I have some issues with this article, and not just that the entire premiss is essentially wishful and makes a mockery of the issue. I'm sure the abortion issue is not a priority for the Republican party. But is the answer to go Democrat? I think not. Just because its not the issue does not mean its not an issue period. And the fact is that Republicans are far more pro-life than Democrats. Why would you go from the pro-life party to the pro-"choice" party? It is not logical to me. So you join a party that seems to hang it's very existence on the continuation of Roe v. Wade because Republicans are not single-mindedly hunting down abortion? This is the opposite of logic.
The writer does not himself come off as particularly pro-life, either. Why he takes issue here I cannot even fathom: "the Bush administration has simply taken the position that abortion is wrong without paying any attention to its root causes - poverty, unemployment, skyrocketing health-care costs and teen pregnancy, among others." So Bush is bad because he feels abortion is wrong? That should be the Catholic position--regardless of circumstances, abortion is wrong. Whether the author feels such is not even clear.
Most likely, the author takes this position not because of the abortion issue, rather, it is just a lead-in for his other issue of why Catholics should be Democrats:
"Faithful Citizenship," issued in 2003 by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, applies Catholic social teaching to major political, social and economic issues and provides Catholics the "consistent moral framework" necessary to responsibly participate in our democracy.
A consistent pro-life message resonates throughout the document. The bishops make clear the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty. But they do not stop there.
"Faithful Citizenship" extends its pro-life position to a wide array of issues concerning human dignity: supporting the right of workers to a just wage, decent working conditions and the right to organize without reprisal; ensuring adequate and affordable health care for our most vulnerable populations; eradicating hunger and poverty at home and abroad through government aid; fixing the problems of the judicial system to reduce crime and violence; eliminating discrimination through affirmative action; and promoting peace in the Middle East and Africa through proactive diplomacy."
For one, this is only a US Bishop conference, but it is still to be taken seriously, to be sure. I have serious issues with some of the statements, however, and shall look in-depth.
First, the "right of workers to a just wage" is laughable. The inference here is that Democrats are the ones who promote "just wages", therefore Catholics should be Democrats. This is of course absurd. The Democrat position is that the government can determine what a just wage is. Wrong. Minimum wage does not ensure just wages--what is really a just wage is one that a worker agrees to work for. A just wage should be left up to the worker and the employer. After all, not worker has to work anywhere. In this, Republican clearly lead the way.
The next, concerning healthcare, is just stupid. For one, every person in this country has healthcare. I suppose the key here is "affordable". Yes, we should just revert to Canada's style of "affordable" healthcare. This is of course the Democratic position. And if not Canada, something close. The problem is, it does not make health care more affordable. The reason it might not be affordable now is due to too many laws and restrictions and bureacracy. The answer is not more of same, but a freeing of the system.
I'm not sure if "eradicating hunger and poverty at home and abroad through government aid" is the actual statement from the Bishops, but if it is, then it is fairly obvious this document is political in nature. This is certainly a democratic position. It sounds noble and good (like all Dem. positions) but in reality this statement contradicts itself. For one, you just simply do not and can not irradicate poverty with goverment aid. It just does not work that way in real life. This is more of a feel-good statement than anything else, because goverment aid, at home and abroad, does one of two things. Mostly, it goes into dictators pockets abroad, and at home, it makes it affordable to be lazy and unemployed, thus empoverished. I'm not going to go in-depth on this issue, but it is a very in-depth one nonetheless. Simply put, the only way to irradicate poverty and hunger is to free up the market economy as much as possible, and export that system to other countries. The Republicans have the real-world upper hand here, if not the rhetorical one.
The one that goes "fixing the problems of the judicial system to reduce crime and violence" is one that I don't think even goes to the Democrats in any sense. When you have liberal judges letting criminals go and liberal organizations assaulting Christianity and promoting cops as more dangerous than terrorists, the clear winners here are the Republicans.
Looking at this and the final tennet, I get the feeling this is either the author's interpretation of the Bishops words, or the Bishops were making a political document for the democratic party. Consider the next: "eliminating discrimination through affirmative action". This is something of an oxymoron. You cannot eliminate discrimintion by AA, because it is a discriminatory policy. It takes into account the color of someone's skin. How, exactly, is that not discriminatory? I thought the goal was for a colorblind society? The exact opposite is the case with AA. Skin color is looked upon as another entrance consideration. They are basing their policy of entrace standards on the color of a persons skin. This is racism. What Democrats really what with this is not equal opportunity, but equal results. Making policy based on skin color is to take this country back several decades in the wrong direction.
Finally, "promoting peace in the Middle East and Africa through proactive diplomacy" This, too, is just as much wishful thinking as anything, and sounds like it came right out of the UN. So I am hearing correctly, that it is the position of Catholic bishops that we should be diplomatic and reason with heartless killers? Am I to assume this means we should have pursued such a policy with Saddam? Republicans win on this issue, too. They want to be diplomatic, they want to exhaust those means first, but if it does not work out, you simply can't roll over and let some murderous thug off the hook. Ofentimes these are people you simply cannot reason with, and as a Catholic, you should hardly want to do so in the first place. They are not loving people. Simply loving terrorists is not going to make them better people. It comes to a point when you need to decide--do you want to just simply love someone and turn a blind eye when they oppresse their own and murder innocents? Because that is often what diplomatic means come to. And I assume that this is an extreme in the article--it is all that should ever be used. If not, this supports the Republicans just as much as the Democrats. Republicans are for diplomacy too. They just don't limit themselves to peaceful diplomacy.
Overall, this article seems to me to be confused, and not alltogether against abortion either. The stance of the author comes off as unclear. It's confusing and in fact conflicting statements serve only to befudle the reader, and for me, to reaffirm my Catholic, republican position. In the end, what it seems to lay out most is not why Catholics should be Democrats, but rather why Catholics should be Republicans.
No comments:
Post a Comment