DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,

Great Article. This is one area that we are in complete agreement on. Why doesn't the mainstream media pick this up? Why doesn't the scientific/ medical community give us the facts?

I have read that the adult stem cells have already led to cures and or treatments for some current diseases. But that so far they have not found any uses for Embryonic stem cells. Yet you have Kerry & Edwards, the press and celebrities out their distorting the facts..

Thanks Jay for doing an article on this subject.

Your brother in Christ,

Clem

I was thoroughly appalled when I heard the phrase “Culture of Life” come out of George Bush’s mouth during the last debate. He is a trickster indeed!

“[W]e must regain humility and recognize the limits of our powers, and most importantly, the limits of our knowledge and judgment. We have been making decisions, taking actions, and assigning values that are leading us away from the world as it should be, away from the design of God for creation, away from all that is essential for a healthy planet and a healthy commonwealth of people. A new approach and a new culture are needed, based on the centrality of the human person within creation and inspired by environmentally ethical behavior stemming from our triple relationship to God, to self, and to creation. Such an ethics fosters interdependence and stresses the principles of universal solidarity, social justice, and responsibility, in order to promote a true culture of life.
[Pope JP II, Rome -- Venice, 10 June 2002]”

The centrality of life – the human person WITHIN creation (!) – this is central to the mandate God has given us, the moral obligation behind the intricacies of the fostering of the Culture of Life. Our Pope draws the image very nicely here of the womb of creation which is presently under a vicious assault by the Bush administration. This earthly womb is the very womb within which LIFE is created to live!!

Indeed, while I may often stand a picket line with fellow pro-life demonstrators, it is a truly amazing thing to me how most of them (colleagues for the cause), are so illiterate when it comes to the degradation of the environment, and the imminent threat to it posed by Bush. The environment (the Earth) and human life are intricately connected and thoroughly constituent for a Culture of Life – as our Pope has made clear. And this has not simply to do with “environmental policy,” but global economic policy too (if not even more!!), and yes…WAR!

So long as it remains to our economic advantage to create and propagate economic monocultures in third world and developing countries, poverty will be the standard of living for the vast majority of people on the earth – and poverty is directly related to the destruction of the womb of creation as well as directly resulting in the “natural” abortion of unborn children by the thousands because of malnutrition.

Third World cultures that remain hope-less, rape “the land” of their ancestors in an endless (endless to our advantage) struggle to maintain an unbalanced (in America’s favor) economic connection with the West, esp. America. Folks, colonialism is alive and well today – and it requires no American to actually step foot in a foreign land.

I am convinced (sometimes, at my hope-less worse) that one day, when the atrocity of abortion is finally in the past, that the axe will have indeed already fallen on the Earth, on the environment, and in an unrecoverable way – partly because the Pro-life movement has failed (as it fails today) to recognize the entirety of what constitutes the Culture of Life. It is a dangerous myopia. The gross neglect of the womb of the Earth should be an imperative of every TRUE Pro-Life outlook. The longer it is not, the higher the axe is raised – if indeed, it has not already fallen.

Someone might retort, “But abortion is non-negotiable, and the environment is negotiable.” Fine! Does that excuse you from thoroughly negotiating and researching both issues? One should perhaps stay silent on all the issues if one too easily excuses one’s self from “the fray” by claiming “Negotiable! Negotiable!” I am truly thankful that our US Bishops & the Vatican have remained ambiguous on the issue of the 2004 vote, not caving into a myopic litmus test/single-issue perspective on the election. I suspect that they are aware of what is truly at stake. Jay, with due respect to you, this weblog appears to have become simply a tool to re-elect George Bush, and without engaging the span of the Culture of Life and all of the issues involved (beyond EWTNs big five – which is a simple litmus test).

Tom Ace, George Bush IS NOT Pro-Life. He may “vote” against the atrocity of partial-birth abortion, but his concessions in the case of rape and incest betray the politics behind his “pro-life” stance. He gathers the most votes possible that a nominally “pro-life” candidate can gather. He is nothing but an amoral fence sitter with respect to abortion. Nevertheless, for some, George Bush is the “logical” candidate. But I am not going to cast a vote based on “logic” – pedantic codeword here for “black and white” issuing, litmus testing. A much better guide is theo-logics. But that requires much more work that so very few are willing to engage in. But perhaps many do not enter into “the fray” because they might discover that what they find is as repulsive as any other atrocity leveled by humankind against itself.

A caveat is in order here: More often than not, the most deathly demon comes cloaked in domesticated garb, and so becomes even more deathly than it might have otherwise been.

Grace and peace.

Jack,

After seeing the candidates last night it was crystal clear. John Kerry did his dance about how he is personally against abortion but bottom line said he will UPHOLD the Constitution
and A Woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE. WHERE IS THAT IN
OUR CONSTITUTION. Would someone point it out to me?

George Bush was also VERY CLEAR. He said that he is for the Sanctity of Life. He is FOR childen's
rights, even the unborn. He clearly stated that he would actively work to do whatever he could to reduce abortions.

Jack, It is Clear from your posts that you have a dislike or a problem with George Bush. But as a Christian can you honestly vote for John Kerry?

Americans have a CLEAR CHOICE. Pro Death John F. Kerry or Sanctity Of Life George W. Bush...
I don't know what Ralph Nader believes but he has 0 chance of becoming President..

John Kerry may be fooling some people with his belng personally opposed to abortion. But God is
not fooled and God is Not Mocked... His very words will condemm him. He had the Gall to quote
scripture in James, Faith without works is dead.

Mr. Kerry can say he is personally against abortion, But WHERE are your WORKS Mr. Kerry?
Why did you vote Against partial birth abortion Mr. Kerry? Where are your works Mr. Kerry.

No The truth is Painfully clear Jack. If you or
anyone else proclaiming to be a Christian Votes
for John Kerry, They are passively giving their APPROVAL for abortion. I would not want those aborted babies souls on my conscience. A vote for Kerry is a vote against the unborn... Sorry to be so blunt but there is no other logical conclusion..

Your Brother in Christ

Clem

Jack,

I would like to add that is pretty easy to blame all of the world's ills on the US and its policies, more specifically Bush's policies. But the fact of the matter remains that the world is the way the world is for a reason. It was like this long before Bush came to office, and it will remain like this long after Bush is gone. John Kerry will not be able to change this fact, nor have I heard anything from him that suggests that he even wants to change this fact. The world will not change through better funding from the US. Not better environmental policies from the US. Not better education. Not even democracy. GASP! All these things will just not work in a society which is fundamentally corrupt at its core.

No. The ONLY thing that will change these societies is the gospel of Christ. Once people turn back to God and repent then and only then can they attempt to build a society on that solid foundation. It is unfortunate that the church (both Catholic and Protestant) has in the past neglected its duty. The blame for the state of the world lies completely in the church's lap. Because of this fact, I find in funny that the Pope writes what he does. How do we do these things that the Pope suggests? Does the Pope honestly think that of themselves, people will do things for the betterment of society as a whole and for the betterment of the future? As history repeatedly tells us and the failed experiment of the Soviet Union tells us, it just won't happen. Men are selfish, and outside of Christ, will only do things to benefit themselves, regardless of how it may affect their neighbors or their grandchildren.

So go ahead and vote to place Kerry in office, a person who seems to me to be absolutely godless no matter what kind of lip service he gives the Catholic Church, and see where the state of the world is in four years. I will wager that it will be as bad as, or worse than before.

I don’t now about the rest of the bloggers here, but I’ll go ahead and vote for Bush because I truly believe he seeks God’s wisdom in every decision he makes.
I’ll vote for Bush because he will place individuals on the Supreme Court that might actually do the job that they are put there for, to interpret the Constitution not remake it to their own liking.
I will vote for Bush because he seeks to protect innocent human life.
I will vote for Bush because he will defend this nation and my children, the only people who are, by the way, in his charge, the best way he knows how. Not because it is the popular thing to do, but because it is the right thing to do.
I will vote for Bush because he stands up for what he believes in, and then doesn’t back down.
I will vote for Bush because he will not give up any of the US’s sovereignty to the UN.
I will vote for Bush because he attempts to enact policies that actually hold people accountable for their lifestyles.
I will vote for Bush because he believes in the sanctity of marriage.
I will vote for Bush because more or better government isn’t the answer to life’s problems, Christ is.

. . . I could go on but I have run out of time.

If you want to call that a litmus test, then go right ahead.

Yes, I agree that it appears that Bush is lacking in one area, which is the environment. I get this impression due to the attacks I repeatedly hear from environmentalist and the mainstream press. (Not a stellar representation of people who you can trust by the way.) Not that it would dissuade me, but please give us some facts here to bolster your allegations.

In Christ,

Thomas

MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE JOHN PAUL II
FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE
WORLD DAY OF PEACE
1 JANUARY 1990

13. Modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its life style. In many parts of the world society is given to instant gratification and consumerism while remaining indifferent to the damage which these cause. As I have already stated, the seriousness of the ecological issue lays bare the depth of man's moral crisis. If an appreciation of the value of the human person and of human life is lacking, we will also lose interest in others and in the earth itself. Simplicity, moderation and discipline, as well as a spirit of sacrifice, must become a part of everyday life, lest all suffer the negative consequences of the careless habits of a few.
An education in ecological responsibility is urgent: responsibility for oneself, for others, and for the earth. This education cannot be rooted in mere sentiment or empty wishes. Its purpose cannot be ideological or political. It must not be based on a rejection of the modern world or a vague desire to return to some "paradise lost" . Instead, a true education in responsibility entails a genuine conversion in ways of thought and behaviour. Churches and religious bodies, non-governmental and governmental organizations, indeed all members of society, have a precise role to play in such education. The first educator, however, is the family, where the child learns to respect his neighbour and to love nature.

Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus
“It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards 'having' rather than 'being,' and which wants to have more, not in order to be more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself. It is therefore necessary to create lifestyles in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments....
Equally worrying is the ecological question which accompanies the problem of consumerism and which is closely connected to it. In their desire to have and to enjoy rather than to be and to grow, people consume the resources of the earth and their own lives in an excessive and disordered way. At the root of the senseless destruction of the natural environment lies an anthropological error, which unfortunately is widespread in our day. Humankind, which discovers its capacity to transform and in a certain sense create the world through its own work, forgets that this is always based on God's prior and original gift of the things that are. People think that they can make arbitrary use of the earth, subjecting it without restraint to their wills, as though the earth did not have its own requisites and a prior God-given purpose, which human beings can indeed develop but must not betray. Instead of carrying out one's role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, a person sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature, which is more tyrannized than governed by him....”

Reasons why I will not vote for Bush:

I truly believe he is disingenuous in his public appeals to God’s guidance in his decision making. Besides, the decisions he makes betray that he clearly is not seeking counsel with the divine. I believe the Pope genuinely appeals to God for decision making – not Bush.

Bush seeks only to protect American life, American self-interest, and this even above the millions of lives that comprise the majority of the Earth’s human population.

Bush seeks only to protect the people in “his charge,” thus ignoring a BASIC biblical principle: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The obvious answer is “Yes!” But not according to Bush. According to Bush, “I am my brother’s keeper only when my self-interests are served by such care.”

Bush stands up for very strange principles and beliefs: Principles of authoritarian power, self-interested domination, and self-assertion. He epitomizes that part of America that is naval-gazing, self-centered, self-interested, mean-spirited, entitled (to the bulk of the earth’s resources, and to impose its ideology on the rest of the world), and arrogant.

Bush rejects the idea of cooperation with/between other nations of the World. The UN might not be perfect, but it represents a human spirit of cooperation, brotherhood, care for “the orphan and the widow.”

Bush is the first President in the last 35 years who has totally cut ties/responsibility to the problem in the Middle East. He lets Sheron run amock…likely because Sheron is doing what Bush would do… “Talk? Ha!! No!…Kick Ass!”

Bush seeks to enact policies that protect an (American) consumer-driven lifestyle of conspicuous consumption; a lifestyle that accounts for 75% of the pollutants poisoning the planet; a lifestyle that consumes more than 60% of the earth’s resources while making up only a tiny percentage of the earth’s population.

Bush demonstrates a complete and utter disregard for God’s earth (It is NOT ours!), the womb of creation, without which life is simply not possible.

Bush has shamelessly co-opted our Church’s ideal for life embodied in the slogan “Culture of Life,” and all to garner as many votes as possible.

Bush somehow thinks that the life of an unborn innocent child conceived by rape or incest, is somehow NOT human life. Duplicitous at best!!

Bush engenders among his followers a false dichotomy between “government” and Christ. I wonder what the Prophet Isaiah might say to George Bush’s America – how it neglects the “orphan and the widow,” how it exercises a dominion that reaps what it does not sow, spoils/curses “the Land,” ignores the Sabbath rest, and engenders a rampant hope-less-ness among the earth’s impoverished and weak, and promulgates policies that directly result in the deaths of millions of people (and infants too) in the 3rd world – via sins of commission and omission.

Bush is not acceptable.

I am under no constraint of sin, as someone here suggested, to cast a vote for Bush. My conservative Catholic brothers and sisters may attempt to convince me that I must vote for either Bush or Kerry – but until either the Vatican or the USCCB directs me to vote for either one or the other, I will do as my faith-full conscience dictates on Nov. 2.

Clem & Thomas, you guys are unbelievable!!

Grace and peace.

www.vatican.va
http://www.newdream.org/
http://www.worldwatch.org/
http://www.usccb.org/

Jack,

“Modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its life style. In many parts of the world society is given to instant gratification and consumerism while remaining indifferent to the damage which these cause. As I have already stated, the seriousness of the ecological issue lays bare the depth of man's moral crisis. If an appreciation of the value of the human person and of human life is lacking, we will also lose interest in others and in the earth itself. Simplicity, moderation and discipline, as well as a spirit of sacrifice, must become a part of everyday life, lest all suffer the negative consequences of the careless habits of a few.”

Does the Pope honestly think that society will do this, on its own? Meaning no disrespect but when I read this I think that sometimes the Pope cannot see past the doors of the Church. Our modern day society is not Christian, nor does it adhere any longer to Christian morality. Man is sinful and will continue to act sinfully and selfishly. We cannot and will not get to the above point until we as a society have come to reliance on Christ and to repentance. The first and foremost responsibility of the church is to win souls for Christ and to disciple them into new creatures. When the church/Pope begins to speak about other things, when its own house is not in order, then there will be little or no effect, as we can readily see. This certainly wouldn't change no matter who sits in the oval office.

“An education in ecological responsibility is urgent: responsibility for oneself, for others, and for the earth. This education cannot be rooted in mere sentiment or empty wishes. Its purpose cannot be ideological or political. It must not be based on a rejection of the modern world or a vague desire to return to some "paradise lost" . Instead, a true education in responsibility entails a genuine conversion in ways of thought and behaviour. Churches and religious bodies, non-governmental and governmental organizations, indeed all members of society, have a precise role to play in such education. The first educator, however, is the family, where the child learns to respect his neighbour and to love nature.”

This is truely the wrong emphasis as no amount of environmental education will change the nature of man’s heart.

“It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards 'having' rather than 'being,' and which wants to have more, not in order to be more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself. It is therefore necessary to create lifestyles in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments....”

I agree with this. However, once again unless you have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in one’s life this just will not happen. If this world is all there is, then why not “Eat, Drink and Be Merry” and screw everyone that comes after us. Let them deal with the mess.

“Equally worrying is the ecological question which accompanies the problem of consumerism and which is closely connected to it. In their desire to have and to enjoy rather than to be and to grow, people consume the resources of the earth and their own lives in an excessive and disordered way. At the root of the senseless destruction of the natural environment lies an anthropological error, which unfortunately is widespread in our day. Humankind, which discovers its capacity to transform and in a certain sense create the world through its own work, forgets that this is always based on God's prior and original gift of the things that are. People think that they can make arbitrary use of the earth, subjecting it without restraint to their wills, as though the earth did not have its own requisites and a prior God-given purpose, which human beings can indeed develop but must not betray. Instead of carrying out one's role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, a person sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature, which is more tyrannized than governed by him....”

Yet this has been man’s modus operandi since the Garden of Eden. Aside from Christ why should we stop now?

My bottom line here is that the first and foremost, we must all, or at least a majority of us, agree on the proper worldview before we can implement these grandiose and good dreams of the Pope. Unfortunately we no longer live in this type of world . . . if we ever actually did. Since we don’t, these plans just won’t work. The foundation must be laid first, before it can be built upon.

As to the rest:

You said “I truly believe he is disingenuous in his public appeals to God’s guidance in his decision making.”

Based upon what evidence? Whenever I hear from people who have been around Bush they all, friend and foe alike, comment that he is sincere in his beliefs.

You said “Besides, the decisions he makes betray that he clearly is not seeking counsel with the divine.”

Just because Bush decisions don’t jive with your view of how the world works doesn’t mean Bush isn’t seeking divine help. Not to say that every decision of his is infallible . . . because to say that about any fallen and sinful human is patently ridiculous . . . ;) Sorry I couldn’t resist.

You said “Bush seeks only to protect American life, American self-interest, and this even above the millions of lives that comprise the majority of the Earth’s human population. Bush seeks only to protect the people in “his charge,” thus ignoring a BASIC biblical principle: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The obvious answer is “Yes!” But not according to Bush. According to Bush, “I am my brother’s keeper only when my self-interests are served by such care.”

So to coin a phrase from the New York Yankees, we truly are the world’s Daddy. Fortunately for us in the US, Bush has taken a vow when he became president to uphold the constitution of the US and defend the people of the US. Not uphold the UN constitution and defend the people of the world. Only after his obligations to the US are satisfied is he free to help the rest of the world, which he has done on numerous occasions.

You said “Bush stands up for very strange principles and beliefs: Principles of authoritarian power, self-interested domination, and self-assertion. He epitomizes that part of America that is naval-gazing, self-centered, self-interested, mean-spirited, entitled (to the bulk of the earth’s resources, and to impose its ideology on the rest of the world), and arrogant.”

When you say authoritarian power, self-interested domination, and self-assertion I assume you mean the war in Iraq. I see Bush doing the only thing that he knew to do based upon the situation and information that he had AT THE TIME. I love how Kerry, who had the same information, is unapologetic in his then support for the war, but then turns and criticizes Bush for the very same thing. As far as naval-gazing, self interested, mean-spirited, and entitled, please give examples. You may have misinterpreted arrogance with firmness and resolution.

You said “Bush rejects the idea of cooperation with/between other nations of the World.”

No. Bush rejects the idea of giving the France and Russia or for that matter any other nation veto power over issues that deal with the defense of this nation.

You said “The UN might not be perfect, but it represents a human spirit of cooperation, brotherhood, care for “the orphan and the widow.””

The UN also represents the propitiation of abortions, and all other kinds of evils across the globe. Thank God it is a weak institution.

You said “Bush is the first President in the last 35 years who has totally cut ties/responsibility to the problem in the Middle East. He lets Sheron run amock…likely because Sheron is doing what Bush would do… “Talk? Ha!! No!…Kick Ass!”

I don’t believe that this is true, as he has repeatedly attempted to rein Sheron in, although Bush has been distracted by other small things like 9/11.

You said “Bush seeks to enact policies that protect an (American) consumer-driven lifestyle of conspicuous consumption; a lifestyle that accounts for 75% of the pollutants poisoning the planet; a lifestyle that consumes more than 60% of the earth’s resources while making up only a tiny percentage of the earth’s population.”

Please give examples, of how Bush’s policies have encouraged this, and how Kerry’s would not do the same. Oh that’s right Kerry has a “plan”. Unfortunately we never hear what that “plan” actually is. I don’t think that what you have said is an indictment of Bush as much as it is on America in general. I agree with your assessment of our society, but once again things won’t change no matter who is in charge at the top, until we seek God.

You said “Bush demonstrates a complete and utter disregard for God’s earth (It is NOT ours!), the womb of creation, without which life is simply not possible.”

Please give me concrete examples. If this is true and it out weights all the other good that Bush does, then I might even consider changing my vote. In other words if Bush is secretly ordering a) the systematic burning of the world’s forest b) the salting the world’s fields c) the pollution of the earth’s waters and d) the pumping of pollutants into the world’s air for no other good reason than because he can, which causes the death of millions of individuals a year, and you can show to me that this wouldn’t still happen with Kerry in the White House, then this might out weight Bush’s stand on abortion.

You said “Bush has shamelessly co-opted our Church’s ideal for life embodied in the slogan “Culture of Life,” and all to garner as many votes as possible.”

Or maybe he just really believes it.

You said “Bush somehow thinks that the life of an unborn innocent child conceived by rape or incest, is somehow NOT human life. Duplicitous at best!!”

Considering the alternative, I don’t think that you have any standing to raise this issue.

You said “Bush engenders among his followers a false dichotomy between “government” and Christ.”

That was my dichotomy not Bush’s, and I believe that it is not false. God has clearly given certain responsibilities and authorities to certain institutions. Individuals, Families, Churches, and civil government. Sometimes that authority and those responsibilities overlap, but many times they do not. It is the civil government’s responsibility to defend its people, protect the general environment, and uphold the law, when the church or individuals get into this business it always winds up bad. It is the individual’s and the church’s responsibility to feed the widows and care for the poor, when the government gets into this business it always winds up bad.

I am still baffled at how you as a Catholic can in good conscience consider voting for Kerry.

In Christ,

Thomas

"George Bush was also VERY CLEAR. He said that he is for the Sanctity of Life. He is FOR childen's
rights, even the unborn. He clearly stated that he would actively work to do whatever he could to reduce abortions."
Really?
There have been 52,000 MORE abortions under Bush compared to Clinton. Read here.

if that figure is true i would think it would have to more with the rise in population than policies of the presidents. More people = more abortions.

Forgive me for sounding like a broken record, but I'll say it again anyways. Jack has NEVER said he plans to vote for Kerry, Jack has REPEATEDLY said Kerry does not deserve his vote or any Catholic vote.

Jack rejects the idea that this binds his conscience to vote for Bush. Given the choice between voting for Stalin and Hitler, would Catholics be forced to vote for Hitler because Stalin promoted Communism? Hardly.

Although we can sometimes justify war and capital punishment, the Roman Catholic Church condemned the war in Iraq as immoral. The Pope has also said that given modern methods of incarceration, no current nation on earth can claim their practice of capital punishment as just.

While the Pope has not bound the consciences of the faithful on capital punishment and just war, he also has not imbued the faithful with the charism of infallibility on these issues.

While we can clearly not vote for Kerry, we should exercise caution before concluding that we MUST vote for Bush. Does it really make sense to say that because the Pope has not forced us to avoid supporting Bush, then we must force each other to support Bush?

Catholics could in good conscience refuse to vote, vote for Nader, spoil the ballot, or write "Saint Thomas More, pray for us" (patron saint of politicians) on the ballot without entering into a state of grave sin.

If I could vote in an American election, I would probably vote Bush but with extreme reluctance. I certainly would not embrace him as a wonderful president.

Jack, Richard Et Al,

If you are a US Citizen and are of voting age you have five choices :

1.Vote for Kerry
2.Vote for Bush
3.Vote for Nader
4.Write in a name
5. Don't Vote at all

If you choose (1) you are voting for someone who will do nothing to stop abortion or partial birth abortions. He will also seek permission and approval from the U.N. before we do anything to fight the war on terror.

If you choose (3) you are in essence voting for Kerry .

If you choose (4) or (5) it is a form of protest but what does it accomplish?

If you vote for (2) you know where you stand.
Kerry is on both sides of any issue whereas Bush
has positions that are clear and he backs them up with action ..

The Democrats have blocked any Bush appointments for Judges using a parlaimentary manuver. It has been predicted that the balanace of power in the House and the Senate will probably stay in Republican control so even if Kerry does get in He will not be able to get any of his programs passed for at least two years until the congressional elections happen again.

Jack and others are so concerned about the environment. Well read the Saturday edition of the Chicago Tribune. They endorse Bush and they give very logical reasons why.

If Kerry gets in the terrorists are NOT just going to go away.. Terrorism is the new threat.
If one of these terrorists gets a suitecase or a dirty bomb and sets it off in a major US City it will Kill many more than those killed on 911.

Read the book the Shadow War. It is written by a non biasd investigative reporter. He was interviewed on Saturday. His research showed that since 911 the US has killed over 3000 Al Queda. These terrorists have been found in over 100 countries. The book also details numerous tharted plots of terrorism here and abroad.

If a city is destroyed by an atomic device our ecconomy will be devestated, the ecology will be
damaged and jobs will be lost. Over One Million jobs were lost as a direct result of 911. Our airline industry was severely damaged because of that attack. Just think of the devestation if a city like New York or Chicago, Or Washington D.C. were destroyed by an atomic device...

For me our Safety is my Number One concern..
I would not feel safe with John Kerry as our President. He is too wishy Washy. He is too concerned about doing what is popular than doing what is right. He would be too busy trying to pass this global test, rather than acting..

We can no longer afford to wait until we are attacked before we do something. Next time it may be Much worse. We must go on the offensive as Bush has done.

So, I will vote for life. The lives of the unborn and the lives of those living in this country.. George Bush is not perfect and I don't agree with all of his policies either. But, I trust him to do what is best for our security and for the sanctity of life. If these terrorists want to meet Alah. I have no problem with our government using our armed forces to arrange the meeting.

They want to kill us . We are all infidels and if you are not a radicle Muslim then you are their enemy. These people are like the Terminator. They just keep coming. WE need a strong leader.. That is NOT John Kerry...

A Concerned Christian,

Clem

Clem,

You would know where you stand regardless of which candidate you voted for IF YOU BOTHERED TO TAKE THE TIME AND REALLY DIG INTO WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS WORLD, WHAT THE UNITED STATES' ROLE IN THIS WORLD IS, AND WHAT THIS PRESENT ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN/IS UP TO - AND WHAT THE CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE SUGGEST WHAT THEIR ALTERNATIVES ARE.

My concern for you - and many other voters Catholic, Christian, or not, who simply consider only one or two, or five issues at a naively simplistic level - is that you know much less than you think you know, and will vote on that basis.

That asside, no one should cave to your reductionistic reasoning that well nigh makes the democratic process a pile of dung.

In Christ.

Jack,

After all the sarcasm and condiscention you had the nerve to sign it in Christ.. The ultimate Oximoron. We are all so stupid and you are all knowing Jack.... How do you know what I know or don't know... Are you a Mind reader? Do you have super natural powers??

You keep ranting about The ecology, the UN and the Pope. Why don't you enlighten us all on who
we should vote for, or what we should do to fix
the Ecology and the Pope.

You don't like Bush Fine. You don't like Kerry
Fine... You don't like Nader fine....

The point is Jack those are our choices like it or not...

You can write in a name and spoil your ballot or you can choose to sit out the election all together. Jack those are all the choices.. I don't think I missed any .... I gave the reason why I am voting for Bush... You don't like my choice or you think it is a stupid choice , that's your opinion and you are entitled to it..

I don't believe you ever shared with us if you are planning to vote and who you plan to vote for..

It sounds like you think the US and the Catholic church are the blame for all of the Problems in the world... ?

For someone who has all of this insight and knowledge it's sad that you have to resort to
Name calling and condisention to get your point accross.

Clem,
Likewise, I offered reasons why I cannot – in good faithful conscience – render a vote for George Bush, just as you offered reasons why you will.

I did not mean to come across to you, or anyone else, as condescending – and certainly not sarcastic. That said, I have (lately) very little patience for those whose talk about their politics appears to be narrow minded, myopic, or simply based on only 1 or 5 issues. The world we live in so much more intricate – and the death we all want to avert comes today in subtle and more deadly forms.

Clem, my protests to you are mostly to your attempts to convince folks that they have no other actual moral option than to vote for George Bush. Your suggestion that a vote for Nader, or Peroutka, or Cobb, or Badnarik, et al, are essentially votes for John Kerry – is the problem. Moreover, your comment that with Bush you know where you stand implies that one cannot know where they stand unless they vote for Bush.

Unlike you Clem, my #1 issue is not “our safety.” The tragedy of 9/11 brought the US a step (still a very small step) closer to the experience(s) of the rest of the World. We are not insulated anymore! We Americans have been brought closer to the experiences of the majority of the planet’s people by this tragedy. And I am convinced that attempts to insulate ourselves – attempts that are ultimately at the expense of others – are seriously sinful attempts to protect a(n) (American) lifestyle of conspicuous consumption that the earth and the people on it (esp. in the third world) cannot sustain. Bush stands for this pre-9/11 lifestyle “at every expense” and “by any means.”

We are our brothers’ keepers! This is a biblical mandate writ heavy into the Genesis narratives. Bush is only interested in “keeping” those brothers of ours that have resources of “vital interest” to our nation. And for those who argue that “we can’t take care of the world UNTIL we’re finished securing ourselves,” it simply needs to be pointed out that world/human history illustrates we will never reach that “plateau” of self-security – thus this becomes only an excuse to passively maintain status quo. We need to stick our necks out and re-join the human race.

My #1 issue is the nurturing of the Culture of Life to its fullest – in all of its intricacies, emanations, and possibilities.

I apologize for offending you, and perhaps others here.

In Christ.

Jack,

I respectfully disagree with your ascertion that the US takes and does not give anything back in return.

Jack we must remember that this is a fallen world. It is under the curse. That curse will not be lifted until Jesus comes back to reclaim the earth from the control of Satan.

Our churches send missionaries to hundreds of countries. We have sent food to hundreds of countries when they undergo disasters.

Yes our country does things that benefit us. All countries do that. But we don't just take. We give back too. America is the first One to offer a hand. We are the first one called when a country is in trouble. We also bear the higher costs proportionaly than other countries.

Let's look at Iraq for example. We could have secured the oil fields and taken the oil. We were accused of going in there to steal the oil.
I have not read anything about us getting the Iraqi oil. If that were the case gas prices would be going down rather than us paying over $2.00 per gallon. If the administration wanted to gain an advantage wouldn't it make sense for them to do something to get the cost of oil down?

Instead we liberated the Iraqi people from Suddam Hussain. We are spending Millions of dollars to rebuild the infastructure of that country. Schools, Power plants, Clean Water. You only see and hear the negative things from the Biased news media in the US.

Ask the soldiers there what we are doing. They are there to help. Are there some bad eggs there? Sure there are but you find that in any organization. You can not condemm the whole armed forces for the actions of a few..

Now you may not agree with my assessment and that is your perogative. Is America perfect ?
Of course not. Have we made mistakes? Sure we have.

You may have some insight into wrong doing in the Bush administration , but there was wrong doing in the Clinton administration too.. They could have gotten Bin Laden at least four times but they let him go... Just think if they had arrested him when they had the chance maybe 911
would not have happened.

I am sure if you go back and check past administrations, Democrat and Republican you will find some wrong doing... There was probably some wrong doing in George Washington and Abraham Lincoln's administrations.

If you vote for someone other than the two main candidates that's your business.. You have the freedom secured with the blood of brave American arned forces to vote however you please without
threat or coertion.

Jack, the Number #1 problem in our world right now is terrorism. It is world wide. They want to kill anyone who is not a fundamentalist Muslim. You kill one and ten more pop up like rats. They don't care about you or me. They are brainwashed to hate... They hate our way of life. They live in countries where a few are rich from oil and the rest live in poverty. Instead of the people rising up against their oppressors they are brainwashed to hate the west and our way of life. Their God is a God of Hate.

If we are not vigilante to keep these crazies from getting a suitcase Nuke or a dirty bomb or to keep them out of our Nuclear power plants...
If they succeed in setting off a nuclear device
in one of our cities our way of life will be devestated... It will not just affect the US but it will affect the whole world, especially the poor.

Jack, Jesus said the poor will always be with you. I am not saying we should not try to help the poor, but there are always going to be poor until Jesus returns... For as long as there has been civilization there have been poor and poverty. With all the worlds gadgets and inovations we have not gotten to the Star Trek
Utopia of wiping out poverty..

It is very noble to try and wipe out poverty and make the world a better place...

I don't think Bush or Kerry are evil men. They have agenda's but I don't think either one wants to dominate the world or has some evil intent.
I get the impression that you believe Bush and the United States are Evil or self serving..?

We had four huricanes in Florida, I did not hear about any foreign countries sending the victoms any aid, or food or money??

But you always hear about the US helping other countries when there is a disaster. We are always first to send Food, money and people to help...

We both know where the other stands on this election and why we are voting for the candidate
of our choice.

My sincere prayer is that the Lord continues to have mercy rather than send judgment upon this country. My prayer is that God will guide whoever is elected president in two weeks..

Amen..

Clem

Jack,

You have talked about these mysterious other evil things that the US, under the direction of the Bush administration, is doing in the world, that we are not taking into consideration when considering our vote. However, you have not enlightened us on what these things may be. Please let us in on what you know. Besides the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, what are these actions.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas, I’ve stated my reasons for why a vote for Bush is – in my opinion – impossible. I have offered no less than others here in terms of “evidence” to support my decision.

I think that a voting decision should be based on a reasonably committed “resolve” (to borrow vocabulary from the President) to do the necessary research, to follow the relevant trends over the course of several years, and to reasonably and prayerfully assay “the writing on the wall” based on those trends. One might read newspapers such as The Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, & the Christian Science Monitor; journals such as the Africa Report, Development and Change, Foreign Policy, Congressional Digest, and Congressional Quarterly, and others; and/or, even consult websites for trend/think tanks like World Watch and the Pew Research Center. Of course, these suggestions take for granted that one should consult the Vatican web site, and the USCCB. At the very least, one has the factcheck.org site to get the relatively “straight skinny” about this embarrassing presidential campaign (both Bush and Kerry have so deceptively mangled "the facts" that neither of them can or shouold be trusted! Deceptively mangling facts is nothing less than out right lying, in my view).

You see, it is much easier to remain un-informed by being informed only by political parties, special interest groups, or (God forbid!) the Nightly News, Fox Report, CNN. If one has the ability to go beyond such surface information, I believe one is obliged to do this. But if one does that, s/he may not like what they find out – especially about the United States. This does not necessarily mean that someone doing this work will become anti-American. Chances are, such an individual has a vision for America that is far more closely in touch with what the founding fathers hoped for, and even what the Holy Mother Church hopes for the entire world!!

Nationalism wearing blinders must be put aside, as well as uninformed, myopic moralism.

Peace!

Jack,

In the past, I may not have agreed with you on every post, but normally you are very accurate and fact driven when you have posted, which I for one, appreciate. On this issue however it seems you emotionally spout the typical liberal rhetoric, but can't back up your claims.

The fact remains that there are millions of innocent babies that are being ripped apart and sucked out of their mother’s womb in this country each and every year. This is being done out of mere convenience! There are millions more killed in the same way throughout the world. I think that you make too light of this issue, and dismiss it too easily. This is by far the single greatest atrocity ever committed by man since the beginning of history. Greater than what is being done to the environment, greater than what happened in Germany during World War II, greater than slavery, greater than all the atrocities of the past combined.

We have the opportunity to elect a man that seems to be willing to do everything within his power to stop abortions. The only other viable option is a man who will not only not stop it, but put into place policies that will fund it and encourage it.

Just on this issue alone we should have a very strongly inclination to vote for Bush. (However, I agree with Bush on most other issues as well.)

You have attempted to make your case that there is indeed a great reason not to vote for Bush. I think that your reasoning is weak and without merit. What you have done, is make accusation after accusation without even one example to back up what you have said, nor given us one shred of proof. You tell us to read magazine and newspapers and look at trends. The only trend I need to look at is the trend of millions of babies being brutally murdered each and every year. You argue that this is just more US-centric thinking. I say that this is where we live and breath, and our first and foremost responsibility. Do we have a responsibility to the rest of the world? Yes! For to much that is given, much will be required. However, our responsibility is to the US first, and we must clean up this atrocity in our own back yard, before we have the moral standing clean up anyone else’s.

In Christ,

Thomas

I understand your passion Thomas. It is a passion I share, though you apparently do not think I do (nor could you; this is only a Blog).

The difference, I think, between you and I is that I have learned to survey the wider panorama of issues that are directly related to the Culture of Life – if indeed we ever really will realize such a culture in this country – and NOT at the expense of other lives on the planet. [I don’t have much hope in what we can/might do – but I do have hope in what God can do]. Viewing the wider portrait did not come easy since I am appalled by the ease and brutality of abortion in our present culture.

Maybe 20-25 years ago, I believe we would have had (again, “maybe”) the luxury to focus only on the one issue of abortion, as a responsible “interest group” exercising its political muscle during an election. However, since then, I have slowly recognized how our Nrth American lifestyle literally bleeds the planet, and many of its people, of life and resources. The days of “single issue politics” are long over – the world is a much more deadly – intricately deadly place.

You demand “statistics,” (numbers??) to give my arguments “merit.” Statistics recording the deaths of millions of men, women, children (and spontaneously aborted children due to mal-nutrition) are not easy to generate given the contexts from which they emerge. But you can access information that unveils the tragedy wreaked by globalization – and the US stands to gain (or loose) the most from globalization. Really Thomas, if you don’t believe that there are folks in Washington right now, who will do anything, ANYTHING to protect and advance America’s economic interests – you are closing your eyes.

Based on the Bush administration’s record on the environment (local & world wide rolling back of environmental legislation), and on the economy (local & esp. global), and yes, his ideologically driven “Nation Building,” I simply cannot vote for him.

If you want the information Thomas, you can get it. Or not! If you want to though, you can start with the following two eye-opening articles, and by visiting World Watch’s website and the Pew Research Center’s too. Or not!

WORLD SUMMIT OPENS WITH CALL TO END POVERTY, SAVE RESOURCES
LAURIE GOERING, CHICAGO TRIBUNE. Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Aug 27, 2002. pg. A.10

Give More U.S. Aid...; What's needed is a U.S.-led Marshall Plan for the Third World
Michael Hirsh. Newsweek. (International ed.). New York: Oct 8, 2001. pg. 50

The last line of your response spells out the clearest difference between you and I. Have you not read history??? We will NEVER be able to “clean up” the atrocities in our own back yard to the point where we will have the moral standing to act as “our brother’s keeper.” That is an excuse for non-action world-wide; maintenance of the deadly status quo.

And another thing ;-)…I’m too old to care about accusations of “typical liberal rhetoric.” The rhetoric flies thick in every issue that generates deep passions – and yes, this is indeed “a year for passion”!!

Grace & peace.

Jack,

In reading your post I am getting a better picture of where you are coming from. Yes our North American lifestyle has become very selfish and in many ways are society paralels the Roman Empire.. There are greedy corporations that are only concerned about the bottom line..

Globaliztion is going to hurt this country in the end because other counties are willing to produce the goods and services for a lot less cost. Unions keep asking for more and companies can not afford to pay the workers and sell their products at a profit so they move their operation over seas..

Bush may well have some bad policies. Everything you say may be factual...

Jack, if we read the bible especially the book of Revelation it is pretty clear that the world is going to go to hell in a hand basket until the Anti-Christ comes on the scene and makes things better for a short time. Look at the bowl judgments and the trumpet judgments. It's going to get a lot worse until Jesus returns to renew the earth and reign for 1000 years..

Before all of these horible things happen certain scenarios have to take place. After all God allows kings and rulers to reign. It is all part of His Master plan that we are not privy to.

Maybe it is God's plan for Kerry to win to put certain events into motion ? Maybe Geoge Bush is the the one to set things into motion with a second term ?

It sounds like you may be voting for a libertarian or some other candidate that is more in line with your views.. I can not in good conscience vote for Kerry. I guess I am not enlightened enough or bold enough to vote for an unknown candidate..

Thanks for the explanation though. I may not agree with your choice but I respect your boldness to vote outside the box...

George Bush may have some bad policies. But I believe he is a man of conviction. I don't think it's all an act. He has followed through on attempting to stand up for the unborn. An I truly respect him for that.

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Clem,

I appreciate your kind reconciliatory words.

At times it does seem like this world is “goin’ to hell in a bucket.” And unfortunately, many people who (at times) feel this way too, fall into hopelessness and despair, and sometimes then, immobility.

But we know the final outcome even when we are constantly reminded of the un-redeemed-ness of the world – until God comes.

So, in the face of such hopelessness, we can hope against hope – for indeed, who hopes for what one sees? And in the face of the broken-ness of creation – and all of the terrible symptoms of that broken-ness – we are compelled by Christ to “do justice (!), love kindness, and walk with God!”

Blessings!

1) President Bush is funding surgical abortions via Medicaid (Title XIX) in the HHS Appropriations bills: [see bills below at http://thomas.loc.gov]

Check out HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush (PL 107-116) on Jan. 10, 2002

Check out HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush (PL 108-109) on Jan. 23, 2004

2) President Bush is funding chemical abortions via Medicaid (Title XIX) and the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding program: [see bills below at http://thomas.loc.gov]

Check out HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush (PL 107-116) on 1/10/2002

Check out HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush (PL 108-109) on 1/23/2004

3) President Bush is funding the nation's largest perpetrators of child-murder-by-abortion, Planned Parenthood (report murdering over 200,000 unborn children annually by surgical abortion alone), through both Medicaid (Title XIX) and Title X, with OVER $50 MILLION per year through each program: [see bills below at http://thomas.loc.gov]

Included in HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush (PL 107-116) on 1/10/2002

Included in HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush (PL 108-109) on 1/23/2004

4) President Bush has increased the Title X funding levels over $26,000,000 more than the last Clinton budget:
The Title X funding level for FY 2001, the last Clinton-influenced budget, was a total of $254 million, of which over $58 million went to planned parenthood

In FY 2002, George W. Bush's first full budget year, the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding authorization increased over 11,000,000, to $265 million (HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush on 1/10/2002)

In FY 2004, George W. Bush's most recently completed full budget year, the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding authorization increased even more to $280 million, over $26,000,000 ($26 million) more than Bill Clinton's last budget year! (HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush on 1/23/2004)

Conclusion # 1: George W. Bush did not speak the truth to Americans last night (10/8/04) in the Second Presidential Debate.

Conclusion # 2: George W. Bush is NOT Pro-LIfe!

Geraldo,

1.I work for the Federal Government. Bush did not
author those spending bills.

2. Bush does not have a line item veto. Those bills fund federal agencies budgets and some of the increases in spending are automatic.
I do budget planning for our agency...

Don't look at a bill and jump to a conclusion...
It's not as black and white as you paint it...

Before you post figures get all the facts...

Did he sign the ban on Partial birth abortion?
Yes... Has he tried to appoint conservative judges to the bench ? Yes ...

Has he supported and pushed abstinance programs ?
The answer is Yes...

Those bills fund agencies and if he did not sign them the agencies would have to close down...
It is not as cut and dried as you portray it...

Clem

Post a comment