« Man Busted for Stealing Eucharist | Main | A.D. 1879 »
November 13, 2008
Fight FOCA
(SDG)
Obama will be our next president, and he's on record stating that signing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would be his first act in office.
Why is FOCA bad? The U.S. bishops provide some answers, as does my own National Catholic Register. In fact, this week the bishops called for a massive national campaign to fight FOCA.
Here's a good start: the Fight FOCA petition sponsored by AUL Action, the legislative arm of Americans United for Life, which has so far collected over 110,000 signatures.
AUL has good people on board. They run an informative blog, and they do good work. Their petition collects real names and addresses, so it carries more weight than an average online petition.
SIGN THE PETITION. And pass it on.
Posted by SDG | Permalink
Comments
And don't forget to write your senators and congressmen after you sign the petition!
Posted by: Staci | Nov 13, 2008 2:45:33 PM
If FOCA is passed, we could find ourselves, as Christians, instantaneously teleported back to first-century Rome, where people could be thrown to the lions (in this case, economic) for standing up for Christian beliefs. I wonder...who will be left sitting in the pews at Mass - those who can "afford" to be there because they have not rocked the boat or those who have rocked the boat and proven that they belong there?
The Chicken
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Nov 13, 2008 3:14:39 PM
This one I can't sign...
Posted by: Rotten Orange | Nov 13, 2008 6:02:27 PM
I signed it. I wrote my legislators too. If we don't fight this one with passion and persistence our descendants (if we have any) will deny us.
Posted by: Serena | Nov 13, 2008 6:47:20 PM
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1515
If FOCA becomes law, the first amendment will be seriously threatened.
Imagine getting arrested for protesting abortion peacefully.
Imagine being a doctor and required by law to do abortions.
Imagine being a pharmacist and being required by law to dispense RU-486. We had this happen here in Illinois before a successful lawsuit and appeals court ruling put a stop to it.
Imaging having your parish lose its tax-exempt status when an anti-abortion sermon is given.
Welcome to pagan America.
Posted by: BobCatholic | Nov 13, 2008 8:32:34 PM
"This one I can't sign..."
Why not, Rotten Orange?
Posted by: Tim J. | Nov 14, 2008 6:29:45 AM
Signed it and emailed it to everyone I know. If they don't like it..tough.
Posted by: Emmiebear | Nov 14, 2008 6:48:30 AM
It seems to me that it’s a mistake for Catholics to oppose a political issue like the Freedom of Choice Act on theological grounds and, if she claims that her opposition is on legal grounds, then that means she’s involved in politics and that’s simply not right. There are many reasons which cause me not to be involved in the Church’s opposition to the FOCA. Here are two.
First, I don’t want my democracy to be even slightly turned into a theocracy. I don’t want a Catholic mullah deciding, either directly or indirectly, what people may or may not do under the law. I want our priests to preach from the pulpit, on the street corner, in the public square—wherever they can preach—to convince people to exercise their free will not have an abortion. It seems to me that the concept of free will is crucial here. If people are legally precluded from exercising their free will by the political actions of the Catholic Church, that’s a big step toward theocracy. People have to want to obey God’s law, not be threatened with imprisonment if they don’t.
And, second, the Church’s preaching against abortion hasn’t been very successful; however, to turn to the government to prevent people from sinning is simply wrong. Just as we would never permit any other religion to impose its theology on our activities (should selected tenets of Hinduism or Buddhism be incorporated into U. S. law?), we should not try impose any of our tenets on anyone else. I remember my Jesuit high school theology instructor (an older priest) in the early 60s saying that all mortal sins are equally offensive to God, but that some are more offensive to man than are other mortal sins. Because we can’t grasp God’s wisdom, we use a different, i.e. human, moral measuring stick, if you will. From that I concluded that divorce is just as abominable as abortion and the good Jesuit agreed.
Each sin separates us from God, but we humans get more upset about abortion than divorce, probably because abortion involves the death of a human and that death is a rather messy and gory event, while the death of a marriage is merely the death of two souls—spiritual, not physical—and much less offensive to our human senses. After all, there are not yet any pictures of souls writhing and withering in sin, are there? We regularly rub elbows with divorce attorneys, but how many of us readily dine with abortionists?
The Church’s efforts to outlaw abortion are understandable, but hypocritical, to my mind. The Church’s efforts to impose its theology on all citizens is a dereliction of its teaching responsibility. It’s as if our bishops are saying, collectively, “We’ve tried, but we just can’t get folks to stop having abortions, so we’ll turn the problem over to Uncle Sam. Since folks refuse to accept our teaching, we’ll make it a law.” There’s nothing wrong with the Church’s teaching. It’s spot on. It just shouldn’t be turned into law. It smacks of “Inquisition Lite.”
The Church’s actions have to remain theological, not political, because, eventually, her meddling in politics will come back to bite her on the butt. The Church has to convince people not to sin, not try to jail them if they do. If the Church continues its political opposition to the FOCA, then she should also sponsor the banning of divorce and the incarceration of anyone who is divorced and the pillorying of divorce lawyers. (Actually, that’s not a bad idea for all lawyers, regardless of their speciality!) The Church can’t have it both ways.
Posted by: Matt Gaffney | Nov 14, 2008 6:52:33 AM
Matthew, you're using the old "you can't legislate morality" line here, and it doesn't wash.
You said, "the Church’s preaching against abortion hasn’t been very successful; however, to turn to the government to prevent people from sinning is simply wrong." So the determination of appropriateness here in preaching against the murder of innocents, including secular laws that allow it, is "success"? That's very much like the line we always get thrown from pro-abortion people during an election year. This time it was "Bush hasn't gotten Roe v. Wade repealed, so it doesn't accomplish anything to base your vote on this issue". Hogwash. You want results, "success", or else the Church and her faithful people are hypocritical? What is at stake here is the taking of innocent life. I don't care if it's the law of the land; wrong is wrong. Our votes and our voices speak against it because that is what we are supposed to do, regardless of whether it gets "results". Go right ahead and organize a group in protest of divorce laws if you want. But don't presume to tell those of us who have chosen to stand on this issue that we're hypocritical.
Posted by: Mona | Nov 14, 2008 7:21:10 AM
Matt Gaffney,
That's crap. There's nothing about opposing FOCA that will make abortion illegal, as your entire argument hinges around, though your "free will" logic applied to mass murder muddles me.
This isn't "meddling in politics." This is a human institution standing up for its own rights. Do you even know what FOCA will do? Have you ever heard of "conscience clauses?" That's right, the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" will REMOVE the freedom of choice from a doctor or pharmacist who doesn't want to participate in abortion.
We preach the Gospel in season and out of season, not just because the government sets the rules when we can and can't.
Inquisition Lite my ass.
Posted by: Andy | Nov 14, 2008 7:26:06 AM
Why not, Rotten Orange?
Dear Tim J.
Because this one seems to be only for American citizens, which I'm not. I signed this one a couple of weeks ago, and even mentioned it on a comment on the novena post.
Thanks for your attention.
Posted by: Rotten Orange | Nov 14, 2008 7:27:02 AM
Everyone should also be encouraged to contact their legislators directly, in addition to signing the petition. Direct contact from identifiable constituents is extremely important and truly holds individual lawmakers' feet to the fire. Many state Catholic Conferences have e-mail networks that provide easy access for this. If yours does not, you can find your rep. and senators' contact info here: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Posted by: Therese | Nov 14, 2008 7:29:48 AM
Matt Gaffney wrote: "The Church’s efforts to impose its theology on all citizens is a dereliction of its teaching responsibility"
Since when is the opposition of mass murder an imposition of theology?
And how is it that your standard applies only to the Church? Governments impose morality on their citizens constantly - every time Congress passes legislation, every time the president signs legislation, and every time the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of legislation, morality has been imposed.
"From that I concluded that divorce is just as abominable as abortion and the good Jesuit agreed"
Except that abortion is imposed upon a guiltless victim who is completely and totally dead, whereas divorce is chosen by adults with free will who are alive and have the opportunity to repent. The two sins are in no way equivalent.
Posted by: djrakowski | Nov 14, 2008 7:52:47 AM
I'm not trying to be a pessimist here, but with the pro-abortion party to be shortly in control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House, isn't this petition a bit like writing a letter to Hitler asking him to spare the Jews?
Posted by: JohnD | Nov 14, 2008 8:56:45 AM
Signed it. Here's hoping that an Obama nation doesn't become an abomination.
Posted by: JohnE | Nov 14, 2008 9:21:41 AM
"Because this one seems to be only for American citizens, which I'm not."
Fair enough.
"...we should not try impose any of our tenets on anyone else."
Bunk. Opposition to abortion is not a religious tenet, it is a matter of natural law, logic and human rights. One need not be religious *at all* to oppose abortion, unless you consider it a matter of religious faith to hold that murder is wrong.
Posted by: Tim J. | Nov 14, 2008 9:41:25 AM
I'm not trying to be a pessimist here, but with the pro-abortion party to be shortly in control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House, isn't this petition a bit like writing a letter to Hitler asking him to spare the Jews?
Even if it is, it's still better to write the letter than not to.
But I suspect it may not be. The Democratic leadership is looking ahead to 2010. They don't want a repeat of the Republican revolution of 1994. There may be some reasonable heads among them.
Posted by: SDG | Nov 14, 2008 9:43:00 AM
I don't know if Matt Gaffney is trolling or not. But assuming he is not...
I distinguish between what is binding on Catholics only and what is binding on us all.
Laws of the Catholic Church, such as attending Mass on Sunday, are binding on Catholics only, and not to be imposed by civil law - that would be undemocratic theocracy. Church laws, binding on Catholics only can consider revelation and sources specific to Catholics.
Questions of slavery, abortion, capital punishment, war, poverty etc. are matters of social justice binding on all rational beings. The Church's opposition to the aforesaid injustices are derived from common principles of reason, natural law, justice. One does not have to believe in God, Christ or the Church to oppose these injustices.
Discourse regarding the civil law should not appeal to any revelation specific to any one religion, but refer to these common principles. To the best of my knowledge all the statements of the Popes and Catholic bishops regarding what the civil law should be, are argued from principles which all rational agents can access - regardless of their belief in God, Christ or the Church. They are therefore not attempting to impose a specifically Catholic morality derived from specifically Catholic revelation or values on their fellow citizens.
Posted by: Leo | Nov 14, 2008 9:43:06 AM
I remember my Jesuit high school theology instructor (an older priest) in the early 60s saying that all mortal sins are equally offensive to God, but that some are more offensive to man than are other mortal sins. Because we can’t grasp God’s wisdom, we use a different, i.e. human, moral measuring stick, if you will. From that I concluded that divorce is just as abominable as abortion and the good Jesuit agreed.
The good Jesuit was mistaken. Some mortal sins are more disfiguring to human nature than others, and consequently more offensive to God. For example, fornication is a grave sin, but adultery is worse. Again, deliberate unworthy reception of Holy Communion is a grave sin, but I suppose that deliberate desecration of the Blessed Sacrament is worse.
Posted by: SDG | Nov 14, 2008 9:47:53 AM
Many people with pro-life values voted for Obama.
It is important to encourage these voters to make their views known to their legislators - their vote for Obama should not be construed as a referendum vote in favour of FOCA.
It is also important to obtain the support of the large number of people who consider themselves 'moderates'/'in the middle' on abortion, to understand how extreme the FOCA measures would be.
An anti-FOCA campaign which was seen as a belated/proxy "anti-Obama" or "anti-Democrat" campaign (eg due to the rhetoric of some of its supporters) is probably doomed to failure.
Posted by: Leo | Nov 14, 2008 10:04:11 AM
Signing the petition is a worthless feel good excercise.
Posted by: dymphna | Nov 14, 2008 10:08:24 AM
Matt Gafney, what you are promoting, although you probably don't realize it, is anarchy.
"...we should not try impose any of our tenets on anyone else." What is law other than an imposition of some tenets on society? Or only laws that also happen to be backed or opposed by religious groups should be opposed or backed, respectively? Why not judge the goodness of a law on its own merits, rather than by who backs it? Abortion is just as much of a "tenet" of Catholicism as murder is. If some in our nation decided it should be ok to euthanize children under 2 or handicapped people, would you fight it, or sit back and not "impose your tenets" on anyone, because after all, the Church teaches against murder and you wouldn't want to impose your religion? Is there anything we SHOULD fight for or against? Only the things the Church doesn't teach about?
"The Church’s efforts to impose its theology on all citizens is a dereliction of its teaching responsibility."
The Church doesn't impose it's theology. No one is forced to be a member of the Church. But the Church does teach morality and that we should fight evil and promote good. If you don't feel like doing that, you're not living your faith. Your faith is dead.
"The Church’s actions have to remain theological, not political,..."
I think what you're saying is "The Church's actions have to remain theoretical, not practical." This would be a comforting message for those too lazy or cowardly to fight. The Church does not preach a comforting Gospel.
Posted by: JohnE | Nov 14, 2008 10:14:47 AM
Another good way to stop FOCA:
Join the "Conversion of America" rosary novena - a 72 day novena going from November 15th to January 25th (the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul).
Go here for more details.
Posted by: Dave Mueller | Nov 14, 2008 10:18:45 AM
"Signing the petition is a worthless feel good exercise."
Because...?
Posted by: bill912 | Nov 14, 2008 10:20:21 AM
Matt Gaffney,
Let me guess, you voted for Obama, didn't you?
Posted by: Robert | Nov 14, 2008 10:28:30 AM
"Signing the petition is a worthless feel good excercise. "
If Obama is serious about trying to unite the country and heal divisions, then he needs to know that signing FOCA will not contribute towards achieving that objective. He needs to know that many are opposed to it. If it doesn't persuade him not to sign it, it's possible it could still serve to temper it and at least diminish its effect. And if that doesn't happen, it can at least be used against him during his re-election bid, or be used as encouragement for strong pro-life leaders considering running for office. It's not worthless.
Posted by: JohnE | Nov 14, 2008 10:28:37 AM
Last I checked murder, theft, and lying under oath were illegal in my state. I never realized I lived in such a theocracy until Matt's post.
Posted by: Brian Walden | Nov 14, 2008 10:50:40 AM
JohnD,
Be known, Democrat doesn't equal pro-abortion in all cases. There are growing numbers of Democrats who are pro-life. 5 of the 22 seats that the Democrats just picked up were won by pro-life Dems. That shows some progress in that party that hopefully will continue.
If you have friends or family that are Democrats, and pro-life, they might consider sending in the sample letter to their representatives that is located on the democratsforlife website. (For transparency: I've posted about this organization on this site a couple times. I'm not a member and only know a little about the group, but it appears their intentions regarding their pro-life stances are genuine. But I cannot say if all their "pro-life" stances are perfectly in agreement with Catholic doctrine on the matter.)
Posted by: bklyn catholic | Nov 14, 2008 11:33:45 AM
bklyn catholic,
I'm not sure yet what to believe about Democrats for Life. I am hoping they are legit, but I don't know enough about the candidates they support. I do know that here in Colorado they supported Bill Ritter (a Catholic) for governor over a true pro-life candidate, Bob Beauprez. At best, they did shoddy research before supporting some candidates. Here were Bill Ritter's "pro-life" views, readily available from his website at the time:
Based on my faith, I am personally opposed to abortion. But I recognize that people who disagree with me on this issue hold equally strong convictions.
we must:
Make a stronger commitment to family planning. I will restore the funding to Planned Parenthood and other agencies that Gov. Owens cut by executive order.
Ensure better access to health care for all women, including birth control and emergency contraception. I would have signed the bill that was passed by the legislature but vetoed by Gov. Owens that would have given pharmacists the ability to provide EC without a doctor's prescription.
(regarding abortion)
I strongly oppose any effort that would seek to criminalize women or their doctors over this issue. I would strongly oppose legislation similar to the one recently passed by the South Dakota legislature. As governor, I would enforce existing laws, including Roe v. Wade. It's not part of my agenda to change these laws...
It is these same beliefs and concerns that have made me an advocate of family planning and a strong supporter of government funding for agencies involved in family planning education, teen pregnancy prevention programs as well as responsible and age appropriate sex education in schools .
Posted by: JohnE | Nov 14, 2008 11:50:03 AM
JohnE,
This is discouraging. I was more hopeful for the intents of the DFLA before I read this. If they compromise for the "personally against, but..." crowd, they will have no long-term credibility with those seeking to end abortion.
At the same time, they appear to be actively opposing FOCA, and actively supporting legislation in favor of abortion alternatives (funding for adoption agencies, etc).
I guess this leaves me unsure in my evaluation of this group also. I'll try to pay attention and see how they respond when FOCA is reintroduced in the new session. It would be nice to have some reliable Democratic allies in the cause serving in Congress, but your description of their support for a clearly pro-choice candidate like Ritter clearly shows they are suspect.
Posted by: bklyn catholic | Nov 14, 2008 2:10:54 PM
I find it hard to believe that Matt is actually as oblivious as he is playing at being, but on the off chance that he is, here is the rational response.
"It seems to me that it’s a mistake for Catholics to oppose a political issue like the Freedom of Choice Act on theological grounds and, if she claims that her opposition is on legal grounds, then that means she’s involved in politics and that’s simply not right."
You're forgetting moral grounds, which are neither theological nor necessarily legal.
"First, I don’t want my democracy to be even slightly turned into a theocracy."
Good. Then you should have no opposition to the government preventing the people it is bound to protect from being murdered on moral grounds. Given that this is the central function of government, the sine qua non of the government having the power that it does, it should be trivially easy for you to accept regulation protecting unborn human beings as non-theological.
"And, second, the Church’s preaching against abortion hasn’t been very successful; however, to turn to the government to prevent people from sinning is simply wrong."
I am agnostic on this thesis, although you are probably correct about the practicality of the approach, but it is irrelevant. In this case, government isn't being used to prevent people from sinning. It is being used to protect those who are being murdered by sinners. It has nothing to do with whether the conduct is sinful; it has everything to do with the conduct being murderous.
"From that I concluded that divorce is just as abominable as abortion and the good Jesuit agreed."
From God's perspective, even venial sins are inconceivably evil. But the objective harm done by sins is considerably different, meaning that some sins ought to be far more abominable from any man's perspective. Not all sins involve snuffing out an innocent life; it's not just about being "upset" with one or the other.
"There’s nothing wrong with the Church’s teaching. It’s spot on."
So you agree that the government should intervene to protect innocent victims from people who are trying to murder them? Hooray! Then where does this idiocy about such efforts being theological or attempts to outlaw sinning originate?
Posted by: Jonathan Prejean | Nov 14, 2008 2:30:05 PM
"...they supported Bill Ritter (someone who claims to be a Catholic)..."
FIFY
Posted by: Jonathan Prejean | Nov 14, 2008 2:33:14 PM
I think the "pro-life" label is becoming more fashionable for politicians and voters seeking to soothe their consciences. We need to be more careful that "pro-life" doesn't mean "I don't like abortion (but I think it should be legal)" or "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but..."
Posted by: JohnE | Nov 14, 2008 3:50:07 PM
Thanks. I went to the site and was able to add a link on my blog to the Fight Foca site.
Posted by: Pam Forrester | Nov 14, 2008 4:19:22 PM
First, I don’t want my democracy to be even slightly turned into a theocracy.
The Catholic Church excommunicated legislators for voting for segeration.
You didn't even notice.
You'll handle this "theocracy" just fine.
Posted by: Mary | Nov 14, 2008 5:13:36 PM
Dear Matt,
I suspect that you are a drive-by poster, but if not, then your logic has committed the faltacy of affirming the consequent.
You wrote:
There’s nothing wrong with the Church’s teaching. It’s spot on. It just shouldn’t be turned into law. It smacks of “Inquisition Lite.”
By this logic, nothing the Church teaches should be turned into law, but since the Church teaches that it is a sin to murder, then neither homicide or fetuside should be declared illegal under law. Simply because the Church teaches something does not prevent the law from intersecting and agreeing with it on that particular point. In matters of morals, the Church is the truth. Any law that is at odds with it is at odds with the truth and is unreasonable. Laws are meant to be reasonable. In the area of laws applied to moral behavior, you have it exactly backwards - the law should become identical to Church teaching. Laws may diverge from Church teaching only where the Church allows divergence, such as in prudential matters. Murder is not a prudential matter. Neither is abortion. How best to fix the countiry's infrastructure, is.
The Chicken
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Nov 14, 2008 5:52:19 PM
People who think that opposing abortion is imposing religious beliefs should consider Nat Hentoff, a left-wing civil libertarian who frequently describes himself as a "stiff-necked Jewish atheist." He is actively, militantly opposed to abortion and has been honored as a "Great Defender of Life" by the Human Life Foundation. Google on "Nat Hentoff" and abortion for details.
Posted by: Marty Helgesen | Nov 15, 2008 10:27:37 AM
I signed it and I passed it on to all my pro-lifers on Myspace.
After this election, I have come to the conclusion that a high percentage of Catholics don't know squat about politics and our Catholic politicians don't know squat about Catholicism.
Does anyone realize that the Electoral College process has not even begun to work? Electors don't cast their ballots until December 15, 2008. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the mainstream media ''projected'' the electoral votes, McCain conceded and Obama accepted victory when the process for the Electoral College, at least in Texas, isn't even in full swing yet? http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/electoral2008.shtml#q10 The rules state clearly that electors do not have to cast their ballots according to the popular vote cast in the general election.
Why does this matter? Because you have been duped once again by the corporate mainstream media who tells you who you should vote for. They decided who should run, which candidates you should support, what issues were more important and what other political parties you should ignore and call ''crack-pots''. They have you stuck in a 2-party system and until we as Catholics decide who we are all going to stand behind regardless of Reps, Dems, Independents, Liberals, or Constitutionalists, we will never get legislation done our way.
Why do we allow the media to decide for us? Why do we allow CNN and Fox News to be our only sources? Anyone seen news from the Middle East lately? Try http://www.linktv.org/mosaic and let them tell you how they feel about our troops being in 2 of their countries. Technology has given us the INTERNET and we should do the research for ourselves and stop being sheep.
''Today, communication seems increasingly to claim not simply to represent reality, but to determine it, owing to the power and the force of suggestion that it possesses. It is clear, for example, that in certain situations the media are used not for the proper purpose of disseminating information, but to “create” events.''--Pope Benedict XVI on the Media.
We need to decide who our candidates will be. We shouldn't allow the media tells us who to pick from or to decide who the next president is. We need to make sure our Catholic representatives follow God's law and if they don't we need to vote them out! At what point are we all going to decide for ourselves who should better represent us?
Republican pro-lifers owned congress in 2000-2004, they had all their judges in the supreme court and did they overturn Roe v Wade? Was there even a move towards it? Do we really believe politicians when they make promises? Sure they make statements about being pro-life but how many bills do they have in congress to overturn Roe v Wade?
Our opinions are shaped for us by the media and our bishop's statements were even misinterpreted by some in the faith but in the end nothing mattered because the media picked the next president. Our constitution does not allow ''projections''. It calls for the Electoral College which is a very complicated process itself. God does not allow us to be pro-choice but our Catholic politicians do. We, on the other hand, sit in front of the dummy box and let Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck, CNN or Fox shape our opinions and tell us who is better fit for President of the United States of America.
Here's a very good article http://www.sflifeandjustice.org/
scroll down a little to the one entitled ''After November 4
By George Wesolek.''
Peace.
Posted by: elijio | Nov 15, 2008 10:59:55 AM
elijio wrote, "Our constitution does not allow 'projections'. It calls for the Electoral College which is a very complicated process itself." The words "does not allow" could be taken as meaning "forbids", which is not the case. People can make as many projections as they want, but those projections are not determinative. The next president will be chosen by the Electoral College. Strictly speaking, the term "president elect", which almost everyone uses immediately after every presidential election, is not correct. Obama is the president designate. He will become the president elect when the Electoral College elects him and will become president when he is inaugurated.
Posted by: Marty Helgesen | Nov 15, 2008 12:05:55 PM
I signed. Please don't let the hatemongers win. The Catholic Church is truth; abortion is evil; every fourth citizen in this nation is missing because he or she was aborted, and that's just since 1972. Perhaps one of them could have cured cancer. Or ended war/torture/nursing home cruelty. Or defeated Obama.
Has anyone noted that our Kenyan-elect is also promising to renew stem cell research on living/killed unborn children? Such research does not need human fetal sacrifice -- it can be accomplished on adult volunteers, in the Petri dish, on adult cells harvested without injury or death.
Listen to EWTN -- the options are reported there nationally and internationally every week. Don't expect the truth to be spoken on programming paid for by advertisers who benefit from sex. It's too profitable. Like selling toxic waste as baby formula is too profitable.
Like China still getting away with killing and mutilating girl children while Christians are --not incidentally -- being driven underground is "about" population control. And now the practice of sex selection is being imported to this country. Evil lives in a culture of death.
We have genocide, infanticide, euthanasia, abortion and a movie "industry" about horror. Like it's entertainment.
We don't need Hitler to destroy the disabled, the disadvantaged, the elderly, the vulnerably inconvenient -- we've got "pro-choice."
Our Holy Father pleads for life.
And Obama leads America.
Posted by: Norma Skjold | Nov 16, 2008 1:13:19 PM
I believe this varies from state to state.The rules state clearly that electors do not have to cast their ballots according to the popular vote cast in the general election.
Posted by: MenTaLguY | Nov 16, 2008 6:21:47 PM
>It smacks of “Inquisition Lite.”
The "Inquisition" is being done by the secular left.
In Illinois, pharmacists had their licenses yanked when they refused to dispense RU-486 citing a medical conscience clause. It took a serious appeals court fight to finally get the right to practice one's faith.
In Philadephia, 11 people were arrested for peacefully protesting, who happened to be Christians.
In Michigan, a church was invaded by homosexual activists and they attempted to force their views on the congregation.
Shall I go on? Time after time, it is the secular left that is doing the inquisition. With FOCA, it will be illegal to protest abortion, 1st amendment be damned. Churches will be persecuted under FOCA if they dare to oppose abortion.
Welcome to Pagan USA. Where the only religions allowed by law will be Atheism and Islam.
Posted by: BobCatholic | Nov 16, 2008 6:35:46 PM
Norma,
Barack Obama is not our "Kenyan-elect." That would imply his nationality is at all in question. He is American. 100%. I'd prefer if you kept your xenophobia off these pages.
None of us need to respect his opinions or policy, but as an American proud of our democracy, I will respect, and ask others to respect, the office.
Posted by: bklyn catholic | Nov 16, 2008 8:46:47 PM
He is American. 100%. I'd prefer if you kept your xenophobia off these pages.
Dear bklyn catholic
It's not xenophobia. Actually there is controversy over that.
Posted by: Matheus (a. k. a. Rotten Orange) | Nov 17, 2008 2:41:18 AM
Dear bklyn catholic
I also realized that, if Obama is "American. 100%." as you believe he is, then he can't be a target of xenophobia. You can charge Norma of being uncivil, unjust, rude, whatever. But not of xenophobia.
Posted by: Matheus (a. k. a. Rotten Orange) | Nov 17, 2008 4:55:53 AM
The supposed doubt over Obama's nationality has been debunked repeatedly eg snopes
If there was such a simple 'knock-out' blow, surely McCain would have used it repeatedly, officially and publicly - regardless of any alleged dirty tricks campaign. If such a challenge was viable would McCain have conceded defeat so promptly and graciously?
Opposing FOCA is far too important to be tainted by unworthy and easily-ridiculed allegations.
Posted by: Leo | Nov 17, 2008 6:20:27 AM
Dear Leo,
You wrote:
If there was such a simple 'knock-out' blow, surely McCain would have used it repeatedly, officially and publicly - regardless of any alleged dirty tricks campaign.
Are original birth certificates a matter of public record in Hawaii? Obama presented a COLB - a certificate of live birth - in essence, a secondary document that is supposed to contain the same information as the original. If the long-form is not a matter of public record, then McCain could not have asked for it, even if it would have been a knock-out blow (if it contained information that indicated that Obama were not a US citizen).
If the original document could have been obtained, it should have been obtained. I simply do not think that McCain had the legal resources to do so. The COLB was considered to be the normal legal form of birth certification for legal reasons in Hawaii. The registrar of public documents in Hawaii is really liable for all of this mess because, realizing the seriousness of the need to provide irrefutable information, he should have released or applied to the state legislature to release the original documents, which are always preferred in a court of law where there could be some question about derived or secondary documents.
Certianly, Obama would have had access to the original document. He should have made it available instead of this secondary source. He should have known that this were the responsible thing to do. Did he decide to do only the minimum to silence his critics? That is not the sign of someone who would go the extra mile for the people who elected him.
I still want to see the original document. It should be the right of all Americans to see it.
The Chicken
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Nov 17, 2008 1:24:15 PM
Getting back to FOCA, I find it strange that bishops will stand up against this, but still allow, On Eagles Wings, to be sung at Sunday Mass. There should be some consistency in standing up for things. The history of waffling is starting to catch up to them. I hope the seriousness of this situation will filter down to others aspects they must deal with, such as Church architecture and the like.
I expect FOCA to be a high priority for Obama because Obama wants to involve the UN policy makers in a "global" solution to the "problem" of overpopulation and he runs the risk of losing face if he does not go through with both advocating congress to pass and then, himself, signing FOCA.
As Catholics, I would get ready to withdraw from the common everyday we have known for the last fifty years and isolate ourselves until the current policies self-destruct, in about another fifty years. We need to develop private Catholic hospitals, schools, etc., entirely supported by private funds and immune to government monetary regulations. If health regulations require that hospitals provide abortion for approval, then Catholic hospitals will have to shut down their emergency rooms and accept an exclusive clientele of Catholics who will not have abortions, much as some private doctors might.
However the health profession decides to deal with this, I see rough times ahead, especially for the poor and those without health insurance. Perhaps a religious Order will emerge that specializes in health care, pro bono, for Catholics. "Paging, Sr. Dr. Joan. Paging Sr. RN Agatha." Well, I can dream, can't I?
The Chicken
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Nov 17, 2008 1:40:32 PM
"We need to develop private Catholic hospitals, schools, etc., entirely supported by private funds and immune to government monetary regulations."
Amen. That would be worthwhile charitable direction, rather than letting the government have its hand in everything from personnel policy to conscientious objection (to evil practices like abortion), we ought to be willing to be *totally* self supporting, EVEN if it means doing without some things we've been used to.
Posted by: Tim J. | Nov 17, 2008 2:18:23 PM
A couple of notes from the news...
1. It is extremely ironic to the point of being hilariously sad that Kenya is having the same problem we are with a freedom of choice bill.
2. Believe me, the Vatican is very aware of what preseident-elect Obama stand to do in the life arena.
The Chicken
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Nov 17, 2008 4:35:04 PM
