Current Events: May 2008 Archives

He quotes this section from the First Things article:

Carter had one serious strike against him. The U.S. Supreme Court had legalized abortion on demand in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and Carter the candidate waffled about restricting it. At the time, I knew Carter was wrong in his views about Roe and soft toward permissive abortion. But even as a priest, I justified working for him because he wasn’t aggressively “pro-choice.” True, he held a bad position on a vital issue, but I believed he was right on so many more of the “Catholic” issues than his opponent seemed to be. The moral calculus looked easy. I thought we could remedy the abortion problem after Carter was safely returned to office.
...

In the years after the Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be “personally opposed” to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse—exactly as it is today. In fact, I can’t name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life—not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there’s very little action. In the United States in 2008, abortion is an acceptable form of homicide. And it will remain that way until Catholics force their political parties and elected officials to act differently.

Why do I mention this now? Earlier this spring, a group called “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08” quoted my own published words in the following way:

So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics— people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite—not because of—their pro-choice views.

What’s interesting about this quotation—which is accurate but incomplete—is the wording that was left out. The very next sentences in the article of mine they selected, which Roman Catholics for Obama neglected to quote, run as follows:

But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

On their website, Roman Catholics for Obama stress that:

After faithful thought and prayer, we have arrived at the conclusion that Senator Obama is the candidate whose views are most compatible with the Catholic outlook, and we will vote for him because of that—and because of his other outstanding qualities—despite our disagreements with him in specific areas.

I’m familiar with this reasoning. It sounds a lot like me thirty years ago. And thirty years later, we still have about a million abortions a year. Maybe Roman Catholics for Obama will do a better job at influencing their candidate. It could happen. And I sincerely hope it does, since Planned Parenthood of the Chicago area, as recently as February 2008, noted that Senator Barack Obama “has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate.”

Changing the views of “pro-choice” candidates takes a lot more than verbal gymnastics, good alibis, and pious talk about “personal opposition” to killing unborn children. I’m sure Roman Catholics for Obama know that, and I wish them good luck. They’ll need it.

This article seems to hit home for me because I come from a family of non-voting-Democrat Democrats. I envy people who feel so strongly about a candidate- that have that "this is The Guy" feeling. I just couldn't vote pro-choice because the reason I feel so strongly that abortion is not simply about whether women are inconvenienced or not. To me it is a social justice issue that encompasses ageism, classism, and racism. I guess abortion, personally, is the deciding issue for me (as with many of my non-voting-Democrat-Democrat family...who also voted for Carter back in the day).

Why would this child's mother let her out of the house like this?.

Now the headlines claim "arrested for prom dress", which is not exactly true. The police were called over the commotion caused when she was asked to leave because her dress was inappropriate.

That being the case, I really don't see how this is as newsworthy as the original headlines make it out to be.

However, I am just so frustrated. Why do girls no longer see beauty in something beautiful? Why do they only see beauty in skimpy? How skimpy does a dress have to be these days to be the nicest dress, because Oh Girl's doesn't leave any room for hers to be topped. I keep thinking about when I was a very small girl, and how I would love to play dress-up with my patent-leather Mary Janes, little white gloves and anything frilly and pink. How sad for someone so young to have already lost that childhood simplicity.

I often feel like The Modesty Police and oddly, it is not a subject I am that obsessed with. I am just tired of women being objectified. God gifted us when he made us the more visually beautiful of the two sexes. But this isn't beauty. I don't know what this is.This is taking God's delicate art and saying "it needs more color" and spray painting it fluorescent pink.

What I also don't understand is where are her parents? Why isn't her father barring the door with a shot gun "Hell no you ain't going out the house looking like that!" Isn't that what fathers do? Why isn't her mother telling her "I know you think this is pretty, but this is not appropriate, let's find a compromise." Isn't that the point of mothers?

but it is too funny to ignore. Previously, I blogged about Miley Cyrus and how tired I am of not only hearing about them, but how tired I am of Hollywood telling me how backwards I am for thinking the images inappropriate. If the Tila Tequila quote was not enough, how about this quote from Hugh Hefner:

Says Hef: "Sure, she’d be welcomed in the magazine. Very pretty lady. And I think to make such a big to-do over something as innocent as those [Vanity Fair] photos, I think is a reflection on how schizophrenic America is about sexuality."

Young Ladies, this is why modesty is important. You do NOT want the attention of dirty old, old (did I mention old?) men calling you pretty...If Miley Cyus has any sense, now she is getting the creepy crawlies and thinking "Ohmygosh, no more suggestive pictures again!"

Ugh...shivers.

is a very, very strange place. I, um, er, um, you know...wow. I don't know what to say.