| « | Watcher's Council Results |
»
|
|
Friday, February 09, 2007
On The Abuse Of Religion In Politics
"Operation Rescue, Louis?"
He shook his head as they mounted the short flight of concrete steps that stood before her door. "No, I don't much care for that bunch. When they're there, I'm not. This is just me, and sometimes another fellow who feels the way I do."
Instead of unlocking her door at once, she turned to face him. He stood with his hands clasped before him. She could read nothing from his face in the dim moonlight.
"And how is that?"
He looked down briefly. "That abortion is a horrible thing. That it should be a last resort, to save a mother's life, not a first to spare her some inconvenience. That most women who have abortions wouldn't, if they knew how they'd feel afterward." He said it calmly, no strain apparent.
"Are you a Catholic by any chance, Louis?"
He stood a little straighter. "Not by chance, Celeste. By mature choice, and by the grace of God."
Something in the words flicked her on the raw. Scorn poured into her voice. "I see. And of course that 'grace' gives you the right to interfere in the mature choices of women you've never met?"
His eyes flared wide. "I interfere in no one's choices, Miss Holmgren. I force myself on no one. I present information and alternatives. Sometimes it seems as if the rest of society is practically shoving women into abortion clinics, rushing them in with no chance to check other options or think about what they're doing. I don't block the doors. I stand beside them with an offer of assistance. If that be interference, make the most of it."
He started away, then faced her again. "By the way, you might have the wrong idea about something else as well. I'm not opposed to abortion because I'm a Catholic. Being opposed to abortion is part of what qualifies me to be a Catholic. Give that a spin on your mental merry-go-round and see where it gets off. Thanks for your company this evening. I'll see you at the office next week."
He strode off into the darkness before she could reclaim her voice.[From "Good Guys"]
Fran here. When I suggested to the Curmudgeon that the Edwards / Marcotte / McEwan matter needed to be examined at greater length, he excused himself, muttered something about having to perform emergency open-heart surgery, and hastened away. So I guess it falls to me.
There's no issue in politics more heavily encrusted with bad will than the abortion issue. In part, that's because there are clashing claims of rights involved: the right of the unborn baby to his life, and the right of the mother to control her own body. But in equal or greater measure, it's because the pro-abortion forces have elected to see their adversaries in religious terms, as would-be theocrats, and have attacked us on that basis.
Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, the bloggers hired by the John "Two Americas" Edwards presidential campaign, have come under heavy fire for their many immoderate statements at their own blogs. Possibly the most outrage has focused on their repeated vilification of Christianity, especially Catholicism. The subject that elicits their foulest and least acceptable emissions is abortion.
Here's a sample from Marcotte:
[N]eedless to say, the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.
What don’t you lousy [Oedipally-inclined persons] understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds, and our families?The Holy Rollers are really on a tear lately. Aside from trying to make sure women don’t have access to life-saving medical procedures, not to mention birth control and emergency birth control, getting busy with the state initiatives to slowly chip away at abortion rights, revving up to bring the Marriage Protection Amendment to another vote, cutting funding for international family planning, increasing funding for domestic abstinence-only sex education programs, and about eight million other things we grouse about on a daily basis, now they’re embarking on a crusade to ban gay adoption in at least 16 states...
Now quite frankly, anyone who writes such things is unlikely to be comfortable around serious Catholics. For one thing, we don't appreciate being called [Oedipally-inclined persons,] especially when our mothers are around. For another, we don't care to be reviled for our sincerely held moral beliefs. We know there are many others who don't share them. On nearly all subjects, that's a tolerable condition; we refrain from making those subjects matters of political interest. But on one subject, we feel the moral issue is too serious for us to keep silent. Abortion -- the deliberate slaughter of defenseless unborn children -- is that subject.
However, there are many Americans who aren't Catholics -- or Christians -- who share our view. They regard abortion as infanticide, just as we do. Moreover, many American Catholics -- I'm one -- believe that a complete ban on abortion would be a bad idea at this time. Not because an abortion at week 7 is morally less objectionable than an abortion at week 37, but because we believe that the cultural qualities of the nation are currently unsuitable for such a sweeping change. We lack a culture that cherishes all human life, which must exist before any such law could be sustained. A law which 2% or more of the populace regards as unjust, and which it's willing to break whenever convenient, cannot be enforced; it will be copiously violated, will facilitate the abuse of prosecutorial discretion, and will ultimately undermine respect for and adherence to all laws.
It's not our Catholicism that causes us to be opposed to abortion; our opposition to abortion is merely one of our qualifications for being Catholics.
All the same, whenever a conservative figure speaks in favor of some limitation on abortion, such as a ban on partial-birth abortions, or denounces some obscenity that proceeds from our "abortuary culture," such as the practice of allowing babies born alive after unsuccessful abortions to die of neglect, folks such as Marcotte and McEwan, whose obsession with pudenda politics dwarfs the interest serious Christians take in such matters, will haul out their guns and start blasting us as theocrats.
And we're the intolerant ones? It is to laugh.
But there's a political point to this, entirely apart from the offense being given by and taken from the immoderate statements of Marcotte and McEwan. By hiring them to write for his campaign blog, John Edwards delivered a metaphorical slap in the face to American Catholics -- roughly 24% of the population -- and thereby greatly endangered his bid for the presidency.
Of all Christian denominations, Catholics are the one most likely to vote for Democrats. In the 2000 presidential election, Catholics voted for Gore over Bush, 49% to 47%. In comparison, Protestants of all denominations went preponderantly for Bush over Gore, 55% to 43%. The Catholic vote ought to be of great concern to a Democrat candidate. Church teaching varies dramatically from the Democrats' customary prescriptions only on two subjects: abortion and same-sex marriage. Since same-sex marriage is a non-starter that no candidate is willing to endorse today, the abortion issue is the only point that keeps Catholics from voting Democrat by 2 or 3 to 1.
No, I wouldn't vote for a Democrat for any office. I'm a libertarian-conservative; when I vote -- doesn't happen often -- it's almost always for a Republican. The last Democrat who came near to my convictions was Grover Cleveland. I think William Kristol was dead on target when he called them the Evil Party. Today's Democrats lack all principle; their goal is power, and they'll do whatever it takes to get it. But Democrat campaign strategists aren't concerned with the vote of such as myself; they're looking to keep the "base" loyal while gaining the support of as much of the unaffiliated middle as they can. Catholics form an important part of the Democrat "base," and are an equally important component of the unaffiliated middle. Given the hair-thin margin they commanded at the polls in 2006, they cannot afford to alienate a large and serious group en masse.
What Edwards did by hiring Marcotte and McEwan to blog for his campaign was either incredibly negligent or incredibly stupid. It demonstrates clearly that low intelligence is no barrier to becoming a multimillionaire plaintiff's lawyer.
Of course, once he'd hired these two, when the foofaurauw over his choices rose to operatic volume, Edwards had to contemplate the consequences of firing them. He was caught between the Scylla of Catholic outrage, nicely expressed by Catholic League president Willian Donohue, and the Charybdis of the "netroots," whose allegiance any Democrat candidate must win to raise the funding required by a national campaign. In demanding that Marcotte and McEwan denounce their own prior statements, he's reaped the worst of both worlds. American Catholics are not that easily deceived. The "netroots" are so paranoid about high-profile politicians' real attitude toward them that even the hint of willingness to fire these two high-profile leftists will keep them in high dudgeon -- and there was more than a hint making the rounds.
They who assail their political adversaries as religious ideologues are doing themselves no favors. No "mainstream" religion, even Judaism, can be safely mocked or vilified by a politician today. Not only is it a quick way of foredooming oneself to defeat, it also betrays an incomprehension of American sociopolitical reality that should disqualify a man for any post higher than town dogcatcher.
(Dogs, to the best of my knowledge, remain amiable when you insult their religions. Of course, that's because we don't know what their religion is, but the point stands just the same.)
Comments
I usually vote Democrat. I’m a liberal, and Democratic candidates most closely agree with my beliefs. I believe in having the government level out the playing field for people with less privledge, and I believe in letting the law treat everyone equally.
Whether the people in power within the Democratic party are power hungry is a different issue from whether those who vote with the party are.
Posted by zandperl on 02/09/2007 at 06:16 PMI think you can usually assume that when the term “power-hungry” is used in a political context, it means the public figures of the party.
They are, after all, the ones seeking office.
Posted by B. Durbin on 02/09/2007 at 07:40 PMHowever, there are many Americans who aren’t Catholics—or Christians—who share our view.
I’m a good example: I was staunchly against abortion even when I was religiously agnostic and politically liberal. Now that I’m a Christian with decidedly libertarian politics, I’m even stauncher.
Posted by on 02/09/2007 at 10:11 PMI disagree with the above. Bans against smoking or ATVs, for example, are popular among a certain subset of voters, not because those voters believe they can really force major changes in the behavior of most smokers/ATV riders etc., but because such bans will harass those people who indulge in the disapproved-of pastimes. That is a weak version of the power experienced by the successful politician, but power it is.
Posted by on 02/09/2007 at 10:42 PMDogs practice the One True Religion. That is why all dogs go to heaven, as every dog owner knows.
Pitiably, I suspect the One True Religion expects ball-licking and butt-sniffing as part and parcel of it’s worship services.
Posted by og on 02/10/2007 at 09:31 AMZandperl, you do realize that “I believe in having the government level out the playing field for people with less privledge, and I believe in letting the law treat everyone equally” is a self-contradictary position, don’t you?
Posted by on 02/11/2007 at 12:55 PMI’m sorry, I just find funny the thought of someone who calls themselves a liberal democrat, actually believing the law should treat everyone equally.
Were that the case, there would be no affirmative action, no title IX, no racial, or sex preferences, no “diversity” standards… I could go on.
The problem with “liberal” government, is that ideals don’t match up well with authoritarian laws; which makes such governments very illiberal indeed.
Those who have liberal ideals should focus less on using government to achieve them (which will only and always have the opposite effect), and more on enabling people to be free to do as they wish, so long as they do not abrogate others rights in the process.
Freedom (which must include protection from coercive force, either by government, or by individuals seeking power), ALWAYS results in both better (in the sense of happier, healthier, more prosperous, and more satisfied)individuals, and a better society; as people free to make good choices for themselves, will most often do so.
However, there are those who will make poor choices. Governments, both “liberal” and “conservative” try to eliminate peoples ability to make bad choices (and in doin so restirct their freedoms to make any choice at all).
The first freedom is that of self determination, which MUST include the freedom to fail.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/11/2007 at 01:16 PMBe honest, Og, if you were flexible enough....
As for “Leveling the playing field”, every time someone starts talking about how they need to take more out of my meager paycheck because I’m “privileged” enough to work six days a week in a (frequently unheated of late) machine shop where workers lose fingers about once every two months my hands start tying nooses of their own volition.
Posted by Graumagus on 02/11/2007 at 10:29 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
