Friday Funnies

Rudy can't fail

Comments

[John-David]

Boy I hope this isn't wasted...

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Lamar]

The real question is where Pat Robertson got the funny hat in the first place.

[kwais]

So now that Pat Robertson endorses Guliani, is abortion, cross dressing, and gay marriage ok?

Or only ok when done by a Republican?

[thoreau]

kwais wins the thread.

[ed]

Nice likeness. Lame satire.

[joe]

The American bishops put out a statement about how Catholics had a responsibility not to vote for Democrats because of their stance on abortion.

What a larf. They actually singled out the Democrats.

To avoid the obvious cognitive dissonance, they put an extra twist in - the Democrats are Satan not because they support abortion rights, but because they "don't leave room" for people who don't support abortion rights.

So, when pro-choice Rudy Guiliani faces pro-choice Hillary Clinton, Catholics will have to vote for Guiliani, not because he will be be any better on the issue, but because more of the other politicians in his party are better on the issue.

Voting for Hillary would be a scandal, and voting for Rudy would not.

But rememnber, they're strictly non-partisan.

[Isaac]

joe,

I for one wouldn't mind seeing the Catholic Church revoked of it's 501(c)(3) status. That would make for some interesting dialog on the MSM.

Of course, we all know that would never happen. Catholics vote in very large swarms, and now they'll all be voting R and what self respecting Republican would swat at such a critical endorsement?

[TrickyVic]

Rudy was wearing that hat when he tried to prevent the Brooklyn Museum from displaying some art.

[joe]

Isaac,

Catholics vote in very large swarms, and now they'll all be voting R

I wouldn't count on that. Catholics strongly supported John Kerry in 2004, and I'm sure you remember the clerical hysteria from that year.

The truth is, more American Catholics agree with John Kerry about abortion law than Bernard Law, and wish the clerical heirarchy would worry more about souls and pedophile priests than picking presidents.

[John in Nashville]

Maybe the American Catholic Church opposes abortion out of fear that its priests will run out of altar boys.

[Stevo Darkly]

joe, I've already pointed out to you in another thread that the American Catholic bishops have already begun condemning Giuliani because of his pro-choice stance.

It's been front-page news in my neck of the woods because Bishop Raymond Burke of the St. Louis Archdiocese has been one of the first to jump on Giuliani, just as he jumped on Kerry.

I gave you links not only to my local paper, but to a NYT article about the reaction of the Catholic hierarchy nationwide. It noted that criticism of Giuliani was somewhat muted in some quarters because of the backlash when the bishops condemned Kerry, but it's still there, and the article quoted some pretty strong language from Catholic bishops criticizing Rudy.

Did you forget?

The fact of the matter is, the only strong link between the USA R. Catholic church and the Republicans is on abortion. (And I suppose potentially on gay marriage, but I actually don't hear that discussed much as an issue on a below-the-Vatican level.) On military and economic matters, and health care, and the welfare state, the American Catholic bishops are quite left-liberal and would fit quite comfortably in the pocket of the Democrats.

Presented as a point of clarification.

[joe]

Stevo,

And I pointed out to you that this is still the primary, and we won't be able to know for sure how in-the-bag the US Conference of Bishops is for the Republicans until the general, for the specific reason that there are anti-abortion Republicans they can cheer for.

Did you forget, or did you just stop reading the thread?

[Stevo Darkly]

joe -- Primary or not, the main thrust of your comments seems to be that the American Catholic church can already be expected to be in the Republican party's pocket, regardless of the specific stance that specific Republican politicians take. Therefore, you will expect that "when pro-choice Rudy Guiliani faces pro-choice Hillary Clinton," the RCC will have to choke out an endorsement of a pro-choice Republican candidate, because for some reason you think that what the RCC cares most about is getting a Republican in there.

I'm just saying that I think you are misreading the situation,and overlooking something potentially interesting that is about to happen. The RCC's recent historical fondness for the Republican party lies almost solely with the abortion issue, because that issue is so important to the RCC as a critical human rights issue. On almost every other position the church cares about most strongly, however, the American Catholic hierarchy is more closely aligned with the Democratic positions.

Therefore, I think we are potentially about to see the RCC hierarchy abandon its general support of the Republicans as presidential candidates (assuming the nominee is Giuliani) and either throw support to the Democratic candidate's positions (if he/she is not too strident about abortion and gay marriage) or else effectively sit the election out as a neutral.

As for other Republicans running for other offices who are anti-abortion, yeah, I guess the RCC hierarchy will still generally favor them. But because they are anti-abortion, not because they are Republican.

[Mad Max]

joe, you ignorant slut, the Lord hath delivered you into my hands.

You've heard joe's joke version of the US Catholics bishops' statement. Now here's the real thing:

http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf

If I had any criticism to make of the US Catholic bishops, it would be

(a) that their commitment to joe-style social democracy is taken to such lengths as to ignore the value of individual freedom and subsidiarity, and

(b) that the bishops don't do *enough* to repudiate pro-abortion politicians and exclude them from Communion.

The bishops urge Catholics to vote on the basis of a "well-formed conscience." The bishops denounce candidates who support abortion, but they do not single out Democratic candidates. In other words, the bishops' criticism of pro-abortion candidates reaches Rudy as much as it reaches Hillary.

So why does joe assume that the bishops' criticism of abortion is directed at the Democratic Party?

Let's take a look at the bishops' statement, so that we can locate the supposedly partisan statements which joe tells us are to be found there:

"Catholic teaching about the dignity of life calls us to oppose torture, unjust war, and the use of the death penalty; to prevent genocide and attacks against noncombatants; to oppose racism; and to overcome poverty and suffering. Nations are called to protect the right to life by seeking effective ways to combat evil and terror without resorting to armed conflicts except as a last resort, always seeking first to resolve disputes by peaceful means. We revere the lives of children in the womb, the lives of persons dying in war and from starvation, and indeed the lives of all human beings as children of God."

Yes, that's just how Karl Rove would have put it, isn't it, joe?

"While the common good embraces all, those who are weak, vulnerable, and most in need deserve preferential concern. A basic moral test for our society is how we treat the most vulnerable in our midst. In a society marred by deepening disparities between rich and poor, Scripture gives us the story of the Last Judgment (see Mt 25:31-46) and reminds us that we will be judged by our response to the 'least among us.'"

The biblical passage which the bishops quote includes the following declaration against those who ignored the poor: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels." Since, in joe's world-view, the Democrats care about the poor and the Republicans don't, it necessarily follows that the bishops are citing a pro-Democrat passage of Scripture which threatens Republicans with eternal damnation.

"Catholic voters should use the framework of Catholic teaching to examine
candidates' positions on issues affecting human life and dignity as well as issues of justice and peace, and they should consider candidates' integrity, philosophy, and performance. It is important for all citizens "to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest" (*Living the Gospel of Life,* no. 33). . . .

"We are also called to promote the well-being of all, to share our blessings with those most in need, to defend marriage, and to protect the lives and dignity of all, especially the weak, the vulnerable, the voiceless."

What an insidious plot the bishops have engaged in! They urged voters to ignore the "party affiliation" of candidates and look at their actual positions! No wonder joe is nervous - if voters consider the issues involved in an election, rather than blind partisan prejudice, who knows what could happen?

"The Catholic community brings important assets to the political dialogue about our nation's future. We bring a consistent moral framework-drawn from basic human reason that is illuminated by Scripture and the teaching of the Church-for assessing issues, political platforms, and campaigns. We also bring broad experience in serving those in need-educating the young, caring for the sick, sheltering the homeless, helping women who face difficult pregnancies, feeding the hungry, welcoming immigrants and refugees, reaching out in global solidarity, and pursuing peace."

A "consistent moral framework"? How horrifying! No wonder political hacks like joe want to discredit the bishops by any means necessary!

"Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture,4 war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. . . .

"A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. . . .

"As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate's position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter's support. Yet a candidate's position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support."

joe, please take note of these statement and the reference to "racism." You have basically adopted the position that everyone who disagrees with you or your party is a racist. Therefore, by denouncing pro-racism candidates, and by denouncing racism as an intrinsic evil on the same level as abortion, the bishops (by your own standards) are taking a pro-Democrat position.

Or maybe you aren't fully confident in putting the Democrats forward as the anti-racism party? Maybe you're uncomfortable with the Democratic Party's involvement in supporting slavery before the Civil War, supporting Jim Crow through such standard-bearers as Woodrow Wilson, and supporting racial preferences in the modern era.