When Twelve Tribes go to war

but if you do, make sure you can explain yourself in the next life to the babies who died from abortion.

Baby in next life: Welcome to heaven.

Pro-choice candidate voter: How are you doing?

Baby in next life: Wonderful! We are in the presence of the Lord!

Look, if you are going to use that sort of sentimental twaddle as an argument, why not take it to the logical conclusion:

Pro - choice voter: Um, about that vote of mine...

Baby in next life: Don't worry about it! My Earthly life ended before I reached the age of accountability, so I went straight to Heaven.

Rod: "But I do think having McCain in the White House significantly increases the chances of war."

Rod, a lot of folks who comment here believe that contention but I don't see any convincing evidence for it. Yes, McCain made a goofy song parody (lasting all of 5 seconds) back in the winter involving an aerial exercise over Iran ... but, aside from this anecdotal evidence what else? Reagan did something similar in 1983 (while getting ready to broadcast an Oval Office address), but his mocking comment then about military action against the old USSR certainly did not reflect his real views or his actions as President.

Much has been made by Obama about his 2002 speech opposing the action against Iraq, but he later backpedaled from that (in 2003 and 2004). And if you actually read the speech, Obama makes clear that he's no pacifist and he's not opposed to war in general. He's just opposed to what he called in the speech "dumb wars."

During the series of Democratic Presidential debates, Obama promised to go "back into Iraq" if Al-Qaeda regrouped there following a precipitous US withdrawal (Of course, the GOP candidates were all quick to point out that Al-Qaeda was already there.) And we're all aware of Obama's repeated promises to go into Pakistan (without notifying the government there) if he thought it might result in the capture of OBL. Gee, imagine how that action -- taken against an authentic Islamic state (unlike the secular Arab state that Iraq was under Hussein) -- would stir up the hornet's nest in that part of the country? Hmmm, can't see how that would promote peace.

When it comes to war and peace, McCain/Obama represent an historically classic contrast between those Presidents who have seen combat and those who haven't. McCain would be the first retired military officer since Dwight Eisenhower to take office. Eisenhower never took us to war and was strongly criticized by conservatives in his own GOP for his many overtures to the Soviet dictator Kruschev. Indeed, it was Eisenhower who warned against the military-industrial complex in his Presidential farewell address. It is individuals who have known the stench of war that are viscerally opposed to the stupidity of it. How could McCain (who has two sons in the military) or Palin (who has a son in the military) send our men and women in uniform needlessly into harm's way? It doesn't add up.

Obama, on the other hand, would be the latest in a long line of recent Presidents who never saw combat and yet took this country to wars that many saw as unneccesary at the time (Woodrow Wilson, FDR and "W" come to mind). When war is nothing more to you than a drawing room excercise, the pushing of markers on a map, it can be difficult to face down the military advisers who urge you to take this or that course of action. Especially when you don't know anything about the military or military service.

There may be good reasons (in the minds of some) to vote for Obama over McCain. The avoidance of war is not one of them.

Rod: "But I do think having McCain in the White House significantly increases the chances of war."

Rod, a lot of folks who comment here believe that contention but I don't see any convincing evidence for it. Yes, McCain made a goofy song parody (lasting all of 5 seconds) back in the winter involving an aerial exercise over Iran ... but, aside from this anecdotal evidence what else? Reagan did something similar in 1983 (while getting ready to broadcast an Oval Office address), but his mocking comment then about military action against the old USSR certainly did not reflect his real views or his actions as President.

Much has been made by Obama about his 2002 speech opposing the action against Iraq, but he later backpedaled from that (in 2003 and 2004). And if you actually read the speech, Obama makes clear that he's no pacifist and he's not opposed to war in general. He's just opposed to what he called in the speech "dumb wars."

During the series of Democratic Presidential debates, Obama promised to go "back into Iraq" if Al-Qaeda regrouped there following a precipitous US withdrawal (Of course, the GOP candidates were all quick to point out that Al-Qaeda was already there.) And we're all aware of Obama's repeated promises to go into Pakistan (without notifying the government there) if he thought it might result in the capture of OBL. Gee, imagine how that action -- taken against an authentic Islamic state (unlike the secular Arab state that Iraq was under Hussein) -- would stir up the hornet's nest in that part of the country? Hmmm, can't see how that would promote peace.

When it comes to war and peace, McCain/Obama represent an historically classic contrast between those Presidents who have seen combat and those who haven't. McCain would be the first retired military officer since Dwight Eisenhower to take office. Eisenhower never took us to war and was strongly criticized by conservatives in his own GOP for his many overtures to the Soviet dictator Kruschev. Indeed, it was Eisenhower who warned against the military-industrial complex in his Presidential farewell address. It is individuals who have known the stench of war that are viscerally opposed to the stupidity of it. How could McCain (who has two sons in the military) or Palin (who has a son in the military) send our men and women in uniform needlessly into harm's way? It doesn't add up.

Obama, on the other hand, would be the latest in a long line of recent Presidents who never saw combat and yet took this country to wars that many saw as unneccesary at the time (Woodrow Wilson, FDR and "W" come to mind). When war is nothing more to you than a drawing room excercise, the pushing of markers on a map, it can be difficult to face down the military advisers who urge you to take this or that course of action. Especially when you don't know anything about the military or military service.

There may be good reasons (in the minds of some) to vote for Obama over McCain. The avoidance of war is not one of them.

I'm presently feeding and acting as "grandmother" "tutor" "babysitter" etc. for many neighborhood children who were born to young single mothers who voted Republican, decided not to abort, and then watched the "family values" party take away all reasonable policies to help them raise their children, and watched their families 'shun' them as well and abandon them for their 'sin.' The mothers are now working 2 and 3 jobs and still not able to buy groceries, pay the rent, repair their cars, spend time with their children and actually be the parents they want to be. Sorry, but i am beyond sick to death of people who are so unattached from the needs of these mothers and who can pontificate about who did what that was morally wrong. To all of you, i'll think a whole lot more of your abstract positions and wringing of hands when you actually focus on the 1 in 3 children living in abject poverty and quit the nonsense that private charity can take care of them. BTW, the IRS reported the rate of charitable contributions from the top 1% of the American public who received the famous round of tax cuts from the GOP .... the average charitable contribution on their income tax returns was one half of one percent of their taxable income.

Case closed.

Rod, you have just explained my reason for deciding to vote for Obama (after I went back-and-forth for a long time). Even though I disagree with him philosophically, he is clearly a man of character and integrity. I think he would at least be able to hold things together and to undo some of Bush's damage. McCain on the other hand could well bring disaster - no economic understanding, and a continuation of Bush's foreign policy.

Concerning this: I think he'll be even worse for the economy than McCain would (because spending will increase dramatically with a liberal Democratic president and a Democratic Congress). There won't be much money for Obama to spend. It's not like we have some gigantic surplus as we did in the 90's.

Concerning this: You are not absolutely forbidden from voting for a pro-choice candidate, but if you do, make sure you can explain yourself in the next life to the babies who died from abortion. How utterly ridiculous. That's like saying I'll have to talk with all of the people who were killed in the Iraq war because I voted for Bush. A vote is just a vote. There will be no grand meeting in heaven where every citizen who voted for a winning candidate talks to every single person who was harmed by the decisions made once that person took office.

The only person I'll have to answer to in the next life is Christ Himself, and I don't think He'll scowl at me and ask how come I voted for a pro-war candidate (Bush in 2004) or a pro-choice candidate (Obama this year). There are more important things He'll have on His agenda, and in any case I'll have a wonderful and all-purpose response: "Thank you so much for dying for me. I have nothing positive to say about myself. But Your blood has cleansed me from all sin."

This report just confirms what I already knew - that I don''t fit comfortably in any "tribe". These sort of reports are usually accompanied by an interactive quiz to find which tribe fits you the best, but I didn't see one, and I didn't recognise myself in any of the descriptions.

Well, at one point, I was considering voting for a pro-choice candidate for the first time in my life, since there were slim pickin's on the pro-life side.

But Obama isn't just pro-choice, he is pro-abortion. Plus, I don't care for his other politics. He is just way too far to the left for my comfort level. I might have considered a moderate Democrat, but he is not moderate.

Mind you, I am not nuts about McCain and I don't think Palin is up to VP-ready level. So I am in a dilly of a pickle, as Ned Flanders would say.

Economics always trumps morality. Right now morality is not even on the voter's radar.

And they would forgive, one presumes. But the horrific guilt one will feel one meeting them face to face will be terrible to bear. More than I can bear.

And that is why Jesus bore your sins and guilt on the cross. The only person I recall from the Scriptures who said that his sin or guilt or punishment was more than he could bear was Cain, and in response God put a seal of protection on him. Will not Jesus's blood be at least as effective as Cain's mark? The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; even murder, whether willful or indirectly caused, is forgiveable. And if God forgives, only a hard-hearted person would expect the guilty person bear the pain and burden of his guilt longer than God would have him do.

Rod, you left out part of Abp. Chaput's exhortation to the faithful regarding voting. In addition to being able to justify one's vote in the next life, it's also the duty of Catholics to, having voted for him or her, press their candidate on the issues of life. For example, if I were to vote for Obama, according to the archbishop, once he is in office, I am called to lobby him to change his position on abortion. The same would be true with McCain on torture and ESCR. He says being a faithful citizen doesn't mean just casting our vote; it also entails being an active part of the political process.

Look, if you are going to use that sort of sentimental twaddle as an argument, why not take it to the logical conclusion:

Pro - choice voter: Um, about that vote of mine...

Baby in next life: Don't worry about it! My Earthly life ended before I reached the age of accountability, so I went straight to Heaven.

So by the reasoning implied above, the merciful thing to do is kill all babies, so that they will all go to heaven.

So by the reasoning implied above, the merciful thing to do is kill all babies, so that they will all go to heaven.
Posted by: elmo | October 2, 2008 11:42 AM

Yes, which is why I characterized the argument as a whole as 'twaddle'.

John E. I agree your take on the statement is sentimental twaddle. It's also not what Abp Chaput said.

More abortions occured under the Bush and Reagan Administrations than under the Clinton Administration. I recently learned this at Sojourner's website. There are several reasons this could be the case- bettter access to birth control, more funding to social programs to help disadvantaged mothers, etc. Whatever the case, logically speaking, if fewer babies die under Democratic Administrations, the one-issue right wing abortion voters should be voting Democratic. This fact has resolved my ambivalence about supporting Barck Obama. The law does not have to change to for unborn babies to be born.

The point that everyone here seems to be missing is that the morality of abortion is not about whether or not the dead baby goes to heaven, or what supporters of pro-choice candidates will have to say to them. The moral position of abortion is clearly defined by this commandment: Do not murder. Jesus sums up the law in two commandments that may be further distilled to the following statement: Love God, love people. The act of abortion displays neither love for the person being murdered nor for the God who created them.

The moral position of abortion is clearly defined by this commandment: Do not murder. Jesus sums up the law in two commandments that may be further distilled to the following statement: Love God, love people. The act of abortion displays neither love for the person being murdered nor for the God who created them.

Is the God who gave the "Do not murder" commandment the same God who ordered the wholesale slaughter of various peoples (e.g., all the people of Jericho - man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey), and told Joshua to kill not only the guilty Achan, but also his sons, his daughters, his oxen, his donkeys, and his sheep - for Achan's crime?

"Baby in next life: Welcome to heaven.

Pro-choice candidate voter: How are you doing?

Baby in next life: Wonderful! We are in the presence of the Lord!"

Traditionally the Catholic view was that the unbaptized may live in a state of perfect natural happiness, but that they are denied the presence of the Lord and the believers for all eternity.

Benedict XVI seems to have wussed out on that, but I don't think he put in ex-cathedra so to me it's still the more plausible position based on Catholc tradition. The exception to it, as I recall, is babies who are killed as part of a persecution of Christ or Christianity. So if the mother is thinking "I'm going to abort this baby just to spite Christians" than the baby may go to heaven. However I'm guessing such things almost never happen.