Article of Faith

If you're an informed Catholic who watched the third presidential debate you have to be wondering what, exactly, John Kerry was talking about when it comes to abortion.

Asked by moderator Bob Schieffer about unnamed Catholic archbishops who are telling people it's a sin for them to vote for candidates like Kerry because of their support for abortion rights and embryonic-stem-cell research, Kerry rambled on about respecting the bishops' views but disagreeing with them. That was hard enough to follow.

Then came the kicker: "I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith."

What article of faith was Kerry talking about? That abortion kills an innocent human being? That's not a peculiarly Catholic belief or "article of faith." Plenty of people who aren't Catholics think abortion entails taking an innocent human life. President Bush does, and he's a Methodist, not a Catholic. So too many Lutherans, Baptists, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians agree with faithful Catholics and President Bush. Then there are non-Christians, including many Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, for whom abortion is the killing an innocent human being.

Indeed, some people with no religion at all or who deny God's existence take the same position.

How, then, can opposition to abortion rights be "an article of faith"? Or if it is, why should that preclude opposing abortion on other grounds held in common with people who don't necessarily share one's faith?

Apparently, whatever scruples Senator Kerry has about his Catholicism informing his views of abortion and embryonic-stem-cell research don't affect his stances on many other political issues. He declared,

My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, 'What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.' And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people. That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.

So it's okay for Senator Kerry's Catholicism to influence his efforts against poverty, or to clean up the environment, or to fight for justice and equality. As he said, "All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith." But for some reason his Catholicism mustn't influence him to support the right to life for unborn children.

Thanks be to God, viewers of the debate were spared one misstatement Senator Kerry has imposed on audiences before: The claim that he accepts the Church's teaching on abortion, despite not being able to "impose that teaching on others." Presumably, he means by "accepting the Church's teaching on abortion" that he thinks abortion is something morally wrong and would never encourage a woman to have one. But, of course, the Church says more than that abortion is immoral. Cursing in your living room is immoral, but the Church doesn't advocate outlawing it.

Abortion is different because unborn children have an inalienable right to life, which the government must secure. Since Senator Kerry doesn't support the right to life for unborn children, it's false for him to claim to accept the Church's teaching on abortion, which includes supporting the right to life.

We have here a classic case of someone who seems so worried about "not imposing religion on people" that he doesn't even impose it on himself.

Kerry is so deeply dishonest and hypocritical on this issue that that alone should disqualify him for the Presidency in the mind of any thinking person.

But 45% of the electorate don't appear to think at all, so the election remains in doubt.

3 posted on 10/14/2004 12:13:44 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)

He chose years ago to sell out -- he sold out his fellow soldiers during the Vietnam War, and later the unborn as well. Kerry "married" up -- was that a sell out as well? skerry didn't get known as a flip/flopper for nothing.

This is all so he can be the second coming of JFK -- what a bunch of hooey he is.........

The ultimate will be his own judgement day, he reads the bible - let him find the verse about budging into the head of the line, ie taking all the rewards here on earth.

Yes, but if he should lose, he should seriously think about checking in to the nearest psychiatric facility, at least as an out-patient. I've never heard a sane person contradict himself so often, even in the same sentence or paragraph. As the article says, ...So it's okay for Senator Kerry's Catholicism to influence his efforts against poverty, or to clean up the environment, or to fight for justice and equality. As he said, "All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith." But for some reason his Catholicism mustn't influence him to support the right to life for unborn children."

These are the contradictions from the mind of a man who is not normal, rational, sane, or decent.

Cordially,

"....What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith."

This is the distilled essence of liberal theology. Everybody does what is right in their own eyes (like the Earth's population did just before the Flood) God is only what you think Him to be in your own imagination.

We're "liberated," "There are NO absolute standards of conduct and morality."

I don't see how we can expect to escape the righteous judgement of God when mankind has never escaped it before.

It's right for Kerry to impose his Catholic faith respecting preserving, say, dolphins, whales, snail darters, but wrong to impose his Catholic faith to preserve innocent human life.

It's right for Kerry to impose his Catholic faith that taxes are too low (We are to love our neighbors as ourselves, as Kerry pointed out), but not to outlaw infanticide.

It's right for Kerry to impose his Catholic faith that we must do more for the poor, but wrong for a judicial nominee to question emanating penumbras that Jefferson never imagined and that the courts don't apply in parallel cases (right of privacy prevents society from preventing murder but Rush has no right of privacy respecting his medical records.).

At least Kerry, however awkwardly, could use the term 'religion' in his debate with GWB... If you recall in 2000, Gore babbled on about his "faith tradition", using it as a synonym for religion without using the "R" word... "My faith tradition teaches that...." Just plain silly...

JF'nK, on the other hand, discusses religion, says it's central to his life, but then ignores its teachings as he does his Senate job...

It's right for Kerry to impose his Catholic faith that taxes are too low (We are to love our neighbors as ourselves, as Kerry pointed out), but not to outlaw infanticide.

When discounting and devaluing certain human beings such as babies in the womb and even those who are being born, Kerry reminds me of the lawyer who asked Jesus, "who is my neighbor?"

Cordially,

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.