Click for Main Weblog

   
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Friday, October 15, 2004
   
   

Democratic Tactics III

A few thoughts from The Blog from the Core.

Massive Democratic voter fraud. "Pre-emptive strikes" against imagined Republican attempts at voter suppression. (That's called, I believe, poisoning the wells.) An alleged army of attorneys poised to keep every judge in the country up all day & night Nov. 2-3-4....

What's up with that?

Some folks are thinking that the Democratic party leadership learned a few lessons in the 2000 election and now they want to press forward with the tactics they employed then to try to steal the presidential election. (I gather that such tactics — like highly selective recounts — had worked on a smaller scale in previous years.)

I think, rather, that they learned some lessons in the 2002 and 2003 elections.

Remember "Payback Tuesday" in 2002? Democratic operatives all over the country thought they were going to teach that dumb George Bushitler and the eeevil Republithugs a lesson they'd never forget: they were going to vote Democrats in everywhere, picking up huge gains in the Congress and the state governments. And, most especially, they were going to get rid of the hated Jeb Bush for rigging the 2000 election in Florida.

What actually happened? The Republicans defied the history of a century and picked up seats in both the House and the Senate, and they strengthened their control of state governments from coast to coast. Moreover, Jeb Bush was re-elected by a landslide.

Similarly, the Democrats pulled out all the stops to keep Gray Davis in office in California last year. Instead, he was voted out by a wide margin, to be replaced by a (liberal) Republican.

FWIW, it seems to me that the Democratic Party leadership learned its biggest lesson in the past two years: in America these days, they don't win in a fair election.

How do you think, Faithful Reader, that the likes of Bill & Hillary Clinton, Terry McAuliffe & Al Gore, Ted Kennedy & Tom Daschle, and Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton will use this knowledge?

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 10/15/04 11:14:57 PM
Categorized as Political.


   
   

"Letter from an Army Chaplain in Iraq"

Chaplain (CPT) Christopher A. Bassett.

Thanks to Margaret for forwarding this e-mail, apparently dated Sep. 16/17.

+ + + + +

Dear Friends and Family:

I am addressing this letter to you to express a frustration that I know has been voiced time and again, yet is met with little change. It concerns the media coverage of this war and the effect of that coverage on the morale of our troops. As a battalion chaplain I hear the comments and complaints of soldiers who, while performing an incredibly difficult job under hostile and stressful conditions, constantly see their efforts portrayed as futile. NBC's coverage this morning (your Thursday evening, 16 September 2004) is a prime example that I believe shows the gulf that exists between the truth of what is happening here and the deceitful agenda of the mainstream media at home and abroad.

Only 24 hours ago the NBC media crew arrived here and filmed hours of footage with our unit. They were told of numerous projects in which our unit is involved, not only in the area of force protection and Troop Medical Clinic support, but also in humanitarian aide to a local village here in Baghdad. Here is an example of some of the projects to which they were introduced:

1. The reconstruction and furnishing of a clinic
2. Miscellaneous enhancements for a local elementary school and a local day care center
3. Reconstruction of the decimated electrical, sewer and water systems
4. Reparation of exterior walls and gates surrounding the village
5. Rubble and garbage removal projects to clean up the entire village
6. Construction of a protective chain link fence around the local Shi'a Mosque
7. Studies to examine the development of agricultural systems and a garment industry to help the locals provide for themselves
8. The ever-growing clothing and school supplies drive for the children of the village

In the roughly one minute clip that they drew from their day of filming, what did they show? The First Lieutenant who is the primary driver of these projects was shown with one quote about never believing he would be in Iraq, being a National Guard soldier. This was followed by their interview of another soldier's wife, saying her husband was supposed to have retired this summer, that his responsibility to the military should be over and that he should be home. They showed NOTHING of the great humanitarian efforts that are going on here!

It is coverage like this that is convincing more and more soldiers that the consistent media agenda is to show you, the American people, the futility of our current efforts and how everything is going wrong. There is no apparent attempt to show all the good that is happening that, for those of us who are here, far outweighs the very weak, though spectacular, moments of insurgency. And we see it via satellite, just as you do. In a day of great violence across the country, last Sunday, where the insurgency failed to take one American life, what one film clip was shown over and over? They showed the lone burning Bradley fighting vehicle, with Iraqis dancing on and around it, waving flags of the insurgency. Out of the thousands of troops who made it safely around Baghdad and the country that day, the media focused on one piece of impressive footage and repeated it over and over until the viewer receives the message that this is all that went on in Iraq today — an insurgent victory. I also remember how the body count, for two days thereafter, was printed in ever-increasing increments, never mentioning who the casualties were - giving the impression that they were American casualties.

The despair and depression, as well as the thankfully limited anti-war sentiment, over our country's efforts in Iraq are not based upon all of the facts. They are rather based on what the media has chosen to show — and what they have chosen NOT to show. The media knows that they can always find those willing to complain, grouse, protest and disagree. And they splash those voices all over their screens and pages, drowning out the voices that will tell you, as I am, that there is good going on here.

There are things going on here you would be proud of, things that would bring tears to your eyes; like the looks of parents whose children are going to school for the first time in years, equipped with pencils, pens and paper and clothed with clean new clothes. There are essential services being provided to people to whom they were denied under the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. There is a trial going on for that man and at least eleven of his evil cronies who, let us remember, killed over 300,000 people under the watchful eye of the United Nations (pun intended) during the 12 years they had responsibility for the health and welfare of this nation (yes, the same, inept organization that is currently ignoring the Darfur, Sudan slaughter of Christians by Islamic fundamentalists). This was the same time that the oil-for-food program monies were being used to line the pockets of Saddam and his friends and build luxurious palaces like the ones our forces now occupy as headquarters all over this nation. And Saddam all the while complained that it was "American Sanctions" that were killing his people. I don't remember a sanction that required a mass grave.

Please know that the media is NOT giving you the right picture, much less the WHOLE picture. They have an agenda, it is clear, and that agenda does not include the current administration claiming success in this endeavor. It is unclear if their sensationalist "reporting" will change if the administration changes. The one thing I know as I watch the morale of the men who are here doing the job is that every time the enemy's paltry attacks are made out by the media to be marker events in Iraq, it becomes a little harder for soldiers to see value in even the greatest things we are doing. Your care packages, your letters and your constant prayers are the only things that remind us that the majority of thoughtful Americans are truly behind this effort and that what we are doing has great value. Don't let that go. Keep supporting your troops, not just in word, but in action. Remember this: You cannot support the troops AND denigrate the war effort. It is a logical and a practical inconsistency. While the soldier fights the enemy, he needs those behind him to offer support to his back, not daggers. The news media is one of the greatest threats to this war. Just ask a terrorist. Every time he can do something desperate and spectacular and have the effect with one man blowing himself up in a crowd that an entire U.S. Brigade has in securing a city, the media has thrown terror the victory. It is not the side that wins the most ground anymore that is victorious, but the one that can satiate the blood-hungry media. We have given them the stories they need to show how much we are truly doing. The question then must turn to why they have a fascination with making the villain the victor. If we win this war, it may not be much of a story for them, but if we lose it...

Your troops are doing amazing things here — things many of them are not even trained to do, like a medical platoon leader doing public works projects! I hope that either the media start showing the REAL stories here or that you will show your contempt of their deceitfulness with your complaints and, ultimately, with your vote. Don't watch the news media that thrives on the death of American soldiers to bump their ratings! And remember your troops. Support of victory is support of your troops.

Sincerely,
CH (CPT) Chris Bassett
Baghdad, Iraq

+ + + + +

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 10/15/04 10:53:23 PM
Categorized as International & Media.


   
   

"The Therapeutic Choice"

John writes to call our attention to VDH @ NRO today:

Americans are presented with a choice in this election rare in our history. This is not 1952, when Democrats and Republicans did not differ too much on the need to stay in Korea, or even 1968 when Humphrey and Nixon alike did not wish to withdraw unilaterally from Vietnam. It is more like 1972 or 1980, when a naïve McGovern/Dukakis worldview was sharply at odds with the Nixon/Reagan tragic acknowledgement of the need to confront Soviet-inspired Communism. Is it to be more aid, talk, indictments, and summits — or a tough war to kill the terrorists and change the conditions that created them?...

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 10/15/04 10:35:47 PM
Categorized as International & Political.


   
   

"Anything to Get Elected"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCCLXXXVII

Before I read this article, I didn't realize that Dr. Charles Krauthammer is in a wheelchair.

+ + + + +

After the second presidential debate, in which John Kerry used the word "plan" 24 times, I said on television that Kerry has a plan for everything except curing psoriasis. I should have known there is no parodying Kerry's pandering. It turned out days later that the Kerry campaign has a plan — nay, a promise — to cure paralysis. What is the plan? Vote for Kerry.

I'm not making this up. I couldn't. This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.''

In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately raising for personal gain false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable.

Where does one begin to deconstruct this outrage?

First, the inability of the human spinal cord to regenerate is one of the great mysteries of biology. The answer is not remotely around the corner. It could take a generation to unravel. To imply, as Edwards did, that it is imminent if only you elect the right politicians is scandalous.

Second, if the cure for spinal cord injury comes, we have no idea where it will come from. There are many lines of inquiry. Stem cell research is just one of many possibilities, and a very speculative one at that. For 30 years I have heard promises of miracle cures for paralysis (including my own, suffered as a medical student). The last fad, fetal tissue transplants, was thought to be a sure thing. Nothing came of it.

As a doctor by training, I've known better than to believe the hype — and have tried in my own counseling of the newly spinal-cord injured to place the possibility of cure in abeyance. I advise instead to concentrate on making a life (and a very good life it can be) with the hand one is dealt. The greatest enemy of this advice has been the snake-oil salesmen promising a miracle around the corner. I never expected a candidate for vice president to be one of them.

Third, the implication that Christopher Reeve was prevented from getting out of his wheelchair by the Bush stem cell policies is a travesty.

Bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research. There are 22 lines of stem cells now available, up from one just two years ago. As Dr. Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics, has written, there are 3,500 shipments of stem cells waiting for anybody who wants them.

Edwards and Kerry constantly talk of a Bush "ban'' on stem cell research. This is false. There is no ban. You want to study stem cells? You get them from the companies that have the cells and apply to the National Institutes of Health for the federal funding.

In his Aug. 7 radio address to the nation, John Kerry referred not once but four times to the "ban'' on stem cell research instituted by Bush. At the time, Christopher Reeve was alive, so not available for posthumous exploitation. But Ronald Reagan was available, having recently died of Alzheimer's.

So what does Kerry do? He begins his radio address with the disgraceful claim that the stem cell "ban'' is standing in the way of an Alzheimer's cure.

This is an outright lie. The President's Council on Bioethics, on which I sit, had one of the world's foremost experts on Alzheimer's, Dr. Dennis Selkoe from Harvard, give us a lecture on the newest and most promising approaches to solving the Alzheimer's mystery. Selkoe reported remarkable progress in biochemically clearing the "plaque'' deposits in the brain that lead to Alzheimer's. He ended his presentation without the phrase "stem cells'' having crossed his lips.

So much for the miracle cure. Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at NIH, has admitted publicly that stem cells as an Alzheimer's cure are a fiction, but that "people need a fairy tale.'' Kerry and Edwards certainly do. They are shamelessly exploiting this fairy tale, having no doubt been told by their pollsters that stem cells play well politically for them.

Politicians have long promised a chicken in every pot. It is part of the game. It is one thing to promise ethanol subsidies here, dairy price controls there. But to exploit the desperate hopes of desperate people with the promise of Christ-like cures is beyond the pale.

There is no apologizing for Edwards' remark. It is too revealing. There is absolutely nothing the man will not say to get elected.

+ + + + +

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 10/15/04 08:55:29 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode.


   
   

Democratic Tactics II

A while back, I directed your attention to Bill Hobb's voter-fraud tracking project. Alas, he has a lot to track.

I guess what we really need to see is a "full excerpt" of the Democrats' playbook about "HOW TO ORGANIZE TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE VOTER FRAUD". It must be somewhere........

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 10/15/04 05:54:23 PM
Categorized as Political.


   
   

Democratic Tactics I

The following "full excerpt" (huh?) is notable for its remarkable double-edged race baiting: it takes for granted that minority voters (and, especially, minority leaders) are in the Democratic Party's pocket and that the evil Republicans will be targeting minority voters. (Everything as in the original.)

+ + + + +

FULL EXCERPT OF DNC FIELD MANUAL ON HOW TO PREVENT AND COMBAT VOTER INTIMIDATION

The DNC also released the section of their field manual titled "How to Organize to Prevent and Combat Voter Intimidation" referred to on the Drudge Report, which focuses on how to detect, prevent, and combat voter intimidation practices.

I. WHAT TO LOOK FOR

In general, the goal of minority voter intimidation programs is either to provide a basis for challenging the right of people to vote just before election day or when they show up at the polls, and/or to create doubt, confusion and fear among voters about their right to vote or the location at which they can vote.

Prior to Election Day

Activities that may take place in the weeks or days leading up to election day can include:

1. Mass mailing targeted to minority communities aimed at using letters returned as undeliverable as a basis for challenging voters (on or prior to election day) based on change of residence

2. Mailings, signs, and/or phone calls targeted or concentrated in minority communities

• Providing "information" about the requirements for voting, for example, that persons not current on child support payments will not be eligible to vote, or that persons who have recently moved will not be eligible

• Providing "information" about what questions will be asked or documentation requested of voters at the polls in order to vote, e.g., that proof of citizenship will be required, or that a drivers license or lease will be required to prove residence

• Giving warnings about election offenses, i.e., that voting when ineligible to do so, or voting at the wrong place, or providing false information to election officials, etc. is a crime

• Suggesting that polling places have been changed

3. Any variation of the above in Spanish, targeted to, or appearing in, Latino communities

4. Complaints filed by Republican Party or candidates with election authorities (or police or other authorities) about volunteer registrars registering minority voters illegally

5. Attempts to encourage voters in minority communities to throw away mail-in ballots

6. Attempts to coerce voters in minority communities to turn over endorsed absentee ballots On Election Day

Activities that take place on election day itself may include:

1. Signs, posters, phone calls, and/or sound trucks giving "information" or warnings about voter requirements or eligibility and/or warning that voting when ineligible to do so is an offense, etc.

2. Concentration of numbers of Republican poll watchers or challengers in minority precincts

3. Republican poll watchers challenging every voter in minority precincts on some pretext

4. GOP poll watchers, local law enforcement officers, or persons with official looking badges or insignia stationed at polling places taking pictures, asking for names, or engaging in other types of intimidating conduct.

5. Other persons deliberately placed at polling places to harass or hassle voters

6. Efforts to create longer lines in the polls, targeted in minority communities, through means such as limiting the number of registration books; deliberately sending unregistered voters into certain polling places to create confusion and delay and/or create a scene, and thereby slow down voting at those polling places

7. Changing polling locations close to election day

8. Slower responses to voting machine breakdowns in minority precincts

II. HOW TO ORGANIZE TO PREVENT AND COMBAT VOTER INTIMIDATION

The best way to combat minority voter intimidation tactics is to prevent them from occurring in the first place and prepare in advance to deal with them should they take place on election day.

1. If there are any signs of present or expected intimidation activity, in advance of election day, launch a press program that might include the following elements:

• Prepare and distribute to the press (or have available at a press conference, see below) materials giving the background and history of GOP minority voter intimidation, with emphasis on past activity in your state or district.

• Devise separate press strategies for mainstream and specialty press:

i. Mainstream press: Consider a press conference
— Featuring a prominent mainstream spokesperson (priest, civic leader, business leader)
— Including a group of established community leaders behind that spokesperson, but with only one person giving a statement
— Emphasizing a message of outrage, but designed to appeal to the broader community: "We thought this community was better than that", "We thought those days were behind us", "Nothing is more despicable than trying to deprive any American of the precious right to vote, the foundation of our democracy for which so many have sacrificed."
— Impugning the source of divisiveness – the GOP, the opposing candidate, whoever can credibly be said to be behind it
— Include call to action

ii. Specialty press
— Use minority intimidation as an organizing tool: in a press conference and/or press materials, community leadership should call on the community to rise up against the efforts to disenfranchise them by turning out in record numbers and challenging any effort at intimidation
— Link this fight to the historical fights to enfranchise minorities, going back to the civil rights struggle.

2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).

• Issue a press release

i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state

ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting

• Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points

• Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics

• Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls

3. Train field staff, precinct workers, and your own poll watchers thoroughly in the rules they need to know for election day.

4. Plan and completely prepare for possible legal action well in advance of election day

5. Have Secretary of State record public service announcements about election day – when polls are open, who is eligible, etc.

+ + + + +

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 10/15/04 05:39:39 PM
Categorized as Political.


   
   

Can Faith Be Separated From Conscience?

I have been remiss in blogging these.

First, an article by a "Catholic" Subversive Traitor named Mark Roche, "dean of the College of Arts and Letters at the University of Notre Dame", at NYT, Oct. 11:

.... When values come into conflict, it is useful to develop principles that help place those values in a hierarchy. One reasonable principle is that issues of life and death are more important than other issues. This seems to be the strategy of some Catholic and church leaders, who directly or indirectly support the Republican Party because of its unambiguous critique of abortion. Indeed, many Catholics seem to think that if they are truly religious, they must cast their ballots for Republicans.
This position has two problems. First, abortion is not the only life-and-death issue in this election. While the Republicans line up with the Catholic stance on abortion and stem-cell research, the Democrats are closer to the Catholic position on the death penalty, universal health care and environmental protection.
More important, given the most distinctive issue of the current election, Catholics who support President Bush must reckon with the Catholic doctrine of "just war." This doctrine stipulates that a war is just only if all possible alternative strategies have been pursued to their ultimate conclusion; the war is conducted in accordance with moral principles (for example, the avoidance of unnecessary civilian casualties and the treatment of prisoners with dignity); and the war leads to a more moral state of affairs than existed before it began. While Mr. Kerry, like many other Democrats, voted for the war, he has since objected to the way it was planned and waged....

Second, Robert P. George and Gerard V. Bradley reply at NRO, Oct. 12:

.... Dean Roche opens his case for Kerry by saying that while President Bush and the Republicans have the superior position on abortion and embryonic-stem-cell research, "the Democrats are close to the Catholic position on the death penalty, universal health care, and environmental protection."
This argument doesn't work. Neither candidate would abolish the death penalty, though Kerry would invoke it in fewer cases than Bush. But even assuming, as we are willing to do, that Catholics should oppose the death penalty on the basis of the Pope's recent development of the Church's historical teaching, no one can say that this teaching has the same status or urgency as the Church's teaching against the direct killing of the innocent, whether in abortion, embryo-destructive research, euthanasia, or the deliberate targeting of civilians in warfare. Nor is the degree of injustice the same or even close to the same. Nor is the scale of the wrong anything approaching 1.3 million deaths per year by abortion plus thousands more, if Kerry gets his way, in embryo-destructive research.
On questions of universal health care and environmental protection, the Church does not presume to bind its members to specific policies as matters of strict justice. True, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has developed policy proposals on health care, environmental protection, agricultural policy, immigration, tax policy, the minimum wage, and a host of other issues; but the bishops fully acknowledge that reasonable people of goodwill — including faithful Catholics — may legitimately reject these proposals in favor of alternatives. Many bishops themselves reject them. No Catholic is bound by them in the way that every Catholic is bound to oppose policies that license the injustice of deliberately taking innocent human life....

Finally, an article at NYT, Oct. 12, that's a lot more balanced than one might expect, and a lot more balanced than some other bloggers seem to think it is:

.... Archbishop Chaput has discussed Catholic priorities in the election in 14 of his 28 columns in the free diocesan newspaper this year. His archdiocese has organized voter registration drives in more than 40 of the largest parishes in the state and sent voter guides to churches around the state. Many have committees to help turn out voters and are distributing applications for absentee ballots.
In an interview in his residence here, Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate like Mr. Kerry who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion.
"If you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?" he asked. "And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes." ....
Archbishop Chaput says he has had no contact with either campaign or political party. He says his sole contact with the White House has been his appointment to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The prelate acknowledged that his communications director, Sergio Gutierrez, had worked in the Bush administration, but Archbishop Chaput said he had known Mr. Gutierrez long before that.
It was only logical for the Republicans to view the church as a "natural ally" on cultural issues, the archbishop said. He said that would end if a Republican candidate supported abortion rights.
"We are not with the Republican Party," he said. "They are with us."
Mr. Kerry's Catholicism is a special issue for the church, Archbishop Chaput said. To remain silent while a President Kerry supported stem cell research would seem cowardly, he said. The Rev. Andrew Kemberling, pastor of St. Thomas More Church near here, said he agreed with the archbishop, but he acknowledged that parishioners sometimes accused him of telling them how to vote. He said his reply was: "We are not telling them how to vote. We are telling them how to take Communion in good conscience."

P.S. Catholic Light calls our attention to a transcript of the NYT interview of Archbishop Chaput. (Emphasis, brackets, and punctuation as in original.)

+ + + + +

http://www.archden.org/

ALL THE NEWS THAT’S FIT TO PRINT … SORT OF

The motto of The New York Times is, “All the news that’s fit to print.” On October 6, 2004, David Kirkpatrick, a reporter for The Times, conducted an extensive interview with Denver’s Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., on issues surrounding this year’s national elections. In the interests of accuracy, archdiocesan staff recorded the interview. A heavily truncated and framed version of the archbishop’s views appeared in an October 12 New York Times story. Read story here.

A transcript of the full interview appears below. Readers are invited to compare the published New York Times story and the actual interview transcript, and then decide for themselves whether the October 12 Times story is slanted or fair; complete or misleading.

NYT: Well, I’m interested in doing an article on how Catholics are applying their faith to politics this election season and how some bishops are speaking up in some ways that they haven’t in the past. And Denver seemed like a pretty interesting place, partly because you’re here. I work with Laurie Goodstein who is my coworker, and she seemed to think that you are an interesting figure to watch.

AB: Were you going to interview the Senator out at Inverness?

NYT: Senator Kerry?

AB: Yes

NYT: I don’t think so. I don’t think for this one. What he has to say about his Catholicism, I think he said.

AB: There is a piece on National Public Radio this morning.

NYT: Yes?

AB: He didn’t say much…

NYT: What did you think of it?

AB: I really didn’t pay close attention to it, so I shouldn’t say what I think of it. I was getting ready to go to a funeral.

NYT: Well, I guess I can start by asking, is this year different [from] previous years in any way?

AB: Well, it is different for Catholics because you have a Catholic running for President, and the press seems to be very interested in his Catholic identity. I think in some ways because of the coverage the issue is getting…it looks like bishops are speaking out in a new way, but really, many of us have been speaking about this for a very long time. That fact that there is a Catholic running and there is a situation where [a] potential conflict exists, reporters seem to focus and gawk. I say that with respect; I know you are a reporter. But it’s true.

NYT: Sure, sure, totally.

AB: It’s amazing. Before I was Bishop of Denver, I was Bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota, and I would say many of the same things there as I say here, and nobody paid attention to me because I was the Bishop of Rapid City.

NYT: Yes.

AB: A lot depends on who is writing/running and where you are. I think there are many of us who are speaking about this rather clearly and carefully for a long, long time. And my fear is, of course, that as soon as the election is over, no matter who wins, it will die down until the next election cycle. Then, people will start talking about it again and we’ll be asked questions, and we’ll have a little flash, and it’ll die down again, rather than being sure that this continues.

NYT: When you talk about “it” as “it will die down,” I assume you mean the Church’s …the life issue?

AB: No not just the life issue, but I’m talking about the Church’s involvement in the political life of our country. Other than that individual Catholics can be involved in political life of our country, how much should their Catholic faith influence their positions? That’s really the fundamental issue here…a problem with the voters and a problem with the candidates. And that’s what we as a Church need to keep bringing to the attention of our people, long after the election is over — the importance of our faith having a substantial impact on our public life, whether it be the generosity of our giving or the public policy we embrace in our speaking, or the positions we take in running for office or voting.

NYT: What all are you doing, just from reading the papers and the Catholic Register, I see you’ve been…here and there reminding people of the salient issues of this election. Is that deliberate?

AB: It is, but, if you look at my history here in Denver over the last seven years, you’ll see that I do this every year. I probably do it more every two years when there is an election because people…you know, my columns are supposed to be about issues people are interested in and not just theoretical speculation in a vacuum because we believe our faith life is engaged in the real world, with real people, with real history, learning about all of the major issues if there is something to say. I have much less to say about technical issues of the economy than I would about basic principles, but I think we have a duty to speak about all issues if we have something to say. Another thing that is important for you to know is that people ask us questions, and legitimately so. I think it is legitimate for the press to ask if Senator John Kerry should receive communion. I mean, that is a significant question. I think the more significant question is, what does the Church believe about anybody receiving communion? You can’t answer the first without understanding the answer to the second. The people ask us questions. They didn’t ask me questions two years ago about politicians receiving communion. They did ask me questions about how important should the abortion issue be in perspective of voting.

NYT: And your answer there was?

AB: That it’s foundational, it’s been foundational for the many years that have passed since Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land.

NYT: Archbishop Burke in St. Louis caught my attention again on Friday [October 1]. He issued a statement basically stating that it’s a sin if you vote for a pro-choice politician, I believe he was saying even if that wasn’t the reason you voted for him, that you voted for a pro-abortion politician that is still something that you ought confess. Is that…?

AB: I don’t believe that’s where you should start. The place to start would be, does our voting for someone make us responsible for what that person does as a legislator or as a judge?…And the answer is yes, because we are in some ways materially — we use the word “materially” — cooperating in that person’s activity because we’ve given [him or her] the platform to be elected. Now, if the person does something wrong, are we responsible for that? Well, if we didn’t know they were going to something wrong, our participation is remote, but if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we approved of it, our responsibility would be really be close, even if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we voted for them for another reason, we would still be responsible in some ways.

The standing is that if you know someone is going to do evil and you participate in that in some way, you are responsible. So it’s not…“if you vote this way, should you go to confession?” The question is, “if you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?” Now, if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes. There’s a more sophisticated thing here…it’s not so crude. The reason I want to stress that is because it is not like bishops are issuing edicts about who should vote for whom. It’s issuing statements about how a Catholic forms her conscience, or his conscience…and remote material cooperation or proximate material cooperation is cooperation, and it’s important for Catholics to know that, to be sophisticated in their judgments.

NYT: What all are you doing to try to keep the folks in this Archdiocese informed?

AB: Well…we have talks. We have a group of people in the Archdiocese giving talks on Faithful Citizenship and the appropriateness on being involved in political issues. We have Catholic candidates running for office who I personally talk to about their positions. I write columns for the Denver Catholic Register. I do interviews like this. I have done radio programs on these issues. Well, I think that most of us who are speaking out right now, are not just speaking out on abortion. It’s about the appropriateness of…involvement, on part of individual Catholics and on part of the Church community. And the importance of forming one’s conscience intelligently and in an involved fashion on the major moral issues of the day. Now, you know, it is true that the Church sees abortion as the foundational issue of our time. It is. There is no way around it. There is nothing more foundational than the right to life. And, it is really based on our understanding of the dignity of human beings. If human life has dignity, if human beings have dignity, we have no right to violate that dignity by our acts, whether it be killing that person or denying that person of adequate housing, food, and clothing or anything else. There is really a matter of human dignity from our point of view.

NYT: How are your conversations with the two Senate candidates going?

AB: I’ve had personal, honest discussions with both of them. You know…when I speak to them, I tell them, and they tell me, that our conversations are off the record for the public, so I don’t talk about it.

NYT: It’s worth a try.

AB: Sure, I understand that. I would try very much. I really wish I could be more forthcoming, but I can’t because both they and I decided that the ground rules for starting to talk is that we talk to each other and not to others.

NYT: When you speak about the need for Catholics to take their faith with them into public affairs and their voting, and when you talk about which issues are foundational, do you get any…mixed responses?

AB: Oh absolutely mixed responses, because people hear me in different ways depending on where they stand politically. There are three or four kinds of people, well, there are all kinds of people, but there are those who are staunch Republicans, those who are staunch Democrats, those who are staunch Catholics, there are those who aren’t educated, you know there are all kinds of people. And depending upon whether when they come to the question from, they hear it in different ways. Yes, there are a lot of people who write to me saying that they’ve been a Catholic for 70 years, that they went to Catholic colleges, and high schools, and grade schools, they go to church every Sunday, and the Church is wrong.

NYT: Really?

AB: Sure

NYT: How about…do you…?

AB: Which proves nothing. That fact that they’ve done all those things proves nothing, except that they’ve done all of those things — and that they have some kind of certain attachment to the Church. But that doesn’t mean they know anything about theology or about this particular issue. They might not have thought it through. Of course, it could be they are very well educated, too.

NYT: How are…at the parish level, at the priest level…I was in St Louis and I attended a few masses there in St. Charles, which is very Catholic.

AB: I know it well.

NYT: And uh…

AB: I’m a Potawatomi Indian and a woman who came to work with us is buried there, she’s a saint, Saint Rose Philippine Duchesne. You know she’s buried in St. Charles Missouri. No one knows about her…but she’s on of…four canonized American saints and she’s buried in St. Charles, Missouri.

NYT: You know what? I think… I think I saw her...

AB: Her shrine maybe?

NYT: Yeah, right, not far from the river.

AB: No, you’re right.

NYT: Uhm…and, but I had the odd experience, I just visited two parishes holding Saturday afternoon services...uh…and got diametrically opposed answers from the two priests I talked to. One was very…was handing out…insert in the bulletin basically saying “This is what Archbishop Burke says on the subject and you ought to keep it in mind…about which issues are non-negotiable.” And the other fellow said, “You know seamless garment…life means lots of things…life is foundational, but it is about the war in Iraq, it’s about poverty, and it’s about a lot of other issues.” Basically, he was a Democrat. And he sort of laughed and said he thought…he was probably the only one in his parish. But do you…you know...do you get disagreements like that within the Church here?

AB: Oh I’m sure…I’m sure there have been…When you say within the Church, do you mean among our people, do you mean between the bishops and the priests? I’m not sure I understand your question. Let me say this. A lot of Catholic Democrats, whether they are clergy or laity, have used the “seamless garment” as an excuse to sideline the abortion issue, making it one among many others. And, we can’t do that. The bishops, themselves, issued a statement several years ago, called [Living t]he Gospel of Life, which was a reflection on the centrality of the abortion and life issues for our public life. And it’s important to read that in order to understand a document like “Faithful Citizenship” because it’s a more theoretical background kind of document. You know…all of those issues that you mentioned are life issues that are very, very important, but they are not all foundational. In the way…similar issue in terms of Catholic theology. At the heart of Catholic theology is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. We believe it to be absolutely true. We also believe that Mary’s Assumption into heaven is absolutely true. But one doctrine is foundational and the other doctrine depends on the foundation to be true and to be meaningful. And the same thing is true about moral issues. You know some moral issues, all moral issues are moral issues, and it’s good to be on the right side of them all the time, but some are dependent on the basic principles of human life. The dignity of human life. You never violate it. Whether it’s the creation of embryos for embryonic stem cell research or abortion, are violations of the dignity of human beings, from our perspective. And you can never justify it. You can sometimes justify going to war. You may think that the Iraq war is horrible, but there may be sometimes when you can justify [going to war]. It doesn’t have the same moral weight. And, it’s not calculating 40 million abortions against 40,000 deaths in Iraq. That’s not how you do the calculus. The calculus is on the intrinsic act itself. You know, and abortion is never, ever, ever right. And so to elect someone who has no respect for unborn human life…or has a…what kind of respect?…a kind of respect that is wobbly…it doesn’t make any sense. Why would you trust someone with your life, if that person is willing to let unborn babies die?

NYT: When you say wobbly, you mean the kind of person that would say, “I know that life starts at conception, but I still am…”

AB: That’s even worse. Those who claim the life didn’t…doesn’t start at conception are bad enough, because they are just turning their eyes from scientific fact. But those who say that it is human life, but it’s alright to kill babies anyway…it’s really strange. And, it is just far from what we Catholics believe…It’s not understandable…People can say, well, “I didn’t mean what I said,” but when you talk about basic issues like this, if you don’t understand what you said, there’s something wrong. These are really important issues…And, I think it is important for Catholics, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, to get over this compromising, “yes, but” and just give a very clear, collective “no!” A grand refusal to vote for anybody who is pro-choice, so that we have some political influence on this issue. You know, if Catholics voted on this issue as the central issue of our time, we would change things quite drastically, quite quickly, and if we don’t do it, it’s our responsibility, and we participate somehow in the awful history of abortion in our country. So, I think we better just stop playing around with these words.

NYT: You said, “if Catholics started voting on this issue as the central issue of our time, we would change things quite rapidly and quite…?

AB: Radically!

NYT: Radically.

AB: I think if politicians on both parties had to calculate their position on whether or not they’re getting a significant amount of the vote of their constituency, it would make a difference. You know the fact that Catholics have been overwhelmingly Democrat and have had no impact on the Democrat platform on this matter for the last 20 years is horrible. What does that say about our commitment to Catholic values?…So, can I say this too?…Not only is this is a different year because one of the candidates is Catholic, it’s also, perhaps, a different year because I think even those who have been hoping for change have seen that the old ways of approaching this haven’t worked. Abortion is more accepted than ever before. A lot of young Catholics are born into a world where they know nothing but abortion. And they think that if it’s legal, it must be moral. You know I think we’ve been hoping that some kind of reasoned discourse would turn our country around and it hasn’t because the other side doesn’t reason. They are ruthless…in their position. It seems that Catholics should be just as ruthless in their pro-life positions as the pro-choice people are ruthless in theirs. And I use “ruthless”…that word…I don’t mean that in an unkindly way. I mean just be determined and stubborn…persistent.

NYT: Speaking of reasons why this year is different [from] other years, the fact that Kerry is a Catholic, yes, he causes the press to ask questions that will induce controversial answers, but I think also it’s bothersome to a lot of Catholics in a way that a Protestant who was pro-abortion wouldn’t be. Am I right?

AB: I’m not sure what your question is, but I’ll answer it…see, I think Catholics have to grapple with the fact that their moral positions impact their relationship with the Church. And they haven’t often thought of that, you know? “I know abortion is wrong, but if I vote for abortion, that doesn’t have any impact on me.” Well the Church says, “Like heck it doesn’t. It means you’re not a Catholic and you shouldn’t receive communion, if you are in favor of abortion.” They don’t think they connect. And, now that some people have been making a very clear connection between the position and one’s relationship to the Church, people have gotten angry, they’ve gotten nervous, they’ve gotten mad, they’ve threatened to take their money away, they’ve threatened to join other churches. You ought to see this stuff. It’s just…

NYT: What do you mean?

AB: Letters…people write letters, they say things you can’t imagine them saying, they didn’t think they would say it themselves…which means we haven’t done a good job in the Catholic Church of helping people understand the consequences of their moral decisions. You can’t take every position in the world and be a Catholic.

NYT: The question that I had before, let me state it again quickly. The bishops…are the bishops speaking out in a new way in part because Kerry is Catholic? In ways they wouldn’t…does it bother people more, bishops and lay Catholics, because Kerry is taking the positions he is, because he’s a Catholic?

AB: It has huge consequences for the Church. If Senator Kerry is elected President and promotes the destruction of unborn children, through embryonic stem cell research, what is the Church going to do? If the Church challenges a President Kerry on this issue, it will appear to be interfering. If the Church remains silent, it will appear cowardly.

NYT: Have you taken a position on the [Federal] Marriage Amendment?

AB: Well, it seems to us because of the way the court handled the abortion issue that the courts may handle the marriage issue in exactly the same way, and making a decision in favor of personal freedom over the real meaning of things. You know…personal freedom then trumps the life of the unborn child. Personal freedom then trumps the meaning of marriage, if the same kinds of court decisions are made. So it seems to us, that the best way for that not to happen is not to let the courts get a hold of it. From our perspective, marriage has two dimensions. One is our sacramental, religious meaning but that’s not what we are defending here. We are defending the right of a state to write laws that define marriage in a way that supports that family unit to provide security for the life of children. It has nothing to do with our religious perspective — I say “nothing” to do with it; it certainly has something to do with it — but our primary position isn’t religious. It’s about the civil meaning of marriage. That’s what marriage means civilly. That’s why we have laws that support marriage rather than support other kinds of relationships. Because we think it’s important for that stable relationship for the sake of children. This doesn’t take rocket science or religious fervor; it just makes sense.

NYT: The Republican Party, at the national level in the last four years, has taken an accelerating interest in Catholic voters.

AB: Well sure, I think they see us as a natural ally on some of the cultural issues.

NYT: Yes

AB: As the Evangelicals are; as Orthodox Jews would be; as Muslims would be who are serious about their religious faith.

NYT: What do you think of that? They’re probably right. You are natural allies.

AB: We might be. It depends on where the Republican Party goes. If it goes in the wrong way, we won’t be natural allies. Political parties change their positions, Churches don’t and shouldn’t. If the Republican Party would stay with us on these issues, I think there would be sympathy there. If the Democratic Party would be with us on these issues, there would be sympathy there. If they both were, it would be a non-issue in the election perhaps. So, it’s not like we’re with Republicans, it’s that they’re with us.

NYT: I’m wondering if you’ve heard from them? Do they…people at the White House, at the campaign…

AB: I personally have not, I’ve not heard from them…I have some relationship with the White House because I’m a Commissioner for International Religious Freedom and I was appointed by the White House to that position. But that has nothing to do with this election, and it was done before this election became a prominent issue, and we don’t sit around discussing party politics at the commission level. But I have had no contact from the Republican Party locally or nationally on the religious issue. I’ve talked to Democrats and I’ve talked to Republicans and I’ve talked with Senator Daschle…

NYT: So…I guess I’m wondering what if any perspective you have on the efforts that the Republican Party has made to try to persuade more Catholics to abandon what…

AB: I think that’s what parties do. This is so silly. You know…the Republicans have been attacked recently I think for trying to get a hold of parish lists of Evangelical churches.

NYT: Yeah, they’re trying…

AB: Oh, they’re trying to get ours too? I didn’t know they were trying to get ours.

Well, what would you expect them to try and do? And the Democrats would try to do the same if they thought they would have a chance to use them, and that’s what parties do. What’s this “outrage”? It seems just too silly to me. Now would I ask my priests to give lists to either party? No! But if a member of a parish gives the parish list to a party, do I control that? No! I don’t think our pastor should be doing that, but you know, what do party activists do? They try to gain advantage. Why do you think there is so much outrage about that kind of thing? It’s just what they do; they get an Elks Club list, they get a church list…

NYT: Right

AB: …they get a telephone book. You know…it works. They get contacts.

NYT: People have special sensitivities about churches. They feel like, oh my gosh, I’m going to get up from church and receive mail from the parties and that’s terrible, but you and I both know that good machines can get a hold of those lists.

AB: And that’s what they should do, right? They should try…

NYT: That’s right. If I was a priest, I would try my best not to give a list away.

AB: I would too. But see they didn’t go and get it from the ministers; they wanted to get it from members of the community. So we have to be honest about that. If any of my priests gave those lists to a party, I would be upset. But if a member of parish does it, I can’t tell them what to do. Those are very public lists by the way. You can stop by a parish and pick up a parish directory.

NYT: Back to…a minute ago you said, “we’re not with the Republican Party, the Republican Party is with us”…

AB: On this issue…

NYT: On this issue, right.

AB: It’s not with us on some other issues.

NYT: Right

AB: So you have to weigh foundational issues against non-foundational issues perhaps. The calculus on who you are going to vote for is important and you have to take it very seriously. I have to pray about who I am going to vote for, I can’t presume anything until I get into the voting booth and I’m going to vote early by the way so I’m not going into a voting booth, but it won’t be a casual thing and I’ll probably go to chapel with my ballot.

NYT: I’d like to get you to handicap the chances that the Republican Party has…the way the two parties are currently lined up…what are the chances that the Republican Party has for making the sort of inroads they hope to make among observant Catholics?

AB: Well, I think if the Republican candidate is pro-life, he will attract a whole lot of Catholic voters. If a Democrat candidate is pro-life, he’ll attract a whole lot of Catholic voters. But if Rudy Giuliani is a Republican nominee the next go around, you’re going to see the Republicans screaming at the Church for making such a big issue of a pro-life matter, because — if I understand Mr. Giuliani’s position — he is in favor of abortion. So, people will notice that it just isn’t just a party thing for us. It’s not partisan, it’s issue. Of course, we hope for the conversion of all Catholic political politicians to live out what their Church teaches if they claim to be Catholics.

NYT: The last question is… there has been more and more cooperation between Protestants who are conservative on social issues and Catholics who are conservative on social issues. What do you think of that? Do you think that’s interesting?

AB: I haven’t seen it except on the issue. I haven’t seen cooperation extend to other areas of Church life. There is a commonality of issues that makes us allies on a particular issue, but has that led to…an ecumenical kind of…

NYT: No, no there is no Baptist saying Ave Marias…

AB: Or thinking that they are going to become Catholic someday…

NYT: But it’s novel even to see this degree of cooperation on the issues.

AB: I don’t think so. We have been cooperating on a lot of issues. It depends if there is the heart on the issues. For example, in Colorado, we have huge cooperation with the Mormons on the issues of family life and marriage — that we wouldn’t have with some of the mainline Protestant churches. Now we are much farther away from the Mormons than we would be from the Protestants [on doctrinal issues], and they would be far away from us from their perspective. They re-baptize anybody that becomes Mormon, and we re-baptize Mormons if they became Catholic, we don’t recognize even their baptism. We do recognize baptism with mainline Protestant Churches. So, we have issues, I don’t think it’s anything else but issues.

NYT: I talked to conservative Protestant organizers and they say, “years ago, if I were to hold a meeting on an issue like opposing same sex marriage, you would never get any Catholics to come because they’d think we would try and convert them, which we were.”

AB: I think people are becoming so worried about the cultural issues that it has broken down the distrust between one another. I think that’s clear. Because I am really worried about them too. I think these things are very worrisome. They are not something that might happen in the future, they are happening now. And again, abortion hasn’t gone away. And, I think a lot of Catholics thought that well after this initial phase, we will back away from it. But every time we try to begin partial birth abortion legislation — which would limit abortions — the court disembowels it, every time, every time. So, it’s not going away, it’s getting worse.

+ + + + +

(Source.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 10/15/04 08:07:45 AM
Categorized as Religious.


   

The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved.