|
2 members (theophan, 1 invisible),
93
guests, and
17
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,297
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968 |
I totally disagree.
I think judicial change is a very real possibility. As has been noted, Roe v Wade was almost overturned with Casey until one justice changed his vote.
It can happen. However, if Kerry gets elected, it definitely wont.
There's no reason to give up on the fight against abortion on the legal front.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790 |
I had almost argued myself into holding my nose and voting for Bush based on the possibility that he may nominate a prolife SC justice or two or three [as opposed to the impossibility that Kerry would] but then in the final debate Bush assured the world that there would be no "litmus test" for nominees and I remembered all the proabortion justices that have been selected by "prolife" presidents, and noted that W has continued the "prolife" Republican tradition of having his wife send opposite signals -not only on abortion but on embryonic stem cell research- and thought maybe I would either abstain or vote for the guy who has been driving around the country with his family and a platform that is in total harmony with Catholic social principles, if he is on the Ohio ballot, and abstaining if he is not.
Which is more important, "winning", only to be betrayed again, or being faithful?
But how any Catholic can vote for Kerry is beyond me...
-Daniel, who has loathed this whole election year
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440 |
Dear All,
This election is the most serious election that has ever been held. It will determine the direction our nation, and consequently the world, will be going in.
Now I'm not just saying that because of the war in Iraq. I'm saying it because of the cultural changes that have taken place, not only in our nation, but...(because of us), throughout the world. Changes so drastic that, (if I recall correctly), even the Pope has stated that we live in a post Christian era.
Today, we live in a world that is split in two. Half is pagan, and the other, Muslim. Funny, but I remember what happened the last time a separated world clashed.
Then it was the evil of nationalism (pagan Nazism and Fascism), clashing with the other evil, athiestic Communism. At that time, it was Nazism, that came about as a reaction to Communism. Today, the reaction to our secular paganism, is a militant Islam.
As a Christian, I can't help but feel that if our Lord is with us, President Bush, with the honesty and Christian integrity that I have perceived, (through the knowledge and many adverse experiences of my long life), will be elected. If our Lord has turned His face, we will not have that good fortune. In other words, we flunked it...and we should all beware of the consequences.
Zenovia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,959
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,959 |
I don't want to make any political comment, other than I believe in the genuine Christian faith and commitment of our President. This has NOTHING to do with political party idealogy. Jimmy Carter was also a very committed Christian. I don't envy Bush's position at all. As our President, he needs our prayers, and that is why the Orthodox DL litany always prays for our President, no matter who he is (or what political party he espouses  ) In Christ our Master, Alice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Well if the subject has morphed to the President's religion ... Much has been written on the belief of Bush. Both proponents and opponents agree on the substance of his faith - they just disagreee the merits of it. Here are some excerpts from and links to some short articles with references to books. (These references were picked up from a conservative catholic blog, btw.) Our Magical President
By Jeff Sharlet
Believing, it seems, is more important to the President than the substance of his belief. Jesus Christ�s particular teachings -- well, those are good, too. But what really matters is that if you believe you can do something, you can.
... this is not Christian doctrine by any definition. It is, in fact, a key element of the broad, heterodox movement known as New Age religion. President or Prophet?
By David Domke and Kevin Coe
...Bush�s fusion of faith and politics is anything but conventional for the presidency.
The key difference is this: Presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have spoken as petitioners of God, seeking blessing and guidance; this president positions himself as a prophet, issuing declarations of divine desires for the nation and world. Most fundamentally, Bush�s language suggests that he speaks not only of God and to God, but also for God.
...Roosevelt in 1941, in a famous address delineating four essential freedoms threatened by fascism and Nazism, said: �This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God.�
Similarly, Dwight Eisenhower in 1954, during the height of the Cold War, said: �Happily, our people, though blessed with more material goods than any people in history, have always reserved their first allegiance to the kingdom of the spirit, which is the true source of that freedom we value above all material things. ... So long as action and aspiration humbly and earnestly seek favor in the sight of the Almighty, there is no end to America�s forward road; there is no obstacle on it she will not surmount in her march toward a lasting peace in a free and prosperous world.�
Contrast these petitionary statements, in which presidents spoke from the posture of one humbly asking for divine guidance, with Bush�s claim in 2003 that �Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America�s gift to the world, it is God�s gift to humanity.� This is not a request for divine favor; it is a declaration of divine wishes... I am very leary of new age gnosticism. Of belief in the power of belief. Of faith in faith. Crystal Cathedral, power-of-positive thinking religion. I am skeptical of those who practice outside of the Church or outside of any church - because their church is the church of them, and the power of their belief. Ans I am agitated to the point of rending my garments by those who take upon themselves the role prophet (I'm even freaked by hymns where we speak in God's voice) and avenging angel - seers of the mind of God, voice of God on earth, and re-creator of God's reality. I find comfort in those who are humble petitioners before God, and seek to be angels of his good-will toward men. And quoting James in our Protestant culture is a plus, too
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968 |
I had almost argued myself into holding my nose and voting for Bush based on the possibility that he may nominate a prolife SC justice or two or three [as opposed to the impossibility that Kerry would] but then in the final debate Bush assured the world that there would be no "litmus test" for nominees and I remembered all the proabortion justices that have been selected by "prolife" presidents... I've used the "holding my nose" line myself. Sadly, the shape of our country is such that if any president openly appointed judges because they were pro-life many of them would never get confirmed. Also, history has shown that justices can shift their positions once they get on the Supreme Court. I don't support every position of Bush...not in the least. But, he's the best chance we have to get some restrictions on abortion through the courts, IMO. Kerry would only strengthen the pro-abortion rulings in this country...and he's *very* open about that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
DTB: You write about a President providing a chance to "get some restrictions on abortion through the courts" or to "strengthen the pro-abortion rulings". What, in terms of actual powers, does this mean? Are you aware of the restrictions that have gotten through the courts, and are in force in the various states? http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/abortl.htm http://www.naral.org/yourstate/whodecides/states/ Are you aware that OR has very liberal abortions laws that go far, far beyond what is required by the courts?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
From Fr. John Cole: Several weeks ago, Fr. DiNoia, the undersecretary for the Congregation of Doctrine and Faith, asked me to communicate with Marc Balestrieri about a question concerning abortion, excommunication and the like. I was neither delegated by the Congregation to speak for it, nor was I in any sense a "consultor" to the Congregation. I was simply someone trying to help someone understand the gravity of the evil of abortion and the possible penalties associated by formally and publically teaching that abortion was not per se a grave sin. Both Fr. DiNoia and I assumed that the person was a student wanting to understand the Church's teaching. I was told he was seeking to do a JCD degree by the person in question. Neither Fr. DiNoia nor I had any knowledge that he was going to "go after" Kerry or any other Catholic figure for their public stance concerning the evil of abortion. So, in my letter to Marc Balestrieri, I began by mentioning that my letter is a personal and private opinion to him about anyone who would publically and persistently teach that abortion is not morally prohibited. It in no way is authoritative from the Congregation nor was I representing the Congregation. It's only weight is that of a priest and a theologian who appeals to sacred sources. I was helping out Fr. DiNoia who asked me to do this for him. Fraternally in St. Dominic, Fr. Basil Cole, OP This helps, but... I was simply someone trying to help someone understand the gravity of the evil of abortion and the possible penalties associated by formally and publically teaching that abortion was not per se a grave sin. No. What was discussing in Part II went far beyond this. And here's more from the Vatican. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405749.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968 |
Are you aware of the restrictions that have gotten through the courts, and are in force in the various states? Are you saying these are enough? Are not the laws that permit abortion (and the court interpretations) an evil that we should oppose? Why should we support someone like Kerry who wants to further entrench those legal interpretations by appointing judges who hold to the abortion "rights"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
No I am not saying that. I am saying what I said.
In previous discussion here with others I was amazed to find that people don't even know what restrictions are legally permissible, and what is already in the hands of the states. I think there's room for productive work at the state - especially in Oregon.
I don't expect a great deal from Kerry on abortion. I actually expect him, if elected, to be cautious about alientating pro-choice supporters. At the same time he will have to court the Catholic vote more earnestly, because in the next election would be a referendum on his record, he will certianly alienate people in the meantime, and will have to do better than 50% of the Catholic vote. I expect an deliberate campaign under the rubric of choice to expand support for life-affirming choices. I have no inside information here - it's just that he would have to do this to facilitate his re-election.
And I don't expect anything out of Bush, either. It will take a judge like Kennedy or O'Connor to make it to the bench. Not only because of Democrats, but also because of Specter - who is campaigning on his ability to keep moderates on the bench! (So much for Santorum's purity.) Expect that Rhenquist, White, and Blackmun are replaced by a Souters or O'Connors, or Kennedys.
That's a step backwards.
So I don't forsee any pratical basis for favoring one candidate over the other on this issue. As I've said here before, if you do, than you must act on this. But I do ask that you respect other perspectives.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968 |
I think the chances are much greater with Bush nominating the judges (as opposed to Kerry)especially if pro-lifers work to elect senators who will confirm them.
|
|
|
|
|
