe that there was recently a relatively famous prolife Catholic canon lawyer who endorsed Obama while making it clear that his endorsement was in spite of Obama's position on abortion. The story I heard was that his priest refused him communion. So is this the policy of the Catholic Church now? If you vote for a prochoice candidate you should refrain from communion even if your vote is in spite of the candidate's position?

A second question: At what point do you think that the Roman Catholic Church will lose its tax exempt status for dictating to people how they should vote (using the fear of hell)?

Joe
Funny that this question is being raised about Barack Obama - who was clearly born in the State of Hawaii, when it is John McCain who was born outside the United States:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
A second question: At what point do you think that the Roman Catholic Church will lose its tax exempt status for dictating to people how they should vote (using the fear of hell)?

Joe


Joe (and Alexis)

I'll start with the first and go back to your other points later (I have to go pick up my son...)

The Catholic Church is not endorsing candidates. But it is taking an uncompromising view on voting for pro-abortion candidates, as well as the candidates themselves. Look - produce for me a liberal candidate from any party (even 3rd parties) whose views on abortion mirror the Church's, and you'll get no argument from me (for the most part). Certain issues are just more fundamental than others. You cannot get more fundamental than the human right to life.

As to the rationality of the Obama video, I suppose it does sort of follow the logic of the madman...

And it certainly borders on madness (ok - well at least denial) to think that abortion will go down with an Obama presidency, when his commitment is to increasing access and reducing barriers to abortion. Hardly a policy conducive to reduction.

Some time ago I posted some data on what George Bush has done for the pro-life cause. It is remarkable, especially when you consider the funding decisions the executive branch can and does make relative to this issue. Like the terrorist cells, George Bush has helped to dry up the funding streams for Big Abortion. He has also used the bully pulpit (albeit sometimes in a stammering way) consistently as a voice defending human life in the womb.

For my part, I wish there was a Democratic Party with a pro-life platform and pro-life politicians. There was at one time.

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
I believe that there was recently a relatively famous prolife Catholic canon lawyer who endorsed Obama while making it clear that his endorsement was in spite of Obama's position on abortion. The story I heard was that his priest refused him communion. So is this the policy of the Catholic Church now? If you vote for a prochoice candidate you should refrain from communion even if your vote is in spite of the candidate's position?

You are probably speaking of Douglas Kmiec. The decision to deny him Communion was just. If there are pro-life alternative candidates to a pro-abortion candidate then one must choose among them. The way of determining is to add up all the other issues of the day and equate them with the daily murder of 4,000 baby humans through abortion. To say “I am voting for the candidate who will retain legal abortion and even repeal the laws against infanticide (aka “partial birth abortion”) because he promises me (whatever)” is just beyond words.

Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
A second question: At what point do you think that the Roman Catholic Church will lose its tax exempt status for dictating to people how they should vote (using the fear of hell)?

I should hope that a Church would be willing to loose far more than its tax status in fulfilling its obligation to proclaim the Lord and His Teachings.
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Funny that this question is being raised about Barack Obama - who was clearly born in the State of Hawaii, when it is John McCain who was born outside the United States:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/

I suspect the story itself is nothing but politics. Still, it is odd that Senator Obama would not immediately produce the relevant documents and end the speculation. When the question about Senator McCain's citizenship arose (because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone) he immediately made public the relevant documents and references to legal precedent dating back to the time of the Constitution. Once the political motives were put aside there was no serious legal issue. Senator Obama would do well to release the documents and end the debate.
But what if we truly believe, Admin, that perhaps a greater number of lives could be lost if we voted the other way? Or that number of abortions under the two administrations wouldn't be different, all other lives lost being taken into account? Then is it not acceptable to vote for the pro-choice candidate, despite his pro-choice position?

Alexis
Originally Posted by Administrator
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
I believe that there was recently a relatively famous prolife Catholic canon lawyer who endorsed Obama while making it clear that his endorsement was in spite of Obama's position on abortion. The story I heard was that his priest refused him communion. So is this the policy of the Catholic Church now? If you vote for a prochoice candidate you should refrain from communion even if your vote is in spite of the candidate's position?

You are probably speaking of Douglas Kmiec. The decision to deny him Communion was just. If there are pro-life alternative candidates to a pro-abortion candidate then one must choose among them. The way of determining is to add up all the other issues of the day and equate them with the daily murder of 4,000 baby humans through abortion. To say “I am voting for the candidate who will retain legal abortion and even repeal the laws against infanticide (aka “partial birth abortion”) because he promises me (whatever)” is just beyond words.

Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
A second question: At what point do you think that the Roman Catholic Church will lose its tax exempt status for dictating to people how they should vote (using the fear of hell)?

I should hope that a Church would be willing to loose far more than its tax status in fulfilling its obligation to proclaim the Lord and His Teachings.


I can understand what you are saying, but I must say to ban someone from communion because they possibly made a political mistake seems terribly unjust. Frankly, it makes me glad that I am not under Rome anymore. When a person who is unquestionably pro-life votes for a pro-choice person because he believes that there are issues grave enough to counterbalance the prochoice position, then I think he is voting in good faith and I think that if he is wrong, at the very worst, it is a mistake of political reasoning. But it is not a mistake of moral reasoning.

Joe
I'm curious about something; the Vatican has campaign against the legalization of civil divorce in countries like Ireland and Poland. I assume that the Vatican expects all Catholics to get on board with that one. Now, if you happen to believe that this is a politically mistaken point of view and as a Catholic you support legalizing civil divorce, then should you be banned from communion?

I also noticed that one of the five non-negotiables in the Catholic voter's guide is support for same sex civil unions (or same sex marriages). Now, if you support some limited rights and some kind of legal arrangement for same sex civil unions not because you morally agree with them, but because you think that in the context of our society it is more prudent to have such arrangements, then should you be denied communion?

I mean this in all sincerity and not to offend anyone but when I read these things about the Roman Catholic Church, I can appreciate why the "know nothings" and other anti-Catholic americans were concerned about too much Catholic influence in the U.S. Sometimes, it really does seem like Catholics are to get their marching orders from the Pope and vote in Catholic theology and morality as much as possible. I'm not saying I fully agree with this fear against Catholicism, I'm just saying that in historical perspective, I can see how people could have these fears.

Joe
Here's a relevant article:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061208.html

Alexis
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis


Regarding Bishop Chaput's explanation of a proportionate reason:
"It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."

I ask how he knows that we will meet the victims of abortion face to face in the next life?

But, back to the main point, it does seem Alexis that you are stuck voting against Obama. I'm curious though why prolifers never bring up the use of torture or the murder of thousands of civilians (by unjust war) as proportionate reasons. These are things the government intentionally does. The government may permit people to have abortions, but it certainly isn't forcing them to.

Joe

P.S. Archbishop Chaput's suggestion reminds me of some of the scare tactics used by baptist preachers when I grew up. A famous one used in sermons was, "And remember that everyone you don't witness to will burn in hell and God will grab you and hold you over the fires of hell to watch them suffer as your punishment for not being a good witness and disciple." It is emotional blackmail I think.
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
I can understand what you are saying, but I must say to ban someone from communion because they possibly made a political mistake seems terribly unjust. Frankly, it makes me glad that I am not under Rome anymore. When a person who is unquestionably pro-life votes for a pro-choice person because he believes that there are issues grave enough to counterbalance the prochoice position, then I think he is voting in good faith and I think that if he is wrong, at the very worst, it is a mistake of political reasoning. But it is not a mistake of moral reasoning.

I would say that anyone who thinks that there are issues which add up to a moral imperative greater then working to end the slaughter of 4,000 innocents each day has made a mistake of moral, not political, reasoning.

I think about Just War, Torture, Militarism, all the time Joe. That's why I believe Chuck Baldwin is the only viable option.
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
But what if we truly believe, Admin, that perhaps a greater number of lives could be lost if we voted the other way? Or that number of abortions under the two administrations wouldn't be different, all other lives lost being taken into account? Then is it not acceptable to vote for the pro-choice candidate, despite his pro-choice position?
Such a belief is not founded in fact, and being cognizant of facts is necessary for right moral reasoning. If Gore were elected in 2000 or Kerry elected in 2004 there would be no laws against infanticide (aka partial-birth abortion). Like him or not, President Bush has appointed Supreme Court justices that are more friendly to the right-to-life (both Gore and Kerry promised they would only appoint pro-abortion justices). Roe did not fall but was chipped at. It may take another generation to chip at it until it falls. And then the battle moves to individual states. Evil will always need to be fought against and will always make gains when we are lax. Each time a pro-abortion president is elected there is a setback for life. The moral imperative is to take steps - even baby steps - towards establishing the right-to-life.

I have stated this before. If every Catholic who generally prefers the agenda of the Democrat Party would refuse to vote for pro-abortion Democrats the Democrat Party would soon drop its pro-abortion position and become neutral on the issue. As pro-life Democrats are elected it would eventually become as pro-life as the Republican Party. Every time any one freely choose to vote for a pro-abortion politician they harm the cause of establishing in law the right-to-life.
I've read that McCain and Obama agree on embryonic stem cell research - that both will support funding it with federal monies. McCain has, in previous years, expresses support for such research along with Nancy Reagan and others. I have no reason to believe he will change his stance if he is elected President.

As to President Bush - I don't believe his leadership has done anything substantial in limiting abortions. In my opinion, the rhetoric far outweighs the reality.

The only way abortion will be limited or ended is if a leader in the Democratic party goes toward the pro-life position, swaying some Democrats, while getting the Republican pro-lifers to vote his way. This may cause a new party to be formed by the fracture of abortion supporters from both sides.
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
Regarding Bishop Chaput's explanation of a proportionate reason: "It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."

I ask how he knows that we will meet the victims of abortion face to face in the next life?

The Rich Man was able to look from hell across the chasm where the beggar Lazarus waited with Abraham and ask Abraham to send Lazarus across the chasm into hell with some water to cool his tongue. It is logical, then, to expect that we will meet each individual before whom we have failed and offer an explanation. I suspect that these innocents will be held in the arms of the Lord as we offer explanations as to why we failed to work to protect them.

Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
I'm curious though why prolifers never bring up the use of torture or the murder of thousands of civilians (by unjust war) as proportionate reasons. These are things the government intentionally does. The government may permit people to have abortions, but it certainly isn't forcing them to.

Prolifers most certainly do bring up such things. Torture is always wrong. What constitutes torture is not always clear, even in the mind of the Church. Intentional murder of civilians in war is wrong, even when the war itself is just. Unintentional killing of innocents in war is not murder. With abortion we have intentional murder of innocents.

Archbishop Chaput is right to remind us that how we live our faith affects both our salvation and that of others.
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
I've read that McCain and Obama agree on embryonic stem cell research - that both will support funding it with federal monies. McCain has, in previous years, expresses support for such research along with Nancy Reagan and others. I have no reason to believe he will change his stance if he is elected President.

He did meet with groups opposed to embryonic stem cell research back in the summer. He did not change his mind but did indicate he was open to being persuaded. Perhaps more scientific facts combined with the wonderful pro-life witness of his running mate will convince him? I don't know, but that he has an open mind is something.

Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
As to President Bush - I don't believe his leadership has done anything substantial in limiting abortions. In my opinion, the rhetoric far outweighs the reality.

Gordo will surely post the full list. But one should think outlawing infanticide should be considered substantial (even if the laws are not totally perfect).

Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
The only way abortion will be limited or ended is if a leader in the Democratic party goes toward the pro-life position, swaying some Democrats, while getting the Republican pro-lifers to vote his way.

Catholics and other people who respect life could bring this about in a single election cycle if they refused to vote for pro-abortion Democrats.
Originally Posted by Administrator

Gordo will surely post the full list. But one should think outlawing infanticide should be considered substantial (even if the laws are not totally perfect).


John,

Here is the link. It only goes until 2004, unfortunately. But the sheer volume and impact of the decisions are staggering.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1140835/posts

It does not take much imagination to see what direction an Obama administration would take vis-a-vis these decisions....and WHY it is so important to ensure a pro-life candidate is in the White House.

God bless!

Fr. Deacon Daniel (Gordo)
Originally Posted by Administrator
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
I believe that there was recently a relatively famous prolife Catholic canon lawyer who endorsed Obama while making it clear that his endorsement was in spite of Obama's position on abortion. The story I heard was that his priest refused him communion. So is this the policy of the Catholic Church now? If you vote for a prochoice candidate you should refrain from communion even if your vote is in spite of the candidate's position?

You are probably speaking of Douglas Kmiec. The decision to deny him Communion was just. If there are pro-life alternative candidates to a pro-abortion candidate then one must choose among them. The way of determining is to add up all the other issues of the day and equate them with the daily murder of 4,000 baby humans through abortion. To say “I am voting for the candidate who will retain legal abortion and even repeal the laws against infanticide (aka “partial birth abortion”) because he promises me (whatever)” is just beyond words.


John-

that decision was not just, and your statement above is incorrect. The Bishops of the US have made that clear in their statement, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship :

Quote
Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so
important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper
relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes
a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s
intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal
cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s
opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other
important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
n.34 emphasis added


In the end how one votes is a prudential judgement. Kmiec is quite clear that he does not support Senator Obama's position on abortion. In that respect, one may disagree with Kmiec's decision to support Obama, but he is certainly not guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. In any event, the decision to withold the Eucharist is made by the Bishop, not the local chaplain of the group Kmiec was addressing.

The Bishops's teaching is clear, you cannot vote, for example, for a pro-choice candidate if your intent as a voter is to support the pro-abortion position. The teaching states nothing about the voter's having to vote for a so-called "pro-life" candidate. In fact the latter part of the quote states quite the opposite, given other moral issues that the "pro-life" candidate may in fact disregard.
Thank you Father Deacon John for pointing this out.

Joe
Originally Posted by Deacon John Montalvo
You quoted: At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

Father Deacon,

1. Douglas Kmiec has written off the possibility of ever establishing legal protection for the pre-born. That suggests indifference and I continue to support the priest who denied him Communion.

2. What other issues today together add up to be morally more important than working to stop the murder of 4,000 humans each day? Please list scenarios.

Consider this:

Quote
Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics - A Statement by the Catholic Bishops of the United States

23. Adopting a consistent ethic of life, the Catholic Church promotes a broad spectrum of issues "seeking to protect human life and promote human dignity from the inception of life to its final moment." Opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care. Therefore, Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas. Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life. But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" -- the living house of God -- then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person's most fundamental right -- the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights.

Quote
More...
34. We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God's children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue -- or lack thereof -- is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this, we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest.

"Voting for a pro-abortion candidate would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons" (from #35 in the document you quoted). Please list the morally grave reasons you consider more important that working to end abortion (the murder of 4,000 humans daily) and justify them, considering that all social issues do not have the same moral gravity.

And remember:
Quote
From Faithful Citizenship:
64. Our 1998 statement Living the Gospel of Life declares, “Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others” (no. 5).

John
Originally Posted by Deacon John Montalvo
The Bishops's teaching is clear, you cannot vote, for example, for a pro-choice candidate if your intent as a voter is to support the pro-abortion position. The teaching states nothing about the voter's having to vote for a so-called "pro-life" candidate. In fact the latter part of the quote states quite the opposite, given other moral issues that the "pro-life" candidate may in fact disregard.


Fr. Deacon John,

A few points:

#1 - It is difficult to envision an issue that outweighs the destruction of innocent human life in the womb of its mother. Even if we were to compare numbers and consider the war in Iraq as the moral equivalent to abortion (which it is not), since the start of the Iraq war, 7,211,838 American children as of today (Tuesday, October 14) have died through direct abortion.

Click here for the "Abortion Ticker".

Even if we accept the inflated non-military civilian death count in Iraq since the conflict began as slightly under 100,000 (who knows all the criteria for that number...), it is still 7,111,838 human beings shy of the total number of abortions in the US alone.

Total up the number of abortions worldwide and it is 42 million people killed per year. That is 21 millions people since the start of the Iraq War.

Is there a graver Human Rights issue I am missing here?

And US based corporations like Planned Parenthood have a large hand in that figure. And let's not even start on the profits of Big Abortion, not to mention the funding from various governments that they receive...

#2: POVERTY, FAIR TAXATION, HEALTH CARE, GAS PRICES, ENVIRONMENT, etc etc...cannot compare to the lives lost and devastated through abortion.

#3: Let's take abortion out of the mix. Let's just say that Obama favors the continuing destruction of six million Jews in internment/forced labor camps. In fact, he plans to lift all governmental restrictions at the State level on the destruction of Jews, add new lines of rail tracks to the camps and provide tax-payer funding for more showers and ovens and personnel to oversee their operation with heightened efficiency. What is more, he plans to fund overseas operations thereby exporting the destruction of Jews to poorer countries that do not have access to such facilities to take care of this grave social problem.

On the other side, McCain and Palin are very vocal in their opposition to such barbarism. Additionally, there are other worthy 3rd party candidates out there from various political viewpoints who also share their views on this issue of the murder of millions of innocent Jews.

Now, the only difference between a Jew in a concentration camp and a child in the womb is time and nutrition. Ontologically they are the same. Could a Catholic (or any Christian for that matter) say that he or she has a properly formed conscience while voting for Obama?

I think not.

Substitute Jews for the elderly, the infirm, AIDS patients, newborn infants, etc etc. It does not matter. Such things cannot be simply overlooked by Catholic voters.

If there is a logical fallacy in my argument here, I would like to hear what it is.

To my mind (and I believe that this reflects the mind of the Church), a candidate's views - whatever his or her party affiliation - on this issue is the price of admission to be considered as a worthy candidate. I tell you truthfully - if Obama were solidly pro-life and yet a committed liberal, and McCain was a fanatical pro-abortion candidate (and no other 3rd party candidates were around) but a strict conservative in every other respect, I would cast my vote for Obama.

Pro-life is not the only position that matters, but it is an essential one. And if 67 million Catholic voters in the US finally stood up and said "No" to a candidate with views like Obamas, we would see a different Democratic Party.

Finally, I thought that this was an interesting article...

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Obama's Abortion Extremism


Quote
Obama's Abortion Extremism

by Robert George

Oct 14, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.
Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

What is going on here?

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as ''pro-abortion'' rather than ''pro-choice.''

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as ''pro-choice''? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were ''personally opposed'' to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were ''unnecessary,'' or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said ''Against slavery? Don't own one.'' We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being ''pro-abortion'' and being ''pro-choice.'' Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called ''pro-choice,'' then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, ''forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.'' In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that ''the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act'' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ''a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.'' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ''sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.''

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many ''pro-choice'' legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a ''punishment'' that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing ''pro-choice'' about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is ''pro-choice'' rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.

For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This ''clone and kill'' bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Can it get still worse? Yes.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.

They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.

They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! ''pro-choice''-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.

This is delusional.

We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, ''abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased.'' In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that ''abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent.'' No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies - so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.

Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.

But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: ''that question is above my pay grade.'' It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.

[/quote]

Fr. Dcn. Daniel,

Your points are well taken, but what concerns me is not comparing the number of deaths from the Iraq War (a few hundred thousand) to the legal murder of the unborn (a few million). Abortion kills greater numbers, clearly. But my particular issue is the idea that under a McCain presidency, the numbers of abortions would decrease moreso than under an Obama presidency. Of course, the difference would have to be greater than the number of lives that one believes could very well be lost under McCain over and above Obama.

Alexis
I believe George Bush's (and John McCain's) economic, health, and social policies will lead many to poverty - which will create an alarming rise in the number of abortions performed by the poor and those at lower middle class levels.
Establishing legal protection for the pre-born, I am sorry to say, will not end abortions in the US. Abortion was certainly available prior to Roe, when it was illegal.

Politics is the "art of the possible." Many believe that the legal and constitutional battle over abortion has been lost. As a result, they are turning their attention to end or restrict abortion in other ways than the law. Support of crisis pregnancy centers, etc, is just one example of how one can combat the evil of abortion. Just because one may think the legal battle is lost, does not neccessarily mean one is indifferent to the evil of abortion.



Originally Posted by Deacon John Montalvo
Establishing legal protection for the pre-born, I am sorry to say, will not end abortions in the US. Abortion was certainly available prior to Roe, when it was illegal.

Quite true. Laws against other forms of murder don’t completely stop them from happening, either. The logical conclusion of such an argument, however, is to repeal the laws against everything that we consider immoral. People will always find a way to kill, to steal, etc.

Originally Posted by Deacon John Montalvo
Politics is the "art of the possible." Many believe that the legal and constitutional battle over abortion has been lost. As a result, they are turning their attention to end or restrict abortion in other ways than the law. Support of crisis pregnancy centers, etc, is just one example of how one can combat the evil of abortion. Just because one may think the legal battle is lost, does not neccessarily mean one is indifferent to the evil of abortion.

Might I remind you that the very same people working towards the legal protection for those humans still in the womb are the same ones that are supporting pregnancy centers?

To give up is to abandon those in the womb. It is to say that some things are not possible, even with Christ.
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
But my particular issue is the idea that under a McCain presidency, the numbers of abortions would decrease moreso than under an Obama presidency. Of course, the difference would have to be greater than the number of lives that one believes could very well be lost under McCain over and above Obama.

You cannot judge accomplishments merely by the number of abortions in a given political cycle (either at the local or national levels). President Bush has accomplished much, but his greatest contributions to the pro-life effort are his Supreme Court appointments. As judges who respect life are appointed to the court over time we will see a chipping of Roe (as we have these past years). Eventually it will fall and the battle will move to the states. Protection of human life will never be something that is accomplished once and for all. Evil always attempts a comeback and the people of God will need to be ever vigilant. The struggle to establish protection for human life here in America will remain a multi-generational one.
Fr. Deacon John,

You have no argument from me recording battling the terrible scourge of abortion on many fronts. At one time I served on the board of a just such a Crisis Pregnancy Center. One should neither reduce the battle of abortion to the legal dimension, but nor should one eliminate the legal/constitutional battle as a possible means for change.

If one considers the myriad of decisions the executive branch makes, including nominations to the Supreme Court, which can increase, limit or possibly virtually eliminate abortion, who is in the White House is not simply a matter of indifference. We should not simply throw up our hands and say "well the legal battle is over". It most decidedly is not. FOCA will set back the pro-life work done at the State and Federal level for decades. And all with the swipe of President Obama's pen.

More people WILL die through abortion under an Obama administration.

So it is not a matter of accusing people of "indifference". I doubt that there are many (if any) pro-choice people on this Forum. But I do think in view of other very important issues about which people feel very passionate (the poor, the war, etc etc), it is difficult to forgo a vote for the candidate that supports their POV because of his stand on this fundamental human rights issue.

Of course, we have not even broached the issue of homosexual marriage...

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
I believe George Bush's (and John McCain's) economic, health, and social policies will lead many to poverty - which will create an alarming rise in the number of abortions performed by the poor and those at lower middle class levels.
That is a typical political ploy of the pro-aborts each election season, one not rooted in fact. Don't believe it. During the 2004 election cycle Planned Parenthood (the largest abortionist in the U.S.) released fake statistics claiming that the rate of abortions had risen under the first Bush term. The media triumphantly reported them. After the election they were debunked and shown to be false. As to poverty levels, they have decreased significantly these past 8 years.

Michael (and others), why not work for the cause of life by voting only for pro-life politicians? By refusing to vote for pro-abortion politicians (and saying so loudly)? Why not work to push the abortionists out of the Democrat Party and make it a party of life? Why do you keep trying to cover for them?
Posted By: Alice Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/15/08 03:46 PM

14-October-2008 -- Catholic News Agency

Palin Blasts Obama for Opposing Protections for Infant Abortion Survivors

Johnstown, Oct 14, 2008 (CNA).- Republican vice-presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, in a speech at a Saturday rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, has attacked what she called Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama’s “extreme and troubling” stand on abortion. Palin argued that there are few issues more important than who is protected under law and insisted that everyone “belongs in the circle of protection.”

“As defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life,” Gov. Palin began. “I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?”

“Every innocent life matters,” she continued. “Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.”

Palin recalled how she greeted the news that her youngest son Trig would have “special needs” before turning to an attack upon Sen. Obama.

“At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already. … As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed,” Palin said.

“It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.”

Palin attacked Obama’s remarks he made in a Johnstown appearance about not wanting his daughters “punished with a baby.”

“It’s about time we called him on it,” she said, charging that the Democratic presidential candidate is “vague and evasive” on the subject.

Palin argued that Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion, citing Democratic Sen. Patrick Moynihan’s description of the procedure as “too close to infanticide.”

She then noted Obama’s Illinois Senate votes against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), charging:

“Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die. “

She also stated that Obama had misrepresented his record on BAIPA.

“In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive,” Palin asserted.

Noting that there are many concerns at issue in the election, Palin commented:

“It’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.”

She claimed that Obama would support “activist courts” that will “continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level.”

Earlier that week, in a Thursday interview with radio show host Laura Ingraham, Palin called Obama’s position on the Illinois BAIPA “absolutely atrocious” and “appalling,” Cybercast News Service says.

“I wish I had more time to explain to people what Barack Obama’s position has been on this. Because I think, Laura, it has been missing out there in the discussion, in the debate, about the choices that they have in candidates on November 4th.”

“I think that if more Americans could understand how absolutely extreme that position is, there would be a heck of a lot more outrage than we already see,” she continued.

Palin also attacked Obama’s BAIPA position while speaking at a town hall meeting in Waukesha, Wisconsin on Thursday.

“What I don't find compassionate is Barack Obama's vote, as an Illinois senator, when three times he had the chance to vote to be able to provide health care for a child who was born alive as a result of a botched abortion,” she said.

www.ewtn.com
Posted By: MrsMW Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/15/08 04:42 PM
As I have reminded people on this forum before Obama will sign into law the freedom of choice act. The democrats have the support and he will sign it. This will take away the rights of Catholic hospitals to refuse abortions, take away rights of medical personnel to refuse to do abortions, take away all state restrictions on abortions, and start funding abortions on a federal level. He has promised to fund programs that spread the abortion message overseas. His judges will be pro-abortion.

The basis of all Catholic and Orthodox social justice is the right to life. Archbishop Burke who is now in Rome said the democratic party is becoming "the party of death." Not my words but his.
Posted By: Alice Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/15/08 05:13 PM
Originally Posted by MrsMW
As I have reminded people on this forum before Obama will sign into law the freedom of choice act. The democrats have the support and he will sign it. This will take away the rights of Catholic hospitals to refuse abortions, take away rights of medical personnel to refuse to do abortions, take away all state restrictions on abortions, and start funding abortions on a federal level. He has promised to fund programs that spread the abortion message overseas. His judges will be pro-abortion.

The basis of all Catholic and Orthodox social justice is the right to life. Archbishop Burke who is now in Rome said the democratic party is becoming "the party of death." Not my words but his.


Thank you for clearly and calmly reminding us of what this candidate intends to do as President.

Alice
Originally Posted by MrsMW
As I have reminded people on this forum before Obama will sign into law the freedom of choice act. The democrats have the support and he will sign it. This will take away the rights of Catholic hospitals to refuse abortions, take away rights of medical personnel to refuse to do abortions, take away all state restrictions on abortions, and start funding abortions on a federal level. He has promised to fund programs that spread the abortion message overseas. His judges will be pro-abortion.

The basis of all Catholic and Orthodox social justice is the right to life. Archbishop Burke who is now in Rome said the democratic party is becoming "the party of death." Not my words but his.


I am no fan of the Freedom of Choice Act but I see nothing in the bill that would mandate that any private hospital provide abortions or that any medical personel could be forced to provide abortions (unless perhaps they were government personel).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:
Also, I'll add that the language of the bill does not take away all state restrictions and regulations. It merely affirms that Roe v.Wade is federal law. It seems to me that the real intent of this bill is just to guarantee that the rights secured by Roe v. Wade remain in place should Roe v. Wade be overturned. Now, this is still a horrible bill. But we should not exaggerate what the bill actually says and does. We should stick to the facts.
Posted By: MrsMW Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/15/08 07:18 PM
Even if what you say is true that alone would make me think twice before voting for Obama or any other politician who support this bill. I would encourage anyone to go to the right to life website and read it for yourself. Read what the Catholic bishops have to say about it. Orthodox Christians for life also has some good pro-life resources.

What would we say if a president was great on every issue but he thought that people shouldn't have the right to live past the age of 75? Would we try to say that is just one of many issues? 4,000 babies die every day in this country. This should make rise up to end this evil practice.
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
Also, I'll add that the language of the bill does not take away all state restrictions and regulations. It merely affirms that Roe v.Wade is federal law. It seems to me that the real intent of this bill is just to guarantee that the rights secured by Roe v. Wade remain in place should Roe v. Wade be overturned. Now, this is still a horrible bill. But we should not exaggerate what the bill actually says and does. We should stick to the facts.


Unless I'm misinterpreting something, this bill does take away all state restrictions by this section (section 6),
Quote
This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.


In section 4 it states,
Quote
Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or


(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.


The reason why hospitals fall under these categories is because they receive Federal dollars via Medicare and Medicaid. If any hospital wants to survive they need to receive this money.

I wish that I could believe that this bill is only affirming that Roe v. Wade is federal law, but I sincerly don't believe the sponsors of this bill for one second. Not that I doubt these sponors think they are doing something good, but I believe them to be dead wrong.

Just my two cents.

In Christ,
Aaron
Quote
MrsMW said: What would we say if a president was great on every issue but he thought that people shouldn't have the right to live past the age of 75? Would we try to say that is just one of many issues? 4,000 babies die every day in this country. This should make rise up to end this evil practice.


We have no disagreement here! But let's look at it this way. Theoretically, let's say it's the law of the land that you can kill people 75 or older. One candidate, the one who one believes is great on every other issue, supports this. The other candidate, seems to be mildly against it, but has been shown to be a moderate who doesn't really pursue trying to outlaw it. In fact, a president from this second candidate's own party, who is far more avowedly anti-killing-75-year-olds-and-older, has had 8 years as president and the number of these murders continues, in addition to hundreds of thousands of lives lost through a needless War, and with the gap between rich and poor widening every day to frightful lengths, which as Fr. Dcn. mentioned earlier, could very likely lead to an increase in the number of these murders.

Now, to me, it seems not to be as you caricatured it.
I misspoke. The first candidate supports the "right" to kill these older people, but has vowed, convincingly in my opinion, to work towards diminishing these numbers as much as possible without taking the "right" away.

Alexis
Oh, and to get back to the original topic, Obama has his birth certificate on his website, for crying out loud.

Maybe the reason he does not wish to to go along with this charade from this guy in Philadelphia is because it's too silly to deserve attention or response. Maybe he doesn't even know of this guy? If I were Obama, I'd certainly not waste my time with it. Plus the idea that this guy has come upon this hidden secret, when we have millions upon millions of blood-thirsty Republicans, with mountains of wealth, radio, TV channels, etc. haven't even brought it up as serious consideration, is enough for me to dismiss it out of hand, without even having to appeal to the evidence for its falsity.


Posted By: Alice Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/15/08 07:59 PM
Quote
In fact, a president from this second candidate's own party, who is far more avowedly anti-killing-75-year-olds-and-older, has had 8 years as president and the number of these murders continues,


To be fair, and I really think that President Bush is not being treated fairly...

President Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031105-1.html

Alice



Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
Oh, and to get back to the original topic, Obama has his birth certificate on his website, for crying out loud.

Maybe the reason he does not wish to to go along with this charade from this guy in Philadelphia is because it's too silly to deserve attention or response. Maybe he doesn't even know of this guy? If I were Obama, I'd certainly not waste my time with it. Plus the idea that this guy has come upon this hidden secret, when we have millions upon millions of blood-thirsty Republicans, with mountains of wealth, radio, TV channels, etc. haven't even brought it up as serious consideration, is enough for me to dismiss it out of hand, without even having to appeal to the evidence for its falsity.




Alexis, all excellent points. BTW, this lawyer who is trying to claim that obama is not a US citizen is also a 9-11 conspiracy nutcase. I can't find a good link right now but if you look it up, you'll find some info.

Frankly, I believe that the Republican party has done more damage to the prolife cause than the democratic party. Think about this way; because the Republicans are so wrong on most other issues (especially war and torture), they lose credibility with the public. When Republicans do nothing but spread fear and hate in order to win the election at any cost, then they make it difficult for the undecided person to take them seriously on life. I have to say that I am so thoroughly disgusted with the outright lies and dirty tricks of the McCain/Palin campaign. I might vote for Obama or I might vote for a third party candidate or I might stay home but I'm not going to vote for this Republican ticket.

Joe
Posted By: Alice Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/15/08 08:25 PM
Dear Joe,

What about the fact that President and Senator Clinton both strongly, on television (Larry King Live), supported the evidence and were in favor of the war in Iraq? Are they Republicans?

If there were no war, I still believe that President Bush would be hated and condemned just as much because he is a moral conservative.

I am quite fearful of who Obama really is. (I would have actually preferred Hillary Clinton). Obama's 'spiritual mentor' was on television speaking at the NAACP awards for everyone to hear and judge for themselves.

Getting back to being fair, I am thankful to President Bush (and I am not saying this because he is a republican) for his exemplary leadership at our most vulnerable time, and for the protection of this country from further attack since the terrorist acts of 9/11. I think that it is unfair that people and the media forget that. I also thank him for the moral family life he leads and for being brave enough to publicly speak against same sex marriages and other non-Christian issues.

Despite this, our country's values have not and thanks to the popular media, don't look like they will change. When and if, God willing, they change, the number of abortions, legal or even illegal, will change.

Maybe we need a great catastrophe for that to happen. It was only in the days after 9/11, when Hollywood moguls were finally stating that maybe they should change the type of movies they were producing in order for another attack by the Islamists (who revile the immorality of our culture) to not happen.

Anyway, I digress. Forgive me if I have offended.

Alice
Alice,

You have not offended me at all (I'm not sure if it is even possible for you to offend me ;-). Alice, you have every right to express your opinion in full like you have just done whether I agree with it or not (and I agree with some of what you say).

Folks, I do try to not take these things personally because I know that everyone here has good intentions and wants to do what is right and best for everyone. One of the things that I appreciate about a forum such as this is the generally high-quality level of debate and discussion. People here are made to be just and charitable toward one another and I think that this creates a safe atmosphere for people to question one another's arguments, facts, etc. and pursue truth for its own sake. The level of discussion that goes on here ought to be the norm for public political discussion in the media and in politics. Unfortunately, it is not because the media pundits on both sides of the aisle and the politicians are more interested in sound bites, hate mongering, fear mongering, and providing us with titilating entertainment. So, let the discussion continue I say. God bless.

Joe
I should have said, "it is because the media pundits..." not "it is not because..." For some reason, the "edit" feature isn't showing up.
The united states DOES NOT recognize duall citizenship.
Stephanos I

I'm not sure I follow you Fr Stephanos. I said nothing about dual citizenship.
Posted By: MrsMW Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/15/08 10:50 PM
I think you are saying that Obama will work to lower the number of abortions and McCain will not work that hard on the issue. McCain has a solid 0%rating with Planned parenthood and Obama has a 100% rating. Actions speak louder than words.

I get the impression alot of people believe that if Mr Obama is elected, he'll work for universal healthcare, an increase in the minimum wage, etc, and that will bring down the abortion rate. I think one need only look at the high abortion rates in countries with universal healthcare to see the fallacy of that argument. In Western Europe in particular, the same culture of death that tells women that it's there right to murder there unborn child, also tells young people that it's there right to have sex with anyone they want.
In the midst of all of this intense discussion, I thought I'd offer a little levity in something I found on the web.

http://palinaspresident.com/

Enjoy!
Just wanted to note that in tonight's debate McCain defended voting for Ginsburg and Breyer to the Supreme Court saying that they were fully qualified and said that he would not make Roe v. Wade a strict litmus test for his judicial nominees. Granted McCain is still more prolife than Obama (on abortion anyway), but Obama, although he is unfortunately prochoice, did say that abortion is a moral issue, that sex is sacred and that we need to educate young people not to be cavalier about sex and that we all need to sit down and see what we can do to reduce abortion. Granted, this is not sufficient from a prolife point of view (and I wish that Obama was fully prolife), but Obama is not radically proabortion. Also, the issue of the Born Alive act has also been distorted. Granted, Obama was wrong to vote against it but it is a fact, that he pointed out, that there is already a law on the books in Illinois that requires born alive infants to be saved. Also, the Illinois medical association has backed up Obama.

Look, I understand and respect the views of most here that the prolife issue on abortion trumps everything. I understand that. But I can no longer allow the Republican party to take my vote for granted simply because I'm prolife. In my opinion, McCain/Palin would be utterly disasterous for our nation. No babies would be saved and worse, we would face even more severe economic and foreign policy disasters and fiascos. I still might vote third party, but I might vote for Obama. Either way, I'm putting the Republican party on notice. If they want my vote, they have to earn it. They have to give me candidates who are actually intelligent, can utter a coherent sentence and show that they actually understand what they are saying, that they are honest, and that they will not stoop to the descpicable Karl Rovian campaign tactics. Just my view. I'm sure that many may get upset with me.

Joe
I don't agree with Joe that the Republicans take us pro-lifers for granted. Some certainly do but did you read the list of the pro-life accomplishments by President Bush? Senator McCain was part of a lot of them and has done a lot of good in his years in Washington. If we are Christians we simply cannot support the Democrats since the Democrat party is the Party of Death. Barak Obama is the most radical presidential candidate on abortion that we have ever had. He lied through his teeth tonight and anyone who wants to look up what he really said can.

Lives Depend on Your Vote
Obama and the culture of death


By Kathryn Jean Lopez

Speaking to a group of young Catholics in New York at a “Theology on Tap” event almost one month before Election Day, I had a harsh awakening as jarring as a shot of Wild Turkey 101. Weeks before going to the polling booth, Americans do not know Barack Obama.

In a packed bar, I was discussing the contentious question of whether a Catholic can support Obama for president. I highlighted the priority that defending innocent human lives takes in these considerations, according to the Church. I then went through Obama’s radical record on abortion. The jolt came after I finished speaking, when one by one, people told me they had no idea Obama was so radical.

They were shocked. And so was I.

We’ve been understandably focused on the economy lately, so much so that it’s as if there are no other issues. But there are. And in the time we have left, voters must consider them.

Though for Catholics, in the end, my conclusion is that it would be a very tough thing for a follower of the Lord to back Senator Obama — impossible, actually. Obama has stood on the floor of the Illinois statehouse and argued that a baby born alive due to a botched abortion should not have the same rights as a child carried to term. That, in and of itself — his opposition to Illinois’s Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which sought to mandate safeguards for such unwanted children — is a heavy obstacle to overcome for those Obama fans concerned about the future and dignity of human life. He defended infanticide. That alone would be enough to keep me from voting for him. But, as it happens, it’s not the only ethical affront the Obama campaign has committed, and far from the only offense to human rights that the Democratic presidential candidate supports.

Care for some others?

Barack Obama has told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the first thing he will sign as president will be the Freedom of Choice Act, which will sweep away limits on abortion — state and federal — including restrictions on government funding of abortion and laws protecting anti-abortion health care providers.

Barack Obama has condemned the Supreme Court’s Gonzales v. Carhart ruling, which affirmed the federal partial-birth abortion ban.

Barack Obama supports federal funding of abortion.

Barack Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, which restricts use of taxpayer dollars for supporting abortion.

Barack Obama called pregnancy “punishment.”

Barack Obama believes that the right to have an abortion is a matter of equal rights for women.

Barack Obama wants to stop federal funding to crisis-pregnancy centers.

Barack Obama does not support the Pregnant Women Support Act, a project of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by strengthening the social safety net. This is important because it exposes as a lie a major talking point employed by those who argue that pro-lifers can support Obama. It shows much of the left’s patronizing rhetoric to be nothing but rank deceit. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — a Catholic who developed her own theology to justify her abortion support — and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have not allowed this important act to even come to a vote.

I don’t think I’m unreasonable in thinking that sweeping away all abortion limits and funding abortion with federal tax dollars (while defunding centers that provide alternatives to abortion) will increase rather than decrease abortions in the United States.

“The election of Barack Obama would endanger the lives of thousands of unborn children,” University of Alabama professor Michael New tells me. “If he follows through on his pledge to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, it would likely nullify many state-level pro-life laws that the pro-life movement has worked hard to enact.”

Calculations from the results of a 2004 Heritage Foundation study, authored by New, indicate that the repeal of all state-level public-funding restrictions, parental-involvement laws, and informed-consent laws would result in 125,000 more abortions every year. The repeal of federal pro-life laws might well push the numbers up even higher.

You can fall in love with the romantic idea of a black man named Barack becoming president of the United States, but in a country where black women have abortions at five times the rate of white women, he is a profile in cowardice. In a land where we have devoted ourselves to the pursuit of life, this is unacceptable. Vote as if lives depend on you.

They do.
Obama's Abortion Extremism
by Robert George
Oct 14, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.
Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

What is going on here?

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as ''pro-abortion'' rather than ''pro-choice.''

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as ''pro-choice''? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were ''personally opposed'' to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were ''unnecessary,'' or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said ''Against slavery? Don't own one.'' We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being ''pro-abortion'' and being ''pro-choice.'' Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called ''pro-choice,'' then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, ''forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.'' In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that ''the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act'' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ''a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.'' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ''sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.''

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many ''pro-choice'' legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a ''punishment'' that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing ''pro-choice'' about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is ''pro-choice'' rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.

For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This ''clone and kill'' bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Can it get still worse? Yes.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.

They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.

They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! ''pro-choice''-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.

This is delusional.

We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, ''abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased.'' In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that ''abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent.'' No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies - so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.

Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.

But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: ''that question is above my pay grade.'' It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.
Posted By: Alice Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/16/08 06:15 AM
Originally Posted by Stephanos I
The united states DOES NOT recognize dual citizenship.
Stephanos I


I believe that the criteria for citizenship, place of birth, etc., are different for becoming President of the United States, but for the average Joe, dual citizenship is legal.

What is Dual Citizenship (or Dual Nationality)? Dual citizenship or dual nationality is simply being a citizen of two countries. The United States allows dual citizenship. For example, if you were born in Mexico you are a native-born Mexican. If you move to the United States and become a naturalized US citizen, you now have dual citizenship. Dual citizens can carry two passports and essentially live, work, and travel freely within their native and naturalized countries.

Some dual citizens also enjoy the privilege of voting in both countries, owning property in both countries, and having government health care in both countries.

Dual citizenship is becoming more common in our increasingly interconnected, global economy. Many countries are now seeing the advantages of dual citizenship and are liberalizing their citizenship laws (India, the Phillippines, and Mexico are recent examples). Dual citizenship has the advantages of broadening a country’s economic base by promoting trade and investment between the dual citizen’s two respective countries...

On Being a Dual Citizen

As mentioned previously, the United States government does allow dual citizenship. They don’t approve of dual citizenship—they simply tolerate it. You need to understand this distinction so you won’t have problems with the US government at the border, at the airport, or abroad at one of their embassies or consulates.




http://www.newcitizen.us/dual.html





In practice there are quite a few dual citizens of Ireland and the USA. Most of us are descended from people who moved to the USA before Ireland was recognized as a nation - and our grandparents were able to renounce "allegiance" to the British with enthusiasm and joy!

I've never run across a case of any American government body or even any public official challenging dual citizenship involving Ireland and the USA. If someone had wanted to make an issue of it, the most probable time would have been the days of the Vietnam War, when young men seeking to avoid conscription in the USA took Irish passports. But that was never challenged either.

Fr. Serge
Quote
Alice said: What about the fact that President and Senator Clinton both strongly, on television (Larry King Live), supported the evidence and were in favor of the war in Iraq? Are they Republicans?


Alice, I think the difference is that most Democrats who voted for the War have admitted that they made a mistake, while the Bush Administration still insists it was the right choice.

Alexis
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
I misspoke. The first candidate supports the "right" to kill these older people, but has vowed, convincingly in my opinion, to work towards diminishing these numbers as much as possible without taking the "right" away.

Alexis


A better way to put it would be the first candidate vows to uphold the right to kill 75+ year-olds and push the limit younger and younger. shocked
By the way, my vote doesn't count. I live in Illinois and a vote for McCain, Paul, Keyes, Putin, Sarkozy, etc... won't make a difference compared to the 10,000,000 people who live in that Megalopolis in the northeast corner of my state that will be voting for Obama (this includes the living, the dead, and the imaginary who will be voting for him.)

I'm voting 3rd party so as to support neither party.

Remember that country we fought so hard to get away from? They have more of a representation in their government than we do. We only have one more viable party than China does. smirk
Originally Posted by Dr. Eric
[quote=Logos - Alexis]I misspoke. The first candidate supports the "right" to kill these older people, but has vowed, convincingly in my opinion, to work towards diminishing these numbers as much as possible without taking the "right" away.

Alexis


------------------------------------

Alexis,

I do apologize, but the very fact that he supports this "killing of older people" makes a mockery of his attempt to "diminish" the numbers.

If I said, "I support the right to kill white people, but I'm going to try and diminish these numbers by getting universal health care, and bettering the environment...blah, blah, blah.", I would hope I would be taken to an insane asylum for treatment. confused

Truly I wish there was a better candidate than McCain on the republican ticket, but alas there isn't. I think Keyes could trounce Obama any day of the week.

A brother in Christ,
Aaron



Originally Posted by Krotoski
Truly I wish there was a better candidate than McCain on the republican ticket, but alas there isn't. I think Keyes could trounce Obama any day of the week.

A brother in Christ,
Aaron


Unfortunately, Keyes was defeated by Obama over the senate seat.

I agree with Keyes on certain things, but he is too temperamental to run for national office, IMHO.

God bless,

FrDD
Originally Posted by Dr. Eric
By the way, my vote doesn't count. I live in Illinois and a vote for McCain, Paul, Keyes, Putin, Sarkozy, etc... won't make a difference compared to the 10,000,000 people who live in that Megalopolis in the northeast corner of my state that will be voting for Obama (this includes the living, the dead, and the imaginary who will be voting for him.)

I'm voting 3rd party so as to support neither party.

Remember that country we fought so hard to get away from? They have more of a representation in their government than we do. We only have one more viable party than China does. smirk


Dr. Eric, in 99.999999999999% of elections no one's vote individually counts. In order for your vote to count, it would have to come down to Illinois being the deciding state and then your candidate would have to win by 1 vote. The truth is that every single person who posts in this forum could stay home on election day and it wouldn't make one bit of difference (with regard to the result anyway). I vote for my own sake, to express my conscience but I do not believe that I'm making any difference.

Joe
FrDD,

I do remember Keyes being the challenger to Obama, but I thought it was more or less a, "let's try this" by the GOP, no??

You're right, Keyes is tempermental, but I think his views are more consistent than anybody else's out there and I would agree with him more than McCain I believe.

Here's a link to some of Keye's key beliefs: http://www.americasrevival.com/issues_list.php#abortion

In Christ,
Aaron
Joe,

My point was that even if I were to vote for McCain just to keep Obama from winning Illinois. My vote wouldn't do a bit of good as all the living, dead, and imaginary will be voting for Obama up there by the lake.

God Bless You,

Eric

PS I will not be voting for McCain. Meh.......
Posted By: MrsMW Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/17/08 09:03 PM
That will happen in Ohio too thanks to Acorn! My Grandmother of blessed memory said there is no such thing as an honest Chicago politician.
Originally Posted by Dr. Eric
My vote wouldn't do a bit of good as all the living, dead, and imaginary will be voting for Obama up there by the lake.


LOL! Ah yes - voting post-mortem...

Truly a Chicago Democratic tradition...which gives a whole new meaning to Chesterton's definition of "tradition" as "the democracy of the dead!"

FrDD
Chicago, Chicago . . . it's a wonderful town!
The 'natural born citizen' law seems a little silly.

Anyway the furore about Obama seems another jibe at his foreign name. (When I first heard it I thought he was one of those ethnic-pride blacks who changed his name on becoming a Muslim.)

Think about it: why on earth would a nine-months-pregnant woman go through the two ordeals of flying on a plane to a Third World country to give birth? Of course he was born in America.

I understand both the UK and Ireland have windows for grandchildren of immigrants to apply for citizenship, the Irish one being longer so as Father said many Americans use that. Which is probably wonderful now: access to the whole EU including the UK.
Originally Posted by MrsMW
That will happen in Ohio too thanks to Acorn! My Grandmother of blessed memory said there is no such thing as an honest Chicago politician.


Would that it were not so... Alas, I have seen with my own eyes, Acorn rounding 'em up here during Ohio's election month... The van will take you to get registered and then to "Early vote" right at the same time.

Homeless are welcome: free cookies and milk!
Posted By: MrsMW Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/18/08 02:55 AM
If Obama wins it will be because Catholics don't care about abortion. When will the bishops stop talking about denying Holy Communion and start doing it?

If this were a Republican group they would have put tham all in jail by now.
The RC vote doesn't care about abortion. It's default Democrat: the old immigrant-labour thing is part of their identity... and they've gone along with the mainstream on those issues. (Most ethnic Orthodox are the same.) The ones who do try to follow the church on that get suckered into voting Republican. A minority.
Most americans do not vote on social issues such as abortion. Most americans (even those who are prolife, or moderately prolife) vote on the basis of economics and foreign policy, usually with economics trumping everything. What does this mean? To most american voters, no matter their personal view on abortion, the position of the candidates on abortion is irrelevant. By the way, this is why I think that prolife politicians who do a poor job of governing and who support bad economic and foreign policies actually hurt the prolife movement. Imagine how much credibility President Bush might have had with the public if he had not taken us into an unjust and illegal war and if he had not supported the use of torture and if he had not supported an economic policy designed to benefit wall street at the expense of others.

Joe
Posted By: MrsMW Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/18/08 04:36 AM
The Catholic Church does say that abortion is the number one issue. The basis for all Catholic social justice is the basic right to life.

With all due respect.The democrats have done just as much harm on wall street . There were reasons why we went to war. Democrats supported it too. Clinton took us to Kosovo and we are still there.
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
Most americans do not vote on social issues such as abortion. Most americans (even those who are prolife, or moderately prolife) vote on the basis of economics and foreign policy, usually with economics trumping everything. What does this mean? To most american voters, no matter their personal view on abortion, the position of the candidates on abortion is irrelevant. By the way, this is why I think that prolife politicians who do a poor job of governing and who support bad economic and foreign policies actually hurt the prolife movement. Imagine how much credibility President Bush might have had with the public if he had not taken us into an unjust and illegal war and if he had not supported the use of torture and if he had not supported an economic policy designed to benefit wall street at the expense of others.

Joe


I agree with this. I have been thinking of ditching the GOP for a while now.

We have the Party of Moloch and Priapus and then we have the Party of Mammon and Ares. Why vote for either one?

Bring back a Hapsburg or Wittelsbach! Intercede for us Blessed Karl!
God bless the King, the Church's true Defender
And bless (no harm to bless) the Pretender.
But which Pretender be, and which be King
God bless us all - that's quite another thing!


(My preference would probably be a Hapsburg)

Fr. Serge
But you don't have import a royal family if you want one
we have one native to the US! wink
Originally Posted by Serge Keleher
God bless the King, the Church's true Defender
And bless (no harm to bless) the Pretender.
But which Pretender be, and which be King
God bless us all - that's quite another thing!

(My preference would probably be a Hapsburg)

Fr. Serge


Shlomo Abun Sarkis,

You have hit right at the center of my Monarchist heart. I too am a very big supporter of the Hapsburgs, and would love to see a united Europe under a Hapsburg Monarchy. As a matter of fact, my final paper on Modern European History was on the issue that if the United States had agreed to the Austria-Hungry's compitulation and had let the empire stay together, then Hitler would not have been able to have taken power as he did, nor have been able to seize central Europe.

Blessed Karl is one of people that I pray to, when I vote, as I will be doing this morning (we have early voting in Nevada), another is St. Sir Thomas Moore.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon
Sisters and Brothers,

Some may find the following discussions from America magazine to be helpful:

On voting one’s conscience:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11159

Racism and the Election:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11161

Intrinsic Evil and Political Responsibility:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11166

Z Bohom!
Pustinik
------------------------
"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." –St. Serafim of Sarov
If, from certain perspectives shared here, voting Obama would result in more abortions, then if one accepts such premises, doesn't one have vote for McCain over a third party candidate?

I think I saw Lawrence (forgive me, Lawrence, if it was someone else and I'm mistakenly attributing it to you) a couple pages back say he was going to vote for a third party candidate. But if one knows, realistically, that a third party candidate will not be elected, isn't voting for one effectively just taking a vote away from McCain, therefore helping Obama get closer to winning the presidency, therefore being at odds with the intended goal?

Alexis
Sisters and Brothers,

There was a time when many Americans would bemoan how low we had sunk as a nation by nominating a Catholic such as Al Smith (or JFK). Kind of sad.... But those days are still here.

Some derisively say "Barack HUSSEIN Obama," making play with a person's given name. Not too many years ago our parents (or some of us ourselves) recall being scrutinized or made fun of for having a Slavic name - others may have felt the same with Greek, Irish, or Italian names. We were U.S. citizens but our fellow citizens treated us as foreigners.....

General Colin Powell on Meet the Press today is exactly right - is it wrong for a young Muslim boy or girl carrying a characteristically Islamic name to hope that they might some day become President? Maybe the Presidency is closed to Muslims? What is this America - great shining light among the nations? Is the Presidency only for citizens with "American" names, and only for Christians. Is a Christian (or Muslim) carrying an Arabic name problematic -- just like a Christian with a Slavic name might have been problematic during the Cold War?

This is not to say Senator Obama is an Arab or a Muslim. He is known to be a American Christian with a Muslim father. This is well established. But the rhetoric of this campaign sadly shows that the children revisit the sins of the parents. Many of us whose ancestors faced prejudice from "WASPS" now are mimicking the same behavior.

Hopefully God will give Americans the wisdom to move behind some of the ethnic prejudices that unfortunately continue to rear their ugly heads. Thank God that General Colin Powell spoke truth on this matter today.

May God bestow peace upon those with whom we agree and disagree,
Pustinik
------------------------
"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." –St. Serafim of Sarov
Posted By: Alice Re: Is Obama a citizen of the United States? - 10/19/08 05:49 PM
Dear Pustinik,

You are right about names. That should not be an issue and no one should be prejudiced for having an ethnic sounding first or last name.

Re: Colin Powell.

I wonder if Senator Obama would have backed him if he had been running for President! (Actually I would have liked him as President)...Somehow I doubt it. grin

I also do not see Condoleeza Rice getting the respect she deserves as a Black American and *female* Secretary of State...but then again, I forgot--she is a Republican, so that doesn't count! smile grin wink

Have a nice day,
Alice smile
I thought Colin Powell was exceptionally eloquent today on Meet The Press. I found myself in agreement with nearly everything I said.

Here's a link to the video for those of you who missed it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#27265490

Alexis
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
I thought Colin Powell was exceptionally eloquent today on Meet The Press. I found myself in agreement with nearly everything I said.

Here's a link to the video for those of you who missed it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#27265490

Alexis


Yep, me too. And I still say that when the pro-life candidate supports things like torture and unjust war, the prolife candidate does much to harm the prolife cause. Think about it, a president with a 26% approval rating is not going to be able to be the bully pulpit for life. And while I have no illusions about Obama, I have to say that watching the McCain/Palin campaign has been probably the most disappointing political experience I've ever had. One can do a bit of research and see that the campaign, and both McCain and Palin personally, have told bald-faced lies and continue to tell them. Andrew Sullivan has been listing Palin's lies on his site with the evidence http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/. And I think that we should be prepared for the unfortunate fact that because Obama and the Democrats will likely rule the country for the next four years, they will likely put the nail in the coffin of the prolife movement. But I think that part of the responsibility for this does lie with the inept policies and despicable campaigning of Republicans.

Joe
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
[quote=Logos - Alexis] And I think that we should be prepared for the unfortunate fact that because Obama and the Democrats will likely rule the country for the next four years, they will likely put the nail in the coffin of the prolife movement.


Maybe not - I've recently learned about a small but growing group of pro-life Democrats (http://www.democratsforlife.org/). Unfortunately, the pro-life advocates have often demonized pro-abortion opposition, instead of trying to engage and inform. And in many cases where a woman faces the option of abortion, the quick, throw away culture, contextualized with the shame of an unintended pregnancy, or the responsibilities of rearing a(nother) child, make abortion "seemingly" all too easy. And then the remorse sets in. Ministries such as Rachel's Vineyard have been a blessing to many facing such sorrowful knowledge of past actions (www.rachelsvineyard.org).

Groups such as Students for Life (http://www.studentsforlife.org/) are also working to change culture on college campuses. I personally have hope that such efforts will continue to make progress in the hard work of informing youth about responsible action.

An aspect of pro-life work that we do not often discuss is the men in the picture. Some wonder how many women have had abortions. But how many men walking around today have been parties to encouraging a woman to have an abortion. For every abortion a woman has requested, there is a male partner "in the wings." Abortion has become an all too convenient option for many "respectable" young (and older) men who do not wish to take responsibility for their relationships. I believe there are ministries emerging like Rachel's Vineyard whereby men who have been party to abortion decisions can seek healing in context of repentence for their action.

May God bless you,
Pustinik



© The Byzantine Forum