www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News NY Times: Group of Bishops Using Influence to Oppose Kerry

Hello,

I do not forget, however, one must ask the question: Are people in Iraq now better than with Hussein?

Even if so, why do Americans have the right to tell other nations how to live their lives?

I do not remember any sizeable oposition to Hussein officially requesting the United States military aid to depose the dictator?

I was not aware this was legal according to international law.

But even if so, would you still vote for Bush, given that, in the best case scenario, he plunged the country into a very costly war, one he will not pay for (you and I will over the next couple of decades), putting the lives of your children, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers at high risk, ONLY because Iraquis wanted Saddam Hussein out?

I never bought the WMD thing. The MINUTE terrorists get a working WMD, we will know, in the most terrible way. I assure you that.

Now, Iran and North Korea have a much more viable WMD program. What is the U.S. doing about it?

Gathering top-notch intelligence about it, as they always do, right?

Further than that, nobody has ever shown a direct relationship between the regime of Hussein and any terrorist activity against the United States. Hussein and Bin-Laden are not friends. Bin-Laden thinks Hussein is an infidel almost as much as he thinks Bush is.

Yes, I am against the war in Iraq, but not because I am against military actions at all costs. All armed forces of this country should be fighting terrorism (and at the same time, policy-makers should be correcting the policies that made the U.S. a target for terrorism to begin with). But why did the U.S. capture Hussein and NOT Bin-Laden? Hussein had the resources of a full-blown State, Bin-Laden doesn't. Hussein was in control of his situation, Bin-Laden wasn't. Doesn't it seem that the reason is because, somehow, the man 'who tried to kill dad' was a higher priority than the man who only knocked down a couple of buildings?

But none of this matters, because unless you live in Florida, Pennsilvania or Ohio, your vote is extremely unlikely to make any difference at all.

Shalom,
Memo.

Harvard-MIT Study Shows State Pro-Life Laws Responsible for Lower Abortion Rates

WASHINGTON, DC, January 26, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new study by a post-doctoral fellow at the Harvard-MIT Data Center indicates that state laws against abortion reduce the number of abortions.

The research, by Harvard-MIT Data Center post-doctoral fellow Michael J. New, is published by the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org). It explains the key role of life- affirming state laws in the substantial decline in the number of abortions during the 1990s-after a rise in abortions during the 1970s and 1980s.

"Dr. New's research shows that when politicians and judges decide against life-affirming legislation, they are like lifeguards turning their backs to the water," said Denise Burke, Esq., staff counsel with Americans United for Life (AUL).

Using regression analysis, Dr. New's research shows that, by the end of the 1990s, four common types of state pro-life legislation were effective at reducing the number of abortions. Looking at state abortion data for every year from 1985 to 1999 (while holding a variety of economic and demographic factors constant), the Heritage study examines the impact of parental-involvement laws, Medicaid-funding restrictions, informed-consent laws and partial-birth-abortion bans.

By the end of the 1990s, more states had passed and enforced these types of laws compared to earlier in the decade. For example, according to New's research, in 1992, virtually no states were enforcing informed-consent laws, but by 2000, 27 states had informed-consent laws in effect. And in 1992 only 20 states were enforcing parental-involvement statutes, but by 2000, 32 states were enforcing these laws.

AUL, the national leader in drafting model state pro-life legislation was encouraged by the study. "We welcome this report from Dr. New and the Heritage Foundation-a report that clearly shows our model legislation saves lives now," said Clarke Forsythe, AUL president. "In spite of Roe v. Wade, in spite of activist judges, in spite of often-biased media, the pro-life community is helping thousands of women choose life. Working together, AUL, other national and state pro-life groups, and crisis pregnancy centers have never given up showing women that their lives are lived better by choosing life for their unborn children."

I came across a very interesting article on this issue in the National Review online edition (10/12/2004). [nationalreview.com]

Excerpt:

But Catholic citizens should remember this: No one in American public life has a worse record on abortion and embryo-destruction than John Kerry. No one � not even Hillary Clinton � is to his left on these issues. When it comes to Supreme Court appointments, Kerry has made it clear that no Catholic lawyer � however superbly qualified � who believes what the Church teaches about the sanctity of human life need apply. They are ineligible. And this same John Kerry is proposing to expand embryo killing far beyond abortion by funding embryo-destructive research, and even the creation of embryos by cloning for experimentation in which they are subsequently killed.

A couple of points. As far as the Harvard-MIT study, that refers clearly to State laws. One cannot in any way attribute those to Mr. Bush.

Several of these were actually passed during the Clinton presidency, and only now coming to fruition in that study. That wasn't mentioned.

As for the second citation, consider the source. Just as much spin on the right as there is on the left.

Dear Memo,

I'm not trying to change your mind about who to vote for president, but I do offer some other opinions about what is happening in post-Sadaam Iraq. I also counter the narrow picture that our news media gives us about Iraq.

Paul

I do not forget, however, one must ask the question: Are people in Iraq now better than with Hussein?
Two Iraqi Chaldean Catholic bishops views:


http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=1159

http://www.cathnews.com/news/309/154.php


I do not remember any sizeable oposition to Hussein officially requesting the United States military aid to depose the dictator?

The Iraqi National Congress (outside Iraq)
Any one in Sadaam's Iraq who squeeked to suggest disloyalty, was picked up, shot and thrown into a mass grave. There was no opposition in Iraq to Sadaam when he held power.


But even if so, would you still vote for Bush, given that, in the best case scenario, he plunged the country into a very costly war, one he will not pay for (you and I will over the next couple of decades), putting the lives of your children, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers at high risk, ONLY because Iraquis wanted Saddam Hussein out?

The terror networks in Afganistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Saudi Arabis are being extinguished. I feel safer getting on an airplane now that the war on terrorism is being waged.

I never bought the WMD thing. The MINUTE terrorists get a working WMD, we will know, in the most terrible way. I assure you that.

You may not have thought this way, but Sadaam Hussein is a WMD. Now he's in prison and out of power.

Memo,

I'm not interested in waiting around to find out when these nuts get weapons. I'm not interested in being the next Dhimmi. Since these barbarians wish to fight then let's fight them where they reside. Pick a country, any country that harbors these butchers, and attack them there. Lay a cock roach trap and suck them into it, as we are apparently doing, and eliminate them when they come in. Since they've given us one choice by attacking us then let's take the option that saves as many people as possible. Choose to fight them there, not here.

Dan L

Let's talk about that. Perhaps the terrorists struck in the current presidency for a reason. Perhaps they expected the response to be somwhat bungled, which it has.

Did you check out that attack in Sinai this week? We are doing a bang-up job of stopping this kind of thing with Iraq, aren't we?

In Afghanistan, we had the real criminal who masterminded the attack in the bag [who has been subsequently shown to have little in the way of direct ties to Hussein] and the man in the White House couldn't get the job done.

Send in the locals when our own fine men, who were there I thought specifically in harm's way in Afghanistan for that reason, i.e. to finish Bin Laden off, were told to back off.

While I do not condone any world regimes who commit atrocities against human beings, there are regimes with likely as high if not higher body counts than Hussein that are trading partners with this administration.

Iraq's not likely going to change anything, unfortunately. The worldwide terrorist network operates relatively unabated as the actions in Egypt this week vividly remind us.

We have waged a supposed political war when the real one is based on religion and ideology on one side, and "protection of interests" on the other.

We are attempting to foist a type of representative government on a people who have absolutely no cultural or historical experience of that form of government.

On another front, I guess Sudan and Rwanda just don't rank with "resources", we can let them die from all the atrocities there and not lift a hand. And Sudan has demonstrated terrorist links.

Diak,

I'm no military strategists and your and my opinions on the technicalities of this matter are just opinions, nothing more. We have a choice between one man's vision of doing nothing or something or a little or a lot and criticizing the one actually doing something and the man who is doing something. I suspect that Mr. Bush's efforts are at least as good as anything Mr. Kerry would have done. But we will have to wait and see.

On the more general question of where the war should be fought I offer this story I received today:

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.

My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He told him: "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"

"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied. "OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."

Our son giggled and said "OK."

"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said. "OK Dad, I'm pretending."

"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their father. You see all of this son....
what do you do?"

"Dad?"

"What do you do son?"

"I call the police, Dad."

"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"

"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine."They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.

"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.
"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it.

Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."

"Daddy...he kills them?"

"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"

"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.

"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.

"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"

"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.

"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?" "What Daddy?"

"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and laughs at you.

WHAT DO YOU DO?"

"Daddy..."

"WHAT DO YOU DO?"

Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy."

My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him... "Why?"

"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who needs it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself ...Daddy.....I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."

I start to cry.

My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells him...."Son"

"Yes, Daddy."

"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU DO? My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes.He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without
hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!!
I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"

I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest and hugs him tight, and cries..."It's too late to fight him, he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before......it's too late." my husband whispers.THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all. Our President is doing what is right.

We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our window. So that my nine year old son
won't grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world won't affect him.

"YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"

Dan, I'm sorry but I am less than convinced by this kind of campy emotional bait, capital letters or not.

I spent several hours with a young man last week who just got back from one tour in Afghanistan and one in Iraq with the Marines. I am the godfather for two of his sibings. When he was asked to do another in Iraq, he literally had a complete psychological and emotional breakdown. This kid was double tough and wouldn't let anything get in his way before he went over.

I spent some time about a month or two ago with a Fort Riley widow. She didn't have any little snappy replies, just a lot of unanswered questions about LEADERSHIP and DIRECTION. Unfortunately other than spending time with her and offering standard Catholic responses regarding the afterlife, I couldn't satisfy any of her questions.

On that note, I think I will recuse myself from any further political discussions until after the election.

Diak,

I'm sorry that you see it as bait. I knew it would be criticized by some but it is the way to instruct children and did remind me why it's important to stand against evil.

Dan L

Dear Administrator,

The New study looks interesting, especially to the extent that he can establish the principal factors in the trend. From the overview, however, it does not appear that the analysis is extended in the Bush administration. If the causal factors were accurately identified, then his premises should be able to predict (after the fact) the trends during the Bush era. Since the identified factors remained in force during the Bush era, the trend should have continued. The Stassen article - using data available in the Bush years - indicates, however, that the trend in the deceleration of abortions reversed during the Bush years. Maybe the actual New article makes more nuanced claims that the press release.

The NRO letter was written in response to a pro-Kerry piece in the NYT written by a Dean of Notre Dame. To assess the validity of the criticism properly one should reaad the original article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/o...8500131&ei=1&en=1b720c2655a7b215

There are several important points ot make about the NRO piece, IMO.

The "Neither candidate would abolish..." argument fascinates me. The same argument is used about the war - both parties are constrained by the errors of the past, and must now pursue similar policies, that will result in similar casualty rates. Somehow, however, the obvious next step is not taken - namely, to similarly admit that neither candidate is going to have much of an impact on the number of abortions committed. Given the record of things getting worse under Bush, and thhe obvious lack of appetite for pursuing its ostensible pro-life goal, it's seems again disingenuous or irresponsibly naive to suggest that the pro-life words are the figure of merit in assessing proportionality.

I hope this is just bad scholarship. The figure declined to some 0.8 million before Bush.

The efforts to ban slavery were poorly conceived and executed by all, including those abolistionists of great moral rectitude. The result was a civil war. It is interesting to ponder what a civil would be like in a nuclear nation. Perhaps we would see an equal measure of blood by the metaphorical sword of a civil war in our time, as taken by the metaphorical lash of abortion. Perhaps this would be the altogether true and righteous judgment of the Lord.

I think that authors who make these comparisions should think of their broader implications. And I hope we can avoid this wreckless course. Doing the feasible now to reduce abortions, while working earnestly to win people over - best exemplified by the civil rights movement, IMO, strikes me as a better way. Working with opponents, rather than making pariahs out of them seems far more likely to yield better fruit.

A practical idea of the possibility of proportionate rationales might be obtained here:
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/

Ah...
But if we were under Muslim law abortion would be illegal. Millions of lives would be saved. No waiting for the Godot of the Supreme Court overturing Roe v. Wade. Millions of lives would be saved, now.

Hi,

A month ago, you were "sincerely moved", and interested in joining a mission to tell them we forgive them.

You changed your mind so quickly?

Or was it never your intention to actually forgive them?

Shalom,
Memo.

Hi,




Yes, Bin-Laden is as pro-life as Bush is.

Shalom,
Memo.