Comments on: False ultimatums.

By: Zippy

Zippy — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:06:11 +0000

Voting is one of the least materially effectual individual acts in all of politics. On the other hand, how one chooses to vote has a much more significant effect on one’s own self. Therefore the decision of how to vote or if to vote at all should hinge primarily on how that act of voting affects the voter himself, to the exclusion of considerations of its negligible political impact.

By: adamv

adamv — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:14:27 +0000

World Net Daily??? Are you serious?

If you really need a foil, you can find a much more respectable one than that.

By: Policraticus

Policraticus — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:22:11 +0000

The Golden Role, in other words, is not a political act.

Not a political act; but an act with political implications. Hence, the Gospel is transcendent of politics, yet immanent within politics. The paradox of nature and grace.

By: jonathanjones02

jonathanjones02 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:52:21 +0000

It is not a near total ban on the practice, as South Dakota presented, or the status quo (which is much more “pro-abortion” than would be absent Roe). The political process matters quite a bit for abortion beyond new Justices – continuation of the Hyde amendment, the availability of abortificants, various aspects of foreign aid federal funding, late-term, and so on.

Policraticus :

One need not minimize the Church’s role in politics (there are without question times where religion and politics overlap) to recognize that a politicized vision of what the Church “is” or “should be” must not for a believer overcome Her function: to draw us closer to Christ and His greatest commandment, which is to love one another. The Golden Role, in other words, is not a political act.

By: Liam

Liam — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:40:41 +0000

If this metaphor were to be made more accurate, it could not say that John would rescue anyone.

Rather, John has promised to submit names, subject to the approval of others not in his control, to sit on a court that would decide whether 50 state jurisdictions have the freedom to use their political processes, under the control of popular opinion, to decide whether to rescue anyone, as it were.

The President has a role. It’s just *much* more attenuated from the desired result.

Remember the high hopes many had for South Dakota.

By: Policraticus

Policraticus — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:04:34 +0000

Our Church is a deep spiritual sea, not a political organization. It transcends politics in its radical humanist outlook, where everything has value because everything has been redeemed by Christ, God With Us who embraced all of humanity despite all of its grave sins.

Like the Incarnate Son of God, whose body She is, the Church is both transcendent AND immanent in terms of politics, for politics is but one level of the total human activity that she totally redeems. Let us not minimize her political involvement and action.

By: jonathanjones02

jonathanjones02 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:23:07 +0000

Abortion is clear cut: it is a synonym for homocide. And not only this, it has occured in America by the millions – partly due to a deginerate culture (one certainly not helped by a greater availablity and acceptance of contraceptives) and in no small part due to the law – especially Roe V. Wade, where the SC took over the legislative process via illegitimate fiat.

It is the most important issue, by far. There is much room for disagreement over economic, social, and military policy, and rightfully so. Our Church is a deep spiritual sea, not a political organization. It transcends politics in its radical humanist outlook, where everything has value because everything has been redeemed by Christ, God With Us who embraced all of humanity despite all of its grave sins.

But on homocide, there can be no disagreement whatsoever. God save us from the violence we do to the unborn.

By: Jimmy Mac

Jimmy Mac — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:53:02 +0000

Gee, how HAVE I managed to overlook Folger’s column all of these years? Bad me.

Anita Bryant was RIGHT? IS right(wing), maybe, but RIGHT as in telling the truth?

Yeah, right.

By: Jimmy Mac

Jimmy Mac — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:48:14 +0000

Ultimatums? Ultimata(e), maybe.

By: Morning's Minion

Morning's Minion — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:54:19 +0000

The question, though, is what voting “pro-life” means. For me, it does not mean paying lip service to eliminating abortion (though in an awkward and embarrassed way), and they promoting all kinds economic, social, and military policies that go against the culture of life. If that’s the game….no thanks.

By: DarwinCatholic

DarwinCatholic — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:32:53 +0000

It seems to me that politics and the nation state are seldom the best way to do anything. But if one is going to vote, and if abortion is indeed a current issue, then it seems to me that one should (unless there is some _truly_ massive reason to the contrary) vote pro-life. It’s hardly the most pro-life thing one can do, but within the context of voting, voting pro-life is certainly more pro-life than voting pro-choice.

By: jonathanjones02

jonathanjones02 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:50:41 +0000

We should never assume that politicans are the best vehicle to achieve pro-life or any other change, which is why I am a big believer in it being OK to completely opt out of the political process.

Sin is the ultimate root of our problems, and they manifest themselves most in culture. Change should be cultural – change of personal corruption, selfishness, greed, “gangsta” garbage, illegitimacy, ect. What can the government do compared to what communities and people and families can do?