Logo

Cry of the Poor
"How can it be that even today there are still people dying of hunger? Condemned to illiteracy? Lacking the most basic medical care? Without a roof over their heads? . . .


"Christians must learn to make their act of faith in Christ by discerning His voice in the cry for help that rises from this world of poverty."
Pope John Paul II
Novo Millennio Ineunte, no. 50

Upcoming events

Why register?
All Christians and people of all faiths are welcome here!
If you want to post in forums without moderator approval, or submit blog entries, you will need to CREATE AN ACCOUNT BELOW by simply entering a username and email address. Trouble registering? We'll help: info[at]catholicsfordemocracy.org

User login
· Create new account
· Request new password

Essential Links
USCCB Faithful Citizenship
NETWORK Catholic Lobby
Democrats for Life
Bread for the World
Catholic Charities USA
Pax Christi USA
Franciscans International -- a United Nations NGO



Democracy for America
Join Democracy for America!
Follow the Webby Award People's Choice: Blog for America

Government Websites
The White House
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Supreme Court

Catholic Political & News Sites
Catholics for Kerry 04
Kerry Catholics
Catholics for Kerry Yahoo!
In Today's News

The Nation Weblogs
· Capital Games: New Evidence Undermines Swift Vets' Attack on Kerry
· Daily Outrage: Apocalyptic Revelations
· Daily Outrage: Abooga Rooga?
· Capital Games: Attack on Kerry Springs a Leak
· Editor's Cut: Dean's Dozens
· ActNow!: The People's Guide
· Daily Outrage: Of Mice and Men
· ActNow!: Life After Capitalism
· Editor's Cut: Protecting Every Vote
· Capital Games: Wrong for the CIA--UPDATED

Queen of Peace

Pray for Us!


Why should a Catholic vote for Dean?
Core facts:
- 24,000 people died from hunger today, and 1 billion others are on the verge of joining them. We need a government willing to work with the rest of the world to address such global crises.
- The lives of 90,000 unborn children worldwide were ended today, so we need to work as Catholics to dramatically reduce the number of abortions in practical ways first (and focus on theoretical debates later), as Howard Dean did in Vermont.
- Bush raised $130 million last year, mostly in $2000 chunks from special interests. Howard Dean embodied campaign finance reform by raising $40 million in bits averaging only $77 from hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, leaving his campaign completely beholden to them, to us.

Catholic social teaching stresses that God's kingdom of justice, peace, and love will come and replace our current society only when each individual strives for holiness and each heart is converted to Christ's way of forgiveness and self-giving love. No economic system or political saviour is going to solve all our problems.

That said, the President of the United States has tremendous influence in our country and throughout the world--especially in these days of one unequalled superpower. (We should probably allow people throughout the world to vote for the U.S. President, considering how much influence we have over them.) It is of the utmost importance, then, for every Catholic to consider what kind of country and world we are helping to create by casting our votes for a particular candidate.

Our current President has
- deepened divisions in this country after campaigning as a uniter;
- showered advantages on the richest of the rich at the expense of the rest of us after running as compassionate; and
- after expressing disdain for "nation-building" during his campaign, he inspired fear and hate for America throughout the world by attacking Iraq on false premises.

Gov. Howard Dean, M.D., opposed the war in Iraq from the start, citing the utter lack of reliable evidence that Iraq was either itself an imminent threat to us or providing support to terrorists who were. He supports repealing the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy so that we will have a solid financial foundation for
- making healthcare affordable for all,
- actually providing the resources needed to strengthen our nation's schools, and
- supporting small businesses with an economic stimulus package that actually provides new jobs.

Of particular interest to Catholics, Dean exhibits a consistent commitment to justice.
- He will create a National Housing Trust fund to help urban communities address the alarming fact that one in seven households pays more than half its income on housing costs, lives in substandard conditions, or both.
- He supports including conditions in our trade pacts requiring other countries to both recognize the rights of workers to organize and meet minimal environmental standards, which would protect the poor in other countries and help keep American jobs here.
- He will reform farm subsidies so that they go only to the small farmers who need the help, and not to the giant agribusinesses monopolizing the world market and adding to problem of global hunger by putting local farmers out of business.
- He will replace the industry executives Bush has appointed to run the government agencies designed to regulate industries, with true industry watchdogs willing to protect the environment and protect workers from tragedies like Enron.
- Dean is calling for a national discussion about lingering racial divisions and the embarrassing wage gap between men and women performing comparable jobs.
- He was the first governor to sign legislation recognizing same-sex civil unions, ending discrimination against homosexuals and challenging us to end hateful or disparaging attitudes toward Americans with homosexual orientations.
- He has reached out in a special way to Native Americans, whose treatment by our government is perhaps the darkest part of our nation's history.

Unfortunately, Dean is pro-choice. He opposed the partial-birth abortion ban and has even been affiliated with Planned Parenthood (though it is certain he has not performed any abortions himself.) This angers me. I am completely opposed to these positions of Dean's and I have communicated that to his campaign. Abortion is a horrible tragedy involving millions of innocent lives, and Catholics are right to be deeply concerned about it. I speak of this issue last not because it is less important but because it is indeed the most important and I hope you will remember what I have to say about it.

The main point I have to make about this issue is that Catholics have no presidential candidate to turn to who shares their views on abortion. President Bush is unable to convince his own wife of the pro-life position, he is poised to appoint the pro-choice Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court as soon as he gets the chance, and he has failed to act in any way to reduce the number of abortions that occur, both while in Texas and as President, except for the few partial-birth abortions that are not done to save the life of the mother (but he passed that bill knowing that it would be immediately suspended by the courts). Bush actually supports the "right" of victims of rape and incest to kill their unborn child. His neglect and even active disenfranchisement of the poor makes it all the more difficult for poor mothers to choose life. His promotion of abstinence-only education is a large step in the wrong direction with respect to reducing the number of abortions. (Abstinence-only is the right policy where AIDS transmission is concerned, and I personally oppose contraception and support greater emphasis of the many benefits of abstinence, but folks who irresponsibly engage in sex outside of a permanent commitment should be taught how to avoid creating a third victim of their harmful act.) Finally, if Bush really shared our view that abortion is the most tragic and pressing problem facing our nation today, why did he altogether decline to even mention abortion in this recent State of the Union Address? Catholics must ask whether they should let Bush's half-hearted claim to be "pro-life" decide their vote for President.

Because no candidate for president appears willing to provide the bold leadership needed to make this country fully pro-life, I believe the first priority of the pro-life movement in the short-term should be to immediately adopt policies aimed at preventing unwanted pregnancies and helping women to choose life. This is the proper response to the fact that 4,000 abortions occur every day -- to act quickly and pragmatically to dramatically reduce that horrendous number and save as many lives as we can. We should also continue the wider debate about outlawing abortion (especially by challenging the Democratic party's obscene zero-tolerance policy toward pro-life politicians on the national level), but we must acknowledge the general legal debate as a longer term project (with a Constitutional ammendment as its goal).

You may be relieved to learn, then, that Gov. Dean worked tirelessly to decrease teen pregnancies (4 in 10 of which end in abortion) in Vermont by 49%. He also started an innovative program to have health professionals visit new parents during the first year after birth to reassure young mothers that they are not alone and help them with anything they need. Dean has already announced his intention to extend these successful initiatives to the whole nation. Dean's other bold programs for addressing the needs of the poor would also do much to both prevent the desperation and ignorance that leads to unwanted pregnancies and help those women who do become pregnant against their wishes to choose life for their child.

You can read more detailed arguments and the thoughts of others like you in the Abortion Forum, and please contribute your own arguments and opinions. Please do give this issue the consideration it deserves, but remember that it is difficult to use it as a crutch to support President Bush at all costs when it is evident that another Bush term will not benefit the unborn in any significant way, and when it is so clear that the costs related to other life issues will be terrible in scope.


Governor Dean demonstrated his willingness and political ability to act on his principles in a variety of ways in Vermont, where he was re-elected decisively five times. He maintained a balanced budget throughout, even while providing universal healthcare to children (in a state with below-national-average per capita personal income).

Since Howard Dean is the only major candidate who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning (as Pope John Paul II did so strenuously), it would seem that only he is fit to make the tough judgments required by national security issues. He would have fostered the good will of the world toward America after Sept. 11 and strengthened diplomatic ties and international law, rather than trampling on them all. He would have relied on unbiased intelligence rather than shaping intelligence to fit ideological needs and then still lying about the results. He would have spent our nation's attention and resources finding and fighting the real threat to our nation -- Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Finally, it seems to me that Howard Dean is not only capable of beating Bush, but he may be the only Democratic candidate capable of taking back our country from Bush. Everyone seems to be assuming that Mr. Kerry and the other more typical, establishment candidates have a better chance than Dean of competing with Bush. But the way to beat Bush is not by imitating him -- whether you are talking about his foreign policy "experience" of supporting the Iraq war, his skill at soliciting funds from powerful donors with implicit promises of favoritism, or his "slick" ability to win political support by making promises he will not keep. The way to beat George Bush is by giving people a reason to come out and vote by offering them a real alternative, by energizing them, and by empowering them to change this country forever.

I challenge you to learn more about Howard Dean. Share your findings and your thoughts on this website, designed for you to do just that. If you come to support Dean, tell everyone you know why you do, and let's take our country back!

"The biggest lie spoken by politicians on platforms like this is, 'Elect me, and I'll solve all your problems.' But the truth is, the power to change this country lies in your hands, not mine."
- Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.
add new comment · 2203 reads

Comment viewing options:
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to submit your changes.
Browse 66 comments:
»1« • 2 • next
There are more than 50 comments in this node. Use these links to navigate through them.

Comparison of Bush to St. Michael and Cheney to Belzebub 
Comment added by Unregistered on Thu 13 May 2004 - 18:08 h  
Excellent new political commentary online! It is called SG - Fuel for Thought, and is at http://sexygasoline.com/politics.

Recently the author, Roger Conway, wrote two great article comparing Bush to St. Micheal and Cheney to Belzebub. Here is an excerpt from teh Demonic Duo - I:

"Bush clearly sees himself as an earthly co-agent of Michael, fighting God’s war against Satan, what he calls the “evildoers”. But his Bible reading circle seems to have spent insufficient time on Exodus.
Exodus, 20:3-4 indicates that pure believers will have no other god/s and that includes making idols, especially of oneself. These admonishments constitute the first commandment. A violation is a sin against the true God. Check back to the quotation from Bush, in which he equates himself with God (“you can count on both of us as a powerful message”). One’s language reveals so much about one’s self-image. The Greeks called it hubris; Christians call it heresy. And a heretic by any other name is the enemy…or evildoer."

The two articles are great, and reccommend them to all of you.
Part one is at: http://www.sexygasoline.com/politics/archives/000044.html
Part two at: http://www.sexygasoline.com/politics/archives/000046.html

Whole site is great! http://www.sexygasoline.com/politics 
reply to this comment

Dean's Comments Regarding the FCC Investigation 
Comment added by Unregistered on Wed 4 Feb 2004 - 07:51 h  
"I think the FCC is being pretty silly about investigating this" is a direct quote from Dean about the FCC investigation regarding the completely inappropriate behavior of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake during the Superbowl halftime show. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT SEE THE NEED FOR THIS INVESTIGATION!!! Does Dean have any children by any chance?! Any children that saw that disgusting display??? I do and enough is enough. PLEASE tell me that Dean does not see that behavior as acceptable!!! I do not want a man running this country who lacks morals. We have had PLENTY of those kind of presidents. Our society has been on a cultural and moral decline now for many years and now with the exposing of sexual genitalia on LIVE televison someone needs to stand up and say enough! Apparently Dean is not that man. 
reply to this comment

 
No, it wasn't acceptable and 
Comment added by Amanda on Thu 5 Feb 2004 - 10:46 h  
No, it wasn't acceptable and it was a stupid publicity stunt. And guess what? it worked. The more people protest, the more they make it into a big deal. Janet Jackson's (and arguably Justin Timberlake's) career is on the decline, she wanted attention, she went for it and she got it. If people ignored shit like that, it'd probably go away.

I didn't watch the superbowl. I didn't see it the first time. But I've seen the replay about ten times since it happened. I think Dean is right to say the investigation is silly- it's just turning a few seconds into a much bigger deal than it needs to be. Most kids have seen a breast before (incidently, breasts aren't really sexual genitalia, since their biological purpose is to provide nourishment the young). Kids take their cue from their parents; if their parents make a big deal out of it, the more interested they'll be. 
reply to this comment

 
Dean on TV 
Comment added by hugetim on Wed 4 Feb 2004 - 10:46 h  
First of all, a boob is not genitalia.

Secondly, if you want a president who will use the bully pulpit to wean our country off its addiction to television, with its sex and violence, Dean is the man to do it!

First of all, Dean would have kept all the carnage of the Iraq war off the tube by stopping violence at its root.

Secondly, Dean has repeatedly talked about how he doesn't have cable television in his own home because he believes it would take away from family together time. I'm sick and tired of "family values" meaning something other than values that strengthen and respect families -- like questioning the destructive dependence of this country on tv media, but also like not forcing my friend to postpone his engagement by sending him off to fight an unjust war!

Should the FCC investigate why CNN played a 7 second clip of Dean's Iowa "scream" speech (with crowd noise removed) over 90 times a day for an entire week? Should it investigate CBS's refusal to play an ad questioning the wisdom of Bush's half trillion dollar deficit during the Super Bowl, although it accepted an ad from the White House? Should the FCC investigate its own decision to allow CBS and CNN to further expand their monopolies? 
reply to this comment

Nothing is certain but death 
Comment added by stunney on Wed 4 Feb 2004 - 00:51 h  
WAKE UP, AMERICA! WAKE UP, CATHOLIC CHURCH! THIS ADMINISTRATION IS GROSSLY VIOLATING THE TEACHINGS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND OF ALL THE PROPHETS!


NEW YORK TIMES
February 1, 2004
'Perfectly Legal': Nothing Is Certain but Death

By JAMES K. GALBRAITH

PERFECTLY LEGAL
The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich -- and
Cheat Everybody Else.
By David Cay Johnston.
338 pp. New York: Portfolio. $25.95.

Readers of this important book may be misled by the routine material up front. Here David Cay Johnston recounts two oft-told tales: the rich getting richer and the rich escaping tax. Thus he tells how from 1970 to 2000 the income share of just 13,400 households -- the richest hundredth of 1 percent -- rose from 1 percent to 5 percent of all income, and from 100 to 560 times the national average. And he tells how one of those households, that of William and Melinda Gates, ''devised a way . . . to reap $200 million in profits on Microsoft stock without paying the $56 million of capital gains taxes that federal law required.''

Yet really, what's so shocking? In the late 1990's, the United States ran an experiment unseen since 1926: a drive to full employment based solely on private capital investment. Under capitalism, private capital is invariably held by a minority, so such prosperity must mean a rise in the wealth of the rich. The United States is not a people's republic. And it was those gains precisely that financed the surge in business investment, producing full employment and actual rising wages and income for working American families for the first time in 30 years.

The tax take also rose, by 2 percent of total income between 1995 and 2000. The federal budget went into surplus. For a moment states like California, riding a bubble in options realizations and capital gains, also had more revenue than they could use. The prelude to recession was a rising tax burden, paid from the bite on exploding upper incomes. It should have been offset by rising public spending, to meet national needs, fight poverty and prevent the slump of 2001. But with blind faith in the New Economy, that didn't happen until terrorism and war split open the public purse.

As Johnston knows, the real scandal of our federal tax system isn't so much what the rich didn't pay. It's what the rest of us now have to -- particularly the middle and upper middle classes, with incomes from $50,000 to $500,000. This is the group Bush is squeezing, to benefit what Johnston aptly calls the ''political donor class.'' This truly shocking story emerges later on in ''Perfectly Legal.''

First we have the repeal of the estate tax, which shifts the tax burden downscale and from the dead to the living. Johnston, a business and financial reporter for The New York Times, explains how this tax, affecting only a handful of the very, very rich, fell victim to the arts of propaganda: ''The term death tax is a superb example of marketing triumphing over reasoned debate. So thoroughly has the phrase been infused into Washington that many journalists . . . employ this term of advocacy instead of the neutral, and correct term, estate tax, without rebuke by their superiors.'' He notes that the pollster Frank Luntz, the carnival barker of this operation, would have advised the Democrats to call it the ''billionaire's tax.'' No such luck.

Next there is the Alternative Minimum Tax, the ''stealth tax,'' designed for the very rich but now set to overrun Middle America. In 2000 this tax hit just 1.3 million households; Treasury estimates held that it would affect 17.9 million by 2010. But the Bush tax cuts doubled this number to 35.6 million by design: ''Between 2003 and 2012 the Bush tax cuts will force an
increase of $560 billion in taxes to be paid under the alternative minimum tax. . . . It is a subsidy of the super rich paid for by the middle class and the upper middle class.'' And it is a horror -- attorney's fees in legal settlements or medical expenses can't be deducted (to the same degree), or even the costs of having many children. Still the very rich escape. Promises
that this train wreck will be averted are not credible, in Johnston's view. The tax was a betrayal, and the Bush people who committed it knew exactly what they were doing.

Then there is the payroll tax, a travesty ever since 1983, when Alan Greenspan sold the public on the myth of paying for Social Security in advance. And the difference between the amount brought in through the payroll tax and the amount needed to pay benefits underwrote Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, while the government stuffed a ''Trust Fund'' with I.O.U.'s. But with what? Paying them off will require either more borrowing or a rise in taxes -- exactly as if the trust fund did not exist. Meanwhile, the $1.7 trillion in excess payroll taxes already paid would be enough to completely pay off all consumer debt in 2001. And we are told that there is a ''crisis'' because the Trust Fund will eventually ''run dry.'' In fact, there's no need to cut the benefits for which soon-to-be-retired workers have been overcharged for decades, or to raise payroll taxes even more on the next generation. The only issue is whether wealthy Americans will pay any part of the bill.

Finally, Johnston surveys the decrepit, undercomputerized, legislatively crippled, mismanaged and harassed Internal Revenue Service, shanghaied in recent years to pursue supposed low-income abusers of the earned-income tax credit while the returns of the criminal rich escape audit and their money slips to havens overseas. The I.R.S. is a police agency under extreme
pressure to treat big perpetrators with kid gloves. This material is, all in all, perhaps the most shocking stuff, particularly when one notes names like Harken Energy and Halliburton among the defectors.

What should be done? Perhaps daunted by deep knowledge of how the cheats work, Johnston is cautious. He considers, and then rejects, shifting to a consumption tax like the flat tax. Sensibly, he leans toward a leaner, meaner income tax, with higher top rates, few deferrals, a broad definition of income and reform of the alternative minimum tax. Add a stiff estate and
gift tax to recover from the largest fortunes at death, treat capital gains and dividends as ordinary income, then cut or offset the payroll tax and you would have the elements of a fairer system.

Interestingly, the progressive tax bill of 2003, introduced by Representatives Dennis J. Kucinich, Barbara Lee and Bernard Sanders, comes close to these goals. It would claw back $107 billion from Bush's cuts and provide $88 billion in relief to working Americans, mainly through an attractive simplified family credit. Happily a few leaders remain, in these venal days, who are prepared to think boldly about our tax problem.

James K. Galbraith is an economist at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas and senior scholar of the Levy Economics Institute.

Stephen Tunney 
reply to this comment

Re: Weak argument 
Comment added by stunney on Tue 3 Feb 2004 - 12:12 h  
How dare you call me a hypocrite!

There is nothing more hypocritical than pro-life people voting for Bush. He has presided over a large rise in poverty, and a large rise in the number of people without health insurance. A significant percentage of abortions is due to these factors. It is your argument which bears all the marks of a failure of rationality and intelligent thought, as well as just plain ignorance! Here, let me help you out:

November 2, 2003
More U.S. Families Hungry or Too Poor to Eat, Study Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 (AP) - Despite the nation's struggle with obesity, the
Agriculture Department says, more and more American families are hungry or
unsure whether they can afford to buy food.

About 12 million families last year worried that they did not have enough
money for food, and 32 percent of them experienced someone's going hungry at
one time or another, the agency said in a report released on Friday.

Nearly 3.8 million families were hungry last year to the point that someone
in the household skipped meals because the family could not afford them.
That is 8.6 percent more families than in 2001, when 3.5 million were
hungry, and a 13 percent increase from 2000.

The report was based on a Census Bureau survey of 50,000 households. It was
the third year in a row the department found an increase in the number of
people who were hungry or uncertain whether they could afford their next
meal.

The survey also found more families who were unsure if they could buy food
or did not have enough food in their cupboards. Last year, 11 percent of 108
million families were in that situation. That is up 5 percent from 2001 and
8 percent from 2000.

Most poor families struggling with hunger tried to ensure that their
children were fed, the report said. Nonetheless, one or more children in an
estimated 265,000 families occasionally missed meals last year because the
families either could not afford to eat or did not have enough food at home.
The report estimated there were 567,000 hungry children in all.

Margaret Andrews, an economist with the agency and an author of the annual
survey, said the prevalence of hunger and food insecurity is clearly tied to
the poverty rate.

Ms Andrews noted that the latest estimates by the Census Bureau show that
more people are poor. Some 34.6 million Americans were living in poverty
last year, 1.7 million more than in 2001, according to the Census Bureau.

In the United States, 65 percent of adults and 13 percent of children are
overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Barbara Laraia, an associate professor of nutrition at the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said hunger and obesity could coexist because
many hungry families buy high-calorie foods that are low in nutrients.

"They're dependent on foods that are going to make their bellies feel full,
rather than on nutrients," Ms. Laraia said. "The diet is compromised."

Many families will spend their incomes on fixed expenses before buying food.

"Food is the most elastic part of the budget," Ms. Laraia said, "meaning
that's what households will compromise on when they have fixed payments such
as their rent and their utilities."
NEW YORK TIMES

Shaking the House of Cards
By BOB HERBERT

Published: October 3, 2003

No wonder the sky-high poll numbers for President Bush have collapsed. The
fiasco in Iraq is only part of the story. The news on one substantive issue
after another could hardly be worse. It's almost as if the president had a
team in the White House that was feeding his credibility into a giant
shredder.

Despite the administration's relentlessly optimistic chatter about the
economy, the Census Bureau reported that the number of Americans living in
poverty increased by 1.7 million last year, the second straight annual
increase. During those two years, the number of poor Americans has grown by
3 million.

Belt-tightening is also in order for the middle class. The median household
income declined by 1.1 percent, a drop of about $500, to $42,400. It was the
second straight year for a decline in that category as well.

Per capita income decreased, too. It dropped by 1.8 percent, to $22,794 in
2002, the first decline in more than a decade.

Boom times these ain't.

On Monday we learned that there had been a steep increase last year - the
largest in a decade - in the number of Americans without health insurance.

Big Increase Seen in People Lacking Health Insurance

September 30, 2003
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 - The number of people without health
insurance shot up last year by 2.4 million, the largest
increase in a decade, raising the total to 43.6 million, as
health costs soared and many workers lost coverage provided
by employers, the Census Bureau reported today.

The increase brought the proportion of people who were
uninsured to 15.2 percent, from 14.6 percent in 2001. The
figure remained lower than the recent peak of 16.3 percent
in 1998.

A continued erosion of employer-sponsored coverage was the
main reason for the latest increase, the bureau said.
Public programs, especially Medicaid, covered more people
and cushioned the loss of employer-sponsored health
insurance but "not enough to offset the decline in private
coverage," the report said.

The proportion of Americans with insurance from employers
declined to 61.3 percent, from 62.6 percent in 2001 and
63.6 percent in 2000. The number of people with
employer-sponsored coverage fell last year by 1.3 million,
to 175.3 million, even as the total population grew by 3.9
million. 
reply to this comment

You've Got To Be Kidding 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 30 Jan 2004 - 21:15 h  
No. The Vatican has spoken loudly and clearly to the issue of politicians and the issue of life, and the bishops with a spine have also spoken.

Any Catholic who knowingly supports legislation against life itself - and, by association, any Catholic who knowingly supports a politician who assures his/her voters that he/she supports legislation against that most fundamental natural right to life - has removed him/herself from grace within the Catholic Church.

Catholics for Choice? Catholics for Dean? You think you can shake hands with the devil and then say you were only kidding? Wise up. 
reply to this comment

 
I believe that abortion is ob 
Comment added by stunney on Sat 31 Jan 2004 - 09:01 h  
I believe that abortion is objectively morally wrong in almost all cases. (I
do not believe that abortion is wrong in the rare case when it is the only
way to save the life of the mother.)

However, it does not follow from believing that abortion is nearly always
objectively morally wrong that there is only one legitimate way to oppose
abortion politically. It may well be counterproductive to the long term aim
of ending abortions to adopt a party political litmus test for voting as a
primary method of achieving this aim. I believe such a method is not only
likely to fail to achieve the aim, but will actually alienate a larger
number of people from the pro-life cause. This will make it more difficult,
not less difficult, to end abortion. A better way to achieve that aim will
be not to adopt a strident pro-life party political platform on this issue,
but to engage the wider culture in a civilized moral debate. Once we succeed
in convincing an ever-growing majority that abortion is morally wrong, then
we can hope to take the legislative, executive and judicial actions which
reflect that belief.

I believe it is not morally obligatory to overthrow the government and
Constitution of the United States of America solely because the present
political authority acting in accord with constitutional procedures has
legalized abortion. We are in fact not obliged to overthrow the government
and Constitution because of this issue. We are obliged to adopt the most
promising method of changing the law and policies in favor of a pro-life
stance. But it is an EMPIRICAL question as to what the most promising method
is. Therefore, it is a question about which good Catholics can and do
disagree. My answer to the question is that always voting against Democrats
on account of the party's official pro-choice platform is not a promising
method of bringing about change in favor of a pro-life stance. A more
promising method is persuading, by means of civil moral debate and
education, enough citizens so as to make the pro-choice political position
less and less popular. Once that is done, then the pro-choice policy
platform will be jettisoned (just as racist policies became unpopular
politically and were jettisoned). But simply organizing a voting strategy
aimed at one party, rather than another, will not be an effective means of
persuading the electorate of the wrongness of abortion. In fact, it will be
counter-productive.

In the meantime, we should vote for policies that actually result in
reducing the number of legal abortions. It may be the case (and I believe it
is in fact the case) that more women will choose to have abortions if the
Republican social and economic policies are adopted than if Democratic
social and economic policies are adopted. Hence I believe I am justified in
voting for Democrats rather than Republicans *precisely because* I am
opposed to abortion.

Stephen Tunney 
reply to this comment

 
Weak argument 
Comment added by Unregistered on Mon 2 Feb 2004 - 08:03 h  
"In the meantime, we should vote for policies that actually result in
reducing the number of legal abortions. It may be the case (and I believe it
is in fact the case) that more women will choose to have abortions if the
Republican social and economic policies are adopted than if Democratic
social and economic policies are adopted. Hence I believe I am justified in
voting for Democrats rather than Republicans *precisely because* I am
opposed to abortion."

That was one of the weakest straw man arguments I have ever seen on the internet. Could yo provide some facts to show that abortions have risen since Bush took office??? Every thing that I have seen has shown that abortions on actually on the decline, especially in Pennsylvania where I live due to the Abortion Control Act, which requires a 24 hour waiting period and parental consent for minors.

If you are truly pro-life and against abortion being used as birth control then you cannot with any logic that stands up to scrutiny support someone who would like parental consent laws overturned and also seek to make partial birth abortions legal once again.

You are simply a hypocrite which is OK, but recognize that you are one and that you have to live with it. 
reply to this comment

 
Poor Argument 
Comment added by Unregistered on Sun 8 Feb 2004 - 17:29 h  
Clean up your argument:

>That was one of the weakest straw man arguments I have ever seen on >the internet. Could yo provide some facts to show that abortions >have risen since Bush took office???
THE ANALYSIS FOR THAT WOULD BE VOLUMINOUS. PRESUME IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THEN THAT.
>Every thing that I have seen has shown that abortions on actually >on the decline, especially in Pennsylvania where I live due to the >Abortion Control Act, which requires a 24 hour waiting period and >parental consent for minors.

>If you are truly pro-life and against abortion being used as birth >control then --
DO NOT MAKE LOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE FORCE OF ANOTHER'S ARGUMENT. PROVE IT MUST BE SO.
>you cannot with any logic that stands up to scrutiny --
PURE RHETORIC. ELIMINATE.
>support someone who would like parental consent laws overturned and >also seek to make partial birth abortions legal once again.
AGAIN, PROVE WHY. I DO NOT SUPPORT HIS POSITION ON THAT, BUT I OPPOSE EVEN MORE OF BUSH'S. ELECTIONS NEVER PRESERVE US FROM VOTING AGAINST OUR CONSCIENCE, UNLESS ABORTION IS THE ONLY THING YOU CARE ABOUT.

>You are simply a hypocrite which is OK, but recognize that you are >one and that you have to live with it.
FOR CHRISTIANS, WE ARE ALL HYPOCRITES. ALL OF US FALL SHORT OF GOD'S GLORY. YOU TOO ARE A HYPOCRITE. ADMIT IT AND TRY TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT BASED IN LOVE.

Peace 
reply to this comment

good debate! 
Comment added by deaniac04 on Thu 29 Jan 2004 - 16:40 h  
I would just like to tell everyone how happy I was when I found this site. I have always supported most of the Democratic platform except for abortion because I am Catholic, and was very happy to find out I was not alone. There is some serious debate happening on this site. I have never seen such a fragile topic discussed so carefully with detail. I also enjoy reading the clever rebuttals. I know that as long as Dean is running, (and when he wins), I will be a frequent visitor of this site. Thank you to all who contribute to this civil discussion about our future. 
reply to this comment

Non-sequitor alert 
Comment added by Unregistered on Thu 29 Jan 2004 - 08:29 h  
France is angry at us for war with Iraq; that means we can't solve international hunger? Since when do we need France's permission -- or the UN's -- to feed starving people? The greatest cause of famine is internal conflict and opporession, whether it's Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia or Haiti.

And since when is swearing to stack the Supreme Court with pro-infant-slaughtering judges who will destroy the hope of regulating abortion for a generation (as Dean has done) merely a "theoretical issue."

Voting for a pro-abortion candidate is a mortal sin; you cannot receive the Eucharist if you do so. If you do, the Eucharist in descated, and has no salvific power. YOu will never accomplish good by doing evil. 
reply to this comment

 
baseless claim alert 
Comment added by hugetim on Thu 29 Jan 2004 - 10:20 h  
Usually I relegate groundless assertions that voting for Dean is a mortal sin to the Recycle Bin, but sometimes it's good to make an example out of a careless scare-tactic like this.

Secondly, Bush plans (by all accounts) to appoint Alberto Gonzales, pro-choice, to the Supreme Court the first chance he gets, so you have set up a false comparison between Dean and the alternative.

Your first paragraph contains a number of deep problems, which I will only briefly address.

Here's some background:
"When the world's governments met at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, they adopted a programme for action under the auspices of the United Nations -- Agenda 21. Amongst other things, this included an Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) for rich nations, roughly 22 members of the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development), known as the Development Assistance
Committee (DAC)."

U.S. ODA as a percentage of GNP in 2002: 0.12% (the lowest of the 22)

Can you explain, also, why 30% of U.S. aid goes to Israel, although 153 countries are less developed (according to UN index) and thus need the aid more?"

Now, it was not only France that was "angry at us." On February 15, 2003, protestors around the world set a new world record for the most people protesting on one day -- against George Bush and his war drums.

This was the result of, perhaps, the greatest diplomatic failure in world history -- turning the sympathy and support of nearly every nation in the world and turning it into near-universal fear and resentment.

Internal conflicts and oppression in other countries are best addressed by international efforts whose legitimacy is clear for all to see.

Yet, many internal conflicts have their root causes in extreme poverty, extreme divisions of wealth, and increased tensions between ethnic groups. The West is responsible for are all of these in a substantial way because of the economic exploitation of colonialism (and it's continuation today in trade policy) and the way we set arbitrary national boundaries without considering how that would ignite ethnic rivalries and tensions. (There are even specific examples of Europeans stirring up ethnic tensions to distract them and reduce their resistance to their overlords, as the English did in India with Muslims and Hindus.) 
reply to this comment

 
Nothing will change. 
Comment added by Unregistered on Thu 29 Jan 2004 - 13:25 h  
And you really think electing Dean is going to change any of this? Is he going to drop aid to Israel? Redraw the world map?

And what is Gov. Dean's plan to end world hunger? I don't see him running on that campaign.

Now, electing Dean hoping he'll do something thinking that he'll make a difference in world hunger, a problem with many roots that don't all have much to do with US policy, is foolish, but forgivable optimism.

Supporting Dean for this reason while at the same time saying that his enthusiasm for legal abortion, which is upheld by judges the president appoints, will not make a difference as opposed to the pro-life Bush is goes beyond foolishness to sheer dishonesty.

Internal conflicts and oppression in other countries are best addressed by international efforts whose legitimacy is clear for all to see.
Could you offer some historical evidence for this assertion?

BTW -- CBS's refusal to run the Super Bowl ad isn't "censorship" -- government control of speech, it's discrimination in the dictionary sens of the word. CBS is deciding what advertisements it want to put on its network.

If the government could demand that CBS broadcast the ad, that would be "censorship."

Hope the irony isn't lost on you.

John McG. 

reply to this comment

 
Dean is change 
Comment added by hugetim on Thu 29 Jan 2004 - 14:19 h  
Bush is pro-life in name only. Don't you think he would have given at least passing mention to abortion in the State of the Union if he really thinks it is responsible for thousands of murders a day? Why does he plan to appoint pro-choice Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court?

Dictionary.com on "censor": "A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." This person can be in the government or a TV network, but it's all the same. By the way, the airwaves CBS operates on are publicly owned.

Here's the first thing I found for a conflict being resolved internationally. East Timor:
http://www.dwcw.org/cgi/wwwbbs.cgi?East-Timor&21

I was more arguing from principle than historical experience because the UN has historically been basically an arm of the US, unable to do much against its wishes. The obvious fact of the matter is that a transparent, recognized international body would be much better received in a country than a unilateral force invading on false pretenses.

My hope is that Dean will have the courage to accelerate the process of dcreasing military aid to Israel to a reasonable level. He has repeatly shown his willingness to stand up for the right thing even when it's unpopular.

Gov. Dean will not end world hunger, but he will do much to alleviate it. The thing you don't realize is that this problem does have U.S. roots to a certain extent. But don't take it from me. Here's what the U.S. bishops had to say in a recent document:

"For I Was Hungry observes that the “increasing concentration and growing globalization” of agriculture are having the effect of “pushing some ahead and leaving others behind. They are also pushing us toward a nation and world where the powerful can take advantage of the weak, where large institutions and corporations can overwhelm smaller structures, and where the production, marketing and distribution of food and the protection of land lie in fewer hands,” it says.

Food aid, according to For I Was Hungry, should “not be a means for developed nations to dispose of surplus commodities, create new markets for agricultural products, displace local food production or distort world food prices.”

In its most controversial section, the statement also sides with the third world in the debate over farm subsidies that led to the breakdown of trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization. “Current U.S. and European subsidies, supports, tariffs, quotas, and other barriers that undermine market access for poorer countries should be substantially reduced,” it said. For I Was Hungry acknowledges that this will not be easy. “It must take into account the time needed for farmers and farmworkers in developed countries to adjust....” It proposes beginning by targeting subsidies to small and moderate-size farms and eliminating them for large, corporate farms. “Two-thirds of the subsidies go to 10 percent of the farms,” reports Bishop Gilmore."

Your ignorant pessimism may be forgivable, but make sure that yours is not a willful ignorance. 
reply to this comment

 
Re: Dean 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 30 Jan 2004 - 07:18 h  
Has Howard Dean said anything to make us beleive that he shares the bishops' view about what should be done about world hunger?

Is he really going to change the fact that the US is powerful and these other nations are not? Has he proposed changing the way in in which food aid is distributed?

No, he has not.

What Dean will do if elected is appoint judges guaranteed to keep abortion legal through the next half century. He will lift the Mexico City ban and fund abortions in other countries. This will be a real increase in abortions.

Bush, while imperfect on this issue, would not do these things. That makes a difference, an undeniable diffrence. His judicial appointments may or may not affirm the right to abortion; Dean's appointments definitely will.

In short, the president has the power to encourage and increase abortions, and Dean has shown all indications that he will use it. The president has much less power to affect change regarding world hunger, and Dean has not indicated that he would use what power he has.

It's a good instinct to hope that someone has good motives and wants to do good, but it is horribly misplaced in this case.

John McG. 
reply to this comment

 
Wrong again (fortunately, for the starving) 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 30 Jan 2004 - 07:48 h  
From Dean on agriculture:

"Sadly, President Bush and his House Republican colleagues have consistently tried to block or de-fund measures that would help rural Americans. They slashed funding for value added grants for small farmers, they attempted to block mandatory country-of-origin labeling, they attempted to deny funding for conservation measures, like the CSP, that reward farmers who work to protect the environment, and they have consistently sided with the large corporate farms, meatpackers and processors by providing them with unfair advantages over independent family farmers."

"The most important thing we can to do to control concentration is to stop sending huge farm program payments to corporate mega-farms that don’t need them. 2/3 of all support payments go to the largest 10% of farms. Our farm safety net is crucial to the survival of rural America, and to the health of our nation’s food supply, but this money should be helping family farmers and ranchers in need, not subsidizing mammoth farms to overproduce and drive their neighbors out of business by bidding land away from them. All this does is drive down the price our farmers receive for their crops while driving up the land rents they must pay, thus making it more and more difficult for family farmers and ranchers to get by.

We need to impose meaningful payment limits on farm support payments and we need to close the loopholes that mega-farms use to avoid paying the existing limits. This will not only limit inflation of land rents and reduce downward pressure on prices for farmers, but will also save the Treasury a significant amount of money that could be used for other agriculture or rural initiatives that will aid family farmers more, like conservation or rural development, or to simply help balance the budget."

From Dean on Foreign Policy:

"Fifty-five years ago, President Harry Truman delivered what was known as the Four Point speech. In it, he challenged Democrats and Republicans alike to come together to build strong and effective international organizations, to support arrangements that would spur global economic recovery, to join with free people everywhere in the defense of human liberty, and to draw upon the genius of our people to help societies who needed help in the battle against hunger and illness, ignorance, and despair.

Harry Truman believed that a world in which even the poorest and most desperate had grounds for hope would be a world in which our own children could grow up in security and peace not because evil would then be absent from the globe, but because the forces of right would be united and strong."

"The United States must step to the forefront and promote sustainable development. We cannot ignore climate change, population growth, famine, or the many other global problems that we face. To address them, we must break free of the special interests that constrain our ability to tackle these serious problems."

"Creating and keeping good jobs for Americans also requires the rigorous enforcement of fair trade policies. I would not negotiate trade agreements that do not include meaningful labor, environmental, and human rights protections. I would not pursue trade policies that undermine important U.S. laws and regulations, especially those that protect American workers. I will vigorously enforce anti-dumping laws."
("Dumping" refers to the practice of selling a large quantity of goods at well below market price to control a market. Dean is refering here primarily to the ways that other countries do this to us, but any anti-dumping law would presumably also end our practice of predatory "food aid" dumping.) 
reply to this comment

 
What's missing? 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 30 Jan 2004 - 08:05 h  
is refering here primarily to the ways that other countries do this to us, but any anti-dumping law would presumably also end our practice of predatory "food aid" dumping
This summarizes the error you make with Dean -- he makes a speech primarily about protecting US interests, and you see it as him taking on world hunger.

Notice something about that excerpt? Nowhere does Dean mention world hunger. He talks about family farms being bought out by large farms because large farms produce too much food!. It's not about feeding the hungry; it's about pandering to small farmers.

He's not taking on world hunger; he has no intention of doing so; and he couldn't do much about it if he tried.

And supporting Dean because his policies, by complete coincidence and for different goals, happen to superficially resemble the bishop's non-binding document on world hunger, while ignoring or trivializing his stark opposition on a fundamental part of our faith is self-delusion.

You'll see it. If Dean is nominated, he will run an add painting Bush as an extremist for what little you say he has done for the unborn. And by extension, painting us as silly for being concerned about them. Just like every Democrat has done to every pro-life candidate the last twelve years.

But hey, he might reshuffle some of the domestic farm funding; that's worth twenty more years of abortion, right? 

reply to this comment

 
Whoops, you missed the point again 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 30 Jan 2004 - 08:15 h  
Look, because it is U.S. voters who will decide whether to elect him, and because the Americans who can be counted on to care about the starving are more concerned with convincing everyone to vote for Bush, Dean has to emphasize U.S. benefits of his policies, by necessity.

"Notice something about that excerpt? Nowhere does Dean mention world hunger. He talks about family farms being bought out by large farms because large farms produce too much food!. It's not about feeding the hungry; it's about pandering to small farmers."

Here's where you really miss the point. The whole problem is that large farms (to put it nicely) do produce too much food and use it the flood the markets of small farmers throughout the world, both in the U.S. and abroad -- it's the same problem. Domestically, we have plenty of food, but thousands upon thousands of small farmers are out of a job, rural communities ruined. Abroad, agribusiness ruins their local economies and keeps them barely getting by on food aid -- and starving when food aid is distributed unjustly, as is almost always the case when food is distributed top-down rather than from local farms. This is a central cause of world hunger!!!

Dean's and the bishops' policies for addressing world hunger are the same because they are common sense policies that every knows would go quite a way towards ending world hunger. 
reply to this comment

 
ok... 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 30 Jan 2004 - 10:38 h  
I fail to see why large farms in the US leads to more world hunger in the rest of the world. The means of distributing food from here to there must neccesarily be somewhat centralized. It's not like a man in the Sudan can stop by a local farmer's market in Nebraska.

This is a little to indirect for me, especially coming from someone who think banning partial birth abortion and not funding abortions counts for nothing.

I can understand why you would want to grasp at this particular straw in a vain attempt to show that Gov. Dean is more "pro-life" then President Bush, but he's not.

No matter how you twist his policies to make them sound like the bishops, the fact remains that he is an enthusiast for keeping abortion legal, and will work to undo what little restrictions we have, and marginalize those who oppose him.

I won't sell that for the possibility of reshuffling farm subsidies.

John McG. 
reply to this comment

 
well... 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 30 Jan 2004 - 10:58 h  
Again, the point is that we should not send the surplus of subsidized U.S. agribusiness to places that don't need it in the first place. Here's what happens. First, we send it when they don't need it. That puts their local farmers out of business. Then centralized aid is the only option.

You can deny how widespread and ghastly the effects of U.S. agribusinesses are all you want, but that won't make them go away. Why else would the bishops feel like they need to speak out on these issues (in a document entitled "For I[, Jesus,] was hungry"?

I am not twisting Dean's policies at all. They are very similar to bishops on all issues except abortion because both Dean and the bishops care about people and understand what can be done to help them.

Dean unfortunately sincerely believes that a fetus does not have the same rights and status as its mother. He is very gravely wrong in this belief, but he is not evil. EVERY SINGLE ONE of his other policies exhibit his remarkable goodness, his Christian concern for the poor. 
reply to this comment

 
What about Terri? 
Comment added by Unregistered on Sat 31 Jan 2004 - 10:52 h  
EVERY SINGLE ONE of his other policies exhibit his remarkable goodness, his Christian concern for the poor.

Does this include Dean's policy in support of the involuntary euthanasia of Terri Schindler-Schiavo? 
reply to this comment

 
Help Terri 
Comment added by Unregistered on Wed 19 May 2004 - 19:54 h  
Please sign and if you have others who would care to sign please forward to them.

What we are asking for here is a geometrical progression.

Send to 10 or more caring people in your circle of friends who will
do the same and so on.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Felos518/petition.html

Carefully read the Florida Bar petition online before signing, requesting the Florida Bar bring described formal action involving attorneys George Felos and Deborah Bushnell, for reasons described in the petition.

FLORIDIANS AND NON-FLORIDIANS accepted. This is going straight to the
Florida Bar. Count is around 131 at this time. Please send this to as many caring individuals as you can with the message to others to take the same actions.

Refs:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/03/30/Tampabay/Doctors_examine_Schia.shtml

You can view the police report, concluded May 14, 2004 here:
http://zimp.org/pr/. By clicking the thumbnails, you can view a full-size scan of each page. Additionally, you can download the entire package for offline viewing (requires Winzip) here: http://zimp.org/pr/pr.zip.

The above report not only indicates that absolutely nothing suspicious was found as the result of this exhaustive investigation, but also that the 'marks' and 'needle cap' (which turned out to part of an irrigation kit) were found PRIOR to Terri's parents visiting that day.

Additionally, I encourage you to read the press release issued by Mr. Felos the night of the alleged incident here:
http://zimp.org/documents/felospr032904.pdf in which he states that a
forensic team was investigating the matter. In speaking personally with the Clearwater Police Department, I have learned that they don't even have a forensic team.

Be creative, do take action.

"Petition for State protective custody for Terri" (please get the petition information out to as many peoples as possible)
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/chisana7/

"Saving Terri Schiavo"
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/19461949/

Laws being broken:
http://zimp.org/

Connect the Dots ... for Terri
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1130771/posts?page=11#11

http://www.terrisfight.org

http://bellsouthpwp.net/p/c/pc93/terri_schindler_life_ribbon_campaign.htm 
reply to this comment

For Dean???? 
Comment added by Unregistered on Tue 27 Jan 2004 - 04:57 h  
Firstly, I don't agree with all of the Republican stand on everything but for heavens sake, there is no justice for the children hacked to pieces in their mother's wombs. To be a Democrat today means to be totally at odds with most everything Catholic. As far as the starving people overseas I think you need to look a little deeper. Much has been sent to other places and the leaders don't let it get to the people. You must do more research before you speak and/or make up your minds. 
reply to this comment

Which candidate is really Pro-Life ? 
Comment added by Unregistered on Mon 26 Jan 2004 - 19:43 h  
I am pro-life and deeply upset about the actions of George W. Bush, which in many aspects do not show a deep respect for life. His actions, not merely his "pro-life" rhetoric deserve closer examination. There are many troubling allegations, that if proven true, give cause to the belief that he is morally unfit to hold office.

Of all the major candidates running for office, Bush is the only one that is reported to have made the decision to abort his own child. The allegation was made by a guest on CNN's Larry King Live Show. To protect his future political career, a girlfriend of W was provided a discreet and illegal abortion many years ago.

Those who vote for Bush expecting him to change the balance of the Supreme Court on Roe vs. Wade will be as disappointed as they were with his father's choice of David Souter. Already George W. has announced that his first choice for a Supreme Court justice will be pro-choice Alberto Gonzales who Bush likes because he is Hispanic and has solid experience as a corporate lawyer working for his friends at Enron.

The construction of Death Camps in Cuba, and the creation of a separate secret judicial system under Aschroft's tyranny are deplorable. We should never tolerate an American dictator who seeks the absolute power to execute people without benefit of a trials allowing review of evidence and access to cousel, simply on the grounds that the Excutive Branch accuses them of being "terrorists", or aiding terrorists in some vague way.

If Bush were honorable in his intentions, he would allow regular and open inspections by international organizations of the massive prison complex built by Halliburton in Cuba. Instead, organizations like Amnesty International and the International Red Cross are blocked from observing what is going on by our "Pro-life" President.

While America sleeps, there is a sense of disbelief on how evil this administration really is. Many years ago, their was disbelief regarding the first reports of concentration camps in Poland. Those that do not learn the lessons of history are condemed to repeat it. Are we as Americans blindly marching toward Nazism in the hyped up "War on Terror?" This question should be asked. If the answer is not acceptable, we as concerned citizens have a moral obligation to replace the current President with someone who respects our values. 
reply to this comment

 
a source on Gonzales 
Comment added by hugetim on Wed 28 Jan 2004 - 12:51 h  
I found this verification that Gonzales appears to be pro-choice:
http://www.rnclife.org/reports/2002/Oct02/oct02.shtml 
reply to this comment

"People Who Mislead People" 
Comment added by Unregistered on Sat 24 Jan 2004 - 21:11 h  
According to From George Neumayr of the American Spectator:

When People [Magazine] asked Dean if he would do abortions "if you'd had had the training," he punted. "I've learned long ago not to answer hypothetical questions like that. Both of us chose internal medicine so we never had to make that choice. I firmly believe in the right to choose. This is a private matter between a doctor and a patient. It's none of the government's business," he said.

Dean has no training in abortion? According to a 1998 Vermont Magazine article, Dean "certainly understands the medical procedures involved" in abortion. So he understands abortion procedures but couldn't perform them even in a state where it is legal for him to do so? That's puzzling.

Dean's comments to People magazine raise more questions than they answer. In a state where non-physicians are performing abortions, it seems remarkable that a former Planned Parenthood doctor and board member would never have performed, assisted at, or referred for abortions....

Dean's "proud association" with Planned Parenthood is rapidly becoming an embarrassing one. It may be occurring to this recipient of the Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger award that the country isn't liberal enough to elect as president someone so intimately connected to the nation's largest abortion provider. You can see the speed of the backpedaling in Judy Dean's comment "I wouldn't say active" (of their work for Planned Parenthood.)

But this is characteristic of Dean and his Park Avenue radicalism. He has never wanted to be seen implementing the radical policies he advocates....

[Source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6028] 
reply to this comment

 
You are the liar (with all due respect) 
Comment added by hugetim on Sat 24 Jan 2004 - 21:54 h  
You can criticize Dean for involvement with Planned Parenthood, and I'll join you. But Howard Dean has not lied or mislead about his record concerning abortion.

He is an internist, so people do not come to him for abortions. That is why he has never had to make the decision whether to perform one, not because he is legally prohibited from doing so or because he lacks the training. You don't have to look far for that "certainly understands the medical procedures involved" quote -- it's on his website.

Please clarify precisely how Dean has misled people!

By the way, Dean is proud of his record of implementing his radically common sense policies: health insurance for nearly every child in Vermont, teen prenancies down 49%, child and sexual abuse down 45%, creating jobs, dramatically improving education, standing up for trade unions, opposing the Iraq war on the grounds that Iraq was clearly not a threat to us in any way, balancing the budget 11 years in a row, building a campaign financed primarily by contributions under $100... 
reply to this comment

Dean is Wed to Evil 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 23 Jan 2004 - 12:59 h  
Anyone with eyes can see that this guy works for the enemy.

He is a doctor.
He worked for Planned Parenthood for years.
And we are supposed to belief that he NEVER performed abortions???

His social policies are driven by secularism, a thirst for power and anger.

This man is dangerous.

We are already beginning to see the facade break and the evil darken forth from this man.

Even his smile gives one the creeps!

Anyone who thinks that a Catholic can vote for ANY of the democratic candidates is deeply ignorant of the Catholic Faith. 
reply to this comment

 
Dean has never performed an abortion 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 23 Jan 2004 - 14:31 h  
Let's think about this first. If Dean had ever performed an abortion, there would be a record of it, and pro-life folks would have found it. He has not. When he was a resident at Planned Parenthood for his OB/GYN rotation (which does not last for "years"), he was not trained to perform abortions, because they didn't train residents to do abortions. He spent his time helping women in the ways Planned Parenthood helps them (as opposed to the abortions that happen there).

> His social policies are driven by secularism, a thirst for power
> and anger...
>Anyone who thinks that a Catholic can vote for ANY of the
>democratic candidates is deeply ignorant of the Catholic Faith.

Sorry, but you have to back up claims like these. You can start by answering my arguments in the Abortion Forum.

I'll close with a quote from Dean:

"There are many good people who on moral grounds are opposed to abortion. I respect them. I do not respect the people who defend the throwing of bombs and murders of doctors however. And some of those exist in our very administration, people who have not stood up against violence; they thought it would be better for their political careers if they didn't say too much about it. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, last year, who refused to allow the banking bill to go through 'cause it outlawed terrorism at abortion clinics. That is a shameful act [applause] and the American people ought to be ashamed of that. [applause continues]." 
reply to this comment

 
It Doesn't Matter 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 30 Jan 2004 - 15:07 h  
Well, I've posted almost the same thing on Mark Shea's Web site, but it bears repeating here as a spiritual work of mercy.

It does not make a bit of difference, morally speaking, that Dean did not do any abortions for Planned Parenthood. Traditional Catholic moral theology speaks of moral cooperation with evil as being, well, immoral. Dean could have chosen to do his rotations somewhere other than PP -- he didn't. At the very least, one could claim that he was guilty of proximate material cooperation with evil, which is grave enough as it is, by directly assisting the day-to-day operations of a business whose primary services are abortion and contraception, which are both intrinsically evil actions. Given his unabashed support for abortion, and since his role there as a doctor was more integral to its services than, say, a janitor, his rotations may more accurately be termed formal cooperation with evil since his direct intention was to actively support the kind of work done at PP, abortion and all, whether or not he directly participated in one. Of course, there is the question of whether, even if he did not perform an abortion himself, he attended or recommended one -- very likely possibilities, and also formal cooperation with evil, which would in any event makes him just as guilty of the abortion as if he had done it himself!

Of course, Dean has simply compounded the gravity of his actions and confirmed this analysis by serving on the board for PP (formal cooperation again, since he is acting directly to advance the work and goals of PP) and he has used his power in government to protect or promote abortion (yep, you guessed it: formal cooperation with evil).

For similar reasons, no Catholic -- indeed, no person, since these the immorality of these actions is discernible through the natural law -- in good conscience may vote for Dean -- period. To do so while knowing that he will actively work to defend and promote abortion once he becomes president is at the very least proximate material cooperation with evil; without your help (and millions others like you) in getting him there, he would not otherwise have been able to do the evil that he has clearly indicated he will do.

A good, brief discussion of cooperation with evil may be found here:

http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/02ws/ws020905.htm

Ronny 
reply to this comment

 
Let's be fair about applying this 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 30 Jan 2004 - 15:47 h  
Do you deny that Bush supporters cooperate in evil by supporting someone who led our nation into war based on false premises (though he has since emphasized different reasons) and has yet to even acknowledge that he did so? Do you agree that U.S. soldiers fighting in this war may be counted as "formally" cooperating in evil since the Iraq war was neither declared nor executed according to the Just War doctrine. I would not count most of them as morally culpable because they did not have the full knowledge that what they were doing was wrong. But neither do I consider Dean fully culpable for his involvement in Planned Parenthood, as strongly as I disagree with it.

I could go on about the evils Bush stands for. All conservatives seem content with "conserving" as status-quo the unfathomably huge problem of global hunger. A person just like you is dying every 3.6 seconds, and some people want to ignore this issue. Indeed, as "conservative" Christians, in particular, like to emphasize, our souls are at stake. When we forget about these millions of hungry people, Jesus says to us, "I was hungry and you gave me no food." "And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

I don't usually resort to threats, but I am honestly sick and tired of Bush and people like you threatening me and other good Christians with this "God-is-on-our-side, you are going to hell, you mortal sinners," bull shit. There is no perfect presidential candidate here. We can begin discussing which one we should choose, if you will stop insisting that your man is the only conceivable choice. 
reply to this comment

 
The Wild-Eyed Religous Fanatic Responds 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 30 Jan 2004 - 22:42 h  
Concerning Dean's culpability for his involvement with Planned Parenthood, we need to distinguish between the objective immorality of his actions and his subjective culpability. Although we may make reasonable judgments about it, the latter is impossible to discern with absolute human certainty and thus is ultimately between him and God. The former, however, is indisputable even by your own admission, and hypothetical discussions of the state of Dean's soul have no bearing upon my analysis of the objective wrongs that he committed. Furthermore, cutting Dean some slack for his past bad behavior has nothing to do with whether we should allow ourselves to become proximate causes of his engaging in future bad behavior. It is as though you pardoned a repeat offender for his crimes due to mitigating circumstances but then deliberately provided him with the opportunity to commit such crimes again after he told you that he would indeed commit the crimes if given the opportunity.

Now for the "bull shit." Closely examine all of the comments that I have submitted to your site over the past few days. Nowhere have I said:

(1) vote for Bush;

(2) you are going to hell.

What I have said, and very bluntly to be sure, is that you cannot morally vote for Dean because of this single disqualifying issue. Clearly, this makes you "sick and tired" and causes you to cuss, to which I respond: let the chips fall where they may. I have no doubt that you fully knew what you were getting into by creating a provocative Web site and promoting it among traditional Catholic bloggers throughout cyberspace. If you can't handle the heat, etc., etc.

You want people only to discuss "why should a Cathoic vote for Dean," but that assumes that one can vote for Dean. 'People like me' argue forcefully that you can't, thus rendering the first question moot. I'm sorry that you find this assertion "threatening." You could, of course, as the administrator of this Web site make an affirmative answer to the latter question an explicit condition of debate that you will abide herein, and then you could enforce it by not posting or removing any comments that contest said condition such as my own. Methinks your site would suffer from a lack of lively discussion, but you might believe that it relieves you of the need to deal with pests such as me -- so be it. More time for you to write paeans instead of excuses for Dean, more time for me to sleep (seeing as it is way past my bedtime).

In any event, what I wrote in another post bears repeating here: "The act of voting for Dean stands or falls on its own merits or demerits, regardless of the separate question concerning the morality of voting for Bush. Enough with the red herrings." We can begin discussing which candidate we should choose, if you will convince me that your man is a morally permissible choice in the first place.

Ronny 
reply to this comment

 
Okay 
Comment added by hugetim on Sat 31 Jan 2004 - 00:00 h  
I don't apologize for saying "shit," but I do apologize for taking my anger out on you, when it is caused by many other people as well.

Help me to understand what you are saying. Do you honestly believe that Catholics should not vote at all if all of the candidates stand for some grave evil? Or do you support Bush and deny that the man has and will do many seriously evil and harmful things? If you want me to explain why Bush is not morally permissable, I will do so.

You say, "'People like me' argue forcefully that you can't," but in fact you don't argue at all. You simply assert that you can't, or you appeal to authority without explaining why the authority makes the claim. Please answer the above questions and we can move forward. 
reply to this comment

 
Apology accepted, but... 
Comment added by Unregistered on Sat 31 Jan 2004 - 09:42 h  
You say, "'People like me' argue forcefully that you can't," but in fact you don't argue at all. You simply assert that you can't, or you appeal to authority without explaining why the authority makes the claim.

Good grief, what on earth have I (and many others) been doing for the past few days? For someone who is making a bunch of simple assertions, I sure am using a peculiarly high number of keystrokes to pound out substantive rational arguments to back up my claims. Go ahead and rail at me for not answering all of your questions if you want (since, admittedly, I have not), but you can't honestly say that I "don't argue at all."

Now please excuse me while I bang my head against this brick wall.

Ronny 
reply to this comment

Any Catholic who votes for a 
Comment added by Unregistered on Thu 22 Jan 2004 - 09:37 h  
Any Catholic who votes for a pro-choice/death candidate should truly be ashamed of themself. 
reply to this comment

 
grammar gaffe 
Comment added by deaniac04 on Thu 29 Jan 2004 - 16:32 h  
Actually, any Catholic who votes for a pro-choice candidate should not be ashamed of himself/herself. "Themself" indicates more than one person, which is in conflict with "any Catholic" which is singular. When the ideal truly pro-life Democrat runs for presidential office, I will vote for him or her. Until then, we must vote and choose the best candidate. After witnessing Bush's relentless attempts to fool the American public, I have decided to support the candidate who is a realist. Dean does not make empty promises, and if you look carefully, his policies eliminate situations that encourage abortion, i.e. poverty, lack of health insurance, teen pregnancy. Back to my original topic: if you are going to post something, put some substance in it and make sure the grammar is correct. 
reply to this comment

I'm afraid that I must disagree 
Comment added by Unregistered on Wed 21 Jan 2004 - 19:47 h  
You have every right to voe for who you think is the most qualified canidate for the job, but for myself I vote not on economic policy or foreign policy, but on domestic policy. I feel that Bush's stance as the closest thing to a pro-life canidate makes him deserving of my vote. Not only that, Bush also stands up for the sanctity of marriage. (Between a man and a woman, as the church teaches)
For these two reasons alone I will vote for Bush and I will be campaigning for him this summer. I don't agree with him on the death penatly. (I feel that it should be outlawed) and I didn't origianally agree with him on Iraq. I don't agree with his economic policy, and as a college student majoring in education I have serious concerns about the No-Child-Left Behind act. BUT...I feel it is no good to have a strong country that is allowing the slaughter of innocent children. Today I watched Dean on C-Span and he answered a question on abortion. It made me sick to listen to him go on about how it is a woman's choice!! Do we allow mothers to kick babies out of their house, or their car? NO, then the same arguement is bogus that just because it is their body they have the right to commit murder.
In fact, I think that it is very telling that in California Scott Peterson is charged with murder of not only his wife, but also THEIR UNBORN CHILD!!! What, just because in this case the mother perhaps wanted to keep the baby (and of course her own life) liberals now say that the baby has a right to life while in the mother's womb.
Another thing that bothers me about this upcoming election is the fact that all three canidates that claim to be catholic are "pro-choice" (Pro-Death, Pro-Murder, Pro-Killing, Pro-Infancide, etc) Kerry, Kuckovich, and Braum all claim catholic as their faith, yet not one of them has beliefs that are in line with the church. For this reason, it makes me wish that the Holy Father would excommunicate ANY politician that did not have a 100% anti-abortion stance. While I am sure there would be fewer catholics in politics, I am just as sure that the ones that remained would NEVER give up until abortion is made illegal again.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that while you may have every right to vote for any canidate, you only have ONE choice for President that comes close to representing the views of the church. (And he's not even catholic) 
reply to this comment

 
Um, you haven't done your res 
Comment added by Unregistered on Wed 4 Feb 2004 - 07:47 h  
Um, you haven't done your research. Kucinich is uncompromisingly anti-abortion, uncompromisingly anti-death-penalty and uncompromisingly in favor of social justice. He is, in fact, the closest thing you have to a candidate for President who follows Catholic ideals perfectly.

Bush, in contrast, mocked an inmate who had converted to Christianity while on death row. 
reply to this comment

 
Actually 
Comment added by hugetim on Tue 3 Feb 2004 - 19:24 h  
Kucinich switched to pro-choice to run for president. :( 
reply to this comment

 
KUCINICH SOLD OUT!!! 
Comment added by Unregistered on Wed 4 Feb 2004 - 04:22 h  
What a bummer. My friends and I were supporting him too until we found out that he sold out the unborn. Now we're back to Bush. What upsets me is that Vere has once again proven himself right; the Democrats should just change their name to the Abortion Party. 
reply to this comment

Please explain your objections 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 16 Jan 2004 - 01:38 h  
If you just say things like, "Dean's going to hell so don't vote for him," or "It's impossible to be an observing Catholic and support Dean" without explaining why you feel this way, and without actually looking at the site first, I will not approve your comments and they will not be seen by anyone. I want to be fair, but I will not approve hateful nonsense. 
reply to this comment

Catholics for Dean???? 
Comment added by Unregistered on Mon 5 Jan 2004 - 05:55 h  
For one to truly consider themselves Catholic, they need to be in good standing with The Roman Catholic Church. Any "Catholic" who holds a position which directly opposes Catholic Teaching is not in 'good standing'. In fact, publicly promoting a position contrary to Catholic Teaching, especially on matters as serious as same sex marriage and abortion, is arguably grounds for excommunication.

Unfortunately Roman Catholics in the U.S. are under the false impression that they belong to a ‘democratic’ organization. It is not. It never has been and never will be. It is a theocracy. Truth is not determined by consensus. The Holy Father and Magisterium have the final word. If a 'Catholic' accepts this, they are Catholic. If they don’t they are not.

I stumbled upon this website, and find it sad that so many Catholics can be so ignorant about their faith. But that is one of the great weaknesses of the United States; so many want to 'reinvent' things for themselves. In any event, abortion is an absolute evil as well as same-sex marriage. The Church has never taught otherwise in 2000 years. The writer is very confused about what it means to be Catholic and the website as a whole is misguided. 
reply to this comment

 
Get over yourself 
Comment added by Unregistered on Wed 14 Jan 2004 - 16:30 h  
Get over yourself, and your personal idea. Haven't you read what the Catholic Bishops wrote in regards to voting. If you haven't maybe you should. It says nothing about having to vote soley on abortion but says we need to keep in mind all Catholic Social issues when voting. Abortion is one issue of many that frankly, I don't believe Bush cares a damn about. Laura Bush is openly Pro-Choice and Bush is only claiming to be anti-aborition to get your vote.

Get over it, all he wants is your vote. Do you think he honestly cares about abortion? I don't, if I did I would vote for him.

Bush and Dean are the same to be on abortion both don't care about it, so I am going to look at the other issues when voting. 
reply to this comment

 
order of rights 
Comment added by Unregistered on Tue 20 Jan 2004 - 10:07 h  
I disagree that President Bush only pays lip service to the pro-life movement. He has reinstated Reagan's "Mexico City Protocol" of not using tax-payer dollars to fund groups that perform abortions worldwide. He's withheld payment of millions of dollars to the UN Population Fund, a group notorious for coerced abortions in China. He signed into law the partial-birth abortion ban, vetoed by Clinton. Although I admit it won't save any unborn lives, it's chipping away at this super-protected and manufactured right to abortion. On the other hand, Dr. Dean sat on the executive board of Planned Parenthood. It's obvious what laws they will support in regards to abortion.
Now, why is that important? I submit that abortion is more important than other issues because without a fundamental right to life, there is no basis for other human rights. Our Founding Fathers wisely wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... in that order. Abortion kills more people than any war. Not only that, it does great damage to society at large by scarring women (and men) with guilt and calousness to humanity. How are you going to have a debate about social justice when so many people are denied the very basic right to life? I further submit that a candidate who does not embrace the right to life will not find it difficult to deny citizens other rights. Although President Bush gets a lot of things wrong, his proven defense of life makes him a better candidate than Dean. Personally, I'd like to see Alan Keyes in 2008.

Brook Jilek 
reply to this comment

 
hunger or abortion? 
Comment added by hugetim on Tue 20 Jan 2004 - 10:57 h  
Again, 1 billion people are suffering from hunger and malnutrition as we speak and 24,000 people died today alone. It's hard to argue that this issue is less important than abortion, although we both certainly agree that abortion is an extremely important issue, for the reasons you explain.

I also want to emphasize your admission that Bush's policies are not saving many unborn lives. His withholding of funds from sex ed and other pregnancy counseling services both at home and abroad are actually causing more unplanned pregnancies and consequently more abortions. I would actually argue that Dean's policies will in fact decrease the actual number of abortions in this country and abroad much more effectively. This is of crucial importance, because abortion will not be outlawed in the near future, and there are currently 4,000 abortions in the U.S. alone EVERY DAY! Dean's policies of providing all children with automatic health care, funding education more adequately, and providing more jobs will make the prospect of raising a child much less foreboding for the poor mothers who account for the majority of abortions. In Vermont, teen pregnancies dropped by almost 50% during his tenure as governor, perhaps due to better sex ed programs. Dean also instituted a program in Vermont where trained health professionals would visit 95% of new mothers during the first year after birth to educate them on the basics of caring for a child. This led to a 50% drop in child abuse during his time as governor. I'd say that's a pretty impressive record, even if you assume that decreasing the number of abortions is the most important issue to consider. But I predict that you and many other one-issue voters will ignore these subtleties and continue to buy Bush's ineffectual pro-life rhetoric. 
reply to this comment

 
Hunger vs. abortion.. 
Comment added by Unregistered on Tue 27 Jan 2004 - 13:50 h  
One of your main thrusts seems to be that more people die from world hunger than abortion, so that should be Catholics' main concern.

Another is that the president can't do much about abortion, so Dean's pro-choice views don't matter anyway.

Of course, this begs the question -- what could the president do about world hunger? More specifically, what will Governor Dean do differently from his adversaries, particularly President Bush, that will reduce this number? I'm not seeing many answers.

You should also be aware that the "sex ed and'pregnancy counseling'" services you advocate are troubling to Catholics, in that they push people towards contraception and abortion.

I also notice that in your litany of statistics about what Dean did to reduce abortions, you fail to list the most important of all -- did abortions actually decrease? And if they didn't decrease in spite of Gov. Dean's noble policies, doesn't that underscore that legalization matters?

I could consider supporting Governor Dean if I believed he was truly interested in ending abortions, but didn't see criminal law as the best means to that end. But that is not who he is, you're comments notwithstanding. Gov. Dean regards the pro-life position with utter contempt. He has not earned the charity you are giving him. 
reply to this comment

 
Just like you, I am surprised 
Comment added by Unregistered on Wed 14 Jan 2004 - 09:55 h  
Just like you, I am surprised by the ignorance of so many Catholics. They are obsessed with triumphalism and clericalism, and they have never read a Vatican II document in their lives. They think that the pope is the final word on everything and that the magisterium has the final word on all political matters.

I am very pro-life and follow the Church's teachings. But I have no qualms about voting for a pro-choice candidate. America is a democracy, not a theocracy. I hope that we can eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, but its not going to happen anytime soon. Canon law says nothing about excommunicating pro-choice politicans or those who vote for them. I'm all for restrictions on abortion, and I will vote for pro-choice and pro-life candidates alike (but never for pro-abortion candidates).

Howard Dean is more pro-life than George Bush. The church's social teachings and pro-life teachings are broad and encompass more than just the abortion issue.

In any case, same-sex marriages don't have to be recognized by the church, but they can be by the government.

The Holy Fathers don't always have the final word (this has not been Catholic teaching for 2000 years). Is the magisterium the final word? Yes. But the Church's teaching authority involves more than just a hierarchy of bishops, it includes the entire people of God. Look at the history of our ecumenical councils. Issues were decided by consensus and majority vote (much like a democracy). The Council of Nicea and the recent Vatican council were not the work of just one bishop. 
reply to this comment

 
There is no such thing as "pr 
Comment added by Unregistered on Mon 26 Jan 2004 - 12:44 h  
There is no such thing as "pro choice." You're either pro-life, or pro-abortion. Standing in the middle and crying "peace, peace" where there is no peace does not absolve you from taking a stand for what's right. 
reply to this comment

 
you are wrong (to put it bluntly) 
Comment added by hugetim on Mon 26 Jan 2004 - 14:28 h  
Pro-choice folks believe the women should have the right to choose what to do with her unborn child (because they don't believe the fetus has status and rights equal to that of the mother). They can demand this right to choice without actually being pro-abortion, in the sense that most pro-choice folks do acknowledge that abortion is unfortunate, for both the mother and the fetus, which they may regard as something important even if they deny it is fully a person.

I am pro-life, and I am not defending pro-choice folks, but let's just have a little mutual understanding of what each side really believes. The way forward for the pro-life movement is not through hateful condemnation and distortions, but through winning over hearts and minds with patient, but persistent dialogue. 
reply to this comment

Post new comment
Your name:
Unregistered
Subject:
Comment:

Theodore Roosevelt

"To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."


CfD News
· RNC Displaces NYC's Homeless
· RNC Displace NYC's Homeless
· Pro-Life Democrats Are Not So Naive
· UN human rights expert urges Peru, US to protect health in trade deal
· UN human rights expert urges Peru, US to protect health trade deal
· John Kerry Picks Running Mate
· 'Poverty of imagination' hinders efforts to end real poverty
· Vatican Status Raised at UN
· Changes Afoot
· Changes Afoot at CfD

Blogs
· Take Back Our Country -- Proclaim the Kingdom of God!
· The Media: Bias Right and Left!
· When Will They Ever Learn?
· Deal Hudson -- Conservative Catholic Publisher Who Cost Administrator of KerryCatholics.com His Job At USCCB
· Bush: Flip-flopper
· Speaking of Catholics for Bush...
· Catholics for Bush Got A Troll!
· Wisdom of Saint Benedict & the Founding Fathers
· Christian Law
· Education: Bush v. Kerry and vice versa

hugetim's Blog
· The Media: Bias Right and Left!
· Bush: Flip-flopper
· Education: Bush v. Kerry and vice versa
· Is it possible?
· Why Catholics Should Vote Against Bush
· Voter's Guide Seriously Flawed
· FactCheck.org is Essential
· Ratzinger: Catholics can vote Democrat!
· Forced Abortions in America: an Epidemic?
· Minimum Wage

WilliamSB's Blog
· Take Back Our Country -- Proclaim the Kingdom of God!
· When Will They Ever Learn?
· Deal Hudson -- Conservative Catholic Publisher Who Cost Administrator of KerryCatholics.com His Job At USCCB
· Deal Hudson -- Conservative Catholic Publisher Who Cost Administrator of KerryCatholics.com His Job At USCCB
· Speaking of Catholics for Bush...
· Catholics for Bush Got A Troll!
· Wisdom of Saint Benedict & the Founding Fathers
· Christian Law
· Catholic(?) League Is At It Again!
· Action Alert: New "Pax Christi, USA" Statement

CfD -- NYC
· Catholics for Democracy -- NYC

Most popular
Todays top:
· Take Back Our Country -- Proclaim the Kingdom of God!
· A Definition of "Pro-Life"
· Catholics for Bush
· Redefining Marriage: No; Expanding Benefits: Maybe
· Daily Outrage: Apocalyptic Revelations

Recent Discussion Topics
Discussion Forum

Reducing Abortions
Abortion Is Not a Religious Issue
How Do We Balance Issues?

CfD Books
CfD Bookstore
Book Reviews

Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 10 guests online.

Who's new
· BAM Jr in RI
· quarkspinner
· bgcurry
· onoekeh
· hawker

Comment Posting Rules
Statement about posting blog statements or responses at CfD.

Syndicate