Posted on 04/13/2004 12:15:59 PM PDT by It's me
The search to prove that one can be a democrat and a Catholic has once again failed. With John F. Kerry attempting to be John F. Kennedy's protégé as the second Catholic president, the juxtaposition of Catholicism and the Democratic Party has been called to attention again with renewed vigor.Kerry's ambitions to be the next Catholic president sound as reasonable as his designs to be the next black president, for Kerry is as much a devout Catholic as he is a Southern black. Kerry's claims to be a Catholic in good standing have disturbed both the Vatican and the various American bishops who have refused to allow him to receive Communion as long as he attempts to masquerade as a politician who manages to remain a Catholic and a Democrat.The Catholic Church has clearly stood against abortion in every form; John Kerry, however, does not. He favors absolutely no restrictions on abortion, as evidenced by his vote against the recent ban on partial- birth abortion and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Kerry's refusal to take the smallest step toward acknowledging unborn children as human beings is completely antithetical to basic Catholic teaching.
A Catholic politician must maintain a delicate balance in determining the degree to which he will allow his Catholic beliefs to influence his public voting. Attempting a bill to mandate that all Americans must attend a Catholic Mass every Sunday, for example, would not be required of Catholic politician, although attendance at Mass is a requirement of practicing Catholics. A basic defense of the natural, God-given right to life, however, is expected of anyone claiming to be a Catholic. Pope John Paul II has repeatedly affirmed that a Catholic politician must, without exception, stand against abortion in all forms. Senator Kerry, in repeatedly refusing to defend this right, is defying his duty as a Catholic politician and should not be allowed to claim that he is Catholic in good standing if he so flagrantly defies the basic requirements of the Church.
Kerry, however, is simply upholding the stance of his party over the stance of his Church. The Democratic Party Platform, adopted at their convention in 2000, states: "The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay. We believe it is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans - not government - can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction." A Catholic, in good conscience, can hardly call abortion "a fundamental constitutional liberty," but every Catholic who calls himself a democrat is doing precisely that. The party platform goes on to mention that members of the party often have differing views on this issue, but, "recognizing that tolerance is a virtue," must affirm reproductive rights at the expense of conscience and morality in a spirit of "inclusion."
Two weeks ago, a contingent of campus Democrats decided to bring Ohio State Senator Greg DiDonato to the Pugliese Auditorium to speak on his stance as a Catholic Democrat. Sen. DiDonato is a staunch Democrat and claims he is a proud pro-lifer, but did not think it "should be the reason for voting," to quote another Troubadour article on his visit. This, of course, was only one of DiDonato's many contradictory positions. He apparently claimed to "hate taxes" but is a Democrat because of the Democratic position on Social Security, which is one of the many Democratic social programs that could not be supported without high taxes. DiDonato, the self-proclaimed avid pro-lifer, also plans to vote for Kerry in the upcoming presidential elections.
It is one thing to vote without considering any issue besides abortion, choosing unelectable niche candidates on their anti-abortion stance without considering the possibility that in doing so you are splitting an important conservative vote, thus swinging the election over to the opposing liberal candidate and defeating any progress that might have been made in a pro-life direction. On the other hand, it is worse to throw all considerations of basic morality away in voting for a candidate who has no plans whatsoever to make any inroads in the fight against abortion, although your religion and the religion he claims to profess both explicitly prohibit abortion. No Catholic can, in good conscience, put his trust in a candidate who clearly does not wish to inhibit abortion in any way. If I cast a vote for a particular candidate, that says that he may speak for me on all of the issues that I know he supports. Casting a vote for a candidate who is blatantly in support of abortion is not a position that I, as a Catholic, can accept or promote.
I have heard people claim that the Democratic Party is harmonious with Catholic social teaching in its economic principles, but no one has explained to me why this is the case. I doubt that Catholic social teaching supports exorbitant taxes on the incomes of hard workers that will later go on to pay for those who have refused to work. I know that Catholicism calls for the relief of the impoverished and the assistance of the sick, elderly, and disabled, those who cannot work to support themselves, but I doubt that Catholic social teaching says the government must usurp the role as caretaker for its citizens at the forced expense of those who are likewise struggling to survive. Democratic economic policy is not decidedly Catholic, but the party's social policy is emphatically not so.
Another chapter in the search for a Catholic Democrat has come to a close, but the search is as fruitless as when it began. Another Democrat who supports abortion while precariously clinging to the Catholic label has been found, but this in no way exemplifies the calling of a Catholic politician. A pro-life politician must unequivocally and without exception say that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." That bit, by the way, is taken from the Republican Party Platform.
Our Founding Fathers were Christian and very pious men. They founded this country under strong Judeo-Christian tenets and reflected on their religious beliefs on all their decisions. They wrote nothing into the Constitution of any type of government “aid” to help the poor, children or anyone else on purpose. They wanted a very limited government for good reason. Limited government is the best way to ensure that freedom will be preserved. The Scottish philosopher Alexander Tytler, who lived during the time of the American Revolution and writing of the US Constitution, summed these views:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.
From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
There are many interesting questions if citizens rely on government to do “God’s Work.”
If a government takes a portion of a man’s wages and does good with it, has the man also done good? If a government takes away a portion of a woman’s property and does evil with it, has the woman also done evil? When a rich man pays more in taxes than a poor person, is he more Godly? If the government then does evil, is he more to blame? A woman works for the government and uses other people’s tax money and does “God Work” with it, is this government woman now a good/Godly woman? If I legally try to avoid paying taxes, does that not make me an “Ungodly” man?
Today, the US government takes nearly 50% of a middle-class person’s paycheck after all taxes are factored in (income taxes, Social Security, sales tax, real estate taxes, gas tax, death taxes, phone taxes, highway tolls, sad etc.). Uncle Sam will spend more money in just this year (2004) than it spent combined between 1787 and 1900 - even after adjusting for inflation. I cringe at those numbers. The Founding Fathers wanted nothing like the tax-consuming monster that we have as a government today. I also think of all the good work that could have be done if people were allowed to keep more of their own money and give it to organizations/people that they believe in their heart are doing God’s work. Maybe it comes down to trust. Will people do the right thing with their own money or must a government take a huge chunk of it to do the “right things?”
Except government rarely does anything right except for those tasks that were explicitly outline in the Constitution as the Founding Father intended. I could cite many examples (such as where would you rather put $10,000 in retirement money - in Social Security or in your own 401k plan?) but the plight of black America illustrates this failure beyond comparison.
In 1965, the US government was going to wipe out poverty by the “Great Society” programs, in which to date over 3.5 trillion dollars has been spent. These federal programs were designed to “help families and children” or “buy votes” depending on your political viewpoint.
At the beginning of the 1960’s, the black out of wedlock birth rate was 22%. In the late 1975 it reached 49% and shot up to 65% in 1989. In some of the largest urban centers of the nation the rate of illegitimacy among blacks today exceeds 80% and averages 69% nationwide. As late as the 1970’s there was still a social stigma attached to a woman who was pregnant outside marriage. Now, government programs have substituted for the father and for black moral leadership. The black family and culture has collapsed (and white families are not that far behind).
Illegitimacy leads directly to poverty, crime and social problems. Out of wedlock children are four times more likely to be poor. They are much more likely to live in high crime areas with no hope of escape. In turn, they are forced to attend dangerous and poor-performing government schools, which directly leads to another generation of poverty.
Traditional black areas of Harlem, Englewood and West Philadelphia in the 1950s were safe working class neighborhoods (even though “poor” by material measures). Women were unafraid to walk at night and children played unmolested in the streets and parks. Today, these are some of the worst crime plagued areas of our nation. Work that was once dignified is now shunned. Welfare does not require recipients to do anything in exchange for their benefits. Many rules actually discourage work or provide benefits that reduce the incentive to find work.
The black abortion rate today is nearly 40%. Pregnancies among black women are twice as likely to end in abortion as pregnancies among white and Hispanic women.
The “Great Society” programs all had good intentions. Unfortunately, their real world result are that they have replaced the traditional/Christian models of family/work with that of what a government bureaucrat thinks it should be.
I could make an excellent argument that if the US government had hired former grand wizards of the KKK to run the “Great Society” programs, and if they had worked every day from 1965 to today without rest, they could have hardly have done better in destroying black America than the “Works of God” that the government has done or is trying to do.
I have visited many countries in which the government “guarantees” that everyone has a job, a place to live, education, health care and cradle to grave “government help” for all children and families. It all sounds great except that the people in these countries are/were miserable. They wanted to escape but were forced by their governments, at the end of a gun, to stay. The “worker’s paradises” of socialist and communist counties are chilling reminders of letting governments do “God’s Work.”
The Bible clearly states that we are to help those in need. The question is “Who should help those in need?” I firmly believe that scripture and the historical evidence strongly support that individuals, private organizations and churches should be the ones doing the heavy lifting. Government help should be the last resort.
/this should be good news...
Party above God and Country. For shame!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.