Here is a link to an article by Bill Donohue, who parodies the stance of Biden, Pelosi and all the other Catholics (and Evangelicals) who claim to be pro-life and pro-choice all at the same time. Donohue's article is entitled: "I'm Catholic, Staunchly Anti-racist and Support David Duke." This article is a reply to a recent article by Nick Cafardi entitled: "I'm Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Abortion, and Support Obama."
Donohue is witty and extremely hilarious. Sample:
"I believe racism is an unspeakable evil, yet I support David Duke, who is pro-racism. I do not support him because he is pro-racism, but in spite of it. Is that a proper choice for a committed Catholic?
As someone who has worked with minorities all his life, I answer with a resounding yes. Despite what some say, the list of what the Catholic Church calls "intrinsically evil acts" does not begin and end with racism. In fact, there are many intrinsically evil acts, and a committed Catholic must consider all of them in deciding how to vote.
Last November, the U.S. bishops released "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," a 30-page document that provides several examples of intrinsically evil acts: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, torture, racism, and targeting noncombatants in acts of war. Duke's support for racist rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That's a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that racism is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the racism battle -- permanently. A vote for Duke's opponent does not guarantee the end of racism in America. Not even close. "
Read the rest here:
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29896&wf=rsscol
Top Trends in Metaverse Games for 2024
3 weeks ago
Posts
5 comments:
Do you see this parody as an adequate response to Cafardi's article? I thought that Cafardi's article raised some important points - that overturning Roe v. Wade isn't the immediate solution some pretend it to be, that fighting abortion must include fighting the conditions that encourage it, that to consider this issue an automatic dealbreaker while compromising on other intrinsically evil acts is inconsistent. I don't yet agree with his conclusion - that it is an acceptable moral choice to vote for Obama - but I think that if we decide otherwise, we must choose not to vote for either candidate, since both break the barrier of supporting or implicitly endorsing inherently evil acts. The parody did bring to light some inconsistencies perhaps, but it is hardly a rebuttal (in my opinion), and I'm neither Catholic nor pro-Obama.
I hear this claim of moral equivalence all the time. In what way is voting Republican a vote for direct, moral evil as voting for a president who pledges to expand and entench abortion is? What "intrincically evil acts" is McCain proposing that Obama is not proposing?
My point is that voting for someone who pledges to murder is morally wrong and as a Christian I couldn't do it.
As for the so-called arguments: Who says that voting for a pro-life president is about nothing but overturning Roe v. Wade? Who ever said that? So far as I know only Democrats. It is about building a culture of life and there are many bricks in that wall.
The Democrats want to expand the welfare state and pay single mothers to raise children by themselves. Is that a solution? I don't think so. Let's strengthen two parent families instead and hold fathers responsible for their actions. Why is that not the objective?
Distributing more birth control (the Democratic platform) has only increased abortion rates so far. How will that help?
The Democratic Party has become the party of death and for them to present themselves as an alternative to the war-mongering Republicans is Orwellian.
I don't know that I'm claiming moral. I'm not saying that Obama and McCain are morally equal (in terms of their policies, leaving aside the question of their personal character or whatever), but that if we're going to say Christians can't vote for Obama because he supports (if indeed we rightly say he supports) certain inherently evil acts, we have to say the same for McCain. If your point truly "is that voting for someone who pledges to murder is morally wrong and as a Christian I couldn't do it," then we cannot vote for either candidate, for both of them have pledged to engage in warfare that would necessarily involve the death of many civilians.
I appreciate your point about who's making the claim that voting a Republican candidate revolves around Roe v. Wade. And there are indeed many bricks in the wall of building a culture of life, but do you really think Republicans are bringing more bricks?
And will voting Republican really somehow hold fathers more responsible for their actions?
I'm not trying to sound disrespectful, I'm just honestly asking questions. In the end, it seems to me that neither party has a monopoly on the tag "party of death."
...
I also asked a friend to take a look at this conversation, and this were his thoughts:
Does David Duke, despite being pro-Racism, consider all forms of racism to be tragic? Does he have a plan to significantly reduce the number of racists in the U.S., despite his being “pro-Racism”? Does Duke express that the reason he is “pro-Racist” is because he wants to safeguard a person’s right to be a racist in three specific situations in which racism is seen by many on both sides of the “racism debate” to be morally justifiable, or at least understandable?
As much as good ol’ Donahue would like to think it fits, the analogy doesn’t.
The first sentence should read not "moral" but "moral equivalence"
Michael,
Remember this is not 2003 and the war in Iraq has already happened, so you can't punish Bush now. McCain pledges to win the war in Iraq and bring peace to that country and then bring the troops home. Obama pledges to bring the troops home in 16 months no matter what, which may result in perpetual civil war in Iraq or it being conquored by Iran. Obama also pledges to ramp up the war in Afganiastan and win it. So voting for Obama may well lead to more lives being lost than voting for McCain from this point on.
I don't think it is fair to argue that war is wrong on the basis that unintended civilian deaths will result. First, you have to respect moral intentions. Second, you need to take into account that the mess is already made, so both staying and leaving may lead to civilian deaths. There is no way out now for the US without causing further war, bloodshed etc. Which candidate will minimize such evil?
To make a fair comparison, we would need to have McCain saying that he pledges to end all restrictions on US soldiers killing civilians whenever it is inconvenient for them. No more rules of engagement, no more military tribunals trying cases of war crimes, no more going out of their way to avoid harming civilians whenever possible. Then you would have the equivalent of Obama's abortion policy applied to war.
One final point. Obama has never said he would reduce abortions and that language was explicitly rejected by those who wrote the Dem. Party platform (under Obama's guidance). Obama has promised to expand access to abortion and by signing the Freedom of Choice Act he will certainly increase abortions. This belief that Obama is interested in reducing abortions is disinformation and should not be taken seriously by any informed person.
Post a Comment